Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species

Steven Falk, Gemma Foster, Richard Comont, Judith Conroy, Helen Bostock, Andrew Salisbury, Dave Kilbey, James Bennett, Barbara Smith

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Citizen science is an increasingly popular way of engaging volunteers in the collection of scientific data. Despite this, data quality remains a concern and there is little published evidence about the accuracy of records generated by citizen scientists. Here we compare data generated by two British citizen science projects, Blooms for Bees and BeeWatch, to determine the ability of volunteer recorders to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. We assessed recorders’ identification ability in two ways–as recorder accuracy (the proportion of expert-verified records correctly identified by recorders) and recorder success (the proportion of recorder-submitted identifications confirmed correct by verifiers). Recorder identification ability was low (<50% accuracy; <60% success), despite access to project specific bumblebee identification materials. Identification ability varied significantly depending on bumblebee species, with recorders most able to correctly identify species with distinct appearances. Blooms for Bees recorders (largely recruited from the gardening community) were markedly less able to identify bumblebees than BeeWatch recorders (largely individuals with a more specific interest in bumblebees). Within both projects, recorders demonstrated an improvement in identification ability over time. Here we demonstrate and quantify the essential role of expert verification within citizen science projects, and highlight where resources could be strengthened to improve recorder ability.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0218614
Number of pages21
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume14
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 24 Jun 2019

Fingerprint

Bombus
Bees
Volunteers
Gardening
volunteers
Apoidea
material identification
gardening

Bibliographical note

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License.
Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. / Falk, Steven; Foster, Gemma; Comont, Richard; Conroy, Judith; Bostock, Helen; Salisbury, Andrew; Kilbey, Dave; Bennett, James; Smith, Barbara.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 14, No. 6, e0218614, 24.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Falk, Steven ; Foster, Gemma ; Comont, Richard ; Conroy, Judith ; Bostock, Helen ; Salisbury, Andrew ; Kilbey, Dave ; Bennett, James ; Smith, Barbara. / Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. In: PLoS ONE. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 6.
@article{48e63035a3ff45968fc01b60c9d57b1d,
title = "Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species",
abstract = "Citizen science is an increasingly popular way of engaging volunteers in the collection of scientific data. Despite this, data quality remains a concern and there is little published evidence about the accuracy of records generated by citizen scientists. Here we compare data generated by two British citizen science projects, Blooms for Bees and BeeWatch, to determine the ability of volunteer recorders to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. We assessed recorders’ identification ability in two ways–as recorder accuracy (the proportion of expert-verified records correctly identified by recorders) and recorder success (the proportion of recorder-submitted identifications confirmed correct by verifiers). Recorder identification ability was low (<50{\%} accuracy; <60{\%} success), despite access to project specific bumblebee identification materials. Identification ability varied significantly depending on bumblebee species, with recorders most able to correctly identify species with distinct appearances. Blooms for Bees recorders (largely recruited from the gardening community) were markedly less able to identify bumblebees than BeeWatch recorders (largely individuals with a more specific interest in bumblebees). Within both projects, recorders demonstrated an improvement in identification ability over time. Here we demonstrate and quantify the essential role of expert verification within citizen science projects, and highlight where resources could be strengthened to improve recorder ability.",
author = "Steven Falk and Gemma Foster and Richard Comont and Judith Conroy and Helen Bostock and Andrew Salisbury and Dave Kilbey and James Bennett and Barbara Smith",
note = "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Copyright {\circledC} and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0218614",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species

AU - Falk, Steven

AU - Foster, Gemma

AU - Comont, Richard

AU - Conroy, Judith

AU - Bostock, Helen

AU - Salisbury, Andrew

AU - Kilbey, Dave

AU - Bennett, James

AU - Smith, Barbara

N1 - This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

PY - 2019/6/24

Y1 - 2019/6/24

N2 - Citizen science is an increasingly popular way of engaging volunteers in the collection of scientific data. Despite this, data quality remains a concern and there is little published evidence about the accuracy of records generated by citizen scientists. Here we compare data generated by two British citizen science projects, Blooms for Bees and BeeWatch, to determine the ability of volunteer recorders to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. We assessed recorders’ identification ability in two ways–as recorder accuracy (the proportion of expert-verified records correctly identified by recorders) and recorder success (the proportion of recorder-submitted identifications confirmed correct by verifiers). Recorder identification ability was low (<50% accuracy; <60% success), despite access to project specific bumblebee identification materials. Identification ability varied significantly depending on bumblebee species, with recorders most able to correctly identify species with distinct appearances. Blooms for Bees recorders (largely recruited from the gardening community) were markedly less able to identify bumblebees than BeeWatch recorders (largely individuals with a more specific interest in bumblebees). Within both projects, recorders demonstrated an improvement in identification ability over time. Here we demonstrate and quantify the essential role of expert verification within citizen science projects, and highlight where resources could be strengthened to improve recorder ability.

AB - Citizen science is an increasingly popular way of engaging volunteers in the collection of scientific data. Despite this, data quality remains a concern and there is little published evidence about the accuracy of records generated by citizen scientists. Here we compare data generated by two British citizen science projects, Blooms for Bees and BeeWatch, to determine the ability of volunteer recorders to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. We assessed recorders’ identification ability in two ways–as recorder accuracy (the proportion of expert-verified records correctly identified by recorders) and recorder success (the proportion of recorder-submitted identifications confirmed correct by verifiers). Recorder identification ability was low (<50% accuracy; <60% success), despite access to project specific bumblebee identification materials. Identification ability varied significantly depending on bumblebee species, with recorders most able to correctly identify species with distinct appearances. Blooms for Bees recorders (largely recruited from the gardening community) were markedly less able to identify bumblebees than BeeWatch recorders (largely individuals with a more specific interest in bumblebees). Within both projects, recorders demonstrated an improvement in identification ability over time. Here we demonstrate and quantify the essential role of expert verification within citizen science projects, and highlight where resources could be strengthened to improve recorder ability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067616346&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0218614

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0218614

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 6

M1 - e0218614

ER -