skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Observing the Observers: How Participants Contribute Data to iNaturalist and Implications for Biodiversity Science
Abstract The availability of citizen science data has resulted in growing applications in biodiversity science. One widely used platform, iNaturalist, provides millions of digitally vouchered observations submitted by a global user base. These observation records include a date and a location but otherwise do not contain any information about the sampling process. As a result, sampling biases must be inferred from the data themselves. In the present article, we examine spatial and temporal biases in iNaturalist observations from the platform's launch in 2008 through the end of 2019. We also characterize user behavior on the platform in terms of individual activity level and taxonomic specialization. We found that, at the level of taxonomic class, the users typically specialized on a particular group, especially plants or insects, and rarely made observations of the same species twice. Biodiversity scientists should consider whether user behavior results in systematic biases in their analyses before using iNaturalist data.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2033263 1703048 1702708
PAR ID:
10341370
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
BioScience
Volume:
71
Issue:
11
ISSN:
0006-3568
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1179 to 1188
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Qin, Hong (Ed.)
    iNaturalist has the potential to be an extremely rich source of organismal occurrence data. Launched in 2008, it now contains over 150 million uploaded observations as of May 2023. Based on the findings of a limited number of past studies assessing the taxonomic accuracy of participatory science-driven sources of occurrence data such as iNaturalist, there has been concern that some portion of these records might be misidentified in certain taxonomic groups. In this case study, we compare Research Grade iNaturalist observations with digitized herbarium specimens, both of which are currently available for combined download from large data aggregators and are therefore the primary sources of occurrence data for large-scale biodiversity/biogeography studies. Our comparisons were confined regionally to the southeastern United States (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia). Occurrence records from ten plant families (Gentianaceae, Ericaceae, Melanthiaceae, Ulmaceae, Fabaceae, Asteraceae, Fagaceae, Cyperaceae, Juglandaceae, Apocynaceae) were downloaded and scored on taxonomic accuracy. We found a comparable and relatively low rate of misidentification among both digitized herbarium specimens and Research Grade iNaturalist observations within the study area. This finding illustrates the utility and high quality of iNaturalist data for future research in the region, but also points to key differences between data types, giving each a respective advantage, depending on applications of the data. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; et al (, People and Nature)
    Abstract Contributory science—including citizen and community science—allows scientists to leverage participant‐generated data while providing an opportunity for engaging with local community members. Data yielded by participant‐generated biodiversity platforms allow professional scientists to answer ecological and evolutionary questions across both geographic and temporal scales, which is incredibly valuable for conservation efforts.The data reported to contributory biodiversity platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, can be driven by social and ecological variables, leading to biased data. Though empirical work has highlighted the biases in contributory data, little work has articulated how biases arise in contributory data and the societal consequences of these biases.We present a conceptual framework illustrating how social and ecological variables create bias in contributory science data. In this framework, we present four filters—participation,detectability,samplingandpreference—that ultimately shape the type and location of contributory biodiversity data. We leverage this framework to examine data from the largest contributory science platforms—eBird and iNaturalist—in St. Louis, Missouri, the United States, and discuss the potential consequences of biased data.Lastly, we conclude by providing several recommendations for researchers and institutions to move towards a more inclusive field. With these recommendations, we provide opportunities to ameliorate biases in contributory data and an opportunity to practice equitable biodiversity conservation. Read the freePlain Language Summaryfor this article on the Journal blog. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, Botany)
    We assess the identification accuracy of ‘research grade’ observations of lichens posted on the online platform iNaturalist. Our results show that these observations are frequently misidentified or lack the necessary chemical and (or) microscopic information for accurate identification. Lichens are a taxonomically difficult group, but they are ubiquitous and eye-catching and are regularly the subject of observations posted on iNaturalist. Therefore, we provide best practice recommendations for posting lichen observations and commenting on observations. Data from iNaturalist are a valuable tool for understanding and managing biodiversity, particularly at this crucial time when large scale biodiversity decline is occurring globally. However, the data must be accurate for them to effectively support biodiversity conservation efforts. Our recommendations are also applicable to other taxonomically difficult taxa. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Ecology and Evolution)
    ABSTRACT Crowd‐sourced biodiversity data, such as those housed in the iNaturalist platform, are increasingly used to monitor species distributions. Such data represent unstructured biodiversity surveys that are generally comprised of incidental observations and do not report variation in sampling effort. These discrepancies may yield data that is incongruent with data from structured surveys. To assess whether mammalian iNaturalist data are reflective of data from traditional structured surveys, we calculated and compared measures of mammalian species richness and species pool similarity using data from unstructured surveys (i.e., iNaturalist) and data from structured camera trap surveys and bat acoustic surveys. We found that data from structured and unstructured surveys generally document similar mammalian species richness, but the two survey types document different species pools. Human population density and proxies for species pool breadth were most strongly associated with discrepancies in datasets, with data being most similar in areas of high human population density and lower species richness. Our analyses revealed that dataset similarity varied across geography and community metric for most taxa, but that structured and unstructured surveys produced consistently unreconcilable datasets for bats. These findings suggest that unstructured datasets like iNaturalist may offer reliable data for some taxa and geographies, but that these data are not universally applicable to all research scenarios. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, Diversity)
    Online community and citizen science (CCS) projects have broadened access to scientific research and enabled different forms of participation in biodiversity research; however, little is known about whether and how such opportunities are taken up by young people (aged 5–19). Furthermore, when they do participate, there is little research on whether their online activity makes a tangible contribution to scientific research. We addressed these knowledge gaps using quantitative analytical approaches and visualisations to investigate 249 youths’ contributions to CCS on the iNaturalist platform, and the potential for the scientific use of their contributions. We found that nearly all the young volunteers’ observations were ‘verifiable’ (included a photo, location, and date/time) and therefore potentially useful to biodiversity research. Furthermore, more than half were designated as ‘Research Grade’, with a community agreed-upon identification, making them more valuable and accessible to biodiversity science researchers. Our findings show that young volunteers with lasting participation on the platform and those aged 16–19 years are more likely to have a higher proportion of Research Grade observations than younger, or more ephemeral participants. This study enhances our understanding of young volunteers’ contributions to biodiversity research, as well as the important role professional scientists and data users can play in helping verify youths’ contributions to make them more accessible for biodiversity research. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email