Rapidly mapping fire effects on biodiversity at a large-scale using citizen science

Abstract

NOTE: This is a pre-print, still under consideration for publication, and this version has not undergone peer review.

Ecological consequences of Australian “Black Summer” (2019–20) fires: A synthesis of Australian Commonwealth Government report findings

“…This was attributed to a lack of knowledge about responses of invertebrates to fire, which limits the capacity of evidence to inform effective conservation policy in response to major fires. In contrast, impacts to some species could be rapidly evaluated with the aid of a well-designed and managed citizen science program (Kirchhoff et al, 2021). For example, active citizen science programs were able to provide rapid information on the immediate survival of many frog species (Rowley et al, 2020).…”

Ecological insights into a charismatic bird using different citizen science approaches

“…iNaturalist has the broadest focus, with participants able to submit sightings of any species, while eBird participants are able to submit sightings of the entire avian group (eBird 2020). The two projects have been lauded as examples of crowdsourcing biological data (Wood et al 2011;Goldsmith 2015), and the databases they have generated have been used extensively in biodiversity monitoring and scientific research (Pimm et al 2014;La Sorte et al 2016;Kirchhoff et al 2021). iNaturalist has a completely unstructured observation process, with participants required to submit a species observation, the date, time and location; it is optional to include a photograph or comment.…”

A Framework of Observer-Based Biases in Citizen Science Biodiversity Monitoring: Semi-Structuring Unstructured Biodiversity Monitoring Protocols

“…Nonetheless, observer-related factors also influence the ability to detect a species, namely: the amount of attention devoted to monitoring, observers' expertise and the equipment used. Wide-scope and opportunistic platforms such as iNaturalist, relay on reports taken by observers which are heterogeneous in terms of the attention they devote (some report when on leisurely nature strolls, others actively seeking wildlife) and their equipment (some use smartphones, others professional cameras with powerful zooming capabilities) 3 (Kirchhoff et al, 2021). The ability to identify species is most critical in expertise-based platforms (e.g., eBird), in contrast to evidence-based platforms where the observer's initial identification is less critical, as the community is involved in the identification process based on the photos taken.…”

“…Observations are reported by a local community of volunteers. Tatzpiteva employs the iNaturalist 4 online citizen science platform (Wiggins and He, 2016;Kirchhoff et al, 2021), whereby observers use a mobile phone (both Android and iPhone applications) and a web site. Observations are recorded using a camera and then recorded (or uploaded) to the online database; when using a smartphone app recording and sharing are performed simultaneously, unless limited internet connection delays upload; and when using a standalone camera to record observations, reporting to the website is performed at a later stage.…”

“…Structured CS projects provide more verifiable data, suitable for scientific analyses, but as a trade-off might suffer from a lack of participants or funding due to the complexity of policies. In contrast, unstructured monitoring, which characterize many of CS biodiversity monitoring projects (Pocock et al, 2017), is preferable for the wide audience due to data collection flexibility, but is more susceptible to observer-based biases (Tulloch and Szabo, 2012;Isaac and Pocock, 2015;Boakes et al, 2016;Callaghan et al, 2019;Kirchhoff et al, 2021). These biases may be broadly classified into three categories: temporal, spatial and species-related biases (Isaac and Pocock, 2015).…”