PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Successes and limitations of pretrained YOLO detectors applied to unseen time-lapse images for automated pollinator monitoring.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Ștefan, V.* ; Stark, T.* ; Wurm, M.* ; Taubenbock, H.* ; Knight, T.M.*

Successes and limitations of pretrained YOLO detectors applied to unseen time-lapse images for automated pollinator monitoring.

Sci. Rep. 15 (2025)

Publ. Version/Full Text

DOI

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

Pollinating insects provide essential ecosystem services, and using time-lapse photography to automate their observation could improve monitoring efficiency. Computer vision models, trained on clear citizen science photos, can detect insects in similar images with high accuracy, but their performance in images taken using time-lapse photography is unknown. We evaluated the generalisation of three lightweight YOLO detectors (YOLOv5-nano, YOLOv5-small, YOLOv7-tiny), previously trained on citizen science images, for detecting ~ 1,300 flower-visiting arthropod individuals in nearly 24,000 time-lapse images captured with a fixed smartphone setup. These field images featured unseen backgrounds and smaller arthropods than the training data. YOLOv5-small, the model with the highest number of trainable parameters, performed best, localising 91.21% of Hymenoptera and 80.69% of Diptera individuals. However, classification recall was lower (80.45% and 66.90%, respectively), partly due to Syrphidae mimicking Hymenoptera and the challenge of detecting smaller, blurrier flower visitors. This study reveals both the potential and limitations of such models for real-world automated monitoring, suggesting they work well for larger and sharply visible pollinators but need improvement for smaller, less sharp cases.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

3.900

0.000