eDNA metabarcoding of avocado flowers: ‘Hass’ it got potential to survey arthropods in food production systems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the face of global biodiversity declines, surveys of beneficial and antagonistic arthropod diversity as well as the ecological services that they provide are increasingly important in both natural and agro-ecosystems. Conventional survey methods used to monitor these communities often require extensive taxonomic expertise and are time-intensive, potentially limiting their application in industries such as agriculture, where arthropods often play a critical role in productivity (e.g. pollinators, pests and predators). Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of a novel substrate, crop flowers, may offer an accurate and high throughput alternative to aid in the detection managed and unmanaged arthropod taxa (e.g. flower-visiting insects and potential pollinators). Here, we compared the arthropod communities detected with eDNA metabarcoding of flowers, from an agricultural species (Persea americana - ‘Hass’ avocado), with two conventional survey techniques; Digital Video Recording (DVR) devices and pan traps. In total, 80 eDNA flower samples, 96 hours of DVRs and 48 pan trap samples were collected. Across the three methods, 49 arthropod families were identified, of which 12 were unique to the eDNA dataset. Alpha diversity levels did not differ across the three survey methods although taxonomic composition varied significantly, with only 12% of arthropod families found to be common across all three methods. This study demonstrates that eDNA metabarcoding of flowers to detect visiting arthropods, although in a developmental stage, can complement traditional survey methods and increase the diversity of taxa detected with implications for both natural and agro-ecosystems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".