Abstract:Differences in insect richness, taxonomic composition and community body size were similar between metabarcoding‐based and morphological‐based species identification. Challenges with metabarcoding included difficulty in detecting some low‐abundance and smaller bodied taxa. Metabarcoding can provide an accurate overview of insect community differences, but further research is needed to overcome remaining limitations. Tracking insect biodiversity trends and predicting future trajectories is limited by a lack of monitoring data across large spatiotemporal scales. DNA metabarcoding is a time‐ and cost‐efficient method to obtain these data, but has several potential limitations in comparison to traditional morphological approaches. For example, metabarcoding may miss low‐abundance or smaller bodied individuals and is limited to presence/absence information, which may bias estimates of biodiversity and community composition. However, few comparisons of metabarcoding and morphology‐based identification have been made using insects, the by far most diverse animal taxonomic group. Here, we compared terrestrial insect communities identified via morphology versus metabarcoding across four different habitats and three seasons (late spring, mid‐summer and early autumn) during 2019. We compared identified species and community richness, composition and body size, with a focus on key taxonomic groups of bees, true bugs, butterflies and hoverflies. We identified 252 total species, with 54.8% identified by both methods, whereas 21.4% and 19.8% were solely detected with metabarcoding or morphology, respectively. Overall, total community richness, taxonomic composition and community body size were similar between methods. Metabarcoding detection successes declined in low‐abundance and smaller taxa, particularly bees, hoverflies and true bugs; however, species richness of hoverflies and butterflies tended to be higher compared with morphological identification. Our results show that metabarcoding can provide an accurate overview of insect community differences that are comparable to those determined via morphological identification. We recommend that insect monitoring programmes consider incorporating metabarcoding, although future research is needed to overcome some remaining limitations.

High-throughput biodiversity surveying sheds new light on the brightest of insect taxa

Data of the Insect Biome Atlas: a metabarcoding survey of the terrestrial arthropods of Sweden and Madagascar

Large‐scale integrative taxonomy of Swedish grass flies (Diptera, Chloropidae) reveals hitherto unknown complexity of a dark taxon

Upscaling biodiversity monitoring: Metabarcoding estimates 31,846 insect species from Malaise traps across Germany

RESOLVING BIOLOGY'S DARK MATTER: SPECIES RICHNESS, SPATIOTEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION, AND COMMUNITY COMPOSITION OF A DARK TAXON

Photonic sensors reflect variation in insect abundance and diversity across habitats

Towards holistic insect monitoring: species discovery, description, identification and traits for all insects

A new tool in a toolbox: Addressing challenges in high-throughput microbiota surveys across diverse wild insects

DNA metabarcoding and morphological identification reveal similar richness, taxonomic composition and body size patterns among flying insect communities

Illuminating Entomological Dark Matter with DNA Barcodes in an Era of Insect Decline, Deep Learning, and Genomics

Detailed DNA barcoding of mayflies in a small European country proved how far we are from having comprehensive barcode reference libraries

Combining environmental DNA and remote sensing for efficient, fine-scale mapping of arthropod biodiversity

Insect diversity in heterogeneous agro-environments of Central Europe

Detecting flying insects using car nets and DNA metabarcoding

Performance of DNA metabarcoding, standard barcoding and morphological approaches in the identification of insect biodiversity

Lidar as a potential tool for monitoring migratory insects

Biosurveillance for invasive insect pest species using an environmental DNA metabarcoding approach and a high salt trap collection fluid

Monitoring mosquito richness in an understudied area: can environmental DNA metabarcoding be a complementary approach to adult trapping?