Advertisement

Enhancing plant biosecurity with citizen science monitoring: comparing methodologies using reports of acute oak decline

  • E. BakerEmail author
  • M. J. Jeger
  • J. D. Mumford
  • N. Brown
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Monitoring of forest pests and diseases is resource-intensive, requiring individual woodlands and trees to be visited and assessed for symptoms. Climate change and increased global connectivity are amplifying the scale of the monitoring challenge, with the number of new plant biosecurity threats increasing each year. Citizen science can increase the scale of pest and disease surveys. However, it is argued that citizen science data can be biased and inaccurate. This study examines potential biases in citizen science data by focusing on the case study of acute oak decline (AOD), a disease syndrome impacting native oaks within the UK associated with the beetle Agrilus biguttatus. Analysis was performed using two contrasting citizen science data set sources: the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas, which is a repository for citizen science data sets, and Tree Alert, a targeted citizen science project that encouraged landowners and the public to report the occurrence of AOD. For both data sets, detection was more likely in locations with higher Coleoptera reports, suggesting that there are hubs of recorder activity. For the NBN data set, A. biguttatus was more likely to be found in areas where historic parks and gardens were present. For the Tree Alert data set, A. biguttatus was less likely to be found on open access land, indicating that the programme was successful in engaging private landowners. These results indicate that understanding sources of bias within reporting schemes is an important step in data analysis and that the inclusion of structured survey designs would enable the extent of biases to be documented.

Keywords

Biosecurity Distribution modelling Citizen science Reporter bias 

JEL Classification

Q23 Q58 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper depended greatly on the availability of “self-reported data” from many concerned individuals who made reports to Tree Alert; we would like to thank them all for taking the time to do so. Further, we are extremely grateful for the goodwill and support of all the private landowners and managers who granted permission to visit their land during the surveys. This work would not have been possible without the data from Brown et al. (2017a; Dryad Digital Repository  https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.18157). Surveys were funded as part of Defra Project TH01008. Rothamsted Research receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and ongoing oak research is supported by Woodland Heritage. Information describing the distribution of A. biguttatus was sourced through NBN Atlas occurrence records, downloaded at http://nbnatlas.org. Accessed on 1 June 2017. The original data sources and data sets are provided in the supplementary material. The Data Provider and the NBN Trust bear no responsibility for any further analysis or interpretation of that material, data and/or information. All rights reserved NERC 100017897 2004. This research benefited from useful discussions with Dr David Slawson, the Director of Open Air Laboratories (OPAL), who provided valuable insight into the use of citizen science in research and policy.

Supplementary material

10109_2018_285_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. Alexander KN (2004) Revision of the Index of Ecological Continuity as used for saproxylic beetle. Eng Nat. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/133006. Accessed 26 June 2017
  2. Bates AJ, Fraser PL, Robinson L, Tweddle JC, Sadler JP, West SE, Norman S, Batson M, Davies L (2015) The OPAL bugs count survey: exploring the effects of urbanisation and habitat characteristics using citizen science. Urban Ecosyst 18(4):1477–1497.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0470-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird TJ, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS, Hill NA, Thomson RJ, Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Wotherspoon S, Krkosek M, Stuart-Smith JF, Pecl GT, Barrett N, Frusher S (2014) Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biol Conserv 173:144–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blaney R, Jones G, Philippe A, Pocock M, (2016) Citizen science and environmental monitoring: towards a methodology for evaluating opportunities, costs and benefits. Final report on behalf of UKEOF. https://www.ukeof.org.uk/documents/guide-to-citizen-science. Accessed 7 June 2017
  5. Bonter DN, Cooper CB (2012) Data validation in citizen science: a case study from Project FeederWatch. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):305–307.  https://doi.org/10.1890/110273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasier C (2008) The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathol 57(5):792–808.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01886.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotons L, Thuiller W, Araújo MB, Hirzel AH (2004) Presence-absence versus presence-only modelling methods for predicting bird habitat suitability. Ecography 27(4):437–448.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03764.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown N, Inward DJ, Jeger M, Denman S (2014) A review of Agrilus biguttatus in UK forests and its relationship with acute oak decline. Forestry 8(1):53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown N, van den Bosch F, Parnell S, Denman S (2017) Integrating regulatory surveys and citizen science to map outbreaks of forest diseases: acute oak decline in England and Wales. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown N, Vanguelova E, Parnell S, Broadmeadow S, Denman S (2018) Predisposition of forests to biotic disturbance: predicting the distribution of Acute Oak Decline using environmental factors. For Ecol Manag 407:145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2017.10.054 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, Waller DM (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conserv Lett 4(6):433–442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehnen-Schmutz K, Foster GL, Owen L, Persello S (2016) Exploring the role of smartphone technology for citizen science in agriculture. Agron Sustain Dev 36(25):1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0359-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denman S, Webber J (2009) Oak declines: new definitions and new episodes in Britain. Q J For 103:285–290Google Scholar
  14. Denman S, Brown N, Kirk S, Jeger M, Webber J (2014) A description of the symptoms of Acute Oak Decline in Britain and a comparative review on causes of similar disorders on oak in Europe. Forestry 87(4):535–551.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/cpu010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denman S, Plummer S, Kirk S, Peace A, McDonald JE (2016) Isolation studies reveal a shift in the cultivable microbiome of oak affected with Acute Oak Decline. Syst Appl Microbiol 39(7):484–490.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2016.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denman S, Doonan J, Ransom-Jones E, Brober M, Plummer S, Kirk S, Scarlett K, Griffiths AR, Kaczmarek M, Froster J, Peace A, Golyshin PN, Hassard F, Brown N, Kenny JG, McDonald JE (2017) Microbiome and infectivity studies reveal complex polyspecies tree disease in Acute Oak Decline. ISME J 12:386–399.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C (2010) Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16(3):354–362.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, Phillips T, Purcell K (2012) The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):291–297.  https://doi.org/10.1890/110236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forestry Commission (2018) Tree alert. https://www.forestry.gov.uk/treealert. Accessed 13 Oct 2018
  21. Freitag A, Pfeffer MJ (2013) Process, not product: investigating recommendations for improving citizen science “success”. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isaac NJ, Pocock MJ (2015) Bias and information in biological records. Biol J Linn Soc 115(3):522–531.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Isaac NJ, Cruickshanks KL, Weddle AM, Marcus Rowcliffe J, Brereton TM, Dennis RL, Shuker DM, Thomas CD (2011) Distance sampling and the challenge of monitoring butterfly populations. Methods Ecol Evol 2(6):585–594.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00109.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Isaac NJ, Strien AJ, August TA, Zeeuw MP, Roy DB (2014) Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol Evol 5(10):1052–1060.  https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12254 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jordan RC, Ballard HL, Phillips TB (2012) Key Issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen science learning outcomes. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):307–309.  https://doi.org/10.1890/110280 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamp J, Oppel S, Heldbjerg H, Nyegaard T, Donald PF (2016) Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Divers Distrib 22(10):1024–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mair L, Ruete A (2016) Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147796 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meentemeyer RK, Dorning MA, Vogler JB, Schmidt D, Garbelotto M (2015) Citizen science helps predict risk of emerging infectious disease. Front Ecol Environ 13(4):189–194.  https://doi.org/10.1890/140299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moraal L, Hilszczanski J (2000) The oak buprestid beetle (Agrilus biguttatus) (F.) (Col., buprestidae), a recent factor in oak decline in Europe. J Pest Sci 73(5):134–138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02956447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mumford R, Macarthur R, Boonham N (2016) The role and challenges of new diagnostic technology in plant biosecurity. Food Secur 8(1):103–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0533-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mumford JD, Gullino ML, Stack JP, Fletcher J, Quinlan MM (2017) The need for international perspectives to solve global biosecurity challenges. In: Practical tools for plant and food biosecurity. Springer, Cham, pp 363–384.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46897-6_18
  32. National Biodiversity Network (2018) NBN action plan. https://nbn.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/nbn-action-plan/. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  33. NBN Atlas (2018) About the NBN Atlas. https://nbnatlas.org/about-nbn-atlas/. Accessed 10 Oct 2018
  34. Newman G, Wiggins A, Crall A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K (2012) The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front Ecol Environ 10(6):298–304.  https://doi.org/10.1890/110294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Observatree. (2017) Observatree: monitoring tree health. http://www.observatree.org.uk/about/. Accessed 6 July 2017
  36. OPAL (2016) https://www.opalexplorenature.org/. Accessed 6 July 2017
  37. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2014) Environmental citizen science, August 2014, Post Report 476Google Scholar
  38. Parrott D, Roy S, Baker R, Cannon R, Eyre D, Hill M, Wagner M, Preston C, Roy H, Beckmann B (2009) Horizon scanning for new invasive non-native animal species in England. Nat Engl. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/43005. Accessed 19th June 2017
  39. Pescott OL, Walker KJ, Pocock MJ, Jitlal M, Outhwaite CL, Cheffings CM, Harris F, Roy DB (2015) Ecological monitoring with citizen science: the design and implementation of schemes for recording plants in Britain and Ireland. Biol J Linn Soc 115(3):505–521.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pocock MJ, Evans DM (2014) The success of the horse-chestnut leaf-miner, Cameraria ohridella, in the UK revealed with hypothesis-led citizen science. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pocock MJ, Chapman D, Sheppard L, Roy H (2014) A strategic framework to support the implementation of citizen science for environmental monitoring. Final report to SEPA. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire. https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/hp1114final_5_complete.pdf. Accessed 7th June 2017
  42. Pocock MJ, Roy HE, Preston CD, Roy DB (2015) The biological records centre: a pioneer of citizen science. Biol J Linn Soc 115(3):475–493.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12548 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pocock MJ, Roy HE, Fox R, Ellis WN, Botham M (2017) Citizen Science and invasive alien species: predicting the detection of the oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea by moth recorders. Biol Cons 208:146–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Potter C, Harwood T, Knight J, Tomlinson I (2011) Learning from history, predicting the future: the UK Dutch elm disease outbreak in relation to contemporary tree disease threats. Philos Trans R Soc B 366:1966–1974.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed K, Denman S, Leather SR, Forster J, Inward DJG (2017) The lifecycle of Agrilus biguttatus: the role of temperature in its development and distribution, and implications for Acute Oak Decline. Entomology, Agricultural and For.  https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roy H, Pocock M, Preston C, Roy D, Savage J, Tweddle J, Robinson L (2012) Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring: final report on behalf of UK Environmental Observation Framework, final report on behalf of UK-EOF. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and Natural History Museum. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/20679/. Accessed 6 May 2017
  47. Roy HE, Rorke SL, Beckmann B, Booy O, Botham MS, Brown PMJ, Harrower C, Nobel D, Sewell J, Walker K (2015) The contribution of volunteer record to our understanding of biological invasions. Biol J Linn Soc 115(3):678–689.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D, Kelling S (2009) eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol Conserv 142(10):2282–2292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sullivan BL, Aycrigg JL, Barry JH, Bonney RE, Bruns N, Cooper CB, Damoulas T, Dhondt AA, Dietterich T, Farnsworth A, Fink D, Fitzpatrick JW, Fredericks T, Gerbracht J, Gomes C, Hochachka WM, Iliff M, Lagoze C, La Sorte FA, Merrifield M, Morris W, Phillips TB, Reynolds M, Rodewald AD, Rosenberg KV, Trautmann NM, Wiggins A, Winkler DW, Wong W, Wood CL, Yu J, Kelling S (2014) The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biol Cons 169:31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tomlinson I, Potter C, Bayliss H (2015) Managing tree pests and diseases in urban settings: the case of Oak Processionary Moth in London, 2006–2012. Urban For Urban Green 14(2):286–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tulloch AI, Mustin K, Possingham HP, Szabo JK, Wilson KA (2013a) To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale. Divers Distrib 19(4):465–480.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00947.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tulloch AI, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG (2013b) Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Cons 165:128–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turnhout E, Lawrence A, Turnhout S (2016) Citizen science networks in natural history and the collective validation of biodiversity data. Conserv Biol 30(3):532–539.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van der Wal R, Anderson H, Robinson A, Sharma N, Mellish C, Roberts S, Darvill B, Siddharthan A (2015) Mapping species distributions: a comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording. Ambio 44(4):584–600.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0709-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vansteenkiste D, Tirry L, Van Acker J, Stevens M (2004) Predispositions and symptoms of Agrilus borer attack in declining oak trees. Ann For Sci 61(8):815–823.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2004076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wiggins A, Crowston K (2015) Surveying the citizen science landscape. First Monday.  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i1.5520 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Environmental PolicyImperial College LondonAscotUK
  2. 2.Biointeractions and Crop Protection, Rothamsted ResearchHarpendenUK
  3. 3.CEHPenicuikUK

Personalised recommendations