ArticleEcology and evolution2020
Cannot see the diversity for all the species: Evaluating inclusion criteria for local species lists when using abundant citizen science data.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupancy winners in tropical protected forests: a pantropical analysis.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
- Differential reporting of biodiversity in two citizen science platforms during COVID-19 lockdown in Colombia.Biological conservation · 2021Article
- Cannot see the diversity for all the species: Evaluating inclusion criteria for local species lists when using abundant citizen science data.Ecology and evolution · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abundant citizen science data on species occurrences are becoming increasingly available and enable identifying composition of communities occurring at multiple sites with high temporal resolution. However, for species displaying temporary patterns of local occurrences that are transient to some sites, biodiversity measures are clearly dependent on the criteria used to include species into local species lists. Using abundant opportunistic citizen science data from frequently visited wetlands, we investigated the sensitivity of α- and β-diversity estimates to the use raw versus detection-corrected data and to the use of inclusion criteria for species presence reflecting alternative site use. We tested seven inclusion criteria (with varying number of days required to be present) on time series of daily occurrence status during a breeding season of 90 days for 77 wetland bird species. We show that even when opportunistic presence-only observation data are abundant, raw data may not produce reliable local species richness estimates and rank sites very differently in terms of species richness. Furthermore, occupancy model based α- and β-diversity estimates were sensitive to the inclusion criteria used. Total species lists (all species observed at least once during a season) may therefore mask diversity differences among sites in local communities of species, by including vagrant species on potentially breeding communities and change the relative rank order of sites in terms of species richness. Very high sampling effort does not necessarily free opportunistic data from its inherent bias and can produce a pattern in which many species are observed at least once almost everywhere, thus leading to a possible paradox: The large amount of biological information may hinder its usefulness. Therefore, when prioritizing among sites to manage or preserve species diversity estimates need to be carefully related to relevant inclusion criteria depending on the diversity estimate in focus.
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.