ArticleInsects2018
Comparisons of Citizen Science Data-Gathering Approaches to Evaluate Urban Butterfly Diversity.
Article in Insects, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Annotated checklist of the butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) of Burkina Faso, West Africa-synthesis and new occurrences.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2026Article
- Leveraging citizen science for monitoring urban forageable plants.GigaScience · 2024Article
- Revealing biases in insect observations: A comparative analysis between academic and citizen science data.PloS one · 2024Article
- Citizen science data on urban forageable plants: a case study in Brazil.GigaByte (Hong Kong, China) · 2024Article
- Article
- Consistent trait-temperature interactions drive butterfly phenology in both incidental and survey data.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- How could climate change influence the distribution of the black soldier fly,Biodiversity data journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- "Flora of Russia" on iNaturalist: a dataset.Biodiversity data journal · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
By 2030, ten percent of earth's landmass will be occupied by cities. Urban environments can be home to many plants and animals, but surveying and estimating biodiversity in these spaces is complicated by a heterogeneous built environment where access and landscaping are highly variable due to human activity. Citizen science approaches may be the best way to assess urban biodiversity, but little is known about their relative effectiveness and efficiency. Here, we compare three techniques for acquiring data on butterfly (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) species richness: trained volunteer Pollard walks, Malaise trapping with expert identification, and crowd-sourced iNaturalist observations. A total of 30 butterfly species were observed; 27 (90%) were recorded by Pollard walk observers, 18 (60%) were found in Malaise traps, and 22 (73%) were reported by iNaturalist observers. Pollard walks reported the highest butterfly species richness, followed by iNaturalist and then Malaise traps during the four-month time period. Pollard walks also had significantly higher species diversity than Malaise traps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.