Send message to Authors

Short Abstract

Citizen science is a powerful force in ecology, but even good data can be swayed by subtle biases. How do the resources we create shape the data people collect? Our study shows that different field guides influence which birds participants notice, identify, and record.

Abstract

Citizen science has become a powerful tool in ecological research, harnessing the collective efforts of the public to generate valuable data. Although such projects often yield high-quality results, individual projects must be evaluated to identify and account for potential biases and variations in data quality. Our study focuses on the influence of field guides on reporting frequency of urban birds within the Big Backyard Bird Count. We compare observations facilitated by three versions of the field guide presenting varying bird species. Our analysis revealed a significant difference in observations reported by participants using each field guide. In particular, differences were observed in the reporting of birds with similar features and potential for confusion (e.g. Myna and Blackbird). Dominant species which were omitted from the field guide were found to be underreported or misidentified whereas rarer species present in the guide were often overreported, even when absent from the observation site. These results underscore the need to critically assess the role of participant-centered resources, in shaping citizen science data and species identification, and better understand biases in species reporting and observer behavior.