ArticleScientific reports2025
Global impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on biodiversity data collection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Retrospective multicenter analysis of causes of death in wild mammals in Southern Germany (2019-2023).Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered different governmental responses across borders, with cascading effects on people's movements and on biodiversity data collection. We quantified changes in the number of species occurrence records collected during the first global lockdown (March 15th to May 1st 2020) relative to pre-pandemic levels using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). We modelled how such changes relate to the stringency of governmental policy responses, changes in human mobility, and countries' population size and economic class across 129 countries. We further focused on data from the community science project eBird, which constitutes the largest dataset in GBIF, to investigate changes in participation and activity patterns of individual observers (eBirders) during the lockdown. We found that the decreases in GBIF records correlated with declines in numbers of visitors to parks and outdoor areas, and were significantly larger in developing countries compared to developed ones. While the activity ranges of eBirders shrunk across all countries analysed, the number of eBirders in developing and least developed countries declined more than in developed countries, as the lockdown disrupted the influx of international visitors. Our results suggest that community-based, local monitoring programmes are essential to reduce biases in global biodiversity monitoring.
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.