ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2026
Evaluation of BugBox, a software platform for AI-assisted bioinventories of arthropods.
Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why we need more individual-based parasite research.Parasites & vectors · 2026Review
- Evaluation of BugBox, a software platform for AI-assisted bioinventories of arthropods.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Article
- Invertebrate community composition in dominant agroecosystems of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and North Dakota.Annals of the Entomological Society of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has the potential to revolutionize entomology and biodiversity research, allowing entomologists to address biodiversity questions on a larger scale than ever before. A new software program, called BugBox, has been developed to facilitate large-scale arthropod bioinventories. BugBox uses an AI algorithm to rapidly classify arthropods from specimen photographs and calculates per-sample diversity indices from its classifications. We evaluated the performance of the AI algorithm over three consecutive training cycles by comparing the AI's classifications to identifications conducted by a human expert. We also used both AI and human data to separately test the hypothesis that regenerative agricultural practices increase arthropod biodiversity in a bioinventory from North American rangelands. BugBox demonstrated substantial improvement in all test metrics over the three cycles as it was allowed to incorporate the human expert's corrections into each new model version (e.g. f1 score improved from 0.523 to 0.722 over the four consecutive model versions). AI classifications were strongly correlated with human identifications, and the AI drew the same conclusion as the human data when comparing diversity indices (Hill numbers): both found evidence that regenerative practices increased arthropod diversity. These results demonstrate that, while the AI was less accurate than the human, it was still able to provide useful surrogate data at scale very rapidly. It can also improve over time under the guidance of human expertise. This technology has profound implications for the scalability of entomological science.
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.