ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2024
Delivering on a promise: futureproofing automated insect monitoring 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Due to rapid technological innovations, the automated monitoring of insect assemblages comes within reach. However, this continuous innovation endangers the methodological continuity needed for calculating reliable biodiversity trends in the future. Maintaining methodological continuity over prolonged periods of time is not trivial, since technology improves, reference libraries grow and both the hard- and software used now may no longer be available in the future. Moreover, because data on many species are collected at the same time, there will be no simple way of calibrating the outputs of old and new devices. To ensure that reliable long-term biodiversity trends can be calculated using the collected data, I make four recommendations: (1) Construct devices to last for decades, and have a five-year overlap period when devices are replaced. (2) Construct new devices to resemble the old ones, especially when some kind of attractant (e.g. light) is used. Keep extremely detailed metadata on collection, detection and identification methods, including attractants, to enable this. (3) Store the raw data (sounds, images, DNA extracts, radar/lidar detections) for future reprocessing with updated classification systems. (4) Enable forward and backward compatibility of the processed data, for example by in-silico data 'degradation' to match the older data quality. 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.