Environmental DNA metabarcoding of pan-trap water to identify arthropods and the plants they interact with
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the diversity of arthropods and the plants upon which they rely are under increasing pressure due to a combination of biotic and abiotic anthropogenic stressors. Unfortunately, conventional survey methods used to monitor ecosystems are often challenging to conduct at large scales. Pan traps are a commonly used pollinator survey method and environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of pan-trap water may offer a high-throughput alternative to aid in the detection of both arthropods and the plant resources they rely on. Here, we examined if eDNA metabarcoding can be used to identify arthropod and plant species from pan-trap water, and invesitigated the effect of different DNA extraction methods. We then compared plant species identified by metabarcoding with observation-based floral surveys and also assessed the contribution of airborne plant DNA (plant DNA not carried by arthropods) using marble traps to reduce putative false positives in the pan trap dataset. Arthropod eDNA was only detected in 17% of pan trap samples and there was minimal overlap between the eDNA results and morphological identifications. In contrast, for plants, we detected 64 taxa, of which 53 were unique to the eDNA dataset, and no differences were identified between the two extraction kits. We were able to significantly reduce the contribution of airborne plant DNA to the final dataset using marble traps. This study demonstrates that eDNA metabarcoding of pan-trap water can detect plant resources used by arthropods and highlights the potential for eDNA metabarcoding to be applied to investigations of plant-animal interactions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".