强强联合:不同的社区科学平台都为野生动物研究做出贡献

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1071/wr23160
Lucas Rodriguez Forti, Ana Marta P. R. da Silva Passetti, Talita Oliveira, Kauane Freitas, Guilherme de Freitas Costa, Juan Victor de Lima Maia, Arthur Queiros, Maria Alice Dantas Ferreira Lopes, Judit K. Szabo
{"title":"强强联合:不同的社区科学平台都为野生动物研究做出贡献","authors":"Lucas Rodriguez Forti, Ana Marta P. R. da Silva Passetti, Talita Oliveira, Kauane Freitas, Guilherme de Freitas Costa, Juan Victor de Lima Maia, Arthur Queiros, Maria Alice Dantas Ferreira Lopes, Judit K. Szabo","doi":"10.1071/wr23160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong> Context</strong><p>Engaging the general public can increase spatio-temporal coverage of wildlife monitoring. Given the potentially substantial costs, we need to evaluate the contribution of known and planned initiatives and confirm whether multiple platforms increase the efficiency of data collection. As observer behaviour affects data quantity and quality, users of specialised and generalist platforms are expected to behave differently, resulting in more connected networks for specialised and higher nestedness for generalist platforms. Specialist observers are expected to contribute a balanced ratio of rare and common species, whereas non-specialist contribution will depend more on species detectability.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>We aim to evaluate whether the combined contribution of observers from different platforms can improve the quality of occurrence and distribution data of 218 endemic Atlantic Forest bird species in Brazil. We also describe and compare observer-bird species interaction networks to illustrate observer behaviour on different platforms.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>On the basis of data from five community science platforms in Brazil, namely, eBird, WikiAves, Biofaces, iNaturalist and Táxeus, we compared the spatial distribution of bird observations, the number of observers, the presence of the same observers on various platforms, bird species coverage, and the proportion of duplicate observations within and among platforms.</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>Although species coverage of the joint dataset increased by up to 100%, spatial completeness among the five platforms was low. The network of individual platforms had low values of clustering, and the network of the joint dataset had low connectance and high nestedness.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>Each platform had a somewhat unique contribution. Pooling these datasets and integrating them with standardised data can inform our knowledge on bird distributions and trends in this fragile biome. Nevertheless, we encourage observers to provide precise coordinates, dates and other data (and platforms to accommodate such data) and recommend submitting data from all platforms into the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to support wildlife research and conservation.</p><strong> Implications</strong><p>If new platforms engage more and different people, new initiatives can cover poorly represented areas and successfully expand monitoring effort for Atlantic Forest endemic bird species.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stronger together: different community science platforms all contribute to wildlife research\",\"authors\":\"Lucas Rodriguez Forti, Ana Marta P. R. da Silva Passetti, Talita Oliveira, Kauane Freitas, Guilherme de Freitas Costa, Juan Victor de Lima Maia, Arthur Queiros, Maria Alice Dantas Ferreira Lopes, Judit K. Szabo\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/wr23160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong> Context</strong><p>Engaging the general public can increase spatio-temporal coverage of wildlife monitoring. Given the potentially substantial costs, we need to evaluate the contribution of known and planned initiatives and confirm whether multiple platforms increase the efficiency of data collection. As observer behaviour affects data quantity and quality, users of specialised and generalist platforms are expected to behave differently, resulting in more connected networks for specialised and higher nestedness for generalist platforms. Specialist observers are expected to contribute a balanced ratio of rare and common species, whereas non-specialist contribution will depend more on species detectability.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>We aim to evaluate whether the combined contribution of observers from different platforms can improve the quality of occurrence and distribution data of 218 endemic Atlantic Forest bird species in Brazil. We also describe and compare observer-bird species interaction networks to illustrate observer behaviour on different platforms.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>On the basis of data from five community science platforms in Brazil, namely, eBird, WikiAves, Biofaces, iNaturalist and Táxeus, we compared the spatial distribution of bird observations, the number of observers, the presence of the same observers on various platforms, bird species coverage, and the proportion of duplicate observations within and among platforms.</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>Although species coverage of the joint dataset increased by up to 100%, spatial completeness among the five platforms was low. The network of individual platforms had low values of clustering, and the network of the joint dataset had low connectance and high nestedness.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>Each platform had a somewhat unique contribution. Pooling these datasets and integrating them with standardised data can inform our knowledge on bird distributions and trends in this fragile biome. Nevertheless, we encourage observers to provide precise coordinates, dates and other data (and platforms to accommodate such data) and recommend submitting data from all platforms into the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to support wildlife research and conservation.</p><strong> Implications</strong><p>If new platforms engage more and different people, new initiatives can cover poorly represented areas and successfully expand monitoring effort for Atlantic Forest endemic bird species.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/wr23160\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/wr23160","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景让公众参与进来可以增加野生动物监测的时空覆盖范围。考虑到潜在的巨大成本,我们需要评估已知和计划中的举措的贡献,并确认多个平台是否能提高数据收集的效率。由于观察者的行为会影响数据的数量和质量,专业平台和普通平台的用户预计会有不同的行为,从而导致专业平台的网络连接更多,普通平台的嵌套度更高。预计专业观测人员将贡献均衡比例的稀有和常见物种,而非专业人员的贡献将更多地取决于物种的可探测性。目的我们旨在评估来自不同平台的观察者的综合贡献能否提高巴西大西洋森林 218 种特有鸟类的出现和分布数据的质量。我们还描述并比较了观察者与鸟类物种之间的互动网络,以说明观察者在不同平台上的行为。方法在巴西 eBird、WikiAves、Biofaces、iNaturalist 和 Táxeus 五个社区科学平台数据的基础上,我们比较了鸟类观测的空间分布、观测者数量、同一观测者在不同平台上的出现情况、鸟类物种覆盖率以及平台内和平台间重复观测的比例。主要结果虽然联合数据集的物种覆盖率提高了 100%,但五个平台之间的空间完整性较低。单个平台网络的聚类值较低,而联合数据集网络的连接度较低,嵌套度较高。结论每个平台都有其独特的贡献。汇集这些数据集并将其与标准化数据整合在一起,可以帮助我们了解鸟类在这一脆弱生物群落中的分布情况和趋势。不过,我们鼓励观察者提供精确的坐标、日期和其他数据(以及能够容纳这些数据的平台),并建议将所有平台的数据提交给全球生物多样性信息机制,以支持野生动物研究和保护。启示如果新平台能吸引更多不同的人参与进来,新举措就能覆盖代表性不足的地区,并成功扩大对大西洋森林特有鸟类的监测工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Stronger together: different community science platforms all contribute to wildlife research
Context

Engaging the general public can increase spatio-temporal coverage of wildlife monitoring. Given the potentially substantial costs, we need to evaluate the contribution of known and planned initiatives and confirm whether multiple platforms increase the efficiency of data collection. As observer behaviour affects data quantity and quality, users of specialised and generalist platforms are expected to behave differently, resulting in more connected networks for specialised and higher nestedness for generalist platforms. Specialist observers are expected to contribute a balanced ratio of rare and common species, whereas non-specialist contribution will depend more on species detectability.

Aims

We aim to evaluate whether the combined contribution of observers from different platforms can improve the quality of occurrence and distribution data of 218 endemic Atlantic Forest bird species in Brazil. We also describe and compare observer-bird species interaction networks to illustrate observer behaviour on different platforms.

Methods

On the basis of data from five community science platforms in Brazil, namely, eBird, WikiAves, Biofaces, iNaturalist and Táxeus, we compared the spatial distribution of bird observations, the number of observers, the presence of the same observers on various platforms, bird species coverage, and the proportion of duplicate observations within and among platforms.

Key results

Although species coverage of the joint dataset increased by up to 100%, spatial completeness among the five platforms was low. The network of individual platforms had low values of clustering, and the network of the joint dataset had low connectance and high nestedness.

Conclusions

Each platform had a somewhat unique contribution. Pooling these datasets and integrating them with standardised data can inform our knowledge on bird distributions and trends in this fragile biome. Nevertheless, we encourage observers to provide precise coordinates, dates and other data (and platforms to accommodate such data) and recommend submitting data from all platforms into the Global Biodiversity Information Facility to support wildlife research and conservation.

Implications

If new platforms engage more and different people, new initiatives can cover poorly represented areas and successfully expand monitoring effort for Atlantic Forest endemic bird species.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1