Improving Online Citizen Science Platforms for Biodiversity Monitoring

BackgroundMonitoring biodiversity is crucial in biogeography. Citizen science and biodiversity platforms have revolutionized data access across taxa, but they struggle to provide robust raw data essential for conservation decisions.AimsThis study addresses data gaps for under‐represented species and locations, observer expertise variability, and the lack of absence data and sampling effort information to improve data representation and suitability for statistical analyses.Materials & MethodsWe collected, compared to IUCN‐recognized taxonomic groups, all worldwide living being (animal, plant and fungi) observations held by four major biodiversity platforms: eBird, GBIF, iNaturalist, and Observation.org. We also organized such observations by country of origin and based on their Human Development Index (HDI).ResultsWe found that, while GBIF, iNaturalist, and Observation.org cover all life forms, birds are the most observed (eBird is a bird‐specific platform), whereas fish, other marine organisms, arthropods, and invertebrates are dramatically underrepresented. Moreover, none of the above‐mentioned biodiversity platforms considered or directly analysed expertise variability among observers and, apart from eBird, the other three biodiversity platforms do not accommodate data on species absence and sampling effort.Discussion and ConclusionFinally, we found that species observations on biodiversity platforms considered in this study are skewed towards high HDI countries, primarily North America and Europe. By enhancing the effectiveness of biodiversity platforms, this study has the potential to significantly advance the field of biogeography, paving the way for more informed and effective conservation strategies. Overall, our findings underscore the untapped potential of these platforms in contributing to our understanding of the spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity.