[Taxacom] Citizen Science
Stephen Thorpe
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Fri Oct 24 16:31:17 CDT 2014
2014
It an issue of "reading between the lines" and the loading of neutral facts with negative spin. Also, Dr. Ward set the Hymenoptera project up only to shoot it down for not having associated protocols that he didn't set it up with! I just think that this is a nonsense paper. It concludes the blatantly obvious (i.e., that there are some geographical and taxonomic biases in "citizen science" data) from an analysis of a very limited dataset, and fails to consider how sites like NatureWatch NZ might evolve in such a way as to lessen these biases. One way would be more engagement from professional scientists, but Darren contributed no observations himself, so it all just seems to me to be a bit of a hatchet job.
Stephen
--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 25/10/14, JF Mate <aphodiinaemate at gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Citizen Science
To: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Received: Saturday, 25 October, 2014, 1:54 AM
Continuing Stephen andÂ
thread on Darren Ward and Citizen Science. I
am attaching an excerpt of his abstract:
Darren Ward (excerpt from
abstract of the article):
“Over the course of 1 year 25 members
contributed 360 records from 186
taxa,
including the discovery of several introduced species new to
New
Zealand. There was a strong geographical
bias to the records, with the
majority being
based around the major cities. Aculeates (stinging
wasps) were signi�cantly over-represented in
the NatureWatch records.
Only half (55 %) of
taxa were identi�ed to species level, with a
further 28 % at genus level, and 17 %
identi�ed above genus level
(family,
order). Furthermore, the majority (65 %) of taxa were
recorded only once, and only a few taxa were
recorded [5 times (top
records were
‘‘Ichneumonidae’’, ‘‘Hymenoptera’’,
Anthidium manicatum,
and Apis mellifera). It
is probable that these same biases also exist
for many other taxonomic groups in projects
operated by citizen
scientists lacking set
protocols. Caution should be exercised on the
subsequent use, compilation, and analysis of
citizen science,
especially without prior
examination of records and potential biases.�
(Stephen´s
opinion crudely cut and pasted here) “I interpret this
to
have been a deliberate attempt to
reinforce to the professional
community the
(false) idea that such "citizen science" projects
aren't
worth bothering with.�
Seriously,
what is the problem with what Mr Ward is saying? If you
check any of the sites mentioned in Taxacom you
will discover that
what he is saying is
true! This is not a criticism of nature lovers,
it is a human condition: we love butterflies
and colourful things and
dislike small
creepy-crawlies. Why would you expect different from the
subset of nature macrophotographers?
Jason
On 24 October
2014 09:17, Alastair   Culham <a.culham at reading.ac.uk>
wrote:
> For the past year we've been
running a citizen science project to survey powdery mildew
species around the UK in a joint project with the Royal
Horticultural Society - http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/crg/powdery-mildew-survey/
>
> This has resulted in
a data set of around 200 samples in the trial year including
59 different PM species http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/whiteknightsbiodiversity/campus-species-lists/fungi/powdery-mildew-2014/.
We are hoping for over 1000 samples next season.
>
> Samples are
identified using a combination of morphological and
molecular techniques by a research council funded PhD
student and the results are emailed back to the sample
providers as well as posted on our blogs. Engaging the UK
public in this scheme has allowed a more widespread sampling
and allows the student doing the work to focus on lab work
rather than chasing around the UK for samples.
>
> The challenge has
been to keep the survey in people's minds so that we get
samples sent on a regular basis throughout the long mildew
season. This is a non-trivial job and requires a lot of
forward planning.
>
>
Ours is a small CS scheme compared with large scale
monitoring of the UK flora by the BSBI which has a network
of local (usually highly expert) regional recorders and a
further network of taxonomic experts to back them up. The
common feature of effective CS schemes is that there is an
ongoing investment in management of them and close
monitoring of data quality.
>
> CS can be highly effective and can be a
very cost effective way of gathering data if the scheme is
run well. All science risks a rubbish in, rubbish out
scenario and CS is just as sensitive to this as any other
science is.
>
>
Alastair
>
____________________________________________
>
> Dr Alastair Culham
> Centre for Plant Diversity and
Systematics
> Harborne Building, School
of Biological Sciences
> University of
Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AS
>
U.K.
>
> Associate
Professor of Botany
> Curator, Reading
University Herbarium (RNG)
>
____________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________
> From: Taxacom [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
on behalf of Stephen Thorpe [stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz]
> Sent: 23 October 2014 21:35
> To: KenWalker; John Grehan
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
>
> Ken may be a little
bit oversensitive, given that he probably has to constantly
battle the indifference to (and sometimes obstruction of)
citizen science, by entomologist colleagues. In my view,
biodiversity recording sites like Project Noah, iSpot,
iNaturalist, BowerBird, NatureWatch NZ, etc. are not
actually all that useful *as initially conceived* (photos in
the field of live organisms), but can evolve into something
far more useful. I agree that there is not much point in
thousands of records of monarch butterflies, and no little
brown micro moths. For some idea of my vision for these
biodiversity recording sites, I invite you to browse my own
2489 contributions to NatureWatch NZ, here: http://naturewatch.org.nz/observations/stho002
>
> Stephen
>
>
--------------------------------------------
> On Fri, 24/10/14, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Â Subject:
Re: [Taxacom] De-extinction & Rhachistia aldabrae
>Â To: "Walker, Ken" <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
>Â Cc: "Taxacom" <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>Â Received: Friday, 24 October, 2014, 2:51
AM
>
>Â Ken,
>
>Â Admittedly I only
read postings in a fragmentary way and I
>Â know I sometimes
>Â
miss items, but I am confused by your reference to Jason
>Â Mate saying the
>Â
the efforts of citizen science can be dismissed as "
are
>Â taking pictures of
>Â "bugs": bigger, smaller, red,
blue or yellow." What I read
>Â was
that he said
>Â that "The decline
in "natural history" amateurs is global
>Â and cannot be
>Â
compensated by the explosion of macrophotography since
they
>Â (mostly) are
>Â taking pictures of "bugs":
bigger, smaller, red, blue or
>Â
yellow." This made
>Â no reference
to 'citizen science' and I did not see any
>Â implication of
>Â
such. It was only a criticism of a particular mode of
>Â information gathering
>Â or sharing. I would be grateful
therefore for how you made
>Â that link
the
>Â way you did.
>
>Â John Grehan
>
>Â On Wed, Oct 22,
2014 at 9:04 PM, Walker, Ken <kwalker at museum.vic.gov.au>
>Â wrote:
>
>Â > Hi Jason,
>Â
>
>Â > I totally disagree with
your assessment of citizen
>Â science
being on the
>Â > decline and that
the efforts of citizen science can be
>Â
dismissed as " are
>Â > taking
pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller, red, blue
>Â or yellow."
>Â
>
>Â > Here is Australia, we have
a citizen science website
>Â called
BowerBird
>Â > which is a socially
interactive website somewhat like
>Â the
northern
>Â > hemisphere equivalents
of Project Noah, iNaturalist and
>Â
iSpot. For me, the
>Â > quality of
a citizen science website is whether or not
>Â the data it
>Â >
generates is on-shared with national or international
>Â biodiversity
>Â >
databases.
>Â >
>Â > Let me give you one BowerBird
example that came in this
> month. A
citizen
>Â > science person submitted
an image of a
> ladybeetle. He had
tried to
>Â > identify it himself but
could not place the
> species. In
Australia, we have
>Â > a wonderful
CSIRO website displaying all known extant
>Â Australian ladybeetle
> > species. The BowerBird image did
not match any of
>Â the images on the
> > diagnostic website. So, we sent
the image to the
>Â BMNH ladybeetle
expert
>Â > who came back with the
statement "Back from the
>Â
Dead". The species
>Â >
photographed was presumed to be extinct as it had not
>Â been seen or recorded
> > since 1940. The story of this
citizen science
>Â find was told in one
of our
>Â > national newspapers:
>Â > http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci-tech/extinct-ladybird-back-from-the-dead-20141014-115u4j.html
>Â > (where you can see an image of the
beetle).
>Â >
>Â
> To me, the essence of science is to observe and ask
> questions. What
>Â
> better way is there than to have thousands of
"natural
>Â history amateur
>Â > eyes" documenting spatial and
temporal data for the
>Â Australian
(swap
>Â > Australia for any other
country) biota. BowerBird
>Â has
discovered new
>Â > species and
helped to track invasive species. The
>Â exotic carder bee
>Â
> (Afranthidium (Immanthidium) repetitum) was first
>Â reported in Brisbane in
> > 2000. By 2007, it had been
recorded south
>Â in Sydney but since
the Sydney
>Â > records no further
distribution extensions had been
>Â
recorded. Then in
>Â > February and
March 2014, two amateurs noticed a
>Â
"strange bee" in their
>Â >
garden. They photographed their strange bee and
>Â posted the images on
>Â > BowerBird with the question
"Bee ID?". We bee
>Â
"experts" immediately
>Â >
recognised it as the South African carder bee and the
>Â records came from
>Â
> hundreds of kilometres north of Brisbane and
hundreds
>Â south of Sydney - on
>Â > the state of Victoria's
border. Australia has
>Â many exotic
"sleeper weeds"
>Â > but
they remain in small numbers as they lack their
>Â effective pollinator.
>Â > The spread of any exotic pollinator
needs to be
>Â monitored and watched for
a
>Â > possible explosion of a
sleeper weed. It was citizen
>Â science
who alerted us
>Â > to this alarming
spread.
>Â >
>Â
> BowerBird "favourites" are often created by
an "expert"
>Â mentoring
"natural
>Â > history amateur
eyes" . One such case is the
>Â
humble but extraordinary life
>Â >
styled and bizarrely coloured flatworms.
>Â Australia has only one flatworm
>Â > expert located in north
Queensland. However, he
>Â has
inspired many
>Â > BowerBird members
from around Australia to roll back
>Â
logs in search of
>Â > these
flatworms. The expert identifies each
>Â flatworm image posted to
>Â > BowerBird but he adds stories about
how the scientific
>Â name was derived
and
>Â > about the species
behaviour. There are now almost
>Â 50
BowerBird members on
>Â > the
Flatworm project who have image captured many of
>Â Australia's flatworm
> > species. The expert has told me
that for many
>Â species, the
BowerBird
>Â > images were his first
live images for many species - he
>Â
usually sees them
>Â > as pickled
individuals. The expert has also
>Â
requested and been able to get
>Â >
these amateurs to collect and send him specimens for
> DNA analysis. If you
>Â > have never seen a flatworm or want
to read something
>Â about them, then
I
>Â > recommend the flatworm
project:
>Â > http://www.bowerbird.org.au/projects/1633/sightings
>Â >
>Â >
Finally, the Australian GBIF node is ALA (Atlas of
>Â Living Australia).
>Â > BowerBird went live in May 2013 and
there are automatic
>Â weekly data
>Â > (images. Identifications,
spatrila/temporal etc)
>Â uploads to
ALA.
>Â > Currently, there are almost
11,000 BowerBird records on
>Â ALA (to
see the
>Â > spread of records from
around Australia see:
>Â > http://biocache.ala.org.au/occurrences/search?qÚta_resource_uid:dr893#tab_mapView
> > ). This represents about a 60%
identification
>Â success rate for
images that
>Â > you describe as
"pictures of "bugs": bigger, smaller,
>Â red, blue or yellow."
>Â >
>Â > New
species have been nominated, new distributions have
>Â been recorded, new
>Â > stories have been told about the
Australian fauna, new
>Â friendships
have
>Â > been made and these new
"friends" now go out together
>Â on their own
>Â >
photographic BioBlitzes and on-share their finds to
>Â BowerBird to ALA to
> > GBIF. I'm happy with this
deal !!
>Â >
>Â
> I am sure these stories here can be repeated for
>Â Project Noah, iNaturalist
>Â > and iSpot.
>Â
>
>Â > For me, citizen science is
on the up not the
>Â decline.Â
Getting
>Â > "professional"
scientists to engage with this "new"
>Â data source is the next
>Â > "challenge".
>Â >
>Â > BestÂ
Ken
>Â >
>Â >
-----Original Message-----
>Â > From:
Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
>Â On Behalf Of JF
>Â
> Mate
>Â > Sent: Thursday, 23
October 2014 2:14 AM
>Â > To:
Taxacom
>Â > Subject: Re: [Taxacom]
De-extinction & Rhachistia
>Â
aldabrae
>Â >
>Â
> Hi Bob,
>Â >
>Â > I agree the scale is altogether
different but even in
>Â densely
populated
>Â > areas in Australia
even basic invertebrate biodiversity
>Â
knowledge is
>Â > lacking. The
decline in "natural history" amateurs is
>Â global and cannot be
>Â > compensated by the explosion of
macrophotography since
>Â they (mostly)
are
>Â > taking pictures of
"bugs": bigger, smaller, red, blue
>Â or yellow. If you
>Â
> don´t know what you are photographing then it is
like
> it doesn´t exist. For
>Â > Europe (with some exceptions) the
decline may not be as
>Â damaging. The
fauna
>Â > is well known and there
are plenty of guides and keys
>Â that
digital
>Â > enthusiasts could use.
The goal here has at least been
>Â
partially achieved.
>Â > In
Australia, other than butterflies and a couple of
>Â other popular groups
>Â > you are out of luck.
>Â >
>Â >
Cristian. Spain is in a similar (albeit not as extreme)
>Â situation to
>Â >
Australia. High biodiversity, incomplete knowledge but
>Â a declining body of
>Â > amateurs (and legislation that
doesn´t help either).
>Â >
>Â > Best
>Â >
>Â > Jason
>Â
>
>Â >
>Â
>
>Â >
>Â
>
>Â > This e-mail is solely for
the named addressee and may
>Â be
confidential. You
>Â > should only
read, disclose, transmit, copy, distribute,
>Â act in reliance on
>Â > or commercialise the contents if
you are authorised to
>Â do so. If you
are
>Â > not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, please
>Â notify
mailto:
>Â > postmaster at museum.vic.gov.au
>Â by email immediately, or notify the
sender
>Â > and then destroy any copy
of this message. Views
>Â expressed in
this email
>Â > are those of the
individual sender, except where
>Â
specifically stated to be
>Â > those
of an officer of Museum Victoria. Museum Victoria
>Â does not represent,
>Â > warrant or guarantee that the
integrity of this
>Â communication has
been
>Â > maintained nor that it is
free from errors, virus or
>Â
interference.
>Â >
>Â >
>Â >
_______________________________________________
>Â > Taxacom Mailing List
>Â > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Â > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>Â > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992
may be searched at:
>Â > http://taxacom.markmail.org
>Â >
>Â >
Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>Â >
>Â
_______________________________________________
>Â Taxacom Mailing List
>Â Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>Â http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>Â The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Â Celebrating 27
years of Taxacom in 2014.
>
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years
of Taxacom in 2014.
>
_______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
>
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years
of Taxacom in 2014.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Celebrating 27 years of
Taxacom in 2014.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list