Data from birding apps offer utility to researchers and managers
S.J. & Jessie E. Quinney College of Natural Resources, Utah State University
Using
the eyes and ears of public volunteers can stretch the reach of science,
according to a new analysis from Erica Stuber from the Department of Wildland
Resources and the Ecology Center. Stuber and a team of researchers examined the
accuracy of information produced by citizen science apps for monitoring bird
populations. They compared publicly-produced data with officially tracked
numbers from monitoring programs and found that, with some refinement, data
from citizen scientists could offer a lot of utility for researchers.
Bald eagle in Charlestown. Photo by Mindy Trudell
Citizen
science uses volunteers from the general public to collect a variety of information
to answer particular questions or to collect observations -- and report it to a
shared database. Over the past decade such collective public power has
benefited science efforts in all sorts of ways, from sorting images of the
cosmos to mapping mosquito populations. But the big data collected by such
efforts is now outpacing scientists' ability to effectively use it, especially
when it comes to decisions about wildlife populations.
Which
is a shame, Stuber said, because data from such public efforts are often
collected with more detail and across a wider geographical range than
professional researchers can manage by themselves. If there was a way to better
filter, focus and apply such data, it could be a valuable resource in a climate
of shrinking restoration budgets, insufficient feet-on-the-ground and
intimidatingly vast areas that wildlife depend on to survive and thrive.
A
key step toward better using the available information is to understand and
test the data coming out of such projects by directly comparing citizen science
numbers with more traditional monitoring methods.
The app eBird, developed and maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, has been around for 20 years.
It has several attractive features, including tools to help identify species and GPS tracking of sighting locations. It allows birdwatchers to keep track of their birding activity while making the data collected openly available to others. A popular product, eBird has produced an inordinate amount of data, but not always in a form that researchers can directly use.
Every
three years the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the number of bald
eagle nesting sites in territories across the U.S. to track how the population
is faring. Stuber partnered with the agency and the eBird science team to
identify the type of information that could benefit agency efforts, and to
compare that filtered app data with official counts of bald eagle populations.
When Stuber compared the official numbers with numbers from the app, she found them
surprisingly well-matched. She's repeated this comparison with other bird
counts and is finding patterns.
"The
data from citizen science isn't always right on target, but it is still
useful," she said.
For
instance, the data from citizen scientists seem to be a good match for tracking
the timing of migrating waterfowl, Stuber said, but it's not always super
accurate in pinpointing waterfowl abundance across seasons.
"If
we can begin to identify the circumstances when it is most accurate, and when
it misses the mark, and why, we'll be able to use this massive resource to
augment official monitoring efforts that can be hugely expensive and often
dangerous."
Although numbers from the citizen science app won't replace official counts of wild bird populations, it can complement them, she said. And it can communicate nuance and detail that official counts sometimes don't catch. There is still a lot of work to be done, but these comparisons create a baseline of information to launch similar work, she said.