Ancel V., Bellocchi G., Berben G., Bertheau Y., Brera C., De Giacomo M., Janssen E., Kobilinsky A., Kozjak P., Macarthur R., Miraglia M., Onori R., Pia M., Papazova N., Rutar R., Taverniers I., Šuštar Vozlic J. (2009) GMO sampling strategies in the food and feed chain. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on GM and non-GM supply chains: their coexistence and traceability. Paris, France. 2-5 June 2009. pp. 35-37.Google Scholar
Bellocchi G., Ermolli M., Savini C., van den Eede G. (2009) GMO testing methods: analytical approaches, method validation and sampling strategy. In: Cauvain S., Young L. (Eds.) The ICC handbook of cereals, flour, dough & product testing: methods and applications. DEStech Publication. Lancaster, PA, USA. pp. 279-289.Google Scholar
Bobis O., Marghitas L. A., Rakosy-Tican E. (2012) Incidence of Pollen from Genetically Modified Plants in Bee Products - A Review. Bulletin UASVM Animal Science and Biotechnologies 6(9): 1-2.Google Scholar
Brodmann P. (2008) DNA extraction from different matrices. Molecular Biology Methods for Traceability Purposes. In: TRACE dissemination workshop. BFR.Google Scholar
Berlin, Germany. 18-19 December 2008. Available at: http://trace.eu.org/ws/berlin/Day1-05-DNA-extraktion. pdf Broothaerts W., Corbisier P., Matayron G., Mazoua S., Schimmel H., Trapmann S., Vincent S., Emons H. (2008) A single nucleotide polymorphism in the adh1 reference gene affects the quantitation of GM maize. 1st Global Conference on GMO analysis.Google Scholar
Como, Italy. 27 June 2008. JRC - European Commission. Available at: http://gmoglobalconference.jrc. ec.europa.eu/2008/Presentations/Broothaerts.pdf Bryant V. M., Jones G. D. (2001) The R-Values of Honey: Pollen Coefficients. Palynology 25: 11-28. DOI: 10.1080/01916122.2001.9989554CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheng H., Jin W., Wu H., Wang F., You C., Peng Y., Jia S. (2007) Isolation and PCR Detection of Foreign DNA Sequences in Bee Honey Raised on Genetically Modified Bt (cry 1Ac) Cotton. Food and Bioproducts Processing 85(2): 141-145. DOI: 10.1205/ fbp06056Google Scholar
Chaouachi M., El Malki R., Berard A., Romaniuk M., Laval V., Brunel D., Bertheau Y. (2008a) Development of a real-time PCR method for the differential detection and quantification of four solanaceae in GMO analysis: potato (Solanum tuberosum), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), eggplant (Solanum melongena), and pepper (Capsicum annuum). Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56(6): 1818-28. DOI: 10.1021/jf073313n Chaouachi M., Fortabat M. N., Geldreich A., Yot P., Kerlan C., Kevdani N., Audeon C., Romaniak M., Bertheau Y. (2008b) An accurate real-time PCR test for the detection and quantification of cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV): applicable in GMO screening. European Food Research and Technology 227: 789-798. DOI: 10.1007/s00217-007-0787-5CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chaouachi M., Alaya A., Ali I.B., Hafsa A. B., Nabi N., Bérard A., Romaniuk M., Skhiri F., Saïd K. (2013) Development of real-time PCR method for the detection and the quantification of a new endogenous reference gene in sugar beet “Beta vulgaris L.”: GMO application. Plant Cell Report 32(1): 117-28. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-012-1346-5CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ciabatti I., Froiio A., Gatto F., Amaddeo D., Marchesi U. (2006) In-house validation and quality control of real-time PCR methods for GMO detection: a practical approach. Developments in Biologicals (Basel) 126: 79-86; discussion 324-5.Google Scholar
Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey. Official Journal of the European Communities 10, 12.1.2002: 47-52.Google Scholar
Court of Justice of the European Union (2011) Judgemment in Case C-442/09 Karl Heinz Bablok and Others v Freistaat Bayern. Press release No 79/1. Luxemburg. 6 September 2011. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=CELEX:32001L0110:EN:HTML Davison J. (2011) Honey-free Europe. Available at: http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/1/39/38/37/ Honey-free-Europe_John_Davison_Nov15-2001. pdf Dobbelaere W., de Graaf D. C., Peeters J. E., Jacobs F. J. (2001) Development of a fast and reliable diagnostic method for American foulbrood disease (Paenibacillus larvae subsp. larvae) using a 16S rRNA genebased PCR. Apidologie 32: 363-370. DOI: 10.1051/ apido:2001136CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eichner C. (2011) Honey analysis in Lower Saxony. In: International Workshop on the consequences of the ECJ judgement on GM pollen in honey for GM crops and releases and cultivation in Germany and the EU. Berlin, Germany. 13-14 December 2011. Avaliable at: www.brasilapicola.com.br/files/honeyanalysis- in-lower-saxony.pdf European Coexistence Bureau (2013) Summary of conclusions of the Sixth Plenary meeting of the Technical Working Group for Maize. Ref. Ares (2013)42162 - 14/01/2013. 9 pp.Google Scholar
European Commission (2004) Recommendation 2004/787/EC. Commission Recommendation of 4 October 2004 on technical guidance for sampling and detection of genetically modified organisms and material produced from genetically modified organisms as or in products in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003Text with EEA relevance. Official Journal L 34, 24/11/2004. p. 18.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010) Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops (2010/C 200/01). Official Journal C 200, 22/07/2010. p. 1.Google Scholar
European Commission (2012a) Food: Commission proposes clearer rules on status of pollen in honey. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ IP-12-992_en.htm European Commission (2012b) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0530:FIN:EN:PDF Google Scholar
European Commission (2013a) Short Term Outlook for EU arable crops, meat and dairy markets. 20 pp. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ markets-and-prices/short-term-outlook/pdf/summer-2013_en.pdf Google Scholar
European Commission (2013b) Daily News of 2013-11-06. MEX/13/1106. Available at: http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_MEX-13-1106_en.htm European Food Safety Authority Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (2011) Scientific opinion: Statement on the safety of MON 810 maize pollen occurring in or as food. EFSA Journal 2011: 9(11): 24-34.Google Scholar
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (2013) Clarifying the Status of Pollen in Honey: Substitute Impact Assessment of EC Directive Amending Council Honey Directive 2001/110/ EC. 66 pp. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa. eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/514066/ IPOL-JOIN_ET%282013%29514066_EN.pdf European Union Reference Laboratory for GM Food and Feed (2012) Verification Report on the extraction and analysis of GM pollen DNA in honey. 30 pp. Available at: http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/ GM_Honey_REPORT_EUR-25524-EN.pdf Fernandez I., Ortiz P. L. (1994) Pollen contamination of honey by bees inside the hive. Grana 33: 282-285. DOI: 10.1080/00173139409429011CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Filodda F. (2011) Honey Market in Europe. Honig- Verbande.V. Available at: http://www.apinews.com/ pdf/apimondia2011/economy/honey_market_in_ europe-frank_filodda.pdf German Standard DIN 10742: 2011-06 (2011) DIN 10742. Analysis of honey - Guideline for sampling. German Standard DIN 10760:2002 (2002) Determination of the relative pollen content of honey.Google Scholar
Grohmann L., Brünen-Nieweler C., Nemeth A., Waiblinger H. U. (2009) Collaborative trial validation studies of real-time PCR-based GMO screening methods for detection of the bar gene and the ctp2-cp4epsps construct. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57(19): 8913-8920. DOI: 10.1021/jf901598r Hofmann F., Epp R., Kalchschmid A., Kratz W., Kruse L., Kuhn U., Maisch B., Müller E., Ober S., Radtke J., Schlechtriemen U., Schmidt G., Schröder W., von der Ohe W., Vögel R., Wedl N., Wosniok W. (2010) Monitoring of Bt-Maize pollen exposure in the vicinity of the nature reserve Ruhlsdorfer Bruch in northeast Germany 2007 to 2008. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 22: 229-251. DOI: 10.1007/s12302-010-0133-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holst-Jensen A., De Loose M., Van den Eede G. (2006) Coherence between legal requirements and approaches for detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their derived products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54: 2799-2809. DOI: 10.1021/jf052849a James C. (2012) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/ GM Crops: 2011. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief No. 43. ISAAA: Ithaca. NY. 36 pp.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James C. (2013) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/ GM Crops: 2012. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief No. 44. ISAAA: Ithaca. NY. 18 pp.Google Scholar
Kluga L., Folloni S.,Van den Bulcke M., Van den Eede G., Querci M. (2012) Applicability of the “Real-Time PCR-Based Ready-to-Use Multi-Target Analytical System for GMO Detection” in processed maize matrices. European Food Research and Technology 234(1): 109-118. DOI: 10.1007/s00217-011-1615-5CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lanzelotti P. (2011) Implementation of the ECJ judgement in the honey market practice: a technical study. In: International Workshop on the consequences of the ECJ judgement on GM pollen in honey for GM crops and releases and cultivation in Germany and the EU. Berlin, Germany. 13-14 December 2011.Google Scholar
Laube I., Hird H., Brodmann P., Ullmann S., Schone- Michling M., Chisholm J., Broll H. (2010) Development of primer and probe sets for the detection of plant species in honey. Food Chemistry 118: 979-986. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.09.063CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linkiewicz A., Wisniewska I., Sowa S. (2006) Molecular analysis in detection and identification of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Biotechnologia 3(74): 44-52.Google Scholar
Lipiński Z., Farjan M., Żółltowska K., Polaczek B. (2008) Effects of dietary transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis maize pollen on hive worker honeybees. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 17(6): 957-961.Google Scholar
Louveaux J., Maurizio A., Vorwohl G. (1970) Methods of Melissopalynology. Bee World 51: 125-131.Google Scholar
Louveaux J., Maurizio A., Vorwohl G. (1978) Methods of Melissopalynology. Bee World 59(4): 139-157.Google Scholar
Mano J., Harad M., Takabatake R., Furui S., Kitta K., Nakamura K., Akiyama H., Teshima R., Noritake H., Hatano S. (2012) Comprehensive GMO detection using real-time PCR array: single-laboratory validation. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 95(2): 508-516. DOI: 10.5740/ jaoacint.11-388CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maurizio A. (1951) Untersuchungen über den Einfluss der Pollenernährung und Brutpflege und die Lebensdauer und den physiologischen Zustand der Bienen. In: Report of the XIVth International Beekeeping Congress. Leamington Spa, UK. p. 320.Google Scholar
Messean A., Angevin F., Gomez-Barbero M., Menrad K., Rodríguez Cerezo E. (2006) New case studies on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops in European agriculture. Technical Report Series of the Joint Research Center of the European Commission EUR 22102 En. 112 pp.Google Scholar
Nowakowski J., Morse R. (1982) The behaviour of honey bees in sweet corn fields in New York state. American Bee Journal 122: 13-16.Google Scholar
Olivieri C., Marota I., Rollo F., Luciani S. (2012) Tracking Plant, Fungal, and Bacterial DNA in Honey Specimens. Journal of Forensic Sciences 57(1): 222-227. DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01964.x Paoletti C., Donatelli M., Kay S., Van den Eede, G. (2003) Simulating kernel lot sampling: the effect of heterogeneity on the detection of GMO contaminations. Seed Science and Technology 31: 629-638.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piazza M. G., Persano Oddo L. (2004) Bibliographical review of the main European unifloral honeys. Apidologie 35 (Suppl. 1): 94-111. DOI: 10.1051/ apido:2004046CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piccini C., D’Alessandro B., Antunez K., Zunino P. (2002) Detection of Paenibacillus larvae subspecies larvae spores in naturally infected bee larvae and artificially contaminated honey by PCR. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 18: 761-765.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pla M., La Paz J. L., Peñas G., García N., Palaudelmàs M., Esteve T., Messeguer J., Melé E. (2006) Assessment of real-time PCR based methods for quantification of pollen-mediated gene flow from GM to conventional maize in a field study. Transgenic Research 15(2): 219-28. DOI: 10.1007/s11248-005-4945-x Prabucki J. (Ed.) (1998) Pszczelnictwo. Wydawnictwo promocyjne „Albatros”. Szczecin. 900 pp. Querci M., Foti N., Bogni A., Kluga L., Broll H., Van den Eede G. (2009) Real-Time PCR-Based Ready-to- Use Multi-Target Analytical System for GMO Detection. Food Analytical Methods 2(4): 325-336. DOI: 10.1007/s12161-009-9093-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Regulation No. 834/2007/EC of European Commission of 28 June 2007 on organic production. Official Journal L 189/1, 20.7.2007. p. 1.Google Scholar
Regulation No. 889/2008/EC of European Commission of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. Official Journal L 250, 18.9.2008. p. 1.Google Scholar
Regulation No 1829/2003/EC of European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Office Journal of the European Union L 268/1, 18.10.2003. p. 1.Google Scholar
Regulation No 1830/2003/EC of European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Office Journal of the European Union L 268/1, 18.10.2003. p. 24.Google Scholar
Ricciardelli d’Albore G. (1997) Textbook of melissopalynology. Apimondia Publishing House. Bucharest. 308 pp.Google Scholar
Roulston T. H., Cane J. H., Buchmann S. L. (2000) What governs protein content of pollen: pollinator preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny? Ecological Monographs 70(4): 617-643. DOI: 10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070[0617:WGPCOP]2 .0.CO;2CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabugosa-Madeira B., Abreu I., Ribeiro H., Cunha M. (2007) Bt Transgenic maize pollen and silent poisoning of the hive. Journal of Apicultural Research 46(1): 57-58. DOI: 10.3896/IBRA.184.108.40.206CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer R. W. (1988) Honey identification. University College Cardiff Press. Cardiff, UK. 115 pp.Google Scholar
Schiemann J. (2011) European measures on coexistence and experiences with their implementation. In: International Workshop on the consequences of the ECJ judgement on GM pollen in honey for GM crops and releases and cultivation in Germany and the EU. Berlin, Germany. 13-14 December 2011.Google Scholar
Schnell B. I., Fraser M., Willerslev E., Gilbert M. P. T. (2010) Characterisation of insect and plant origins using DNA extracted from small volumes of bee honey. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 2: 107-116. DOI: 10.1007/s11829-010-9089-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scholdberg T. A., Burton D. D., Jenkins G. R. (2008) Identification of Suitable Endogenous Control Genes in Applications for Quantification of Biotechnology- Derived Traits in Maize Using Real-Time qPCR. In: 1st Global Conference on GMO analysis. Como, Italy. 24-27 June 2008. Avaliable at: http://gmoglobalconference. jrc.ec.europa.eu/2008/Posters/T.2.33%20Google Scholar
Scholdberg.pdf Scholtens I. M., Kok E. J., Hougs L., Molenaar B., Thissen J. T., van der Voet H. (2010) Increased efficacy for in-house validation of real-time PCR GMO detection methods. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 396(6): 2213-2227. DOI: 10.1007/s00216-009-3315-6CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stawiarz E., Wróblewska A. (2010) Melissopalynological analysis of multifloral honeys from the Sandomierska Upland area of Poland. Journal of Apicultural Science 54(1): 65-75.Google Scholar
Ustawa z dnia 9 listopada 2012 o nasiennictwie. Dz.U. z 2012 poz. 1512.Google Scholar
Von der Ohe W., Oddo L. P., Piana M. L., Morlot M., Martin P. (2004) Harmonized methods of melissopalynology. Apidologie 35(Suppl. 1): S18-S25. DOI: 10.1051/apido:2004050CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waiblinger H.-U., Ohmenhaeuser M., Meissner S., Schillinger M., Pietsch K., Goerlich O., Mankertz J., Lieske K., Broll H. (2012) In-house and interlaboratory validation of a method for the extraction of DNA from pollen in honey. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit 7(3): 243-254. DOI: 10.1007/s00003-012-0765-0CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wróblewska A. (2002) Rośliny pożytkowe Podlasia w świetle analizy pyłkowej produktów pszczelich Rozprawy Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej w Lublinie 264: 1-83.Google Scholar
Wróblewska A., Warakomska Z., Kamińska M. (2010) The pollen spectrum of bee bread from the Lublin region (Poland). Journal of Apicultural Science 54(2): 81-89.Google Scholar
Wysocka A. (2009) Próba oceny oddziaływania pyłku transgenicznej kukurydzy MON 810 na pszczołę miodną (Apis mellifera L.). M.A. thesis. Dąbrowski Z. T. (supervisor) University of Life Sciences. Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. Warsaw.Google Scholar
Žel J., Milavec M., Morisset D., Plan D., Van den Eede G., Gruden K. (2012) How to Reliably Test for GMOs. Springer Briefs in Food, Health, and Nutrition. 95 pp. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-1390-5_1 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Almost two decades ago, Stillman & Flenley (1996) published a concise consideration of the needs of palynology, many of which they envisaged could be satisfied by partial or complete automation. Their ideas were presented largely from a Quaternary palaeoecological perspective; however, the majority of potential benefits highlighted are highly relevant to the other fields of pollen analysis. These needs and benefits fall into four key areas, summarized in Table 1. These needs persist today in most areas of palynology, and if anything are stronger than ever before. Any technique that can improve the speed, efficiency and volume of material processed in research is obviously advantageous. An automated system has the potential to not only save time and money, but also open up further opportunities to propel pollen-based research in directions that would not otherwise be possible.
|Volume||• More pollen grains counted per sample|
|• More samples counted per ‘batch’ (e.g. increased temporal resolution for vegetation reconstructions or airborne pollen samples, or increased replicates for Pollen production or pollen biology studies)|
|• More sites sampled (where relevant)|
|Speed/time||• Generate data sooner|
|• Generate data more efficiently, reduce labour hours|
|Objectivity and consistency||• Reduce intra- and inter-analyst biasing|
|• Improve consistency across all levels of pollen analysis, including within individual samples (intra-analyst), within a suite of samples from the same site (typically intra-analyst), between suites of samples from different sites projects (most likely inter-analyst) etc.|
|Taxonomic resolution||• Increased precision in pollen based vegetation reconstructions|
|• Applications in ‘alpha taxonomy’ (MacLeod et al., 2010)|
Since the late 1960s, when Flenley (1968) first highlighted the need for automated palynology, many groups have made attempts at automating some component of the aspect of palynology concerned with quantifying and/or identifying pollen grains within some form of sample. Table 2 presents a selected summary of known published work representing various attempts at partial or complete automation of palynology. Typically, each attempt has been prompted by a technological advance which has offered new potential for grasping the ‘holy grail’ of palynology.
|Bechar et al. (1997)||x||1||Image processing (RL)||Plant biology|
|Li & Flenley (1999)||x||4||Image processing (TL)||NN||General palynology||100%|
|France et al. (2000)||x||x||3||Image processing (TL)||NN||General Palynology||c. 82%|
|Parker et al. (2000)||x||x||6||LAMS||Multivariate patch algorithm||Aerobiology|
|Boucher et al. (2002)||x||x||4||Image processing (TL)||Aeropalynology||77%|
|Ronneberger et al. (2002)||x||26||Image processing (FL)||SVM||Aeropalynology||92–97%|
|Li et al. (2004)||x||4 – 13||Image processing (TL)||LDA, NN||General palynology||100%|
|De Sa-Otero et al. (2004)||x||x||3||Image processing (TL)||MDC||Aeropalynology||> 86%|
|Treloar et al. (2004)||x||12||Image processing (TL)||General palynology||81–100%|
|Zhang et al. (2004)||x||5||Image processing (TL)||NN||General palynology||> 97%|
|Chun et al. (2006)||x||3||Image processing (TL)||many||Aeropalynology||97%|
|Ileva et al. (2005)||4||Raman microscopy||many||Aeropalynology|
|Allen (2006); Holt et al. (2011)||x||x||6||Image processing (DF)||NN||General palynology|
|Kawashima et al. (2007)||x||x||3||Laser scattering||Scatter plots||Aeropalynology||0.8|
|Costa & Yang (2009)||x||2||Image processing (RL)||Plant biology||86%|
|Dell'Anna et al. (2009)||x||11||FT-IR||k-nearest neighbour, hierarchical cluster analysis||Aeropalynology||84%|
|Mitsumoto et al. (2009)||x||x||9||Flow cytometry & FL||Aeropalynology|
|Ticay-Rivas et al. (2011)||x||17||Image processing (TL)||NN||Biodiversity, pollination biology||96%|
|Surbek et al. (2011)||x||8||Elastically scattered light||Aeropalynology||60–100%|
|Punyasena et al. (2012)||x||2||Image processing (FL)||Bias-optimisation||Quaternary palynology||> 93%|
|Kaya et al. (2013)||x||19||Image processing (TL)||Rough Set||Quaternary palynology and taxonomy||91%|
|Johnsrud et al. (2013)||x||3||Image processing (TL, FL & AP)||General palynology||97%|
|Dhawale et al. (2013)||x||10||Image processing (SEM)||NN||General palynology||85%|
|Hoshimiya (2013)||x||x||1||Photoacoustic imaging||Aeropalynology|
|Nguyen et al. (2013)||x||9||Image processing (TL)||Adaptive boosting||General palynology||92%|
At the time of publication of Stillman & Flenley (1996), progress with automated systems was largely limited to efforts using computer-based texture analysis to classify a limited number of pollen types (Mirkin & Bagdasaryan, 1972; Witte, 1988; Langford et al., 1990; Vezey & Skvarla, 1990). Images used were typically sourced from either a light microscope or a scanning electron microscope, and the classifiers were either statistical or machine learning. Since the start of the 21st century, there has been acceleration in the amount of research directed at automating palynology. The strategy of image processing of microscope images combined with a statistical or machine learning classifier has been prominent among this more recent research, but other techniques have also been employed. These include fluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry, photoacoustic microscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, Raman miscroscopy, fourier-transform infra-red (FTIR), laser ablation mass spectrometry (LAMS) and elastically scattered light.
Given the wealth of research and development accomplished since the publication of Stillman & Flenley (1996), are we any further along in being able to satisfy the goals that they presented?
Taxonomic diversity and volume
The existing studies on automated classification cited by Stillman & Flenley (1996) had only attempted to classify a maximum of six pollen types. This number was regarded, rightly, as being too small to realistically represent the complexity of pollen counting. Stillman & Flenley (1996) suggested that any automated system would need to be able to classify c. 40 types to be useful (in Quaternary palaeoecology). Despite this, Table 2 shows that only limited progress has been made in extending the number of classes an automated system can cope with. Out of all attempts published post-1996, over 50% have worked with ≤ 6 taxa. Only seven have attempted classification of 10 or more types. Many of the systems are proof-of-concept, whereby the aim was to see if it was even possible to classify pollen by the chosen method, but more progress towards higher numbers of classes might have been expected by now.
Obviously, success rates are also important but, interestingly, they are only loosely correlated with the number of pollen types across these studies. In general it is expected that success rate would be inversely proportional to the number of taxa, as identifying more types (and the more individuals) brings greater opportunities for misclassifications. The highest success rates (100%) have been achieved using image processing combined with a neural network classifier, with a maximum of 13 pollen types (Li et al., 2004). Although this classifies more pollen types than the majority of systems in Table 1, it is still much lower than Stillman & Flenley's (1996) target. Impressive results were produced by Ronneberger et al. (2002), who classified 26 different types of pollen at 92% success rate. More recently, Ticay-Rivas et al. (2011) have achieved even better success rates (>94%) in a 17-type pollen set.
Although 17–26 taxa are an improvement on the 1996 maximum of six, we are still far from the target of 40. Despite this shortcoming, it is possible that within a few years, if not already, automated palynology systems could be applied to certain tasks which will improve the volume of material processed and extend the range of questions addressed, even if the number of identifiable types remains relatively low. Some of these tasks are simple, but are often particularly time-consuming for the human palynologist. Examples include large counts (> 10 000 grains) of a few pollen types, and/or a large number of samples (> 1000) for a low number of taxa. This facility would be useful in fields of palynology where simple information on pollen abundance/and concentration (regardless of taxon) is needed (e.g. melissopalynology and pollination biology). It may also be useful when working with samples where the analyst is interested only in counting certain key taxa/indicator taxa.
Stillman & Flenley (1996) commented on the need to improve the speed of pollen counting, mostly because of the costs involved. However, minimizing the time it takes to generate datasets obviously contributes to enhancing the rate at which discoveries can be made and reducing time to publication. In terms of progress with speed, it is too early to make firm statements, as few of the systems in Table 2 make any comment on the speed at which counting and classification takes place. In many cases the image processing and classification may, in fact, be quick, but if the capture of the images must be done manually, then there is still some time involved here. Also, because so many of these systems are experimental and may not cope with appropriate numbers of pollen types, and are not yet directly applicable, their current speed is irrelevant. Ideal automated systems could be operated 24/7, providing a potential gain in time for a project over human systems by nearly an order of magnitude (168 h wk−1 for an automated system, 5 d of 4 h each for a human analyst).
In the ideal situation, an automated system should also be faster than a human palynologist, in the sense of counting and classifying more grains per unit time. However, even if an automated system performs at the same speed as a human palynologist, or slower, it should still provide benefits in the time and money saved through the freeing of the palynologist for other tasks.
Higher taxonomic resolution
The need to enhance taxonomic resolution exists in virtually all fields of palynology, and is arguably stronger than ever before. For example, in palaeoecology it is well known that pollen of members of the same genus or even family often exhibit very little morphological variation (e.g. Poaceae), yet these taxa may have vastly different environmental requirements, and often limit the accuracy of palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. It is envisaged that higher taxonomic resolution would be facilitated by the potential for computer-based systems to be more sensitive than the human eye to subtle but systematic morphological variation. This technology is also being called for in general taxonomy and species identification as the volumes of material gathered for identification and taxonomic classification far exceed the capacity to perform the task (MacLeod et al., 2010; Gaston & O'Neill, 2011).
There has been progress in improving taxonomic resolution for problem pollen groups through improved microscopy techniques (Sivaguru et al., 2012), but these are difficult to apply in routine pollen counting. The automated systems, hitherto, have been applied on sets of morphologically distinctive types, usually from separate genera, if not separate families. However, Rodriguez-Damian et al. (2006), Punyasena et al. (2012) and Kaya et al. (2013) have attempted to differentiate between members of the same genus using different techniques, with successes of 89%, > 93% and > 90%, respectively. There is room for improvement here, but potential has been demonstrated for computer-based classifiers to differentiate between morphologically similar taxa, as well as morphologically distinct taxa.
Objectivity and consistency
The need for improved objectivity and consistency is crucial to all branches of science. Palynology is a highly skilled discipline, requiring patience, observation and an eye for detail. Human palynologists do their utmost to ensure that they are consistent, both in terms of the individual palynologist remaining consistent through time, and inter-analyst/inter-lab consistency, facilitated through the use of reference collections, databases and counting protocols (to minimise missing or re-counting grains). Yet there is still a degree of subjectivity in pollen counting – the ‘personal equation’ of Stillman & Flenley (1996). Further to this, inconsistency in the performance of the individual analyst can arise through issues like fatigue and over-familiarity with their samples (MacLeod et al., 2010). By its very nature, a machine-based system should be objective and consistent both in terms of individual performance and inter-system performance. Machines do not suffer from fatigue and cannot change their minds.
Consistency in performance of the system (i.e. repeatability) should be fundamental, but few reports have been published (but see Holt et al., 2011). Where repeatability has been assessed, machine systems have always been shown to be more consistent than human palynologists.
There is also potential for improved consistency across the discipline, currently an assumed but untested notion. It is expected to increase through removing the influence of the ‘personal equation’, and through the ability to standardize the reference material used as the basis of identification. In nearly all assessed systems (Table 2), classification is facilitated through comparison of ‘data’ that represent the unknown pollen type with equivalent ‘data’ obtained from known (cf. reference) pollen types. Human palynologists operate in the same way, except reference information is a mixture of books, databases and reference slides (of fresh or vouchered herbarium material). Reference slides are probably the best option, but the extent to which they can be shared is limited, with implications for consistency of identification. Automated systems have the potential to base their identifications on exactly the same reference data, shared electronically. Reference data (images) generated by systems located in labs across the world would be uploaded to a global database in a standardized file format, and a ‘master’ library or reference file for that taxon created, downloadable and usable by everyone for classification.
Automated systems can collect and store images of all grains located and classified. This offers the potential of recounting in the future, based on updated reference data, including the potential for finer discrimination, bringing older sites up to the same identification standard as current sites. This possibility scarcely exists at present, as few human analysts have the time or inclination to re-count older in preference to newer material. For very large projects, spread over many years, the possibility of maintaining all counts to the same standard regardless of when first analysed may provide a significant improvement in consistency across the whole dataset.
There has been clear progress towards developing automated palynology systems which will be able to address the needs in palynology described by Stillman & Flenley (1996). Other areas of potential benefit have also been highlighted. Current systems are still only halfway to the target of 40 taxa, but there has been considerable improvement on the 6 taxa classification problems. Attempts to classify morphologically similar types from the same family/genus have seen promising results. Speed and consistency are not yet of concern, as it does not matter whether systems are fast or consistent if the classification problems they are dealing with are not yet fully representative of ‘real-world’ problems.
What is the ideal system?
The automated systems in Table 2 were typically developed to target specific uses. While some could only be applied in their particular field, many are equally useful in others. Particularly attractive systems are considered to be those that could be universally adopted across the majority of fields of palynology and within all labs. Systems that can be applied to conventional preparations mounted on slides are also preferable, by offering the potential to apply the capacity for increased volume and enhanced taxonomic resolution retrospectively, by re-visiting and re-analysing existing archives of slides.
At face value, number of taxa classified and success rate would be the simplest metrics by which to judge the potential of a pollen counting system. Highest success rates have generally been achieved with a combination of image processing and a machine learning-based (neural network) classifier (i.e. Li et al., 2004; Ticay-Rivas et al., 2011). However, the highest number of taxa classified so far was achieved by Ronneberger et al. (2002), using processed images of fresh pollen collected through a combination of fluorescence and confocal microscopy. This combination is theoretically attractive as 3D volume images overcome issues with viewing angle, images are free from light noise (refraction/defraction) and the use of fluorescence helps distinguish pollen grains from nonbiological debris and isolates them from their background. Ronneberger et al. (2002) developed their system for an aeropalynological application, with the aim of coupling it to an automatic sampler to produce a real-time pollen monitor. This has now been realised, in the production of the MICROBUS bioaerosol monitor (see http://world-of-photonics.net/link/en/20250274). However, although use of fluoresence is a significant advance in the old problem of separating pollen and nonpollen, the MICROBUS system may not be suitable for automated analysis of pre-existing pollen slides prepared under different techniques/treatments.
Several of the other aeropalynology-focussed systems presented in Table 2 perform direct measurements, and count and classify the pollen continuously as it is drawn out of the air, using techniques such as flow cytometry and autofluorescence. These systems have obvious advantages for their targeted field (quick, real-time counts) but offer limited potential in other areas of palynology where counting and identification is typically slide-based. Airborne samples captured via more traditional methods (e.g. Hirst-type samplers; Hirst, 1952) and mounted on slides are storable and can be re-analysed at a later date where necessary. Such samples can potentially contribute to important research into the impact of climate change on flowering phenology and consequently allergenicity (Ziska et al., 2011). At present, however, the majority of flow-cytometry based systems do not offer the opportunity to (easily) retain and re-analyse airborne pollen samples, nor are these systems readily open to other fields where sample material is extracted from a medium other than air. While there is undoubtedly a pressing need for real-time pollen monitoring and reporting, there is currently still a place for ‘slide-based’ aeropalynology, so that airborne pollen samples can be relevant for more than just aeroallergen research.
If palynology generally is to remain largely slide-based, then it seems probable that the system that is most likely to satisfy the greatest range of needs will be one that combines automatic slide scanning with image processing routines to detect and locate pollen, as well as capturing morphological information from pollen grains, and then classifying them through some sort of artificial classifier.
Any system for automated palynology should, we suggest, be one which requires very little modification of existing techniques for collection and preparation of pollen samples, and should impart no new limitations to what can be done. For example, if a particular automated system were to require that absolutely no nonpollen debris were present in a sample for it to produce accurate results, then the time saved in counting would be absorbed or even exceeded in the extra preparation time needed to clean the samples. However, it may be that some compromises will need to be made to facilitate optimum results from a given system and these may not be too unreasonable. For example, changing the type of staining method used to facilitate better feature resolution in an image-processing based system.
Protocols and standards
The whole scientific system of obtaining, evaluating and publishing pollen analyses has developed by practice over a century or more. Automated pollen counts lack this accumulated authority, but any system, to be truly usable, needs to be acceptable to the scientific community, including editors and reviewers. This means establishing protocols to provide quality assurance.
Accuracy and reliability
The goal of such protocols should be to make automated counts at least as acceptable in scientific literature as human counts. Potential systems need to be thoroughly evaluated, their accuracy, precision and consistency assessed, and results of these evaluations published. Automated counts can then be used against a background of known limitations, in exactly the same way as the limitations of human counts are known and accepted. In reality, neither is nor will be perfect, but each represents an approach towards the true, but unknown, actual composition of a sample. Machine counts are more likely to reach these ‘true’ values simply through being able to obtain higher counts. As described by Maher (1980), the confidence interval narrows as the number of grains counted (n) increases. To halve the width of a confidence interval requires increasing n fourfold. This is of no consequence to a machine-based system, assuming material is available in ample supply.
The performance of a pollen counter (human or machine) can be broken down into two key aspects: finding the pollen grains (discriminating pollen from nonpollen), and identifying them (classification). Failure in one or both of these areas introduces error into the final results. Classification performance for machine systems is easy to assess. But what is an acceptable minimum rate of success for an artificial classifier? 100% is ideal, but arguably unrealistic. It is highly unlikely that an artificial classifier could be developed that would be 100% correct, 100% of the time, simply because it is most likely impossible to train for all possible appearances of a given taxon, particularly damaged or clumped grains. An accuracy of 95% is in our opinion a far more reasonable expectation. An ideal system would also be able to rate the strength of its classifications, with the results provided to the analyst for scrutiny. The analyst would neither need (nor want) to check the classification of every grain. However, a system with an average accuracy of 95% could provide only those 5% of images with the poorest classification strength values to the analyst for checking and reassignment to correct classes if necessary. For example a sample count of 500 grains would require that only 25 grains actually be examined by the analyst. Doubling or quadrupling the count would still only require 50–100 grains to be examined manually (in contrast to 2000 for the same degree of precision). Although this is a departure from complete automation (sensu stricto), it offers a degree of quality control that should be retained in palynology, particularly for instances where novel/unknown taxa occur.
Performance in the area of finding pollen grains is potentially more difficult to quantify accurately, depending on the nature of the system in use. The true challenge here lies in knowing what is present in a test sample in the first place. Human counts can provide a baseline, but have their own inherent errors (MacLeod et al., 2010). Precision manufacturing of designer test slides is a possible option here. But in practice, the best way of assessing accuracy and precision will likely be thorough comparison with human counts of the same material. However, as human counts are also < 100% accurate, human and machine counts of the same material are always likely to differ by some amount. The key is minimizing this difference. If a system can be shown to produce counts in which the difference between its counts and the human counts falls within the standard error of the sample counted, then it should be regarded as performing as accurately as a human palynologist, with the potential added benefit of narrower confidence intervals through increased counts.
Data handling protocols
Once a system has been suitably tested and adopted, protocols for data storage, handling and sharing will need to be followed. Reference images and image libraries should be shared globally, facilitating the realization of maximum objectivity and consistency, as previously discussed. These libraries need to be developed using consistent (or convertible) image file formats, so that all systems can share the same base reference material, contributing to the goal of increased consistency. The same libraries should also store the images collected from pollen counts, so that they can be re-run in the future, perhaps with improved hardware or software for analysis. All images collected (reference or otherwise) should be tagged with as much information as possible. This would include data produced through the counting and classification process (i.e. co-ordinates of object on slide, classification/ID, classification score), as well as a wealth of additional information which would vary depending on the type of sample the image is from (Table 3). Access to this information for what would eventually be millions of individual images would open the door to addressing many important research questions through simple database querying. An example of such a question is ‘how does pollen morphology vary through space and time?’ There have been reported instances of intraspecific variation in pollen morphology which could be related to geographic or temporal factors (Dajoz, 1999; Ejsmond et al., 2011) and, as suggested by Flenley (2003) using the example of Alnus, such cases may offer opportunities for using pollen morphology itself as an additional proxy for environmental change. Databases for pollen morphological information and imagery already exist (www.paldat.org; Bush & Weng, 2007), but image capture, data tagging and upload is very much a set of manual processes. Machine systems could do this automatically, for every grain in a sample if necessary, exponentially increasing the amount of data available for analysis.
Likely age of sample (e.g. from 14C dating)
Date of sample collection
Date of collection from hive
Time period honey produced over
|Date and time of collection||— — — — — —Date of collection— — — — — — —|
|Spatial info (lat., long., elevation)|
Sample site location
|Hive location||Sampler location||Plant/pollinator sample location||Plant location||Sample location|
|Preparation||— — — — — — — — — — — —Chemical treatments, mounting medium, staining— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —|
|Field- specific info (examples)||Sediment characteristics (peat, lake mud etc.)||Honey characteristics (monofloral, mixed, etc.)||Weather conditions during time sample collected||Pollinator type (bee, bird, etc.)||Herbarium info, voucher number|
Origin of sample
A protocol for publication of automatically generated pollen data is also required, which should enable exact repetition of the analysis through accessing the samples or images and libraries, and running with the same (or alternate) equipment and/or software. This would require providing basic information on the hardware and software used, along with reference library and sample information (Table 4), that would again, ideally be available as supplementary information. With respect to libraries upon which automatic identifications are based, images included in such libraries should all be independent (of different grains, not different views of the same grain), preferably including grains collected from a number of different flowers, plants and localities, and would be tagged with appropriate information (as per Table 3).
• Hardware used (manufacturer, version, serial numbers)
• Software used (developer, version)
• Details of the ‘library’ used as the basis for pollen identification, including:
• The number of images in the library
• Source information for each image (as per Table 3)
• Unique slide/sample identifiers
• Physical location of slides and residues
• Ideally, link to online repository where images/data from sample scans can be obtained
The automation of pollen counting appears now to be within reach. A system which is fast and can deal with an unlimited number of taxa, as well as broken, deformed and clumped pollen, is perhaps still some way off, but certain simple, time-consuming tasks can be carried out, with more complex problems addressed within the next few decades.
Automated systems should be treated as tools to maximise research capability, rather than to replace the human palynologist. They should allow the widening of the scope of pollen analysis into areas that the human palynologist cannot reach. But the ability for external accuracy checking by human analysts is a key feature of any such system (Holt et al., 2011). However, now is the time to begin thinking about the protocols that may need to be adopted in order to maximize the benefits offered by automated systems, particularly those in the realm of consistency.
We wish to thank three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which improved the manuscript.