Non-detection during excursions by citizen scientists modeled as a function of weather, season, list length, and individual preferences

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Citizen science is an increasingly valuable source of information about biodiversity. It is challenging to use this information for analysis of distribution and trends. The lack of a protocol leads to bias in observations and therefore data are not representative. The bias is a consequence of unequal detection probabilities, caused by different preferences and habits of citizen scientists. METHODS We propose to incorporate characteristics of these excursions in analyses of data collected by citizen scientists to improve estimates of the probability that a species is not detected and reported, even though it does occur. By limiting these models to areas that are known to be occupied, detection can be modeled separately without considering variation in occupancy. We apply this idea to 150 common species in the Southwest Delta of The Netherlands, and illustrate the data selection, the modeling process and the results using four species. RESULTS The strongest features to predict detection are the number of species during a visit (list length), earlier observations of the target species by the same observer, and the day of year. We compare three approaches to predict the total non-detection probability that takes all visits to an area into account. Predictions based on only the number of visits were outperformed by predictions that also take the list length into account. Our predictions based on all features combined consistently beat both other approaches, across all 10 species groups that were compared. DISCUSSION We thus show that explicitly modelling the characteristics of all visits to an occupied area results in estimation of non-detection probabilities, while providing insight into the causes of detection and reporting bias. Furthermore, predictions of our model provide a basis for quantifying the sampling effort in each area, which is a promising first step to correct bias in citizen science data when aiming to map a species’ distribution.
Full text 2,075 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 4 sections · click to expand

Introduction

Citizen science is an increasingly valuable source of information about biodiversity. It is challenging to use this information for analysis of distribution and trends. The lack of a protocol leads to bias in observations and therefore data are not representative. The bias is a consequence of unequal detection probabilities, caused by different preferences and habits of citizen scientists.

Methods

We propose to incorporate characteristics of these excursions in analyses of data collected by citizen scientists to improve estimates of the probability that a species is not detected and reported, even though it does occur. By limiting these models to areas that are known to be occupied, detection can be modeled separately without considering variation in occupancy. We apply this idea to 150 common species in the Southwest Delta of The Netherlands, and illustrate the data selection, the modeling process and the results using four species.

Results

The strongest features to predict detection are the number of species during a visit (list length), earlier observations of the target species by the same observer, and the day of year. We compare three approaches to predict the total non-detection probability that takes all visits to an area into account. Predictions based on only the number of visits were outperformed by predictions that also take the list length into account. Our predictions based on all features combined consistently beat both other approaches, across all 10 species groups that were compared.

Discussion

We thus show that explicitly modelling the characteristics of all visits to an occupied area results in estimation of non-detection probabilities, while providing insight into the causes of detection and reporting bias. Furthermore, predictions of our model provide a basis for quantifying the sampling effort in each area, which is a promising first step to correct bias in citizen science data when aiming to map a species’ distribution. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-13T06:42:57.164913+00:00