Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41019404›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2025

Facilitating Large-Scale Bird Biodiversity Data Collection in Citizen Science: 'Relaxed' Point Counts for Anytime, Anywhere Monitoring.

Masumi Hisano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 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

1 author.

Masumi HisanoGraduate School of Informatics Kyoto University Kyoto Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3869-8542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science has expanded biodiversity monitoring, yet many datasets lack standardisation in spatial and temporal coverage and survey protocols. In birds, for example, traditional point count surveys often impose strict requirements on location, timing and spacing between survey points, limiting opportunities for casual, at-ease participation in data collection. To address these constraints, this paper proposes a 'relaxed' point-count survey method to enhance accessibility and expand geographic coverage by easing these constraints. Surveys can be conducted in diverse locations, including urban areas and travel or daily-routine routes, within flexible timeframes (e.g., not only within 6 h after sunrise but also afternoon/evening) and seasons (e.g., including non-breeding periods), with adaptable spacing between points and the option for repeated counts at the same location on different days. The framework addresses spatial and temporal autocorrelation, as well as variability in observer skill and environmental conditions through statistical adjustments using random effects and covariates. Preliminary data collected opportunistically across a large area of western Canada demonstrate the feasibility of this approach, yielding cross-biome community data within a short timeframe. By engaging birdwatchers and citizens, this approach facilitates the collection of large-scale, standardised species assemblage data beyond single-species observations. This inclusive and scalable strategy offers new opportunities for biodiversity monitoring, particularly in human-modified landscapes. This inclusive and scalable framework offers new opportunities for biodiversity monitoring, particularly in urban and human-modified landscapes.

Indexed as

avian species assemblagebig data collectionbiodiversity monitoringfield bird surveypublic participation in sciencespatial autocorrelationspecies distribution

Identifiers

PMID41019404
PMCPMC12463457

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.