ArticleBioscience2023
Increasing biodiversity knowledge through social media: A case study from tropical Bangladesh.
Article in Bioscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extensive climate-induced range shifts in butterflies across the globe.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Integrating Genomics, Collections, and Community Science to Delimit Species Clarifies the Taxonomy of a Variable Monitor Lizard (Varanus tristis).Systematic biology · 2026Article
- Sampling bias and uneven data coverage shape observed biodiversity patterns in a megadiverse island archipelago hotspot.PloS one · 2026Article
- Climate change triggering shifts in venomous snakes hotspots and snakebite risk in India.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Protected area coverage of the full annual cycle of migratory butterflies.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Citizen science programs are becoming increasingly popular among naturalists but remain heavily biased taxonomically and geographically. However, with the explosive popularity of social media and the near-ubiquitous availability of smartphones, many post wildlife photographs on social media. Here, we illustrate the potential of harvesting these data to enhance our biodiversity understanding using Bangladesh, a tropical biodiverse country, as a case study. We compared biodiversity records extracted from Facebook with those from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), collating geospatial records for 1013 unique species, including 970 species from Facebook and 712 species from GBIF. Although most observation records were biased toward major cities, the Facebook records were more evenly spatially distributed. About 86% of the Threatened species records were from Facebook, whereas the GBIF records were almost entirely Of Least Concern species. To reduce the global biodiversity data shortfall, a key research priority now is the development of mechanisms for extracting and interpreting social media biodiversity data.
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.