
==== Front
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
RSTB
royptb
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
0962-8436
1471-2970
The Royal Society

10.1098/rstb.2023.0103
rstb20230103
10016069207Articles
Opinion Piece
Towards global insect biomonitoring with frugal methods
Towards global insect biomonitoring with frugal methods
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0586-664X
Brydegaard Mikkel Conceptualization Funding acquisition Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 1 2 3 4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5335-6313
Pedales Ronniel D. Conceptualization Data curation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 5 6 7
Feng Vivian Conceptualization Data curation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing 6 7
Yamoa Assoumou saint-doria Data curation Investigation Writing – review & editing 8
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-9609
Kouakou Benoit Data curation Formal analysis Writing – review & editing 8
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1767-6010
Månefjord Hampus Data curation Formal analysis Writing – review & editing 1
Wührl Lorenz Conceptualization Investigation Visualization Writing – review & editing 9
Pylatiuk Christian Conceptualization Funding acquisition Project administration Supervision Writing – review & editing 9
Amorim Dalton de Souza Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 10
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4452-2885
Meier Rudolf Conceptualization Funding acquisition Project administration Supervision Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing rudolf.meier@hu-berlin.de
6 7
1 Dept. Physics, Lund University, Sölvegatan 14c, 22362 Lund, Sweden
2 Dept. Biology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, 22362 Lund, Sweden
3 Norsk Elektro Optikk, Østensjøveien 34, 0667 Oslo, Norge
4 FaunaPhotonics, Støberi Støberigade 14, 2450 København, Denmark
5 Institute of Biology, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101
6 Center for Integrative Biodiversity Discovery, Museum für Naturkunde, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science, Invalidenstraße 43, 10115, Berlin, Germany
7 Institute of Biology, Humboldt University, 10115 Berlin, Germany
8 Instrumentation, Imaging and Spectroscopy Laboratory, Felix Houphouet-Boigny Institute, BP1093 Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast
9 Institute for Automation and Applied Informatics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
10 Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14040-901, Brazil
One contribution of 23 to a theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’.

24 6 2024 June 24, 2024
6 5 2024 May 6, 2024
6 5 2024 May 6, 2024
379 1904 Theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’ compiled and edited by Roel van Klink, Julie K. Sheard, Toke T. Høye, Tomas Roslin, Leandro A. Do Nascimento and Silke Bauer 2023010325 9 2023 September 25, 2023
24 1 2024 January 24, 2024
© 2024 The Authors.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

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’.

insect biomonitoring
, frugal science
, photonics
European Research Council http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000781 850463 Vetenskapsrådet http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004359 2018-04073 Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001807 2021/14092-0 cover-dateJune 24, 2024
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Of the 20 global biodiversity conservation targets for 2020 (Aichi Targets, United Nations), only six have been partially achieved (see [1]). At the same time, one-third of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (spanning from 2021 to 2030) has passed, and humanity is not even collecting enough data to identify areas in need of restoration. The available data indicate fast decline in biodiversity [2,3], but the information is biased because many biomonitoring programmes still prioritize the charismatic megafauna [4], while the biomass and diversity of arthropods are 100 times greater than that of all wild birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles combined [5]. Holistic biomonitoring undoubtedly has to include insects [6,7] but should not stop at bees and butterflies.

The taxon-biases in the available data are bad enough, but there is a second problem that is at least as serious. It is the failure to gather enough biodiversity data for those countries that are home to the largest number of species. In particular, the lack of data for most of the tropics is deeply worrying, because 14 of the 17 megadiverse countries are located in what is sometimes called the ‘Global South’ [8,9]. Many of these countries lack biodiversity baseline data, let alone biomonitoring capacity [10,11]. The full extent of the problem is unknown, but the Catalogue of Life (accessed 4 September 2023) lists 970 814 described species of insects in the world [12], although Stork [13] estimates that the number of insect species in the Afrotropical, Indo-Malayan, Neotropical and Oceanic regions alone exceeds 4 million. However, of the 163 million occurrence data points for insects in GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility: https://www.gbif.org/, accessed 11 September 2023) only 18.9% (31 million) pertain to these 17 megadiverse countries. Moreover, a mere 3.45% of GBIF's insect data (5.6 million) lie within the borders of the aforementioned 14 megadiverse countries. The root cause for this lack is a mixture of financial constraints, funding priorities and the high cost of data acquisition and analysis. The result is a disparity between capacity and data requirements for many biodiverse countries [14,15]. Of course, this problem is exacerbated when expensive biomonitoring methods and technologies are adopted because they divert funds away from more frugal options. In this opinion paper, we use examples from different fields to argue that insect biomonitoring will have to adopt frugal methods to achieve global reach.

2. Frugal science

All scientific methods need to yield accurate results, but only recently more attention has been paid to developing tools that also emphasize affordability, accessibility and sustainability (referred to as ‘frugal science’). Frugal science is urgently needed for the study of biodiversity because the knowledge gaps regarding ‘dark taxa’ alone are so vast that ‘non-frugal’ science is not an option. Indeed, more than 50% of all insect species in mass samples belong to taxa that are taxonomically neglected worldwide [16,17]. An example is phorid flies, for which a single Malaise trap placed in an African secondary forest can yield more than 650 species although only 466 species have been described for the entire Afrotropical region [17]. This means that we currently have dangerous knowledge gaps that will be difficult to fill without frugal methods. Unfortunately, these knowledge gaps tend to grow the closer one gets to the equator, but they are also a serious problem for all temperate and subtropical regions.

The development of frugal methods generally starts with an initial phase when existing instruments and methods are simplified using the mind-set of ‘low cost but good enough’ [18]. Frugal science thus tries to overcome the tendency of many researchers to confuse 'complicated' with 'sophisticated'. Indeed, there is evidence that innovation through subtraction is systematically overlooked in science [19]. This oversight artificially inflates the cost of science. In order for simplification to be successful, it is important that all methods and construction plans for equipment are open access. This is because collaborative development and modifications are facilitated when blueprints and part lists of a technology are comprehensively described. Another important aspect is the suitability of a technique for utilizing locally sourced equipment and consumables instead of imported goods. This is important because it empowers researchers to be independent and eliminates import-related costs and delays. Historically, such local sourcing often meant co-opting mass-produced parts that were initially produced for a different purpose. Examples are DNA purification and preservation with paper towels at room temperature [20,21], the use of an orbital shaker for size-sorting insect samples constructed from mostly household goods [22], or the use of tea strainers for the safe transport of Malaise trap samples [23], but nowadays co-option can be complemented with three-dimensional printing of purpose-built designs because three-dimensional printers are now ubiquitous.

Frugal approaches to insect biomonitoring are still underdeveloped, but several recent developments are opening the flood gates. As part of the open science movement, methods and equipment are described in more detail, which helps with applying innovation through subtraction. A second development is the boom in consumer electronics and affordable three-dimensional printing. Just consider photonics, where the consumer devices range from inexpensive laser pointers, laser printers and projectors to fibre routers and BlueRay DVD drives. Many of these devices include high-power lasers covering wavelengths from violet to infrared. Photodetectors can be found in routers, flatbed scanners and cameras integrated into smartphones and tablets. Such products can be scavenged for parts, hacked or used in their entirety, also making use of their auxiliary features such as GPS location and wireless data transmission. Creative use and hacking of advanced technology are getting increasingly feasible since enthusiasts can compare experiences, code and technical drawings in online forums such as YouTube, GitHub and Global Open Source Hardware initiatives (GOSH). In addition, designs can now be shared, modified and/or replicated [24] through three-dimensional printing and automated measurement systems can be designed using robotic kits such as LEGO Mindstorms, Raspberry Pi or Arduino. Whereas research groups in countries with high salary costs hesitate to spend on reverse engineering, researchers in other countries and enthusiasts in entomological societies are often ready to spend time instead of money.

3. Emerging technologies in insect biomonitoring: 1. Computer vision

Arguably, the frugal use of computer vision is the most promising of the technologies for insect biomonitoring [25]. Two reasons are the low cost and the ubiquitous availability of digital colour cameras in smartphones. This has already led to the development of many mobile phone apps for species recognition based on machine learning, such as Seek, Picture Insect and Google Lens. The potential is vast because image recognition can be combined with automated surveillance of flower patches [26] or light traps [27]. However, the algorithms are overwhelmingly trained for charismatic taxa occurring in the Northern temperate regions [28,29]; i.e. there tends to be a negative relationship between the species diversity of a region/taxon and the availability of trained algorithms. Overcoming these biases will be paramount to success, but likely require different strategies for charismatic and non-charismatic taxa. The latter have particularly high species numbers [16], but resolving species diversity and abundance will likely need a combination of images and inexpensive DNA barcodes obtained with new sequencing technologies for assigning the images to species-level units. It is here that the availability open-access camera systems is particularly important because they allow for applying DIY (Do it Yourself) principles. The newly developed ‘entomoscope’, for example [30], is a low-cost, open-source photomicroscope for taking high-resolution, focus-stacked images that are suitable for training AI algorithms (figure 1). The software and construction plans are open access, with the main body of the microscope being three-dimensional-printed. The remaining parts can be bought off-the-shelf or substituted by locally available parts. Entomoscopes were developed because both DIY and commercially available microscopes struggled with imaging specimens in ethanol, which is the most popular preservative for insect mass samples because it is widely available, inexpensive and preserves DNA. These samples are dominated by small hyperdiverse insect taxa [16] that needed an imaging solution. Imaging these insects can be combined with robotic specimen handling and focus stacking, which greatly increase the quality of the photographs [31,32]. Similarly, motorized cameras can be used to generate images from a sufficient number of angles to generate three-dimensional models for the purpose of quantitative morphological study [31,33]. Figure 1. Standalone entomoscope (left) and plug-in entomoscope (right) featuring a 12 MP low-cost camera (1) adaptable to various C-/CS-mount lenses (2) to accommodate specimens of different sizes. Specimens are positioned within a Petri dish, illuminated by a ring light at the periphery (3). Both entomoscopes are equipped with a linear stage (4) for precise focusing and focus stacking, allowing vertical camera movement [30]. Two images taken with an entomoscope are shown in the middle.

In comparison to imaging small specimens preserved in ethanol, the photography of larger and even living insects is well established and images are shared in large numbers on websites such as iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/). However, more data for charismatic insects could be obtained by further simplifying data acquisition and the introduction of game playing elements (gamification), allowing very active users to earn reward badges (see the Seek app developed by iNaturalist: https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/seek_app). To increase the number of observers, cost-effective open-source DIY digital microscopes can be built from two identical smartphones: the optics are salvaged from one and then placed in reverse in front of the other [34]. This ensures perfect 1:1 imaging from sample to the imaging chip at high resolution given that the pixel sizes in smartphones are typically below 2 µm. The instruments needed for three-dimensional modelling are not expensive, because this technique can yield inexpensive but detailed three-dimensional models of insects in ‘natural colours’ given that motorized automation can now use three-dimensional printing, Raspberry Pi and LEGO [35]. This could be a starting point for a real-world version of Pokémon Go (pocket monsters) originally invented by a Japanese media company. However, the gamification of insect biomonitoring requires careful planning because currently not even many charismatic tropical species can be identified with AI algorithms. This means that gamification must also cover species discovery, where photographing insects is followed by collecting vouchers for identification.

But why stop at only using the human spectral bands for biomonitoring insects? Insects perceive a very different world because they use up to six bands from UV to deep red [36], with some species also distinguishing polarizations [37]. With minimal effort, LEDs or laser diodes can be multiplexed [35] to capture insects using their own vision bands (figure 2a). And while we are at it, why not automate polarization and scatter angle [38,39]? Adding degrees of freedom to insect photography allows for the acquisition of millions of unique pictures (figure 2b). Entering the world of biophotonics allows for exploring insects' manipulation of light by nanofeatures (e.g. extreme black- and whiteness [40,41]), chirped mirrors in beetles displaying goldish appearance [42], iridescence and directional reflectance in butterflies [43] or circular dichroism by chiral nanostructures in beetles [44]. Surely recording the light-scattering from unstudied insect species in the tropics could lead not only to the discovery of new species but also to more appreciation and novel insights into how light can be manipulated. For example, light-scattering lobes from diffuse wings of moths can be associated with sub-resolution surface roughness. Inexpensive near-infrared photographs (figure 2c) allow for quantification of the equivalent absorption path length of melanin in insect cuticles. Similarly, spectral imaging of wing interference patterns (WIPs) can be done with inexpensive instruments [35] and the thickness of the chitin membrane can be quantified in each pixel [45] with a confidence interval in the order of 10 nm. It is conceivable that wing morphology [46] and quantitative WIPs patterns [47] alone would be sufficient for identifying particularly closely related insect species at a lower cost than alternative techniques such as DNA barcoding (figure 3). Figure 2. (a) Low-cost multispectral imaging of insects by LED multiplexing. (b) Adding dimensionality to insect scanning with a robotic LEGO® kit. (c) False colour near-infrared images allow quantification of the melanin and chitin pathlengths with nanometer precision, (d) Polarimetric imaging allow assessment of how many times the photons scatter in the sample, (e) Angular stages allow projection of insects from all sides or investigation of scattering lobes relating to nanofeatures such as surface roughness.

Figure 3. The diversity of hundreds of thousands oscillatory signals collected by lidar is expected to reflect the species richness. (a) Hierarchical clustering of 58 499 insect signals collected in a 145 m lidar transect over a rice field in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast. (b) Corresponding power spectra with within-group variance (grey lines) of each branch in the dendrogram in part (a). 'C' denotes the cluster number and 'N' denotes number of observations within the cluster.

4. Emerging technologies in insect biomonitoring: 2. Lidars and photonic sensors

Ideally, insect populations should be assessed continuously, at low cost, and without harming the populations. Unfortunately, motion blur makes photographing insects in flight challenging. Detecting and classifying insects during flight requires a different focus strategy such as the Scheimpflug principle [48,49] or post-focusing by digital holography [50]. Probably the best solution is relying on domains that do not defocus, such as oscillation frequencies, spectral wavelengths or light polarization. This can be surprisingly frugal, because wing beat frequencies can even be captured by the microphone of a smartphone. Indeed, this has been proposed for monitoring mosquitoes in the bedroom while the phone is charging [51]. Other insect taxa produce signals that can be acquired by connecting a photodiode with a transimpedance amplifier to the audio input of a recording device [52]. Soldering together these three components only costs a couple of dollars. For minimal costs, carrier frequencies or multiplexing can be implemented to remove background and measure backscatter in multiple wavelengths, for example to quantify melanization. For example, several companies have proposed insect monitoring and classification based on such wing beat sensors [53–56]. Considering a relative within-species spread of wingbeat frequency of approximately 25%, one could distinguish as many wingbeats as there are notes on a two-octave piano. Of course, thousands of species can coexist in a habitat, but they can conceivably be distinguished by overtones. Such optical overtones relate the nanometre wing interference (see above).

A particular frugal approach to optical monitoring of living insects in flight is to expand and collimate a laser diode to create a probe volume of hundreds of metres. With comparable low laser power of a couple of watts, light can be recycled metre after metre until it intercepts an insect. The backscattering from such an elongated probe volume can be sharply imaged onto a fast linear imaging chip by the Scheimpflug principle. In this way, hundreds of thousands of insects can be detected per day and classified according to their oscillatory properties. By making use of commercially available large optics from amateur astronomy, infrared laser diodes, linear digital cameras and 3D printed instrumentation [57], any enthusiastic hobbyist could build their own entomological lidar in a garage. Research-grade entomological lidar of varying complexity and numbers of bands have been deployed in biodiverse countries such as China [58], Tanzania [59], Ivory Coast [60], Ecuador [49], Colombia and the USA (Texas) [61]. The one-time cost of these systems is in the order of $10 000, but they can generate data continuously and at a very high rate. For example, 58 499 insect signals were detected over an Ivorian rice field in a single day (figure 3). The unique signals are found by hierarchical clustering [60] and some clusters, like C52 and C59 in figure 3b, can be associated with female and male mosquitoes, respectively. The cost per observation is 10 cents the first day and free for the following days. Lidar and photonics sensors are thus interesting frugal techniques for insect monitoring. All required information is open access and the equipment cost is manageable. However, widespread adoption will require user-friendly data analysis pipelines and more systematic matching between oscillatory lidar signals and species.

5. Emerging technologies in insect biomonitoring: 3. Genetic methods

Over recent decades, DNA barcoding and metabarcoding have revolutionized biomonitoring by adding molecular identification tools to the existing repertoire based on morphology [62]. Much information on the biodiversity of rich countries located in temperate regions has been collected [63–66], but mid- and low-income countries have been struggling [67]. For example, the Philippines is in the process of building a comprehensive DNA barcode database for its rich biodiversity to address pronounced taxonomic and spatial data biases [68,69]. However, the high cost of sequencing poses significant barriers [70] given that the cost of DNA barcoding including labour has been estimated to be $5 per sample in the USA [71], while it is $48 in the Philippines. Furthermore, all imported instruments and consumables are expensive owing to customs regulations, high shipping costs and reliance on local distributors who charge a premium [72].

Arguably, there is bad and good news with regard to frugal DNA-based biomonitoring methods. The bad news is that commercial sequencing technologies have high consumable costs, consumables have to be imported into most low- and mid-income countries and most sequencers have very high capital costs. None of this is likely to change unless one of the producers of sequencers were to decide to price according to income levels. The good news is that there are two obvious ways to avoid high sequencing cost in countries with high import tariffs. The first is sending samples abroad, but this generates undesirable dependencies and much paperwork. The second way is using techniques that do not require high read coverage for samples. We believe that this favours barcoding of individual specimens over metabarcoding of the DNA extracted from entire samples with thousands of specimens, given that the latter requires higher sequence coverages to accommodate body size differences. Fortunately, high-throughput barcoding of individual specimens (‘megabarcoding’ [73]) has become much more affordable because there are now frugal techniques that, for example, avoid DNA extraction, allow for multiplexing a very large number of samples on one flowcell and embrace affordable sequencers such as the MinION [74]. Furthermore, megabarcoding can become unnecessary over time because it allows for reaching a low-cost, sustainable state of insect biomonitoring; i.e. species identification based on images. For reaching this stage, specimens are first imaged (e.g. with a DIY microscope) and then barcoded. Image training sets for AI algorithms are then obtained by grouping the images according to putative species defined based on barcodes. Once trained, specimens belonging to many common species can be identified based on images and no longer have to be sequenced.

Many of the other costs associated with preparing samples for sequencing can also be dramatically reduced. There are DIY plans for building most of the required instruments. This includes thermocyclers and centrifuges [75], but also consumables such as racks [76] and enzymes [77]. Moreover, plastic consumables and agarose can be reused during megabarcoding because it is much less sensitive to contamination than metabarcoding. All of this is not only frugal but it also reduces the amount of waste generated by molecular labs [78]. Indeed, a rough estimate is that in 2014 approximately 5.5 million tonnes of plastic waste were generated by biological, medical or agricultural research laboratories [79]. Much of it was single-use plastics, although some consumables could have been reused [80,81]. Overall, it appears to us that molecular biomonitoring is currently far from being in line with the UN′s Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs; e.g. environmental, social and economic SDGs) and the development of frugal approaches is a must. To achieve this, we urgently need answers to a range of questions: How can the dependency on patented sequencing technologies be reduced? Why is there still so much use of plastic consumables and how can we promote the recycling of consumables? How can metabarcoding be made frugal given that it is such an important technique for so many purposes?

6. Conclusion

The widening gap in research capacity between countries with very different science funding [82] can only be overcome if more biomonitoring techniques are frugal. Research and technologies must be made accessible to more citizens and to empower communities and countries to manage their biodiversity. Particularly attractive will be identification apps using images taken by mobile phones. Particularly unattractive will be one-way practices such as shipping samples halfway across the globe and then paying for sample processing and voucher return (https://ccdb.ca/pricing/). Fortunately, frugal science and open access have the potential to alleviate dependency on well-equipped facilities abroad and pave the way for better international collaborations. However, one challenge will be hard to overcome even if all data acquisition methods have been made frugal. This is data analysis and AI model training, which require expensive software and significant computational resources. There are few free options (e.g. Google Colaboratory) but they have tight usage limits. Popular paid platforms such as Amazon Web Services are expensive and require reliable high-throughput internet connections that are often unavailable in areas with particularly high biodiversity. High-income countries should start supporting initiatives that generate access to data management and analysis infrastructure. At least as important will be the creation of training programmes in data analysis.

Acknowledgments

We thank our collaborators for their efforts in the field and for fruitful discussions: Klas Rydhmer, Meng Li, Rabbi Boateng, Yatana Adolphe Gbogbo, Andrew Atiogbe Huzortey, Cesar Costa, Victor Santos, Zhicheng Xu.

Data accessibility

This article has no additional data.

Declaration of AI use

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors' contributions

M.B.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; R.D.P.: conceptualization, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; V.F.: conceptualization, data curation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; A.S.-D.Y.: data curation, investigation, writing—review and editing; B.K.K.: data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing; H.M.: data curation, formal analysis, writing—review and editing; L.W.: conceptualization, investigation, visualization, writing—review and editing; C.P.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, writing—review and editing; D.S.A.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; R.M.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

We thank the following funding agencies. R.D.P. is funded by a DAAD Research Grant (doctoral programmes in Germany). M.B. was funded by the European Research Council (ERC grant no. 850463), H.M. by the Swedish Research Council (VR: grant no. 2018-04073), B.K.K. and A.S.-D.Y. by the International Science Programme (Uppsala, Sweden) and Swedish International Developing Aid (SIDA). M.B. also acknowledges support from the Royal Physiographic Society in Lund and D.S.A. from the FAPESP, grant no. 2021/14092-0.
==== Refs
References

1. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020 Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal, Canada: Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat.
2. Almond REA, Grooten M, Juffe Bignoli D, Petersen T (eds). 2022 Living planet report 2022. Building a nature-positive society. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.
3. Díaz S et al . 2019 Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat.
4. Donaldson MR, Burnett NJ, Braun DC, Suski CD, Hinch SG, Cooke SJ, Kerr JT. 2016 Taxonomic bias and international biodiversity conservation research. Facets 1 , 105-113. (10.1139/facets-2016-001)
5. Bar-On YM, Phillips R, Milo R. 2018 The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 115 , 6506-6511. (10.1073/pnas.1711842115)29784790
6. Grodsky SM, Iglay RB, Sorenson CE, Moorman CE. 2015 Should invertebrates receive greater inclusion in wildlife research journals? J. Wildl. Manage. 79 , 529-536. (10.1002/jwmg.875)
7. McGeoch MA et al. 2011 Conservation and monitoring of invertebrates interrestrial protected areas. Koedoe: African Protected Area Conserv. Sci. 53 , 1-13. (10.4102/koedoe.v53i2.1000)
8. Mittermeier RA, Goettsch Mittermeier C. 1997 Megadiversity: Earth's biologically wealthiest nations. San Pedro Garza García, Mexico: Cemex.
9. Finance Center for South-South Cooperation Organization in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the United Nations. 2015 Global South Countries (Group 77 and China). See http://www.fc-ssc.org/en/partnership_program/south_south_countries.
10. Amano T, Lamming JD, Sutherland WJ. 2016 Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience 66 , 393-400. (10.1093/biosci/biw022)
11. Hochkirch A et al. 2021 A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 502-509. (10.1111/cobi.13589)32656858
12. Bánki O et al. 2023 Catalogue of life checklist (v. 2023-08-17). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Catalogue of Life.
13. Stork NE. 2018 How many species of insects and other terrestrial arthropods are there on Earth? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63 , 31-45. (10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348)28938083
14. Evans DM et al. 2012 Funding nature conservation: who pays? Anim. Conserv. 15 , 215-216. (10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00550.x)
15. McNeely JA, Paul Weatherly W. 1996 Innovative funding to support biodiversity conservation. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 23 , 98-124. (10.1108/03068299610121741)
16. Srivathsan A et al. 2023 Convergence of dominance and neglect in flying insect diversity. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 1012-1021. (10.1038/s41559-023-02066-0)37202502
17. Srivathsan A, Hartop E, Puniamoorthy J, Lee WT, Kutty SN, Kurina O, Meier R. 2019 Rapid, large-scale species discovery in hyperdiverse taxa using 1D MinION sequencing. BMC Biol. 17 , 1-20. (10.1186/s12915-019-0706-9)30616566
18. Hossain M. 2017 Mapping the frugal innovation phenomenon. Technol. Soc. 51 , 199-208. (10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.006)
19. Adams GS, Converse BA, Hales AH, Klotz LE. 2021 People systematically overlook subtractive changes. Nature 592 , 258-261. (10.1038/s41586-021-03380-y)33828317
20. Zou Y, Mason MG, Wang Y, Wee E, Turni C, Blackall PJ, Trau M, Botella JR. 2017 Nucleic acid purification from plants, animals and microbes in under 30s. PLoS Biol. 15 , e2003916. (10.1371/journal.pbio.2003916)29161268
21. Özdemir D. 2021 A practical, low-cost, short-term storage method for genomic DNA. Biotechniques 70 , 194-201. (10.2144/btn-2020-0158)33749333
22. Buffington M, Gates M. 2008 The Fractionator: a simple tool for mining ‘Black Gold’. Skaphion 2 , 1-4.
23. Schweizer T, Wanke D, Haas M, Krogmann L. 2020 Biodiversi-TEA—A quick and easy handling method for arthropod trap material in ethanol. Zootaxa 4731 , 275-278. (10.11646/zootaxa.4731.2.7)
24. Zhang C, Anzalone NC, Faria RP, Pearce JM. 2013 Open-source 3D-printable optics equipment. PLoS ONE 8 , e59840. (10.1371/journal.pone.0059840)23544104
25. Van Klink R et al. 2022 Emerging technologies revolutionise insect ecology and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37 , 872-885. (10.1016/j.tree.2022.06.001)35811172
26. Bjerge K, Alison J, Dyrmann M, Frigaard CE, Mann HM, Høye TT. 2023 Accurate detection and identification of insects from camera trap images with deep learning. PLOS Sustain. Transform. 2 , e0000051. (10.1371/journal.pstr.0000051)
27. Bjerge K, Nielsen JB, Sepstrup MV, Helsing-Nielsen F, Høye TT. 2021 An automated light trap to monitor moths (Lepidoptera) using computer vision-based tracking and deep learning. Sensors 21 , 343. (10.3390/s21020343)33419136
28. Hochmair HH, Scheffrahn RH, Basille M, Boone M. 2020 Evaluating the data quality of iNaturalist termite records. PLoS ONE 15 , e0226534. (10.1371/journal.pone.0226534)32365126
29. Callaghan CT et al. 2021 Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. BioScience 71 , 55-63. (10.1093/biosci/biaa131)
30. Wührl L, Rettenberger L, Meier R, Hartop E, Graf J, Pylatiuk C. 2024 Entomoscope: An Open-Source Photomicroscope for Biodiversity Discovery. IEEE Access 12 , 11 785-11 794. (10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3355272)
31. Ströbel B, Schmelzle S, Blüthgen N, Heethoff M. 2018 An automated device for the digitization and 3D modelling of insects, combining extended-depth-of-field and all-side multi-view imaging. ZooKeys 759 , 1. (10.3897/zookeys.759.24584)
32. Wührl L, Pylatiuk C, Giersch M, Lapp F, Von Rintelen T, Balke M, Schmidt S, Cerretti P, Meier R. 2022 DiversityScanner: Robotic handling of small invertebrates with machine learning methods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 22 , 1626-1638. (10.1111/1755-0998.13567)34863029
33. Nguyen CV, Lovell DR, Adcock M, La Salle J. 2014 Capturing Natural-Colour 3D Models of Insects for Species Discovery and Diagnostics. PLoS ONE 9 , e94346. (10.1371/journal.pone.0094346)24759838
34. Salido J, Bueno G, Ruiz-Santaquiteria J, Cristobal G. 2022 A review on low-cost microscopes for Open Science. Microsc. Res. Tech. 85 , 3270-3283. (10.1002/jemt.24200)35879870
35. Månefjord H et al. 2022 A biophotonic platform for quantitative analysis in the spatial, spectral, polarimetric, and goniometric domains. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93 , 113709. (10.1063/5.0095133)36461456
36. Warrant EJ, Nilsson DE. (eds) 2006. Invertebrate vision. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Heinloth T, Uhlhorn J, Wernet MF. 2018 Insect responses to linearly polarized reflections: orphan behaviors without neural circuits. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 12 , 50. (10.3389/fncel.2018.00050)29615868
38. Vukusic P, Stavenga D. 2009 Physical methods for investigating structural colours in biological systems. J. R. Soc. Interface 6 , S133-SS48. (10.1098/rsif.2008.0386.focus)19158009
39. Li M, Jansson S, Runemark A, Peterson J, Kirkeby CT, Jönsson AM, Brydegaard M. 2020 Bark beetles as lidar targets and prospects of photonic surveillance. J. Biophotonics 14 , e202000420. (10.1002/jbio.202000420)33249777
40. Vukusic P, Sambles J, Lawrence C. 2004 Structurally assisted blackness in butterfly scales. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271 , S237-S239. (10.1098/rsbl.2003.0150)
41. Burresi M, Cortese L, Pattelli L, Kolle M, Vukusic P, Wiersma DS, Steiner U, Vignolini S. 2014 Bright-white beetle scales optimise multiple scattering of light. Sci. Rep. 4 , 6075. (10.1038/srep06075)25123449
42. Seago AE, Brady P, Vigneron J-P, Schultz TD. 2008 Gold bugs and beyond: a review of iridescence and structural colour mechanisms in beetles (Coleoptera). J. R. Soc. Interface 354 , 20. (10.1098/rsif.2008.0354.focus)
43. Berthier S, Charron E, Boulenguez J. 2006 Morphological structure and optical properties of the wings of Morphidae. Insect Sci. 13 , 145-158. (10.1111/j.1744-7917.2006.00077.x)
44. Arwin H, Magnusson R, Landin J, Järrendahl K. 2012 Chirality-induced polarization effects in the cuticle of scarab beetles: 100 years after Michelson. Philos. Mag. 92 , 1583-1599. (10.1080/14786435.2011.648228)
45. Li M, Runemark A, Hernandez J, Rota J, Bygebjerg R, Brydegaard M. 2023 Discrimination of hover fly species and sexes by wing interference signals. Adv. Sci. 10 , 2304657. (10.1002/advs.202304657)
46. Salcedo MK, Hoffmann J, Donoughe S, Mahadevan L. 2019 Computational analysis of size, shape and structure of insect wings. Biol. Open 8 , bio040774. (10.1242/bio.040774)31628142
47. Li M, Runemark A, Guilcher N, Hernandez J, Rota J, Brydegaard M. 2022 Feasibility of Insect Identification Based on Spectral Fringes Produced by Clear Wings. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 29 , 1-8. (10.1109/JSTQE.2022.3218218)
48. Brydegaard M, Malmqvist E, Jansson S, Larsson J, Török S, Zhao G. 2017 The Scheimpflug Lidar Method. In Proc. SPIE 10406. Lidar remote sensing for environmental monitoring 2017, San Diego, CA, 30 August 2017, pp. 104-120. SPIE. (10.1117/12.2272939)
49. Santos V, Costa-Vera C, Rivera-Parra P, Burneo S, Molina J, Encalada D, Salvador J, Brydegaard M. 2022 Dual-band Infrared Scheimpflug lidar reveals insect activity in an Ecuadorian cloud forest. Appl. Spectrosc. 77 , 593-602. (10.1177/00037028231169302)
50. Hall ML, Gleave K, Hughes A, Mccall P, Towers CE, Towers DP. 2022 The application of digital holography for accurate three-dimensional localisation of mosquito-bednet interaction. Light: Adv. Manufact. 3 , e20. (10.37188/lam.2022.020)
51. Sinka ME et al. 2021 HumBug–An Acoustic Mosquito Monitoring Tool for use on budget smartphones. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12 , 1848-1859. (10.1111/2041-210X.13663)
52. Moore A, Miller RH. 2002 Automated identification of optically sensed aphid (Homoptera: Aphidae) wingbeat waveforms. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 95 , 1-8. (10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0001:AIOOSA]2.0.CO;2)
53. Rydhmer K et al. 2022 Automating insect monitoring using unsupervised near-infrared sensors. Sci. Rep. 12 , 1-11. (10.1038/s41598-022-06439-6)34992227
54. Johnson BJ, Weber M, Al-Amin HM, Geier M, Devine GJ. 2023 Automated differentiation of mixed populations of free-flying female mosquitoes under semi-field conditions. Sci. Rep. 14 , 3494 . (10.1038/s41598-024-54233-3)
55. Rigakis II, Varikou KN, Nikolakakis AE, Skarakis ZD, Tatlas NA, Potamitis IG. 2021 The e-funnel trap: Automatic monitoring of lepidoptera; a case study of tomato leaf miner. Comp. Electron. Agric. 185 , 106154. (10.1016/j.compag.2021.106154)
56. Welsh TJ, Bentall D, Kwon C, Mas F. 2022 Automated Surveillance of Lepidopteran Pests with Smart Optoelectronic Sensor Traps. Sustainability 14 , 9577. (10.3390/su14159577)
57. Månefjord H et al. 2022 3D-Printed Fluorescence Hyperspectral Lidar for Monitoring Tagged Insects. IEEE JSTQE 28 , 1-9. (10.1109/JSTQE.2022.3162417)
58. Malmqvist E et al. 2018 The bat–bird–bug battle: daily flight activity of insects and their predators over a rice field revealed by high resolution Scheimpflug Lidar. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5 , 172303. (10.1098/rsos.172303)29765679
59. Jansson S, Malmqvist E, Mlacha Y, Ignell R, Okumu F, Killeen G, Kirkeby C, Brydegaard M. 2020 Real-time dispersal of malaria vectors in rural Africa monitored with lidar. PLoS ONE 16 , e0247803. (10.1371/journal.pone.0247803)
60. Kouakou BK, Jansson S, Brydegaard M, Zoueu JT. 2020 Entomological Scheimpflug lidar for estimating unique insect classes in-situ field test from Ivory Coast. OSA Continuum 3 , 2362-2371. (10.1364/OSAC.387727)
61. Li Y, Han Z, Nessler R, Yi Z, Hemmer P, Brick R, Sokolov AV, Scully MO. 2023 Optical multiband polarimetric modulation sensing for the identification of gender and species of native solitary pollinators in flight. iScience 26 , 108265. (10.1016/j.isci.2023.108265)38026192
62. Desalle R, Goldstein P. 2019 Review and interpretation of trends in DNA barcoding. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 302. (10.3389/fevo.2019.00302)
63. Buchner D et al. 2023 German-wide Malaise trap metabarcoding estimates over 33,000 insect species. bioRxiv [Preprint] 2023.05.04.539402. ( 10.1101/2023.05.04.539402 )
64. Weigand H et al. 2019 DNA barcode reference libraries for the monitoring of aquatic biota in Europe: Gap-analysis and recommendations for future work. Sci. Total Environ. 678 , 499-524. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.247)31077928
65. Morinière J et al. 2016 Species identification in malaise trap samples by DNA barcoding based on NGS technologies and a scoring matrix. PLoS ONE 11 , e0155497. (10.1371/journal.pone.0155497)27191722
66. Hajibabaei M, Baird DJ, Fahner NA, Beiko R, Golding GB. 2016 A new way to contemplate Darwin's tangled bank: how DNA barcodes are reconnecting biodiversity science and biomonitoring. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371 , 20150330. (10.1098/rstb.2015.0330)27481782
67. Da Silva JM, Willows-Munro S. 2016 A review of over a decade of DNA barcoding in South Africa: a faunal perspective. Afr. Zool. 51 , 1-12. (10.1080/15627020.2016.1151377)
68. Fontanilla IKC, Torres AF, Cañasa J, Yap SL, Ong PS. 2014 State of animal DNA barcoding in the Philippines: a review of COI sequencing of Philippine native fauna. Philippine Sci. Lett. 7 , 104-137.
69. Berba CMP, Matias AMA. 2022 State of biodiversity documentation in the Philippines: Metadata gaps, taxonomic biases, and spatial biases in the DNA barcode data of animal and plant taxa in the context of species occurrence data. PeerJ. 10 , e13146. (10.7717/peerj.13146)35341040
70. Stein ED, Martinez MC, Stiles S, Miller PE, Zakharov EV. 2014 Is DNA barcoding actually cheaper and faster than traditional morphological methods: results from a survey of freshwater bioassessment efforts in the United States? PLoS ONE 9 , e95525. (10.1371/journal.pone.0095525)24755838
71. Cameron S, Rubinoff D, Will K. 2006 Who will actually use DNA barcoding and what will it cost? Syst. Biol. 55 , 844-847. (10.1080/10635150600960079)17060204
72. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2021 UNCTAD annual report. New York, NY: United Nations.
73. Chua PYS, Bourlat SJ, Ferguson C, Korlevic P, Zhao L, Ekrem T, Meier R, Lawniczak MKN. 2023 Future of DNA-based insect monitoring. Trends Genet. 39 , 531-544. (10.1016/j.tig.2023.02.012)36907721
74. Srivathsan A, Lee L, Katoh K, Hartop E, Kutty SN, Wong J, Yeo D, Meier R. 2021 ONTbarcoder and MinION barcodes aid biodiversity discovery and identification by everyone, for everyone. BMC Biol. 19 , 1-21. (10.1186/s12915-021-01141-x)33407428
75. Poór VS. 2022 A low-cost and open-source mini benchtop centrifuge for molecular biology labs. HardwareX. 12 , e00328. (10.1016/j.ohx.2022.e00328)35770242
76. Custom-Lab Institute. 2023 The Custom-Lab Institute: Customizable and Affordable Lab-Equipment. See https://customlabinstitute.wordpress.com/.
77. Chen S, Zheng X, Cao H, Jiang L, Liu F, Sun X. 2015 A simple and efficient method for extraction of Taq DNA polymerase. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 18 , 343-346. (10.1016/j.ejbt.2015.08.001)
78. Aragaw TA, Mekonnen BA. 2022 Understanding disposable plastics effects generated from the PCR testing labs during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Hazard. Mat. Adv. 7 , 100126. (10.1016/j.hazadv.2022.100126)
79. Urbina MA, Watts AJ, Reardon EE. 2015 Labs should cut plastic waste too. Nature 528 , 479. (10.1038/528479c)
80. Clancy M, Wade IS, Young JJ. 2023 Facile methods for reusing laboratory plastic in developmental biology experiments. Differentiation 130 , 1-6. (10.1016/j.diff.2022.11.001)36434825
81. Alves J, Sargison FA, Stawarz H, Fox WB, Huete SG, Hassan A, Mcteir B, Pickering AC. 2021 A case report: insights into reducing plastic waste in a microbiology laboratory. Access Microbiol. 3 , 000173. (10.1099/acmi.0.000173)34151149
82. Zhang L, Yang L, Chapman CA, Peres CA, Lee TM, Fan P-F. 2023 Growing disparity in global conservation research capacity and its impact on biodiversity conservation. One Earth 6 , 147-157. (10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.003)
