Abstract
1. Moths are globally relevant as pollinators but nocturnal pollination remains poorly understood. Plant–pollinator interaction networks are traditionally constructed using either flower‐visitor observations or pollen‐transport detection using microscopy. Recent studies have shown the potential of DNA metabarcoding for detecting and identifying pollen‐transport interactions. However, no study has directly compared the realised observations of pollen‐transport networks between DNA metabarcoding and conventional light microscopy.2. Using matched samples of nocturnal moths, we constructed pollen‐transport networks using two methods: light microscopy and DNA metabarcoding. Focussing on the feeding mouthparts of moths, we developed and provide reproducible methods for merging DNA metabarcoding and ecological network analysis to better understand species interactions.3. DNA metabarcoding detected pollen on more individual moths, and detected multiple pollen types on more individuals than microscopy, although the average number of pollen types per individual was unchanged. However, after aggregating individuals of each species, metabarcoding detected more interactions per moth species. Pollen‐transport network metrics differed between methods because of variation in the ability of each to detect multiple pollen types per moth and to separate morphologically similar or related pollen. We detected unexpected but plausible moth–plant interactions with metabarcoding, revealing new detail about nocturnal pollination systems.4. The nocturnal pollination networks observed using metabarcoding and microscopy were similar yet distinct, with implications for network ecologists. Comparisons between networks constructed using metabarcoding and traditional methods should therefore be treated with caution. Nevertheless, the potential applications of metabarcoding for studying plant–pollinator interaction networks are encouraging, especially when investigating understudied pollinators such as moths.
Highlights
Species interaction networks, which describe the presence and strength of interspecific interactions within ecosystems (Montoya et al, 2006), are an important tool in understanding and conserving ecosystem processes and functioning (Tylianakis et al, 2010)
With non-pollen-carrying moths excluded, the methods did not differ in the number of pollen types detected per individual moth
We constructed pollen-transport networks using matched samples of moths to compare between two methods for detecting and identifying pollen: DNA metabarcoding and traditional light microscopy
Summary
Species interaction networks, which describe the presence and strength of interspecific interactions within ecosystems (Montoya et al, 2006), are an important tool in understanding and conserving ecosystem processes and functioning (Tylianakis et al, 2010). A commonly-used proxy is flower-visitation, recorded by directly observing animals visiting flowers. This is effective for daytime sampling, but is challenging to apply to nocturnal pollinators, such as moths (Lepidoptera; Macgregor et al, 2015), because observations are difficult and may be biased if assisted by artificial light. This may explain why plant-pollinator network studies frequently omit nocturnal moths, even though moths are globally relevant pollinators (Macgregor et al, 2015)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
