An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys
- 571 Downloads
Species’ distributions, assemblage patterns and the processes influencing these are poorly understood, and urgently require study. Use of volunteers to collect data is becoming increasingly common in biodiversity research. We assess the effectiveness of volunteers sampling terrestrial savanna invertebrates in comparison to experienced researchers, and examine the potential contribution of volunteers to terrestrial invertebrate surveys. There were relatively few differences in the diversity sampled by 54 Earthwatch Institute volunteers when compared to expert researchers. The major difference was in the results from the less spatially constrained method, where experience (microhabitat selection) most affected results, and experienced researchers performed better both quantitatively (more species sampled) and qualitatively (more unique and rare species). For the more constrained and less subjective methods, our training enabled the volunteers to quickly equal the experienced experts. Volunteers’ experience in invertebrate research influenced both the researchers’ perceptions of volunteers’ capacity and the actual performance of the volunteers. This suggests that appropriate training for the methods used can help to improve volunteers’ success with the sampling. We demonstrated that volunteers collect valid data; for the most part they sample invertebrates as effectively as a trained researcher, and that using volunteers has enormous direct benefits in terms of volume of work accomplished. For invertebrate studies using volunteers, we recommend that the subjectivity of the method be minimised, that experience is compensated for by increasing volunteer effort (two volunteers = one researcher), and that there is close management of volunteers in the field to ensure ongoing data quality. Volunteers provide a valuable resource to researchers carrying out biodiversity surveys, but using volunteers to carry out a scientifically sound project is not an easy option, and should only be implemented when volunteers would make a meaningful contribution and enable an otherwise impossible project.
KeywordsUnskilled workers Conservation Environmental education Sampling effectiveness Active searching Savanna Survey design
Many thanks to all Earthwatch volunteers, field assistants and students for their time and effort in the field and in the laboratory. Funding was provided by the Earthwatch Institute and the National Research Foundation via a grant to MH. Conservation Corporation and particularly K. Pretorius, is thanked for accommodation and logistical support in Phinda. KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife and the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority are thanked for permission to work in Mkhuze and False Bay. We also thank KZN Wildlife staff for logistical support, and the Inland Invertebrate Initiative (UKZN) and Natal Museum for additional support.
- Clarke K, Gorley R (2001) PRIMER v5: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Clarke K, Warwick R (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. PRIMER-E, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- Gaston K (1994) Rarity. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gilmour J, Saunders D (1995) Earthwatch: an international network in support of research on nature conservation. In: Saunders D, Craig J, Mattiske E (eds) Nature conservation. Beatty, Surrey, pp 627–633Google Scholar
- Mumby P, Harborne A, Raines P, Ridley J (1995) A critical-assessment of data derived from coral cay conservation volunteers. Bull Mar Sci 56:737–751Google Scholar
- Ponder W, Lunney D (eds) (1999) The other 99%. The conservation and biodiversity of invertebrates. Transactions of the Royal Society of New South Wales, Mosman, p 462Google Scholar
- Puky M (2006) A new, volunteer-based, cost effective method for zoological mapping: the photo identification of freshwater crayfish (Crustacea: Decapoda) species and the importance of volunteers in crayfish research. Bull Fr Peche Piscicult 380–81:927–936. doi: 10.1051/kmae:2006032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Slotow R, Hamer M (2000) Biodiversity research in South Africa: comments on current trends and methods. S Afr J Sci 96:222–224Google Scholar
- Ward D, Larivière M (2004) Terrestrial invertebrate surveys and rapid biodiversity assessment in New Zealand: lessons from Australia. N Z J Ecol 28:151–159Google Scholar