When to use next generation sequencing or diagnostic PCR in diet analyses

Next‐generation sequencing (NGS) is increasingly used for diet analyses; however, it may not always describe diet samples well. A reason for this is that diet samples contain mixtures of food DNA in different amounts as well as consumer DNA which can reduce the food DNA characterized. Because of this, detections will depend on the relative amount and identity of each type of DNA. For such samples, diagnostic PCR will most likely give more reliable results, as detection probability is only marginally dependent on other copresent DNA. We investigated the reliability of each method to test (a) whether predatory beetle regurgitates, supposed to be low in consumer DNA, allow to retrieve prey sequences using general barcoding primers that co‐amplify the consumer DNA, and (b) to assess the sequencing depth or replication needed for NGS and diagnostic PCR to give stable results. When consumer DNA is co‐amplified, NGS is better suited to discover the range of possible prey, than for comparing co‐occurrences of diet species between samples, as retested samples were repeatedly different in prey detections with this approach. This shows that samples were incompletely described, as prey detected by diagnostic PCR frequently were missed by NGS. As the sequencing depth needed to reliably describe the diet in such samples becomes very high, the cost‐efficiency and reliability of diagnostic PCR make diagnostic PCR better suited for testing large sample‐sets. Especially if the targeted prey taxa are thought to be of ecological importance, as diagnostic PCR gave more nested and consistent results in repeated testing of the same sample.