Citizen science data as an efficient tool for mapping protected saproxylic beetles

Abstract Global change imposes rapid assessments to obtain reliable and updated distribution data to implement conservation measures. This task is undoubtedly unaffordable for numerous invertebrate species, both in terms of time and economic resources, because they are often elusive, detectable life stages are present for a restricted time and ecological data are scarce. Citizen science might be able to provide a large number of records and these data might facilitate the evaluation of extinction risks. Large saproxylic beetles represent an ideal group to assess the potential of citizen science to map distributions on a large scale geographic distribution. The data presented were collected during a citizen science program developed within the LIFE Project “Monitoring of Insects with Public Participation”, which used a website and a mobile app to involve citizens. We selected three pan European species protected under the Habitats Directive: Lucanus cervus , Morimus asper / funereus and Rosalia alpina , and we compared the data gathered by the citizen science project with distributional data from the official national species inventory. For all species we found a low overlap of occupied cells and the integration of the two datasets resulted in an increase in the distributional ranges of up to one third. Furthermore, taking into account the time frame of data collection, we found that the extent of occurrence obtained in 10 years of records present in the national dataset was comparable to data collected in only two years of the citizen science data project. Similar results were obtained for the estimates of spatial parameters for the IUCN Red List assessment. Our study shows the potential and the efficacy of citizen science projects as rapid tools to provide reliable distributional data for neglected species of high conservation priority.

[1]  Corey J A Bradshaw,et al.  Distribution models for koalas in South Australia using citizen science-collected data , 2014, Ecology and evolution.

[2]  N. Yan,et al.  Auditing the Accuracy of a Volunteer-Based Surveillance Program for an Aquatic Invader Bythotrephes , 2004, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[3]  Jörg Müller,et al.  A review of habitat thresholds for dead wood: a baseline for management recommendations in European forests , 2010, European Journal of Forest Research.

[4]  N. Stork,et al.  Extinction or 'co-extinction' rates? , 1993, Nature.

[5]  A. Agrawal,et al.  The Monarch Butterfly through Time and Space: The Social Construction of an Icon , 2015 .

[6]  G. Newell.  The abundance of ground-dwelling invertebrates in a Victorian forest affected by 'dieback' (Phytophthora cinnamomi) disease , 1997 .

[7]  T. New.  Untangling the Web: Spiders and the Challenges of Invertebrate Conservation , 1999, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[8]  C. Rondinini,et al.  A Red List of Italian Saproxylic Beetles: taxonomic overview, ecological features and conservation issues (Coleoptera) , 2015 .

[9]  J. Thomas,et al.  Patterns, Mechanisms and Rates of Extinction among Invertebrates in the United Kingdom [and Discussion] , 1994 .

[10]  D. Simberloff,et al.  Toward a Global Information System for Invasive Species , 2000 .

[11]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Virtual Biodiversity Assessment Systems , 2000 .

[12]  G. Mace,et al.  Beyond Predictions: Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate , 2011, Science.

[13]  Tetsukazu Yahara,et al.  Towards a global terrestrial species monitoring program , 2015 .

[14]  Ailene K. Ettinger,et al.  Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research , 2015 .

[15]  A. York.  Ecologically sustainable management: the utility of habitat surrogates for assessing terrestrial invertebrate diversity in temperate forests , 1999 .

[16]  Wilfried Thuiller,et al.  Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models , 2008, Biology Letters.

[17]  I. Hanski,et al.  Conservation planning with insects at three different spatial scales , 2010 .

[18]  Martin C.D. Speight,et al.  Saproxylic Invertebrates and Their Conservation , 1989 .

[19]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Terrestrial Arthropod Assemblages: Their Use in Conservation Planning , 1993 .

[20]  R. Julliard,et al.  The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species: 1990-2015 , 2015 .

[21]  Jogeir N. Stokland,et al.  Biodiversity in dead wood. , 2012 .

[22]  Caspar A. Mücher,et al.  Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe , 2009 .

[23]  B. Collen,et al.  National Red Listing Beyond the 2010 Target , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[24]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs , 2013 .

[25]  Richard Inger,et al.  Smartphones in ecology and evolution: a guide for the app-rehensive , 2013, Ecology and evolution.

[26]  M. Burgman,et al.  Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning , 2003 .

[27]  V. Funk,et al.  Systematic data in biodiversity studies: use it or lose it. , 2002, Systematic biology.

[28]  Ben Scott,et al.  Supporting Red List threat assessments with GeoCAT: geospatial conservation assessment tool , 2011, ZooKeys.

[29]  Pedro Cardoso,et al.  The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them , 2011 .

[30]  J. Silvertown.  A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Emiliano Mancini,et al.  Monitoring of insects with public participation (MIPP; EU LIFE project 11 NAT/IT/000252): overview on a citizen science initiative and a monitoring programme (Insecta: Coleoptera; Lepidoptera; Orthoptera) , 2015 .

[32]  J. Cohn.  Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? , 2008 .

[33]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement , 2012 .

[34]  Successfully Implementing a Citizen-Scientist Approach to Insect Monitoring in a Resource-poor Country , 2009 .

[35]  U. Sinsch,et al.  Radio‐telemetric monitoring of dispersing stag beetles: implications for conservation , 2007 .

[36]  Danilo Russo,et al.  Protecting one, protecting both? Scale‐dependent ecological differences in two species using dead trees, the rosalia longicorn beetle and the barbastelle bat , 2015 .

[37]  Keith R Hayes,et al.  Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[38]  M. Mckinney.  High Rates of Extinction and Threat in Poorly Studied Taxa , 1999 .

[39]  P. Leadley,et al.  Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[40]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[41]  P. Cardoso,et al.  Adapting the IUCN Red List criteria for invertebrates , 2011 .

[42]  Thibault Lachat,et al.  Population trends of Rosalia alpina (L.) in Switzerland: a lasting turnaround? , 2013, Journal of Insect Conservation.

[43]  C. Graham,et al.  The ability of climate envelope models to predict the effect of climate change on species distributions , 2006 .

[44]  Tomas J. Bird,et al.  Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets , 2014 .

[45]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Edge artefacts and lost performance in national versus continental conservation priority areas , 2013 .

[46]  David G. Delaney,et al.  Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks , 2007, Biological Invasions.

[47]  A. Bykat,et al.  Convex Hull of a Finite Set of Points in Two Dimensions , 1978, Inf. Process. Lett..

[48]  R. V. van Grunsven,et al.  Strong recovery of dragonflies in recent decades in The Netherlands , 2015, Freshwater Science.

[49]  P. Ciucci,et al.  The EU protected taxon Morimus funereus Mulsant, 1862 (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and its western Palaearctic allies: systematics and conservation outcomes , 2013, Conservation Genetics.

[50]  Beatriz Pateiro-López,et al.  Generalizing the Convex Hull of a Sample: The R Package alphahull , 2010 .

[51]  C. Dormann.  Promising the future? Global change projections of species distributions , 2007 .

[52]  H. D. Cooper,et al.  Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the 21st Century , 2010, Science.

[53]  P. Cardoso.  Habitats Directive species lists: urgent need of revision , 2012 .

[54]  Michael A. McCarthy,et al.  Current Constraints and Future Directions in Estimating Coextinction , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[55]  David N. Bonter,et al.  Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits , 2010 .

[56]  Steve Kelling,et al.  Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[57]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[58]  R. O'Neill,et al.  The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital , 1997, Nature.

[59]  Leska S. Fore,et al.  Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. , 2001 .

[60]  Lukas Cizek,et al.  Demography and Dispersal Ability of a Threatened Saproxylic Beetle: A Mark-Recapture Study of the Rosalia Longicorn (Rosalia alpina) , 2011, PloS one.

[61]  R. May,et al.  Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research , 2002, Science.

[62]  Piero Visconti,et al.  What spatial data do we need to develop global mammal conservation strategies? , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[63]  R. Whittaker,et al.  Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography , 2010 .