Back

Testing the efficacy of artificial flowers as a novel attractant for automated pollinator monitoring

Ash, A.; Hallett, S.; Carvell, C.; Williams, L.; August, T.

2026-01-23 ecology
10.64898/2026.01.23.698111 bioRxiv
Show 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).

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.6%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.5%
3
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
4
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Economic Entomology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
6
Ecological Entomology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
7
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
8
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.9%
9
Integrative And Comparative Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
10
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
12
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.3%
13
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
15
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
17
Parasites & Vectors
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
18
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
19
Biology Letters
66 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
20
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
22
Journal of Insect Physiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%