↓ Skip to main content

Assessing accuracy in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Biometeorology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 1,405)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
27 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
Title
Assessing accuracy in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring
Published in
International Journal of Biometeorology, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00484-014-0892-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerissa K. Fuccillo, Theresa M. Crimmins, Catherine E. de Rivera, Timothy S. Elder

Abstract

In the USA, thousands of volunteers are engaged in tracking plant and animal phenology through a variety of citizen science programs for the purpose of amassing spatially and temporally comprehensive datasets useful to scientists and resource managers. The quality of these observations and their suitability for scientific analysis, however, remains largely unevaluated. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of plant phenology observations collected by citizen scientist volunteers following protocols designed by the USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN). Phenology observations made by volunteers receiving several hours of formal training were compared to those collected independently by a professional ecologist. Approximately 11,000 observations were recorded by 28 volunteers over the course of one field season. Volunteers consistently identified phenophases correctly (91 % overall) for the 19 species observed. Volunteers demonstrated greatest overall accuracy identifying unfolded leaves, ripe fruits, and open flowers. Transitional accuracy decreased for some species/phenophase combinations (70 % average), and accuracy varied significantly by phenophase and species (p < 0.0001). Volunteers who submitted fewer observations over the period of study did not exhibit a higher error rate than those who submitted more total observations. Overall, these results suggest that volunteers with limited training can provide reliable observations when following explicit, standardized protocols. Future studies should investigate different observation models (i.e., group/individual, online/in-person training) over subsequent seasons with multiple expert comparisons to further substantiate the ability of these monitoring programs to supply accurate broadscale datasets capable of answering pressing ecological questions about global change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Master 22 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 48 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 11 6%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 60 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 259. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2022.
All research outputs
#142,115
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Biometeorology
#9
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,134
of 248,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Biometeorology
#2
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 248,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.