Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27255732›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Using metabarcoding to reveal and quantify plant-pollinator interactions.

André Pornon, Nathalie Escaravage, Monique Burrus, Hélène Holota, Aurélie Khimoun, Jérome Mariette, Charlène Pellizzari, Amaia Iribar, Roselyne Etienne, Pierre Taberlet and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The magnet species effect of two-leaf squill (Frontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Authentication of the Botanical Origin of Honey:Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

André PornonLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Nathalie EscaravageLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Monique BurrusLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Hélène HolotaLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Aurélie KhimounLaboratoire Biogeosciences, Université de Bourgogne 6 bld Gabriel, F-21000 Dijon, France.
Jérome MariettePlate-forme Bio-informatique Genotoul, Mathématiques et Informatique Appliqués INRA, UR875 Toulouse, F-31320 Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Charlène PellizzariLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Amaia IribarLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Roselyne EtienneLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Pierre TaberletLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP 43, F-38041 Grenoble, France.
Marie VidalGeT-PlaGe, Genotoul, INRA UAR1209, F-31320 Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Peter WintertonDépartement de Langues et Gestion, Université Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Lucie ZingerLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.
Christophe AndaloLaboratoire Evolution and Diversité Biologique EDB, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, F-31062 Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the ongoing decline of both pollinators and plants, it is crucial to implement effective methods to describe complex pollination networks across time and space in a comprehensive and high-throughput way. Here we tested if metabarcoding may circumvent the limits of conventional methodologies in detecting and quantifying plant-pollinator interactions. Metabarcoding experiments on pollen DNA mixtures described a positive relationship between the amounts of DNA from focal species and the number of trnL and ITS1 sequences yielded. The study of pollen loads of insects captured in plant communities revealed that as compared to the observation of visits, metabarcoding revealed 2.5 times more plant species involved in plant-pollinator interactions. We further observed a tight positive relationship between the pollen-carrying capacities of insect taxa and the number of trnL and ITS1 sequences. The number of visits received per plant species also positively correlated to the number of their ITS1 and trnL sequences in insect pollen loads. By revealing interactions hard to observe otherwise, metabarcoding significantly enlarges the spatiotemporal observation window of pollination interactions. By providing new qualitative and quantitative information, metabarcoding holds great promise for investigating diverse facets of interactions and will provide a new perception of pollination networks as a whole.

Indexed as

AnimalsDNA Barcoding, TaxonomicDNA, PlantInsectaPlant Physiological PhenomenaPlantsPollenPollinationSequence Analysis, DNASpecies SpecificityDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID27255732
PMCPMC4891682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.