Lucas Rodriguez Forti, Ana Marta P. R. da Silva Passetti, Talita Oliveira, Kauane Freitas, Guilherme de Freitas Costa, Juan Victor de Lima Maia, Arthur Queiros, Maria Alice Dantas Ferreira Lopes, Judit K. Szabo
{"title":"Stronger together: different community science platforms all contribute to wildlife research","authors":"Lucas Rodriguez Forti, Ana Marta P. R. da Silva Passetti, Talita Oliveira, Kauane Freitas, Guilherme de Freitas Costa, Juan Victor de Lima Maia, Arthur Queiros, Maria Alice Dantas Ferreira Lopes, Judit K. Szabo","doi":"10.1071/wr23160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong> Context</strong><p>Engaging the general public can increase spatio-temporal coverage of wildlife monitoring. Given the potentially substantial costs, we need to evaluate the contribution of known and planned initiatives and confirm whether multiple platforms increase the efficiency of data collection. As observer behaviour affects data quantity and quality, users of specialised and generalist platforms are expected to behave differently, resulting in more connected networks for specialised and higher nestedness for generalist platforms. Specialist observers are expected to contribute a balanced ratio of rare and common species, whereas non-specialist contribution will depend more on species detectability.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>We aim to evaluate whether the combined contribution of observers from different platforms can improve the quality of occurrence and distribution data of 218 endemic Atlantic Forest bird species in Brazil. We also describe and compare observer-bird species interaction networks to illustrate observer behaviour on different platforms.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>On the basis of data from five community science platforms in Brazil, namely, eBird, WikiAves, Biofaces, iNaturalist and Táxeus, we compared the spatial distribution of bird observations, the number of observers, the presence of the same observers on various platforms, bird species coverage, and the proportion of duplicate observations within and among platforms.</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>Although species coverage of the joint dataset increased by up to 100%, spatial completeness among the five platforms was low. The network of individual platforms had low values of clustering, and the network of the joint dataset had low connectance and high nestedness.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>Each platform had a somewhat unique contribution. Pooling these datasets and integrating them with standardised data can inform our knowledge on bird distributions and trends in this fragile biome. Nevertheless, we encourage observers to provide precise coordinates, dates and other data (and platforms to accommodate such data) and recommend submitting data from all platforms into the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to support wildlife research and conservation.</p><strong> Implications</strong><p>If new platforms engage more and different people, new initiatives can cover poorly represented areas and successfully expand monitoring effort for Atlantic Forest endemic bird species.</p>","PeriodicalId":23971,"journal":{"name":"Wildlife Research","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wildlife Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/wr23160","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context
Engaging the general public can increase spatio-temporal coverage of wildlife monitoring. Given the potentially substantial costs, we need to evaluate the contribution of known and planned initiatives and confirm whether multiple platforms increase the efficiency of data collection. As observer behaviour affects data quantity and quality, users of specialised and generalist platforms are expected to behave differently, resulting in more connected networks for specialised and higher nestedness for generalist platforms. Specialist observers are expected to contribute a balanced ratio of rare and common species, whereas non-specialist contribution will depend more on species detectability.
Aims
We aim to evaluate whether the combined contribution of observers from different platforms can improve the quality of occurrence and distribution data of 218 endemic Atlantic Forest bird species in Brazil. We also describe and compare observer-bird species interaction networks to illustrate observer behaviour on different platforms.
Methods
On the basis of data from five community science platforms in Brazil, namely, eBird, WikiAves, Biofaces, iNaturalist and Táxeus, we compared the spatial distribution of bird observations, the number of observers, the presence of the same observers on various platforms, bird species coverage, and the proportion of duplicate observations within and among platforms.
Key results
Although species coverage of the joint dataset increased by up to 100%, spatial completeness among the five platforms was low. The network of individual platforms had low values of clustering, and the network of the joint dataset had low connectance and high nestedness.
Conclusions
Each platform had a somewhat unique contribution. Pooling these datasets and integrating them with standardised data can inform our knowledge on bird distributions and trends in this fragile biome. Nevertheless, we encourage observers to provide precise coordinates, dates and other data (and platforms to accommodate such data) and recommend submitting data from all platforms into the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to support wildlife research and conservation.
Implications
If new platforms engage more and different people, new initiatives can cover poorly represented areas and successfully expand monitoring effort for Atlantic Forest endemic bird species.
期刊介绍:
Wildlife Research represents an international forum for the publication of research and debate on the ecology, management and conservation of wild animals in natural and modified habitats. The journal combines basic research in wildlife ecology with advances in science-based management practice. Subject areas include: applied ecology; conservation biology; ecosystem management; management of over-abundant, pest and invasive species; global change and wildlife management; diseases and their impacts on wildlife populations; human dimensions of management and conservation; assessing management outcomes; and the implications of wildlife research for policy development. Readers can expect a range of papers covering well-structured field studies, manipulative experiments, and analytical and modelling studies. All articles aim to improve the practice of wildlife management and contribute conceptual advances to our knowledge and understanding of wildlife ecology.
Wildlife Research is a vital resource for wildlife scientists, students and managers, applied ecologists, conservation biologists, environmental consultants and NGOs and government policy advisors.
Wildlife Research is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.