ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2019
Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Interactions between reptiles and people: a perspective from wildlife rehabilitation records.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Extracting secondary data from citizen science images reveals host flower preferences of the Mexican grass-carrying waspEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- Assessing adequacy of citizen science datasets for biodiversity monitoring.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Evaluating the use of semi-structured crowdsourced data to quantify inequitable access to urban biodiversity: A case study with eBird.PloS one · 2022Article
- Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We are currently in the midst of Earth's sixth extinction event, and measuring biodiversity trends in space and time is essential for prioritizing limited resources for conservation. At the same time, the scope of the necessary biodiversity monitoring is overwhelming funding for professional scientific monitoring. In response, scientists are increasingly using citizen science data to monitor biodiversity. But citizen science data are 'noisy', with redundancies and gaps arising from unstructured human behaviours in space and time. We ask whether the information content of these data can be maximized for the express purpose of trend estimation. We develop and execute a novel framework which assigns every citizen science sampling event a marginal value, derived from the importance of an observation to our understanding of overall population trends. We then make this framework predictive, estimating the expected marginal value of future biodiversity observations. We find that past observations are useful in forecasting where high-value observations will occur in the future. Interestingly, we find high value in both 'hotspots', which are frequently sampled locations, and 'coldspots', which are areas far from recent sampling, suggesting that an optimal sampling regime balances 'hotspot' sampling with a spread across the landscape.
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.