ArticleMethodsX2025
Sampling and metabarcoding of arthropod environmental DNA traces from flowers.
Article in MethodsX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening and selection of insectary plants that promote natural enemies has been mostly approached via conventional methods that employ mundane man-hours of manual surveys, sampling, sorting, and viewing under microscope. In this digital age, mundane man-hours in ecological surveys can be approached with revolutionary sequencing technology, i.e. the Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Ecological scientist, especially marine biologists have been tracing environmental DNA (eDNA) by utilizing the NGS technology to study/monitor micro- and macro-organisms in aquatic conditions. The eDNA technology has now been adopted by applied entomologists and ecologists to survey and monitor arthropod biodiversity through space and time. Several advancements have been made in detecting arthropod eDNA traces cryopreserved in plant tissues such as stems, branches, leaves, and flowers. Using the techniques developed thus far, we adopted, and slightly modified the method originally intended for aquatic studies to evaluate arthropod eDNA traces on flowers of flowering plants. Corroborating the method, we showed that eDNA traces washed off from floral parts revealed plethora of arthropod species. Furthermore, data sets generated from eDNA analysis may assist in improving the data gathered using conventional methods.•Conventional methods used in surveying arthropod fauna (especially indigenous natural enemies) on flowering plants can be a tedious exercise. Here, we adopted and optimized the method initially designed for aquatic environmental DNA analysis to supplement conventional methods in arthropod studies.•The optimized method showed that traces of arthropod eDNA materials on floral parts are detectable.•The eDNA technology can be used to generate qualitative data, especially data on the cryptic and unknown species of flowering plant-associated-natural enemies, that can supplement the quantitative data gathered from conventional methods.
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.