Platforms like eBird and iNaturalist showed low evidence of observation bias
Wildlife researchers often tap into citizen science platforms like iNaturalist and eBird to gather large-scale data to answer their study questions. But how accurate is the data on these platforms? In a study published in Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, researchers set out to answer that question. The team of researchers looked at observation data from iNaturalist and eBird on 254 bird species in Northern California and Nevada in 2019 and 2022. They found that both platforms showed similar seasonal patterns for more than 97% of the species. To take it a step further, the researchers teamed up with an expert, Rob Furrow, an assistant professor at the University of California, Davis and an avid birdwatcher. Furrow’s expertise confirmed many known bird seasonality patterns in the region, suggesting there wasn’t observation bias on the citizen science platforms. “We were really pleasantly surprised that we could still get reliable data, despite the differences between eBird and iNaturalist,” Furrow said. “Even when you’re relying on casual hobbyists who are taking photos of what they like, when they like, you’re still getting a reliable representation of the birds in that area at that time.” The researchers said the study’s findings suggest iNaturalist and eBird can successfully help scientists answer their study questions. “This project shows that data from participatory science projects with different goals, observers and structure can be combined into reliable and robust datasets to address broad scientific questions,” said senior author Laci Gerhart, associate professor of teaching in the UC Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology. “Contributors to multiple, smaller projects can help make real discoveries about bigger issues.”
