Low-Cost Electronic Tagging System for Bee Monitoring

Souza, P. A. de; Marendy, Peter; Barbosa, Karien; Budi, Setia; Hirsch, Pascal; Nikolic, Nasiha; Gunthorpe, Tom; Pessin, Gustavo; Davie, Andrew

doi:10.3390/s18072124

Cited by 48 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Glues, for instance, can be toxic and directly decrease survival (Boiteau, Meloche, Vincent, & Leskey, 2009). The handling required to tag an arthropod can cause stress to an individual as well as to a complete hive (de Souza et al, 2018). Cold or CO 2 sedation used during handling can have strong and longlasting effects on performance (Poissonnier, Jackson, & Tanner, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The neglected impact of tracking devices on terrestrial arthropods

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tracking devices have become small enough to be widely applied to arthropods to study their movement. However, possible side effects of these devices on arthropod performance and behaviour are rarely considered. We performed a systematic review of 173 papers about research in which tracking devices—radio frequency identification (RFID), harmonic radar and radio telemetry tags—were attached to terrestrial arthropods. The impact of such tags was quantified in only 12% of the papers, while in 40% the potential impact was completely disregarded. Often‐cited rules of thumb for determining appropriate tag weight had either no empirical basis or were misconstrued. Several properties of a tracking device (e.g. weight, balance, size, drag) can affect different aspects of an arthropod's life history (e.g. energy, movement, foraging, mating). The impact can differ among species and environments. Taken together, these tag effects can influence the reliability of obtained movement data and conclusions drawn from them. We argue that the impact of tracking devices on arthropods should be quantified for each (a) study species, (b) tag type, and (c) environmental context. As an example, we include a low‐effort impact study of the effect of an RFID tag on a digger wasp. Technological advancements enable studying the movement of arthropods in unprecedented detail. However, we should adopt a more critical attitude towards the use of tracking devices on terrestrial arthropods. The benefits of tracking devices should be balanced against their potential side effects on arthropods and on the reliability of the resulting data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individuals carrying tags might respond more strongly to stressors (e.g. pesticides, parasite infection and displacement) than non‐tagged individuals (de Souza et al, ). In honeybees, effects of stressors on behaviour are often assessed with harmonic radar (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The neglected impact of tracking devices on terrestrial arthropods

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with bees' activity, we also collected data from temperature (°C), barometric pressure (hPa) and solar irradiance (kJ/m 2 ). Detailed hardware and software system design can be found in the work by de Souza and colleagues 28 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Amazon stingless bee foraging activity predicted using recurrent artificial neural networks and attribute selection

Gomes

Suhara

Nunes‐Silva

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The scope of the RFID technology was initially to provide wireless identification of assets, but thanks to its acceptance and development it has become the leading technology in the supply chain [13]. RFID has become a flexible solution suitable for many other different purposes such as blockchain implementation of traceability of wood [19], behavioral tracking of marine organism [20], cultural heritage monitoring [21], bee monitoring [22], or wearables [23]. At the same time, the read range of passive RFID tags is increasing while maintaining price, which is very interesting for the food supply chain or any type of logistics [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-Effective Implementation of a Temperature Traceability System Based on Smart RFID Tags and IoT Services

Urbano

Perles

Pedraza

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the design and validation of a traceability system, based on radio frequency identification (RFID) technology and Internet of Things (IoT) services, intended to address the interconnection and cost-implementation problems typical in traceability systems. The RFID layer integrates temperature sensors into RFID tags, to track and trace food conditions during transportation. The IoT paradigm makes it possible to connect multiple systems to the same platform, addressing interconnection problems between different technology providers. The cost-implementation issues are addressed following the Data as a Service (DaaS) billing scheme, where users pay for the data they consume and not the installed equipment, avoiding the big initial investment that these high-tech solutions commonly require. The developed system is validated in two case scenarios, one carried out in controlled laboratory conditions, monitoring chopped pumpkin. Another case, carried out in a real scenario, monitors oranges sent from Valencia, Spain to Cork, Ireland.

show abstract

Low-Cost Electronic Tagging System for Bee Monitoring

Cited by 48 publications

References 15 publications

The neglected impact of tracking devices on terrestrial arthropods

The neglected impact of tracking devices on terrestrial arthropods

An Amazon stingless bee foraging activity predicted using recurrent artificial neural networks and attribute selection

Cost-Effective Implementation of a Temperature Traceability System Based on Smart RFID Tags and IoT Services

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About