MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903111578 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0102

Evaluating the efficacy of sample collection approaches and DNA metabarcoding for identifying the diversity of plants utilized by nectivorous bats

2018· article· en· W2903111578 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christine E. Edwards, Joel F. Swift, Richard F. Lance, Thomas A. Minckley, Denise L. Lindsay

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPollenGuanoEnvironmental DNADNA barcodingTaxonIdentification (biology)EcologyBiodiversityZoologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of sample collection approaches and DNA metabarcoding to identify plants utilized by nectivorous bats. Samples included guano collected from beneath bat roosts and pollen-swabs from bat fur, both of which were subjected to DNA metabarcoding and visual identification of pollen (microscopy) to measure plant diversity. Our objectives were to determine whether DNA metabarcoding could detect likely food plants of nectivorous bats, whether sample types would produce different estimates of plant diversity, and to compare results of DNA metabarcoding to visual identification. Visual identification found that 99% of pollen was from Agave, which is thought to be the bats' main food source. The dominant taxon found by metabarcoding was also Agavoideae, but a broader diversity of plant species was also detected, many of which are likely "by-catch" from the broader environment. Metabarcoding outcomes differed between sample types, likely because pollen-swabs measured the plant species visited by bats and guano samples measured all items consumed in the bat's diet, even those that were not pollen or nectar. Overall, metabarcoding is a powerful, high-throughput tool to understand bat ecology and species interactions, but careful analysis of results is necessary to derive accurate ecological conclusions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.143 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207