Ecology of Invasive Species: Citizen Science Tools for Monitoring

E C O L O G Y O F I N V A S I V E S P E C I E S

Citizen Science Tools for Invasive Species Monitoring

  
  - Date: April 7, 2026
  - Course: NREM/ENVR 4033 and NREM 5033

INTRODUCTION

A Brief History of Citizen Science

  - 1930s:
    - Dewey & Lewin: Established concepts of participatory democracy and community-based inquiry.
  - 1995:
    - Alan Irwin: Coined the term "citizen science," emphasizing the democratization of science for social and environmental good.
  - Early 2000s:
    - Cornell Lab's bird-monitoring programs: Innovations like eBird and FeederWatch led to significant growth in natural-science engagement.
  - 2005-2008:
    - Launch of iNaturalist: A platform designed for citizen science in relation to biodiversity.
    - EDDMapS (2005): Launched to track invasive plants across the US South.
  - 2020s:
    - UNESCO Open Science Recommendation & Future Earth Initiatives.
    - Surpassed 2.1 billion records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility.

TOOLS

iNaturalist: How It Works

  - Joint Initiative: Collaboration between California Academy of Sciences & National Geographic Society.
  - Function: Records observations of any organism with GPS data, date, and accompanying photograph.
  - Data Processing:
    - Verified observations are exported to GBIF, the world’s largest biodiversity database.
    - AI-assisted identification: Utilizes machine learning and computer vision for species identification suggestions.
  - User Statistics (as of April 4, 2024):
    - Total users: 9,864,818.
    - 92% of users only observe.
    - 7% observe and identify species.
    - <1% are solely identifiers.
  - Expert Identifiers:
    - Identifiers are seen as bottlenecks; the platform has many observers but lacks sufficient specialists to ensure accuracy.

iNaturalist: The Research Grade Standard

  - Process:
    - An observer uploads a photo and location.
    - Community identifies the organism, requiring >2/3 agreement at the species level for it to attain Research Grade status.
  - Data Sharing:
    - Research Grade observations are automatically shared with GBIF.
    - Alternative Research Grade classification:
      - Identified strictly to family or species level, and when community votes indicate no further identification is possible.
  - Annotations:
    - Records can include notes on phenology, host species, and relevant project tags.
  - Identification Tool:
    - Available at inaturalist.org/observations/identify, it offers a streamlined interface for identifiers, allowing filters by taxon, region, or date.

EDDMapS: Purpose-Built for Invasive Species

  - Definition:
    - Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS).
    - Launched in 2005 by the University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health.
  - Coverage:
    - Now encompasses all of the US and Canada with over 2.6 million records.
  - Key Distinction from iNaturalist:
    - All records are reviewed by expert verifiers before being publicly released.
    - Standardized reporting protocols are followed closely.
  - Operational Model:
    - A satellite network model that links citizen scientists directly to local resource managers through regionally distributed volunteer leaders, allowing for rapid response to new invasive species sightings.
  - Training and Verification:
    - Training is completed via 1-2 day workshops or 8-module online training; photo evidence is required for each record.
  - Citations:
    - Bargeron & Moorhead 2007; Gallo & Waitt 2011 (BioScience).

BONAP

Biota of North America Program

  - Overview:
    - Non-profit organization that publishes the North American Plant Atlas (NAPA), which includes county-level distribution maps for all vascular plants in the US and Canada.
  - Contents:
    - Displays native vs. exotic/adventive status, presence vs. absence by county, flags for rare species, and taxonomic authority that is more current than USDA PLANTS.
  - Usage:
    - Users can look up specific target species to establish known baseline ranges and compare them with data from EDDMapS and iNaturalist to assess new findings.
  - Limitation:
    - Primarily serves as a static reference tool; does not provide real-time reporting like citizen science platforms.
    - Data can lag behind rapidly evolving invasive species data.
  - Website:
    - BONAP North American Plant Atlas (bonap.org).

Tools Comparison

iNaturalist vs. EDDMapS vs. BONAP

  - Feature Summary:

From Observation to Action

Two Case Studies Using Citizen Science

CASE STUDY 1: Invaders of Texas: Mapping Arundo donax

  - Context:
    - Managed by the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, Texas Master Naturalists, TX Forest Service, and TX Parks & Wildlife.
    - Involved 36 workshops and trained over 870 volunteers.
  - Results:
    - Citizen scientists documented giant reed (Arundo donax) across 80 Texas counties.
    - Official USDA PLANTS and Atlas of Vascular Plants of Texas recorded only 39 counties.
    - Resulted in a 1.5× expansion in documented range.
  - Cost Savings:
    - Estimated labor cost avoided: $71,000.
  - Citation:
    - Gallo & Waitt 2011 (BioScience 61:459–465).

CASE STUDY 2: Oklahoma Land Snails

  - Context:
    - Utilized iNaturalist combined with urban surveys.
  - Methods:
    - Bergey & Mather (2024) documented 25 non-native land snail species in Oklahoma.
  - Findings:
    - iNaturalist expanded the known range of four invasive/non-native species.
    - Species and identification data:
    - Cornu aspersum (brown garden snail):
      - iNat Records: 10
      - Correctly ID'd: 3 (30%)
      - Misidentified: 7 (70%)
    - Bradybaena similaris (Asian tramp snail):
      - iNat Records: 75
      - Correctly ID'd: 9 (12%)
      - Misidentified: 10 + 21 uncertain
    - Polygyra cereolus (southern flatcoil):
      - iNat Records: 72
      - Usable IDs: 15 (21%)
      - Misidentified: 30 + 23 uncertain
  - Key Takeaway:
    - High identification challenges exist, indicating that even Research Grade status does not ensure accuracy for complex taxonomic groups.
    - Factors influencing accuracy include photo quality, scale, and expert involvement.
  - Citation:
    - Bergey & Mather 2024 (Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci. 104:69–80).

Strengths, Biases, and Limits

Evaluating Citizen Science Data for Research Use

DATA QUALITY

Known Biases in Citizen Science Data

  - Taxonomic Bias:
    - Large, colorful, and charismatic species tend to be over-reported.
    - Invertebrates and cryptic taxa are underrepresented in the data.
  - Spatial Bias:
    - Observations tend to cluster around urban areas in the US and Western Europe.
    - Remote regions and aquatic habitats, especially in the Global South, are chronically undersampled, resulting in skewed distribution perceptions.
  - Identification Accuracy:
    - Achieving Research Grade status does not guarantee accurate identification.
    - Inaccuracy is common, and correlation between Research Grade status and identification accuracy is weak.
  - Observer Bias:
    - Many users submit observations infrequently; active identifiers form a small minority of total users.
    - The metrics show that 92% of iNaturalist users are only observers, leading to a deep dependency on a small number of experts for more complex identifications.
  - Citations:
    - Referenced works: PMC11461752, BioScience 2021, Bergey & Mather 2024.

DATA QUALITY

Quality Control: Two Philosophies

  - iNaturalist:
    - Community Consensus Model:
      - Data made visible quickly, reinforcing participation.
      - Open to any organism and any location.
      - Research Grade requires >2/3 community agreement, functioning as a threshold rather than expert verification.
      - Subsequent filtering by downstream researchers is needed for greater accuracy in high-stakes research.
      - Best suited for: range monitoring, initial detection, educational purposes.
    - EDDMapS:
      - Expert Verification Model:
      - Slower process; data not released until expert review is complete.
      - Focused exclusively on invasive species and pests.
      - Photo evidence is mandatory for all records, increasing reliability for management decisions.
      - Follows North American Weed Management Association (NAWMA) standardized protocols.
      - Best suited for: early detection, rapid response (EDRR) programs, regulatory compliance, and land management.

DATA QUALITY

Best Practices for Using Citizen Science Data

  - iNaturalist Data Filtering:
    - Filter for Research Grade observations; however, validate for the specific target taxa.
  - Taxonomically Challenging Groups:
    - For groups that are difficult to identify (e.g., snails, lichens), photographs should capture multiple angles and include scale references.
  - Presence-Only Data Usage:
    - Avoid inferring absence from the lack of records. Absence of observation does not confirm the absence of a species.
  - Cross-referencing:
    - For management and policy applications, compare iNaturalist's citizen science records with expert-verified data from EDDMapS.
  - Reporting Known Biases:
    - Always report sampling efforts and known observer biases when analyzing data from citizen science.
  - Engagement:
    - Participate actively as an identifier, not just as an observer; providing expert identifications is a valuable contribution from trained ecologists.
  - Citations:
    - Referenced works: Callaghan et al. 2022; Bergey & Mather 2024; Encarnação et al. 2021.

SYNTHESIS

Ethics, Equity, and the Future of Citizen Science

  - Irwin's Vision:
    - Originally viewed as citizen science focusing on democratized and people-centered inquiry.
  - Current Challenges:
    - Modern platforms enhance scalability but often fail to provide equitable access, particularly affecting participation from the Global South and representation across taxonomic groups.
  - Extension Model:
    - Suggests that successful programs involve co-development of research questions with communities, returning results to participants, and fostering long-term trust, rather than simply extracting data.
  - Unknown Biodiversity:
    - Thousands of species range shifts, new national records, and novel species introductions may remain overlooked due to a lack of expert identifiers.
    - Engagement in making and identifying observations within a taxonomic area of interest can significantly contribute to ecological science.
  - Citations:
    - Referenced works: Vadjunec et al. 2022 (Sustainability); Callaghan et al. 2022 (PLOS Biology); Irwin 1995.

Upcoming Citizen Science Opportunities

BioBlitz

  - Date: Saturday, April 11th
  - Event Schedule:
    - 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM: Dawn Birding Session
      - Guided bird identification at first light.
    - 8:30 AM - 11:30 AM: Guided Field Sessions
      - Structured surveys led by knowledgeable individuals.
    - 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM: Free Roaming Exploration
      - Unstructured and independent species discovery.
    - Registration Link: forms.gle/tvGdkrT8BDgUFmTD9.

Key References

  1. Bergey EA & Mather CM (2024). Non-native land snails in Oklahoma. Proc. Oklahoma Acad. Sci. 104:69–80.
  2. Callaghan CT, Mesaglio T et al. (2022). Benefits of contributing to iNaturalist as an identifier. PLOS Biology 20(11):e3001843.
  3. Encarnação J et al. (2021). Low-cost citizen science monitors marine invasive species. Front. Environ. Sci. 9:752705.
  4. Gallo T & Waitt D (2011). Creating a successful citizen science model for invasive species. BioScience 61(6):459–465.
  5. Vadjunec JM et al. (2022). Fostering resilience using participatory methods for more robust citizen science. Sustainability 14:1813.
  6. BONAP North American Plant Atlas. bonap.net/napa
  7. EDDMapS – Early Detection and Distribution Mapping System. eddmaps.org
  8. iNaturalist Research Grade documentation. help.inaturalist.org.