ArticleScientific reports2024
Assessing citizen science data quality for bird monitoring in the Iberian Peninsula.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A bird species occurrence dataset from passive audio recordings across dense urban areas in Gothenburg, Sweden.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Citizen science data on biodiversity has experienced significant growth, largely driven by advancements in technology that facilitate data sharing. In recent years, mobile applications have provided a substantial boost to both the collection and sharing of this data. While this accessible information is undoubtedly valuable, we must consider the numerous biases present in this data when used for high-quality research. In this study, we analyse citizen science data for the birds of the Iberian Peninsula, comprising over 23 million unique records after filtering for duplicates (i.e., instances where the same observation was uploaded more than once). Using a 10 × 10 km square grid, we present information on well-surveyed cells (completeness) as well as temporal, taxonomic, geographical, and land use coverages. We found that the completeness of information is generally high, with better coverage around densely populated areas such as major cities and coastal regions, as well as popular birding destinations, which are frequently visited. The Mediterranean ecoregion and wetlands exhibit the highest levels of surveying. Furthermore, we observed an increase in temporal coverage since the 1980s and broad taxonomic coverage across all bird orders in the Iberian region. Our results underscore the utility of citizen science for many locations, as expressed in 10 × 10 km cells. However, they also highlight the inadequate data completeness across part of the territory, particularly in forested or sparsely inhabited areas. These findings not only identify cells suitable for bird diversity or conservation studies but also indicate areas where citizen-driven bird recording efforts should be encouraged.
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.