Platforms like Ebird and Inaturalist have shown low evidence of observation bias
Wildlife researchers often use citizen scientific platforms such as inaturation and EBIRD to collect large -scale data to answer their study questions. But what is the accuracy of the data on these platforms? In a study published in Citizen science: Theory and practiceThe researchers decided to answer this question. The team of researchers examined the observation data of the inaturalists and the EBirds on 254 species of birds in northern California and the Nevada in 2019 and 2022. They found that the two platforms presented seasonal models similar for more than 97% of the species. To go further, researchers have teamed up with an expert, Rob Furrow, assistant professor at the University of California in Davis and passionate Birdwatcher. Furrow’s expertise has confirmed many models of seasonality of known birds in the region, suggesting that there was no observation bias on citizen scientific platforms. “We were very pleasantly surprised that we could always obtain reliable data, despite the differences between Ebird and Inaturalist,” said Furrow. “Even when you rely on occasional amateurs who take photos of what they like, when they like, you always get a reliable representation of birds in this area at that time.” Researchers said the study results suggest that inaturation and Ebird could help scientists respond successfully to their study questions. “This project shows that data from participatory scientific projects with various objectives, observers and structure can be combined in reliable and robust data sets to answer large scientific questions,” said the main author Laci GerhartAssociate teacher of teaching in the UC Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology. “Contributors to several smaller projects can help make real discoveries on greater problems.”