ArticleScientific reports2024
Quantifying effectiveness and best practices for bumblebee identification from photographs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computer Vision for Monitoring Wild Bees and Wasps: A Structured Literature Review.Ecology and evolution · 2026Review
- Bee monitoring by community scientists: comparing a collections-based program with iNaturalist.Annals of the Entomological Society of America · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding pollinator networks requires species level data on pollinators. New photographic approaches to identification provide avenues to data collection that reduce impacts on declining bumblebee species, but limited research has addressed their accuracy. Using blind identification of 1418 photographed bees, of which 561 had paired specimens, we assessed identification and agreement across 20 bumblebee species netted in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota by people with minimal training. An expert identified 92.4% of bees from photographs, whereas 98.2% of bees were identified from specimens. Photograph identifiability decreased for bees that were wet or matted; bees without clear pictures of the abdomen, side of thorax, or top of thorax; bees photographed with a tablet, and for species with more color morphs. Across paired specimens, the identification matched for 95.1% of bees. When combined with a second opinion of specimens without matching identifications, data suggested a similar misidentification rate (2.7% for photographs and 2.5% specimens). We suggest approaches to maximize accuracy, including development of rulesets for collection of a subset of specimens based on difficulty of identification and to address cryptic variation, and focused training on identification that highlights detection of species of concern and species frequently confused in a study area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.