Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat
Aim Citizen science is a cost‐effective potential source of invasive species occurrence data. However, data quality issues due to unstructured sampling approaches may discourage the use of these observations by science and conservation professionals. This study explored the utility of low‐structure...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Diversity & distributions 2023-09, Vol.29 (9), p.1141-1156 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1156 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1141 |
container_title | Diversity & distributions |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Dimson, Monica Fortini, Lucas Berio Tingley, Morgan W. Gillespie, Thomas W. |
description | Aim
Citizen science is a cost‐effective potential source of invasive species occurrence data. However, data quality issues due to unstructured sampling approaches may discourage the use of these observations by science and conservation professionals. This study explored the utility of low‐structure iNaturalist citizen science data in invasive plant monitoring. We first examined the prevalence of invasive taxa in iNaturalist plant observations and sampling biases associated with these data. Using four invasive species as examples, we then compared iNaturalist and professional agency observations and used the two datasets to model suitable habitat for each species.
Location
Hawai'i, USA.
Methods
To estimate the prevalence of invasive plant data, we compared the number of species and observations recorded in iNaturalist to botanical checklists for Hawai'i. Sampling bias was quantified along gradients of site accessibility, protective status and vegetation disturbance using a bias index. Habitat suitability for four invasive species was modelled in Maxent, using observations from iNaturalist, professional agencies and stratified subsets of iNaturalist data.
Results
iNaturalist plant observations were biased towards invasive species, which were frequently recorded in areas with higher road/trail density and vegetation disturbance. Professional observations of four example invasive species tended to occur in less accessible, native‐dominated sites. Habitat suitability models based on iNaturalist versus professional data showed moderate overlap and different distributions of suitable habitat across vegetation disturbance classes. Stratifying iNaturalist observations had little effect on how suitable habitat was distributed for the species modelled in this study.
Main Conclusions
Opportunistic iNaturalist observations have the potential to complement and expand professional invasive plant monitoring, which we found was often affected by inverse sampling biases. Invasive species represented a high proportion of iNaturalist plant observations, and were recorded in environments that were not captured by professional surveys. Combining the datasets thus led to more comprehensive estimates of suitable habitat. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ddi.13749 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_JFNAL</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2854093215</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48738518</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48738518</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-4c0c01d1a0c73ae117450135a3cee4492b9565abd51fb80cb63eec2f4ac7a4c43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsHf4AQ8ORh22ST7MdRWj8KBS96DtnsLKbsl5ntSv31Rle9OZcZmOcd3nkJueRswUMty9ItuEhlfkRmXKZxJBMZH4dZJEmUK56ckjPEHWNMCBXPSL1yg_uAlqJ10Fqg1rTUdk1fQwPtQHvfVYDoutbU1LWjQTcC7WsTdrj3IxyQmrakrglk2AAOrjEDIO2qALjBFDXQV1OEaTgnJ5WpES5--py83N89rx6j7dPDZnW7jaxQMo-kZZbxkhtmU2GA81QqxoUywgJImcdFrhJlilLxqsiYLRIBYONKGpsaaaWYk-vpbvD0tg-W9K7b-_AB6jhTkuUi5ipQNxNlfYfoodK9D979QXOmv8LUIUz9HWZglxP77mo4_A_q9Xrzq7iaFDscOv-nkFkqMsUz8QkJC4HB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2854093215</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat</title><source>Jstor Journals Open Access</source><creator>Dimson, Monica ; Fortini, Lucas Berio ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Gillespie, Thomas W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Dimson, Monica ; Fortini, Lucas Berio ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Gillespie, Thomas W.</creatorcontrib><description>Aim
Citizen science is a cost‐effective potential source of invasive species occurrence data. However, data quality issues due to unstructured sampling approaches may discourage the use of these observations by science and conservation professionals. This study explored the utility of low‐structure iNaturalist citizen science data in invasive plant monitoring. We first examined the prevalence of invasive taxa in iNaturalist plant observations and sampling biases associated with these data. Using four invasive species as examples, we then compared iNaturalist and professional agency observations and used the two datasets to model suitable habitat for each species.
Location
Hawai'i, USA.
Methods
To estimate the prevalence of invasive plant data, we compared the number of species and observations recorded in iNaturalist to botanical checklists for Hawai'i. Sampling bias was quantified along gradients of site accessibility, protective status and vegetation disturbance using a bias index. Habitat suitability for four invasive species was modelled in Maxent, using observations from iNaturalist, professional agencies and stratified subsets of iNaturalist data.
Results
iNaturalist plant observations were biased towards invasive species, which were frequently recorded in areas with higher road/trail density and vegetation disturbance. Professional observations of four example invasive species tended to occur in less accessible, native‐dominated sites. Habitat suitability models based on iNaturalist versus professional data showed moderate overlap and different distributions of suitable habitat across vegetation disturbance classes. Stratifying iNaturalist observations had little effect on how suitable habitat was distributed for the species modelled in this study.
Main Conclusions
Opportunistic iNaturalist observations have the potential to complement and expand professional invasive plant monitoring, which we found was often affected by inverse sampling biases. Invasive species represented a high proportion of iNaturalist plant observations, and were recorded in environments that were not captured by professional surveys. Combining the datasets thus led to more comprehensive estimates of suitable habitat.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-9516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-4642</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13749</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Wiley</publisher><subject>Accessibility ; Bias ; Biodiversity ; biodiversity monitoring ; Check lists ; citizen science ; Datasets ; Estimates ; Flowers & plants ; habitat suitability model ; Habitats ; iNaturalist ; Introduced species ; Invasive plants ; Invasive species ; Native species ; Nonnative species ; Plant monitoring ; Sampling ; sampling bias ; Science ; Scientists ; Surveys ; Taxonomy ; Vegetation</subject><ispartof>Diversity & distributions, 2023-09, Vol.29 (9), p.1141-1156</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors</rights><rights>2023 The Authors. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-4c0c01d1a0c73ae117450135a3cee4492b9565abd51fb80cb63eec2f4ac7a4c43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-4c0c01d1a0c73ae117450135a3cee4492b9565abd51fb80cb63eec2f4ac7a4c43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7689-5758 ; 0000-0002-1477-2218 ; 0000-0002-5781-7295</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48738518$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48738518$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,25332,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,54499,54505</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48738518$$EView_record_in_JSTOR$$FView_record_in_$$GJSTOR</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dimson, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortini, Lucas Berio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tingley, Morgan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Thomas W.</creatorcontrib><title>Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat</title><title>Diversity & distributions</title><description>Aim
Citizen science is a cost‐effective potential source of invasive species occurrence data. However, data quality issues due to unstructured sampling approaches may discourage the use of these observations by science and conservation professionals. This study explored the utility of low‐structure iNaturalist citizen science data in invasive plant monitoring. We first examined the prevalence of invasive taxa in iNaturalist plant observations and sampling biases associated with these data. Using four invasive species as examples, we then compared iNaturalist and professional agency observations and used the two datasets to model suitable habitat for each species.
Location
Hawai'i, USA.
Methods
To estimate the prevalence of invasive plant data, we compared the number of species and observations recorded in iNaturalist to botanical checklists for Hawai'i. Sampling bias was quantified along gradients of site accessibility, protective status and vegetation disturbance using a bias index. Habitat suitability for four invasive species was modelled in Maxent, using observations from iNaturalist, professional agencies and stratified subsets of iNaturalist data.
Results
iNaturalist plant observations were biased towards invasive species, which were frequently recorded in areas with higher road/trail density and vegetation disturbance. Professional observations of four example invasive species tended to occur in less accessible, native‐dominated sites. Habitat suitability models based on iNaturalist versus professional data showed moderate overlap and different distributions of suitable habitat across vegetation disturbance classes. Stratifying iNaturalist observations had little effect on how suitable habitat was distributed for the species modelled in this study.
Main Conclusions
Opportunistic iNaturalist observations have the potential to complement and expand professional invasive plant monitoring, which we found was often affected by inverse sampling biases. Invasive species represented a high proportion of iNaturalist plant observations, and were recorded in environments that were not captured by professional surveys. Combining the datasets thus led to more comprehensive estimates of suitable habitat.</description><subject>Accessibility</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>biodiversity monitoring</subject><subject>Check lists</subject><subject>citizen science</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Flowers & plants</subject><subject>habitat suitability model</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>iNaturalist</subject><subject>Introduced species</subject><subject>Invasive plants</subject><subject>Invasive species</subject><subject>Native species</subject><subject>Nonnative species</subject><subject>Plant monitoring</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>sampling bias</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><issn>1366-9516</issn><issn>1472-4642</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1LAzEQhoMoWKsHf4AQ8ORh22ST7MdRWj8KBS96DtnsLKbsl5ntSv31Rle9OZcZmOcd3nkJueRswUMty9ItuEhlfkRmXKZxJBMZH4dZJEmUK56ckjPEHWNMCBXPSL1yg_uAlqJ10Fqg1rTUdk1fQwPtQHvfVYDoutbU1LWjQTcC7WsTdrj3IxyQmrakrglk2AAOrjEDIO2qALjBFDXQV1OEaTgnJ5WpES5--py83N89rx6j7dPDZnW7jaxQMo-kZZbxkhtmU2GA81QqxoUywgJImcdFrhJlilLxqsiYLRIBYONKGpsaaaWYk-vpbvD0tg-W9K7b-_AB6jhTkuUi5ipQNxNlfYfoodK9D979QXOmv8LUIUz9HWZglxP77mo4_A_q9Xrzq7iaFDscOv-nkFkqMsUz8QkJC4HB</recordid><startdate>20230901</startdate><enddate>20230901</enddate><creator>Dimson, Monica</creator><creator>Fortini, Lucas Berio</creator><creator>Tingley, Morgan W.</creator><creator>Gillespie, Thomas W.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7689-5758</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-2218</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5781-7295</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230901</creationdate><title>Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat</title><author>Dimson, Monica ; Fortini, Lucas Berio ; Tingley, Morgan W. ; Gillespie, Thomas W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3549-4c0c01d1a0c73ae117450135a3cee4492b9565abd51fb80cb63eec2f4ac7a4c43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Accessibility</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>biodiversity monitoring</topic><topic>Check lists</topic><topic>citizen science</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Flowers & plants</topic><topic>habitat suitability model</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>iNaturalist</topic><topic>Introduced species</topic><topic>Invasive plants</topic><topic>Invasive species</topic><topic>Native species</topic><topic>Nonnative species</topic><topic>Plant monitoring</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>sampling bias</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dimson, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fortini, Lucas Berio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tingley, Morgan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gillespie, Thomas W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dimson, Monica</au><au>Fortini, Lucas Berio</au><au>Tingley, Morgan W.</au><au>Gillespie, Thomas W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat</atitle><jtitle>Diversity & distributions</jtitle><date>2023-09-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1141</spage><epage>1156</epage><pages>1141-1156</pages><issn>1366-9516</issn><eissn>1472-4642</eissn><abstract>Aim
Citizen science is a cost‐effective potential source of invasive species occurrence data. However, data quality issues due to unstructured sampling approaches may discourage the use of these observations by science and conservation professionals. This study explored the utility of low‐structure iNaturalist citizen science data in invasive plant monitoring. We first examined the prevalence of invasive taxa in iNaturalist plant observations and sampling biases associated with these data. Using four invasive species as examples, we then compared iNaturalist and professional agency observations and used the two datasets to model suitable habitat for each species.
Location
Hawai'i, USA.
Methods
To estimate the prevalence of invasive plant data, we compared the number of species and observations recorded in iNaturalist to botanical checklists for Hawai'i. Sampling bias was quantified along gradients of site accessibility, protective status and vegetation disturbance using a bias index. Habitat suitability for four invasive species was modelled in Maxent, using observations from iNaturalist, professional agencies and stratified subsets of iNaturalist data.
Results
iNaturalist plant observations were biased towards invasive species, which were frequently recorded in areas with higher road/trail density and vegetation disturbance. Professional observations of four example invasive species tended to occur in less accessible, native‐dominated sites. Habitat suitability models based on iNaturalist versus professional data showed moderate overlap and different distributions of suitable habitat across vegetation disturbance classes. Stratifying iNaturalist observations had little effect on how suitable habitat was distributed for the species modelled in this study.
Main Conclusions
Opportunistic iNaturalist observations have the potential to complement and expand professional invasive plant monitoring, which we found was often affected by inverse sampling biases. Invasive species represented a high proportion of iNaturalist plant observations, and were recorded in environments that were not captured by professional surveys. Combining the datasets thus led to more comprehensive estimates of suitable habitat.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><doi>10.1111/ddi.13749</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7689-5758</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-2218</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5781-7295</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 1366-9516 |
ispartof | Diversity & distributions, 2023-09, Vol.29 (9), p.1141-1156 |
issn | 1366-9516 1472-4642 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2854093215 |
source | Jstor Journals Open Access |
subjects | Accessibility Bias Biodiversity biodiversity monitoring Check lists citizen science Datasets Estimates Flowers & plants habitat suitability model Habitats iNaturalist Introduced species Invasive plants Invasive species Native species Nonnative species Plant monitoring Sampling sampling bias Science Scientists Surveys Taxonomy Vegetation |
title | Citizen science can complement professional invasive plant surveys and improve estimates of suitable habitat |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T13%3A37%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_JFNAL&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Citizen%20science%20can%20complement%20professional%20invasive%20plant%20surveys%20and%20improve%20estimates%20of%20suitable%20habitat&rft.jtitle=Diversity%20&%20distributions&rft.au=Dimson,%20Monica&rft.date=2023-09-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1141&rft.epage=1156&rft.pages=1141-1156&rft.issn=1366-9516&rft.eissn=1472-4642&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ddi.13749&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_JFNAL%3E48738518%3C/jstor_JFNAL%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2854093215&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48738518&rfr_iscdi=true |