ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating images, sounds, citizen science and AI to assess the biodiversity of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil.PloS one · 2026Article
- Phylogenomic and metabolomic approaches to provide insight for species delimitation of cultivatedFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- iNaturalist accelerates biodiversity research.Bioscience · 2025Article
- A nature tourism and citizen science alliance.Bioscience · 2025Review
- Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many citizen scientists are highly motivated to help address the current extinction crisis. Their work is making valuable contributions to protecting species by raising awareness, identifying species occurrences, assessing population trends, and informing direct management actions, such as captive breeding. However, clear guidance is lacking about how to use existing citizen science data sets and how to design effective citizen science programs that directly inform extinction risk assessments and resulting conservation actions based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria. This may be because of a mismatch between what citizen science can deliver to address extinction risk and the reality of what is needed to inform threatened species listing based on IUCN criteria. To overcome this problem, we examined each IUCN Red List criterion (A-E) relative to the five major types of citizen science outputs relevant to IUCN assessments (occurrence data, presence-absence observations, structured surveys, physical samples, and narratives) to recommend which outputs are most suited to use when applying the IUCN extinction risk assessment process. We explored real-world examples of citizen science projects on amphibians and fungi that have delivered valuable data and knowledge for IUCN assessments. We found that although occurrence data are routinely used in the assessment process, simply adding more observations of occurrence from citizen science information may not be as valuable as inclusion of more nuanced data types, such as presence-absence data or information on threats from structured surveys. We then explored the characteristics of citizen science projects that have already delivered valuable data to support assessments. These projects were led by recognized experts who champion and validate citizen science data, thereby giving greater confidence in its accuracy. We urge increased recognition of the value of citizen science data within the assessment process.
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.