The non-invasive collection of biological samples has proven useful to study a diverse array of research topics worldwide. Here, we present a systematic bibliographical synthesis exploring how the non-invasive collection of genetic samples has been used to study avian populations in the Neotropics. We searched international online databases for scientific publications, spanning from 2007 to 2017, to describe the trends and identify the sample types used, species studied, and research questions addressed. The analysis of 21 articles showed that shed feathers were most frequently used (66.7% of articles), followed by carcasses (14.2%), eggs (9.5%), and non-invasively obtained blood (4.8%); one study used both feces and shed feathers. Most studies addressed population genetic issues (38.1%), followed by species identification (28.6%), phylogenetic questions (14.3%), molecular sexing (9.5%), and parentage analyses (9.5%). Brazil produced almost half (47.6%) of the publications retrieved. Despite an increasing interest in using non-invasive sampling to study Neotropical avifauna, its application is still largely concentrated in the most developed countries in this region and to explore a limited number of questions. A more regular use of non-invasive sampling would help advance the knowledge of ecological, behavioral, genetic, and evolutionary aspects of Neotropical birds. Investigating the extent of human–wildlife conflict, such as impact of road-kills, illegal traffic, and collision with aerial infrastructure or unmanned vehicles, is an underexplored avenue of research in which this method could be of much help. Non-invasive genetic sampling can help tackle conservation problems and pave the way to scientifically informed conservation policies in this avian biodiversity hotspot.
OwenJC.Collecting, processing, and storing avian blood: a review. J Field Ornithol2011; 82: 339–354.
4.
SheldonLDChinEHGillSA, et al. Effects of blood collection on wild birds: an update. J Avian Biol2008; 39: 369–378.
5.
LefortM-CBoyerSBarunA, et al. Blood, sweat and tears: non-invasive vs. non-disruptive DNA sampling for experimental biology. PeerJ PrePrints2015; 3: e655v3.
6.
HiebertSMRamenofskyMSalvanteK, et al. Noninvasive methods for measuring and manipulating corticosterone in hummingbirds. Gen Comp Endocrinol2000; 120(2): 235–247.
7.
WaitsLPPaetkauD.Noninvasive genetic sampling tools for wildlife biologists: a review of applications and recommendations for accurate data collection. J Wildlife Manage2005; 69: 1419–1433.
8.
HorváthMBMartínez-CruzBNegroJJ, et al. An overlooked DNA source for non-invasive genetic analysis in birds. J Avian Biol2005; 36: 84–88.
9.
MiñoCIdel LamaSN.Molted feathers as a source of DNA for genetic studies in waterbird populations. Waterbirds2009; 32: 322–329.
10.
WheatREAllenJMMillerSD, et al. Environmental DNA from residual saliva for efficient noninvasive genetic monitoring of brown bears (Ursus arctos). PLoS ONE2016; 11(11): e0165259.
11.
KirolCPPilgrimKLSutphinAL, et al. Using DNA from hairs left at depredated greater sage-grouse nests to detect mammalian nest predators. Wildlife Soc B2018; 42: 160–165.
12.
FerreiraCMSabino-MarquesHBarbosaS, et al. Genetic non-invasive sampling (gNIS) as a cost-effective tool for monitoring elusive small mammals. Eur J Wildlife Res2018; 64: 46.
13.
PiggottMPTaylorAC.Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species. Wildlife Res2003; 30: 1–13.
14.
KhanHAArifIA.A brief review of noninvasive methods of DNA sampling for wildlife conservation. Anim Biol2013; 4: 63.
15.
Beja-PereiraAOliveiraRAlvesPC, et al. Advancing ecological understandings through technological transformations in noninvasive genetics. Mol Ecol Resour2009; 9(5): 1279–1301.
16.
RutkowskiRKellerMJagolkowskaP.Population genetics of the hazel hen Bonasa bonasia in Poland assessed with non-invasive samples. Cent Eur J Biol2012; 7: 759–775.
17.
SegelbacherG.Noninvasive genetic analysis in birds: testing reliability of feather samples. Mol Ecol Resour2002; 2: 367–369.
18.
StorchISegelbacherG.Two grouse clutches in the same nest: evidence for nest site adoption in capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus). J Ornithol2005; 146: 85–88.
19.
McKelveyKSSchwartzMK.Genetic errors associated with population estimation using non-invasive molecular tagging: problems and new solutions. J Wildlife Manage2004; 68: 439–448.
20.
SegelbacherGSteinbruckG.Bird faeces for sex identification and microsatellite analysis. Vogelwarte2001; 41: 139–142.
21.
RegnautSLucasFSFumagalliL.DNA degradation in avian faecal samples and feasibility of non-invasive genetic studies of threatened capercaillie populations. Conserv Genet2006; 7: 449–453.
22.
JacobGDebrunnerRGugerliF, et al. Field surveys of capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus) in the Swiss Alps underestimated local abundance of the species as revealed by genetic analyses of non-invasive samples. Conserv Genet2010; 11: 33–44.
23.
Morán-LuisMFameliABlanco-FontaoB, et al. Demographic status and genetic tagging of endangered capercaillie in NW Spain. PLoS ONE2014; 9(6): e99799.
24.
FameliAMorán-LuisMRodríguez-MuñozR.Conservation in the southern edge of Tetrao urogallus distribution: geneflow despite fragmentation in the stronghold of the Cantabrian capercaillie. Eur J Wildife Res2017; 63: 58.
25.
StotzDFFitzpatrickJWParkerTAIII, et al. Neotropical birds: ecology and conservation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996, p. 502.
26.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: University of York, 2009, p. 281.
27.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2009; 6: e1000100.
28.
LajeunesseMJ.Facilitating systematic reviews, data extraction and meta-analysis with the metagear package for R. Methods Ecol Evol2016; 7: 323–330.
29.
R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 5 December 2018).
30.
PardiñasUFCirignoliS.Bibliografía comentada sobre los análisis de egagrópilas de aves rapaces en Argentina. Ornitol Neotrop2002; 13: 31–59.
31.
AlcaideMCadahíaLLambertucciSA, et al. Noninvasive estimation of minimum population sizes and variability of the major histocompatibility complex in the Andean condor. Condor2010; 112: 470–478.
32.
BanhosAHrbekTGravenaW, et al. Genomic resources for the conservation and management of the harpy eagle (Harpiaharpyja, Falconiformes, Accipitridae). Genet Mol Biol2008; 31: 146–154.
33.
CanalDRoquesSNegroJJ, et al. Population genetics of the endangered crowned solitary eagle (Buteogallus coronatus) in South America. Conserv Genet2017; 18: 235–240.
34.
ColihuequeNGantzARauJR, et al. Genetic divergence analysis of the Common Barn Owl Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769) and the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus (Pontoppidan, 1763) from southern Chile using COI sequence. ZooKeys2015; 534: 135–146.
35.
Frias-SolerRTindleELopezGE, et al. Genetic and phenotypic evidence supports evolutionary divergence of the American Flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber) population in the Galápagos Islands. Waterbirds2014; 37: 349–468.
36.
GebhardtKJWaitsLP. Cross-species amplification and optimization of microsatellite markers for use in six Neotropical parrots. Mol Ecol Resour2008; 8(4):835–839.
37.
GonçalvesPFOliveira-MarquesARMatsumotoTE, et al. DNA barcoding identifies illegal parrot trade. J Hered2015; 106(Suppl. 1): 560–564.
38.
LopesIFMinoCIdel LamaSN.Genetic diversity and evidence of recent demographic expansion in waterbird populations from the Brazilian Pantanal. Braz J Biol2007; 67(4 Suppl.): 849–857.
39.
LopesIFMinoCIRochaCD, et al. Inferred kinship patterns reveal low levels of extra-pair paternity in the endangered Neotropical Jabiru Stork (Jabiru mycteria, Aves: Ciconiiformes). Genetica2013; 141(4–6): 195–203.
40.
MaiaTAVilaçaSTSilvaLRD, et al. DNA sampling from eggshells and microsatellite genotyping in rare tropical birds: case study on Brazilian Merganser. Genet Mol Biol2017; 40(4): 808–812.
41.
MiñoCIde SouzaEDMoralez-SilvaE, et al. Use of noninvasive “bug-eggs” to enable comparative inferences on genetic mating system with and without parental information: a study in a cattle egret colony. PLoS ONE2017; 12(8): e0183153.
42.
MongeOSchmidtKVaughanC.Genetic patterns and conservation of the Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao) in Costa Rica. Conserv Genet2016; 17: 745–750.
43.
Morales-ContrerasJEscalantePMartínez-RuízM, et al. Black hawk-eagle (Spizaetus tyrannus) identified by DNA from a feather recovered in the rain-forest region of Veracruz. Southwestern Nat2016; 61: 137–142.
44.
OlahGHeinsohnRGBrightsmithDJ, et al. Validation of non-invasive genetic tagging in two large macaw species (Ara macao and A. chloropterus) of the Peruvian Amazon. Conserv Genet Resour2016; 8: 499–509.
45.
OlahGHeinsohnRGBrightsmithDJ, et al. The application of non-invasive genetic tagging reveals new insights into the clay lick use by macaws in the Peruvian Amazon. Conserv Genet2017; 18: 1037–1046.
46.
OlahGSmithALAsnerGP, et al. Exploring dispersal barriers using landscape genetic resistance modelling in scarlet macaws of the Peruvian Amazon. Landscape Ecol2017; 32: 445–456.
47.
PrestiFTMeyerJAntasPT, et al. Non-invasive genetic sampling for molecular sexing and microsatellite genotyping of hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus). Genet Mol Biol2013; 36: 129–133.
48.
Rivera-OrtízFASolórzanoSArizmendiM, et al. Genetic diversity and structure of the military Macaw (Ara Militaris) in Mexico: implications for conservation. Trop Conserv Sci2016; 10: 1–12.
49.
Rodríguez-CastroKGCiochetiGRibeiroJW, et al. Using DNA barcode to relate landscape attributes to small vertebrate roadkill. Biodivers Conserv2017; 26: 1161–1178.
50.
SaranholiBBergelMMRuffinoPHP. Roadkill hotspots in a protected area of Cerrado in Brazil: planning actions to conservation. Rev MVZ Cordoba2016; 21: 5441–5448.
51.
HebertPDStoeckleMYZemlakTS, et al. Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biol2004; 2(10): e312.
52.
GarófaloLFanelliROpramollaG, et al. Comparison between two molecular protocols for sex determination in birds, with implications for the management and conservation of the Eurasian Griffon vulture Gyps fulvus. Avocetta2016; 40: 17–22.
53.
IdaghdourYBroderickDKorridaA.Faeces as a source of DNA for molecular studies in a threatened population of great bustards. Conserv Genet2003; 4: 789–792.
54.
BroderickDIdaghdourYKorridaA.Gene flow in great bustard populations across the Strait of Gibraltar as elucidated from excremental PCR and mtDNA sequencing. Conserv Genet2003; 4: 793–800.
55.
BeckerPHVoigtCCArnoldJM, et al. A non-invasive technique to bleed incubating birds without trapping: a blood-sucking bug in a hollow egg. J Ornithol2006; 147: 115–118.
56.
SchnellIBBohmannKSchultzeSE, et al. Debugging diversity-a pan-continental exploration of the potential of terrestrial blood-feeding leeches as a vertebrate monitoring tool. Mol Ecol Resour2018; 18(6): 1282–1298.
57.
ReuterPO’ReganD.Smuggling wildlife in the Americas: scale, methods, and links to other organised crimes. Glob Crime2017; 18: 77–99.
58.
RusselloMAAmatoG.Application of a noninvasive PCR-based test for sex identification in an endangered parrot, Amazona guildingii. Zoo Biol2001; 20(1): 41–45.
59.
VossMShutlerDWernerJ.A hard look at blood sampling of birds. Auk2010; 127: 704–708.
60.
Torres-FlorezJPJohnsonWENeryMF.The coming of age of conservation genetics in Latin America: what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Conserv Genet2017; 19: 1–15.
61.
MorinPAMessierJWoodruffDS.DNA extraction, amplification, and direct sequencing from hornbill feathers. J Sci Soc Thailand1994; 20: 31–41.
62.
NotaYTakenakaO.DNA extraction from urine and sex identification of birds. Mol Ecol1999; 8(7): 1237–1238.
63.
WilsonKAAuerbachNASamK, et al. Conservation research is not happening where it is most needed. PLoS Biology2016; 14: e1002413.
64.
MagnussonWEGrelleCEMarquesM, et al. Effects of Brazil’s political crisis on biodiversity conservation. Frontiers Ecol Evol2018; 6: 163.
65.
HarveyMGBonterDNStenzlerLM, et al. A comparison of plucked feathers versus blood samples as DNA sources for molecular sexing. J Field Ornithol2006; 77: 136–140.
66.
JohanssonMPMcMahonBJHöglundJ, et al. Amplification success of multilocus genotypes from feathers found in the field compared with feathers obtained from shot birds. Ibis2012; 154: 15–20.
67.
BroquetTPetitE.Quantifying genotyping errors in noninvasive population genetics. Mol Ecol2004; 13(11): 3601–3608.
68.
ViliNNemesháziEKovácsS, et al. Factors affecting DNA quality in feathers used for non-invasive sampling. J. Ornithol2013; 154: 587–595.
69.
LindsayARHaasSC.DNA from feces and museum specimens confirms a first state record bird. Occas Pap Mus Zool Univ Mich2013; 742: 1–10.
70.
GoldbergNRMasonNA.Species identification of vagrant empidonax flycatchers in Northeastern North America via non-invasive DNA sequencing. Northeastern Nat2017; 24: 499–504.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
