Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071613›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Investigating the use of pollen DNA metabarcoding to quantify bee foraging and effects of threshold selection.

Katherine A Arstingstall, Sandra J DeBano, Xiaoping Li, David E Wooster, Mary M Rowland, Skyler Burrows, Kenneth Frost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. DNA metabarcoding reveals key floral resources for native pollinators in post-fire landscapes.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2024
    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

7 authors.

Katherine A ArstingstallDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6737-2819
Sandra J DeBanoDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.
Xiaoping LiHermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Hermiston, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1288-6438
David E WoosterDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.
Mary M RowlandUnited States Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5766-8683
Skyler BurrowsBee Biology and Systematics Lab, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States of America.
Kenneth FrostHermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Hermiston, Oregon, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA Barcoding, TaxonomicPollenAnimalsBeesEcologyPlantsPollination

Identifiers

PMID37071613
PMCPMC10112814

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.