Biological Invasions

, Volume 12, Issue 10, pp 3419–3428

Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists

  • Alycia W. Crall
  • Gregory J. Newman
  • Catherine S. Jarnevich
  • Thomas J. Stohlgren
  • Donald M. Waller
  • Jim Graham
Original Paper

Abstract

Limited resources make it difficult to effectively document, monitor, and control invasive species across large areas, resulting in large gaps in our knowledge of current and future invasion patterns. We surveyed 128 citizen science program coordinators and interviewed 15 of them to evaluate their potential role in filling these gaps. Many programs collect data on invasive species and are willing to contribute these data to public databases. Although resources for education and monitoring are readily available, groups generally lack tools to manage and analyze data. Potential users of these data also retain concerns over data quality. We discuss how to address these concerns about citizen scientist data and programs while preserving the advantages they afford. A unified yet flexible national citizen science program aimed at tracking invasive species location, abundance, and control efforts could be designed using centralized data sharing and management tools. Such a system could meet the needs of multiple stakeholders while allowing efficiencies of scale, greater standardization of methods, and improved data quality testing and sharing. Finally, we present a prototype for such a system (see www.citsci.org).

Keywords

Citizen science Shared databases Data management Data quality Invasive species Non-native species 

References

  1. Bailenson JN, Shum MS, Atran S, Medin DL, Coley JD (2002) A bird’s eye view: biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition 84:1–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnette WL Jr (1950) The non-respondent problem in questionnaire research. J Appl Psychol 34:397–398CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett N, Edgar G, Morton A (2002) Monitoring of Tasmanian inshore reef ecosystems. An assessment of the potential for volunteer monitoring programs and a summary of changes within the Maria Island Marine Reserve from 1992–2001. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute Technical Report Series. p 53Google Scholar
  4. Bhattacharjee Y (2005) Ornithology—Citizen scientists supplement work of Cornell researchers—a half-century of interaction with bird watchers has evolved into a robust and growing collaboration between volunteers and a leading ornithology lab. Science 308:1402–1403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boudreau SA, Yan ND (2004) Auditing the accuracy of a volunteer-based surveillance program for an aquatic invader Bythotrephes. Environ Monit Assess 91:17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B, Carroll C, Ellis J (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Nat Areas J 23:254–261Google Scholar
  7. Bray GS, Schramm HL (2001) Evaluation of a statewide volunteer angler diary program for use as a fishery assessment tool. North Am J Fish Manag 21:606–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J Sci Edu 27:1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? Bioscience 58:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crall AW, Meyerson LA, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Newman GJ, Graham J (2006) Show me the numbers: what data currently exist for non-native species in the USA? Front Ecol Environ 4:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crosier CS, Stohlgren TJ (2004) Improving biodiversity knowledge with data set synergy: a case study of nonnative plants in Colorado. Weed Technol 18:1441–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darwall WRT, Dulvy NK (1996) An evaluation of the suitability of non-specialist volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys. Mafia Island, Tanzania—a case study. Biol Conserv 78:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engel SR, Voshell JR (2002) Volunteer biological monitoring: can it accurately assess the ecological condition of streams? Am Entomol 48:164–177Google Scholar
  16. Ericsson G, Wallin K (1999) Hunter observations as an index of moose Alces alces population parameters. Wildl Biol 5:177–185Google Scholar
  17. Evangelista PH, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Jarnevich CS, Crall AW, Norman JB, Barnett DT (2008) Modelling invasion for a habitat generalist and a specialist plant species. Divers Distrib 14:808–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fitzpatrick MC, Preisser EL, Ellison AM, Elkinton JS (2009) Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. Ecol Appl 19:1673–1679CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fortin MJ, Drapeau P, Legendre P (1989) Spatial auto-correlation and sampling design in plant ecology. Vegetatio 83:209–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Genet KS, Sargent LG (2003) Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-hased amphihian call survey. Wildl Soc Bull 31:703–714Google Scholar
  21. Graham J, Newman G, Jarnevich C, Shory R, Stohlgren TJ (2007) A global organism detection and monitoring system for non-native species. Ecol Inform 2:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham J, Simpson A, Crall A, Jarnevich C, Newman G, Stohlgren TJ (2008) Vision of a cyberinfrastructure for nonnative, invasive species management. Bioscience 58:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janzen DH (2004) Setting up tropical biodiversity for conservation through non-damaging use: participation by parataxonomists. J Appl Ecol 41:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarnevich CS, Stohlgren TJ, Barnett D, Kartesz J (2006) Filling in the gaps: modelling native species richness and invasions using spatially incomplete data. Divers Distrib 12:511–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jarnevich CS, Graham JJ, Newman GJ, Crall AW, Stohlgren TJ (2007) Balancing data sharing requirements for analyses with data sensitivity. Biol Invasions 9:597–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jenkins EW (1999) School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. Int J Sci Edu 21:703–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lepczyk CA (2005) Integrating published data and citizen science to describe bird diversity across a landscape. J Appl Ecol 42:672–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lodge DM, Williams S, MacIsaac HJ, Hayes KR, Leung B, Reichard S, Mack RN, Moyle PB, Smith M, Andow DA, Carlton JT, McMichael A (2006) Biological invasions: recommendations for US policy and management. Ecol Appl 16:2035–2054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McLaren AA, Cadman MD (1999) Can novice volunteers provide credible data for bird surveys requiring song identification? J Field Ornithol 70:481–490Google Scholar
  31. Measham TG (2007) Building capacity for environmental management: local knowledge and rehabilitation on the Gippsland Red Gum Plains. Aust Geogr 38:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mumby PA, Harborne AR, Raines RP, Ridley JM (1995) A critical appraisal of data derived from Coral Cay conservation volunteers. Bull Mar Sci 56:737–751Google Scholar
  33. Myers JH, Simberloff D, Kuris AM, Carey JR (2000) Eradication revisited: dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol Evol 15:316–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Penrose D, Call SM (1995) Volunteer monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates—regulatory biologists perspectives. J North Am Benthol Soc 14:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pimentel D, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2005) Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol Econ 52:273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prytherch DR, Smith GB, Schmidt P, Featherstone PI, Stewart K, Knight D, Higgins B (2006) Calculating early warning scores—a classroom comparison of pen and paper and hand-held computer methods. Resuscitation 70:173–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricciardi A, Steiner WWM, Mack RN, Simberloff D (2000) Toward a global information system for invasive species. Bioscience 50:239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rodriguez JP (2003) Challenges and opportunities for surveying and monitoring tropical biodiversity—a response to Danielsen et al. Oryx 37:411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stevenson RD, Haber WA, Morris RA (2003) Electronic field guides and user communities in the eco-informatics revolution. Conserv Ecol 7Google Scholar
  40. Stohlgren TJ, Schnase JL (2006) Risk analysis for biological hazards: what we need to know about invasive species. Risk Anal 26:163–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Trumbull DJ, Bonney R, Bascom D, Cabral A (2000) Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Sci Educ 84:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams K, Sader SA, Pryor C, Reed F (2006) Application of geospatial technology to monitor forest legacy conservation easements. J For 104:89–93Google Scholar
  43. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2003) Monitoring of biological diversity—a response to Danielsen et al. Oryx 37:410CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alycia W. Crall
    • 1
    • 5
  • Gregory J. Newman
    • 2
    • 5
  • Catherine S. Jarnevich
    • 3
  • Thomas J. Stohlgren
    • 3
  • Donald M. Waller
    • 4
  • Jim Graham
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.The Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Fort Collins Science CenterUS Geological SurveyFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Department of BotanyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  5. 5.The National Institute of Invasive Species ScienceFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations