Search for: All records

Participatory science and amateur participation in scientific data collection and work has been common for hundreds of years, but has become a more formalised field of practice in recent decades. The inclusion and reliance on informally trained members of the public in scientific endeavours has especially helped connect natural history collections to the general public. In recent decades, the term used to describe these participants — citizen scientists — was intended to unite formal and informal scientists as global citizens working towards a common goal. However, the term 'citizen' today has negative connotations for many members of the public and can have a polarising effect on certain individuals. Given that the nature of participatory science is to be inclusive and inviting, it is time to change this terminology. The term 'community' science has been suggested as an alternative by some practitioners and programmes. This self-awareness within the scientific community is important, but lacks impact without input from the community members potentially participating in these programmes. We addressed this knowledge gap by posing the question of term preference to groups of volunteers who have attended participatory science activities from the Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago, Illinois, USA) and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, California, USA) from 2019 to 2023. A majority of respondents showed a clear preference for the term 'community' over 'citizen' science. This was especially true for younger individuals and those who belong to ethnic groups other than White. This information can impact which terms are used for specific programme populations and supports community involvement in selecting terminology and in project design. We advise stopping use of the term 'citizen' in all participatory science programmes and adopting terminology that is most appropriate depending on region, research, audience and activity. Moreover, participant populations should be solicited to hear their voices. 

Abstract PremisePteridophytes—vascular land plants that disperse by spores—are a powerful system for studying plant evolution, particularly with respect to the impact of abiotic factors on evolutionary trajectories through deep time. However, our ability to use pteridophytes to investigate such questions—or to capitalize on the ecological and conservation‐related applications of the group—has been impaired by the relative isolation of the neo‐ and paleobotanical research communities and by the absence of large‐scale biodiversity data sources. MethodsHere we present the Pteridophyte Collections Consortium (PCC), an interdisciplinary community uniting neo‐ and paleobotanists, and the associated PteridoPortal, a publicly accessible online portal that serves over three million pteridophyte records, including herbarium specimens, paleontological museum specimens, and iNaturalist observations. We demonstrate the utility of the PteridoPortal through discussion of three example PteridoPortal‐enabled research projects. ResultsThe data within the PteridoPortal are global in scope and are queryable in a flexible manner. The PteridoPortal contains a taxonomic thesaurus (a digital version of a Linnaean classification) that includes both extant and extinct pteridophytes in a common phylogenetic framework. The PteridoPortal allows applications such as greatly accelerated classic floristics, entirely new “next‐generation” floristic approaches, and the study of environmentally mediated evolution of functional morphology across deep time. DiscussionThe PCC and PteridoPortal provide a comprehensive resource enabling novel research into plant evolution, ecology, and conservation across deep time, facilitating rapid floristic analyses and other biodiversity‐related investigations, and providing new opportunities for education and community engagement. 

A comprehensive overview of volunteer-driven public programs focused on activities to enhance natural history collections (NHCs) is provided. The initiative revolves around the WeDigBio events and the Collections Club at the Field Museum, aiming to deepen the public’s connection with scientific collections, enhance participatory science, and improve data associated with natural history specimens. The implementation and journey of these programs are outlined, including surveys conducted from 2015 through 2021 to gauge participant motivation, satisfaction, and the impact of these events on public engagement with NHCs. Results show trends in on-site and virtual volunteer participation over the years, especially during the peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The majority of participants expressed high satisfaction, indicating a willingness to continue participating in similar activities. The surveys revealed a shift towards more altruistic motivations for participation over time, with increased emphasis on supporting the Field Museum and contributing to the scientific community. The success of participatory science events demonstrates the potential of volunteer-driven programs to contribute meaningfully to the preservation, digitisation, and understanding of biodiversity collections, ultimately transforming spectators into stewards of natural history. From 2015 to present participants celebrate a significant milestone, with over a thousand community scientists contributing to the inventorying, collection care, curation, databasing, or transcription of 286,071 specimens, objects or records. We also discuss accuracy and quality control as well as a checklist and recommendations for similar activities. 

PremisePhylogenetic trees of bryophytes provide important evolutionary context for land plants. However, published inferences of overall embryophyte relationships vary considerably. We performed phylogenomic analyses of bryophytes and relatives using both mitochondrial and plastid gene sets, and investigated bryophyte plastome evolution. MethodsWe employed diverse likelihood‐based analyses to infer large‐scale bryophyte phylogeny for mitochondrial and plastid data sets. We tested for changes in purifying selection in plastid genes of a mycoheterotrophic liverwort (Aneura mirabilis) and a putatively mycoheterotrophic moss (Buxbaumia), and compared 15 bryophyte plastomes for major structural rearrangements. ResultsOverall land‐plant relationships conflict across analyses, generally weakly. However, an underlying (unrooted) four‐taxon tree is consistent across most analyses and published studies. Despite gene coverage patchiness, relationships within mosses, liverworts, and hornworts are largely congruent with previous studies, with plastid results generally better supported. Exclusion ofRNAedit sites restores cases of unexpected non‐monophyly to monophyly forTakakiaand two hornwort genera. Relaxed purifying selection affects multiple plastid genes in mycoheterotrophicAneurabut notBuxbaumia. Plastid genome structure is nearly invariant across bryophytes, but thetufA locus, presumed lost in embryophytes, is unexpectedly retained in several mosses. ConclusionsA common unrooted tree underlies embryophyte phylogeny, [(liverworts, mosses), (hornworts, vascular plants)]; rooting inconsistency across studies likely reflects substantial distance to algal outgroups. Analyses combining genomic and transcriptomic data may be misled locally for heavilyRNA‐edited taxa. TheBuxbaumiaplastome lacks hallmarks of relaxed selection found in mycoheterotrophicAneura. Autotrophic bryophyte plastomes, includingBuxbaumia, hardly vary in overall structure.