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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants
Vázquez, D. P., Morris, W. F., & Jordano, P. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00810.x · Cited by 599 · cited 1×
“…of different plant species varies extensively from species to species (Herrera 2000; Kremen et al. 2002), meta-analyses show that abundance or visitation rate is a more important determinant than species-specific pervisit effectiveness in determining pollination function (Vázquez et al. 2005).”
Background
Cited by
Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance
Garibaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M. A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., Carvalheiro, L. G., Harder, L. D., Afik, O., et al. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1230200 · Cited by 2,668
“Globally, wild insect visitation is an indicator of both species richness and pollination services, and its measurement can be standardized easily and inexpensively among observers in field samples (25).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool
Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Froehlich, H. E., Schmidt, N., Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., & Parrish, J. K. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014 · Cited by 389
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.