Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Citizen science data accurately predicts expert-derived species richness at a continental scale when sampling thresholds are met

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding species richness patterns in time and space is critical for conservation management and ecological analyses. But estimates of species richness for a given place are often imprecise and incomplete, even when derived from expert-validated range maps. The current uptake of citizen science in natural resource management, conservation, and ecology offers great potential for extensive data to define species occurrence and richness patterns in the future. Yet, studies are needed to validate these richness patterns and ensure these data are fit-for-purpose. We compared data from a continental-scale citizen science project—FrogID—with expert-derived range maps to assess how well the former predicts species richness patterns in space. We then investigated how many citizen science submissions are necessary to fully sample the underlying frog community. There was a strong positive association between citizen science species richness estimates and estimates derived from an expert-derived map of frog distributions. An average of 153 citizen science submissions were necessary to fully-sample frog richness based on the expert-derived frog richness. Sampling effort in the citizen science project was negatively correlated with the remoteness of an area: less remote areas were more likely to have a greater number of citizen science submissions and be fully sampled. This suggests that scientists will likely need to rely on professionals for data collection in remote regions. We conclude that a citizen science project that has been running for ~ 18 months, can accurately predict frog species richness at a continental scale compared with an expert-derived map based on ~ 240 years of data accumulation. At large-scales, biodiversity data derived from citizen science projects will likely play a prominent role in the future of biodiversity and conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aceves-Bueno E, Adeleye AS, Feraud M et al (2017) The accuracy of citizen science data: a quantitative review. Bull Ecol Soc Am 98:278–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen GE, Bindemann M, Griffiths RA, Roberts DL (2016) Species identification by experts and non-experts: comparing images from field guides. Sci Rep 6:33634

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Balaguera-Reina SA, Bustillo S, Zárrate-Charry DA et al (2019) Conservation status and distribution based on a species distribution model of the endemic yellow-striped poison frog, Dendrobates truncatus (Cope, 1861), in Colombia. Herpetol Rev 50:52–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird TJ, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS et al (2014) Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biol Conserv 173:144–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Boakes EH, McGowan PJ, Fuller RA et al (2010) Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biol 8:e1000385

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Botts EA, Erasmus BF, Alexander GJ (2011) Geographic sampling bias in the south african frog atlas project: implications for conservation planning. Biodivers Conserv 20:119–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess HK, DeBey L, Froehlich H et al (2017) The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol Conserv 208:113–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan CT, Gawlik DE (2015) Efficacy of eBird data as an aid in conservation planning and monitoring. J Field Ornithol 86:298–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan C, Lyons M, Martin J et al (2017) Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science data. Avian Conserv Ecol 12:12

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan CT, Martin JM, Major RE, Kingsford RT (2018) Avian monitoring—comparing structured and unstructured citizen science. Wildlife Res 45:176–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan CT, Rowley JJ, Cornwell WK et al (2019a) Improving big citizen science data: moving beyond haphazard sampling. PLOS Biol 17:e3000357

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Callaghan CT, Poore AGB, Major RE, Rowley JJL, Cornwell WK (2019b) Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists. Proc Biol Sci 286(1912):20191487. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1487

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R (2017) Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:E6089–E6096

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cogger HG (2018) A brief demographic overview of Australia’s native amphibians. In: Heatwole H, Rowley J (eds) Status of cnservation and decline of amphibians: Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell RK (2009) Biodiversity: concepts, patterns, and measurement. In: Levin SA (ed) The princeton guide to ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Courter JR, Johnson RJ, Stuyck CM et al (2013) Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: implications for phenology studies. Int J Biometeorol 57:715–720

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • de Solla SR, Shirose LJ, Fernie KJ et al (2005) Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs. Biol Conserv 121:585–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Eken G, Bennun L, Brooks TM et al (2004) Key biodiversity areas as site conservation targets. Bioscience 54:1110–1118

    Google Scholar 

  • Embling C, Walters A, Dolman S (2015) How much effort is enough? The power of citizen science to monitor trends in coastal cetacean species. Glob Ecol Conserv 3:867–877

    Google Scholar 

  • Essl F, Rabitsch W, Dullinger S et al (2013) How well do we know species richness in a well-known continent? Temporal patterns of endemic and widespread species descriptions in the european fauna. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 22:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PM et al (2012) Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front Ecol Environ 10:471–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascon C, Lovejoy TE, Bierregaard RO et al (1999) Matrix habitat and species richness in tropical forest remnants. Biol Conserv 91:223–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Geijzendorffer IR, Regan EC, Pereira HM et al (2016) Bridging the gap between biodiversity data and policy reporting needs: an essential biodiversity variables perspective. J Appl Ecol 53:1341–1350

    Google Scholar 

  • Glover JD, Tennant SK (2003) Remote areas statistical geography in Australia: Notes on the accessibility/remoteness index for Australia (ARIA + version). Public Health Information Development Unit, the University of Adelaide

  • Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M et al (2017) Google earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ 202:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham CH, Hijmans RJ (2006) A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:578–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Heard GW, Robertson P, Scroggie MP (2006) Assessing detection probabilities for the endangered growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis) in southern Victoria. Wildl Res 33:557–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA et al (2012) Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 27:130–137

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries CJ, Williams PH, Vane-Wright RI (1995) Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:93–111

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2019) Red list of threatened species. International Union for Conservation of Nature (wwwiucnredlistorg)

  • Jarzyna MA, Jetz W (2016) Detecting the multiple facets of biodiversity. Trends Ecol Evol 31:527–538

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiguet F, Devictor V, Julliard R, Couvet D (2012) French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences. Acta Oecol 44:58–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan R, Crall A, Gray S et al (2015) Citizen science as a distinct field of inquiry. Bioscience 65:208–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee A (1967) Studies in Australian amphibia ii. Taxonomy, ecology and evolution of the genus Heleioporus Gray (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Aust J Zool 15:367–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemckert F, Mahony M (2008) Core calling periods of the frogs of temperate New South Wales, Australia. Herpetol Conserv Biol 3:71–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepczyk CA (2005) Integrating published data and citizen science to describe bird diversity across a landscape. J Appl Ecol 42:672–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn MJ (1959) Call differentiation in a complex of seven species of Crinia (Anura, Leptodactylidae). Evolution 13:452–468

    Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair L, Ruete A (2016) Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa. PLoS ONE 11:e0147796

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle MJ, Bailey LL, Kendall WL et al (2007) Making great leaps forward: accounting for detectability in herpetological field studies. J Herpetol 41:672–690

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarigal K, Wan HY, Zeller KA et al (2016) Multi-scale habitat selection modeling: a review and outlook. Landsc Ecol 31:1161–1175

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL et al (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore JA (1954) Geographic and genetic isolation in Australian amphibia. Am Nat 88:65–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Mora C, Tittensor DP, Adl S et al (2011) How many species are there on earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biol 9:e1001127

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M et al (2018) Vegan: Community ecology package R package version 2.5-2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan

  • Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED et al (2001) Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51:933–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson JS, Araujo MB, Berry PM et al (2008) Mitigation, adaptation, and the threat to biodiversity. Conserv Biol 22:1352–1355

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pavón-Vázquez CJ, Gray LN, White BA et al (2016) First records for Cozumel island, Quintana Roo, Mexico: Eleutherodactylus planirostris (Anura: Eleutherodactylidae), Trachycephalus typhonius (Anura: Hylidae), and Indotyphlops braminus (squamata: Typhlopidae). Mesoam Herpetol 3:531–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Penman TD, Lemckert FL, Mahony MJ (2006) Meteorological effects on the activity of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) in south-eastern Australia. Wildl Res 33:35–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieterson EC, Addison LM, Agobian JN et al (2006) Five years of the southwest Florida frog monitoring network: changes in frog communities as an indicator of landscape change. Florida Sci 69:117–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocock MJ, Tweddle JC, Savage J et al (2017) The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS ONE 12:e0172579

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock MJ, Chandler M, Bonney R et al (2018) A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Adv Ecol Res 59:169–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Proença V, Martin LJ, Pereira HM et al (2017) Global biodiversity monitoring: from data sources to essential biodiversity variables. Biol Conserv 213:256–263

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts D, Majors C (1993) Range extensions, range definitions and call structures for frogs from Western Australia. Rec West Aust Mus 16:315–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts JD (2018) Conservation of frogs in Australia: state and federal laws. In: Heatwole H, Rowley J (eds) Status of conservation and decline of amphibians: Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton South

    Google Scholar 

  • Roman LA, Scharenbroch BC, Östberg JP et al (2017) Data quality in citizen science urban tree inventories. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 22:124–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley JJ, Alford RA (2007) Movement patterns and habitat use of rainforest stream frogs in northern Queensland, Australia: Implications for extinction vulnerability. Wildl Res 34:371–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley JJ, Callaghan CT, Cutajar T et al (2019) FrogID: citizen scientists provide validated biodiversity data on frogs of Australia. Herpetol Conserv Biol 14:155–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholes RJ, Walters M, Turak E et al (2012) Building a global observing system for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4:139–146

    Google Scholar 

  • See L, Comber A, Salk C et al (2013) Comparing the quality of crowdsourced data contributed by expert and non-experts. PLoS ONE 8:e69958

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Slatyer C, Rosauer D, Lemckert F (2007) An assessment of endemism and species richness patterns in the Australian anura. J Biogeogr 34:583–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith EP, van Belle G (1984) Nonparametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics 40:119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Stork NE (1993) How many species are there? Biodiv Conserv 2:215–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan BL, Phillips T, Dayer AA et al (2017) Using open access observational data for conservation action: a case study for birds. Biol Conserv 208:5–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK et al (2015) Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol Conserv 181:236–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D (1999) The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles 101. Ecology 80:1455–1474

    Google Scholar 

  • Troudet J, Grandcolas P, Blin A et al (2017) Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci Rep 7:9132

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tulloch AI, Possingham HP, Joseph LN et al (2013) Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Conserv 165:128–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wal R, Anderson H, Robinson A et al (2015) Mapping species distributions: a comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording. Ambio 44:584–600

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Watson G, Loftus-Hills J, Littlejohn M (1971) The Litoria ewingi complex (Anura: Hylidae) in south-eastern Australia. I. A new species from Victoria. Aust J Zool 19:401–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss DJ, Nelson A, Gibson H et al (2018) A global map of travel time to cities to assess inequalities in accessibility in 2015. Nature 553:333

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Welvaert M, Caley P (2016) Citizen surveillance for environmental monitoring: combining the efforts of citizen science and crowdsourcing in a quantitative data framework. SpringerPlus 5:1890

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Westgate MJ, Scheele BC, Ikin K et al (2015) Citizen science program shows urban areas have lower occurrence of frog species, but not accelerated declines. PLoS ONE 10:e0140973

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • White GC (2005) Correcting wildlife counts using detection probabilities. Wildl Res 32:211–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker RJ, Willis KJ, Field R (2001) Scale and species richness: towards a general, hierarchical theory of species diversity. J Biogeogr 28:453–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham H (2017) Tidyverse: Easily install and load the ’tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse

  • Wiens JJ (2011) The causes of species richness patterns across space, time, and clades and the role of “ecological limits.” Q Rev Biol 86:75–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH (2000) WORLDMAP iv for Windows. Software and help document 4.2 (Version 4.20.02). privately distributed, London

  • Wood SN (2004) Stable and efficient multiple smoothing parameter estimation for generalized additive models. J Am Stat Assoc 99:673–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2001) Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol Evol 16:446–453

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the > 8000 FrogID citizen science contributors who are continuously sampling frogs and sending in their submissions. We also thank the entire FrogID team at the Australian Museum, and FrogID partners. We thank two anonymous reviewers for comments that improved this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Corey T. Callaghan & Jodi J. L. Rowley

  2. Ecology & Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Corey T. Callaghan & Alistair G. B. Poore

  3. Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Corey T. Callaghan, Hal Cogger & Jodi J. L. Rowley

  4. School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Albany, WA, Australia

    J. Dale Roberts

  5. College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Douglas, QLD, Australia

    Ross A. Alford

Authors
  1. Corey T. Callaghan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Dale Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alistair G. B. Poore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ross A. Alford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hal Cogger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jodi J. L. Rowley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Corey T. Callaghan.

Additional information

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 455 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Callaghan, C.T., Roberts, J.D., Poore, A.G.B. 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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01937-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01937-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation