ArticleScientific reports2025
Citizen scientists reliably count endangered Galápagos marine iguanas from drone images.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Lessons learned from surveying Galápagos marine iguanas using drones.Frontiers in zoology · 2026Article
- Citizen science powers wetland restoration.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Population surveys are essential for conservation, but are often resource-intensive. Modern technologies, like drones, facilitate data collection but increase the analysis burden. Citizen Science (CS) offers a solution by engaging non-specialists in data analysis. We evaluated CS for monitoring marine iguanas, focusing on volunteers' accuracy in detecting and counting individuals in aerial images. During three phases of our Zooniverse project, over 13,000 volunteers contributed 1,375,201 classifications from 57,838 images; each classified up to 30 times. Using a Gold Standard dataset of expert counts from 4,345 images, we evaluated optimal aggregation methods for CS-inputs. Volunteers achieved 68-94% accuracy in detection, with more false negatives than false positives. The standard 'majority vote' aggregation approach (where the answer given by the majority of individual inputs is selected) produced less accuracy than when a minimum threshold of five volunteers (from the total independent classifications) was used. Image quality significantly influenced accuracy; by excluding suboptimal pilot-phase data, volunteer counts were 91-92% accurate. HDBSCAN clustering yielded the best results. We conclude that volunteers can accurately identify and count marine iguanas from drone images, though there is a tendency for undercounting. However, even CS-based data analysis remains relatively resource-intensive, underscoring the need to develop an automated approach.
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.