The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data
Abstract
Citizen science data are increasingly making valuable contributions to ecological studies. However, many citizen science surveys are also designed to encourage wide participation and therefore the participants have a range of natural history expertise, leading to variation and potentially bias in the data. We assessed a recently proposed measure of observer expertise, calculated based on the average numbers of species recorded by observers. We investigated if this observer expertise score is associated with how often an observer reports any individual species. Species reporting rates increased monotonically with the observer's expertise score for 197 of 200 species, suggesting that this expertise score describes inter‐observer variation in the detectability of individual species. Expertise scores were incorporated into single‐species occupancy models as a covariate, to explain inter‐observer variation in detectability. Including expertise as a detectability covariate led to improved model fit and improved predictive performance on validation data. The expertise score had a large effect on the estimated detectability, comparable in magnitude to the effect of the duration of the observation period. Expertise scores were also included into single‐species occupancy models that estimated seasonal patterns in species occupancy and seasonal expertise effects. The addition of a seasonal effect of expertise led to improved model fit and increased predictive performance on validation data. The seasonal expertise accounted for bias that may be introduced by seasonal differences in the effect of expertise, caused by changes in the environment or species behaviour. Measures of observer expertise included in models as a covariate can account for heterogeneity and bias introduced by variable expertise, although in this example the differences in estimated occupancy were small. This method of incorporating observer expertise can be used in any regression model of species occurrence, occupancy, abundance, or density to produce more reliable ecological inference and may be most important where citizen science schemes encourage wide participation. Overall, the results highlight the value of recording observer identity and other detectability covariates, to control for sources of bias associated with the observation process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wood, S. N. (2006) · doi:10.1201/9781420010404 · Cited by 4,953
Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives
van Swaay, C. A. M., Nowicki, P., Settele, J., & van Strien, A. J. (2008) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9491-4 · Cited by 297
Cited by
(2021) · doi:10.1111/ddi.13271 · Cited by 407
Terry, J. C. D., Roy, H. E., & August, T. A. (2020) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13335 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., & Kelling, S.
- Venue
- Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-07-25
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 88-97
- ISSN
- 2041-210X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2625032175
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/2041-210x.12838
- The paper
- Johnston, A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., & Kelling, S. (2018). Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12838
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.