Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists

Community science programs provide an opportunity to gather scientific data to inform conservation policy and management. This study examines the accuracy of community science identifications submitted to the North American Bumble Bee Watch program on a per species level and as compared to each spec...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Victoria J. MacPhail, Shelby D. Gibson, Richard Hatfield, Sheila R. Colla
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: PeerJ Inc. 2020-06-01
Series:PeerJ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://peerj.com/articles/9412.pdf
_version_ 1797424973998981120
author Victoria J. MacPhail
Shelby D. Gibson
Richard Hatfield
Sheila R. Colla
author_facet Victoria J. MacPhail
Shelby D. Gibson
Richard Hatfield
Sheila R. Colla
author_sort Victoria J. MacPhail
collection DOAJ
description Community science programs provide an opportunity to gather scientific data to inform conservation policy and management. This study examines the accuracy of community science identifications submitted to the North American Bumble Bee Watch program on a per species level and as compared to each species’ conservation status, as well as users (members of the public) and experts (those with expertise in the field of bumble bee biology) perceived ease of species identification. Photos of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus) are submitted to the program by users and verified (species name corrected or assigned as necessary) by an expert. Over 22,000 records from over 4,900 users were used in the analyses. Accuracy was measured in two ways: percent agreement (percent of all records submitted correctly by users) and veracity (percent of all verified records submitted correctly by the users). Users generally perceived it harder to identify species than experts. User perceptions were not significantly different from the observed percent agreement or veracity, while expert perceptions were significantly different (overly optimistic) from the observed percent agreement but not the veracity. We compared user submitted names to final expert verified names and found that, for all species combined, the average percent agreement was 53.20% while the average veracity was 55.86%. There was a wide range in percent agreement values per species, although sample size and the role of chance did affect some species agreements. As the conservation status of species increased to higher levels of extinction risk, species were increasingly more likely to have a lower percent agreement but higher levels of veracity than species of least concern. For each species name submitted, the number of different species verified by experts varied from 1 to 32. Future research may investigate which factors relate to success in user identification through community science. These findings could play a role in informing the design of community science programs in the future, including for use in long-term and national-level monitoring of wild pollinators.
first_indexed 2024-03-09T08:09:20Z
format Article
id doaj.art-424c5bd9e35540cc8c3fcb1a17525ae0
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2167-8359
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-09T08:09:20Z
publishDate 2020-06-01
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format Article
series PeerJ
spelling doaj.art-424c5bd9e35540cc8c3fcb1a17525ae02023-12-02T23:30:33ZengPeerJ Inc.PeerJ2167-83592020-06-018e941210.7717/peerj.9412Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientistsVictoria J. MacPhail0Shelby D. Gibson1Richard Hatfield2Sheila R. Colla3Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, ON, CanadaDepartment of Biology, York University, Toronto, ON, CanadaThe Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR, USAFaculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, ON, CanadaCommunity science programs provide an opportunity to gather scientific data to inform conservation policy and management. This study examines the accuracy of community science identifications submitted to the North American Bumble Bee Watch program on a per species level and as compared to each species’ conservation status, as well as users (members of the public) and experts (those with expertise in the field of bumble bee biology) perceived ease of species identification. Photos of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus) are submitted to the program by users and verified (species name corrected or assigned as necessary) by an expert. Over 22,000 records from over 4,900 users were used in the analyses. Accuracy was measured in two ways: percent agreement (percent of all records submitted correctly by users) and veracity (percent of all verified records submitted correctly by the users). Users generally perceived it harder to identify species than experts. User perceptions were not significantly different from the observed percent agreement or veracity, while expert perceptions were significantly different (overly optimistic) from the observed percent agreement but not the veracity. We compared user submitted names to final expert verified names and found that, for all species combined, the average percent agreement was 53.20% while the average veracity was 55.86%. There was a wide range in percent agreement values per species, although sample size and the role of chance did affect some species agreements. As the conservation status of species increased to higher levels of extinction risk, species were increasingly more likely to have a lower percent agreement but higher levels of veracity than species of least concern. For each species name submitted, the number of different species verified by experts varied from 1 to 32. Future research may investigate which factors relate to success in user identification through community science. These findings could play a role in informing the design of community science programs in the future, including for use in long-term and national-level monitoring of wild pollinators.https://peerj.com/articles/9412.pdfCitizen scienceCommunity scienceCitizen scientistBumble beesBombusIdentification
spellingShingle Victoria J. MacPhail
Shelby D. Gibson
Richard Hatfield
Sheila R. Colla
Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
PeerJ
Citizen science
Community science
Citizen scientist
Bumble bees
Bombus
Identification
title Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
title_full Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
title_fullStr Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
title_full_unstemmed Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
title_short Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists
title_sort using bumble bee watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee bombus spp identification by community scientists
topic Citizen science
Community science
Citizen scientist
Bumble bees
Bombus
Identification
url https://peerj.com/articles/9412.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT victoriajmacphail usingbumblebeewatchtoinvestigatetheaccuracyandperceptionofbumblebeebombussppidentificationbycommunityscientists
AT shelbydgibson usingbumblebeewatchtoinvestigatetheaccuracyandperceptionofbumblebeebombussppidentificationbycommunityscientists
AT richardhatfield usingbumblebeewatchtoinvestigatetheaccuracyandperceptionofbumblebeebombussppidentificationbycommunityscientists
AT sheilarcolla usingbumblebeewatchtoinvestigatetheaccuracyandperceptionofbumblebeebombussppidentificationbycommunityscientists