Temporal Patterns of Honeybee Foraging in a Diverse Floral Landscape Revealed Using Pollen DNA Metabarcoding of Honey.

Understanding the plants pollinators use through the year is vital to support pollinator populations and mitigate for declines in floral resources due to habitat loss. DNA metabarcoding allows the temporal picture of nectar and pollen foraging to be examined in detail. Here, we use DNA metabarcoding to examine the forage use of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) within a florally diverse landscape within the UK, documenting the key forage plants used and seasonal progression over two years. The total number of plant taxa detected in the honey was 120, but only 16 of these were found with a high relative read abundance of DNA, across the main foraging months (April-September). Only a small proportion of the available flowering genera in the landscape were used by the honeybees. The greatest relative read abundance came from native or near-native plants, including Rubus spp., Trifolium repens, the Maleae tribe including Crataegus, Malus, and Cotoneaster, and Hedera helix. Tree species were important forage in the spring months, followed by increased use of herbs and shrubs later in the foraging season. Garden habitat increased the taxon richness of native, near-native and horticultural plants found in the honey. Although horticultural plants were rarely found abundantly within the honey samples, they may be important for increasing nutritional diversity of the pollen forage.

Temperate airborne grass pollen defined by spatio-temporal shifts in community composition.

Grass pollen is the world's most harmful outdoor aeroallergen. However, it is unknown how airborne pollen assemblages change across time and space. Human sensitivity varies between different species of grass that flower at different times, but it is not known whether temporal turnover in species composition match terrestrial flowering or whether species richness steadily accumulates over the grass pollen season. Here, using targeted, high-throughput sequencing, we demonstrate that all grass genera displayed discrete, temporally restricted peaks of incidence, which varied with latitude and longitude throughout Great Britain, revealing that the taxonomic composition of grass pollen exposure changes substantially across the grass pollen season.

Generalisation and specialisation in hoverfly (Syrphidae) grassland pollen transport networks revealed by DNA metabarcoding.

Pollination by insects is a key ecosystem service and important to wider ecosystem function. Most species-level pollination networks studied have a generalised structure, with plants having several potential pollinators, and pollinators in turn visiting a number of different plant species. This is in apparent contrast to a plant's need for efficient conspecific pollen transfer. The aim of this study was to investigate the structure of pollen transport networks at three levels of biological hierarchy: community, species and individual. We did this using hoverflies in the genus Eristalis, a key group of non-Hymenopteran pollinators. We constructed pollen transport networks using DNA metabarcoding to identify pollen. We captured hoverflies in conservation grasslands in west Wales, UK, removed external pollen loads, sequenced the pollen DNA on the Illumina MiSeq platform using the standard plant barcode rbcL, and matched sequences using a pre-existing plant DNA barcode reference library. We found that Eristalis hoverflies transport pollen from 65 plant taxa, more than previously appreciated. Networks were generalised at the site and species level, suggesting some degree of functional redundancy, and were more generalised in late summer compared to early summer. In contrast, pollen transport at the individual level showed some degree of specialisation. Hoverflies defined as "single-plant visitors" varied from 40% of those captured in early summer to 24% in late summer. Individual hoverflies became more generalised in late summer, possibly in response to an increase in floral resources. Rubus fruticosus agg. and Succisa pratensis were key plant species for hoverflies at our sites Our results contribute to resolving the apparent paradox of how generalised pollinator networks can provide efficient pollination to plant species. Generalised hoverfly pollen transport networks may result from a varied range of short-term specialised feeding bouts by individual insects. The generalisation and functional redundancy of Eristalis pollen transport networks may increase the stability of the pollination service they deliver.

Using DNA Metabarcoding to Identify the Floral Composition of Honey: A New Tool for Investigating Honey Bee Foraging Preferences.

Identifying the floral composition of honey provides a method for investigating the plants that honey bees visit. We compared melissopalynology, where pollen grains retrieved from honey are identified morphologically, with a DNA metabarcoding approach using the rbcL DNA barcode marker and 454-pyrosequencing. We compared nine honeys supplied by beekeepers in the UK. DNA metabarcoding and melissopalynology were able to detect the most abundant floral components of honey. There was 92% correspondence for the plant taxa that had an abundance of over 20%. However, the level of similarity when all taxa were compared was lower, ranging from 22-45%, and there was little correspondence between the relative abundance of taxa found using the two techniques. DNA metabarcoding provided much greater repeatability, with a 64% taxa match compared to 28% with melissopalynology. DNA metabarcoding has the advantage over melissopalynology in that it does not require a high level of taxonomic expertise, a greater sample size can be screened and it provides greater resolution for some plant families. However, it does not provide a quantitative approach and pollen present in low levels are less likely to be detected. We investigated the plants that were frequently used by honey bees by examining the results obtained from both techniques. Plants with a broad taxonomic range were detected, covering 46 families and 25 orders, but a relatively small number of plants were consistently seen across multiple honey samples. Frequently found herbaceous species were Rubus fruticosus, Filipendula ulmaria, Taraxacum officinale, Trifolium spp., Brassica spp. and the non-native, invasive, Impatiens glandulifera. Tree pollen was frequently seen belonging to Castanea sativa, Crataegus monogyna and species of Malus, Salix and Quercus. We conclude that although honey bees are considered to be supergeneralists in their foraging choices, there are certain key species or plant groups that are particularly important in the honey bees environment. The reasons for this require further investigation in order to better understand honey bee nutritional requirements. DNA metabarcoding can be easily and widely used to investigate floral visitation in honey bees and can be adapted for use with other insects. It provides a starting point for investigating how we can better provide for the insects that we rely upon for pollination.