Bumblebees & Their Differing Habitats: How a Decade of Citizen Science Has Increased Our Knowledge

Bumblebees are some of the best-loved insect species but much remains to be discovered about them. In this talk, we’ll hear how 10 years of citizen science monitoring data have been used to reveal the different habitat preferences among 14 British bumblebee species. Penelope will discuss the variation among species and what this means for bumblebee conservation.

Q&A with Dr Penelope Whitehorn

Dr Penelope Whitehorn is a wildlife biologist and works as co-Chief Scientist for Highlands Rewilding. After studying Zoology and Conservation, she worked for a number of conservation organisations in the UK, Eastern Africa and the US. Her PhD, at the University of Stirling, assessed the impacts of inbreeding and parasites on bumblebees. Much of her research since then has focussed on these delightful insects, including exploring the effects of pesticides and looking into the broader ecological effects of land management and climate change, the latter with an Alexander von Humboldt research fellowship in Germany. In 2022, Penelope returned to Scotland to work for Highlands Rewilding but remains passionate about bumblebees!

  • What proportion of the associations was a surprise to you?
    Quite a large proportion. The negative associations of the semi-natural habitat with some of the more common species were a surprise and may be reflecting the capacity of the more widespread, human-impacted land covers to meet the requirements of these species. A number of the climate variables need more picking apart – there are some interesting relationships that I don’t even understand myself!
  • What are the challenges in getting your findings translated into changes in conservation practices to support bumblebees?
    The Bumblebee Conservation Trust takes onboard the results from analysis of their BeeWalk survey and was a partner on the paper. They will try and implement measures to help bees where they can. The main challenge always comes down to funding and the practicalities of getting stuff done on a large scale, for example, creating large habitat corridors across the landscape.
  • Do you factor in the presence of honey bees which may compete for food sources?
    We didn’t factor this in within this analysis – it was out of scope for this research paper. It is a potential contributing factor to the distribution of bees and there are other researchers looking into this.
  • Are the Shrill Carder Bee and Great Yellow Bumblebee as threatened in continental Europe?
    The Great Yellow Bumblebee (Bombus distinguendus) is sadly threatened across its range. The Shrill Carder Bee (Bombus sylvarum) is not as threatened in continental Europe, but it is still rare. I was delighted to see one in southern Germany, in an area of Alpine meadows – I only saw it after first being alerted to its presence by the namesake high-pitched noise!
  • Do casual records, for example on iNaturalist or iRecord, help?
    These records may be useful for other types of analysis. However, this analysis concentrated on the BeeWalk data as it used a standardised survey methodology – meaning that the various records were comparable. It is always worth checking with the Bees, Wasps & Ants Recording Society regarding where they recommend data should be submitted so that it can be used for other purposes, such as distribution maps.
  • Do you think any of the positive/ negative associations with habitats noted in the analyses will be impacted by body size of bumblebees?
    Again, this is slightly out of the scope of this analysis. It is definitely an interesting thing to think about, particularly when looking at the cryptic bumblebee species.

Literature references

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on bees

Check out the Bees collection on Eventbrite

The National Honey Monitoring Scheme: A Peek Behind The Scenes

The National Honey Monitoring Scheme (NHMS) was set up to monitor the health of the UK countryside, by working with beekeepers to determine the forage patterns of honey bees and to measure their exposure to agricultural pesticides whilst foraging. Jenny will take us behind-the-scenes of NHMS – from sample collection, through lab processing, to sequencing – to understand how honey is used to find out what plant species honey bees have been visiting. She will present some preliminary results from pollen analysis of 2019 honey samples, and give an overview of Dr Ben Woodcock’s research on pesticide residues in honey.

Q&A with Jenny Shelton

Jenny Shelton is a Molecular Ecologist at UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology whose interests in citizen science, pollinator diversity and beekeeping have culminated perfectly in running the NHMS!

  • Does this mean that the days of using microscopes for identification are over?
    This type of analysis very much complements, rather than replaces, identification using microscopes. Quite a few of the beekeepers that take in the scheme also send us their own reports of their recordings from the microscopy. It’s really useful to validate what we’ve been finding, but every so often they’ll report things that haven’t shown up in our analysis and we can then go and do a bit of a data dive. Normally this is because the ITS2 sequence is too large for our sequencing platform – so sequencing is not always perfect. This might be because the missing plant has a longer ITS2 sequence that we haven’t been able to sequence, or the sequence is missing from our reference database, so it is good to be aware of these occurrences. Pollen identification with microscopes is a very important skill that we need to retain!
  • Has the species list from your analyses been compared with the local flora for sample sites?
    There’s a team at the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology that checks over the species list, thinking of land use and species distributions, to ensure there’s nothing on the list that doesn’t make sense and would be completely spurious. 
  • Do honeybees collect pollen from all non-native/invasive plant species or would there be some plants that you wouldn’t be able to record the spread of because the bees don’t pollinate them?
    This is a really good question and something that I personally think we should analyse once we have gotten all of the data together. At the moment we’ve only really got as far as what is there, but it would be great to look into what is not there and cross-reference this with lists of ornamental species that we know are sold commercially and are likely to be present. Understanding which species are present but not turning up in our pollination records suggests that the bees can’t use them for some reason, such as flower structure.
  • Is there evidence that bees that are relying on a small number of plant species are detrimental to the longevity or health of a hive?
    This is not something that we have shown from our research at the moment, but it is the general hypothesis and what we’d expect to see. As both a beekeeper and bee researcher, the thought is that hives are less likely to survive the winter and be prone to colony collapse disorder if they are feeding on a mono-crop.
  • Are you measuring glyphosate in honey?
    My colleague Ben leads on the pesticide research and I’ve not seen the full list of chemicals tested for, but I’d be surprised if that one isn’t in there.
  • Can we support bees if we only have a small or paved outdoor space?
    Putting as many potted plants and hanging baskets in the space as you can fit is still really helpful for pollinators. You can use climbers like honeysuckle across the fence. You could also possibly fit some flowerbeds in the borders and put up a bee hotel. There is a lot of guidance out there for people to garden for bees and other pollinators, for example, there are ‘Gardening For Bumblebees’ page on the websites of Bumblebee Conservation Trust and Buglife. My personal favourites for planting are borage and comfrey – they grow like weeds and will take off in any garden

Literature references

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on bees

Check out the Bees collection on Eventbrite

Marine Mollusc Recording Scheme: Discoveries from the Conchological Society of Great Britain and Ireland

The Conchological Society‘s marine recording scheme will be 100 years old in 2023 yet is as relevant now as it has ever been. Current scheme coordinator Simon will outline what is involved and how data is gathered, verified, stored and shared.

Q&A with Simon Taylor

Simon has been the Hon. Marine Recorder for the Conchological Society since 2013. As well as maintaining the Society’s marine mollusc record dataset (>200,000 species occurrences) the role involves conducting, coordinating and promoting survey activity and closely monitoring developments in the marine mollusca fauna of the study area.

  • Do you get data from the Wildlife Trusts Shoresearch recording project?
    Yes, sometimes and this is often via iRecord. These types of projects are often, and understandably, run by people with broad knowledge of the wildlife that are likely to be encountered, rather than the specific mollusc knowledge that the Conchological Society brings. They often welcome the verification skills that we can provide and add data to iRecord to make use of the expert verifiers active on the platform for molluscs. In return, we welcome their data into our datasets!
  • What was the reason behind the destruction of records due to changes in data protection legislation?
    I wasn’t party to it myself, but quite a significant number of records were lost. I believe it was due to people being told to sign things stating that the data belonged to the Society. These were different times and there was a lot of confusion regarding the new legislation. Thanks to things like the National Biodiversity Network, we have a much better understanding and most recorders are very happy to share their records and get their data put to good use. Biological recording is a collaborative effort.
  • Do you have a relationship with the Porcupine Marine Natural History Society or the British Marine Life Studies Society?
    We do have a relationship with the Porcupine Marine Natural History Society and have a number of members in common. They cover all marine life and they have their own recording scheme for gathering marine records, and we’re happy for others to record and manage marine mollusc data as long as it is shared and available for use. However, as we specialise in molluscs, we consider our datasets the gold standard for molluscs in the UK. We also work quite closely with Seasearch, which gets volunteer divers to record the wildlife that they see when diving.
  • Why/how did Jeffreys’s material end up in the Smithsonian?
    Money. I think the estate was selling the collection of voucher specimens and the Natural History Museum (London) was simply outbid. The Smithsonian are very helpful in letting naturalists access the type material.
  • How did you get involved with the society and are there opportunities to be involved in Cumbria?
    As a child, my parents used to take me to Mersea Island (an interesting place connected by a B-road causeway which floods on spring tides) where I would pick up and look at shells and my parents enlisted me a junior member of the society back then. Later in life I renewed my interest, started getting more involved and started taking it more seriously. We are a national organisation, even international – but we are a relatively small society so we don’t have activities in every part of the UK. We host a week-long field excursion for marine recording each year as part of our field meetings programme. It’s also worth looking into getting involved with Shoresearch schemes run by local wildlife trusts.
  • Are there trends for warmer water species starting to appear?
    Yes – there is no doubt about this with marine molluscs. We are seeing species that were at the southern limit of their range retreating north and quite regularly new species that prefer warmer waters expanding their range northwards into our waters. New species tend to be recruited into the southwest of England (i.e. Cornwall and the Scilly Isles). Other species that are limited by winter minimum temperature, which impacts breeding viability, are now starting to colonise the North Sea.
  • Do you have a project on iNaturalist to upload marine mollusc records to?
    The best method for submitting records to us is via iRecord. The competitive nature of iNaturalist has led to a deluge of records of the same species from the same place, for example, dead mussel shells from every 5 steps they take along a sandy shore. Records submitted to iRecord are verified by the Conchological Society, whereas the iNaturalist records are verified by any other user regardless of experience. We also strongly encourage recorders to provide a full name (not a username as is often the case on iNaturalist) as this is one of the four W’s that is essential to any biological record. You can access a lot of experts via various Facebook groups, such as the British Marine Mollusca and NE Atlantic Nudibranchs groups.

Literature references

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on marine biology

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

Restoration, Rearing and Reintroductions: Saving the Freshwater Pearl Mussel

The Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) is a fascinating species and a powerful ecosystem engineer in the UK’s rivers and streams. Many of the UK’s populations are in freefall with the youngest individuals in the wild being over 70 years old! Time is running out for this species. This talk will explore what the Freshwater Biological Association and partners are doing to bring this species back from the brink of extinction.

Q&A with Louise Lavictoire

Louise Lavictoire is the Head of Science at the Freshwater Biological Association, leading an enthusiastic team of people working on species recovery and citizen science projects. Louise has worked on freshwater mussels for over 15 years trying to better understand their biology and limitations to inform their conservation and restoration in the wild.

  • What do the mussels feed on?
    They are filter feeders and mostly eat algae, but what they filter out is hotly debated – they may also take some bacteria. They also filter out small bits of clay or sediment out of the water column and sediment it out into the gravel around them.
  • What do you feed the juveniles in captivity?
    We feed them on a mix of commercially available algae, which we get from the USA. It’s a mix of Nannochloropsis (a small alga that is about 1-2 microns) and ‘shellfish diet’ (a mix of 5 or 6 marine algae). If we’re not augmenting the feeding we use filtered lake water from Windermere.
  • Is there a reason why some Freshwater Pearl Mussel exclusively use trout and why some exclusively use salmon?
    We were part of a UK-wide study in 2009 where we took samples from each of our English populations and compared them with Scottish and Welsh populations. The findings were that each population is specific and should be treated as a separate conservation unit. So we would only stock the River Irt with juveniles derived from the River Irt population. It is different for the River Kent population (for which we have a LIFE project – LIFE R4ever Kent) as we only have 3 mussels left in the entire population and so we are looking at which other English population would be most suitable as a donor for captive breeding and the local fish population, based on genetic similarity and use of the same host fish species.
  • Is there significant genetic diversity between populations in different catchments that we need to maintain for any restocking/restoration?
    We were part of a UK-wide study in 2009 where we took samples from each of our English populations and compared them with Scottish and Welsh populations. The findings were that each population is specific and should be treated as a separate conservation unit. Sowe would only stock the River Irt with juveniles derived from the River Irt population. It is different for the River Kent as we only have 3 mussels left in the entire population and we are looking at which population would be most suitable as a donor for captive breeding and the local fish population, based on genetic similarity and use of the same host fish species.
  • What do we know about the recent populations discovered in a loch in Scotland?
    I’m not sure if the population includes juveniles – which is the issue with most of our mussel populations as they are ageing populations with no new juveniles. The recent find in Scotland points very much to the fact that the habitat conditions are good enough for them to survive in slow-flowing waters which are still fairly pristine. If the oxygen concentrations are high enough and the substrate is relatively free of silt so that the juveniles that are dropping there are dropping into clean substrate, it would be fantastic news. We’d need further surveys to know more detail. However, the habitat conditions must be fairly pristine for mussels to be surviving there. They’re also known from Irish loughs too.
  • Is there any reason they are associated with low-calcium environments?
    I’m not sure if we know the answer to this. It does seem odd when you consider the size and thickness of their shell. However, they are absolutely not calcium tolerant and high lime concentrations can kill them.
  • Have you experienced mortality due to the patch on the exterior of the shell above the hinge perforating?
    We haven’t seen this. I’ve read in scientific papers that part of the shell (the umbo) can get worn away in fast-flowing waters and that mussels can plug it themselves with sand. This could be more pronounced in rivers that are more acidic.

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on freshwater biology

Check out the Freshwater Invertebrates collection on Eventbrite

Big Wasp Survey: Investigating Social Wasp Populations Through Citizen Science

Big Wasp Survey is a citizen science initiative co-founded by Prof Seirian Sumner (University College London) and Prof Adam Hart (University of Gloucestershire). Members of the UK public sample vespine wasps in their local area, and submit their data. BWS has been running for 5 years, and it’s giving us a really good view of the diversity and distribution of vespine wasps in the UK, as well as insights into what influences citizen scientists to participate year after year.

Q&A with Prof Seirian Sumner

Seirian Sumner is a professor of behavioural ecologist at UCL (University College London). She uses a combination of field ecology and molecular biology to understand insect behaviour, with a particular fondness of wasps. She co-founded Big Wasp Survey in 2017, and published her first popular science book in 2022 – Endless Forms, why we should love wasps.

  • How do I sign up to get involved?
    to take part, you need to register through the Big Wasp Survey website and follow the instructions there. This year, we are inviting you to trap wasps in 2 separate sessions, one in July-August and one in the usual August-September slot, as you add traps, make you select which session the trap is part of. You can find full details on the How To Take Part webpage.
  • Do Big Wasp Survey records feed into NBN Atlas?
    At the moment our data hasn’t been submitted. We are working on our database at the moment and hope to make it publicly available in the future. At the moment we’re running it with no budget so capacity can be a little bit of an issue. We’re always happy to share the data if requested from us directly and can share spreadsheets of the annual data while we work on the database.
  • Do you have to kill social wasps for confident species identification?
    Firstly, check out the article written by Adam Hart and me in The Conversation that responds directly to this question. The problem with wasps is that it is really difficult to identify them. Even separating the common ones can be tricky, with the facial markings that distinguish Vespula germanica from Vespula vulgaris showing a lot of variation in reality. This means that photo of the face is often not enough to separate them as you also need to look at several points on the thorax and head. It is the same for other schemes that try to investigate the diversity and distribution of insect species, such as the government-funded UK Pollinator Monitoring Scheme that involves putting out pan traps that collect and kill specimens. We are very mindful of the fact that the traps are lethal, so it is about surveying for as short a period as possible to gather the minimum data that you need and timing the survey to take place at the point in the colony cycle when the loss of individuals will have the lowest impact. It’s also worth putting the survey in the context of what is happening in the wider towns and cities that it takes place within: how many wasps are being killed by pest controllers for example? A single colony contains tens of thousands of wasps. If you compare the number of specimens taken through our survey, our impact really is negligible in comparison/
  • Is there no way of creating non-fatal traps and then photographing them for identification?
    Even if it was possible to catch wasps and identify them humanely using photographs, most of our participants would not have had the equipment, skills or experience to effectively get close-up photos of wasps. We also don’t do a big publicity drive each year as we don’t need a large number of samples and we’ve added a cap to the number of traps within a given postcode to ensure that an area isn’t over-sampled and wasps collected unnecessarily.
  • Are only wasps trapped and what happens to any other organisms that are caught?
    The beer traps do mainly attract wasps, but there is unfortunately also bycatch – particularly flies. We’ve sorted out the bycatch by taxonomic group and are very happy for anyone interested in those groups to take the specimens and identify them as we simply don’t have the capacity to get them identified. It can be quite trap-specific, so we think it may be to do with where the trap is hung.
  • What identification resources would you recommend for identifying wasps?
    You can find our guidance, including ID videos and the Big Wasp Survey ID Flow Key, in the Identification section of the BWS website. It’s designed for beginners and focuses on the species of wasp targeted by the Big Wasp Survey.
  • Are records outside of the survey useful and do you collect them from iRecord?
    The data that we gather needs to be from registered traps where the survey methodology has been followed. This enables us to compare results. However, ad hoc records of wasps are still really useful so you should continue to submit these. The national recording scheme for wasps is run by the Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society and they can advise on the best means of submitting these records.

Literature references

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on citizen science

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

DragonflyWatch: The National Dragonfly Recording Scheme

Dragonflies and damselflies make up the insect order Odonata and are the focus of the British Dragonfly Society (BDS). The BDS has accumulated over a million verified species occurrence records of dragonflies and damselflies have been accumulated through monitoring and recording of these fascinating insects, some dating back to the 19th century. This talk will provide an overview of the National Dragonfly Recording Scheme, how it influences dragonfly conservation and how you can get involved.

Q&A with Eleanor Colver

Eleanor Colver is Conservation Officer for the British Dragonfly Society. She graduated with a BSc Zoology with Conservation from Bangor University and an MSc Biodiversity and Conservation from Leeds University. After graduating, Ellie spent a year wading around in RSPB wetland reserves as a Warden Intern, performing practical habitat management with volunteers. She also spent two seasons as the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project’s Senior Research Assistant, monitoring upland wildlife. During this time Ellie had the opportunity to observe Odonata in a range of habitats and found that the more she learnt about their ecology the more she wanted to discover, leading her to her current role.

  • Can we use iRecord to submit data?
    The easiest way to submit records is through the Submit Your Records page on the British Dragonfly Society website, with the records going from there into the iRecord database. We also have the specific dragonfly forms listed on iRecord as an activity so you can also submit records through those and they are verified by our network of county recorders. We do also get the iRecord records not submitted through the dragonfly forms, but the dragonfly forms is tailored for dragonflies so it gives us better quality data. The dragonfly forms provide additional information on dragonfly life stages.
  • Do you receive records from Local Environmental Record Centres?
    We receive records from some LERCs. Our data is all publicly accessible and we encourage anyone that can use the data to access those – including the network of LERCs. LERCs are also able to access all of the iRecord data for the area that they cover.
  • Is there a cost to set up a monitoring scheme?
    Nope – we want more people to record dragonflies! It’s free and there are lots of resources on the Monitoring page on the BDS website. Alternatively, you can drop me an email and we’d be very happy to help you set one up. Obviously, joining BDS as a member supports our monitoring work and helps us do even more.
  • Are the reasons for the declines of Common Emerald, Black Darter and Common Hawker understood?
    Both the common Hawker and Black Darter are generally associated with peatland wetlands, specifically bog pools, and the main decline for both of these species has been seen in the south of England on lowland heaths, so we believe the decline is due to habitat loss – due to drainage, scrubbing over and climate change causing drought. We’re not entirely sure about the reasons for the decline in Common Emerald. It is still common but has declined significantly since 1970. We think it could possibly be related to climate change as this species is associated with shallow wetlands which could be drying out too early for the life cycle to be completed. This shows why it is so important to record the common species and not just the rarities – hence our push for complete lists at sites!
  • Can large populations of larvae affect amphibians success e.g. tadpoles and newts?
    Ponds will fluctuate over time with regard to the density of species. I advise leaving nature to run its course as dragonflies and amphibians have evolved alongside one another and it’s not uncommon to have lots of dragonflies one year and then switch to lots of amphibians the following year. Larger dragonfly larvae will eat tadpoles, but smaller dragonfly species are a food source for tadpoles/
  • Can we help dragonflies by creating a pond?
    We’ve lost so many of of our natural and farmland ponds over the past 100 years. Even a small pond is really helpful, though the bigger, the better. A significant proportion of UK dragonflies will breed in small ponds. Just don’t add fish as these will eat the larvae. The Gardening page on the BDS website provides advice and further links for anyone considering a pond. I’m really excited about this year as it is hopefully going to be the first year that I get dragonflies in my new garden pond!

Literature references

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 only possible due to contributions from our partners and supporters.

More on freshwater biology

Check out the Freshwater Invertebrates collection on Eventbrite

Biological Records Centre: Supporting iRecord into the Future

Where will iRecord be in five, ten or more years? The Biological Record Centre (BRC) developed the iRecord and Indicia tools to support the collation, checking and sharing of online biological records. A wide range of national and local recording schemes and centres make use of this system, and it also forms an integral part of BRC’s own data management processes, helping to make data available for research and many other uses. This talk presents some of BRC’s current and planned work on the system, and looks at what other options we should explore in the future.

Q&A with Martin Harvey

Martin Harvey works at the UKCEH Biological Records Centre as part of the team that develops and supports iRecord, and liaises with national monitoring and recording schemes. As a volunteer, he runs the national scheme for soldierflies and allies and is the county moth recorder for Berkshire.

Will the verifier survey results be made public?

We will be providing feedback to the people who took part in the survey and eventually we hope to make it available to all verifiers.

Can you tailor iRecord to a species group, such as changing the different fields which might be relevant?

It’s relatively straight-forward to set up additional recording forms on the website that can be customised, it’s a very flexible system. Making it work with the app is rather more complicated and we are more limited in what we can do with the app.

Having lots of different recording forms can make it more difficult for users, particularly those who record a lot of different species groups. The more different forms that a user has to input data into, the more difficult it can become.

Are there any places to add more species synonyms to iRecord?

The species names in iRecord all come from the UK Species Inventory which is the national database that is maintained at the National History Museum (NHM) and it is pretty comprehensive. Requests can be made to NHM to add synonyms to the dataset. And always try to import records using the scientific name, rather than the English name.

Further info

Go to the Why iRecord? Virtual Symposium page

More on biological recording

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

Supporting Science: A New Collaborative Approach to Supporting Verification

Supporting Science is a small project with a big ambition, to smooth butterfly and moth data flow and support volunteer data verifiers. Butterfly Conservation have experimented with new approaches; iRecord training to attract and develop new verification volunteers and systems changes to support the task of verification. Hear about the successes and lessons from their collaboration with partners and volunteers.  The project was made possible by funding from DCMS and the National Lottery, distributed by The Heritage Fund as part of their Digital Skills for Heritage initiative. 

Q&A with Rachael Conway and Martha Henson

Rachael Conway has worked as a Project Officer for Butterfly Conservation for 7 years and last year played a pivotal role in the Supporting Science team, particularly on the delivery of iRecord training in partnership with the FSC. Martha Henson is the lead consultant for Tech Works For Us and joined the Supporting Science team to run the user research and support the development of the verification software.

How much time does it take to verify records?

Each county recorder approaches datasets in a different way and some counties generate more records than other. Some county recorders do need help and they have a team of verifiers doing different jobs, such as one person might deal with spreadsheets that come in and one person might deal with records coming in through iRecord.

How do you become a butterfly or moth verifier on iRecord?

You can start by just taking on the verification of one species, which can help with a county recorders workload. It has to be done on a case by case basis but if you are keen to support you can get in touch with us.

Can we not just use AI for verification, why do we need people to do it?

It is very dependant on the taxon groups that you have. The feeling is that AI could have a supporting role for the verification of some distinctive taxon groups in the future, but it is very unlikely to replace people.

Further info

Go to the Why iRecord? Virtual Symposium page

More on biological recording

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

Shifting Ground: The Ground Beetle Recording Scheme on iRecord

The Ground Beetle Recording Scheme has migrated: over 350,000 records spanning 220 years are now hosted on iRecord. Learn how iRecord is supporting Carabidae recording and take a tour through a few notable records both old and new.

Q&A with Chris Foster

Chris Foster has been coordinating the ground beetle recording scheme since 2019. He is also a lecturer in Animal Ecology at the University of Reading.

Are you hoping to expand your verification team?

Yes. We’re two verifiers at the moment but not currently active enough, we’ve have had some other offers of help but open to more from anyone who can confidently identify at least some ground beetles (we could for example divide the family up among verifiers)

Are there any county recorders for beetles in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales?

There are in Scotland and Wales though lots of vacancies. The UK Coleoptera website keeps a list with contact details. 

Do recorders submit records to you via methods other than iRecord?

We do get records submitted by spreadsheet, which we’re happy to accept provided the recorder is happy for that data to be imported into iRecord under the recording scheme’s username. We also import data into iRecord from iNaturalist. 

How do you prioritise which records to tackle first when there is a backlog of records?

Prioritisation tends to be taxonomically biased i.e. which species are easiest to verify from photographs, occasionally also driven by requests for data on particular species of interest. Data from established reliable recorders also tends to be tackled sooner. If anyone has had ground beetle data sat waiting for verification for a long time please do get in touch. 

Do you accept records that have written descriptions of a species in place of a photo?

We’re happy to have a look at written descriptions but they would need to be pretty detailed for the majority of species and we might ask for more details about the record (and the recorder’s experience)

Further info

Useful books

Go to the Why iRecord? Virtual Symposium page

More on biological recording

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite

Ten Years of Talking to People About iRecord: A County Perspective on Online Recording

In 2013, Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre adopted iRecord as one of its main conduits for capturing Sussex sightings data. There have been triumphs! There have been tribulations. And along the way, they’ve learnt that online biological recording is, fundamentally, a community endeavour. In ten years, people have never stopped wanting to talk to Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre staff about iRecord. In this presentation, they share some of those local perspectives.

Q&A with Clare Blencowe

Clare Blencowe is the manager of Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre which sits at the foot of the South Downs about 10 miles from Brighton. She’s been involved with the local biological recording community for 15 years, initially as a volunteer coordinating recording for The Butterflies of Sussex, and joined SxBRC in 2015. Clare is a former Chair of the Association of Local Environmental Record Centres – which has given her a broader perspective on the important role that LERCs play in engaging with biological recorders locally. In her spare time, she enjoys studying fungi and uses iRecord to share results from her surveys of waxcap grasslands in the county, which have fed into an online ‘Sussex Waxcap Atlas’ and mapping of these important sites.

Why does Sussex BRC use just iRecord and not others (such as Living Record, iNaturalist and BirdTrack?

We have to make use of limited resources. We want to encourage people to record, and it works best if we have one system that we can turn people towards and that we can explain. We don’t actively discourage people from using other systems and we will try and access records from them, but iRecord is the one we use and promote. It is a great system, and it has a great verifier network and a great data sharing arrangement.

How does using iRecord affect your business model as an LERC given that iRecord data is public?

Our focus is on providing high quality data and information services. That quality comes from the value that we add in lots of different ways. iRecord is just one of the data sources that we are aggregating locally to make available, and we have bespoke systems and reporting that we use to generate reporting which includes summary information as well as detailed records that are presented in a user-friendly way. iRecord works for us but we add value by the way we incorporate it into the services we offer.

What one change or improvement would you like to see on iRecord that would benefit loal recording?

As an LERC, it would be great to have changes to the background workings of iRecord that provides additional transparency and logging around data sets that are going into and out of the Indicia data warehouse (i.e. some sort of change log). It would help us monitor data flows and would help us keep track of what we are getting via the LERC download facility. From a more general perspective, I would love there to be more funding for BRC and perhaps some more focus on the social and communication elements around iRecord.

Further info

Go to the Why iRecord? Virtual Symposium page

More on biological recording

Check out upcoming events on Eventbrite