ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
Towards global insect biomonitoring with frugal methods.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balancing Barcoding and Genomics: gDNA Quality in Insect Vouchers After HotSHOT DNA Extraction.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Lidar reveals distinct insect daily activity and diversity between habitats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Deadliest Animals with the Thinnest Wings: Near-Infrared Properties of Tropical Mosquitoes.Applied spectroscopy · 2025Article
- "Dark taxonomy": A new protocol for overcoming the taxonomic impediments for dark taxa and broadening the taxon base for biodiversity assessment.Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society · 2025Article
- Sharing insect data through GBIF: novel monitoring methods, opportunities and standards.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
None of the global targets for protecting nature are currently met, although humanity is critically dependent on biodiversity. A significant issue is the lack of data for most biodiverse regions of the planet where the use of frugal methods for biomonitoring would be particularly important because the available funding for monitoring is insufficient, especially in low-income countries. We here discuss how three approaches to insect biomonitoring (computer vision, lidar, DNA sequences) could be made more frugal and urge that all biomonitoring techniques should be evaluated for global suitability before becoming the default in high-income countries. This requires that techniques popular in high-income countries should undergo a phase of 'innovation through simplification' before they are implemented more broadly. We predict that techniques that acquire raw data at low cost and are suitable for analysis with AI (e.g. images, lidar-signals) will be particularly suitable for global biomonitoring, while techniques that rely heavily on patented technologies may be less promising (e.g. DNA sequences). We conclude the opinion piece by pointing out that the widespread use of AI for data analysis will require a global strategy for providing the necessary computational resources and training. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring'.
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.