Published May 18, 2026 | Version v1

A bee-specific metabarcoding primer pair for non-invasive assessments of plant–pollinator interactions

  • 1. University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

Description

Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of floral samples has emerged as a valuable tool for characterizing pollinator communities and plant–pollinator interactions. However, commonly used universal arthropod primers often fail to consistently recover bee (Apiformes) DNA from mixed-template samples. To overcome this limitation, a new COI metabarcoding primer pair specifically designed for bees was developed: BeePrimeF and BeePrimeR. In silico evaluations and in vitro assays demonstrated high target specificity, with only limited amplification of non-target taxa. When applied to floral eDNA from Austrian flower strips, the BeePrime primers doubled the number of samples testing positive for bees and substantially increased the detected bee diversity. Individual floral samples typically yielded multiple bee species rather than single detections, and across all samples, BeePrime detected more than four times as many distinct bee species as a commonly used universal primer. In addition, BeePrime produced significantly higher proportions of bee reads per sample, thereby improving sequencing efficiency and data quality. All molecular identifications were corroborated by specimen-based surveys conducted at the same sites and validated through morphological identification. Overall, BeePrime overcomes a key methodological bottleneck in pollinator eDNA metabarcoding and substantially strengthens the molecular toolkit available for monitoring bee diversity and resolving plant–pollinator networks.

Files

MBMG_article_183708.pdf

Files (2.0 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:e78b2bfd67f3975f225b587fb1603c43
1.9 MB Preview Download
md5:d8813ec6439fefd15fe38b74460a3c3a
98.7 kB Preview Download

Linked records

Additional details

References

  • Alberdi A, Aizpurua O, Gilbert MTP, Bohmann K (2018) Scrutinizing key steps for reliable metabarcoding of environmental samples. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9: 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12849
  • Allen-Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, Burquez A, Buchmann S, Cane J, Cox PA, Dalton V, Feinsinger P, Ingram M, Inouye D, Jones CE, Kennedy K, Kevan P, Koopowitz H, Medellin R, Medellin-Morales S, Nabhan GP, Pavlik B, Tepedino V, Torchio P, Walker S (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 12: 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.97154.x
  • Altschup SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2
  • Carreck N, Williams I (1998) The economic value of bees in the UK. Bee World 79: 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.1998.11099393
  • Clarke LJ, Soubrier J, Weyrich LS, Cooper A (2014) Environmental metabarcodes for insects: In silico PCR reveals potential for taxonomic bias. Molecular Ecology Resources 14: 1160–1170. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12265
  • Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Chowdhury RR, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers I, Willis KJ, Zayas CN (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 56 pp. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18191848
  • Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M, Ceballos G, Isaac NJB, Collen B (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345: 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251817
  • Edgar RC (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26: 2460–2461. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461
  • Elbrecht V, Leese F (2017) PrimerMiner: An r package for development and in silico validation of DNA metabarcoding primers. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8: 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12687
  • Folmer O, Black M, Hoeh W, Lutz R, Vrijenhoek R (1994) DNA primers for amplification of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I from diverse metazoan invertebrates. Molecular Marine Biology and Biotechnology 3(5): 294–299.
  • Gibson J, Shokralla S, Porter TM, King I, Van Konynenburg S, Janzen DH, Hallwachs W, Hajibabaei M (2014) Simultaneous assessment of the macrobiome and microbiome in a bulk sample of tropical arthropods through DNA metasystematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111: 8007–8012. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406468111
  • Gonçalves LT, Françoso E, Deprá M (2022) Shorter, better, faster, stronger? Comparing the identification performance of full-length and mini-DNA barcodes for apid bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-022-00958-x
  • Hajibabaei M, Smith MA, Janzen DH, Rodriguez JJ, Whitfield JB, Hebert PDN (2006) A minimalist barcode can identify a specimen whose DNA is degraded. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 959–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2006.01470.x
  • Hall TA (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41: 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0905-6_31
  • Harper LR, Niemiller ML, Benito JB, Paddock LE, Knittle E, Molano-Flores B, Davis MA (2023) BeeDNA: Microfluidic environmental DNA metabarcoding as a tool for connecting plant and pollinator communities. Environmental DNA 5: 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.370
  • Hebert PDN, Bock DG, Prosser SWJ (2023) Interrogating 1000 insect genomes for NUMTs: A risk assessment for estimates of species richness. PLoS ONE 18(6): e0286620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286620
  • Hebert PDN, Cywinska A, Ball SL, DeWaard JR (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270: 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
  • Johnson MD, Katz AD, Davis MA, Tetzlaff S, Edlund D, Tomczyk S, Molano-Flores B, Wilder T, Sperry JH (2023) Environmental DNA metabarcoding from flowers reveals arthropod pollinators, plant pests, parasites, and potential predator-prey interactions while revealing more arthropod diversity than camera traps. Environmental DNA 5: 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.411
  • Jones KS, Pilliod DS, Aunins AW (2025) Metabarcoding analysis of arthropod pollinator diversity: A methodological comparison of eDNA derived from flowers and DNA derived from bulk samples of insects. Molecular Ecology 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.70003
  • Karim M, Abid R (2020) Efficacy and accuracy responses of DNA mini-barcodes in species identification under a supervised machine learning approach. bioRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.12.10.420281
  • Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274: 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
  • Kluser S, Peduzzi P (2007) Global Pollinator Decline: A Literature Review. Conservation Ecology.
  • Krahner A, Schmidt J, Maixner M, Porten M, Schmitt T (2021) Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems. Ecological Indicators 125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107573
  • Leonhardt SD, Gallai N, Garibaldi LA, Kuhlmann M, Klein AM (2013) Economic gain, stability of pollination and bee diversity decrease from southern to northern Europe. Basic and Applied Ecology 14: 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2013.06.003
  • Leray M, Knowlton N (2017) Random sampling causes the low reproducibility of rare eukaryotic OTUs in Illumina COI metabarcoding. PeerJ 2017. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3006
  • Little S (1995) Amplification-Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) analysis of point mutations. Current Protocols in Human Genetics 7: 9.8.1–9.8.12. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142905.hg0908s07
  • Martin M (2011) Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal 17(1): 10–12. https://doi.org/10.14806/ej.17.1.200
  • Mugnai F, Costantini F, Chenuil A, Leduc M, Ortega JMG, Meglécz E (2023) Be positive: customized reference databases and new, local barcodes balance false taxonomic assignments in metabarcoding studies. PeerJ 11. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14616
  • Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
  • Posit Team (2025) RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R.
  • Potts SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca V, Ngo HT, Aizen MA, Biesmeijer JC, Breeze TD, Dicks LV, Garibaldi LA, Hill R, Settele J, Vanbergen AJ (2016) Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540: 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20588
  • Pugh A, Trower M, Mercier C, Bartlett M, Sutherland R, Cridge A (2025) Environmental DNA profiling for detecting plant-insect interactions in endangered and native flora. Folia Oecologica 52: 82–90. https://doi.org/10.2478/foecol-2025-0009
  • Rennstam Rubbmark O, Sint D, Horngacher N, Traugott M (2018) A broadly applicable COI primer pair and an efficient single-tube amplicon library preparation protocol for metabarcoding. Ecology and Evolution 8: 12335–12350. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4520
  • Schmidt A, Schilbach L, Schanowski A, Greve ME, Baden CU, Maus C, Krehenwinkel H (2025) Flower-Derived Environmental DNA Reveals Community Diversity, Species Abundances and Ecological Interactions in Bee Pollinators. Environmental DNA 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.70178
  • Simanonok MP, Burkle LA (2014) Partitioning interaction turnover among alpine pollination networks: Spatial, temporal, and environmental patterns. Ecosphere 5. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00323.1
  • Stothut M, Kuehne D, Stroebele V, Mahla L, Kuenzel S, Krehenwinkel H (2024) Environmental DNA metabarcoding reliably recovers arthropod interactions which are frequently observed by video recordings of flowers. Environmental DNA 6. https://doi.org/10.1002/edn3.550
  • Thomsen PF, Sigsgaard EE (2019) Environmental DNA metabarcoding of wild flowers reveals diverse communities of terrestrial arthropods. Ecology and Evolution 9: 1665–1679. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4809
  • Vamos EE, Elbrecht V, Leese F (2017) Short coi markers for freshwater macroinvertebrate metabarcoding. Metabarcoding and Metagenomics 1. https://doi.org/10.3897/mbmg.1.14625
  • Wagner DL, Grames EM, Forister ML, Berenbaum MR, Stopak D (2021) Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118: e2023989118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023989118
  • Westphal C, Bommarco R, Carré G, Lamborn E, Morison N, Petanidou T, Potts SG, Roberts SPM, Szentgyörgyi H, Tscheulin T, Vaissière BE, Woyciechowski M, Biesmeuer JC, Kunin WE, Settele J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs 78: 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1292.1
  • Zeale MRK, Butlin RK, Barker GLA, Lees DC, Jones G (2011) Taxon-specific PCR for DNA barcoding arthropod prey in bat faeces. Molecular Ecology Resources 11: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2010.02920.x