Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40814409›Full record

ReviewBioscience2025

Birdwatching in the digital age: how technologies shape relationships to birds.

Elin Lundquist, Jesse Peterson, Minh-Xuân Truong, Gabriel Gumucio, René van der Wal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bioscience, 2025. 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

5 authors.

Elin LundquistSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1958-6480
Jesse PetersonRadical Humanities Laboratory, School of the Human Environment, Department of Geography at University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Minh-Xuân TruongSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7210-3656
Gabriel GumucioUppsala, Sweden.
René van der WalSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in technologies have affected birdwatching and its popularization through time. To better understand how, we expose ways by which today's digital technology-typically taken for granted-shapes the social practices of birdwatching, which shifts human-bird relationships and has consequences for birds themselves. Starting in the transition from analogue to digital, we highlight how technologies have functioned to enhance human abilities and create connections among people, organizations, and places. We then analyze contemporary digital technologies (e.g., digital cameras, social media, and online biodiversity monitoring platforms), demonstrating how their entry into birdwatching practices reformulates the interests and power of various actors. Such processes affect the experience of birdwatching, its perceived benefits, the organization of birdwatching communities, and how birds are seen. To conclude, we address societal and ethical implications of digital technologies in birdwatching, focusing on their democratizing potential, as well as concerns over privacy, data ownership, and uneven digital engagement.

Indexed as

biodiversity recording platformsbirdwatchingcitizen sciencedigitizationtechnology

Identifiers

PMID40814409
PMCPMC12345627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.