Museums across the world are filled with more plant, animal, and insect specimens than imaginable; each individual providing valuable insight into the research of its species. Specimen collection has long been the primary method of preserving these living things for later examination but, with the growth of the internet and advent of single-lens reflex cameras (SLR), a new form of data collection has surfaced: crowdsourcing– the mass collection of user-provided data.
It is believed that digital image photography collected by volunteers is a valuable tool in conservation biology, and especially in pollinator sciences; capable of forming non-destructive visual records of field observations that have become an increasingly inexpensive way to confirm and catalog observations made in the field. Photos aren’t required for many citizen science efforts at all, many ask for counts, reporting tag numbers, or are interested in sightings with or without a photo. In some cases, citizen science has allowed researchers to study the long-term health of animal populations5 as well as monitor localized species abundance and richness over time3.
Crowdsourcing digital photographic images is especially valuable when collecting pollinator data due to the lack of existing data over area and time3. Citizen science has already begun to fill the gaps in this data set; through citizen science projects data regarding range, species health, behavior, and more can be obtained through amateur observation. Another advantage is the relationship being fostered between ecologists and the public; involving and valuing the layperson in data collection breeds interest in the environment and sciences, and university students and classes open opportunities for pollinator science in the form of undergraduate research6. The scale of research being done has also increased, allowing more of the public to participate and more tools to be available for everyone to explore changes in the ecology of the space over time2.
Citizen science efforts are already being made in pollinator sciences. e-Butterfly, Bumblebee Watch, Monarch Watch, and the Great Sunflower Project are some examples of the many pollinator citizen science projects available to the public. Bumblebee Watch and e-Butterfly operate similarly: submit your image to the site with a best guess regarding the species and an expert will verify the identification. e-Butterfly likens their verification process like that of a museum; a pinned insect specimen has several tags attached to it, with the determiner’s evaluation and any updated evaluations. Similarly, butterfly photos submitted to e-butterfly also have several tags that are kept in a computer database tracking the verification process4. Monarch Watch uses tags placed on the wings of monarch butterflies to track their movement; they then use volunteers to report the tag numbers and location when they observe the butterfly. The Great Sunflower Project operates differently, seeking pollinator counts rather than species observations. While these volunteer-driven projects focus on pollinators alone, there are thousands of other citizen science projects that cover local and global issues to monitor a huge spectrum of species ranging from plants to mammals and everything in between2.
Several scientific studies have been performed using crowdsourced data. e-Butterfly is working on one such project interested in changes in phenology, range, community structure, and abundance due to climate and land use change8. Another study looking at how land use altered insect flower visitors in France used a country-wide citizen science survey, using an entomologist to validate submitted data prior to use1. The Monarch Larva Monitoring Project relies on citizen science to collect population data across huge amounts of space and time; citizens have been documenting monarch butterfly migration from Canada to Mexico since Dr. Fred Urquhart’s tagging program was introduced in 19527.
1. Deguines, Nicolas, Romain Julliard, Mathieu De Flores, and Colin Fontaine. “The Whereabouts of Flower Visitors: Contrasting Land-Use Preferences Revealed by a Country-Wide Survey Based on Citizen Science.” PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Aug. 2017.
2. Dickinson, Janis L., et al. “Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, vol. 41, no. 1, 11 Aug. 2010, pp. 149–172., doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.
3. Kremen, C., K. S. Ullmann, and R. W. Thorp. “Evaluating the Quality of Citizen-Scientist Data on Pollinator Communities.” Conservation Biology 25.3 (2011): 607-17. University of California, Berkley College of Natural Resources. Society for Conservation Biology, 2011.
4. McFarland, Kent. Personal correspondence. August 2017.
5. Mueller, Michael, Deborah Tippens, and Lynn Bryan. “The Future of Citizen Science.” Democracy and Education Journal, 2012.
6. Oberhauser, Karen, and Gretchen LeBuhn. “Insects and Plants: Engaging Undergraduates in Authentic Research through Citizen Science.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Ecological Society of America, 01 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Aug. 2017.
7. Oberhauser, Karen S., and Michelle D. Prysby. “Temporal and Geographic Variation in Monarch Densities: Citizen Scientists Document Monarch Population Patterns.” The Monarch Butterfly: Biology & Conservation. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2004. 9-21. Print.
8. Prudic, Kathleen, Kent McFarland, Jeffrey Oliver, Rebecca Hutchinson, Elizabeth Long, Jeremy Kerr, and Maxim Larrivée. “EButterfly: Leveraging Massive Online Citizen Science for Butterfly Conservation.” MDPI. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 18 May 2017.