Abstract
Citizen science projects have proliferated in the last decades, becoming a critical form of public engagement in science. However, monitoring based on citizen science must take special care on the analyses and/or standardization of volunteer’s variation in sampling and identification skills. Key aspects such as detectability of species and ability to determine individual traits (i.e., sex and reproductive state) are expected to vary with observer’s experience. We analysed how volunteer experience influenced results of a small mammal monitoring program (SEMICE) based on a standardized trapping design. This protocol aims at monitoring common species easy to catch with the two most widely used commercial live traps (Sherman and Longworth traps). We analysed sampling inaccuracies due to problems with trap performance according to trap type and observer experience, and how experience influenced the ability to determine sex and reproductive state of individuals trapped. Sampling inaccuracies were low (4.0 inaccuracies/100 traps-night) and were not influenced by experience, so that experience did not affect abundance estimates. Aptitude to sex shrews Crocidura russula and Sorex spp. was positively influenced by experience (31 % sexed by short-experienced people vs. 78% by people with longer experience), but not for sexing rodents (> 90% individuals sexed irrespective of experience). No differences among volunteers and professionals were evident despite longer experience by professionals (9.32 ± 0.54 vs 18.42 ± 0.62 sampling sessions, respectively). Data collected by volunteers provided accurate information on species abundance, but less information than professionals provided for some biological traits such as shrews’ sex and reproductive condition. Effect sizes of experience were small enough to utilize volunteer’s data to obtain unbiased monitoring results. Overall, the SEMICE protocol can be validated for its use as a small mammal monitoring program based on citizen science.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Barlow, K.E., Briggs, P.A., Haysom, K.A., Hutson, A.M., Lechiara, NX., Racey, P.A., Walsh, A.L., Langton, S.D., 2015. Citizen science reveals trends in bat populations: the National Bat Monitoring Programme in Great Britain. Biol. Conserv. 182, 14–26, http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/J.BIOCON.2014.ll.022.
Battersby, J.E., 2005. UK Mammals: Species Status and Population Trends. In: First Report by the Tracking Mammals Partnership.
Beauvais, G.P., Buskirk, S.W., 1999. Modifying estimates of sampling effort to account for sprung traps. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27, 39–43.
Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., Shirk, J., 2009. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59 (11), 977–984.
Cagnacci, F., Cardini, A., Ciucci, P., Ferrari, N., Mortelliti, A., Preatoni, D., Amori, G., 2012. Less is more: researcher survival guide in times of economic crisis. Hystrix 23 (2), 1–7.
Carraway, L., 2009. Determining sex of Sorex shrews (Soricomorpha: soricidae). Am. Midi. Nat. 162, 87–97.
Churchfield, S., 1990. The Natural History of Shrews. Christopher Helm, London.
Croin Michielsen, N., 1966. Intraspecific and interspecific competition in the shrews Sorex araneus L. and S. minutus L. Arch. Néerland. Zool. 17, 73–174.
Dîaz, M., Concepción, E.D., 2016. Enhancing the effectiveness of CAP greening as a conservation tool: a plea for regional targeting considering landscape constraints. Curr. Landsc. Ecol. Rep. 1, 168–177.
Dickinson, J.L., Zuckerberg, B., Bonter, D.N., 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 149–172, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636.
Environment Agency (EEA), 2010. Assessing Biodiversity in Europe — The 2010 Report. EEA, Copenhagen, 45 pp.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2012. Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators 2020: Building a Future on Lessons Learnt from the SEBI 2010 Process. EEA, Copenhagen, 50 pp.
Flowerdew, J.R., Shore, R.F., Poulton, S.M.C., Sparks, T.H., 2004. Live trapping to monitorsmall mammals in Britain. Mamm. Rev. 34, 31–50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/J.0305–1838.2003.00025.X.
Gurnell, J., Flowerdew, J.R., 2006. Live Trapping Small Mammals. A Practical Guide. The Mammal Society.
Hall, B.H., 2002. The financing of research and development. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 18, 35–51.
Jiguet, F., 2009. Method learning caused a first-time observer effect in a newly started breeding bird survey. Bird Study 56, 253–258, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00063650902791991org/10.1080/00063650902791991.
McGill, B.J., Dornelas, M., Gotelli, N.J., Magurran, A.E., 2015. Fifteen forms of biodiversity trend inthe Anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30(2), 104–113.
Munson, M.A., Caruana, R., Fink, D., Hochachka, W.M., Miff, M., Rosenberg, K.V., et al., 2010. A method for measuring the relative information content of data from different monitoring protocols. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1 (3), 263–273.
Newman, C., Buesching, C.D., Macdonald, D.W., 2003. Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation: “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Biol. Conserv. 113, 189–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00374-9.
O’Hara, R.B., Kotze, D.J., 2010. Do not log-transform count data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 118–122, http://dx.doi.Org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00021.x.
Satterfield, L.C., Thompson, J.J., Snyman, A., Candelario, L., Rode, B., Carroll, J.P., 2017. Estimating occurrence and detectability of a carnivore community in Eastern Botswana using baited camera traps. Afr. J. Wildl. Res. 47 (1), 32–46, http://dx.doi.org/10.3957/056.047.0032.
Sirami, C., Capiat, P., Popy, S., Clamens, A., Arlettaz, R., Jiguet, F., et al., 2017. Impacts of global change on species distributions: obstacles and solutions to integrate climate and land use. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26 (4), 385–394.
Torre, I., Freixas, L., Arrizabalaga, A., Díaz, M., 2016. The efficiency of two widely used commercial live-traps to develop monitoring protocols for small mammal biodiversity. Ecol. Indie. 66, 481–487, http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016. 02.017.
Torre, I., Raspall, A., Arrizabalaga, A., Diaz, M., 2018. SEMICE: an unbiased and powerful monitoring protocol for small mammals in the Mediterranean Region. Mamm. Biol. 88, 161–167, http://dx.doi.Org/10.1016/j.mambio.2017. 10.009.
Voříšek, P., Klvaňová, A., Wotton, S., Gregory, R.D., 2010. A Best Practice Guide for Wild Bird Monitoring Schemes. Brussels, European Union.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Torre, I., Raspall, A., Arrizabalaga, A. et al. Evaluating trap performance and volunteers’ experience in small mammal monitoring programs based on citizen science: The SEMICE case study. Mamm Biol 95, 26–30 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.01.004
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2019.01.004