Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37352184›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Not all who wander are lost: Trail bias in community science.

Ellyne M Geurts, John D Reynolds, Brian M Starzomski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ellyne M GeurtsSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4440-8273
John D ReynoldsEarth to Ocean Research Group, Department of Biological Sciences, 8888 University Drive, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Brian M StarzomskiSchool of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The exponential growth and interest in community science programs is producing staggering amounts of biodiversity data across broad temporal and spatial scales. Large community science datasets such as iNaturalist and eBird are allowing ecologists and conservation biologists to answer novel questions that were not possible before. However, the opportunistic nature of many of these enormous datasets leads to biases. Spatial bias is a common problem, where observations are biased towards points of access like roads and trails. iNaturalist-a popular biodiversity community science platform-exhibits strong spatial biases, but it is unclear how these biases affect the quality of biodiversity data collected. Thus, we tested whether fine-scale spatial bias due to sampling from trails affects taxonomic richness estimates. We compared timed transects with experienced iNaturalist observers on and off trails in British Columbia, Canada. Using generalized linear mixed models, we found higher overall taxonomic richness on trails than off trails. In addition, we found more exotic as well as native taxa on trails than off trails. There was no difference between on and off trail observations for species that are rarely observed. Thus, fine-scale spatial bias from trails does not reduce the quality of biodiversity measurements, a promising result for those interested in using iNaturalist data for research and conservation management.

Indexed as

BiodiversityBiasBritish Columbia

Identifiers

PMID37352184
PMCPMC10289309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.