Pocock, M. J., 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).
Google Scholar
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Cons. 213, 280–294 (2017).
Google Scholar
Chandler, M. et al. Involving citizen scientists in biodiversity observation. In The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks 211–237 (Springer, 2017).
McKinley, D. C. et al. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol. Cons. 208, 15–28 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pereira, H. M. et al. Monitoring essential biodiversity variables at the species level. In The GEO Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks 79–105 (Springer, 2017).
Wiggins, A. & Crowston, K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. in 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1–10 (IEEE, 2011).
Haklay, M. Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge 105–122 (Springer, 2013).
Kelling, S. et al. Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. Bioscience 69, 170–179 (2019).
Google Scholar
Welvaert, M. & Caley, P. Citizen surveillance for environmental monitoring: Combining the efforts of citizen science and crowdsourcing in a quantitative data framework. Springerplus 5, 1890 (2016).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. T., Rowley, J. J., Cornwell, W. K., Poore, A. G. & Major, R. E. Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000357 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bonter, D. N. & Cooper, C. B. Data validation in citizen science: A case study from project FeederWatch. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 305–307 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A. & Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 551–560 (2016).
Google Scholar
Burgess, H. K. et al. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Cons. 208, 113–120 (2017).
Google Scholar
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A. & Kaiser, E. W. Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: Implications for phenology studies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 57, 715–720 (2013).
Google Scholar
Sullivan, B. L. et al. The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biol. Cons. 169, 31–40 (2014).
Google Scholar
Kelling, S. et al. Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves?. PLoS ONE 10, e0139600 (2015).
Google Scholar
Tiago, P., Ceia-Hasse, A., Marques, T. A., Capinha, C. & Pereira, H. M. Spatial distribution of citizen science casuistic observations for different taxonomic groups. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–9 (2017).
Google Scholar
Geldmann, J. et al. What determines spatial bias in citizen science? Exploring four recording schemes with different proficiency requirements. Divers. Distrib. 22, 1139–1149 (2016).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. Bioscience 71, 55–63 (2021).
Ward, D. F. Understanding sampling and taxonomic biases recorded by citizen scientists. J. Insect Conserv. 18, 753–756 (2014).
Google Scholar
Troudet, J., Grandcolas, P., Blin, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R. & Legendre, F. Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7, 1–14 (2017).
Google Scholar
Martı́n-López, B., Montes, C., Ramı́rez, L. & Benayas, J. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biol. Conserv. 142, 1370–1380 (2009).
Boakes, E. H. et al. Distorted views of biodiversity: Spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol 8, e1000385 (2010).
Google Scholar
Aceves-Bueno, E. et al. The accuracy of citizen science data: A quantitative review. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 98, 278–290 (2017).
Google Scholar
Davies, T. K., Stevens, G., Meekan, M. G., Struve, J. & Rowcliffe, J. M. Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark–recapture modelling using identification photographs sourced from the public. Wildl. Res. 39, 696–704 (2013).
Google Scholar
Crall, A. W. et al. Assessing citizen science data quality: An invasive species case study. Conserv. Lett. 4, 433–442 (2011).
Google Scholar
van Strien, A. J., van Swaay, C. A. & 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).
Google Scholar
Johnston, A., Moran, N., Musgrove, A., Fink, D. & Baillie, S. R. Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data. Ecol. Model. 422, 108927 (2020).
Google Scholar
Tiago, P., Pereira, H. M. & Capinha, C. Using citizen science data to estimate climatic niches and species distributions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 20, 75–85 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sullivan, B. L. et al. Using open access observational data for conservation action: A case study for birds. Biol. Cons. 208, 5–14 (2017).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Citizen science data accurately predicts expert-derived species richness at a continental scale when sampling thresholds are met. Biodivers. Conserv. 29, 1323–1337 (2020).
Google Scholar
Birkin, L. & Goulson, D. Using citizen science to monitor pollination services. Ecol. Entomol. 40, 3–11 (2015).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Schultz, C. B., Brown, L. M., Pelton, E. & Crone, E. E. Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western north america. Biol. Cons. 214, 343–346 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bird, T. J. et al. Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biol. Cons. 173, 144–154 (2014).
Google Scholar
Isaac, N. J., 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).
Google Scholar
Dickinson, J. L. et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 291–297 (2012).
Google Scholar
Bonney, R. et al. Next steps for citizen science. Science 343, 1436–1437 (2014).
Google Scholar
Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R. & Ehrenfeld, J. G. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1148–1154 (2011).
Google Scholar
Crall, A. W. et al. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. 22, 745–764 (2013).
Google Scholar
Jordan, R. C., Ballard, H. L. & Phillips, T. B. Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10, 307–309 (2012).
Google Scholar
Evans, C. et al. The neighborhood nestwatch program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv. Biol. 19, 589–594 (2005).
Google Scholar
Haywood, B. K., Parrish, J. K. & Dolliver, J. Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conserv. Biol. 30, 476–486 (2016).
Google Scholar
Pocock, M. J. et al. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. In Advances in Ecological Research vol. 59, 169–223 (Elsevier, 2018).
Tiago, P., Gouveia, M. J., Capinha, C., Santos-Reis, M. & Pereira, H. M. The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nat. Conserv. 18, 61 (2017).
Google Scholar
Isaac, N. J. & Pocock, M. J. Bias and information in biological records. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 115, 522–531 (2015).
Google Scholar
Angulo, E. & Courchamp, F. Rare species are valued big time. PLoS ONE 4, e5215 (2009).
Google Scholar
Booth, J. E., Gaston, K. J., Evans, K. L. & Armsworth, P. R. The value of species rarity in biodiversity recreation: A birdwatching example. Biol. Cons. 144, 2728–2732 (2011).
Google Scholar
Rowley, J. J. et al. FrogID: Citizen scientists provide validated biodiversity data on frogs of australia. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol. 14, 155–170 (2019).
Boakes, E. H. et al. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers recording behaviour. Sci. Rep. 6, 33051 (2016).
Google Scholar
Garrard, G. E., McCarthy, M. A., Williams, N. S., Bekessy, S. A. & Wintle, B. A. A general model of detectability using species traits. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 45–52 (2013).
Google Scholar
Denis, T. et al. Biological traits, rather than environment, shape detection curves of large vertebrates in neotropical rainforests. Ecol. Appl. 27, 1564–1577 (2017).
Google Scholar
Sólymos, P., Matsuoka, S. M., Stralberg, D., Barker, N. K. & Bayne, E. M. Phylogeny and species traits predict bird detectability. Ecography 41, 1595–1603 (2018).
Google Scholar
Wood, C., Sullivan, B., Iliff, M., Fink, D. & Kelling, S. eBird: Engaging birders in science and conservation. PLoS Biol 9, 1001220 (2011).
Google Scholar
GBIF.org (3rd December 2019). GBIF occurrence download. https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.lpwczr
Gilfedder, M. et al. Brokering trust in citizen science. Soc. Nat. Resour. 32, 292–302 (2019).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C., Lyons, M., Martin, J., Major, R. & Kingsford, R. Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science data. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 12, 66 (2017).
Johnston, A. et al. Best practices for making reliable inferences from citizen science data: Case study using eBird to estimate species distributions. BioRxiv 574392 (2019).
Myhrvold, N. P. et al. An amniote life-history database to perform comparative analyses with birds, mammals, and reptiles: Ecological archives E096–269. Ecology 96, 3109–3109 (2015).
Google Scholar
Dale, J., Dey, C. J., Delhey, K., Kempenaers, B. & Valcu, M. The effects of life history and sexual selection on male and female plumage colouration. Nature 527, 367–370 (2015).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019).
Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 1–26 (2017).
Google Scholar
Johnston, A. et al. Species traits explain variation in detectability of UK birds. Bird Study 61, 340–350 (2014).
Google Scholar
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).
Google Scholar
Henckel, L., Bradter, U., Jönsson, M., Isaac, N. J. & Snäll, T. Assessing the usefulness of citizen science data for habitat suitability modelling: Opportunistic reporting versus sampling based on a systematic protocol. Divers. Distrib. 26, 1276–1290 (2020).
Google Scholar
Caley, P., Welvaert, M. & Barry, S. C. Crowd surveillance: Estimating citizen science reporting probabilities for insects of biosecurity concern. J. Pest. Sci. 93, 543–550 (2020).
Google Scholar
Périquet, S., Roxburgh, L., le Roux, A. & Collinson, W. J. Testing the value of citizen science for roadkill studies: A case study from South Africa. Front. Ecol. Evol. 6, 15 (2018).
Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. & Freckleton, R. P. Model averaging, missing data and multiple imputation: A case study for behavioural ecology. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65, 103–116 (2011).
Google Scholar
Schlossberg, S., Chase, M. & Griffin, C. Using species traits to predict detectability of animals on aerial surveys. Ecol. Appl. 28, 106–118 (2018).
Google Scholar
Aristeidou, M., Scanlon, E. & Sharples, M. Profiles of engagement in online communities of citizen science participation. Comput. Hum. Behav. 74, 246–256 (2017).
Google Scholar
Troscianko, J., Skelhorn, J. & Stevens, M. Quantifying camouflage: How to predict detectability from appearance. BMC Evol. Biol. 17, 1–13 (2017).
Google Scholar
Schuetz, J. G. & Johnston, A. Characterizing the cultural niches of North American birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 22, 10868–10873 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lišková, S. & Frynta, D. What determines bird beauty in human eyes?. Anthrozoös 26, 27–41 (2013).
Google Scholar
Tulloch, A. I., Possingham, H. P., Joseph, L. N., Szabo, J. & Martin, T. G. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol. Cons. 165, 128–138 (2013).
Google Scholar
Kobori, H. et al. Citizen science: A new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation. Ecol. Res. 31, 1–19 (2016).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. T., Poore, A. G., Major, R. E., Rowley, J. J. & Cornwell, W. K. Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20191487 (2019).
Google Scholar
Pacifici, K. et al. Integrating multiple data sources in species distribution modeling: A framework for data fusion. Ecology 98, 840–850 (2017).
Google Scholar
Robinson, O. J. et al. Integrating citizen science data with expert surveys increases accuracy and spatial extent of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 26, 976–986 (2020).
Google Scholar
van Strien, A. J., Termaat, T., Groenendijk, D., Mensing, V. & Kery, M. Site-occupancy models may offer new opportunities for dragonfly monitoring based on daily species lists. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11, 495–503 (2010).
Google Scholar
Van der Wal, R. et al. Mapping species distributions: A comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording. Ambio 44, 584–600 (2015).
Google Scholar
Dennis, E. B., Morgan, B. J., Brereton, T. M., Roy, D. B. & Fox, R. Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conserv. Biol. 31, 1350–1361 (2017).
Google Scholar
Stoudt, S., Goldstein, B. R. & De Valpine, P. Identifying charismatic bird species and traits with community science data. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.05.446577
Source: Ecology - nature.com
