ArticleBMC ecology2020
Efficiency of using electric toothbrush as an alternative to a tuning fork for artificial buzz pollination is independent of instrument buzzing frequency.
Article in BMC ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrete element simulation of buzz pollination in tomato.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex and stress modulate pupal defense response in tobacco hornworm.Current zoology · 2023Article
- Examining the Role of Buzzing Time and Acoustics on Pollen Extraction ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Local adaptation to continuous mowing makes the noxious weed Solanum elaeagnifolium a superweed candidate by improving fitness and defense traits.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Efficiency of using electric toothbrush as an alternative to a tuning fork for artificial buzz pollination is independent of instrument buzzing frequency.BMC ecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreeding programs and research activities where artificial buzz-pollinations are required to have primarily relied upon using tuning forks, and bumble bees. However, these methods can be expensive, unreliable, and inefficient. To find an alternative, we tested the efficiency of pollen collection using electric toothbrushes and compared it with tuning forks at three vibration frequencies-low, medium, and high and two extraction times at 3 s and 16 s- from two buzz-pollinated species (Solanum lycopersicum and Solanum elaeagnifolium).
resultsOur results show that species, and extraction time significantly influenced pollen extraction, while there were no significant differences for the different vibration frequencies and more importantly, the use of a toothbrush over tuning fork. More pollen was extracted from S. elaeagnifolium when compared to S. lycopersicum, and at longer buzzing time regardless of the instrument used.
conclusionsOur results suggest that electric toothbrushes can be a viable and inexpensive alternative to tuning forks, and regardless of the instrument used and buzzing frequency, length of buzzing time is also critical in pollen extraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.