Testing the efficacy of artificial flowers as a novel attractant for automated pollinator monitoring
Abra AshiD, Stephen Henry HallettiD, Claire CarvelliD, Leon WilliamsiD, Tom AugustiD
Abstract
Insect camera traps are a rapidly developing technology, enabling automated monitoring of insects. However, little has been reported on improving the attractants used for daytime flying insects on such cameras. This study compares the attractiveness of novel, 3D printed, artificial flowers with traditional methods of attracting insects (e.g. pan traps and solid coloured paper squares). We hypothesised that artificial flowers would attract a higher abundance and diversity of insects compared to traditional attractants by more accurately mimicking flowers. Additionally, we examined colour preference and average landing duration on the attractants. Artificial flowers, dry pan traps and paper squares, painted in yellow, white, or blue ultraviolet fluorescent paint, were filmed simultaneously to observe wild insect behavioural responses (landings and approaches). The results indicate overall preference for artificial flowers over the two traditional attractants when considering all insect groups together, and overall colour preferences for blue and yellow. When analysing insect groups separately, hoverflies preferred landing on artificial flowers over the other attractants. Bumblebees preferred approaching artificial flowers, and small insects preferred landing and approaching artificial flowers over the other attractants. Other flies preferred landing on pan traps and paper over artificial flowers. Hoverflies, small insects, wasps, and solitary bees responded more to yellow than the other colours, while bumblebees responded more to blue. Comparisons of landing durations revealed that hoverflies spent longer on the artificial flowers than paper. Other flies spent longer on the pan traps and paper. These results show that artificial flowers could offer an efficient attractant for insect camera traps as they attracted a higher abundance of key pollinating insects (hoverflies and bumblebees), and do not have worse attraction rates for the other insect groups (excluding other flies).
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Field percentile
- 46th percentile
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Insect Detect: An open-source DIY camera trap for automated insect monitoring
Maximilian Sittinger, Johannes Uhler, … Annette Herz·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Apr 3, 2024
- Utilising affordable smartphones and open-source time-lapse photography for monitoring pollinators
Valentin Ştefan, Aspen Workman, … Tiffany M. Knight·Journal of Pollination EcologyPeer-reviewed·Jan 10, 2025
- PolliCrop: A high-throughput computer vision pipeline for pollinator monitoring in agroecosystems
Stan Chabert, Jordan Bernigaud-Samatan, … Nicolas Langlade·bioRxiv·Jul 17, 2026
- Flower visitation through the lens: Exploring the foraging behaviour of Bombus terrestris with a computer vision-based application
Zsófia Varga‐Szilay, Gergely Szövényi, Gábor Pozsgai·InsectsPeer-reviewed·Sep 22, 2024
- Development and evaluation of a low-cost, automated camera trap for surveying bumble bee communities
Michael P Getz, Lincoln R. Best, … Timothy L. Warren·Remote Sensing in Ecology and ConservationPeer-reviewed·Jul 28, 2026
- A deep learning pipeline for time-lapse camera monitoring of insects and their floral environments
Kim Bjerge, Henrik Karstoft, … Toke T. Høye·Ecological InformaticsPeer-reviewed·Oct 31, 2024