ArticleApplications in plant sciences
Effectiveness of interval photography cameras for a survey of pollinator communities: Comparison with direct observation.
Article in Applications in plant sciences. 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.
- Effectiveness of interval photography cameras for a survey of pollinator communities: Comparison with direct observation.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
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
Premise: Pollinator communities have been surveyed through direct observation, which is labor intensive and difficult for monitoring nocturnal pollinators. Interval photography surveys are increasingly used, although the resulting data from pollinator community surveys have rarely been validated. Methods: We surveyed a pollinator community using both interval photography and direct observation and compared the two methods for differences in identification accuracy, pollinator composition, and number of pollinator visits detected. Results: Compared to direct observation, the species-level identification rate of pollinators using interval photography was significantly lower, although the order-level identification remained comparable. The number of pollinator observations was highly correlated between interval photography and direct observation, regardless of flower shape or pollinator groups. A longer observation period using interval photography (10 h), despite fewer observable flowers per camera, could yield a comparable or even greater number of pollinator observations than a much shorter period of direct observation (15 min). Discussion: Although interval photography has limitations for species-level identification, it could be a powerful tool for surveying pollinator communities at higher taxonomic levels (e.g., order), including nocturnal pollinators, with reduced labor requirements and without human presence censuses.
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.