Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 208

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

Johnston, Alison, Fink, Daniel, Hochachka, Wesley M., Kelling, Steve·2018·Methods in Ecology and Evolution

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/2041-210x.12838

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

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.