The quality and contribution of volunteer collected animal vehicle collision data in ecological research
The quality and contribution of volunteer collected animal vehicle collision data in ecological research
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.05.062
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Shilling, Fraser
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Tiedeman, Kate;Hijmans, Robert J.;Shilling, Fraser
志愿者收集的数据对于研究越来越重要，这些数据的准确性和应用需要评估。我们利用加州道路死亡观测系统 (CROS) 来评估志愿者收集的动物与车辆碰撞 (AVC) 数据的质量和潜在贡献，以了解物种范围。我们将志愿者分为专业生物学家和非专业用户，并比较他们的物种观察率和识别准确率。 17% 的志愿者是专业人士，但他们提供了 35% 的观察结果，而且他们观察到的物种比非专业人士更加多样化。两组的物种鉴定准确性相似。我们将 CROS 数据估计的物种范围与最大的可用动物观察数据库（全球生物多样性信息设施；GBIF）得出的范围进行了比较。 CROS 观测扩大了 411 个物种中 139 个物种的 GBIF 数据衍生范围。所有物种的平均范围扩张为 8.2%，包括没有范围扩张的物种，或有范围扩张的物种为 24.3%。我们还使用物种分布模型来估计范围大小。将 CROS 观测结果添加到 GBIF 记录中，将平均预测物种范围扩大了 5%。专业观察员将之前估计的范围平均扩大了1.1%，而非专业观察员的范围平均扩大了5.3%，反映出他们更大的空间覆盖范围。虽然非专业用户观察到的物种较少，但他们在更大区域内的大量观察和出现提高了我们对许多物种范围的了解。志愿者从专业和非专业用户收集的 AVC 数据可以成为增强野生动物观测传统数据库以创建物种分布图的重要数据源。
Volunteer-collected data are increasingly important for research, and the accuracy and applications of such data needs evaluation. We utilized the California Roadkill Observation System (CROS) to assess the quality of and potential contribution that volunteer-collected animal-vehicle collision (AVC) data to understand species ranges. We classified volunteers as professional biologists or non-professional users, and compared their rates of species observation and identification accuracy. Seventeen percent of the volunteers were professionals, but they provided 35% of the observations, and they observed a more diverse set of species than non-professionals. The accuracy of species identification was similar for both groups. We compared species' ranges estimated from CROS data with ranges derived from the largest available database of animal observations (Global Biodiversity Information Facility; GBIF). CROS observations expanded GBIF data-derived ranges for 139 of 411 species. Average range expansion was 8.2% for all species, including species with no range expansion, or 24.3% for species with range expansion. We also used species distribution models to estimate range sizes. Adding CROS observations to GBIF records expanded the average predicted species-range by 5%. Professional observers expanded previously-estimated ranges by an average of 1.1%, while non-professional observers expanded ranges by an average of 5.3%, reflecting their larger spatial coverage. While non-professional users observe fewer species, their larger number of observations and occurrence over a larger area improves our knowledge of the ranges of a number of species. Volunteer-collected AVC data from both professional and non-professional users can be an important data source for augmenting conventional databases of wildlife observations to create species range maps.