Testing the efficacy of artificial flowers as a novel attractant for automated pollinator monitoring

Abstract Insect camera traps are a rapidly developing technology, enabling automated monitoring of insects. However, little has been reported on improving the attractants used for daytime flying insects on such cameras. This study compares the attractiveness of novel, 3D printed, artificial flowers with traditional methods of attracting insects (e.g. pan traps and solid coloured paper squares). We hypothesised that artificial flowers would attract a higher abundance and diversity of insects compared to traditional attractants by more accurately mimicking flowers. Additionally, we examined colour preference and average landing duration on the attractants. Artificial flowers, dry pan traps and paper squares, painted in yellow, white, or blue ultraviolet fluorescent paint, were filmed simultaneously to observe wild insect behavioural responses (landings and approaches). The results indicate overall preference for artificial flowers over the two traditional attractants when considering all insect groups together, and overall colour preferences for blue and yellow. When analysing insect groups separately, hoverflies preferred landing on artificial flowers over the other attractants. Bumblebees preferred approaching artificial flowers, and small insects preferred landing and approaching artificial flowers over the other attractants. ‘Other flies’ preferred landing on pan traps and paper over artificial flowers. Hoverflies, small insects, wasps, and solitary bees responded more to yellow than the other colours, while bumblebees responded more to blue. Comparisons of landing durations revealed that hoverflies spent longer on the artificial flowers than paper. ‘Other flies’ spent longer on the pan traps and paper. These results show that artificial flowers could offer an efficient attractant for insect camera traps as they attracted a higher abundance of key pollinating insects (hoverflies and bumblebees), and do not have worse attraction rates for the other insect groups (excluding ‘other flies’). Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.