Passive citizen science: The role of social media in wildlife observations

Thomas Edwards; Christopher B Jones; Sarah E Perkins; Padraig Corcoran

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255416

. 2021 Aug 18;16(8):e0255416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255416

Passive citizen science: The role of social media in wildlife observations

Thomas Edwards ^1,^*,^#, Christopher B Jones ^1,^#, Sarah E Perkins ², Padraig Corcoran ^1,^#

Editor: Daniel de Paiva Silva³

PMCID: PMC8372924 PMID: 34407145

Abstract

Citizen science plays an important role in observing the natural environment. While conventional citizen science consists of organized campaigns to observe a particular phenomenon or species there are also many ad hoc observations of the environment in social media. These data constitute a valuable resource for ‘passive citizen science’—the use of social media that are unconnected to any particular citizen science program, but represent an untapped dataset of ecological value. We explore the value of passive citizen science, by evaluating species distributions using the photo sharing site Flickr. The data are evaluated relative to those submitted to the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas, the largest collection of species distribution data in the UK. Our study focuses on the 1500 best represented species on NBN, and common invasive species within UK, and compares the spatial and temporal distribution with NBN data. We also introduce an innovative image verification technique that uses the Google Cloud Vision API in combination with species taxonomic data to determine the likelihood that a mention of a species on Flickr represents a given species. The spatial and temporal analyses for our case studies suggest that the Flickr dataset best reflects the NBN dataset when considering a purely spatial distribution with no time constraints. The best represented species on Flickr in comparison to NBN are diurnal garden birds as around 70% of the Flickr posts for them are valid observations relative to the NBN. Passive citizen science could offer a rich source of observation data for certain taxonomic groups, and/or as a repository for dedicated projects. Our novel method of validating Flickr records is suited to verifying more extensive collections, including less well-known species, and when used in combination with citizen science projects could offer a platform for accurate identification of species and their location.

Introduction

Observations on the distribution of wildlife species have always formed a crucial part of conservation and species management [1, 2], but are increasingly important in the face of rapid ecosystem changes that can be brought about, for example, by climate change and invasive species, the consequences of which have implications for disease emergence and spread, as well as food security [2].

High-quality species distribution data are typically collected by professionals, but such data can be time-consuming and expensive to gather, and hence often lack broad coverage [1]. To overcome this knowledge gap, especially over a large spatial and/or temporal scale, citizen scientists are often engaged; members of the public who volunteer to record the presence of a given species and associated metadata, such as time, date, and location [2–4]. Thus, citizen science can be defined as the scientific work undertaken by members of the public, often in collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists and scientific institutions, to collect data which in the context of this study relates to biodiversity [4, 5]. Citizen science projects can effectively crowdsource data, so amassing large volumes of species distribution data [4]. Due to the fact of using non-professionals, however, projects frequently come under criticism in terms of the accuracy of species identification, and associated data [6]. Further, organising citizen science campaigns and recruitment of volunteers can be a costly and challenging process [7]. More recent citizen science platforms have tried to address the problem of organising campaigns. An example of such a platform is iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/) a web-based and mobile-supported social network which allows individuals to upload photo observations and identify organisms [8]. However, the problems of attracting volunteers to participate, the correctness and open access of the uploaded data still remain.

Social network websites such as Flickr, Twitter, and Facebook have built a network of more than 2 billion users worldwide, generating millions of messages daily that are easily accessible, and reflect the observed reality of a quarter of the human population [9]. Social media websites have therefore emerged as an informal real-time information source that can contribute to the detection of trends and early warnings in critical fields such as ecological change, environmental problems, and shifts in ecosystems [9–11]. We define the use of social media that are unconnected to any particular citizen science program, but represent an unexploited source of valuable ecological data as passive citizen science. In contrast to citizen science campaigns, the passive citizen science approach provides a cost and time-efficient method for collecting wildlife-related data on a larger scale and for a wider time-span. Similar to the citizen science approach, it involves the participation of non-experts. However, datasets are collected without the organisation and conduct of specific campaigns or restrictions on species observations and time-frames. Instead it consists of a process of crowdsourcing in which data are retrieved from Internet resources, particularly social media, to which members of the public have uploaded observations such as annotated photos of wildlife.

A quantitative review of the application of social media in environmental research, conducted by [12] suggests a very rapid growth in the field of environmental monitoring, with Twitter and Flickr being most frequently used as data sources. Among the identified strengths of social media are the large volume of available data samples which makes data collection a less labour-intensive, time-consuming and costly procedure [12–14]. Social media data allows for a timely and (near) real-time monitoring and analysis of species distribution ([12, 15, 16]).

Despite the potential of social media to be used for species distribution models there are still some concerns about the quality and reliability of information mined from social media [9, 12, 17]. There are also concerns about the data ownership and future availability of social network data [9, 12, 18].

Arguably, the geotags given to photos on social media sites can be more reliable than user-submitted data as they are assigned automatically by GPS location systems, and if automatic identification of species can be employed such an approach has the potential to outweigh the skills of the general populace. It is for these reasons that the photo sharing site, Flickr, has been recognised as a particularly valuable resource in ecology that could contribute to species distribution models [2, 9, 19].

The use of internet sources for gathering wildlife-related data in citizen science initiatives has emerged in recent years [20–22]. An example includes urban residents reporting occurrences of tagged birds through a Facebook group, a smartphone application and email [20]. A crowdsourcing tool was employed in [21] to collect data for the creation of a land cover map, while in [22] crowdsourcing is used as a supplemental method for collecting hydrologic data. An overview of the impact of internet social networks on traditional biodiversity data collection methods in [10] is optimistic and concludes that social media can potentially play an important role in conservation science. Additionally, the authors of [23] present a review of the iEcology approach which encompasses the use of automated tools for discovering patterns in the natural world using data accumulated in digital sources collected for other purposes. The authors highlight the value of social media such as Flickr. The use of iEcology approaches is increasing as it provides low-cost and fast data collection, pattern identification, and visualisation of nature-related data. In particular, the study of [11] investigates whether a plant species image classifier can be used to extract relevant plant observations from Flickr, using a general search term of ‘flower’. Analyses showed that automated methods have the potential to help identify wildlife-related imagery data on social media, especially when photos were focused on single native species in rural situations or when classification was performed at genus or class level. It was suggested that future work could usefully focus on searching for individual species including invasive species. Our work does indeed do that and differs from [11] in providing a systematic evaluation of the detection of a large number of different types of wildlife species (not just plants) relative to existing citizen science data. Other recent research by [24, 25] focused on investigating how automated methods for identifying species from imagery data compare to manual annotations performed by citizen scientists. Results showed that there are still challenges in using automated approaches for verifying wildlife-related imagery such as imbalanced datasets and visual similarities between species. However, the low-cost and potential efficiency of such methods are the motivation for continuing research in this area.

Here, we focus specifically on the potential of Flickr for collecting species distribution data as it hosts one of the most extensive and easily accessible collections of geo-referenced photos of its kind and, because it is photo-based, it enables the possibility to validate observations by comparing the asserted species name, as provided in a tag or caption, with the content of the image. We assess the value of species distribution data gathered from the Flickr photo-sharing website relative to existing content on a public source of biodiversity data, the UK National Biodiversity Network portal. The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas (https://nbn.org.uk) portal holds the most extensive collection of biodiversity information within the UK with over 220 million species occurrences. It is a charity, with a membership including many UK wildlife conservation organisations, government, countryside agencies, environmental agencies, local ecological records centres and many voluntary groups dedicated to citizen science. It has more than 200 members and allows recording, sharing, displaying, and downloading species records. Records of species sightings are uploaded to the Atlas by registered organisations where datasets are collected by citizen science campaigns [26]. NBN datasets have previously proved useful in studying distribution patterns of UK species [26, 27].

Our aim is to explore the potential of social media to supplement species distribution data, and in doing so to serve as a form of passive citizen science. We conducted analyses with two case studies, one being the 1500 species that were most frequently recorded on NBN and the other being invasive species in the UK that have records on NBN. In comparing species distributions from Flickr with those of the NBN we quantify the value of social media acquired distribution data on the largest number of species considered to date in such studies. Our approach uses a novel method of validating Flickr species images with the Google Cloud Vision API, that extends the method presented in [16] by automatic matching of the assigned categories to the content of a hierarchical species taxonomy.

Research analogous to our own has been carried out previously, but on a much smaller scale, and in a time-consuming manner [2, 9, 16]. In the forementioned research, the authors evaluate social network sites (Flickr and Twitter) relative to biodiversity data portals in order to identify the potential use of ad-hoc methods for augmenting traditional citizen science data collections. This previous research was conducted on a narrow range of species (between two and four). Another similar research by [11] investigate whether an image classifier for identifying plants could facilitate the discovery of unexploited biodiversity data from Flickr. However, this approach is focused purely on species occurrence on Flickr and thus does not provide a clear evaluation of the role of social sites observations compared to more traditional approaches.

Our validation approach is similar to that used in [16] to verify Flickr data. There the Google Reverse Image Search was used to return labels that best describe the content of a given photo. All labels per species were ordered in descending order of frequency. Then, the authors manually identify which are the species-relevant and irrelevant tags, among the most frequent ones, that can help indicate which photos are true representations of the given species. Despite the benefits of such an approach, especially when photos need to be evaluated only for a couple of species, it is unsuitable for the validation of larger collections where the manual upload of photos and manual selection of relevant tags per species can be a time-consuming process. We propose a fully automated image verification approach suitable for verifying large and diverse species collections. Specifically, we deploy the Google Cloud Vision API which allows fully automatic image verification. Further, we reduce the incidence of missed matches by employing a species taxonomy that supports matching between alternative names for a species as well as generic matches between terms in the relevant species hierarchy that were not used in the Flickr tags.

In summary, there are several limitations of previous research on using social media to augment traditional biodiversity portals, in that the analyses have been performed on very small numbers of species, the methods for accessing the social media are either manual or only partly automated, and the results are limited in the degree of verification.

Materials and methods

We perform three types of analysis to compare species occurrence between the NBN and Flickr, consisting of a summary statistical analysis and spatial and temporal analyses. The statistical analysis compares the frequency of occurrence of species between the two data collections, performed on different taxonomic levels of species and class. The spatial analysis determines whether Flickr species observations match by location the NBN species observations. Because many species have variable distributions and abundances throughout the year we also use a temporal analysis to compare the time patterns of the NBN and Flickr data collections. We compared the locations of data occurrences for the two data sources for a time span of 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. We verify Flickr species identification through an image content verification approach using the Google Cloud Vision API to identify objects that appear in a given photo. The Google Cloud Vision API labels images with multiple taxonomic categories (i.e. labels) ranging from general to specific. Our image validation approach is based on coarse matching between all species names following down from the class of a species and the labels returned by Google Cloud API. In this way, we avoid a potentially high number of false negatives for less common species that are less likely to be identified on the API at the species level but might be identified at higher taxonomic levels. An outline of the methodology is depicted in Fig 1 and each step is detailed below.

Data collection

NBN data collection

The NBN was selected as the biodiversity data portal for our study because it holds the most extensive collection of biodiversity information within the UK. We collected the names and the number of occurrences for the top 1500 species on NBN using the NBN Atlas Occurrence Facet Search. We performed our search over all collections within the NBN and limited it for the territory of the UK.

For each of the species retrieved from the NBN we obtained, via a search on the NBN, all the alternative names associated with the species (scientific name and common names), the NBN species ID, and its taxonomic classification hierarchy. The names associated with each of the species were used for downloading data from Flickr. The taxonomic classification hierarchy is used for the verification of the Flickr data collection in combination with the Google Cloud Vision API. The NBN service does not support exact match between a given search term and the species name given to a record. Instead, the NBN service does partial matching between the search term and the species record names. For instance, the search term ‘brown squirrel’ can return results for other types of squirrels such as red squirrels, because there is a partial match between the search term ‘brown squirrel’ and the record name ‘red squirrel’, i.e, the word ‘squirrel’. Therefore, downloaded records can sometimes include species which are irrelevant to the search term. Consequently, we remove the species records irrelevant to the search term.

Further to that, some records are incomplete, lacking temporal or geo-information. To address this we filtered out irrelevant records and those with missing information. For inclusion in our dataset each record constituted record ID, geo-coordinates of the occurrence, date of the occurrence, NBN species ID.

Flickr data collection

Using the Flickr API interface we used both the scientific and common names, and limited our search to geo-tagged posts within the UK. Our search was therefore based on downloading posts with tags matching at least one of the alternative names given for a species in NBN. We downloaded the following types of information from Flickr: image coordinates, ‘taken date’ and ‘posted date’ of the post, post id, the image associated with the post, title, and all the tags associated with the post. ‘Taken date’ refers to the time at which the photo was taken while ‘posted date’ represents the time at which the photo was uploaded to Flickr. For performing the temporal analysis, we use the ‘taken date’. However, early observations showed that ‘posted date’ and ‘taken date’ do not differ more than 3 months for the majority of Flickr posts. Additionally, we consider only posts where coordinates are extracted from a GPS-enabled device which is either the device used to upload the photo, or the device used to take the photo. We ignore posts associated only with user-provided locations.

Flickr data validation

For describing the image validation method we heavily rely on types of information, clarified in Table 1. Flickr images needed to be validated because the content of the photos uploaded with associated tags might not match the species name tags given by the Flickr users. However, existing image verification approaches lack the ability to scale to large collections of species and they often need manual or semi-automatic verification. Further, a common limitation of automated image verification methods is the inability to accurately distinguish between species with similar visual characteristics. Therefore, performing a match between species names and image recognition system labels would result in many photos being regarded as invalid representations of the species, which limits the coverage of methods. We aim to address this issue and provide an approach for verifying large and diverse image-related species data fully automatically by using a Bag-of-Words (BOW) approach. Specifically, we use Google Cloud Vision API to coarse match between all names following down from NBN species taxonomic class and the labels returned by Google Cloud Vision API. A potential problem of the BOW approach is that on lower levels of the taxonomy it might not be able to distinguish between species belonging to the same class such as two different types of grass. However, we hypothesise that for diverse species collections such a coarse match-based approach will help improve the coverage of automated image verification methods (recall measure) without affecting their accuracy and precision. Further, we compare the BOW approach against a simple ‘exact match’ approach in which we confirm a match if the tags returned by the Google Cloud Vision API include the species name. This baseline method could be regarded as analogous to (but differing from) that of [16] which also considers the tags generated by an image recognition system. In that case however, the process of identifying whether images are of a particular species consists in filtering out image matches for which the the most frequent generated labels are deemed irrelevant. Further, we expand our analysis by performing evaluation at the genus-level. In this way, we compare three approaches for evaluating large collections of species-related image data within large collections of species, i.e. exact match, class-level match, and genus-level match.

Table 1. Main concepts used to describe the image verification method.

Concept	Description
Flickr Tags	The tags Flickr users have given to the photos they have uploaded on Flickr
Google Cloud Vision API labels	These are the labels returned by the image recognition API for the objects recognized in each Flickr photo. We use the Google Cloud Vision API to verify whether the species on the Flickr photos represent the given species
NBN species names	The list of species names extracted from NBN species classification taxonomy

Open in a new tab

The main steps involved in our image verification approach are illustrated in Fig 2. The methodology consists of the following steps: First, for each Flickr image, we download all species names from NBN following down from the species taxonomic class (for class-level match) or genus (for genus-level match). We perform image verification using Google Cloud Vision API model and store the labels returned by the model. Then, we apply a coarse match between the NBN species names and the Google Cloud Vision API labels. If there is a match between the labels returned by the image verification model and the NBN species-related names, then the image is considered a correct representation of the species given by the Flickr user.

Google Cloud Vision API is however not trained on wildlife data and thus some of the less well-known species names might not be returned as labels, for instance, 10-spot Ladybird (Adalia decempunctata) and 22-spot Ladybird (Psyllobora vigintiduopunctata). Also, species belonging to the same class (e.g. ‘cuckoo’ and ‘sparrowhawk’) might have very similar visual appearance and thus the Google Cloud Vision API cannot be assumed to distinguish between the two species. Therefore, using exact matching between species names and Google labels will lead to a high number of false negatives.

An example of a Google Cloud Vision API result for a single photo correctly tagged on Flickr as Adder, gives the following categories: Reptile (98%), Snake (98%), Scaled reptile (93%), Viper (91%), Serpent (89%), Terrestrial Animal (87%), Rattle Snake (84%), Sidewinder (70%), Adaptation (67%), Colubridae (65%), Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (56%), Elapidae (53%). The higher the score, the more confident the assignment of the category is for the given image, where the score is given in brackets next to the tags.

The photo labels returned by Google Cloud Vision API can be organised as a taxonomy that matches the species taxonomy returned by NBN.

Fig 3 displays the NBN classification for Adder and the labels returned by Google Cloud Vision API for this photo. We use the NBN taxonomic classification for the species to choose relevant species names to match the labels returned by Google Cloud Vision API. A BOW approach is adopted where we treat the names in the classification hierarchy for a species as a list of names ignoring the hierarchical and semantic relations between these names. We consider all names in the classification hierarchy following down from class, and we match these terms to the labels given by Google Cloud API. In the example, given in Fig 3, the use of the classification finds an exact match between the species name ‘Viper’ (an alternative name for ‘Adder’) and the Google Cloud Vision API term Viper. Using exact matching on the Flickr label of Adder would not have found any match, resulting in a false negative for this observation. Another example is for species Phleum pratense (Timothy Grass), which is from class Magnoliopsida and family Poacae (Grass). Google Cloud Vision API returns for images with this species the label ‘grass’, rather than ‘timothy grass’ and thus coarse match would be successful in this case.

Note that we use both scientific and common names for matching, as both can occur within the NBN derived taxonomy and the labels returned by the Google Cloud Vision API. We performed manual verification of the Google results for 50 randomly selected species where we randomly select 40 images per species. We used these 2000 images to evaluate the performance of our image verification method.

Data analysis

The data analyses are based on two case studies: the 1500 most frequently recorded species on NBN and the invasive species in the UK that appear in both data collections. Spatial comparison between the NBN and Flickr datasets was performed using spatial grid modelling, in which geographic space is divided into regular grid cells. The cells were classified according to whether they contained observations from one or other or both of the two sources. The classification was further refined according to time windows to support both a spatial and a temporal analysis. By varying grid cell sizes, and cell aggregation (i.e. one by one vs three by three), as well as the time window, we performed a number of scale-variant spatio-temporal analyses.

There were two main methods of performing spatial analysis:

One by one cell comparison: We compare Flickr and NBN species occurrence data per 10km, 20km, and 40km grid square. We calculate a confusion matrix, which is used to describe the performance of a classifier on a test data set for which the true values are known, where Flickr is the test data set and NBN the true values. The cells of the confusion matrix are defined as follows:
- ‘True Positive’ (TP): a cell has both NBN and Flickr data points for the species
- ‘True Negative’ (TN): a cell does not have occurrences from either of the sources
- ‘False Negative’ (FN): a cell has no Flickr data for the species, but it does have NBN data for the species
- ‘False Positive’ (FP): a cell has Flickr data for the species but no NBN data
Three by three cell comparison: We compare Flickr and NBN using a three by three analysis centred on every cell. In this approach, we count a true positive if there is a Flickr posting in a cell and if there are NBN records within either the cell itself or in any of the adjacent eight cells. A false negative would be declared if a set of nine cells had at least one NBN record but no Flickr record. A false positive indicates if there is a Flickr posting in a cell, but there are no NBN records within either the cell itself or in any of the adjacent eight cells. A ‘True Negative’ would be no Flickr postings and no NBN records in any of the nine cells.

Based on the measures above we compute precision, recall, and F1-measure. Recall is calculated by dividing the number of True Positives by the True Positives plus the False Negatives ( $\frac{T P}{T P + F N}$ ). Thus if there were 10 cells containing NBN data, and for each of them Flickr data were also present, then the recall would be 100% or 1.0.

Precision is calculated by dividing the number of True Positives by the False Positives plus the True Positives ( $\frac{T P}{T P + F P}$ ). In the previous example if, in addition to the 10 cells containing both NBN and Flickr data, there were a further 5 cells that contained Flickr data but no NBN data, then the precision would be 66% or 0.66.

F1 Score is calculated using recall and precision. It is used because precision and recall alone are not an accurate representation of one data set’s superiority over another, as one could have better precision and the other a better recall. The F1 Score provides a harmonic mean that gives a clearer view of a dataset’s accuracy when compared with ground truth. It is computed as double the product of precision and recall divided by the sum of precision and recall( $\frac{2 * p r e c i s i o n * r e c a l l}{p r e c i s i o n + r e c a l l}$ ).

We look at temporal accuracy of Flickr on seasonal (3 months), half yearly (6 months) and yearly patterns (12 months). The seasonal (3 month window) and half-yearly patterns (6 month window) aim to reveal movement patterns affected by climate and environmental changes typical for the different seasons and times of the year. This allows us to identify seasonal patterns that are usually unaffected by yearly changes such as seasonal migrations. For these purposes, we ignore the year for the seasonal and half yearly analysis and instead we perform calculations across all years.

The total period for the temporal analysis is between 2004–2018 (2004 is the year in which Flickr was launched and 2018 is the year when we finalised the Flickr collection process). For the seasonal analysis (3 months) we consider time windows reflecting the four seasons with no overlaps between the months (spring (March, April, May), summer (June, July, August), autumn (September, October, November) and winter (December, January, February)). The half yearly analysis are performed considering two windows, one ranging from September to February and the other encompassing the warmer seasons from March to August.

Ethics statement

The use of the datasets was done in compliance to the National Biodiversity Network and Flickr Terms and Conditions and PLOS ONE requirements for this type of study.

Results and discussion

Statistical analysis

NBN and Flickr datasets comparison

Across the 1500 most numerous species on NBN Atlas, 90% were found on Flickr and 100% of species in the Flickr dataset were found on NBN Atlas. The NBN Atlas records, as expected, far outnumber those on Flickr, being 93,656,179 and 791,059 respectively. It is worth noting that NBN data used here covers the entire collection period; 1800-2018 while Flickr data covers only 2004-2018. It was found that 35% of the species counted on Flickr have more than 100 occurrences. Table 2 lists the top 10 most frequently recorded species on Flickr (mostly with more than 10000 occurrences).

Table 2. The top 10 species on Flickr with the highest number of records.

Scientific name	Common name	Flickr count	NBN count
Hyacinthoides non-scripta	Bluebell	20,940	54,893
Bellis perennis	Daisy	20,656	28,748
Erithacus rubecula	Continental Robin	19,248	3,938,616
Morus bassanus	Gannet	17985	14252
Fagus sylvatica	Beech	15,842	24,973
Hedera helix	Ivy	14,474	27,211
Anas platyrhynchos	Mallard	13,500	834,039
Taraxacum officinale agg.	Dandelion	13,443	27,269
Pteridium aquilinum	Bracken	12,708	30,741
Phleum pratense	Timothy Grass	9,000	11,903

Open in a new tab

The best represented species on Flickr (see Table 2, can be split into three main categories: pretty, ie. photogenic, flowers (Bluebell, Daisy, Dandelion), sessile green plant species (Ivy, Beech, Bracken) and garden and aquatic birds, which are also diurnal (Continental Robin, Mallard). Notably all are easily accessible. These same patterns were mirrored at the class level with the highest number of returns for Flickr being Magnoliopsida, a class of flowering plants, and the second highest was Aves. These results also support findings presented in [11] where results showed that Flickr is rich in plant-related data mainly dominated by non-native flowering plants. However, that research focused only on plants and does not perform comparison between Flickr and citizen science data portals. Phleum pratense (Timothy Grass) as a well documented species in Flickr is an interesting observation as, compared to the other commonly observed species (see Table 2), it is not a well known species that is readily identified, suggesting that it was incidental in many images and Flickr may be good at picking up species that appear as a background in a photo. Another example of such a species is Hedera helix (Ivy).

NBN and Flickr datasets are similar in the diversity of classes they represent with the ten best represented classes in both collections being the same, with the same three most common classes of Insecta (Insects), Magnoliopsida (plants), and Aves (birds). Both data collections are representing species from a small number of classes. This suggests that the same observer bias in photos also occurs in NBN data collections.

The top 10 species on NBN are garden birds (see Table 3), and they are represented well in the Flickr dataset with occurrences in most cases above a thousand.

Table 3. The top 10 species on NBN with the highest number of records.

Scientific name	Common name	NBN count	Flickr count
Turdus merula	Blackbird	4,609,821	3,234
Cyanistes caeruleus	Blue Tit	4,164,338	3,491
Erithacus rubecula	Continental Robin	3,938,616	19,248
Columba palumbus	Woodpigeon	3,584,436	1,660
Prunella modularis	Dunnock	3,513,651	2,179
Parus major	Great Tit	3,507,350	2,670
Fringilla coelebs	Chaffinch	3,444,776	3,474
Passer domesticus	House Sparrow	3,184,175	2,312
Streptopelia decaocto	Collared Dove	3,094,475	929
Chloris chloris	Greenfinch	2,900,214	2,030

Open in a new tab

NBN and Flickr datasets comparison for invasive species in the UK

There are 82 invasive species for UK that also have occurrence records on NBN. The total count of records of invasive species on NBN is 1,485,744. The total number of Flickr posts for the invasive species that are also recorded on NBN is 27,187. The number of species with occurrences above 100 for both NBN and Flickr data collections is 19 (of 82), which is 23% of the number of invasive species on NBN.

The invasive species with more than 100 occurrences for both NBN and Flickr are diurnal mammals, birds (more than 50%) along with a few “pretty” flower species (see Table 4).

Table 4. Species occurrences for NBN and Flickr for invasive species with number of occurrences above 100.

Scientific name	Common name	NBN species count	Flickr species count
Branta canadensis	Canada Goose	377,111	3,328
Sciurus carolinensis	Grey squirrel	350,113	3,249
Gallinago gallinago	Snipe	325,210	1,619
Oryctolagus cuniculus	Rabbit	96,093	7,994
Alopochen aegyptiacus	Egyptian Goose	31,591	862
Rhododenron ponticum	Rhododendron	30,803	3,489
Branta leucopsis	Barnacle Goose	24,269	289
Aix galericulata	Mandarin Duck	19,693	1,500
Muntiacus reevesi	Reeve’s muntjac	16,428	489
Cygnus atratus	Black Swan	8,761	1,148
Buddleja davidii	Buddleia	5,654	443
Heracleum mantegazzianum	Giant Hogweed	5,348	190
Anser caerulescens	Snow Goose	5,085	177
Anser indicus	Bar-Headed Goose	3475	164
Aix sponsa	Wood Duck	2,688	290
Cervus nippon	Sika Deer	2,442	226
Chrysolophus pictus	Golden Pheasant	1,745	167
Sus scrofa	Wild boar	441	373
Bubo bubo	Eurasian Eagle Owl	395	537

Open in a new tab

The best represented invasive species on Flickr are Branta canadensis (Canada Goose), Scirurus carolinensis (Grey Squirrel), Gallinago gallinago (Snipe), Oryctolagus cuniculus (Rabbit), Rhododenron ponticum (Rhododendron), Aix galericulata (Mandarin Duck), and Cygnus atratus (Black Swan). The species for which NBN and Flickr have a similar number of records are Sus scrofa (Wild boar) and Bubo bubo (Eurasian Eagle Owl).

Flickr data verification

In initial exploratory work, we performed tests with the tags returned by the Google Cloud Vision API. We found that the tags with a score above 60% are more likely to imply the correct species displayed on the photos. The tags with a score lower than 60% usually describe either less relevant objects of the photo, e.g. parts of the background (‘leaf’), characteristics of the animal (‘fawn’), or are names of species that are irrelevant to the photo (‘Diamondback Rattlesnake’ when the species is Adder). Therefore, we used only tags with a score higher than 60%.

In the rest of the section, we evaluate our image verification approach (class level BOW approach) against two other image verification approaches. The first one is a fully automated ‘exact match’ approach, as explained earlier in the section on Flickr Data Validation, where we perform an exact match between the NBN species names associated with a given species and the Flickr posts names. The second approach is a genus level BOW approach where we consider names following down from the genus of the species. Evaluating approaches considering different levels of coarse match (species-level, genus-level, and class -level) allows us to judge which approach is more suitable for evaluating diverse collections of species without affecting the precision.

The average results, presented in Table 5, show that class-level BOW approach outperforms the other two evaluation approaches by a significant margin with F1 = 0.79 versus F1 (baseline) = 0.20 and F1 (BOW (genus level)) = 0.27. Specifically, the class-level BOW method achieves best results, compared to the other approaches, for 45 out of the 50 species. For 14 of these species, the class-level BOW method has equal or slightly lower precision than the other two methods, however the recall is much higher in these cases leading to a better performance overall. For instance, for ‘Passer domesticus (House Sparrow)’, the baseline and BOW (genus level) approach have a higher precision of 1.0 while BOW (class level) has a precision of 0.97, however the recall (0.85) is more than double compared to the recall of the other approaches. This indicates that class-level BOW method is a more suitable for evaluating wider range of species than the other two approaches without significantly affecting the precision.

Table 5. Comparison between class-level and genus-level BOW image verification approaches and the baseline approach, based on exact-match approach.

species	baseline			BOW (genus level)			BOW (class level)
species	p	r	F1	p	r	F1	p	r	F1
Coccinella septempunctata (7-spot Ladybird)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.97	0.95	0.96
Propylea quattuordecimpunctata (14-spot Ladybird)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Vipera berus (Adder)	1.00	0.65	0.79	1.00	0.65	0.79	1.00	0.76	0.87
Tyto alba (Barn Owl)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.89	0.50	0.64
Ophrys apifera (Bee Orchid)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.82	0.90	1.00	0.83	0.90
Erica cinerea (Bell Heather)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Stachys officinalis (Betony)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Solanum dulcamara (Bittersweet)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Turdus merula (Blackbird)	0.96	0.76	0.85	0.95	0.75	0.84	0.91	1.00	0.95
Hygrocybe conica (Blackening Waxcap)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.60	0.75
Cyanistes caeruleus (Blue Tit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.97	0.89	0.93
Hyacinthoides non-scripta (Bluebell)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Buteo buteo (Buzzard)	1.00	0.52	0.68	1.00	0.52	0.68	1.00	0.81	0.89
Corvus corone (Carrion Crow)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.95	0.97
Fringilla coelebs (Chaffinch)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.89	0.95
Periparus ater (Coal Tit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.97	0.92	0.95
Streptopelia decaocto (Collared Dove)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.92	0.92	0.92
Bombus pascuorum (Common Carder Bee)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.75	0.85	1.00	0.87	0.93
Zootoca vivipara (Common Lizard)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.93	0.96
Erithacus rubecula (Continental Robin)	1.00	0.82	0.90	1.00	0.82	0.90	1.00	0.98	0.99
Anthriscus sylvestris (Cow Parsley)	1.00	0.27	0.43	1.00	0.27	0.43	1.00	0.28	0.44
Prunella modularis (Dunnock)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.95	1.00	0.97
Acer campestre (Field Maple)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Carduelis carduelis (Goldfinch)	1.00	0.27	0.43	1.00	0.27	0.43	0.92	0.92	0.92
Dendrocopos major (Great Spotted Woodpecker)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.97	0.99
Parus major(Great Tit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.97	0.97	0.97
Chloris chloris (Greenfinch)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.95	1.00	0.97
Passer domesticus (House Sparrow)	1.00	0.35	0.52	1.00	0.43	0.60	0.97	0.85	0.90
Corvus monedula (Jackdaw)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.94	0.97
Pyrrhosoma nymphula (Large Red Damselfly)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.95	0.97
Aegithalos caudatus (Long-Tailed Tit)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.95	0.97
Pica pica (Magpie)	1.00	0.44	0.61	1.00	0.44	0.61	0.88	0.85	0.87
Phoxinus phoxinus (Minnow)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Lutra lutra (Otter)	1.00	0.84	0.91	1.00	0.84	0.91	0.97	0.90	0.93
Boloria euphrosyne (Pearl Bordered Fritillary)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Alca torda (Razorbill)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.93	0.76	0.84
Riparia riparia (Sand Martin)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.88	0.69	0.78
Argynnis paphia (Silver-Washed Fritillary)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
Turdus philomelos (Song Thrush)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.02	0.05	0.94	0.94	0.94
Sturnus vulgaris (Starling)	1.00	0.08	0.15	1.00	0.08	0.15	0.97	0.86	0.91
Passer montanus (Tree Sparrow)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.96	0.71	0.82	0.97	0.92	0.95
Bombus lucorum (White-Tailed Bumble Bee)	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.79	0.88	1.00	0.89	0.95
Columba palumbus (Woodpigeon)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.90	0.91	0.94
Troglodytes troglodytes (Wren)	1.00	0.78	0.88	1.00	0.78	0.88	1.00	0.95	0.97
Hedera helix (Ivy)	1.00	0.18	0.31	1.00	0.18	0.31	1.00	0.18	0.31
Sciurus carolinensis (Grey Squirrel)	1.00	0.81	0.89	1.00	0.83	0.91	1.00	0.92	0.96
Amanita rubescens (Blusher)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.94	0.97
Cygnus atratus (Black Swan)	1.00	0.77	0.87	0.96	0.84	0.89	0.90	0.90	0.90
Morus bassanus (Gannet)	1.00	0.69	0.82	1.00	0.69	0.82	0.97	0.94	0.95
Branta leucopsis (Barnacle Goose)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
AVERAGE	0.29	0.16	0.20	0.39	0.23	0.27	0.86	0.76	0.79

Open in a new tab

It should be noted however that the presence of some species for which none of the approaches was successful, i.e., ‘Erica cinerea (Bell Heather)’, ‘Stachys officinalis (Betony)’, ‘Solanum dulcamara (Bittersweet)’, ‘Hyacinthoides non-scripta (Bluebell)’, and ‘Acer campestre (Field Maple)’, shows that there are species for which the BOW approach is unsuitable. Thus other methods need to be considered that might include species characteristics (color, shape), attributes (feather, beak, etc.). It might also be a reflection of the lack of effectiveness of the image classifier.

The most common causes of false positives for BOW are photos that include an artificial representation of a species, such as a boat with a figure of a goose (Fig 4), and hence do not represent a living species. Common cases of false negatives for BOW are photos which include the species but the focus of display is another object. In the example given in Fig 4, the main object in the photo is a building, and thus Google Cloud Vision API returns labels associated with the building and the characteristics of the building, rather than the plant (i.e. Hedera helix (Ivy)). Similar issues were highlighted for example in [11, 16].

Spatial and temporal analysis

The top 1500 species on NBN

The average precision and recall across all species for each type of spatial and temporal constraint for one by one grid cell analysis is 0.38 (38%) for precision and 0.2 (20%) for recall. The recall score shows that on average 20% of all NBN data was also reflected by the Flickr data. The precision score shows that on average 38% of the Flickr cell-based identifications of a species were also reflected in the NBN data Fig 5.

Fig 5 — In the figure ‘no constraints’ refers to the analyses performed with no temporal constraints.

The average precision and recall across all species for each type of spatial and temporal constraint for three by three analysis is 0.6 (60%) for precision and 0.1 (10%) for recall (see Fig 5). In comparison to one by one analysis, the average precision for three by three analysis is higher ranging from 0.27 (27%) to 0.78 (78%) for the different cell sizes while recall tends to be lower and does not vary much for the different cell sizes. The number of false negatives is significantly higher for three by three analysis and thus the recall value is lower. The reason for this is can be attributed to the wider range of species recorded within the NBN in comparison to the Flickr records. Further, according to the conditions for three by three analysis comparisons, false negatives occur when a set of nine cells have at least one NBN record in the absence of any Flickr record for the given species. Therefore, for species where the number of NBN records is high and the number of Flickr records is low it is very likely that cells with no Flickr occurrences will be associated with cells containing NBN records (note however that for species that are well represented on Flickr this is less likely to be the case).

The highest precision and recall scores across both types of analysis are achieved for experiments performed with cell size 40km and no temporal constraints. The lowest results are achieved for experiments performed with a time constraint of twelve months which we attribute to lack of data on Flickr.

Precision tends to be higher than recall. This higher precision reflects the fact that most locations with Flickr occurrences also contain NBN occurrences. The low recall indicates that there are many locations with NBN observations but with no Flickr observations, leading as indicated above to false negatives. However, the recall value increases significantly as the cell size increases. The more relaxed spatial restrictions allow for what would otherwise be false negatives to become false positives as Flickr occurrences over a wider region are taken into account. Also, precision increases for bigger cell sizes for the converse reason of taking account of NBN occurrences over a wider region relative to a Flickr observation. This indicates that a grid split, consisting of 40km cells provides a better balance between precision and recall measures and thus can be regarded as more suitable for validating social network observations.

We calculated the best, worst and average F1 performance (see Fig 6), where best and worst were based on the average F1 scores for individual species for a particular cell size, while average F1 performance was across all species for the particular cell size. The average F1 measurement does not exceed 0.5. Best performing species have poorer F1 scores for cell sizes 10km and 20km and F1 score of 0.7 for the analysis performed on cell size 40km. F1-measure on average is higher when the analysis is performed with no temporal constraints. Further, the average F1 scores for the analysis conducted using a 12-month window are the lowest.

The results (see Figs 5 and 6) show that the Flickr dataset best reflects the NBN dataset on a purely spatial analysis with no time constraints. The comparison with a constraint that observations are within 12 months of each other gives the lowest results on all measures.

As indicated above, the overall comparison between the two datasets is notable for the highly unbalanced precision and recall scores. As these scores are averaged across all considered species, we investigated those species with precision and recall both being above 0.5, and we found 134 distinct such species. We found the average F1 score for the top 10 of these species with a 40km grid size to be 0.68 (see Table 6). As before the best results were obtained with no temporal constraints, though with a couple of exceptions for a 6 month temporal window. The best represented species on Flickr in comparison to NBN as represented in Table 6 are, with one exception, birds, most but not all of which are diurnal.

Table 6. The top ten results with the highest f1-measure across all species.

Species name	Analysis type	Cell size	Precision	Recall	F1-measure
Thymelicus sylvestris (Small Skipper)	no constraints	40	0.64	0.77	0.70
Strix aluco (Tawny Owl)	no constraints	40	0.65	0.76	0.70
Sitta europaea (Nuthatch)	no constraints	40	0.6	0.82	0.69
Primula veris (Cowslip)	no constraints	40	0.61	0.79	0.69
Aegithalos caudatus (Long-Tailed Tit)	no constraints	40	0.56	0.88	0.68
Botaurus stellaris (Bittern)	no constraints	40	0.61	0.76	0.68
Libellula depressa (Broad-Bodied Chaser)	no constraints	40	0.63	0.73	0.68
Sitta europaea (Nuthatch)	6 months	40	0.62	0.74	0.68
Aegithalos caudatus (Long-Tailed Tit)	6 months	40	0.59	0.78	0.67
Certhia familiaris (Treecreeper)	no constraints	40	0.56	0.83	0.67

Open in a new tab

Invasive species for UK

The average results for the invasive species demonstrate the same spatial and temporal patterns as the average results for the top 1500 species, presented in the previous section, i.e. best performance is for spatial analysis performed with 40 km grid cell size with no time constraints (Figs 7 and 8).

Fig 7 — ’no constraints’ refers to analyses performed with no temporal constraints.

The average precision and recall across all species for each type of spatial and temporal constraint for one by one analysis is 0.4 (40%) for precision and 0.2 (20%) for recall (see Fig 7). The average precision and recall across all species for each type of spatial and temporal constraint for three by three analysis is 0.6 (60%) for precision and 0.1 (1%) for recall (see Fig 7).

The best represented invasive species on Flickr in comparison to NBN, with precision and recall both being above 0.5, are given in Table 7. Results are promising for these species as the F1-measure is on average 61.2%, specifically for representing spatial patterns on 40km cell size with no time constraints (see Table 7). There are six distinct species with the best performance among the invasive species (note that in Table 7 some species have multiple rows with different conditions of analysis). The species—Branta canadensis (Canada Goose) and Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel) appear across the multiple categories of no temporal constraints, three months constraints and six months constraints. They are the best performing species in terms of having both precision and recall above 0.5 for multiple spatial and temporal restrictions and are the only species which have both precision and recall above 0.5 for cell size 20km. The best performance in terms of highest precision and highest F1 measure has been achieved for Bubo bubo (Eurasian Eagle Owl) with F1 = 0.71 and precision = 0.64 (with recall 0.79) based on a 40km cell size with no temporal constraints.

Table 7. Results for the invasive species where precision and recall are both above 0.5.

Species name	Analysis type	Cell size	Precision	Recall	F1-measure
Branta canadensis (Canada Goose)	no constraints	40km	0.55	0.80	0.65
Branta canadensis (Canada Goose)	no constraints	20km	0.55	0.53	0.54
Cygnus atratus (Black Swan)	no constraints	40km	0.59	0.79	0.68
Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel)	no constraints	20km	0.57	0.58	0.58
Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel)	no constraints	40km	0.59	0.80	0.68
Buddleja davidii (Buddleia)	no constraints	40km	0.51	0.51	0.51
Bubo bubo (Eurasian Eagle Owl)	no constraints	40km	0.64	0.79	0.71
Aix galericulata (Mandarin Duck)	no constraints	40km	0.51	0.60	0.55
Cygnus atratus (Black Swan)	3 months	40km	0.55	0.54	0.55
Branta canadensis (Canada Goose)	3 months	40km	0.62	0.62	0.62
Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel)	3 months	40km	0.59	0.63	0.62
Cygnus atratus (Black Swan)	6 months	40km	0.59	0.71	0.65
Branta canadensis (Canada Goose)	6 months	40km	0.59	0.69	0.64
Sciurus carolinensis (Grey squirrel)	6 months	40km	0.60	0.73	0.66
Bubo bubo (Eurasian Eagle Owl)	6 months	40km	0.55	0.75	0.64
Aix galericulata (Mandarin Duck)	6 months	40km	0.54	0.50	0.52

Open in a new tab

These results indicate that Flickr is a suitable platform for monitoring some types of invasive species for UK. Previous research on citizen science-based platforms for detecting invasive species has focused on invasive species mainly for US or Europe, rather than specifically the UK. Research by [28] showed that iNaturalist and eBird can be suitable for detecting early occurrences of invasive species. However, automatic extraction and analysis of this data as well as the need for organising volunteers are still remaining problems associated with the use of active citizen science approaches for detecting invasive species. Further, research on performing large-scale experiments on automatic approaches for identifying species from imagery data collected from citizen science portals revealed that automated species classification performs similarly and sometimes even better than manual annotations performed by citizen scientists [24, 25, 29]. In particular the authors of [24] presented a study encompassing 10,000 plant species while the authors of [25] performed a study for more than 5,000 categories of plants, animals, and fungi. These automated methods might in future facilitate better species identification on Flickr as well as other image resources.

Of the top 1500 most numerous species on NBN 90% were also found on Flickr, confirming that social media data can represent a wide range of species. A comparison between the two data collections on the diversity of species shows that NBN and Flickr datasets are similar on the class of species they represent. The best represented classes in both collections are the same with the top three being Insecta (Insects), Magnoliopsida (Plant class) and Aves (birds). Flickr has a good representation of flowering plants and garden and seabirds. Many Flickr uploads represent species that look attractive on photos and are easier to capture (i.e. they are diurnal, and/or are sessile) as well as being relatively common species.

Our image verification approach proved to work well on a large collection of species. The approach by [16] of exact match between the Google tags and species names may work for a small collection of well-known species for which the Google species labels tend to be more reliable, but not for a more extensive collection, including less well-known species, for which the Google label is liable to be more generic (i.e. providing the class or genus rather than the actual species name). In our approach, we use the taxonomy structure of the species to select relevant tags. Thus we verify images as genuine wildlife by matching the provided Flickr species name against the Google-provided class or the genus of the image content and all the tags lower down the classification hierarchy.

The spatial and temporal analyses for both case studies show that the Flickr dataset reflects the NBN dataset patterns best for experiments performed with cell size 40 km with no temporal constraints. The poorer results from the analysis performed with temporal constraints suggest that the Flickr dataset does not represent the temporal patterns for the species on NBN well. This is especially true for the yearly comparison between the two datasets (i.e. 12 month window).

The results of the precision calculations showed that there are 93 species for which precision is higher than 60%, for cell sizes 20km and 40km. This observation suggests that Flickr posts do present a potentially useful source of wildlife observations. However, the low recall value indicates that the Flickr data collection is less able to represent the full range of wildlife species in comparison to NBN. This is emphasised in the three by three analysis that gives the highest precision values, but provides the poorest recall. It should be remarked here that our scores for precision depend upon the quality of the NBN ground-truth data, which contains datasets collected through citizen science campaigns by non-professionals (as discussed in the Introduction). Therefore, it is quite possible that some of the Flickr observations classed here as false positive could actually be correct due to the absence of existing citizen science observations at the respective location. This suggests that social media data could be used to expand the range of species and locations observed where citizen science-related campaigns lack observations. Therefore, further studies on the ‘false positive’ results from Flickr in our analysis that evaluates against the NBN data, can be quite beneficial for revealing further whether social media data can be used to extend the range of species observed and facilitate more accurate analyses, such as into their migration patterns.

This problem leads to our next step, which is to conduct a similar larger scale study of the potential (beyond the relatively limited studies conducted to date) of other social networks such as Twitter to determine whether they can also supplement traditional biodiversity data sources. Collecting social network data on a larger scale is a challenging task because most of the networks have restrictions on data access with thresholds on the amount of data that can be downloaded. A solution to this might be to look at how data from multiple social network sources can be combined for extracting wildlife data. It is also a strong motivation to apply and if possible improve upon methods for geocoding the many accessible social media posts that do not have GPS coordinates [30].

There is also scope to improve our image-verification method by looking for example at using a combination of inclusive and exclusive tags (i.e. tags used to consider a photo irrelevant) and through the development of more sophisticated computer vision methods for automated identification of individual species. We will also investigate methods of automatic verification that a social media posting is a genuine wildlife observation.

Conclusions

This paper presented a large scale study exploring the potential of social media data to supplement citizen science datasets. In particular, we evaluated species distributions on Flickr relative to those submitted to the largest citizen science portal for the UK, the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas. Our study included the 1500 best represented species on NBN, and common invasive species within UK. We performed three types of analysis comparing the statistical, spatial, and temporal distribution of species on Flickr compared to NBN. Additionally, we presented a fully automated image verification method for identifying genuine species observations on Flickr, suitable for verifying large and diverse collections of species. The approach is based on the Google Cloud Vision API in combination with species taxonomic data to determine the likelihood that a mention of a species on Flickr represents a given species. This research showed that social network related data could offer a rich source of observation data for certain taxonomic groups, and/or as a repository for dedicated projects. In particular, spatial and temporal analysis suggest that the Flickr dataset best reflects the NBN dataset when considering a purely spatial distribution with no time constraints. The best represented species on Flickr in comparison to NBN are diurnal garden birds, as around 70% of the Flickr posts for them are valid observations relative to the NBN. In future, we plan to expand the study involving more social network sites, such as Twitter, and other citizen science portals. Additionally, we will consider improving the image verification approach by taking account of tags that might characterise individual species and hence indicate if photos are relevant to those species.

Data Availability

All data files are available from the zenodo database (access from URL: https://zenodo.org/record/4527403#.YCL8Oi2l06g).

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Amano T, Lamming JD, Sutherland WJ. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience. 2016;66(5):393–400. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Barve V. Discovering and developing primary biodiversity data from social networking sites: A novel approach. Ecological Informatics. 2014;24:194–199. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2009;24(9):467–471. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Cohn JP. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience. 2008;58(3):192–197. doi: 10.1641/B580303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Brown ED, Williams BK. The potential for citizen science to produce reliable and useful information in ecology. Conservation Biology. 2019;33(3):561–569. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Guerrini CJ, Majumder MA, Lewellyn MJ, McGuire AL. Citizen science, public policy. Science. 2018;361(6398):134–136. doi: 10.1126/science.aar8379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Adler FR, Green AM, Şekercioğlu ÇH. Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2020;1469(1):52–64. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Aristeidou M, Herodotou C, Ballard HL, Young AN, Miller AE, Higgins L, et al. Exploring the participation of young citizen scientists in scientific research: The case of iNaturalist. Plos one. 2021;16(1):e0245682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Daume S. Mining Twitter to monitor invasive alien species—An analytical framework and sample information topologies. Ecological Informatics. 2016;31:70–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.11.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Di Minin E, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2015;3:63. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.August TA, Pescott OL, Joly A, Bonnet P. AI Naturalists Might Hold the Key to Unlocking Biodiversity Data in Social Media Imagery. Patterns. 2020;1(7):100116. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2020.100116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Ghermandi A, Sinclair M. Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: A systematic map. Global environmental change. 2019;55:36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Antoniou V, Fonte C, See L, Estima J, Arsanjani J, Lupia F, et al. Investigating the feasibility of geo-tagged photographs as sources of land cover input data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2016;5(5):64. doi: 10.3390/ijgi5050064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Soliman A, Soltani K, Yin J, Padmanabhan A, Wang S. Social sensing of urban land use based on analysis of Twitter users’ mobility patterns. PlOS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Daume S, Albert M, von Gadow K. Forest monitoring and social media–Complementary data sources for ecosystem surveillance? Forest Ecology and Management. 2014;316:9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.ElQadi MM, Dorin A, Dyer A, Burd M, Bukovac Z, Shrestha M. Mapping species distributions with social media geo-tagged images: Case studies of bees and flowering plants in Australia. Ecological informatics. 2017;39:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Kent JD, Capello HT Jr. Spatial patterns and demographic indicators of effective social media content during the Horsethief Canyon fire of 2012. Cartography and Geographic Information Science. 2013;40(2):78–89. doi: 10.1080/15230406.2013.776727 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Palomino M, Taylor T, Göker A, Isaacs J, Warber S. The online dissemination of nature–health concepts: Lessons from sentiment analysis of social media relating to “nature-deficit disorder”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016;13(1):142. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13010142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Sui D, Goodchild M. The convergence of GIS and social media: challenges for GIScience. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2011;25(11):1737–1748. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2011.604636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Davis A, Major RE, Taylor CE, Martin JM. Novel tracking and reporting methods for studying large birds in urban landscapes. Wildlife Biology. 2017;2017(4). [Google Scholar]
21.Fritz S, McCallum I, Schill C, Perger C, See L, Schepaschenko D, et al. Geo-Wiki: An online platform for improving global land cover. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2012;31:110–123. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Lowry CS, Fienen MN. CrowdHydrology: crowdsourcing hydrologic data and engaging citizen scientists. GroundWater. 2013;51(1):151–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00956.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Jarić I, Correia RA, Brook BW, Buettel JC, Courchamp F, Di Minin E, et al. iEcology: harnessing large online resources to generate ecological insights. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2020;35(7):630–639. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Goëau H, Bonnet P, Joly A. Overview of ExpertLifeCLEF 2018: how far automated identification systems are from the best experts? In: CLEF-Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum. 2125; 2018.
25.Van Horn G, Mac Aodha O, Song Y, Cui Y, Sun C, Shepard A, et al. The iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2018. p. 8769–8778.
26.Leivesley JA, Stewart RA, Paterson V, McCafferty DJ. Potential importance of urban areas for water voles: Arvicola amphibius. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2021;67(1):1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10344-021-01467-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Blight AJ, Allcock AL, Maggs CA, Johnson MP. Intertidal molluscan and algal species richness around the UK coast. Marine ecology progress series. 2009;396:235–243. doi: 10.3354/meps08379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Larson ER, Graham BM, Achury R, Coon JJ, Daniels MK, Gambrell DK, et al. From eDNA to citizen science: emerging tools for the early detection of invasive species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2020;18(4):194–202. doi: 10.1002/fee.2162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
29.Bonnet P, Goëau H, Hang ST, Lasseck M, Šulc M, Malécot V, et al. Plant identification: experts vs. machines in the era of deep learning. In: Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics. Springer; 2018. p. 131–149. [Google Scholar]
30.Stock K. Mining location from social media: A systematic review. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2018;71:209–240. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255416.r001

Decision Letter 0

Daniel de Paiva Silva

7 Apr 2021

PONE-D-21-05380

Passive citizen science: the role of social media in wildlife observations

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Edwards,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by July 3rd 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods, please provide a statement indicating that the use of this dataset was done in compliance to the National Biodiversity Network and Flickr Terms and Conditions and our requirements for this type of study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-personal-data-from-third-party-sources).

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Edwards et al.,

Greetings! After the evaluation by two independent reviewers, both of them found that your manuscript has great publication chances. Still, improvements are always required. Please take a closer look on what both reviewers indicated about your manuscript, and arrange the necessary improvements they asked. By the time you are required to resubmit a new version of your text, please do not forget to prepare a rebuttal letter indicating all the changes you did and justifying all of those you did not.

Considering the pandemic scenario, a three-months period (resubmission due on July 3rd 2021)may be enough for you to prepare all the changes. If not, please let me know how could we arrange a better schedule for you. In case you are able to resubmit earlier then the provided due, do not hesitate to do it.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the manuscript “Passive citizen science: the role of social media in wildlife observations”, the authors assess the usefulness of social media data (images on Flickr) for providing species occurrence data. To do this, they extract geolocation and temporal information from Flickr photos and, treating this as a species occurrence record, compares this to records on the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas. They use Google Cloud Vision API and species’ taxonomic classifications to verify the species tagged in the Flickr images. After evaluating 1500 UK species, as well as numerous invasive species, they found that the Flickr data best represents the NBN data when considered over large scales (40km grids) without temporal constraints. The authors conclude that Flickr can potentially provide useful data on species’ distributions, especially when combined with existing biodiversity data.

Overall, the manuscript is succinct and well written, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. The topic of the study is interesting and timely. Traditional citizen science has gained traction in recent years as a reliable and efficient means of gathering wildlife data. Therefore, it seems only fitting to explore this further by evaluating the potential contributions of ‘passive citizen science’ and specifically social media.

The authors provide a good overview of the current state of the literature and identifies a clear research gap. In general, I found the methods to be appropriate and relatively clear, but some sections would benefit from further clarification (please see specific comments below). Likewise, I found the discussion to be sound based on the presented results (which were generally clear but inconsistent in some areas; see comments below). However, most, if not all, citizen science datasets are subject to questions surrounding data quality and the Flickr data is no exception. In this case, I think that there are some caveats to the analyses that need to be addressed.

INTRODUCTION:

Lines 78-83: The authors refer to a paper by ElQadi et al. (2017), describing the methods in this paper as “exact matching between species names … and the labels (tags) returned by Google’s Reserve Image Search”. They state that this can lead to “false negatives where the Google API provides only a more general label or another name for the species”. While I concur that an “exact matching” method would result in false negatives, I do not completely agree with the authors’ interpretation of ElQadi et al.’s methods.

ElQadi et al. searched for images on Flickr using species’ scientific and common names. These images were then given a text tag using Google Reverse Image Search. They used tag frequency to filter out irrelevant images, such that tags with low frequency (regardless of their relevance) were excluded. Consequently, images with relevant tags, including tags of the species’ scientific or common names, were sometimes nonetheless excluded if the tags were infrequent (see paragraph 2 of their discussion). Yes, ElQadi et al.’s method still results in false negatives, but it is not due to “exact matching” between species names and Google’s tags. “Exact matching” implies that an image was deemed relevant (and thus included after the filtering step) only if the Google tags exactly matched the species names, which was not the case. For example, in ElQadi et al.’s study, Flickr images of the Blue banded bee (Amegilla cingulata) that were tagged by Google as “Amegilla cingulata” and “blue banded bee” were nevertheless excluded after their filtering step because of the relative infrequency of these tags. In other words, false negatives occurred even when Google API tagged the exact species name. Furthermore, photos of blue banded bees that were given frequent general tags, such as “insect” and “bee”, were included after the filtering step. Thus, false negatives do not always occur when general labels are provided. The authors’ description should therefore be clarified. Further mentions of the “exact-match” method in relation to ElQadi et al.’s paper (Lines 278 and 393) should also be clarified.

METHODS:

Line 135: To conduct their temporal analyses, the authors downloaded date information (the date that the image was uploaded) from each Flickr image. However, I expect some images would have been uploaded some time (potentially a long time) after being taken. Is there any way of knowing when the photo was actually taken, as opposed to uploaded? This information might not be readily available, but if there are frequent discrepancies between when photos were taken and when they were uploaded, it is difficult to have confidence in the results of the temporal analyses (seasonal, half yearly, and yearly patterns). If this information is not available, the authors should at least address how this might have affected the results of the temporal analyses.

Lines 171-174: This is a fair statement, but I am wondering what happens if the Flickr image features another species of grass that has been incorrectly tagged on Flickr as Timothy grass? Would the coarse match still be successful in this case? If so, how often might this occur and how might this impact the results? While I think the authors’ image verification technique goes some way in improving previous methods, it appears that the reliability of Flickr-derived species occurrence data still depends significantly on the ability of the Flickr users (i.e., the ‘passive citizen scientists’) to correctly assign species name tags to Flickr images. The authors should discuss this if this is the case.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Lines 277-279: What were the 10 species and how were these chosen? I think it would be ideal to choose the species randomly, but either way, a justification should be provided. My concern is that the image verification approach may perform better for certain species or taxonomic groups than others. Given this, I think it would be best to evaluate the performance of the verification technique using the full range of species available in the dataset.

General comment: The authors did a good job addressing the key points in this section. I would have liked some more discussion around why the authors thought that constraining the analyses to a 12-month window led to poorer results than a 3 or a 6-month window. On Lines 323-325, the authors attribute the poor results in the 12-month analyses to a “lack of data on Flickr”. Intuitively, should this phenomenon (i.e., the lack of data) not be even more pronounced when constraining the analyses to an even shorter time frame (i.e., 3 months and 6 months)?

FIGURES:

Overall, the figures were relevant and suitable for the data. I particularly appreciate the inclusion of Figure 1. The flow chart and the matching sub-headings in the methods were helpful.

MINOR ISSUES:

Lines 33-34: The authors state that “geotags given to photos on social media sites … are assigned automatically by GPS location systems”. Whilst this may be true of photos taken on a location enabled device, there would be cases where automatic geotags are not available (e.g., on a device without a GPS system), or where the geotags are low in accuracy. Does Flickr allow users to manually add or edit location data? If so, I think this needs to be stated, either here or in the methods.

Line 126: What is meant by “exact search”? It would also be good to get an idea of how many records included irrelevant species in any given search.

Line 136: It would be helpful to add more detail about the Flickr tags. Are they manually entered by the user/uploader, or are they automatically assigned by the computer, or both? How many tags are allowed? The authors did an excellent job of explaining the Google Cloud Vision API tags (lines 151-157), so something like this, explaining the Flickr tags and clearly distinguishing them from the Google API tags, would be great. I initially had some difficulty following the authors’ methods in relation to which tag they were referring to (i.e., the Flickr tags or the Google API tags).

Line 169: The authors write, “Using the exact matching on the Flickr label of Adder would not have found any match”. This is unclear to me. Why would the Flickr label “Adder” not have found an exact match when “Adder” is indeed one of the species’ common names in the NBN taxonomic classification (Figure 2)? Is it because Google API does not label the image of the adder as “Adder”? Please clarify.

Lines 177-178: “… for a 100 randomly selected instances”. Either a word is missing here, or the “a” should be removed.

Lines 229-230: “… and a 100% of species”. Either a word is missing here, or the “a” should be removed.

Lines 263-266: This sentence would be clearer if these species were listed in order based on their Flickr species count, starting with the best represented species.

Lines 278-279: “… for a 1000 randomly selected instances”. Either a word is missing here, or the “a” should be removed.

Line 307: Rather than writing “correct”, I suggest simply stating that 38% of the Flickr data were also reflected in the NBN data. These mean slightly different things as an absence of NBN data from a location (in the presence of Flickr data) does not necessarily mean that the Flickr identifications were incorrect. Rather, the species may have just never been recorded there previously (which the authors note on Lines 415-416). In fact, these “false positives” could actually be interesting datapoints as potential range expansions, especially given invasive species are a substantial focus of this manuscript.

Line 331: Did the authors mean to write “true positives” rather than “false positives”? False positives were not used to calculate recall.

Line 372: The authors mentioned seven distinct species but presented only six in the table. Please clarify.

Line 407: It would be good to provide a number or percentage here alongside the claim of “a large number”.

Table 1: I think there is a missing row here. The table legend (and Line 234) refers to the “top 10” most frequently recorded species on Flickr, but only 9 species are shown in the table.

Tables 1 & 2: Please check the Flickr count number for Erithacus rubecula (Continental Robin). The count is given as 19,248 in Table 1 but 2,786 in Table 2. Meanwhile, the NBN count is the same in both tables. If this is not an error, please provide an explanation as to why these differ.

Table 3: The table legend states, “Species occurrences … with number of species above 100”. Did the authors mean to write, “with number of occurrences above 100”?

Figures 4-7: I suggest making the left and right panels/graphs the same width, especially in Figures 4 and 6, so that the gradients of the lines can be compared.

Reviewer #2: This paper has the aim to put into value the big amount of biodiversity data hidden in social media. Specifically, they put to the test the photo base on Flickr. Flickr data were evaluated relative to the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas, the largest collection of species distribution data in the UK. They used an innovative image verification technique that uses the Google Cloud Vision API in combination with species taxonomic data to determine the likelihood that a mention of a species on Flickr represents a given species. Authors found that data are useful for representing some common and diurnal species on a space scale but not on a temporal scale. This work is an interesting and useful contribution to better understanding the value of biodiversity data from social media to contribute to science. However, there are some recommendations to get this article improved for publication.

Introduction

First, I recommend better explain the relation of this manuscript in the context of citizen science on introduction. The definition of citizen science still an open discussion today and this concept of “passive citizen science” could be controversial. I propose to better definition of passive citizen science immerses in a framework of citizen science definition.

Material and Methods

I consider the material and methods are ok. However, I recommend better explain how the NBN database is performed. Where data came from?

Results and discussion

Results are generally well explained and represented. But I consider some parts of the results are weakly discussed and more scientific references would be welcome. You could discuss also the potential of this data, for example comparing it with other more active citizen science methods based on submitted photographs (e.a, iNaturalist).

More specific comments:

Line 3: Please check the references on the whole text. Is this the correct format for the journal?

Lines 54-56: Please, better explain how the NBN database was made.

Line 62: Please, abbreviate “National Biodiversity Network Atlas”

Lines 371-376: Discuss these results. The occurrence of common species in citizen science data is registered in some articles you could refer to.

Lines 413-416: I do not understand this sentence. NBN database is a citizen science database?

Line 416: there is a parenthesis

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maria Isabel Hermoso Beltrán

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Aug 18;16(8):e0255416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255416.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

2 Jul 2021

We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their insightful comments. We have addressed all suggestions in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have responded to the reviewer's comments below.

Reviewer # 1

1) Lines 78-83: The authors refer to a paper by ElQadi et al. (2017), describing the methods in this paper as “exact matching between species names ... and the labels (tags) returned by Google’s Reserve Image Search”. They state that this can lead to “false negatives where the Google API provides only a more general label or another name for the species”. While I concur that an “exact matching” method would result in false negatives, I do not completely agree with the authors’ interpretation of ElQadi et al.’s methods. ElQadi et al. searched for images on Flickr using species’ scientific and common names. These images were then given a text tag using Google Reverse Image Search. They used tag frequency to filter out irrelevant images, such that tags with low frequency (regardless of their relevance) were excluded. Consequently, images with relevant tags, including tags of the species’ scientific or common names, were sometimes nonetheless excluded if the tags were infrequent (see paragraph 2 of their discussion). Yes, ElQadi et al.’s method still results in false negatives, but it is not due to “exact matching” between species names and Google’s tags. “Exact matching” implies that an image was deemed relevant (and thus included after the filtering step) only if the Google tags exactly matched the species names, which was not the case. For example, in ElQadi et al.’s study, Flickr images of the Blue banded bee (Amegilla cingulata) that were tagged by Google as “Amegilla cingulata” and “blue banded bee” were nevertheless excluded after their filtering step because of the relative infrequency of these tags. In other words, false negatives occurred even when Google API tagged the exact species name. Furthermore, photos of blue banded bees that were given frequent general tags, such as “insect” and “bee”, were included after the filtering step. Thus, false negatives do not always occur when general labels are provided. The authors’ description should therefore be clarified. Further mentions of the “exact-match” method in relation to ElQadi et al.’s paper (Lines 278 and 393) should also be clarified.

---- Response: Thank you for identifying the problem. We agree with your interpretation of the approach and have revised the relevant text. The way we interpret it and why we refer to it as an exact match is because of the following:

The authors (ElQadi et al) use the Google Reverse Image Search, which can return multiple tags per photo. The authors order all tags per species in descending order of frequency. Then, they manually identify which are the species-relevant and irrelevant tags, among the most frequent ones, that can help indicate which photos are true representations of the given species. This manual selection of relevant tags per species we consider an ‘exact match’ between the specific species and what would be the most relevant tags for this specific species. Instead, we use the NBN species classification framework to identify species-relevant tags. Despite the benefits of such an approach especially when photos need to be evaluated only for a couple of species, we consider it unsuitable for larger collections where the manual selection of relevant tags per species will be a time-consuming process. We agree that after the many iterations of the paper, we have excluded this information. Further, we agree that the baseline approach based on exact matching between species names needs further clarifications. The exact match approach is inspired by ElQadi's work as verification is performed on species-level. However, we wanted to emphasize on the benefits of BoW approach over fully automatic exact match approach which potentially might give higher precision but lower recall. In this way, we compare two fully automated approaches, the one having the advantage of potentially giving higher recall and the other higher precision. As results showed, however, the BoW approach led to higher recall value without affecting the precision measure. We have included these clarifications in the paper (lines 125 - 134).

2) Line 135: To conduct their temporal analyses, the authors downloaded date information (the date that the image was uploaded) from each Flickr image. However, I expect some images would have been uploaded some time (potentially a long time) after being taken. Is there any way of knowing when the photo was actually taken, as opposed to uploaded? This information might not be readily available, but if there are frequent discrepancies between when photos were taken and when they were uploaded, it is difficult to have confidence in the results of the temporal analyses (seasonal, half yearly, and yearly patterns). If this information is not available, the authors should at least address how this might have affected the results of the temporal analyses.

---- Response: Flickr API allows downloading two dates associated with a photo, 'taken date' and 'posted date'. 'Taken date' represents the time at which the photo was taken. This information is extracted from the EXIF date if available, otherwise the 'taken' date is set to the 'posted date'. 'Posted date' represents the time at which the photo was uploaded to Flickr. For performing the temporal analysis, we use the 'taken date'. However, early observations showed that 'posted date' and 'taken date' do not differ more than 3 months for the majority of photos. Further, photos are often uploaded on Flickr directly after they have been taken. We have clarified this in the paper and made a clear distinction between the two types of dates and which date type we used for the temporal analysis (lines 190 - 199).

3) Lines 171-174: This is a fair statement, but I am wondering what happens if the Flickr image features another species of grass that has been incorrectly tagged on Flickr as Timothy grass? Would the coarse match still be successful in this case? If so, how often might this occur and how might this impact the results? While I think the authors’ image verification technique goes some way in improving previous methods, it appears that the reliability of Flickr-derived species occurrence data still depends significantly on the ability of the Flickr users (i.e., the ‘passive citizen scientists’) to correctly assign species name tags to Flickr images. The authors should discuss this if this is the case.

---- Response: Thank you for this question. The coarse match might not be successful in the scenario you described. However, a main drawback of previous image verification approaches which we aim to address, is the inability of these methods to scale to large collections of species and the need for manual or semi-automatic verification. A main reason for this is that some species have very similar characteristics and cannot be accurately distinguished by image recognition models. Our image verification approach is the first attempt, to the best of our knowledge, that addresses this issue and provides a way for verifying large and diverse image-related species data fully automatically. The motivation of using a fully automated approach is the need for fast and less resource consuming methods to efficiently verify large collections of species-related images. We hypothesize that a coarse match will help improve the coverage of automated methods (recall measure) without affecting their precision. We include a more detailed description of the image validation approach and discussion in the paper (lines 201 - 235, lines 390 - 417). Additionally, we addressed the concern that class-level BoW approach might be too coarse and lead to lower precision by also performing evaluation of BoW approach on genus level. In this way, we compare three evaluation approaches -- exact match (i.e., perform exact match between species names and species name given per Flickr photo), class level BOW approach (i.e., consider names following down from the class of the species), and genus level BOW approach (i.e., consider names following down from the genus of the species). This allows us to judge which approach is more suitable for evaluating diverse collections of species without affecting the precision of approaches. Results from this comparison are presented in Table 5. Finally, we performed manual analysis on the false negative and false positive cases returned by BoW approach, and we found that the most common cases of false positives are photos that include an artificial representation of a species and the most common cases of false negatives are photos which include the species, but the focus of display is another object. We did not encounter the problems you mentioned during our evaluation, but we do agree these cases might exist. Our main aim was to provide a fully automated approach for image verification that scales well for large collections of species. We plan in future to improve our method by training the image verification models on wildlife related data and use a matching algorithm that incorporates a combination of multiple labels, representing more species characteristics such as colour patterns and size. We believe that this will help provide a more fine-grain distinguishment between the different species.

4) Lines 277-279: What were the 10 species and how were these chosen? I think it would be ideal to choose the species randomly, but either way, a justification should be provided. My concern is that the image verification approach may perform better for certain species or taxonomic groups than others. Given this, I think it would be best to evaluate the performance of the verification technique using the full range of species available in the dataset.

---- Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have extended the evaluation to 50 randomly chosen species, each associated with 40 images which gives us in total 2000 images (lines 272 - 274). Additionally, we compared the class-level BOW approach to exact match and genus-level BOW approach (see response to question 3)). Results and discussion of the new results are given in Section ‘Flickr data verification’. We could not perform evaluation of the entire image collection as it is a very time-consuming process which would involve the careful observation of more than 1,000,000 images.

5) I would have liked some more discussion around why the authors thought that constraining the analyses to a 12-month window led to poorer results than a 3 or a 6-month window. On Lines 323-325, the authors attribute the poor results in the 12-month analyses to a “lack of data on Flickr”. Intuitively, should this phenomenon (i.e., the lack of data) not be even more pronounced when constraining the analyses to an even shorter time frame (i.e., 3 months and 6 months)?

---- Response: Thank you for the question. In our experiments we identify seasonal (3 month window) and half yearly patterns (6 month window) such as seasonal migrations which might be affected mainly by weather changes rather than the year they appear in. Therefore, for these time shorter window experiments, we ignore the year and perform analysis across all years instead. For instance, for the 6 month window, we consider all observations recorded between January - June across the years 2006 - 2017 (the years for which we collected Flickr data). Therefore, observing seasonal patterns across all years will result in more data than simply observing yearly patterns. We clarify this in the paper (lines 321 - 334).

6) Lines 33-34: The authors state that “geotags given to photos on social media sites ... are assigned automatically by GPS location systems”. Whilst this may be true of photos taken on a location enabled device, there would be cases where automatic geotags are not available (e.g., on a device without a GPS system), or where the geotags are low in accuracy. Does Flickr allow users to manually add or edit location data? If so, I think this needs to be stated, either here or in the methods.

---- Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We consider only posts where coordinates are extracted from a GPS-enabled device which is either the device used to upload the photo, or the device used to take the photo. We ignore posts associated only with user-provided locations. We included this in the paper (lines 197 - 199).

7) Line 126: What is meant by “exact search”? It would also be good to get an idea of how many records included irrelevant species in any given search.

---- Response: Exact match refers to a search term match where the search term fully matches the species name associated with the record. For instance, there is an exact match between the search term ‘Canada Goose’ and the species NBN record name ‘Canada Goose’. Therefore, this exact match will return results relevant only to Canada Goose species. However, NBN Atlas supports partial match where using a search term such as ‘Grey Squirrel’ will also return records for ‘Red Squirrels’ as the two species names partially match (squirrel). In order to avoid this, once we have performed the search, we remove the species records irrelevant to the search term. We did not keep records of these species. We clarify this in the paper (lines 175 - 182).

8) Line 136: It would be helpful to add more detail about the Flickr tags. Are they manually entered by the user/uploader, or are they automatically assigned by the computer, or both? How many tags are allowed? The authors did an excellent job of explaining the Google Cloud Vision API tags (lines 151-157), so something like this, explaining the Flickr tags and clearly distinguishing them from the Google API tags, would be great. I initially had some difficulty following the authors’ methods in relation to which tag they were referring to (i.e., the Flickr tags or the Google API tags).

---- Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Flickr tags were manually entered by the user where a user is allowed to write 75 tags maximum per photo. We acknowledge that the terminology we used is confusing and that the Flickr validation approach needed further explanations. Therefore, we included Table 1 describing main concepts used in the Flickr verification method and Fig 2 providing an overview of the image validation approach. A more detailed description of the methodology is given in lines 201 - 237.

9) Line 169: The authors write, “Using the exact matching on the Flickr label of Adder would not have found any match”. This is unclear to me. Why would the Flickr label “Adder” not have found an exact match when “Adder” is indeed one of the species’ common names in the NBN taxonomic classification (Figure 2)? Is it because Google API does not label the image of the adder as “Adder”? Please clarify.

---- Response: Yes, it is as the reviewer suspects. We perform a match between the NBN names associated with each species represented in the Flickr photos and Google Cloud Vision API labels returned per photo in order to identify whether the species names given by the Flickr users are correctly representing the species displayed on the photos. Further, very often Flickr photos of the species adder are associated with the tag “Adder” while Google Cloud Vision API returns the label “Viper” for the same photo. Thus, if we simply perform an automatic match between the Google Cloud Vision API label “Viper” and the Flickr tag “Adder” there will be no match and the photo will be counted mistakenly as a false representation of Adder. We overcome this problem by using the NBN classification names for the species Adder. This helps expand the name list of the given species with other names used for adder such as “viper” which is the label used by Google Cloud Vision API. We further clarify the process of image verification in the paper (lines 201 - 237).

10) Lines 177-178: “... for a 100 randomly selected instances”. Either a word is missing here, or the “a” should be removed.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We removed “a”.

11) Lines 229-230: “... and a 100% of species”. Either a word is missing here, or the “a” should be removed.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We removed “a”.

12) Line 307: Rather than writing “correct”, I suggest simply stating that 38% of the Flickr data were also reflected in the NBN data. These mean slightly different things as an absence of NBN data from a location (in the presence of Flickr data) does not necessarily mean that the Flickr identifications were incorrect. Rather, the species may have just never been recorded there previously (which the authors note on Lines 415-416). In fact, these “false positives” could actually be interesting data points as potential range expansions, especially given invasive species are a substantial focus of this manuscript.

---- Response: Thank you for the observation. We updated line 307 and now it only states 38%. Additionally, we included more discussion about the false positive observations on lines 557 - 562.

13) Line 331: Did the authors mean to write “true positives” rather than “false positives”? False positives were not used to calculate recall.

---- Response: Yes, false positives are not used to calculate recall. Instead, recall is calculated using the number of false negatives while precision is calculated using the number of false positives. When we have a higher number of false negatives the recall value decreases while when we have a higher number of false positives the precision value decreases. Precision is used to show how many selected instances are relevant while recall is used to show how many of the total number of relevant instances are selected. The statement ‘The more relaxed spatial restrictions allow for what would otherwise be false negatives to become false positives as Flickr occurrences over a wider region are taken into account’ mean that the number of false negatives will decrease and consequently the recall value will increase. However, this will lead to an increase of the number of false positives which will lead to lower precision value.

14) Line 372: The authors mentioned seven distinct species but presented only six in the table. Please clarify.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We corrected it in the paper. There are six such species.

15) Line 407: It would be good to provide a number or percentage here alongside the claim of “a large number”.

---- Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We included the exact number in the paper which is 93 species (line 546).

16) Table 1: I think there is a missing row here. The table legend (and Line 234) refers to the “top 10” most frequently recorded species on Flickr, but only 9 species are shown in the table.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We fixed it and included the 10th species in the table.

17) Tables 1 & 2: Please check the Flickr count number for Erithacus rubecula (Continental Robin). The count is given as 19,248 in Table 1 but 2,786 in Table 2. Meanwhile, the NBN count is the same in both tables. If this is not an error, please provide an explanation as to why these differ.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We fixed it in the paper. The number of occurrences on Flickr for Erithacus rubecula (Continental Robin) is 19,248.

18) Table 3: The table legend states, “Species occurrences ... with number of species above 100”. Did the authors mean to write, “with number of occurrences above 100”?

---- Response: Thank you for the correction. Yes, we meant “with number of occurrences above 100”. We fixed these issues.

19) Figures 4-7: I suggest making the left and right panels/graphs the same width, especially in Figures 4 and 6, so that the gradients of the lines can be compared.

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We addressed it.

Reviewer # 2

1) I recommend better explain the relation of this manuscript in the context of citizen science on introduction. The definition of citizen science still an open discussion today and this concept of “passive citizen science” could be controversial. I propose to better definition of passive citizen science immerses in a framework of citizen science definition.

---- Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We addressed this suggestion in the paper (lines 12 -15, lines 32 - 41)

2) I recommend better explain how the NBN database is performed. Where data came from?

---- Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We addressed this suggestion in the paper (lines 92 - 94; lines 97 - 104).

3) But I consider some parts of the results are weakly discussed and more scientific references would be welcome. You could discuss also the potential of this data, for example comparing it with other more active citizen science methods based on submitted photographs (e.a, iNaturalist).

---- Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have included a discussion of iNaturalist platform and other approaches, compared to social network sources in the Introduction (lines 18 - 25 and 67-87) and extended the discussion of our results to include citation of other papers (lines 507 - 521). In future, we will further extend comparison between passive citizen science and active citizen science methods by also including data from iNaturalist. The reason for using NBN for performing our analysis is the wide usage of the website for ecology research and the fact that it holds the largest collection of citizen science observations of species for the UK (we focus on UK-based analysis). Further, NBN provides programmable APIs which help fast and efficient data analysis to be performed on a larger scale.

4) Line 3: Please check the references on the whole text. Is this the correct format for the journal?

---- Response: We checked our style files and used the latex template for PLOS ONE journal available at:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex and the bibliography style provided as part of it. Further, we used guideline pages available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. However, if we have missed some information and we still need to update the format of the manuscript we are happy to do that.

5) Lines 54-56: Please, better explain how the NBN database was made.

---- Response: We have included explanations in the paper (lines 75 - 81).

6) Line 62: Please, abbreviate “National Biodiversity Network Atlas”

---- Response: Thank you for pointing out the inconsistencies. We addressed this in the paper (lines 92 - 95).

7) Lines 371-376: Discuss these results. The occurrence of common species in citizen science data is registered in some articles you could refer to.

---- Response: We have extended discussion in the paper (lines 507 - 521). Additionally, in the `Introduction’ section, we extended the discussion of previous research on using social media as a source of wildlife data (lines 67 - 87).

8) Lines 413-416: I do not understand this sentence. NBN database is a citizen science database?

---- Response: Yes, NBN holds wildlife observation data gathered by non-professionals but citizen scientists. Therefore, it is possible that the records uploaded on NBN can be enhanced by species locations that are correctly captured by Flickr users. We have clarified this further in the paper (lines 553 - 554)

9) Line 416: there is a parenthesis

---- Response: Thank you for the correction. We addressed in the paper.

Sincerely,

On behalf of all authors,

Thomas Edwards

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255416.r003

Decision Letter 1

Daniel de Paiva Silva

16 Jul 2021

Passive citizen science: the role of social media in wildlife observations

PONE-D-21-05380R1

Dear Dr. Edwards,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Edwards et al.,

after a final review round by one of the reviewers who previously reviewed your original MS, I believe you text is now suitable (and formally accepted) for publication in PLoS One! Congratualations!

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva, Ph.D.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors for their careful and considered responses to my concerns and queries. These have been satisfactorily addressed. The authors’ revisions have improved the clarity of the manuscript and I specifically appreciate their efforts to clarify their methods. The additional information should provide readers with sufficient information to make an informed judgement on the strengths and potential limitations of the current study.

Overall, this is a great manuscript that demonstrates the potential of social media to provide valuable biodiversity data.

I noticed just a few additional (very minor) issues which can be easily addressed:

Line 324: Are you missing a word in “This allows to identify…”?

Line 345: Please check the date range (2006-2018). Is this date range meant to be different to the temporal analysis date range (2004-2017; Line 327)?

Line 397: Are you missing a “with” in “associated a given species”?

Line 513: Please remove the duplicate “that”.

Line 589: Should “observation” be “observations”?

Figure 2: “Coarse match b-n NBN Google labels” – what is “b-n”? Between?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255416.r004

Acceptance letter

Daniel de Paiva Silva

23 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-05380R1

Passive citizen science: the role of social media in wildlife observations

Dear Dr. Edwards:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniel de Paiva Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(23.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All data files are available from the zenodo database (access from URL: https://zenodo.org/record/4527403#.YCL8Oi2l06g).

[pone.0255416.ref001] 1.Amano T, Lamming JD, Sutherland WJ. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience. 2016;66(5):393–400. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref002] 2.Barve V. Discovering and developing primary biodiversity data from social networking sites: A novel approach. Ecological Informatics. 2014;24:194–199. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.08.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref003] 3.Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in ecology & evolution. 2009;24(9):467–471. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref004] 4.Cohn JP. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience. 2008;58(3):192–197. doi: 10.1641/B580303 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref005] 5.Brown ED, Williams BK. The potential for citizen science to produce reliable and useful information in ecology. Conservation Biology. 2019;33(3):561–569. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref006] 6.Guerrini CJ, Majumder MA, Lewellyn MJ, McGuire AL. Citizen science, public policy. Science. 2018;361(6398):134–136. doi: 10.1126/science.aar8379 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref007] 7.Adler FR, Green AM, Şekercioğlu ÇH. Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2020;1469(1):52–64. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref008] 8.Aristeidou M, Herodotou C, Ballard HL, Young AN, Miller AE, Higgins L, et al. Exploring the participation of young citizen scientists in scientific research: The case of iNaturalist. Plos one. 2021;16(1):e0245682. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref009] 9.Daume S. Mining Twitter to monitor invasive alien species—An analytical framework and sample information topologies. Ecological Informatics. 2016;31:70–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2015.11.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref010] 10.Di Minin E, Tenkanen H, Toivonen T. Prospects and challenges for social media data in conservation science. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2015;3:63. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref011] 11.August TA, Pescott OL, Joly A, Bonnet P. AI Naturalists Might Hold the Key to Unlocking Biodiversity Data in Social Media Imagery. Patterns. 2020;1(7):100116. doi: 10.1016/j.patter.2020.100116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref012] 12.Ghermandi A, Sinclair M. Passive crowdsourcing of social media in environmental research: A systematic map. Global environmental change. 2019;55:36–47. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref013] 13.Antoniou V, Fonte C, See L, Estima J, Arsanjani J, Lupia F, et al. Investigating the feasibility of geo-tagged photographs as sources of land cover input data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 2016;5(5):64. doi: 10.3390/ijgi5050064 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref014] 14.Soliman A, Soltani K, Yin J, Padmanabhan A, Wang S. Social sensing of urban land use based on analysis of Twitter users’ mobility patterns. PlOS ONE. 2017;12(7):e0181657. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref015] 15.Daume S, Albert M, von Gadow K. Forest monitoring and social media–Complementary data sources for ecosystem surveillance? Forest Ecology and Management. 2014;316:9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref016] 16.ElQadi MM, Dorin A, Dyer A, Burd M, Bukovac Z, Shrestha M. Mapping species distributions with social media geo-tagged images: Case studies of bees and flowering plants in Australia. Ecological informatics. 2017;39:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2017.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref017] 17.Kent JD, Capello HT Jr. Spatial patterns and demographic indicators of effective social media content during the Horsethief Canyon fire of 2012. Cartography and Geographic Information Science. 2013;40(2):78–89. doi: 10.1080/15230406.2013.776727 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref018] 18.Palomino M, Taylor T, Göker A, Isaacs J, Warber S. The online dissemination of nature–health concepts: Lessons from sentiment analysis of social media relating to “nature-deficit disorder”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016;13(1):142. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13010142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref019] 19.Sui D, Goodchild M. The convergence of GIS and social media: challenges for GIScience. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2011;25(11):1737–1748. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2011.604636 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref020] 20.Davis A, Major RE, Taylor CE, Martin JM. Novel tracking and reporting methods for studying large birds in urban landscapes. Wildlife Biology. 2017;2017(4). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref021] 21.Fritz S, McCallum I, Schill C, Perger C, See L, Schepaschenko D, et al. Geo-Wiki: An online platform for improving global land cover. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2012;31:110–123. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.11.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref022] 22.Lowry CS, Fienen MN. CrowdHydrology: crowdsourcing hydrologic data and engaging citizen scientists. GroundWater. 2013;51(1):151–156. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2012.00956.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref023] 23.Jarić I, Correia RA, Brook BW, Buettel JC, Courchamp F, Di Minin E, et al. iEcology: harnessing large online resources to generate ecological insights. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2020;35(7):630–639. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.03.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref024] 24.Goëau H, Bonnet P, Joly A. Overview of ExpertLifeCLEF 2018: how far automated identification systems are from the best experts? In: CLEF-Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum. 2125; 2018.

[pone.0255416.ref025] 25.Van Horn G, Mac Aodha O, Song Y, Cui Y, Sun C, Shepard A, et al. The iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset. In: 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition; 2018. p. 8769–8778.

[pone.0255416.ref026] 26.Leivesley JA, Stewart RA, Paterson V, McCafferty DJ. Potential importance of urban areas for water voles: Arvicola amphibius. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2021;67(1):1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10344-021-01467-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref027] 27.Blight AJ, Allcock AL, Maggs CA, Johnson MP. Intertidal molluscan and algal species richness around the UK coast. Marine ecology progress series. 2009;396:235–243. doi: 10.3354/meps08379 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref028] 28.Larson ER, Graham BM, Achury R, Coon JJ, Daniels MK, Gambrell DK, et al. From eDNA to citizen science: emerging tools for the early detection of invasive species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2020;18(4):194–202. doi: 10.1002/fee.2162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref029] 29.Bonnet P, Goëau H, Hang ST, Lasseck M, Šulc M, Malécot V, et al. Plant identification: experts vs. machines in the era of deep learning. In: Multimedia tools and applications for environmental & biodiversity informatics. Springer; 2018. p. 131–149. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0255416.ref030] 30.Stock K. Mining location from social media: A systematic review. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 2018;71:209–240. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2018.05.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Passive citizen science: The role of social media in wildlife observations

Thomas Edwards

Christopher B Jones

Sarah E Perkins

Padraig Corcoran

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Fig 1. Methodology overview.

Data collection

NBN data collection

Flickr data collection

Flickr data validation

Table 1. Main concepts used to describe the image verification method.

Fig 2. Image validation approach overview—‘b-n’ refers to between.

Fig 3. Google Cloud Vision API label taxonomy and NBN classification for Adder.

Data analysis

Ethics statement

Results and discussion

Statistical analysis

NBN and Flickr datasets comparison

Table 2. The top 10 species on Flickr with the highest number of records.

Table 3. The top 10 species on NBN with the highest number of records.

NBN and Flickr datasets comparison for invasive species in the UK

Table 4. Species occurrences for NBN and Flickr for invasive species with number of occurrences above 100.

Flickr data verification

Table 5. Comparison between class-level and genus-level BOW image verification approaches and the baseline approach, based on exact-match approach.

Fig 4. Common cases of false positive and false negative: False positive for Marus bassanus (Gannet) (left) tags: Bird, goose, vehicle, tall ship and false negative for Hedera helix (Ivy) (right): Tags: Property, house, home, building, residential area, cottage, real estate, neighbourhood.

Spatial and temporal analysis

The top 1500 species on NBN

Fig 5. Average precision and recall comparison per cell size and temporal restriction: One by one analysis (left), three by three analysis (right) where ‘P’ refers to precision and ‘R’ refer to recall.

Fig 6. Comparison of average, best, worst F1 measure values per temporal restriction and cell size: One by One analysis (left), three by three analysis(right).

Table 6. The top ten results with the highest f1-measure across all species.

Invasive species for UK

Fig 7. Average precision and recall comparison per cell size and temporal restriction for invasive species: One by one analysis on the left, three by three analysis on the right, where ‘P’ refers to precision and ‘R’ refers to recall.

Fig 8. Comparison of average, best, worst F1 measure values per temporal restriction and cell size for invasive species: The one by one analysis is on the left, the three by three analysis on the right.

Table 7. Results for the invasive species where precision and recall are both above 0.5.

Conclusions

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Daniel de Paiva Silva

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Daniel de Paiva Silva

Roles

Acceptance letter

Daniel de Paiva Silva

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases