Microbiome and floral associations of a wild bee using biodiversity survey collections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health of bees can be assessed through their microbiome, which serves as a biomarker indicating the presence of both beneficial and harmful microorganisms within a bee community. This study presents the characterisation of the bacterial, fungal, and plant composition on the cuticle of adult bicoloured sweat bees (Agapostemon virescens). These bees were collected using various methods such as pan traps, blue vane traps and sweep netting across the northern extent of their habitat range. Non-destructive methods were employed to extract DNA from the whole pinned specimens of these wild bees. Metabarcoding of the 16S rRNA, ITS and rbcL regions was then performed. The study found that the method of collection influenced the detection of certain microbial and plant taxa. Among the collection methods, sweep net samples showed the lowest fungal alpha diversity. However, minor differences in bacterial or fungal beta diversity suggest that no single method is significantly superior to others. Therefore, a combination of techniques can cater to a broader spectrum of microbial detection. The study also revealed regional variations in bacterial, fungal and plant diversity. The core microbiome of A. virescens comprises two bacteria, three fungi and a plant association, all of which are commonly detected in other wild bees. These core microbes remained consistent across different collection methods and locations. Further extensive studies of wild bee microbiomes across various species and landscapes will help uncover crucial relationships between pollinator health and their environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".