Back

PolliCrop: A high-throughput computer vision pipeline for pollinator monitoring in agroecosystems

Chabert, S.; Bernigaud-Samatan, J.; Blackman, B. K.; Blanchet, N.; Catrice, O.; Donnadieu, C.; Gani, M.; Grousset, R.; Husband, S.; Tueux, G.; Erler, S.; Langlade, N. B.

2026-07-13 animal behavior and cognition
10.64898/2026.07.08.737348 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Flower-visiting insect populations are declining since the 1990s, especially because of the decrease of floral resources in agricultural settings. Mass flowering crops can help increase resource availability, and plant breeding can be directed towards selecting varieties attracting more flower-visiting insects. This requires the implementation of an automated high-throughput phenotyping tool for assessing the attractiveness of plant genotypes to flower-visiting insects. In this study, (i) we present a procedure to take standardized images of sunflower heads with camera traps continuously at day and night in the field; (ii) we trained two versions of a deep learning model, named PolliCrop, to automatically detect and identify three classes of the main insects visiting sunflower on these images (non-Bombus bees, bumble bees, lepidopterans); (iii) we assessed and validated the ability of PolliCrop to correctly predict the true visitation frequencies of the insect classes on three sunflower genotypes; (iv) we presented two statistical approaches to compare the insect visitation frequencies between plant genotypes, one including weather variables, and the other one without. One PolliCrop version yielded satisfying performance to correctly detect the three insect classes. In particular, it correctly predicted the insect visitation frequencies on two sunflower genotypes in a range of {+/-}10%. The other PolliCrop version can be useful in certain contexts of images and objectives. PolliCrop can be extended in the future to other crop species by training PolliCrop on new images captured in these crops. The field experimental design to set up for comparing the attractiveness between genotypes is also discussed.

Matching journals

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

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 5%
29.4%
2
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
13.1%
3
Insects
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 12%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 8%
4.5%
6
Ecological Informatics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
7
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.5%
8
Plant Methods
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
9
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
10
Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
11
Plant Phenomics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
12
Journal of Neuroscience Methods
122 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
13
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.2%
14
Behavior Research Methods
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
16
Biology
45 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
17
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
18
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
19
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
49 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
22
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
23
Neural Networks
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
24
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%