Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39364368›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Data gap or biodiversity gap? Evaluating apparent spatial biases in community science observations of Odonata in the east-central United States.

Christian M Bullion, Christie A Bahlai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Christian M BullionDepartment of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, United States of America.
Christie A BahlaiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Odonates (dragonflies and damselflies) have become popular study organisms for insect-based climate studies, due to the taxon's strong sensitivity to environmental conditions, and an enthusiastic following by community scientists due to their charismatic appearance and size. Where formal records of this taxon can be limited, public efforts have provided nearly 1,500,000 open-sourced odonate records through online databases, making real-time spatio-temporal monitoring more feasible. While these databases can be extensive, concerns regarding these public endeavors have arisen from a variety of sources: records may be biased by human factors (ex: density, technological access) which may cause erroneous interpretations. Indeed, records of odonates in the east-central US documented in the popular database iNaturalist bear striking patterns corresponding to political boundaries and other human activities. We conducted a 'ground-truthing' study using a structured sampling method to examine these patterns in an area where community science reports indicated variable abundance, richness, and diversity which appeared to be linked to observation biases. Our observations were largely consistent with patterns recorded by community scientists, suggesting these databases were indeed capturing representative biological trends and raising further questions about environmental drivers in the observed data gaps.

Indexed as

BiodiversityOdonataAnimalsBiasDatabases, FactualHumansUnited StatesCommunity scienceEcological modelingGeographic biasInsect biodiversityOdonatologySpatial gaps

Identifiers

PMID39364368
PMCPMC11448655

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.