ArticlePloS one2022
Discrimination of pollen of New Zealand mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium agg.) and kānuka (Kunzea spp.) (Myrtaceae).
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Legislative and forensic applications of melissopalynology, the study of pollen in honey.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Article
- Melissopalynological and Physicochemical Analysis of Selected Honey Samples from Romania, Spain, Malaysia, and New Zealand.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Medicinal Honeys from Oceania: An Updated Review on Their Bioactive Constituents and Health Applications.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- The Antioxidant Potential of Commercial Manuka Honey from New Zealand-Biochemical and Cellular Studies.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Quality of Commercially Available Manuka Honey Expressed by Pollen Composition, Diastase Activity, and Hydroxymethylfurfural Content.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The very similar appearance of pollen of the New Zealand Myrtaceous taxa Leptospermum scoparium s.l. (mānuka) and Kunzea spp. (kānuka) has led palynologists to combine them in paleoecological and melissopalynological studies. This is unfortunate, as differentiation of these taxa would improve understanding of past ecological change and has potential to add value to the New Zealand honey industry, where mānuka honey attracts a premium price. Here, we examine in detail the pollen morphology of the 10 Kunzea species and a number of Leptospermum scoparium morphotypes collected from around New Zealand, using light microscopy, SEM, and Classifynder (an automated palynology system). Our results suggest that at a generic level the New Zealand Leptospermum and Kunzea pollen can be readily differentiated, but the differences between pollen from the morphotypes of Leptospermum or between the species of Kunzea are less discernible. While size is a determinant factor-equatorial diameter of Leptospermum scoparium pollen is 19.08 ± 1.28 μm, compared to 16.30 ± 0.95 μm for Kunzea spp.-other criteria such as surface texture and shape characteristics are also diagnostic. A support vector machine set up to differentiate Leptospermum from Kunzea pollen using images captured by the Classifynder system had a prediction accuracy of ~95%. This study is a step towards future melissopalynological differentiation of mānuka honey using automated pollen image capture and classification approaches.
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.