Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1477–1497 | Cite as

The OPAL bugs count survey: exploring the effects of urbanisation and habitat characteristics using citizen science

  • Adam J. Bates
  • Poppy Lakeman Fraser
  • Lucy Robinson
  • John C. Tweddle
  • Jon P. Sadler
  • Sarah E. West
  • Simon Norman
  • Martin Batson
  • Linda Davies
Article

Abstract

Citizen science projects can gather datasets with observation counts and spatiotemporal coverage far in excess of what can easily be achieved using only professional scientists. However, there exists a potential trade-off between the number of participants and the quality of data gathered. The Bugs Count citizen science project had thousands of participants because of its few barriers to taking part, allowing participation by anyone in England with access to any area of outdoor space. It was designed to scope for both the effects of variation in local habitat and urbanisation on broad taxonomic groups of invertebrates, and the responses of six target ‘Species Quest’ species (Adalia bipunctata, Ocypus olens, Aglais urticae, Palomena prasina, Limax maximus, and Bombus hypnorum) to urbanisation. Participants were asked to search for invertebrates in three areas: ‘soft ground surfaces’, ‘human-made hard surfaces’, and ‘plants’ for 15 min per search. Participants recorded counts of taxa found and a range of environmental information about the survey area. Data samples were weighted according to identification experience and participant age and analysed using canonical correspondence analysis, and tests of observation homogeneity. Species Quest species showed species-specific relationships with urbanisation, but broad taxonomic groups did not show significant relationships with urbanisation. The latter were instead influenced by habitat type and microhabitat availability. The approach used demonstrates that citizen science projects with few barriers to entry can gather viable datasets for scoping broad trends, providing that the projects are carefully designed and analysed to ensure data quality.

Keywords

Data quality Environmental education Open air laboratories Public participation in scientific research Scientific literacy Urban–rural gradient 

References

  1. Altermatt F (2012) Temperature-related shifts in butterfly phenology depend on the habitat. Glob Chang Biol 18:2429–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker RR (1968) Sun orientation during migration in some British butterflies. Proc R Ent Soc Lond A 43:89–95Google Scholar
  4. Baker RR (1972) Territorial behavior of nymphalid butterflies, Aglais urticae (L) and Inachis io (L). J Anim Ecol 41:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ (2011) Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban–rural gradient. Plos One 6(8):e23459. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023459 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Everett G, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Clifton J, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2013) Assessing the value of the garden moth scheme citizen science dataset: how does light trap type affect catch? Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 146:386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Grundy D, Lowe N, Davis G, Baker D, Bridge M, Freestone R, Gardner D, Gibson C, Hemming R, Howarth S, Orridge S, Shaw M, Tams T, Young H (2014) Garden and landscape-scale correlates of moths of differing conservation status: significant effects of urbanisation and habitat diversity. Plos One 9(1):e86925. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086925 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergerot B, Fontaine B, Renard M, Cadi A, Julliard R (2010) Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landsc Urban Plan 96:98–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beumer C, Martens P (2015) Biodiversity in my (back)yard: towards a framework for citizen engagement in exploring biodiversity and ecosystem services in residential gardens. Sustain Sci. doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0270-8 Google Scholar
  10. Bone J, Archer M, Barraclough D, Eggleton P, Flight D, Head M, Jones DT, Scheib C, Voulvoulis N (2012) Public participation in soil surveys: lessons from a pilot study in England. Environ Sci Technol 46:3687–3696CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:977–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonter DN, Cooper CB (2012) Data validation in citizen science: a case study from project feeder watch. Front Ecol Environ 10:305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buczkowski G, Richmond DS (2012) The effect of urbanisation on ant abundance and diversity: a temporal examination of factors affecting biodiversity. Plos One 7(8):e41729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041729 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? Bioscience 58:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich CS, Stohlgren TJ, Waller DM, Graham J (2010) Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biol Invasions 12:3419–3428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies L, Bell JNB, Bone J, Head M, Hill L, Howard C, Hobbs SJ, Jones DT, Power SA, Rose N, Ryder C, Seed L, Stevens G, Toumi R, Voulvoulis N, White PCL (2011) Open air laboratories (OPAL): a community-driven research programme. Environ Pollut 159:2203–2210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Deguines N, Julliard R, de Flores M, Fontaine C (2012) The whereabouts of flower visitors: contrasting land-use preferences revealed by a country-wide survey based on citizen science. Plos One 7(9):e45822. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045822 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dennis RLH, Shreeve TG, Van Dyck H (2003) Towards a functional resource-based concept for habitat: a butterfly biology viewpoint. Oikos 102:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Mauro D, Dietz T, Rockwood L (2007) Determining the effect of urbanisation on generalist butterfly species diversity in butterfly gardens. Urban Ecosyst 10:427–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faeth SH, Warren PS, Shochat E, Marussich WA (2005) Trophic dynamics in urban communities. Bioscience 55:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox R, Warren MS, Brereton TM, Roy DB, Robinson A (2011) A new red list of British butterflies. Insect Conserv Divers 4:159–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3:390–394PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. GeoConvert (2012) GeoConvert: an online geography matching and conversion tool for UK academics. www.geoconvert.mimas.ac.uk
  24. Grewal SS, Grewal PS (2012) Can cities become self-reliant in food? Cities 29:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu JG, Bai XM, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs SJ, White PCL (2012) Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. J Nat Conserv 20:364–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horsák M, Lososová Z, Čejka T, Juřičková L, Chytrý M (2013) Diversity and biotic homogenization of urban land-snail faunas in relation to habitat types and macroclimate in 32 central European cities. Plos One 8(8):e71783. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071783 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunter MR, Hunter MD (2008) Designing for conservation of insects in the built environment. Insect Conserv Divers 1:189–196Google Scholar
  30. Imhoff ML, Bounoua L, DeFries R, Lawrence WT, Stutzer D, Tucker CJ, Ricketts T (2004) The consequences of urban land transformation on net primary productivity in the United States. Remote Sens Environ 89:434–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lyytimaki J, Sipila M (2009) Hopping on one leg - the challenge of ecosystem disservices for urban green management. Urban For Urban Green 8:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McIntyre NE, Rango J, Fagan WF, Faeth SH (2001) Ground arthropod community structure in a heterogeneous urban environment. Landsc Urban Plan 52:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanisation on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Memmott J, Waser NM, Price MV (2004) Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 271:2605–2611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R (2012) The history of public participation in ecological research. Front Ecol Environ 10:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Niemelä J, Kotze DJ (2009) Carabid beetle assemblages along urban to rural gradients: a review. Landsc Urban Plan 92:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. OPAL (2011) The Bugs Count survey. http://www.opalexplorenature.org/bugscount
  40. OPAL (2012) Open Air Laboratories. Explore Nature. Available: http://www.opalexplorenature.org/. Accessed 2014 Jan 2. Natural History Museum
  41. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Grove JM, Boone CG, Groffman PM, Irwin E, Kaushal SS, Marshall V, McGrath BP, Nilon CH, Pouyat RV, Szlavecz K, Troy A, Warren P (2011) Urban ecological systems: scientific foundations and a decade of progress. J Environ Manag 92:331–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prather CM, Pelini SL, Laws A, Rivest E, Woltz M, Bloch CP, Del Toro I, Ho C-K, Kominoski J, Newbold TAS, Parsons S, Joern A (2013) Invertebrates, ecosystem services and climate change. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 88:327–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sadler JP, Small EC, Fiszpan H, Telfer MG, Niemela J (2006) Investigating environmental variation and landscape characteristics of an urban–rural gradient using woodland carabid assemblages. J Biogeogr 33:1126–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sadler J, Bates A, Donovan R, Bodnar S (2011) Building for biodiversity: accomodating people and wildlife in cities. In: Niemelä J, Breuste JH, Guntenspergen G, McIntyre NE, Elmqvist T, James P (eds) Urban ecology. Patterns, processes and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 286–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sattler T, Borcard D, Arlettaz R, Bontadina F, Legendre P, Obrist MK, Moretti M (2010) Spider, bee, and bird communities in cities are shaped by environmental control and high stochasticity. Ecology 91:3343–3353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R (2012) Public oarticipation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17(2):29. doi:10.5751/ES-04705-170229 Google Scholar
  47. Shochat E, Warren PS, Faeth SH, McIntyre NE, Hope D (2006) From patterns to emerging processes in mechanistic urban ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 21:186–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Shwartz A, Turbé A, Simon L, Julliard R (2014) Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment. Biol Conserv 171:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith RM, Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K (2006a) Urban domestic gardens (VIII): environmental correlates of invertebrate abundance. Biodivers Conserv 15:2515–2545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith RM, Warren PH, Thompson K, Gaston KJ (2006b) Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodivers Conserv 15:2415–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor JR, Taylor Lovell S (2012) Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in Chicago through the analysis of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth. Landsc Urban Plan 108:57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. ter Braak CFJ, Šmilauer P (1998) CANOCO reference manual and user’s guide to Canoco for Windows: Software for canonical community ordination (version 4). Microcomputer Power, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  53. Toogood M (2013) Engaging publics: biodiversity data collection and the geographies of citizen science. Geogr Compass 7(9):611–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Dyck H, Van Strien AJ, Maes D, Van Swaay CAM (2009) Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv Biol 23:957–965CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Verboven AF, Uyttenbroek R, Brys R, Hermy M (2014) Different responses of bees and hoverflies to land use in an urban–rural gradient show the importance of the nature of the rural land use. Landsc Urban Plan 126:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson EO (1987) The little things that run the world (the importance and conservation of invertebrates). Conserv Biol 1:344–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang Y (2013) Urban metabolism: a review of research methodologies. Environ Pollut 178:463–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam J. Bates
    • 1
  • Poppy Lakeman Fraser
    • 2
  • Lucy Robinson
    • 3
  • John C. Tweddle
    • 3
  • Jon P. Sadler
    • 4
  • Sarah E. West
    • 5
  • Simon Norman
    • 6
  • Martin Batson
    • 3
  • Linda Davies
    • 2
  1. 1.Biosciences, School of Science & TechnologyNottingham Trent UniversityCliftonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.The Natural History MuseumLondonUK
  4. 4.Geography, Earth & Environmental SciencesThe University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  5. 5.The Stockholm Environment InstituteUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  6. 6.Field Studies CouncilShrewsburyUK

Personalised recommendations