ArticleBMC research notes2025
The records from citizen science of an "endemic" agouti are not thoroughly evaluated nor examined.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveCitizen science supports conservation by contributing species occurrence data and promoting environmental education. However, the accuracy of these data remains a concern, particularly for endemic and poorly studied species. This study evaluates the spatial accuracy of citizen science records for the Roatán agouti (Dasyprocta ruatanica), an insular mammal endemic to the Bay Islands of Honduras. We specifically analysed geographic records sourced from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), mainly contributed through iNaturalist, to assess georeferencing quality and discuss potential misidentifications with the more widespread D. punctata.
resultsOf 181 georeferenced records analysed, 80.11% were incorrectly placed-many located in the Atlantic Ocean rather than on Roatán-with a mean distance was 8.15 km (SD = 20.9 km), although the distribution was highly skewed due to a few extreme misplaced records. Furthermore, potential confusion between D. ruatanica and D. punctata was noted, likely due to morphological similarities and photographic limitations. These findings highlight the importance of careful precise geolocation and species identification when using citizen science data for conservation purposes, especially for insular endemics. Improved validation protocols and expert oversight are necessary to enhance the reliability of such records in 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.