ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2025
Global community science data on mammals underreport small and diurnal species.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although community (or citizen) science has revolutionized biodiversity data collection and expanded its potential application, these datasets are commonly affected by bias. For instance, observers' attention towards biodiversity is often led by the aesthetic and economic values of organisms, resulting in the under- and overrepresentation of species. Mammals in general are more conspicuous and charismatic than most other groups and therefore hold a unique appeal for observers that are likely to contribute to community-science platforms. Nevertheless, not all mammals are equally attractive to the human observer, and depending on their ecological and phenotypical traits, different species are represented in varying degrees in datasets collected by non-professional scientists. Herein, we assess the contribution of community science observations to global mammal occurrence data, examining how species traits influence the number of contributed observations. We compiled and analyzed spatiotemporal patterns in over 2 million observations globally from the iNaturalist platform. We found that large, crepuscular, and widely distributed species were overrepresented compared to smaller, diurnal species with a narrower distribution. Marine mammals represented 3.1% of species and 7.0% of observations. Nevertheless, the average number of observations per species was 1217.2 for marine species compared to 690.5 for terrestrial species. While bats and rodents were underrepresented, less diverse groups such as elephants and monotremes were overrepresented. Around 55% of mammal species are currently represented in the iNaturalist dataset, and our findings reveal biases linked to species traits, offering opportunities to increase the representation of currently underrepresented mammal species in global biodiversity datasets by adaptive sampling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.