↓ Skip to main content

Mapping species distributions: A comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
Title
Mapping species distributions: A comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording
Published in
Ambio, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0709-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

René van der Wal, Helen Anderson, Annie Robinson, Nirwan Sharma, Chris Mellish, Stuart Roberts, Ben Darvill, Advaith Siddharthan

Abstract

To assess the ability of traditional biological recording schemes and lay citizen science approaches to gather data on species distributions and changes therein, we examined bumblebee records from the UK's national repository (National Biodiversity Network) and from BeeWatch. The two recording approaches revealed similar relative abundances of bumblebee species but different geographical distributions. For the widespread common carder (Bombus pascuorum), traditional recording scheme data were patchy, both spatially and temporally, reflecting active record centre rather than species distribution. Lay citizen science records displayed more extensive geographic coverage, reflecting human population density, thus offering better opportunities to account for recording effort. For the rapidly spreading tree bumblebee (Bombus hypnorum), both recording approaches revealed similar distributions due to a dedicated mapping project which overcame the patchy nature of naturalist records. We recommend, where possible, complementing skilled naturalist recording with lay citizen science programmes to obtain a nation-wide capability, and stress the need for timely uploading of data to the national repository.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 4%
Malaysia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 176 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 18%
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 12%
Other 9 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 33 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 39%
Environmental Science 48 25%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 40 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,110,088
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#817
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,504
of 290,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#18
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 290,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.