Hoverfly Lagoons Project: A Journey into the Past, Present and Future

The Hoverfly Lagoons project was invented in 2016 for the University of Sussex’s Buzz Club, a citizen science charity exploring wildlife gardening techniques for insects. The aim was to trial artificial habitats, essentially small water bodies designed for some (magnificent) species of hoverfly which are semi-aquatic. These water bodies may be missing in our urban and rural landscapes due to a lack of natural habitats such as mature trees. The Buzz Club learnt that: Hoverfly Lagoons are very easy to create; size doesn’t matter (much); they’re used by a broad invertebrate community; and they could be a useful tool to investigate biological unknowns and to monitor environmental change. Dr Ellen Rotheray takes us through her lagoons journey – past, present, and plans for the future.

Dr Ellen Rotheray is a senior lecturer in Ecology and Conservation at the University of Sussex, a member of the IUCN Hoverfly Specialist Group, and a member of the Pine Hoverfly Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Steering Group. Ellie got her first taste of hoverfly research during her masters degree in 2006, which opened up a new, exciting world of discovery and exploration. What’s more, due to the nature of the project, it was an opportunity to apply scientific findings directly to shape effective conservation management. Inspired by habitat creation efforts trialled during her PhD, Ellie invented the Hoverfly Lagoons project, largely in the hopes that when people caught a glimpse inside this world, it might evoke a desire to protect it.

Q&A with Dr Ellen Rotheray

  1. Are the hoverfly larvae prone to predation in the lagoons and what would dine on them?
    The Muscid flies that I mentioned in the presentation are the main predator, and are like a fox in a henhouse and will empty a lagoon of hoverfly larvae. Larvae will also be predated by vertebrates such as birds, foxes and frogs – essentially they are a little sac of protein and fat. I expect that dragonfly larvae would eat them in a pond, but it is unlikely that dragonflies will colonise the low-oxygen habitat that you find in hoverfly lagoons. There are also parasitoid wasps that specialise on individual species of hoverflies.
  2. Are all hoverflies able to survive as larvae over winter?
    It would be cool to study this more. I would imagine that multiple species have developed strategies for surviving in colder areas, such as up in Scotland. We’ve found Pine Hoverflies completely frozen in the ice and within a few seconds of being chipped out of the ice, they would slowly begin to start moving again! I’ve also used temperature-controlled environments to investigate how they behave in colder conditions and I noted that as the water started to freeze, Pine Hoverfly larvae immediately crawled out of the water and sat on the ice! I can’t really comment on other species, but the species that are found in cooler climates seem to have adapted to survive in these conditions.
  3. What other organisms are found in hoverfly lagoons?
    There is a whole community of organisms found within the hoverfly lagoons. The hoverflies (and Muscid larvae) are probably the biggest and easiest to see, but there will be other species of fly (such as gnats and mosquitoes) and parasitoids that are associated with the insects inhabiting the lagoon.
  4. What can people do in their gardens to help improve their hoverfly diversity?
    The first thing would be to set up a hoverfly lagoon and report their results. Taking part in this project helps us understand more about hoverfly behaviour and ecology, which we can then use to improve our guidance. It’s particularly useful if people do these for several years running so that we have sites where we can compare the data year-on-year. Aside from hoverfly lagoons, allowing areas to grow and so-called weeds to flower is great for adult hoverflies. Ensure that you have plants flowering all through the year to provide habitat for early and late species. Increasing the diversity of habitats is also going to increase your hoverfly diversity – so think about adding a log pile and pond. Finally, avoid using any chemicals – you shouldn’t need to if you have a healthy ecosystem as some hoverflies (not those that inhabit lagoons) will predate aphids!

Literature References

  1. Rotheray and Rotheray (2021) The puparium and development site of Rhingia rostrata (Linnaeus) and comparison with R. campestris Meigen (Diptera, Syrphidae): https://nms.iro.bl.uk/concern/articles/b1f42219-fdf3-451c-aadc-58062edae0f7
  2. IUCN SSC HSG/CPSG (2022) European Hoverflies: Moving from Assessment to Conservation Planning: https://cbsg.org/sites/cbsg.org/files/documents/European%20Hoverflies%20Moving%20from%20Assessment%20to%20Conservation%20Planning.pdf
  3. Vujić et al (2022). Pollinators on the edge: our European hoverflies. The European Red List of Hoverflies: https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/display/EUPKH/European+Red+List+of+Hoverflies?preview=/23462140/102630586/ERL%20Hoverflies.pdf

Further Info

entoLIVE

entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!

entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.

The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:

More on citizen science

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

Windermere’s Water Quality: From Satellite To River Bank

The water quality of our rivers, lakes and seas is a hot topic, with water companies under fire for the amount of raw sewage being discharged into British waters. The impacts of this can be devastating for our wildlife and can impact food supplies, human health and tourism.

Lake Windermere is located in the heart of the Lake District and is also England’s largest lake (by area, length and depth). It supports a diverse range of wildlife and is pivotal for the tourism sector that supports the region economically. It was also central to ‘The Water Pollution Cover-Up’ episode of BBC Panorama due to incidents of high phosphorus levels causing algal blooms that turn the lake green and suffocate the wildlife within its waters.

This blog looks at some of the evidence behind these algal blooms. We’ll explore different sources of data, such as invertebrate monitoring, satellite imagery and human activity data to establish if a common cause can be established. the blog features the following presentations:

  • Windermere’s Water Quality: Invertebrate Insights with Dr Sam Green (WildFish)
  • The Health of Windermere: A Satellite Perspective with Richard Flemmings (Map Impact)
  • Panel discussion facilitated by Matt Staniek (Save Windermere)

Windermere’s Water Quality: Invertebrate Insights

Dr Sam Green (WildFish)

WildFish, in collaboration with Save Windermere, formed a SmartRivers hub in 2023 to begin surveying the freshwater invertebrate populations on the rivers and becks feeding into Lake Windermere. This project aimed to get a clearer picture of the ecological health of the Windermere catchment, and in particular how water company assets could be impacting biodiversity and water quality.

The results from the first year of invertebrate surveys have been published on the WildFish website and monitoring for 2024 is already underway. This presentation provides a greater understanding of the importance of invertebrate monitoring and an overview of our findings so far.

Dr Sam Green is a freshwater ecologist at WildFish primarily supporting the SmartRivers programme. WildFish is the only independent charity in the UK campaigning for wild fish and their habitats. We identify and lobby against the key threats driving the decline in wild fish populations, from various forms of pollution to open-net salmon farming. Ultimately, our goal is for fresh and coastal water habitats that are clean, healthy, biodiverse, and able to support sustainable populations of wild fish.

Q&A with Dr Sam Green

  1. Is Smart Rivers connected with the Riverfly Partnership, to ensure effective collaboration?
    Yes. SmartRivers is one of the Riverfly Partnership’s Riverfly Plus schemes. The two schemes complement each other in terms of monitoring rivers, but ARMI data and SmartRivers data do different things. The acute issues monthly bankside monitoring sampling is designed to pick up pollution events and uses family-level identification. SmartRivers uses species-level identification with monthly monitoring and twice-annually deep dives into the chronic pressures on rivers.
  2. Do you find a higher abundance of tolerant species in polluted waters or a lack of sensitive species (such as mayflies)?
    We look for shifts in the entire invertebrate community as often when you lose pollution-sensitive species, more tolerant species can exploit this vacated niche and increase in numbers.  Certainly, in our Windermere data we’ve seen examples of higher numbers of pollution-tolerant species at downstream sites like the New Zealand Mud Snail and other pollution-tolerant molluscs and true flies.
  3. Why is data not collected during the summer season?
    The SmartRivers sampling protocol only involves collecting two seasons of data: spring and autumn. It would be great to have data from year-round sampling but capacity makes that unrealistic, both due to the fact that the sampling is volunteer-led and that WildFish is a relatively small conservation charity.
  4. How are the sediment and phosphorus pressure scores derived?
    The scores are calculated using methodologies that have been peer-reviewed and use the information on the invertebrate communities recorded, i.e. the presence and absence of specific organisms and the numbers that are recorded within a sample. This is calculated using mixed-level taxonomic data for the sediment pressure score (PSI – the Proportion of Sediment-sensitive Invertebrates index) and family-level data for the phosphorus pressure score (TRPI – Total Reactive Phosphorus Index).
  5. What are the main chemicals impacting the sites?
    The SPEAR biometric indicates the presence of chemical stress on invertebrates, but unfortunately not what chemicals are impacting the sites. SPEAR values indicating chemical stress can be the first step in longer-term projects aiming to identify the chemicals causing problems in our rivers. For example, teh scores could be used to locate sites for more resource-intensive monitoring methods such as chemcatchers.   
  6. Is it possible to have free access to your open-source database?
    Yes. Email smartrivers@wildfish.org to obtain free access to the dataset.

Further info

The Health of Windermere: A Satellite Perspective

Richard Flemmings (Map Impact)

To bring further understanding to the growing environmental issues at Lake Windermere, Map Impact, in collaboration with various stakeholders, embarked on a project aimed at introducing fresh perspectives and novel data sources to the study of the lake’s ecosystem. This effort received backing from the UK Space Agency under the Climate Services funding initiative. The project, which ran for six months, concentrated on combining satellite technology, human movement data, and climate data to provide further understanding of the influences and factors affecting lake nutrient content.

The results of the project have been openly published within a comprehensive report that includes methods, confidence and limitations. This is being used across the community to support understanding of the key factors affecting water health and inform mitigation activities that counteract pollution.

Attendees will be provided with an understanding of:

  • The advantages and limitations of satellites as an important information source.
  • How satellite information has been correlated with various other data sources to show trends and new information about the state of the Lake.
  • How this data can be applied to support the future protection of the Lake and wider catchment area.

Richard Flemmings has specialised in applying geospatial and satellite earth observation data to environmental challenges throughout his career. He is interested in taking a highly collaborative approach to ensure that these data feeds can benefit as much of society as possible.

Q&A with Richard Flemmings

  1. How could visitor numbers be responsible for algal bloom events?
    Visitor numbers put a strain on the wastewater infrastructure, potentially leading to increased nutrient input if not treated properly.
  2. What software do you use to interpret the satellite data?
    We mainly used Google Earth Engine and Python for interpreting satellite data.
  3. How do you exclude other factors such as weather when assessing the correlation between visitor numbers and algal blooms?
    The approach that we’ve taken is to look for correlations between peaks and troughs in chlorophyll content with peaks and troughs in temperature and other weather events. There are times when we can’t exclude these potential factors because visitor numbers and temperature/weather are often linked. However, through statistical analysis we have shown that there are situations where the weather does not appear to be the influencing factor and human movement is.
  4. Is there scope for improvement of water quality monitoring with the use of real-time monitoring devices and sensors?
    Absolutely/ We’ve taken landscape and remote perspective using open-source specific-point data to train our model. I think there is huge potential for adding in other aspects, such as in-situ sensors that measure the level of chlorophyll at set points within the lake and feed this data into the model. Combining these technologies opens up huge opportunities.

Further info

Panel Discussion

Hosted by Matt Staniek (Save Windermere)

Matt Staniek grew up in Windermere and studied Zoology at university, before returning home. Matt was appalled when he found out that sewage is being discharged into our lake and at that moment, decided to dedicate his life to solving this issue. Save Windermere has grown into a registered not-for-profit Community Interest Company (CIC), governed by a Board of Directors. We are all based locally in Windermere and care deeply about our wildlife, our community and our lake.

  1. Are there other organisations monitoring the same or other aspects of Windermere and how does their data fit with yours?
    Richard: One of the things covered in the project technical report is how we compared our data to the Big Windermere Survey data, and how it helped us reach the conclusion that we did. We also used some of the openly available EA data. All of these datasets should be open access so it is easy to use them alongside one another. There are a lot of people and organisations working within this space and this was a relatively short project, which limited how much some stakeholders were able to collaborate.
  2. Are there plans to introduce methodologies to identify and test for the chemicals that are polluting water courseways?
    Sam: The SmartRivers methodology uses a metric called SPEAR to assess if there is chemical pressure, but it can’t tell you what chemicals are causing issues. However, SmartRivers does help us figure out where on the water course it is best to invest resources in further monitoring, such as the use of passive water quality devices like chemcatchers within the river to determine which chemicals are present and at what concentrations. The issue is that this can be expensive to undertake and as a small conservation charity we would require collaboration with bigger agencies that have the resources and capacity to undertake such monitoring.
  3. What can individuals do on a national scale to improve water quality in our rivers, lakes and seas?
    Sam: We do need to hold water companies to account, but we are also responsible for own personal behaviour. Everyone can make small changes, such as considering the impact of letting our dogs swim in rivers and lakes when we’ve used spot-on flea treatments that a specifically designed to nuke invertebrates. If people want to go further, getting involved with citizen science projects (such as SmartRivers) is a great way to contribute towards cleaner water.
    Richard: Personally I am involved with Surfers Against Sewage as a surfer who is regularly in the sea. Even if you are not able to get involved with a campaign group such as Save Windermere or Surfers Against Sewage, take the time to follow what they are reporting on to stay engaged and ensure that awareness of these issues is maintained.
  4. Are there any mitigation actions being taken within this catchment as a result of these results?
    Richard: By making the results from the satellite project
    openly available, our aim is to provide objective evidence to justify and
    support mitigation activities. This includes improving general awareness of
    algal blooms in the lake and providing the appropriate justification for
    reducing these over time. We also see a lot of discussion relating to nature
    based solutions to improve water quality (for example, in support of improving
    riparian edges) and satellite data has huge potential to support targeted
    intervention and monitoring to show that changes in water quality are happening.
    Sam:     The data generated from SmartRivers monitoring is only the start of our monitoring programme. We’ve already collected data for Spring 2024 and will continue doing so in the years to come. Once we have a few years of data we can begin to really investigate the trends we are seeing in the catchment and use the data to lobby for change. Our data is open access for anyone to use. We’ve had feedback from United Utilities, some of which helpful and some not (see our blog), and I know Matt is in discussion with the local Environment Agency. So hopefully in the future we will be able to constructively work with them and use the data as we have with the agency in other parts of the country.

Event Partners

This webinar will be delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with Map Impact.

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

How Can We Use Sound to Measure Biodiversity?

Bioacoustics is a cross-disciplinary science that combines biology and acoustics, using the sounds produced by animals to investigate their biology and ecology.

Sound recorders can be positioned within a habitat to record the calls produced by birds and other animals, and these recordings can be analysed to establish their behaviours and which species are present. Artificial intelligence and evolving hardware are helping us to push the boundaries of what we can use this technology for, with the potential to use bioacoustics to establish species abundance and overall ecosystem health on the horizon.

It can be used for short and long-term measurements of biodiversity, including how species richness changes through the seasons and over the years. It also helps understand how birds are using a site, for example using bioacoustics to look at the site preferences of Skylarks.

This blog features two guest presentations:

  1. How Can We Use Sound to Measure Nature? with Geoff Carss (Wilder Sensing)
  2. Using Sound to Understand How Biodiversity is Changing: The Story of Honeygar with Joe Hampson (Somerset Wildlife Trust)
Book the free follow up webinar

How Can We Use Sound to Measure Nature?

Geoff Carss (Wilder Sensing)

Geoff will introduce how the science of bioacoustics is used to monitor and measure biodiversity, delving into the current limitations and potential applications. We will explore how sound has been used to identify species and recent innovations such as Merlin and BirdNET together with scalable approaches for short and long term monitoring. Featured on Springwatch 2024 episode 11.

Useful links

Q&A with Geoff Carss

  1. How can we ensure we have accurate and robust validation of sounds using AI?
    The validation is really important. We ran trials for well over a year, with Honeygar being one of them. This has included a lot of work from volunteers undertaking validation, including species-specific validation. Customers have also run their own validation trials. As mentioned in my presentation, there are some species that we know are problematic and more care needs to be taken with interpreting their presence.
  2. How reliable are the confidence scores?
    For most species, it is pretty high at around 80% or 85%. This will be variable by species, particularly with species that have lower frequency calls.
  3. Is the use of acoustic monitoring in urban and suburban areas more limited due to the impacts of human-generated noise?
    We have one site in the industrial part of Bristol. When you listen to the recordings you can hear the constant sound of lorries and other traffic. However, despite this, we’re still picking up quite a reasonable species list. This has included species that we knew were present but didn’t expect to be picked up, including things like Sparrowhawk. What’s important is that the results are compared like-for-like to give us a picture of what is happening over time. We understand that some species may be missed due to their low-frequency calls, but they will be missed consistently and we can still use the data to look at changes over time.
  4. Do the filters allow for the possibility of species moving outside of the areas where they may have traditionally been due to climate change?
    This will depend on the filter that is used. If, for example, we used the British List then this would catch everything but birds that have never been formally recorded in the UK which is unlikely but may happen due to climate change. An option would be to extend the list to include species which may occur. 
  5. Can you target surveys at specific species?
    Absolutely. We’ve had projects looking specifically at Skylark or Curlew. If a project is targeting a species that is less likely to be picked up, we’d need to fine-tune the model for that species to increase the probability of it being detected when present.
  6. Is there a suggested number of recorders per hectare for similar habitat?
    There is a bioacoustic survey guidelines that were published about a year ago. They should be at least 100m apart if not more – up to 250m. This will depend on what you are aiming to analyse.
  7. How easy is it to deploy this system outside of the UK?
    It is relatively straightforward. One consideration would need to be which filters you might use. For example, BirdNET would use e-bird so you’d need to check how good the e-bird recording is. You would need to add a local species list as the filter rather than a UK species list. Some regions are going to have less data available, whereas others (such as the Amazon) have relatively good representation.
  8. Are any attempts being made to integrate data on habitat change or weather patterns alongside the species data?
    We have got some detailed weather data from some sites such as Honeygar and will start to include it in the analytics to better understand causality and the impact of bird assemblages. This could be the subject of a great PhD. 
  9. Are there any case studies available where bioacoustic monitoring has been successfully used on conservation projects in the UK?
    The Somerset Wildlife Trust Honeygar example is a great case study as presented below. There are a number of very different sites around the Uk who have installed a number of recorders – Wendling Beck in Norfolk, Leven Carrs in Yorkshire and North Moor in Somerset (Natural England) – we can provide more examples and put you in touch with appropriate contacts – please let us know.

Using Sound to Understand How Biodiversity is Changing: The Story of Honeygar

Joe Hampson (Somerset Wildlife Trust)

Honeygar will be Somerset Wildlife Trust’s first ‘wilded’ site – managed very differently to our nature reserves and a major project for the Trust, which will happen over many years. Over time, we hope it will become a place which inspires those who visit, whether other landowners, local people or visitors from further afield.

Joe will provide a short history of Honeygar and delve into the details of the acoustic project that’s been running there for 18 months and has 1.5 million records uncovering all kinds of insights.

Useful links

Q&A with Joe Hampson

  1. How much work is it to maintain the equipment?
    We’re very fortunate to have volunteers that manage this. With the older model, we needed to change the batteries each week but the newer models have batteries that last around a month. the bottleneck now is the SD cards as we fill a 128GB SD card in almost exactly two weeks so we’re having to change these fortnightly (with every other SD card changed at the same time as the batteries).
  2. Is the data from your recorders submitted to the Local Environmental Records Centre?
    All of the data that we get from Honeygar is shared with the Somerset Environmental Records Centre. I think they’ve been scratching their heads a little bit about how much data we are producing on-site, but it’s hopefully helping them to prepare for how this kind of recording may generate large volumes of data in the future. We’re also analysing the data and we hope to publish research based on the data that we’ve generated, to help disseminate the findings beyond the biological recording sector.
  3. Do you aggregate a day’s worth of calls for a single species as one record?
    Each call is separate, so it is important that we don’t draw conclusions about the number of individuals based on the number of calls. In the pie chart that I showed, you may have noticed we had lots of Wren calls – this is because they are such noisy birds. We’re not saying we have 500 individual Chiffchaffs because we’ve had 500 Chiffchaff calls. As time goes on and more data is gathered for the site, changes in levels of noise will be useful for commenting on bird activity levels and help us to understand changes on the site. As this technology develops, triangulation of calls may enable us to look at species abundance.

Wilder Sensing ecoTECH blogs

  1. How Can We Use Sound to Measure Biodiversity: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2024/07/09/bioacoustics-1/
  2. Can Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Birds Replace Site Surveys blog: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2024/09/17/bioacoustics-2/
  3. The Wilder Sensing Guide to Mastering Bioacoustic Bird Surveys: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2024/11/26/bioacoustics-3/
  4. Bioacoustics for Regenerative Agriculture: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2025/03/31/bioacoustics-for-regen-ag/
  5. AI-powered Bioacoustics with BirdNET: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2025/07/08/birdnet/
  6. Making the Most of Bird Sounds: https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2026/03/11/making-the-most-of-bird-sounds/

Event partners

This blog was produced by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with Wilder Sensing, Wildlife Acoustics and NHBS.

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

The Field Identification Skills Certificate: Assessing Botanical ID Skills

The Field Identification Skills Certificate (FISC) is a test that assesses your botanical proficiency on a scale from 1 (beginner) to 5 (professional), with a level 6 awarded in exceptional cases. Originally developed by Sarah Whild and Sue Dancey, the BSBI’s FISC Development Working Group (including a number of experienced FISC Assessors) now supports and oversees the running of FISCs.

The FISC assesses your real-life botanical skills and is gaining popularity and becoming an industry standard, with some consultancies sending their staff annually to encourage skill development. This talk will discuss how the assessments are improving the quality of professional botanical skills, especially in light of recent changes to legislation and the introduction of BNG, as well as their impact on the “amateur” botanical community.

Dr Chantal Helm is the BSBI’s training coordinator responsible for FISC and Identiplant. She is also a terrestrial ecologist with field experience in South Africa and the UK, with a broad interest in natural history. After a decade in academia, Chantal now focuses on delivering local voluntary conservation projects, encouraging local biological recording, undertaking freelance bat surveys and supporting students as a visiting lecturer, alongside her part-time BSBI role.

Q&A with Dr Chantal Helm

  1. How much does it cost to undertake a FISC assessment?
    It is up to the individual provider what they charge. It is also up to the provider what they pay their FISC Assessors. The only fixed cost is a set fee that is payable to BSBI for the quality assurance, coordination and development of the FISC. Each candidate will have this set cost incorporated in the fee that they pay the provider. BSBI doesn’t run any FISC assessments in-house and FISC assessments are all delivered through partners. Prices are very variable and range from £125 (for students with one provider) to around £260 (for professional consultants).
  2. How many people can have on a single FISC assessment day?
    Again, this depends on the provider. We recommend a maximum of 25 people, because of the amount of space that you need for specimens in the labs and for monitoring the participants in the field to ensure that they are following the rules.
  3. Why have FISC assessments not been rolled out in Scotland?
    We’ve been trying to encourage experts at the appropriate level to come forward and become FISC Assessors in Scotland. Taking on the assessor role is a fair bit of work so a number of expert botanists are reluctant to take it on. We are having conversations with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh regarding the possibility of some of their staff running FISC assessment days from next year. We’re keen to expand into Scotland, as well as Wales, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
  4. Why do BSBI recommend that FISC assessment days are not included at the end of training courses?
    It’s all about ensuring that there are no biases. Firstly, we wouldn’t want the assessor to be in any way linked to the students in teaching. We also wouldn’t want students to have training on the same sites that are being used for the assessment. The outcome of FISC assessments could also be biased if the students have knowledge of the specimens being used or have been trained on the local flora to the assessment site. Ideally, if a course was being provided that included a FISC assessment day, the students would be shipped off to another region and an independent FISC assessor would lead the day.
  5. What FISC level would an Identiplant graduate expect to achieve upon completion of the course?
    We suggest that someone who has completed Identiplant to a satisfactory level and who then engages the following year with their local botany group and/or gets out recording plants to practice their botanical field skills may be able to achieve a FISC level 3 the following year. Obviously, it is going to vary by person and it is really important that field botany is practiced regularly in order to cement those skills.

Literature References

  1. Bebington (2010) The ability of A-level students to name plants: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963
  2. Stroud et al (2022) The botanical education extinction and the fall of plant awareness: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9019

Further info and links

  1. Field Identification Skills Certificate: https://bsbi.org/field-skills
  2. Botanical Skills Ladder: https://bsbi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/05/BSBI-Skills-Ladder-2024.jpg
  3. Identiplant: https://identiplant.bsbi.org/
  4. Everything you need to know about FISCs (FISC Information Booklet 2024): https://bsbi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/04/FISC-Information-Booklet-2024-Final.pdf
  5. Take the risk – do a FISC! (BSBI News article): https://bsbi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/10/BSBI-News-152-p34-36-FISCs.pdf
  6. Join the Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland: https://bsbi.org/join-us
Go to the Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium page

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

Image Recognition and AI for Species Identification

This presentation will explore how image recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) can revolutionize the identification of insect species. By leveraging advanced machine learning algorithms and high-resolution imaging technology, UK CEH aims to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring insect populations. Alba will discuss the development and application of the Automated Moth Identification (AMI) system, which exemplifies these technologies in action. Additionally, she will highlight the role of citizen science in this initiative, enabling broader participation and data collection. This approach not only provides critical data for addressing the biodiversity crisis but also bridges the gap between technological innovation and ecological research.

Alba Gomez Segura is a Research Software Engineer at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, where she develops and applies new technologies to monitor biodiversity. With a background in Environmental Science and Bioinformatics, she now focuses primarily on electronics and coding. Her interests include hardware (e.g., cameras and Raspberry Pi) and software (machine learning) to enhance insect monitoring in the field, aiming to provide more and better data to tackle the biodiversity crisis. She is passionate about bridging the gap between technology and biological research, driven by a deep passion for understanding the natural world.

Q&A with Alba Gomez Segura

  1. Where were the training images for the moth image recognition algorithm sourced from?
    Our main source of images was the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). As the model progressed, we were able to tweak the model using images gathered through the AMI, as GBIF images are often good quality and it is useful to add in images that are more representative of what the AMI will capture. With two seasons of AMI data from some sites, we now have lots of images that can be used for training. However, there are some limitations with this data such as the fact that some species may not come to the AMI very often or event at all. Therefore, we will continue to use both GBIF and AMI images for training the model.
  2. Do you stop training the AI once you have reached the point where the accuracy is no longer improving?
    We have a maximum number of images to help us focus our efforts on species that we have fewer images for. However, we can use more than 200 images if needs be and this may be particularly useful for species that are more difficult to identify. The number at which the accuracy starts to plateau is variable by species. We tend to tell people that at least 100 images are needed to start with, but it can be less for particularly distinctive species and more for species that are more difficult to distinguish from other species.
  3. Are the images that you are gathering available through an open-source platform?
    The idea is that these images will be stored on an open-source platform. The images that we have taken from GBIF are not owned by UK CEH and are already open source. For the UK CEH-generated images, these are currently stored on our in-house data centre. As our projects are taking place around the world, it is likely that our data will feed into national data centres once we have this all setup.
  4. Does the image recognition only work with the setup you have described or could this be used on a range of light traps?
    The model should be general enough to work across different setups. For example, in the Netherlands it has been used successfully with a different set-up that includes a yellow sheet.
  5. Does the model only consider the image or can other factors (such as temperature, location etc.) be used to reach a species determination?
    Currently, the only other factor considered by the model is location, so we have different models for different regions (for example, we have separate models for the UK, Costa Rica and northern USA/southern Canada). We are looking into other factors and did a test last year that investigated if moth activity and temperature correlated with each other. At the moment we will probably use things like phenology to check that the model matches what we already know. We already have a lot of abiotic data for the images gathered, such as date, vegetation around the AMI and sunset/sunrise times so there is potential to look at these factors in more detail in the future.

Further info and links

  1. UKCEH Automated Monitoring of Insects (AMI) system: https://www.ceh.ac.uk/solutions/equipment/automated-monitoring-insects-trap
  2. Earthworm Image Recognition Project (Biological Recording Company blog): https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2024/06/10/earthworm-image-recognition-project/ 
  3. GUI Desktop app for analyzing images from autonomous insect monitoring stations using deep learning models: https://github.com/RolnickLab/ami-data-companion
  4. AMBER project:  https://www.turing.ac.uk/research/research-projects/amber
Go to the Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium page

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

BioLinks: Developing Structured ID Training Pathways for Invertebrate Groups

The FSC BioLinks project aimed to address the shortage of biological recorders for under-recorded and difficult-to-identify invertebrate groups through a substantial training programme based on structured ID training pathways for each focus species group. This presentation will focus on the classroom, field and lab-based training courses delivered through BioLinks, and discuss the challenges and successes demonstrated by BioLinks in relation to developing species ID skills in the biological recording community.

Keiron Derek Brown has been running the National Earthworm Recording Scheme since its launch in 2014. He has been working as a biological recording professional since 2017 when he joined the Field Studies Council where he developed and then delivered the FSC BioLinks invertebrate recording project. Following the completion of this project, Keiron set up the Biological Recording Company to support the environmental sector through training and consultancy.

Q&A with Keiron Derek Brown

  1. Did learner inexperience in using microscopes decrease bookings for microscope-based courses?
    Not at all. The microscope courses were the most popular of all the 1-day courses. Some learners were already experienced, but we checked this with the participants at the beginning of each course and the project staff member would support the specialist tutor by providing inexperienced learners with an introduction to setting up and using the microscope. We also run 1-day courses that were designed specifically to give confidence in the use of microscopes and identification keys for identifying invertebrates. The Identifying Terrestrial Invertebrates course is a course that I can provide through the Biological Recording Company if organisations or projects are looking to include it within their training programmes. 
  2. What are the pros and cons of delivering in-person versus online courses?
    I think that both are really important as they both have advantages and limitations. Online courses are great for delivering courses at relatively low cost and for reaching much larger audiences. They enable you to reach a much larger geographic area and access people who wouldn’t be able to attend in-person courses (for example if they have limited mobility, insufficient financial capacity to afford the travel or work/family commitments that prevent them from taking the day out to attend). In-person courses are fantastic for building relationships between the tutor and students, as well as between students. There is also no substitute for the tutor support that takes place on in-person ID courses, and the equipment (such as microscopes and ID guides) can be made available to students. It can be very difficult (possibly impossible) for tutors to give specimen-specific feedback to online students that they can give on in-person courses.
  3. Did your courses allow for different learning styles and account for neurodivergent people?
    Many natural history tutors are not professional educators, so not all were aware of learning styles and adapting their teaching methods to these. The project team provided feedback and guidance to the specialist tutors as much as possible and I co-designed the Teaching Natural History course with Charlie Bell to address this issue. It teaches the tutors that different people learn in different ways and advises tutors to introduce a range of different teaching styles to account for this. I can provide it through the Biological Recording Company if organisations or projects are looking to include it within their training programmes. Regarding neurodiversity, this was something that we also tried to address by contracting the National Autistic Society to review one of our online courses, provide the FSC with guidance for improving teaching materials for individuals with autism and to deliver a webinar about autism to FSC staff and associate tutors. You can read more about this in the FSC BioLinks Audiences Engagement Report.
  4. Were your students subsidised or self-funded?
    Students were responsible for covering any travel expenses, but the spaces were highly subsidised. One-day courses were £5 initially and £10 towards the end, and the 3-day residentials were £50 (including food and accommodation). We learned pretty early on that we needed to charge something as we initially had a lot of no-shows. There is an argument that if you offer things for free people don’t value them, and I think that you still get this with subsidising to the extent that we did. When natural history courses are full price, many people complain that they are too expensive – but we need to be honest and clear that natural history courses should be valued at the same comparable courses from other sectors.
  5. Did you find that your learners were mainly professionals or non-professionals?
    We had a real mix. We were careful not to target professionals as the target audience was potential and existing biological recorders. Professionals should really be paying full price for the training, rather than getting it through a funded project and we didn’t want to undermine existing training provision for professionals (delivered by the FSC or externally). However, we did not police who attended and we people with all sorts of motivations: professionals, early career ecologists, students, amateur naturalists, existing biological recorders and conservation volunteers. Likewise, the skill level was often variable even within a course. We did make it clear in course descriptions where existing skills and experience were necessary (for intermediate and advanced courses) and every course was clearly labelled with the level from the BioLinks Learning Pathway. Check out the FSC BioLinks Development Plan for Training Provision for more info about the levels.
  6. Did you look at the diversity of attendees?
    All project participants were asked to complete an anonymous demographics survey that enabled us to gather information on age, gender and ethnicity. BioLinks specifically aimed to ensure that women were not underrepresented (which they were not – they were actually overrepresented) and that young adults were targeted (which we did through various initiatives), there’s much more info on this work and what the results were in the FSC BioLinks Audiences Engagement Report.
  7. Is there a possibility of developing a postgraduate or higher level course incorporating all this specialist training?
    The training programme was designed as single units within taxonomic frameworks, so the courses could be combined and incorporated into either (or both) postgraduate training or a higher-level course. I’d love to see this! The obvious candidate would be the PgC/PgD/MSc Biological Recording and Analysis that is delivered by Harper Adams University and the Field Studies Council. However, there is absolutely no reason why this type of training couldn’t be incorporated into more higher education courses.

Literature References

  1. FSC BioLinks: Biological Recording & Training Consultation (Biological Recording Company blog): https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2023/09/16/biolinks-consultation/
  2. Brown (2017) FSC BioLinks Consultation Report: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20203291194/
  3. Brown (2018) FSC BioLinks Development Plan For Training Provision: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20230081529/
  4. Brown, K. D. (2017) FSC Biolinks Activity Plan: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20230030033/
  5. Brown et al (2023) FSC BioLinks Project Activity Report: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20230362629/
  6. Brown et al (2023) FSC BioLinks Audiences Engagement Report: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20230081523/
  7. King & Smith (2023) FSC BioLinks Strategic Evaluation Report: https://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/applied-ecology-resources/document/20230082207/

Further info and links

  1. FSC BioLinks: Biological Recording & Training Consultation (Biological Recording Company blog): https://biologicalrecording.co.uk/2023/09/16/biolinks-consultation/
  2. Natural History Online Training Virtual Symposium: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/natural-history-online-training-virtual-symposium-tickets-876671436867
  3. entoLIVE webinars: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/cc/entolive-webinars-74679
    entoLEARN webinars: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/cc/entolearn-webinars-1574569
  4. Skills For Ecology webinars: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/cc/skills-for-ecology-webinars-3278889
  5. Field Recorder Days: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/cc/field-recorder-days-1485759
Go to the Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium page

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

What is it? Developing Biodiversity identification Resources

A lack of suitable resources hampers identification. A good guide needs to be suitable for the user’s level of experience as well as accurate and easy to use. Over 40 years ago the AIDGAP (Aids to Difficult Groups of Animals and Plants) project started to develop ‘user tested’ keys, this since has grown into a range of over 175 identification resources.

Dr Rebecca Farley-Brown is Head of Publications for the Field Studies Council, where a key part of her role is the development of identification guides that are both accurate and accessible. Over the last 25 years Bek has helped produce over 200 identification resources, including guides for beginners and citizen science projects, WildID fold-out guides, AIDGAP books and specialist keys (with the Freshwater Biological Association, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Royal Entomological Society and Linnean Society of London).

Q&A with Dr Rebecca Farley-Brown

  1. Have you had much kickback regarding concerns that beginner’s ID guides are ‘dumbed down’?
    We had a lot of kickback initially as people were concerned that we were dumbing down and making things too simple, with the opinion that species ID was a job for the experts. The perception of this has changed hugely over the years, with a better understanding that there is a need for a range of guides at different levels. It is important to make it clear what level an ID guide is aimed at and be clear about any limitations.
  2. How are these guides funded?
    Originally the project was grant-funded, with money from the Natural Environment Research Council and the Linnean Society of London. Most publications are now self-funded, with the sales of the guides feeding back into the development and production of guides. Some guides, such as the slug and freshwater snails guides, were produced as part of projects where the author had included the production of a guide as part of the project plan.
  3. What are the pros and cons of testing workshops versus mailing out test guides to testers?
    Workshops enable you to watch people and see how they are working through the guide. You can also check to see if their identification is correct. However, if an expert is on hand in these workshops (which they usually are) it can lead to the expert coaching the workshop attendee to the correct answer, which is not something that would usually be available to a user of the guide. If you are sending things out blind, you need to be aware that your testers are likely to be of varying ability and some may not be the true target audience of the guide. You need to ensure that you really sort through the comments and figure out which comments are valid, looking for patterns or consensus regarding issues. It’s a balancing act, but there is a role for both! If anyone is interested in trialling future AIDGAP guides, they can get in touch via aidgap.pu@field-studies-council.org.
  4. What are the pros and cons of scientific illustrations versus photographs in ID guides?
    Stripped-down black and white line drawings are great pinpointing features important for ID, but it can also be difficult to match what you are seeing on a specimen as it may look less obvious than the line drawing suggests. Colour photographs give a much more representative image of what the reader would expect to see. Personally, I prefer it when guides use both side-by-side. Colour photography has come a long way as most people now have access to relatively decent cameras on their s smartphones and the cost of producing colour guides has come down considerably.  

Literature References

  1. House of Lords (2008) Systematics and Taxonomy: Follow-up Report with Evidence: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldsctech/162/162.pdf
  2. Hopkins & Freckleton (2006) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943002002299
  3. Löbl et al (2023) The Silent Extinction of Species and Taxonomists—An Appeal to Science Policymakers and Legislators: https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101053

Further info and links

  1. Field Studies Council publications: https://www.field-studies-council.org/shop/
    FSC natural history courses: https://www.field-studies-council.org/fsc-natural-history-courses/
  2. A new AIDGAP guide to freshwater leeches (FSC news): https://www.field-studies-council.org/2024/05/10/new-aidgap-guide-to-freshwater-leeches/
  3. A New Guide for Identifying Grasses (FSC BioLinks blog): https://www.fscbiodiversity.uk/blog/new-guide-identifying-grasses
  4. New AIDGAP guide: Adult Caddis (Trichoptera) of Britain and Ireland (FSC Biodiversity blog): https://www.fscbiodiversity.uk/blog/new-aidgap-guide-adult-caddis-trichoptera-britain-and-ireland
  5. Pre-order the Orthoptera and Dermaptera AIDGAP guide by David Williams: www.field-studies-council.org/shop/publications/orthoptera-and-dermaptera/
  6. Online guides using FSC Identikit: https://www.fscbiodiversity.uk/id-resources-fsc-identikit
  7. Lucidcentral digital Identification tools: https://www.lucidcentral.org/
  8. Beetles families online test key: https://www.eclectic-ecologist.com/
Go to the Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium page

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium

Species identification skills are essential for taxonomists, museum collection managers, biological recorders, conservationists and ecologists. The ability to accurately determine plants, animals and fungi to species level ranges from relatively easy for some groups, to highly technical and specialised in others.

The Species ID Skills Virtual Symposium took place on 20 June 2024 and brought together conservationists, environmental educators, biological recording schemes and more to discuss the challenges and opportunities relating to developing species ID skills in both professional and non-professional audiences. We explored how training, ID guides, assessments and emerging technologies can be used to develop these skills in both professional and non-professional audiences.

The event featured four presentations:

  1. What is it? Developing Biodiversity identification Resources with Dr Rebecca Farley-Brown (Field Studies Council)
  2. BioLinks: Developing Structured ID Training Pathways for Invertebrate Groups with Keiron Derek Brown (Biological Recording Company)
  3. Image Recognition and AI for Species Identification with Alba Gomez Segura (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology)
  4. The Field Identification Skills Certificate: Assessing Botanical ID Skills with Dr Chantal Helm (Botanical Society of Britain & Ireland)

What is it? Developing Biodiversity identification Resources

Dr Rebecca Farley-Brown (Field Studies Council)

A lack of suitable resources hampers identification. A good guide needs to be suitable for the user’s level of experience as well as accurate and easy to use. Over 40 years ago the AIDGAP (Aids to Difficult Groups of Animals and Plants) project started to develop ‘user tested’ keys, this since has grown into a range of over 175 identification resources.

Check out the full blog here

BioLinks: Developing Structured ID Training Pathways for Invertebrate Groups

Keiron Derek Brown (Biological Recording Company)

The FSC BioLinks project aimed to address the shortage of biological recorders for under-recorded and difficult-to-identify invertebrate groups through a substantial training programme based on structured ID training pathways for each focus species group. This presentation will focus on the classroom, field and lab-based training courses delivered through BioLinks, and discuss the challenges and successes demonstrated by BioLinks in relation to developing species ID skills in the biological recording community.

Check out the full blog here

Image Recognition and AI for Species Identification

Alba Gomez Segura (UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology)

This presentation will explore how image recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) can revolutionize the identification of insect species. By leveraging advanced machine learning algorithms and high-resolution imaging technology, UK CEH aims to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of monitoring insect populations. Alba will discuss the development and application of the Automated Moth Identification (AMI) system, which exemplifies these technologies in action. Additionally, she will highlight the role of citizen science in this initiative, enabling broader participation and data collection. This approach not only provides critical data for addressing the biodiversity crisis but also bridges the gap between technological innovation and ecological research.

Check out the full blog here

The Field Identification Skills Certificate: Assessing Botanical ID Skills

Dr Chantal Helm (Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland)

The Field Identification Skills Certificate (FISC) is a test that assesses your botanical proficiency on a scale from 1 (beginner) to 5 (professional), with a level 6 awarded in exceptional cases. Originally developed by Sarah Whild and Sue Dancey, the BSBI’s FISC Development Working Group (including a number of experienced FISC Assessors) now supports and oversees the running of FISCs.

The FISC assesses your real-life botanical skills and is gaining popularity and becoming an industry standard, with some consultancies sending their staff annually to encourage skill development. This talk will discuss how the assessments are improving the quality of professional botanical skills, especially in light of recent changes to legislation and the introduction of BNG, as well as their impact on the “amateur” botanical community.

Check out the full blog here

More for environmental professionals

Check out our events on Eventbrite

The Noble Jewel-wasp: The Range Expansion of a Brood Parasite

The Noble Jewel-wasp (Hedychrum nobile) is a recent colonist to Great Britain, recorded for the first time in 1998. This brood parasite has experienced a rapid range expansion throughout England over the past 20 years, following the distribution of its host. This talk will explore how climate change, habitat availability and parasite-host relationships might influence the range expansion of this species and discuss the fascinating ecology and morphology of one of Britain’s most beautiful insects.

Aaron Bhambra is a PhD student in the Geography, Earth and Environmental Science department at the University of Birmingham. His specialism is with flower-visiting insects, primarily solitary bees and wasps. His current research investigates the impacts of habitat fragmentation on heathland pollinator assemblages.

Q&A with Aaron Bhambra

  1. How big are Noble Jewel-wasps?
    When measuring wasps we measure from the front of the head to the tip of the abdomen. The wings, legs and antennae are not included in this measurement. Females are larger than the males, and are between 6 mm and 12 mm. Size can also vary by region, with specimens being recorded as larger in London.
  2. How long do Noble Jewel-wasps live?
    As Hymenoptera, they metamorphosise and have egg, larvae, pupae and adult life stages. They have an annual life cycle. The larvae will live for just one season and they are active as adults between July and September in Britain.
  3. What do Noble Jewel-wasps feed on?
    As a larvae they will feed on a dead weevil. The adults don’t feed in the same way, and they nectar on sugars that they get from plants such as tansy and wildflowers.
  4. Does the Noble Jewel-wasp have any predators?
    In continental Europe they will have kleptoparasites that feed on them (such as flies or other wasps). We’re not aware of any such parasites coming over to Britain yet, though we would expect to see this as the species becomes more established here – there’s always a lag between the parasite arriving and the host.
  5. Are brownfield sites of use to this species?
    I love brownfield sites! It’s where I’ve done most of my biological recording. Brownfield sites often have a mosaic habitat including bare earth and disturbed soils, providing lost of opportunities for various plants and insects. They are a fantastic habitat for bees and wasps. The sandy gravel areas that you get in these sites can act as a haven for heathland specialists.
  6. Does this species pose a threat to any of our native species?
    The truth is that it is too soon to tell. I’ve purposefully not drawn parallels with invasive species, such as the Harlequin Ladybird, as this is not an introduction – it is a natural colonisation where the species has flew across the English Channel due to geographic range expansion. We can expect more of these type of colonisation as our climate changes and gets warmer, with more species making the journey over from continental Europe. It may be that this species has colonised previously and we just aren’t aware as we’ve only  been recording insects for a relatively very short time. One thing that is certain, is that it will impact the population of the host as these insects will be attacked by this parasite – which in turn may actually be good for the weevils!
  7. What are the future research goals concerning this species?
    There are opportunities to study the autecology of this species , looking more closely at the relationship it has with host species in the genus Cerceris and whether this is influenced by any other environmental factors, such as temperature and local ecology.

Literature References

Bhambra (2023) The range expansion of the Noble Jewel Wasp, Hedychrum nobile (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae), a recent colonist to Great Britain. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 36, pp. 161-177.

The full article is available below. Become a British Entomological; & Entomological Natural History Society to receive future editions of the journal: https://www.benhs.org.uk/membership/

    the-range-expansion-of-the-noble-jewel-wasp-hedychrum-nobile-benhs-1Download
    1. Baldock & Hawkins (2016) Hedychrum nobile (Scopoli): A Jewel-Wasp new to Britain and distinct from Hedychrum niemelai (Linsenmaier) (Hymenoptera : Chrysididae). British Journal of Entomology and Natural History, 29 (4), pp.197-208. 
    2. Falk (2010) The bee and wasp assemblages (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) of some key heathland sites in the West Midlands region: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/322119#page/114/mode/1up
    3. Falk & Lane (1999) A Survey of the Insects of Sutton Park. Coventry Museums & Galleries Ecology Unit. 
    4. Falk et al (1996) A Comparative Study of the Invertebrate Assemblages of Three Staffordshire Heathland Sites. Coventry Museums & Galleries Ecology Unit. 
    5. Kimsey & Bohart (1991) The Chrysidid Wasps of the World: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/chrysidid-wasps-of-the-world-9780198540106
    6. Linsenmaier (1959) Revision der Familie Chrysididae (Hymenoptera) mit besonderer Brücksichtigung der europäischen Spezies. Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 32: 1–232. 
    7. Paukkunen et al (2015) An illustrated key to the cuckoo wasps (Hymenoptera, Chrysididae) of the Nordic and Baltic countries, with description of a new species: https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.548.6164
    8. Paukkunen et al (2014) Faunistic review of the cuckoo wasps of Fennoscandia, Denmark and the Baltic countries (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae): https://mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.3864.1.1

    Further Info

    entoLIVE

    entoLIVE webinars feature guest invertebrate researchers delving into their own invertebrate research. All events are free to attend and are suitable for adults of all abilities – a passion for invertebrates is all that’s required!

    entoLIVE is delivered by the Biological Recording Company in partnership with the British Entomological & Natural History Society, Royal Entomological Society and Amateur Entomologists’ Society, with support from Buglife, Field Studies Council and National Biodiversity Network Trust.

    The entoLIVE programme is delivered by Biological Recording Company and receives sponsorship from the following organisations:

    More on invertebrates

    Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite