.svg)
Current issue: Volume 25, No. 2 (2025)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59893/abud.25(2).007
FörsterT., Creutzburg F., Anton E., Weigel A., Hartmann M. 2025. Testing metabarcoding with morphologically identified samples raises questions retability. Acta Biol. Univ. Daugavp., 2025(2): xx-xx
Abstract
Arthropods of 579 species were collected, morphologically identified and grouped into three identical sets. The sets were assessed by two commercial companies using metabarcoding. The results of metabarcoding were compared with those of the morphological identification. Using metabarcoding, only 26% and 56% of morphologically identified species were correctly recognized by Company A in two independent batches, and 35% by Company B. In addition, there were large differences in the recognition rate of individual orders between the two companies and within sets. A large number of species which were identified using metabarcoding were in fact not present in the samples. In our specific study, we found that metabarcoding exhibited restricted reliability, with possible implications of its applicability.
Keywords: metabarcoding reliability, morphological identification, insect monitoring, biodiversity assessment.
*Corresponding author: Thuringian Entomologists Association e.V., Schützenstraße 27a, 99448 Kranichfeld, Germany. E-mail: timofoerster2@gmail.com
Frank Creutzburg. Institute for Wild Bee Research JENINSEKT, Schlendorfer Oberweg 12a, 07747 Jena, Germany. E-mail: info@jeninsekt.de
Erik Anton. Thuringian Entomologists Association e.V., Bonhoefferstraße 2, 07747 Jena, Germany. E-mail: eric_anton@web.de
Andreas Weigel. ROSALIA Environmental Management, Am Schloßgarten 6, 07381 Wernburg, Germany. E-mail: rosalia-aw@gmx.de
Matthias Hartmann. Museum of Natural History Erfurt, Große Arche 14, 99084 Erfurt, Germany. E-mail: matthias.hartmann@erfurt.de
