Next Article in Journal
Records of Roadkill Wild Mammals in Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia
Previous Article in Journal
Site-Based Patterns of Variation in Leaf Endophytes and Ecophysiological Performance in Sweet Birch (Betula lenta L.) in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, USA: A Preliminary Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Ecologies
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/ecologies6020031
ecologies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Contribution of Citizen Science Data on the Evaluation of Local Biodiversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities

by
Alessandro Lagrotteria
1,2,
Samuele Roccatello
1 and
Alberto Doretto
1,3,*
1
Department for Sustainable Development and Ecological Transition, University of Eastern Piedmont, Piazza Sant’Eusebio 5, 13100 Vercelli, Italy
2
Italian National Research Council—Research Institute on Terrestrial Ecosystems, Sesto Fiorentino, Via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Florence, Italy
3
Alpine Stream Research Center/ALPSTREAM, 12030 Ostana, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ecologies 2025, 6(2), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6020031
Submission received: 11 February 2025 / Revised: 19 March 2025 / Accepted: 27 March 2025 / Published: 2 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Citizen science is increasingly utilized for environmental monitoring and educational purposes. For lotic ecosystems, this approach could be used to implement traditional methods and gain more data on local biodiversity, particularly in areas where professional monitoring is limited. This study, conducted in Italy, aimed to complement data on river macroinvertebrates collected by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) with additional data gained by volunteers. Our results revealed taxonomic differences between the macroinvertebrate communities of ARPA and citizen science sites. ARPA sites host 34.4% of the total biodiversity, with 22 exclusive taxa, while citizen science sites, with 6 exclusive taxa, represent 9.4% of the total gamma diversity. Compositional differences are mainly explained by taxa turnover between sites. ARPA sites, located along the main river stretches, are richer in alpha and gamma diversity, while volunteer-monitored sites, mostly in agricultural ditches, show lower richness at the local and regional scales but host some unique taxa, increasing the total biodiversity. This study supports the implementation of volunteer programs to increase the number of monitored rivers, enhancing information on macroinvertebrate diversity and distribution and generating relevant data to support decision-making and develop strategies for river conservation and ecosystem restoration at a local scale.

1. Introduction

According to the United Nations, citizen science, defined as non-scientists’ participation in scientific research activities, is increasingly acknowledged as a valuable tool for advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,2]. The involvement of the general public in scientific research and environmental monitoring has become common practice. Volunteer programs allow citizens from various backgrounds to engage directly with professional scientists. At the same time, these initiatives allow participants to take an active role in scientific data collection and, by collaborating with professionals, participants gain personal involvement in research, generating multiple potential benefits for the environment, science, and society [3].
Multiple citizen science projects have been carried out in freshwater ecosystems. Across the EU countries, many citizens are eager to contribute their knowledge, skills, time, and even financial resources to support the protection of freshwater ecosystems [4], and even the European Water Framework Directive promotes the active engagement of stakeholders in its implementation [5]. Several studies have dealt with public participation in hydrologic research and water monitoring [6,7], whereas other studies have focused on oxygen levels in streams [8] or used citizen science activity as a pioneering effort for monitoring the quality of riparian vegetation [9]. Similarly, other research activities have examined microplastics [10,11] or combinations of different abiotic variables in freshwater ecosystems [12,13,14]. The integration of aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling into volunteer monitoring programs dates back to the mid-1990s, as documented by Firehock and West [15]. Since then, several studies have shown that macroinvertebrates are commonly used in biomonitoring programs with volunteers, and their application has increased over time, exploring both the pros and cons of data obtained from citizen science programs [16,17,18,19]. For instance, von Gönner et al. [20] developed a citizen science program that enables volunteers to collect data on the physicochemical status of streams and benthic macroinvertebrates to calculate the SPEARpesticides indicator for quantifying pesticide exposure. A further example of a successful citizen science project is “The Riverfly Partnership” (https://www.riverflies.org/, accessed on 26 March 2025), which aims to assess the ecological status of British rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates.
These studies showcase the benefits and challenges of utilizing macroinvertebrates in citizen-driven biomonitoring programs. Due to their long-lasting life cycles, ease of collection, and taxon-specific sensitivity to several ecological stressors, macroinvertebrates are widely used as biological indicators of the health of rivers. Moreover, they represent a key biological component in terms of the diversity, density, and biomass of these ecosystems [21,22,23]. It is not surprising, thus, that macroinvertebrates are largely selected as target groups for monitoring and mapping the biodiversity of river ecosystems with volunteers [24,25,26,27,28].
Citizen science programs offer the potential to fill gaps in official monitoring schemes within the freshwater realm and to enhance research on the distribution and occurrence of aquatic species [29,30,31]. This becomes particularly important in cases where data collection is restricted by spatial or temporal limitations. In several European countries, records on the riverine biodiversity, especially among the most neglected and less-charismatic groups, such as macroinvertebrates, come from the sampling activity performed by the local agencies as part of their routine monitoring program in compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In Italy, this task is carried out by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA), which, on average, collects macroinvertebrate data every three years on the water bodies that compose the official sampling network [32]. Moreover, as also observed in other geographical areas, this monitoring network does not typically include smaller watersheds (<10 km2) and other types of lotic ecosystems, such as agricultural ditches and springs, that are often excluded from large-scale biomonitoring efforts [33,34,35,36,37,38]. This generates a data deficit in the knowledge of the distribution and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates at a local scale, with possible repercussions for the underestimation of the effects of anthropogenic pressures. Beyond the data gained by professionals, additional information can potentially be provided by volunteers. For instance, a systematic search on the website “iNaturalist” (19 January 2025), which is a web platform where users can share verified georeferenced observations of species, resulted in 5774 records for the three main orders of aquatic insects in Italy (Plecoptera—No. records = 1007; Ephemeroptera—No. records = 2677; Trichoptera—No. records = 2090) (Supplementary Materials, Figures S1–S3). By contrast, 484,924 records were obtained for Lepidoptera (Supplementary Materials, Figure S4). These results clearly show that, compared to other terrestrial taxa, benthic macroinvertebrates are often underrepresented and underestimated by the general public.
This study illustrates the results of a citizen science project conducted from November 2023 to June 2024 in Piedmont (Northwestern Italy) aimed at complementing data on river macroinvertebrates collected by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) with additional data gained by volunteers. By comparing the two sources of data, one specific aim of this study was to evaluate differences in the taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrate communities by detecting indicator taxa associated with sampling sites surveyed by professionals and volunteers, respectively. To this end, when comparing the community composition between ARPA and citizen science sites, an analysis of the components of betadiversity (i.e., nestedness—species gain/loss, and turnover—species replacement) was applied to gain insight into the mechanisms of compositional variation between the two types of sites. Other specific aims were to assess differences in richness metrics and to explore variations in α (i.e., local), β (i.e., site-to-site), and γ (i.e., overall) diversity between ARPA and citizen science sites. The overall goal of this study was to answer the following research questions: (1) Are data collected by the Regional Agency adequate to estimate the biodiversity of macroinvertebrate communities at a local scale? (2) Do citizen science data offer complementary and additional information compared to those collected by professionals?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Area of Study

The Piedmont Region, the seventh most populous administrative area in Italy, spans an area of 25,391.67 km2 (Figure 1). Its landscape is characterized by various topographic gradients and natural diversity, including lowland areas, hilly terrains, and the Alpine and Apennine Mountain chains. In addition to these natural features, the eastern part of the Region is heavily influenced by agricultural activities, particularly rice cultivation. Based on the river-type classification outlined by the Water Framework Directive [39,40], Piedmont encompasses seven distinct hydro-ecoregions (HER): the Western Alps (HER1), Southern Alps (HER4), Monferrato (HER5), Po Plain (HER6), Piedmont Apennines (HER8), Mediterranean Alps (HER9), and Northern Apennines (HER10). A total of 18 sampling sites, all located within the HER6 hydro-ecoregion, were selected for this study in the provinces of Vercelli and Novara. Nine of these sites were studied through citizen science activities with volunteers, specifically including wadeable lowland watercourses such as agricultural streams, ditches, and mid-order river segments [41,42]. These sites were selected according to their geographical proximity with ARPA sites as well as their easy accessibility to facilitate the participation of volunteers. The remaining sites were selected from the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) dataset as they represent benchmark sites for the local-scale comparison of macroinvertebrate communities, providing data from monitored watercourses within the same hydro-ecoregion.

2.2. Macroinvertebrate Sampling with Volunteers

Between November 2023 and June 2024, nine sampling campaigns were conducted targeting nine different lotic ecosystems (Figure 1; Supplementary Materials Figures S5–S10). A total of 187 volunteers participated in the sampling campaigns, including students from schools and universities, anglers, park rangers, families, and members of local NGOs. The group sizes for each campaign ranged from 10 to 29 participants. The sites, chosen for their easy accessibility, included a variety of aquatic habitats, such as mid-order river stretches, agricultural streams, and ditches. Accessibility was defined by factors such as the ease of reaching the site, suitability for managing groups, safety considerations, and practical setup options, including space for tables and chairs for activities.
Sampling was consistently carried out by the same operators (i.e., A.D., A.L., S.R.), who collected 10 to 12 Surber samples (surface area: 0.05 m2; mesh size: 500 µm [43]) across all representative substrates at each site. The collected material was placed into plastic trays and distributed among small teams organized by volunteers to carry out the sorting phase. This activity was performed totally by citizens under expert supervision, using simplified identification keys and project-specific atlases designed to facilitate the easy identification of benthic macroinvertebrates at a taxonomic level of family rank, except for a few taxa that were grouped at higher taxonomic levels, such as Bivalves, Oligochaeta, Hirudinea, and Tricladida. Each team recorded the taxa presence or absence on field sheets, with guidance and verification from the operators (i.e., A.D., A.L., S.R.). Sorting sessions typically lasted 2–3 h, after which the data collected by the various teams were consolidated to generate a comprehensive macroinvertebrate community profile for each site. Previous studies indicate that citizen scientists tend to preferentially select and count larger or more mobile macroinvertebrates, which are easier to detect in the field [44]. Moreover, the number of volunteers could affect the estimates of macroinvertebrate abundances (i.e., larger groups of volunteers could count more macroinvertebrates than small groups). To address these biases and guarantee comparability in the data collection and processing among all the sampling sites and related groups of volunteers, this study focused exclusively on presence/absence data, without the need for abundance information. Despite abundance-based metrics providing relevant ecological information, qualitative metrics such as richness and score indices are widely used in river biomonitoring [32,45].
Once the volunteers completed the presence/absence of taxa checklist, it was reviewed and validated by experts. The finalized results were then shared and discussed with the volunteers during the campaigns before being organized into a database for further analysis.

2.3. Macroinvertebrate Data from ARPA Database

The Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA Piemonte) conducts triennial sampling campaigns targeting macroinvertebrates in the main river courses, following the method established by the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC). This methodology utilizes a multi-habitat proportional approach, which entails the quantitative collection (i.e., 10 Surber samples) of benthic macroinvertebrates based on the relative proportion of various microhabitats within the watercourse [46]. Sampling is carried out using a Surber net, adhering to the international standards outlined in UNI EN 28265 [47], and all collected macroinvertebrates are counted.
The dataset obtained from citizen science activities was compared with the most recent publicly available data (from 2021 and 2022) on benthic macroinvertebrates at the local scale. These data, downloaded from the official website of ARPA, refer to nine sampling sites monitored under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). For the purposes of the comparative analysis between the two data sources, data from the ARPA website were standardized similarly to the citizen science ones, maintaining the taxonomic level of family rank, with some exceptions grouped at higher levels (e.g., Bivalves, Oligochaeta, Hirudinea, and Tricladida). However, the sampling methods used in citizen science and ARPA sites were similar: in both site types, benthic macroinvertebrates were collected from the representative substrates according to their proportional occurrence. Thus, adopting the identical taxonomic resolution in both ARPA and citizen science sites allowed the data to be compared without possible biases due to differences in the sampling protocol.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Due to the different approaches (i.e., presence/absence vs. count) adopted in the macroinvertebrate sorting between the two types of sites, all macroinvertebrate data were transformed into presence/absence and the statistical analyses were run on this dataset. Differences in the taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrate communities between ARPA and citizen science sites were visually and statistically checked using Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) and Permutation Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA), respectively. Jaccard’s dissimilarity index was used as a distance measure in these multivariate analyses. Moreover, to better evaluate the compositional variation, the total betadiversity and its nestedness (i.e., loss/gain of species) and turnover (i.e., species replacement) components were calculated according to the approach of Baselga [48]. This analysis was performed by comparing macroinvertebrate communities from ARPA and citizen science sites, but also evaluating the beta diversity and its components among the two types of sites.
Alpha, beta, and gamma diversity were calculated by following the multiplicative approach [49]. In this study, taxon richness was used as a diversity metric and, according to the multiplicative approach, alpha diversity was the average taxon richness for each site, while gamma diversity was the total taxon richness for both citizen science and ARPA sites. Beta diversity, instead, was calculated for each site as the ratio between the alpha and gamma diversity [49]. Statistical differences in the alpha, beta, and gamma diversity were tested by applying a non-parametric randomization test according to the functions of the mobr R packages [50]. Moreover, the local contribution of beta diversity (LCBD), which is a measure of the community uniqueness based on the taxonomic composition, was calculated for each sampling site according to the approach of Legendre and De Cáceres [51]. The LCBD was calculated using presence/absence raw data and Jaccard’s dissimilarity index, ranging from 0 to 1 with higher values indicating the presence of rare and exclusive taxa in the community. The t-test was applied to test for significant differences in the average LCBD between ARPA and citizen science sites.
Statistical analyses (significance threshold: p-value < 0.05) were performed in the R environment [52] using the basic functions and those of the following packages: vegan [53], BAT [54], adespatial [50], mobr [50], and ggplot2 [55].

3. Results

A total of 42 different macroinvertebrate taxa were collected across the nine Citizen Science sampling campaigns, compared to 57 taxa from the ARPA sites (Supplementary Materials Table S1). Among these, 36 taxa were common to both datasets. The average number of taxa collected per sampling event was 16.7 (±3.383 SD) for the citizen science sites, while it increased to 23.8 (±4.81 SD) for the ARPA sites. In total, 64 taxa were identified in this study: 9.4% (6 taxa) were exclusive to the citizen science (CitSc) dataset, while 34.4% (22 taxa) were found only in the ARPA dataset. The remaining 56.2% of taxa were shared between the two databases (Supplementary Materials, Table S1).
The taxa exclusive to the citizen science sites were Nepidae, Valvatidae, Pleidae, Procambarus, Aeshnidae, and Cordulidae. Notably, Procambarus was represented solely by the invasive species Procambarus clarkii, recorded in three sampling stations. Similarly, within the Bivalves group, another invasive species, Corbicula fluminea, was identified in the citizen science sites. On the contrary, taxa found exclusively at the ARPA sites include Leuctridae, Nemouridae, Perlidae, Taeniopterygidae, Caenidae, Glossosomatidae, Hydroptilidae, Ceratopogonidae, Tabanidae, Hydraenidae, Corixidae, Gordiidae, Bithyniidae, Athericidae, Psychodidae, Beraeidae, Leptophlebiidae, Gasteropoda, Lestidae, Blephaceridae, Sericostomatidae, and Philopotamidae.
Multivariate analysis (Figure 2) showed that the taxonomic composition of the macroinvertebrate communities of ARPA sites was significantly different from that of the macroinvertebrate communities recorded in the citizen science sites (F1,16 = 3.992; p < 0.001).
The analysis of beta diversity and its components revealed that taxa replacement (i.e., turnover) was the mechanism that mostly contributed to the compositional changes in the macroinvertebrate communities in this study (Figure 3). Among the ARPA sites, the percentage contribution of turnover to the total betadiversity was 58.1%, while the gain/loss of taxa (i.e., nestedness) accounted for 41.9% of the compositional changes among the macroinvertebrate communities of these sites. In contrast, the highest percentage contribution of turnover (72.6%) was observed among citizen science sites, with only 27.4% of the total betadiversity being explained by taxa gain/loss among these sites. When looking at the comparison between ARPA and citizen science sites, most of the variation in the total beta diversity of the macroinvertebrate communities was explained by turnover (68.2%), while nestedness contributed 31.8% (Figure 3).
When looking at alpha diversity, the ARPA sites had, on average, a significantly higher number of taxa than citizen science sites (Figure 4). The number of macroinvertebrate taxa varied from 31 taxa in the sampling station “14045” to 17 taxa in the sampling station “14022”. In contrast, the average taxon richness in the citizen science sites ranged from 11 to 21 taxa. No statistical differences in beta diversity were observed between the two types of sites, with values being similar (Figure 4). Gamma diversity, instead, was significantly higher in ARPA sites than in citizen science ones (Figure 4).
The local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) varied among sampling sites with the highest value (0.077) observed in the sampling station “Mulino SanGiovanni” (citizen science) and the lowest value (0.044) was found in the ARPA sampling station “14045” (Figure 5a). On average, the LCBD was slightly higher in citizen science sites (mean = 0.057) than ARPA ones (mean = 0.053), but these differences were not significant (p-value = 0.263) (Figure 5b).

4. Discussion

Citizen science has become a widely recognized practice in the scientific community, including in river ecology and biomonitoring. A growing body of literature demonstrates that volunteer engagement is an essential approach for large-scale monitoring, contributing to both chemical and biological studies [20,56] with the primary scientific advantage being its capacity to generate or manage cost-effective data across spatial and temporal scales and resolutions that would be unattainable by researchers working independently. Moreover, this approach has proven valuable not only for tracking environmental changes but also for collecting data on the distribution of taxa across various landscapes, providing a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of local biodiversity. Despite the advantages of citizen science, several studies have highlighted potential biases in the data collected by citizens, including the absence of standardized methods for data collection and validation [57]. As a result, the use of citizen science for monitoring purposes is sometimes questioned, particularly due to its limited ability to produce reliable scientific outcomes [58,59]. The main reasons for such criticism are that the sampling protocols used in citizen science projects are often simpler than those employed in professional monitoring programs [60,61]. However, according to Seymour et al. [62], the inclusion of a citizen science approach and other forms of public engagement can, through the knowledge generated, be used to support a holistic decision-making process for nature-based solutions. For instance, Roccatello et al. [63] found that the effectiveness of river biomonitoring can be compromised when data collection is spatially or temporally inconsistent, or when it is limited. Therefore, joint and collective efforts by researchers, professionals, and communities are essential to implement and refine river biomonitoring techniques, especially in the context of the ongoing “freshwater biodiversity crisis” [26,64,65]. In response, recent research has begun comparing volunteer-collected data with professional data, aiming to evaluate the reliability and advantages of citizen science in ecological studies [66,67,68,69,70].
This study aimed at assessing whether riverine macroinvertebrate data collected by citizen participants could enhance and supplement professional data, rather than replacing them. In addition, the final goal was accurately mapping local biodiversity, particularly in areas where data are limited or certain aquatic habitats are underrepresented. Our results show that 56.2% of macroinvertebrate taxa were found in sampling sites surveyed by both processionals (ARPA sites) and volunteers (citizen science sites), indicating that citizen participants were capable of documenting a significant proportion of the macroinvertebrate diversity within the study area [20]. This outcome may be attributed to the guided approach involving expert supervision, which could have played a crucial role in enhancing data quality and accuracy, as suggested by earlier research [71]. These findings further confirm the utility of citizen science as a robust tool for ecological monitoring and biodiversity assessment, particularly when accompanied by well-established methodologies and adequate support systems [72]. At the same time, a key limitation is that the sample was collected by experienced professionals and identified under continuous supervision, making the process less automated and not completely carried out by volunteers. Probably, a periodic training and a longer timeframe could ensure greater autonomy and therefore provide more concrete support in data collection for large-scale environmental monitoring, reducing the sampling effort of professionals and institutions. However, the presence of expert figures proved to be necessary, especially in this initial phase of the project, because of the lack of autonomous and already-trained groups of volunteers in the area of study. In addition, integrating citizen science activities within a monitoring area already overseen by local or national institutions (e.g., ARPA) could, once a standardized and validated method is in place, provide greater coverage of the sampled area. This would potentially include a broader range of different river ecosystems and stretches, thus providing a more realistic overview at the river network scale with the possibility of better identifying sources of impact. As a result, this integration could enrich databases with data on a larger territorial scale, while also enabling continuous citizen engagement, raising awareness, and fostering environmental education.
Our multivariate analysis clearly revealed that ARPA and citizen science sampling sites hosted taxonomically different macroinvertebrate communities (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). In fact, ARPA sites hosted a substantial and representative portion of the macroinvertebrate biodiversity within the study area (34.4% of the total gamma richness), with 22 taxa exclusively recorded at these sites. Similarly, there were also exclusive taxa in the sampling sites monitored by volunteers, despite their number (six taxa) being lower than in ARPA sites, and hence citizen science sites accounted for 9.4% of the total gamma diversity in the study area. The presence of exclusive taxa in citizen science sites is probably due to the particular and different environmental conditions observed in some sampling sites (e.g., the Bosco Vedro Nature Reserve, Cascina Ressia, and the Lame del Sesia Natural Park). The investigated watercourses in these areas, consisting of low-order streams and headwaters, were characterized by a greater presence of riparian vegetation, aquatic macrophytes, and a slower water flow compared to the main rivers studied by ARPA. The other citizen science sites here monitored, instead, included both lowland river stretches (e.g., Agognate) and agricultural ditches (e.g., Cavo Busca, Fontana Pietta, Mulino San Giovanni, and Roggia Molinara). These sites showed higher evidence of anthropogenic disturbance due to agricultural landuse and practices, such as reduced and/or absent riparian vegetation, and finer and lower substrate grain size and heterogeneity, respectively. On the contrary, ARPA sites were characterized by a higher wetted width and coarser mineral substrates, such as cobbles and pebbles. Therefore, these environmental differences in the riparian vegetation and in-stream habitat conditions likely explain the shifts in the taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrate communities between ARPA and citizen science sites.
The analysis of the beta diversity and its components revealed that these compositional differences were primarily due to the site-by-site taxa replacement (i.e., turnover scenario) rather than the gain/loss of taxa from one site to another (i.e., nestedness scenario). Also, these patterns for the components of beta diversity were similar and consistent both among the macroinvertebrate communities of the two types of sites and even when ARPA and citizen science sites were compared. Overall, these findings suggest that habitat sorting and niche-based processes are likely the main mechanisms that shape the taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrate communities according to the site-specific features. To this end, the great heterogeneity of riparian vegetation and substrate composition among sampling sites likely explains the highest percentage contribution of taxa replacement (turnover) observed in this study, especially in relation to the citizen science sites because they encompassed different typologies of watercourses. The frequency of the six exclusive taxa of the volunteer-monitored sites, including the two invasive species, is less than 2% in the ARPA database for the study area [63]. Most of them belong to the Hemiptera and Odonata orders, which are typically associated with slow-flowing marginal habitats. On the contrary, the exclusive taxa of the ARPA sites mostly belong to the EPTD faunal group (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera, and Diptera) and are typically associated with the main stem of rivers. Hence, as previously reported [73], this study highlights the importance and utility of the citizen science in implementing the records of taxa, including invasive species, at a local scale. Similar to our study, other researchers examined data from volunteers and professionals. For example, a citizen science project on biological water quality assessment carried out in 2018 in the Netherlands [67] compared data collected by volunteers through unstructured sampling methods with those obtained by professionals following standardized quality protocols from regional water authorities. The study focused on differences in the type and distribution of sampled waterbodies, the sampling periods, and general patterns in the datasets concerning the collected organisms and calculated water quality indices. The results revealed that volunteers and professionals rarely sampled the same waterbodies, with a partial overlap in the sampling periods. Volunteers predominantly targeted urban waterbodies and smaller aquatic habitats, which are often underrepresented in professional assessments. Consequently, the citizen science initiative provided valuable data for less-studied aquatic environments, offering spatial and temporal complementarity to professional datasets.
The analyses of the alpha, beta, and gamma diversity consistently ranked ARPA sites among the most species-rich ones. Beyond the site-specific conditions, one other possible explanation for these findings is that ARPA sites are located along the perennial, most-connected main stem stretches of the rivers within the area of study. In contrast, sites monitored by volunteers, often situated in agricultural ditches and headwater tributaries, are likely affected by greater flow-level variation and connectivity (e.g., Cavo Busca and Mulino San Giovanni), and spatial isolation (e.g., Bosco Vedro). In addition to the local and in-stream habitat conditions, even the spatial factors (i.e., dispersal-related processes) have been proven to shape the composition of macroinvertebrates communities, especially in the agricultural landscape [34,35,36,38]. These aspects could account for the lower number of macroinvertebrate taxa at the local (i.e., alpha diversity) and regional (i.e., gamma diversity) scales observed in citizen science sites than ARPA sites, but not beta diversity. In fact, these results were confirmed by the analysis of the local contribution to beta diversity. Although there were no significant differences between ARPA and citizen science sites, the LCBD was generally higher in the sites monitored with volunteers. This latter finding indicates that both ARPA and citizen-monitored sites almost equally hosted unique macroinvertebrate communities, thus increasing the total biodiversity of macroinvertebrates in the area of study. This approach benefits local biodiversity assessments, expanding the number of sampled sites and enhancing the taxa census, providing large-scale data on species distribution and population abundance, as demonstrated in previous studies [74,75,76].
Our results provide additional evidence that data collected by volunteers can effectively complement professional datasets by offering additive and supplementary insights, particularly when gathered in underrepresented or overlooked habitats. While data from the ARPA database were able to provide a reliable estimation of the macroinvertebrate richness, clear differences in the taxonomic composition of macroinvertebrate communities were observed with sampling sites monitored by volunteers that increased the biodiversity of the study area by 9.4%. Such data on the presence and distribution of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa can be used, in turn, to implement citizen-science biomonitoring techniques with the ultimate goal of supporting political actions and decisions at a local scale. Although numerous resources have been developed to facilitate macroinvertebrate biomonitoring through citizen science [16,62,77], there remains a need for regional tools that allow the use of data collected by citizen scientists within an analytical framework useful to river managers [78]. To address this issue, for instance, Edwards et al. [19] discuss the Community Science Index of Biotic Integrity (CS-IBI), a regional index and analytical tool specifically designed to assess macroinvertebrate bioindicator data collected by citizen scientists in freshwater streams.
It should be acknowledged that the ecological monitoring of surface waters in Italy is carried out by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA), which implements biomonitoring methods using the European guidelines established by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This approach predominantly targets major river systems, utilizing a triennial sampling cycle and adhering to specific protocols to assess ecological status and water quality at the national level. For the present study, we adopted a taxonomic identification level at the family scale, or in some cases at the order level. This choice aligns with the methodology employed by the WFD and facilitates the comparison of citizen science data with the official data from the national monitoring system. Moreover, the decision to use a less detailed taxonomic classification than genus or species was influenced by the limitations of a citizen science approach, including the volunteers’ taxonomic expertise, training requirements, and the time and resource constraints associated with implementing standard biological assessment methods [79,80,81,82]. While this approach may lead to some loss of detail, it represents a methodological compromise that enables non-expert participants to identify organisms more easily in the field, reducing the risk of misidentification and improving data quality. Therefore, this approach provides an optimal balance between adhering to official protocols and facilitating data collection by volunteers.
However, despite the Europe-wide surface water monitoring established under the WFD, there is a significant gap in systematic, large-scale data on the ecological status of small streams. As explained in the case study carried out by von Gönner et al. [20], this limitation makes it challenging to assess the impacts of land use and the effectiveness of environmental management and conservation efforts. The WFD monitoring program primarily focuses on rivers and streams with catchment areas of 10 km2 or larger, emphasizing larger rivers (>100 km2), while smaller streams are generally excluded, except in rare cases [83,84].
By proving the role of citizen science in recording benthic macroinvertebrate taxa, at least at the family/order level, in nearby and less-monitored watercourses, this study supports the adoption of citizen science programs to increase the number of monitored rivers in the study area with expected benefits for stakeholders and authorities. In fact, enhanced information on macroinvertebrate diversity and distribution at the river network scale could generate relevant data to support decision-making and develop strategies for river conservation and ecosystem restoration at a local scale.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ecologies6020031/s1, Figures S1–S10: Photos of the citizen science sampling sites. Table S1: List of taxa in citizen science and ARPA sites. Taxa exclusive to citizen science sites are in bold.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing, A.L., S.R. and A.D.; formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, A.L. and A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study is part of the project “The biocultural dimensions of Eastern Piedmont’s waterlands: a multifaceted heritage to originate future development—H20-lands. Heritage to Originate” (CUP: C15F21001720001) which has received funding from the European Commission—NextGeneration EU and Compagnia di San Paolo.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to all the volunteers of the NGOs and institutions that provided their help in the data collection, especially Maria Teresa Bergoglio as a representative of the Parco del Po Piemontese, Valeria Rota as a representative of the Istituto Tecnico Piero Calamandrei, Monica Perroni and Giulia Arpiani as representatives of the Parco del Ticino Piemontese, Marco Nicolazzini and Rebecca Storari as representatives of Fondo Ambiente Italiano—Novara, Franco Conturbia as a representative of Unione Tutela Consumatori of Novara, Manuele Mussa and Giovanni Bargnesi as representatives of Una Garlanda and Polyculturae, Mauro Gardano as a representative of Antica Riseria Mulino San Giovanni, Roberto Gazzola as a representative of Legambiente—Circolo “Il Pioppo” of Galliate, and Guardie Ecologiche Volontarie of the Novara Province. The authors also wish to thank ARPA Piemonte for sharing some data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bi-shop, I.J.; Warner, S.; van Noordwijk, T.C.G.E.; Nyoni, F.C.; Loiselle, S. Citizen Science Monitoring for Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.3.2 in England and Zambia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fritz, S.; See, L.; Carlson, T.; Haklay, M.M.; Oliver, J.L.; Fraisl, D.; Mondardini, R.; Brocklehurst, M.; Shanley, L.A.; Schade, S.; et al. Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reid, D.; Tippler, C.; Evans, C.; Kotevska, S. Comparison of stream macroinvertebrate monitoring data from citizen scientists and an aquatic ecologist. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Stream Management Conference, Leura, Australia, 31 July–3 August 2016; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306379070_Comparison_of_stream_macroinvertebrate_monitoring_data_from_citizen_scientists_and_an_aquatic_ecologist (accessed on 8 December 2024).
  4. Seelen, L.M.S.; Flaim, G.; Jennings, E.; De Senerpont Domis, L.N. Saving water for the future: Public awareness of water usage and water quality. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vander Heijden, J.; Ten Heuvelhof, E. The Mechanics of Virtue: Lessons on Public Participation from Implementing the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov. 2012, 22, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Nardi, F.; Cudennec, C.; Abrate, T.; Allouch, C.; Annis, A.; Assumpção, T.; Aubert, A.H.; Bérod, D.; Braccini, A.M.; Buytaert, W.; et al. Citizens AND Hydrolo-gy (CANDHY): Conceptualizing a transdisciplinary framework for citizen science addressing hydrological challenges. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2021, 67, 2534–2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Walker, D.W.; Smigaj, M.; Tani, M. The benefits and negative impacts of citizen science applications to water as experienced by participants and communities. WIREs Water 2021, 8, e1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Safford, H.; Peters, C.A. Citizen science for dissolved oxygen monitoring: Case studies from Georgia and Rhode Island. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2018, 35, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gumiero, B.; De Matteis, F.M.; Di Stefano, C.; Rodríguez-González, P.M.; Dufour, S.; Di Grazia, F.; Gonzales del Tanago, M. Monitoring Riparian Vegetation: Toward a Citizen Science Approach. SSRN 2023. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376498541_Monitoring_Riparian_Vegetation_Toward_a_Citizen_Science_Approach (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  10. Barrows, A.P.W.; Christiansen, K.S.; Bode, E.T.; Hoellein, T.J. A watershed-scale, citizen science approach to quantifying microplastic concentration in a mixed land-use river. Water Res. 2018, 147, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Setälä, O.; Tirroniemi, J.; Lehtiniemi, M. Testing citizen science as a tool for monitoring surface water microplastics. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Loperfido, J.V.; Just, C.L.; Papanicolaou, A.N.; Schnoor, J.L. In situ sensing to understand diel turbidity cycles, suspended solids, and nutrient transport in Clear Creek, Iowa. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W06525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sakai, N.; Mohamad, Z.F.; Nasaruddin, A.; Kadir, S.N.A.; Salleh, M.S.A.M.; Sulaiman, A.H. Eco-Heart Index as a tool for community-based water quality monitoring and assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shupe, S.M. High resolution stream water quality assessment in the Vancouver, British Columbia region: A citizen science study. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603–604, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Firehock, K.; West, J. A Brief History of Volunteer Biological Water Monitoring Using Macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 1995, 14, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Edwards, P.M. The value of long-term stream invertebrate data collected by citizen scientists. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Burgess, H.K.; DeBey, L.B.; Froehlich, H.E.; Schmidt, N.; Theobald, E.J.; Ettinger, A.K.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Tewksbury, J.; Parrish, J.K. The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramírez, S.B.; van Meerveld, I.; Seibert, J. Citizen science approaches for water quality measurements. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 897, 165436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Edwards, P.M.; Bedell, D.; Hubler, S.L.; Larson, C.A.; Macneale, K.H.; Mickelson, E.; Prescott, C.; Webb, E.; Wilhelm, J. An Index of Biotic Integrity for Macroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment Conducted by Community Scientists. Freshw. Sci. 2024, 43, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. von Gönner, J.V.; Bowler, D.E.; Gröning, J.; Klauer, A.K.; Liess, M.; Neuer, L.; Bonn, A. Citizen science for assessing pesticide impacts in agricultural streams. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 857, 159607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Allan, J.D.; Castillo, M.M. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters, 2nd ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Burgazzi, G.; Laini, A.; Viaroli, P.; Fenoglio, S.; Schreiner, V.C.; Schäfer, R.B.; Doretto, A. Basin-scale variables drive macroinvertebrate biomass in low-order streams across different mountain ecoregions. J. Biogeogr. 2023, 50, 2030–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tornwall, B.; Sokol, E.; Skelton, J.; Brown, B.L. Trends in stream biodiversity research since the river continuum concept. Diversity 2015, 7, 16–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brooks, S.J.; Fitch, B.; Davy-Bowker, J.; Codesal, S.A. Anglers’ Riverfly Monitoring Initiative (ARMI): A UK-wide citizen science project for water quality assessment. Freshw. Sci. 2019, 38, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chessman, B.; Williams, S.; Colin, B. Bioassessment of streams with macroinvertebrates: Effect of sampled habitat and taxonomic resolution. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2007, 26, 546–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moffett, E.; Neale, M. Volunteer and professional macroinvertebrate monitoring provide concordant assessments of stream health. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2015, 49, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Moolna, A.; Duddy, M.; Fitch, B.; White, K. Citizen science and aquatic macroinvertebrates: Public engagement for catchment-scale pollution vigilance. Écoscience 2020, 27, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Friberg, N.; Bonada, N.; Bradley, D.C.; Dunbar, M.J.; Edwards, F.K.; Grey, J.; Hayes, R.B.; Hildrew, A.G.; Lamouroux, N.; Trimmer, M.; et al. Biomonitoring of Human Impacts in Freshwater Ecosystems: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2011, 44, 1–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carvalho, L.; Mackay, E.B.; Cardoso, A.C.; Baattrup-Pedersen, A.; Birk, S.; Blackstock, K.L.; Borics, G.; Borja, A.; Feld, C.K.; Ferreira, M.T.; et al. Protecting and restoring Europe’s waters: An analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 1228–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jackson, M.C.; Weyl, O.L.F.; Altermatt, F.; Durance, I.; Friberg, N.; Dumbrell, A.J.; Piggott, J.J.; Tiegs, S.D.; Tockner, K.; Krug, C.B.; et al. Recommendations for the Next Generation of Global Freshwater Biological Monitoring Tools. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2016, 55, 615–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maasri, A.; Jähnig, S.C.; Adamescu, M.C.; Adrian, R.; Baigun, C.; Baird, D.J.; Batista-Morales, A.; Bonada, N.; Brown, L.E.; Cai, Q.; et al. A global agenda for advancing freshwater biodiversity research. Ecol. Lett. 2022, 25, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bo, T.; Doretto, A.; Laini, A.; Bona, F.; Fenoglio, S. Biomonitoring with Macroinvertebrate Communities in Italy: What Happened to Our Past and What Is the Future? J. Limnol. 2017, 76, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meyer, J.L.; Strayer, D.L.; Wallace, J.B.; Eggert, S.L.; Helfman, G.S.; Leonard, N.E. The Contribution of Headwater Streams to Biodiversity in River Networks. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 43, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Herzon, I.; Helenius, J. Agricultural drainage ditches, their biological importance and functioning. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1171–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iwamoto, H.; Tahara, D.; Yoshida, T. Contrasting metacommunity patterns of fish and aquatic insects in drainage ditches of paddy fields. Ecol. Res. 2022, 37, 635–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gething, K.J.; Little, S. The importance of artificial drains for macroinvertebrate biodiversity in reclaimed agricultural landscapes. Hydrobiologia 2020, 847, 3129–3138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leslie, A.W.; Lamp, W.O. Burrowing macroinvertebrates alter phosphorus dynamics in drainage ditch sediments. Aquat. Sci. 2019, 81, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chiorino, M.; Spreafico, C.; Solazzo, D.; Doretto, A. Biodiversity, Ecological Status and Ecosystem Attributes of Agricultural Ditches Based on the Analysis of Macroinvertebrate Communities. Diversity 2024, 16, 558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moog, O.; Schmidt-Kloiber, A.; Ofenböck, T.; Gerritsen, J. Does the Ecoregion Approach Support the Typological Demands of the EU ‘Water Framework Directive’? In Integrated Assessment of Running Waters in Europe; Hering, D., Verdonschot, P.F.M., Moog, O., Sandin, L., Eds.; Developments in Hydrobiology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 175, pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hering, D.; Feld, C.K.; Moog, O.; Ofenböck, T. Cook Book for the Development of a Multimetric Index for Biological Condition of Aquatic Ecosystems: Experiences from the European AQEM and STAR Projects and Related Initiatives. Hydrobiologia 2006, 566, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Strahler, A.N. Hypsometric (Area-Altitude) Analysis of Erosional Topography. GSA Bull. 1952, 63, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Strahler, A.N. Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphology. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 1957, 38, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nerbonne, J.F.; Ward, B.; Ollila, A.; Williams, M.; Vondracek, B. Effect of sampling protocol and volunteer bias when sampling for macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2008, 27, 640–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Buss, D.F.; Carlisle, D.M.; Chon, T.-S.; Culp, J.; Harding, J.S.; Keizer-Vlek, H.E.; Robinson, W.A.; Strachan, S.; Thirion, C.; Hughes, R.M. Stream Biomonitoring Using Macroinvertebrates Around the Globe: A Comparison of Large-Scale Programs. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 4132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Doretto, A.; Bo, T.; Bona, F.; Fenoglio, S. Efficiency of Surber Net under Different Substrate and Flow Conditions: Insights for Macroinvertebrates Sampling and River Biomonitoring. Knowl. Manag. Aquat. Ecosyst. 2020, 421, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Buffagni, A.; Erba, S. Intercalibrazione e classificazione di qualità ecologica dei fiumi per la 2000/60/EC (WFD): L’indice STAR_ICMI. IRSA-CNR Not. Metod. Anal. 2007, 1, 94–100. [Google Scholar]
  47. UNI EN 28265; Water Quality—Design and Use of Quantitative Samplers for Benthic Macro-Invertebrates on Stony Substrata in Shallow Freshwaters. CEN (European Committee for Standardization): Brussels, Belgium, 1994.
  48. Baselga, A. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2010, 19, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ricotta, C. On beta diversity decomposition: Trouble shared is not trouble halved. Ecology 2010, 91, 1981–1983. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25680450 (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  50. McGlinn, D.J.; Xiao, X.; May, F.; Engel, T.; Oliver, C.; Blowes, S.A.; Knight, T.M.; Purschke, O.; Gotelli, N.J.; Chase, J.M. Measurement of Biodiversity (MoB): A Method to Separate the Scale-Dependent Effects of Species Abundance Distribution, Density, and Aggregation on Diversity Change. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2019, 10, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Legendre, P.; De Cáceres, M. Beta diversity as the variance of community data: Dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 951–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  53. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package, R Package-Version 2.2–1; 2015. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  54. Cardoso, P.; Mammola, S.; Rigal, F.; Carvalho, J. BAT: Biodiversity Assessment Tools, R Package Version 2.6.0; 2021. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BAT (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  55. Wickham, H.; Chang, W.; Wickham, M.H. Package ‘ggplot2’: Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics. 2016. Version 2. pp. 1–189. Available online: https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/reference/ggplot2-package.html (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  56. Richter, A.; Comay, O.; Svenningsen, C.S.; Larsen, J.C.; Hecker, S.; Tøttrup, A.P.; Pe’er, G.; Dunn, R.R.; Bonn, A.; Marselle, M. Motivation and support services in citizen science insect monitoring: A cross-country study. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 263, 109325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aceves-Bueno, E.; Adeleye, A.S.; Feraud, M.; Huang, Y.; Tao, M.; Yang, Y.; Anderson, S.E. The Accuracy of Citizen Science Data: A Quantitative Review. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 2017, 98, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bell, S.; Marzano, M.; Cent, J.; Kobierska, H.; Podjed, D.; Vandzinskaite, D.; Reinert, H.; Armaitiene, A.; Grodzinska-Jurczak, M.; Mursic, R. What Counts? Volunteers and Their Organizations in the Recording and Monitoring of Biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 3443–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Genet, K.S.; Sargent, L.G. Evaluation of methods and data quality from a volunteer-based amphibian call survey. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 2003, 31, 703–714. [Google Scholar]
  60. Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A.; Donald, P.F.; Funder, M.; Jones, J.P.G.; Alviola, P.; Balete, D.S.; Blomley, T.; Brashares, J.; et al. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Engel, S.R.; Voshell, J.R. Volunteer biological monitoring: Can it accurately assess the ecological condition of streams? Am. Entomol. 2002, 48, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Seymour, V.; Wills, B.; Wilkin, P.; Burt, P.; Ikin, E.; Stevenson, P.C. Incorporating Citizen Science to Advance the Natural Capital Approach. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 54, 101419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Roccatello, S.; Lagrotteria, A.; Andrà, C.; Doretto, A. Bridging Science and Society: Developing a Citizen Science Biomonitoring Approach for River Ecosystems in Italy. Ecol. Indic. 2025, 171, 113199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tickner, D.; Opperman, J.J.; Abell, R.; Acreman, M.; Arthington, A.H.; Bunn, S.E.; Cooke, S.J.; Dalton, J.; Darwall, W.; Edwards, G.; et al. Bending the Curve of Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss: An Emergency Recovery Plan. BioScience 2020, 70, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Arthington, A.H. Grand Challenges to Support the Freshwater Biodiversity Emergency Recovery Plan. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 664313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ottoni, F.P.; South, J.; Azevedo-Santos, V.M.; Henschel, E.; de Bragança, P.H.N. Editorial: Freshwater Biodiversity Crisis: Multidisciplinary Approaches as Tools for Conservation. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1155608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Peeters, E.T.H.M.; Gerritsen, A.A.M.; Seelen, L.M.S.; Begheyn, M.; Rienks, F.; Teurlincx, S. Monitoring biological water quality by volunteers complements professional assessments. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0263899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sackey, N.; Meyer, C.; Weingart, P. Citizen Science and Learning Outcomes: Assessment of Projects in South Africa. J. Sci. Commun. 2024, 23, A02. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fore, L.S.; Paulsen, K.; O’Laughlin, K. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw. Biol. 2001, 46, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nerbonne, J.F.; Vondracek, B. Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: Assessing training needs through examining error and bias in untrained volunteers. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2003, 22, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Balázs, B.; Mooney, P.; Nováková, E.; Bastin, L.; Jokar Arsanjani, J. Data Quality in Citizen Science. In The Science of Citizen Science; Vohland, K., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Roy, H.E.; Martinou, A.F.; Pocock, M.J.O.; Werenkraut, V.; Roy, D.B. The Global Reach of Citizen Science for Monitoring Insects. One Earth 2024, 7, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Encarnação, J.; Teodósio, M.A.; Morais, P. Citizen Science and Biological Invasions: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 8, 602980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chandler, M.; See, L.; Copas, K.; Bonde, A.M.Z.; Claramunt López, B.; Danielsen, F.; Legind, J.K.; Masinde, S.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Newman, G.; et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hanmer, H.J.; Boothby, C.; Toms, M.P.; Noble, D.G.; Balmer, D.E. Large-scale citizen science survey of a common nocturnal raptor: Urbanization and weather conditions influence the occupancy and detectability of the Tawny Owl Strix aluco. Bird Stud. 2021, 68, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hsing, P.-Y.; Hill, R.A.; Smith, G.C.; Bradley, S.; Green, S.E.; Kent, V.T.; Mason, S.S.; Rees, J.; Whittingham, M.J.; Cokill, J.; et al. Large-scale mammal monitoring: The potential of a citizen science camera-trapping project in the United Kingdom. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 2022, 3, e12180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. White, S.M.; Brandy, S.; Justice, C.; Morinaga, K.A.; Naylor, L.; Ruzycki, J.; Sedell, E.R.; Steele, J.; Towne, A.; Webster, J.G.; et al. Progress Towards a Comprehensive Approach for Habitat Restoration in the Columbia Basin: Case Study in the Grande Ronde River. Fisheries 2021, 46, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Callaghan, C.T.; Rowley, J.J.L.; Cornwell, W.K.; Poore, A.G.B.; Major, R.E. Improving Big Citizen Science Data: Moving Beyond Haphazard Sampling. PLoS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kelly-Quinn, M.; Biggs, J.N.; Brooks, S.; Fortuño, P.; Hegarty, S.; Jones, J.I.; Regan, F. Opportunities, approaches and challenges to the engagement of citizens in filling small waterbody data gaps. Hydrobiologia 2023, 850, 3419–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Turbé, J.; Barba, M.; Pelacho, S.; Mugdal, L.D.; Robinson, L.; Serrano Sanz, F.; Sanz, C.; Tsinaraki, J.M.; Rubio, S.; Schade, S. Understanding the citizen science landscape for European environmental policy: An assessment and recommendations. Citizen Sci. Theory Pract. 2019, 4, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schröter, M.; Kraemer, F.; Mantel, M.; Kabisch, N.; Hecker, S.; Richter, A.; Neumeier, V.; Bonn, A. Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 28, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kosmala, M.; Wiggins, A.; Swanson, A.; Simmons, B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wick, A.; Bänsch-Baltruschat, B.; Keller, M.; Scharmüller, A.; Schäfer, R.; Foit, K.; Liess, M.; Maaßen, S.; Lischeid, G. Umsetzung des Nationalen Aktionsplans zur Nachhaltigen Anwendung von Pestiziden. Teil 2 Konzeptioneines Repräsentativen Monitorings zur Belastung von Kleingewässern in der Agrarlandschaft. 2019. Available online: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/umsetzung-des-nationalen-aktionsplans-zur-0 (accessed on 6 February 2025).
  84. Weisner, O.; Arle, J.; Liebmann, L.; Link, M.; Schäfer, R.B.; Schneeweiss, A.; Schreiner, V.C.; Vormeier, P.; Liess, M. Three reasons why the Water Framework Directive (WFD) fails to identify pesticide risks. Water. Res. 2022, 208, 117848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ecologies 06 00031 g001
Figure 1. Map of the Piedmont Region (Northwestern Italy) showing the location of sampling sites (above) and a finer-scale map of the sampling sites (below). Blue dots indicate the official sampling sites monitored by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) as part of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) network and used as benchmark sites in this study. Orange dots represent sampling sites on watercourses surveyed with the support of citizen science volunteers.
Figure 1. Map of the Piedmont Region (Northwestern Italy) showing the location of sampling sites (above) and a finer-scale map of the sampling sites (below). Blue dots indicate the official sampling sites monitored by the Regional Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA) as part of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) network and used as benchmark sites in this study. Orange dots represent sampling sites on watercourses surveyed with the support of citizen science volunteers.
Ecologies 06 00031 g001
Ecologies 06 00031 g002
Figure 2. NMDS ordination plot: Symbols indicate the ARPA (dots) and citizen science (triangles) sites. Labels under the symbols indicate the names and/or ID number of the sampling sites.
Figure 2. NMDS ordination plot: Symbols indicate the ARPA (dots) and citizen science (triangles) sites. Labels under the symbols indicate the names and/or ID number of the sampling sites.
Ecologies 06 00031 g002
Ecologies 06 00031 g003
Figure 3. Stacked bars indicate the percentage contribution of nestedness (i.e., gain/loss of taxa) and turnover (i.e., taxa replacement) to the total beta diversity (i.e., numbers above the bars). Beta diversity and its components were calculated among ARPA sites, among citizen science sites, and by comparing ARPA and citizen science sites.
Figure 3. Stacked bars indicate the percentage contribution of nestedness (i.e., gain/loss of taxa) and turnover (i.e., taxa replacement) to the total beta diversity (i.e., numbers above the bars). Beta diversity and its components were calculated among ARPA sites, among citizen science sites, and by comparing ARPA and citizen science sites.
Ecologies 06 00031 g003
Ecologies 06 00031 g004
Figure 4. Boxplots illustrating the variation in alpha (i.e., mean taxon richness per sampling site) and beta (i.e., alpha/gamma) diversity between the ARPA and citizen science sites. The total gamma diversity (right-most panel) is obtained by summing the total number of encountered taxa in both ARPA and citizen science sites in the area of study. Statistics: D = average absolute difference between the groups; p = p-value. In the boxplot: black horizontal line = median; upper and lower box edges = 3° and 1° quartile, respectively; whiskers indicate ±1.5 interquartile distance.
Figure 4. Boxplots illustrating the variation in alpha (i.e., mean taxon richness per sampling site) and beta (i.e., alpha/gamma) diversity between the ARPA and citizen science sites. The total gamma diversity (right-most panel) is obtained by summing the total number of encountered taxa in both ARPA and citizen science sites in the area of study. Statistics: D = average absolute difference between the groups; p = p-value. In the boxplot: black horizontal line = median; upper and lower box edges = 3° and 1° quartile, respectively; whiskers indicate ±1.5 interquartile distance.
Ecologies 06 00031 g004
Ecologies 06 00031 g005
Figure 5. Bars showing the difference in the local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) between ARPA and citizen science sites (a). Boxplots illustrating the variation in the LCBD between ARPA and citizen science sites (b). In the boxplot: black horizontal line = median; upper and lower box edges = 3° and 1° quartile, respectively; whiskers indicate ±1.5 interquartile distance.
Figure 5. Bars showing the difference in the local contribution to beta diversity (LCBD) between ARPA and citizen science sites (a). Boxplots illustrating the variation in the LCBD between ARPA and citizen science sites (b). In the boxplot: black horizontal line = median; upper and lower box edges = 3° and 1° quartile, respectively; whiskers indicate ±1.5 interquartile distance.
Ecologies 06 00031 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lagrotteria, A.; Roccatello, S.; Doretto, A. Contribution of Citizen Science Data on the Evaluation of Local Biodiversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Ecologies 2025, 6, 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6020031

AMA Style

Lagrotteria A, Roccatello S, Doretto A. Contribution of Citizen Science Data on the Evaluation of Local Biodiversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Ecologies. 2025; 6(2):31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6020031

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lagrotteria, Alessandro, Samuele Roccatello, and Alberto Doretto. 2025. "Contribution of Citizen Science Data on the Evaluation of Local Biodiversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities" Ecologies 6, no. 2: 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6020031

APA Style

Lagrotteria, A., Roccatello, S., & Doretto, A. (2025). Contribution of Citizen Science Data on the Evaluation of Local Biodiversity of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities. Ecologies, 6(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies6020031

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop