Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of a Push-Pull System for the Management of Frankliniella Species (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in Tomato
Previous Article in Journal
Differential Gene Expression in Red Imported Fire Ant (Solenopsis invicta) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Larval and Pupal Stages
Previous Article in Special Issue
Larval Food Limitation in a Speyeria Butterfly (Nymphalidae): How Many Butterflies Can Be Supported?
Article

Comparisons of Citizen Science Data-Gathering Approaches to Evaluate Urban Butterfly Diversity

1
Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
2
School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
3
Office of Digital Innovation and Stewardship, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA
4
Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA
5
Daniel Smiley Research Center, Mohonk Preserve, New York, NY 12561, USA
6
La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles 90095, CA, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2018, 9(4), 186; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040186
Received: 28 September 2018 / Revised: 3 December 2018 / Accepted: 3 December 2018 / Published: 6 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Butterfly Ecology and Conservation)
By 2030, ten percent of earth’s landmass will be occupied by cities. Urban environments can be home to many plants and animals, but surveying and estimating biodiversity in these spaces is complicated by a heterogeneous built environment where access and landscaping are highly variable due to human activity. Citizen science approaches may be the best way to assess urban biodiversity, but little is known about their relative effectiveness and efficiency. Here, we compare three techniques for acquiring data on butterfly (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) species richness: trained volunteer Pollard walks, Malaise trapping with expert identification, and crowd-sourced iNaturalist observations. A total of 30 butterfly species were observed; 27 (90%) were recorded by Pollard walk observers, 18 (60%) were found in Malaise traps, and 22 (73%) were reported by iNaturalist observers. Pollard walks reported the highest butterfly species richness, followed by iNaturalist and then Malaise traps during the four-month time period. Pollard walks also had significantly higher species diversity than Malaise traps. View Full-Text
Keywords: BioSCAN; California; iNaturalist; Lepidoptera; Los Angeles; Malaise trap; Pollard walk BioSCAN; California; iNaturalist; Lepidoptera; Los Angeles; Malaise trap; Pollard walk
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Prudic, K.L.; Oliver, J.C.; Brown, B.V.; Long, E.C. Comparisons of Citizen Science Data-Gathering Approaches to Evaluate Urban Butterfly Diversity. Insects 2018, 9, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040186

AMA Style

Prudic KL, Oliver JC, Brown BV, Long EC. Comparisons of Citizen Science Data-Gathering Approaches to Evaluate Urban Butterfly Diversity. Insects. 2018; 9(4):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prudic, Kathleen L., Jeffrey C. Oliver, Brian V. Brown, and Elizabeth C. Long 2018. "Comparisons of Citizen Science Data-Gathering Approaches to Evaluate Urban Butterfly Diversity" Insects 9, no. 4: 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040186

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop