Dirzo, R. et al. Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345, 401–406 (2014).
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45 (2015).
Seebens, H., Gastner, M. T. & Blasius, B. The risk of marine bioinvasion caused by global shipping. Ecol. Lett. 16, 782–790 (2013).
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S. III. & Ewel, J. J. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 3–35 (2005).
Ehrenfeld, J. G. Ecosystem consequences of biological invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 59–80 (2010).
Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B. & Bonter, D. N. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 149–172 (2010).
Eitzel, M. V. et al. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citizen Sci. Theory Pract. 2, 1 (2017).
August, T. et al. Emerging technologies for biological recording. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 731–749 (2015).
Follett, R. & Strezov, V. An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE 10, e0143687 (2015).
Pocock, M. J. O. et al. Developing the global potential of citizen science: assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13279 (2019).
Mason, S. C. et al. Geographical range margins of many taxonomic groups continue to shift polewards. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 586–597 (2015).
Pearce-Higgins, J. W. et al. A national-scale assessment of climate change impacts on species: assessing the balance of risks and opportunities for multiple taxa. Biol. Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.035 (2017).
Woodcock, B. A. et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7, 12459 (2016).
Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S. & Leung, B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 10, 117–128 (2008).
Roy, H. E. et al. Invasive alien predator causes rapid declines of native European ladybirds. Divers. Distrib. 18, 717–725 (2012).
Liebenberg, L. et al. Smartphone Icon User Interface design for non-literate trackers and its implications for an inclusive citizen science. Biol. Conserv. 208, 155–162 (2017).
Isaac, N. J. B. & Pocock, M. J. O. Bias and information in biological records. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 522–531 (2015).
Pocock, M. J. O., Roy, H. E., Preston, C. D. & Roy, D. B. The Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen science. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 475–493 (2015).
Pocock, M. J. O., Tweddle, J. C., Savage, J., Robinson, L. D. & Roy, H. E. The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS ONE 12, e0172579 (2017).
Dennis, E. B., Morgan, B. J. T., Brereton, T. M., Roy, D. B. & Fox, R. Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1350–1361 (2017).
Boakes, E. H. et al. Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000385 (2010).
Kelling, S. et al. Finding the signal in the noise of Citizen Science Observations. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/326314 (2018).
Hill, M. O. Local frequency as a key to interpreting species occurrence data when recording effort is not known. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 195–205 (2012).
Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P. & Roy, D. B. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1052–1060 (2014).
Roberge, J. M. Using data from online social networks in conservation science: Which species engage people the most on Twitter?. Biodivers. Conserv. 23, 715–726 (2014).
Steen, V. A., Elphick, C. S. & Tingley, M. W. An evaluation of stringent filtering to improve species distribution models from citizen science data. Divers. Distrib. 25, 1857–1869 (2019).
Barata, I. M., Griffiths, R. A. & Ridout, M. S. The power of monitoring: optimizing survey designs to detect occupancy changes in a rare amphibian population. Sci. Rep. 7, 16491 (2017).
Kelling, S. et al. Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. Bioscience 69, 170–179 (2019).
Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M. & Kelling, S. Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1–10 (2017).
Boersch-Supan, P. H., Trask, A. E. & Baillie, S. R. Robustness of simple avian population trend models for semi-structured citizen science data is species-dependent. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108286 (2019).
Farmer, R. G., Leonard, M. L., Mills Flemming, J. E. & Anderson, S. C. Observer aging and long-term avian survey data quality. Ecol. Evol. 4, 2563–2576 (2014).
Horns, J. J., Adler, F. R. & Şekercioğlu, ÇH. Using opportunistic citizen science data to estimate avian population trends. Biol. Conserv. 221, 151–159 (2018).
Aagaard, K., Lyons, J. E. & Thogmartin, W. E. Accounting for surveyor effort in large-scale monitoring programs. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 9, 459–466 (2018).
Neyens, T. et al. Mapping species richness using opportunistic samples: a case study on ground-floor bryophyte species richness in the Belgian province of Limburg. Sci. Rep. 9, 19122 (2019).
Ponciano, L. & Brasileiro, F. Finding volunteers’ engagement profiles in human computation for citizen science projects. Hum. Comput. 1, 245–264 (2014).
O’Brien, H. L. & Toms, E. G. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 938–955 (2008).
Boakes, E. H. et al. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers’ recording behaviour. Sci. Rep. 6, 33051 (2016).
Nov, O., Arazy, O. & Anderson, D. Scientists@Home: what drives the quantity and quality of online citizen science participation?. PLoS ONE 9, e90375 (2014).
West, S. & Pateman, R. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: what can be learned from the volunteering literature?. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.8 (2016).
Aristeidou, M., Scanlon, E. & Sharples, M. Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 74, 246–256 (2017).
Calenge, C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Model. 197, 516–519 (2006).
Dolnicar, S., Grabler, K. & Mazanec, J. A. A tale of three cities: perceptual charting for analysing destination images. In Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure (ed. Woodside) 39–62 (CABI, London, 1999).
Struyf, A., Hubert, M. & Rousseeuw, P. Clustering in an object-oriented environment. J. Stat. Softw. 1, 1–30 (1996).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2017).
Oksanen, J. et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.5-1 (2018).
Maechler, M. et al. Cluster Analysis Basics and Extensions. R package version 2.0.7-1. R package version (2018).
Wood, C., Sullivan, B., Iliff, M., Fink, D. & Kelling, S. eBird: engaging birders in science and conservation. PLoS Biol. 9(12), e1001220. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001220 (2011).
Haklay, M. Why is participation inequality important? In European Handbook of Crowdsourced Geographic Information. https://doi.org/10.5334/bax.c (2016).
Seymour, V. & Haklay, M. Exploring engagement characteristics and behaviours of environmental volunteers. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.66 (2017).
August, T. A. et al. Citizen meets social science: predicting volunteer involvement in a global freshwater monitoring experiment. Freshw. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1086/703416 (2019).
Gura, T. Citizen science: amateur experts. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7444-259a (2013).
Kelling, S. et al. Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves?. PLoS ONE 10, e0139600 (2015).
van Strien, A. J., van Swaay, C. A. M. & Termaat, T. Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1450–1458 (2013).
Telfer, M. G., Preston, C. D. & Rothery, P. A general method for measuring relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biol. Conserv. 107, 99–109 (2002).
Shirk, J. L. et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229 (2012).
Domroese, M. C. & Johnson, E. A. Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biol. Conserv. 208, 40–47 (2017).
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S. & Everett, G. Understanding Motivations for Citizen Science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England (2016).
Source: Ecology - nature.com
