Assessing accuracy in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring
- 911 Downloads
In the USA, thousands of volunteers are engaged in tracking plant and animal phenology through a variety of citizen science programs for the purpose of amassing spatially and temporally comprehensive datasets useful to scientists and resource managers. The quality of these observations and their suitability for scientific analysis, however, remains largely unevaluated. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of plant phenology observations collected by citizen scientist volunteers following protocols designed by the USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN). Phenology observations made by volunteers receiving several hours of formal training were compared to those collected independently by a professional ecologist. Approximately 11,000 observations were recorded by 28 volunteers over the course of one field season. Volunteers consistently identified phenophases correctly (91 % overall) for the 19 species observed. Volunteers demonstrated greatest overall accuracy identifying unfolded leaves, ripe fruits, and open flowers. Transitional accuracy decreased for some species/phenophase combinations (70 % average), and accuracy varied significantly by phenophase and species (p < 0.0001). Volunteers who submitted fewer observations over the period of study did not exhibit a higher error rate than those who submitted more total observations. Overall, these results suggest that volunteers with limited training can provide reliable observations when following explicit, standardized protocols. Future studies should investigate different observation models (i.e., group/individual, online/in-person training) over subsequent seasons with multiple expert comparisons to further substantiate the ability of these monitoring programs to supply accurate broadscale datasets capable of answering pressing ecological questions about global change.
KeywordsCitizen science Data accuracy Phenology Protocols Nature’s Notebook USA National Phenology Network
Sincere thanks to all contributors to this study including Lori Anne Barnett, Ellen Denny, Alyssa Rosemartin, Jake Weltzin, and USA-NPN National Coordinating Office staff, Dr. Marion Dresner, Dr. Sybil Kelly, Kelly Fisher, Jill Van Winkle, and Rhiannon LeFay from Portland State University, all volunteers from Portland Budwatch (with a special thanks to Harriet Denison and Mark Feldman for their dedication to the project), and Kendra Peterson-Morgan and Rachel Feliz of Portland Parks and Recreation. The USA-NPN National Coordinating Office is grateful for the critical role this study played in refining plant phenology protocols. This project was funded in part by NSF award #0941763, Interactive Teaching Materials for Understanding Ecological Response from Climate Change in Urban Forests.
- Cooper CB (2013) Is there a weekend bias in clutch-initiation dates from citizen science? Implications for studies of avian breeding phenology. Int J Biometeorol 58:1415–1419Google Scholar
- Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips TB, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12:11Google Scholar
- Crall, AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, DM Waller (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conservation Letters 0:1–10Google Scholar
- Menzel A, Sparks TH, Estrella N, Koch E, Aasa A, Ahas R, Alm-Kubler K, Bissolli P, Braslavska O, Briede A et al (2006) European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob Chang Biol 12:1969–1976Google Scholar
- Schmeller DS, Henry P-Y, Julliard R, Gruber B, Clobert J, Dziock F, Lengyel S, Nowicki P, Déri E, Budrys E, Kull T, Tali K, Bauch B, Settele J, Van Swaay C, Kobler A, Babij V, Papastergiadou E, Henle K (2009) Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol 23:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thackeray SJ, Sparks TH, Frederiksen M, Burthe S, Bacon PJ, Bell JR, Botham MS, Brereton TM, Bright PW, Carvalho L, Clutton-Brock T, Dawson A, Edwards M, Elliott JM, Harrington R, Johns D, Jones ID, Jones JT, Leech DI, Roy DB, Scott WA, Smith M, Smithers RJ, Winfield IJ, Wanless S (2010) Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments. Glob Change Biol 16:3304–3313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tregidgo, DJ, SE West, and MR Ashmore (2014) Can citizen science produce good science? Testing the OPAL Air Survey methodology, using lichens as indicators of nitrogenous pollution. Environ Pollut 182:448–451Google Scholar
- Wolkovich EM, Cook BI, Allen JM, Crimmins TM, Travers S, Pau S, Regetz J, Davies TJ, Betancourt JL, Kraft NJB, Ault TR, Bolmgren K, Mazer SJ, McCabe GJ, McGill BJ, Parmesan C, Salamin N, Schwartz MD, Cleland EE (2012) Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change. Nature 485:494–497Google Scholar