Table 2 Number of specimens from field survey traps used for metabarcoding analyses, with a comparison of the percentage identified as Hemiptera by morphology and metabarcoding. The metabarcoding identification is based on sequencing reads from all three loci. Bold highlighting indicates traps where metabarcoding unexpectedly detected pest species, with the proportion of sequencing reads attributed to RWA or TPP in brackets.

From: Developing a non-destructive metabarcoding protocol for detection of pest insects in bulk trap catches

Trap number

Total insect specimens

% Hemiptera (morphology)

% Hemiptera (metabarcoding)

RWAa

TPPb

Trap 1

180

38.3

87.6

3

1

Trap 2

192

18.2

49.5

0 (0.14%)

0

Trap 3

224

44.4

50.3

0 (0.11%)

0

Trap 4

86

47.7

86.4

3

2

Trap 5

111

20.7

25.2

1

0

Trap 6

118

25.4

27.4

3

0

Trap 7

56

37.5

88.9

8

3

Trap 8

140

41.4

40.2

27

0 (0.04%)

Trap 9

40

32.5

32.3

4

0

Trap 10

121

43.0

84.3

15

0 (0.03%)

  1. aRussian wheat aphid (RWA) specimens from field surveys.
  2. bTomato potato psyllid (TPP) added from ethanol-preserved specimens from Western Australia.
Back to article page