Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bibliometric science-mapping analysis reveals taxonomic bias and shifting genomic themes in stingless bees, highlighting the need for broader phylogenetic coverage.
Background/Objectives: Stingless bees (tribe Meliponini) are the most species-rich group of eusocial bees and critical pollinators across tropical ecosystems. Over the past seven decades, a growing number of studies have addressed their genetics and genomics, but coverage of the tribe remains taxonomically and geographically uneven. Here, we present a systematic evidence map and bibliometric science-mapping synthesis of this literature. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science, retained 410 peer-reviewed articles published between 1950 and 2026, and applied structural topic modeling (STM) to characterize the thematic, temporal, taxonomic, and biogeographic structure of the corpus. Results: STM with K = 10 topics identified ten research themes, ranging from classical marker-based genetics and cytogenetics to phylogenomics, mitochondrial genomics, microbiome, and functional genomics. The estimated prevalence of phylogenomics/taxonomy and mitogenomics increased most steeply in recent years, a publication pattern consistent with—although not proof of—a shift toward genome-scale comparative approaches. Topic prevalence differed across biogeographic regions and subtribes: Neotropical and Meliponina-dominated studies were concentrated in population genetics, cytogenetics, and gene expression, whereas Indo-Australasian and Hypotrigonina-associated studies showed higher relative representation of DNA barcoding, mitogenomics, and microbiome research. Taxonomic representation was strongly skewed toward a few genera, with Melipona alone accounting for 43% of the corpus and most lineages across the Meliponini phylogeny remaining poorly studied. Conclusions: The principal contribution is a reproducible quantitative map of publication patterns; proposed research and conservation priorities are evidence-informed interpretations rather than direct outputs of STM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marques et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: