Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the Quality of Citizen‐Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities

Open access
KREMEN, C., ULLMAN, K. S., THORP, R. W.·2011·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Concerns about pollinator declines have grown in recent years, yet the ability to detect changes in abundance, taxonomic richness, and composition of pollinator communities is hampered severely by the lack of data over space and time. Citizen scientists may be able to extend the spatial and temporal extent of pollinator monitoring programs. We developed a citizen‐science monitoring protocol in which we trained 13 citizen scientists to observe and classify floral visitors at the resolution of orders or super families (e.g., bee, wasp, fly) and at finer resolution within bees ( superfamily Apoidea ) only. We evaluated the protocol by comparing data collected simultaneously at 17 sites by citizen scientists (observational data set) and by professionals (specimen‐based data set). The sites differed with respect to the presence and age of hedgerows planted to improve habitat quality for pollinators. We found significant, positive correlations among the two data sets for higher level taxonomic composition, honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) abundance, non‐ Apis bee abundance, bee richness, and bee community similarity. Results for both data sets also showed similar trends (or lack thereof) in these metrics among sites differing in the presence and age of hedgerows. Nevertheless, citizen scientists did not observe approximately half of the bee groups collected by professional scientists at the same sites. Thus, the utility of citizen‐science observational data may be restricted to detection of community‐level changes in abundance, richness, or similarity over space and time, and citizen‐science observations may not reliably reflect the abundance or frequency of occurrence of specific pollinator species or groups.

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/j.1523-1739.2011.01657.x

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
KREMEN, C., ULLMAN, K. S., & THORP, R. W.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-20
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
607-617
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2140683543
Cited by
227
References
1
FWCI
12.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Evaluating the Quality of Citizen‐Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01657.x
The paper
KREMEN, C., ULLMAN, K. S., & THORP, R. W. (2011). Evaluating the Quality of Citizen‐Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01657.x

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.