ArticlePloS one2023
Investigating the use of pollen DNA metabarcoding to quantify bee foraging and effects of threshold selection.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- DNA metabarcoding reveals key floral resources for native pollinators in post-fire landscapes.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
- Pollen Foraging by Bumble Bee Queens During a Critical Nesting Period Revealed by DNA Metabarcoding.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Towards holistic insect monitoring: species discovery, description, identification and traits for all insects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA metabarcoding of pollen is a useful tool for studying bee foraging ecology. However, several questions about this method remain unresolved, including the extent to which sequence read data is quantitative, which type of sequence count removal threshold to use and how that choice affects our ability to detect rare flower visits, and how sequence artefacts may confound conclusions about bee foraging behavior. To address these questions, we isolated pollen from five plant species and created treatments comprised of pollen from each species alone and combinations of pollen from multiple species that varied in richness and evenness. We used ITS2 and rbcL metabarcoding to identify plant species in the samples, compared the proportion of pollen by mass to the proportion of sequencing reads for each plant species in each treatment, and analyzed the sequencing data using both liberal and conservative thresholds. We collected pollen from foraging bees, analyzed metabarcoding data from those samples using each threshold, and compared the differences in the pollinator networks constructed from the data. Regardless of the threshold used, the relationship between the proportion of pollen by mass and sequencing reads was inconsistent, suggesting that the number of sequence reads is a poor proxy for pollen abundance in mixed-species samples. Using a liberal threshold resulted in greater detection of original plant species in mixtures but also detected additional species in mixtures and single-species samples. The conservative threshold reduced the number of additional plant species detected, but several species in mixtures were not detected above the threshold, resulting in false negatives. Pollinator networks produced using the two thresholds differed and illustrated tradeoffs between detection of rare species and estimation of network complexity. Threshold selection can have a major effect on conclusions drawn from studies using metabarcoding of bee pollen to study plant-pollinator interactions.
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.