Different bee-flower survey methods impact conservation recommendations: comparing citizen science and academic surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting diverse and abundant flowering plants in cities is essential to counteract the decline in wild bee diversity due to urbanisation. To support effective conservation, it is crucial to identify which flowers best enhance wild bee abundance and species richness. This requires large datasets and robust analytical tools. Here, we use a plant selection tool developed by M’Gonigle et al. (2016), which recommends flower mixes that maximise pollinator species richness based on visitation data. We analysed bee-flower interaction data from the Brussels Capital Region (Belgium), comparing two contrasting sources: (1) citizen science records and (2) standardised academic surveys. We evaluated the bipartite networks of these datasets and their combination and generated optimised flower mixes from each using the plant selection tool. Our results show that dataset composition and inherent biases strongly influence outcomes. The bipartite networks differed substantially (compositional difference = 0.86), mainly due to rewiring of bee-flower interactions (0.69). Consequently, the flower mixes derived from each dataset overlapped by only 7% when optimising for species richness. The combined dataset network more closely resembled the citizen science data (WN = 0.106) than the academic survey data (WN = 0.590). These findings highlight the substantial impact of data collection methods on ecological recommendations. Awareness of such biases is essential for making sound, evidence-based conservation decisions. To support wider application, we developed a free app that allows users to create flower mixes optimized for pollinator abundance, species richness, or both, using our dataset or their own.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".