dc.contributor.author
Jäckel, Denise
dc.contributor.author
Mortega, Kim G.
dc.contributor.author
Sturm, Ulrike
dc.contributor.author
Brockmeyer, Ulrich
dc.contributor.author
Khorramshahi, Omid
dc.contributor.author
Voigt-Heucke, Silke L.
dc.date.accessioned
2021-10-18T13:33:29Z
dc.date.available
2021-10-18T13:33:29Z
dc.identifier.uri
https://refubium.fu-berlin.de/handle/fub188/32364
dc.identifier.uri
http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-32089
dc.description.abstract
Citizen science is an approach that has become increasingly popular in recent years. Despite this growing popularity, there still is widespread scepticism in the academic world about the validity and quality of data from citizen science projects. And although there might be great potential, citizen science is a rarely used approach in the field of bioacoustics. To better understand the possibilities, but also the limitations, we here evaluated data generated in a citizen science project on nightingale song as a case study. We analysed the quantity and quality of song recordings made in a non-standardized way with a smartphone app by citizen scientists and the standardized recordings made with professional equipment by academic researchers. We made comparisons between the recordings of the two approaches and among the user types of the app to gain insights into the temporal recording patterns, the quantity and quality of the data. To compare the deviation of the acoustic parameters in the recordings with smartphones and professional devices from the original song recordings, we conducted a playback test. Our results showed that depending on the user group, citizen scientists produced many to a lot of recordings of valid quality for further bioacoustic research. Differences between the recordings provided by the citizen and the expert group were mainly caused by the technical quality of the devices used—and to a lesser extent by the citizen scientists themselves. Especially when differences in spectral parameters are to be investigated, our results demonstrate that the use of the same high-quality recording devices and calibrated external microphones would most likely improve data quality. We conclude that many bioacoustic research questions may be carried out with the recordings of citizen scientists. We want to encourage academic researchers to get more involved in participatory projects to harness the potential of citizen science—and to share scientific curiosity and discoveries more directly with society.
en
dc.format.extent
25 Seiten
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Citizen science
en
dc.subject
bioacoustic research
en
dc.subject.ddc
500 Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik::570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie::570 Biowissenschaften; Biologie
dc.title
Opportunities and limitations: A comparative analysis of citizen science and expert recordings for bioacoustic research
dc.type
Wissenschaftlicher Artikel
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.articlenumber
e0253763
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.doi
10.1371/journal.pone.0253763
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.journaltitle
PLoS ONE
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.number
6
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.volume
16
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.url
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253763
refubium.affiliation
Biologie, Chemie, Pharmazie
refubium.affiliation.other
Institut für Biologie
refubium.resourceType.isindependentpub
no
dcterms.accessRights.openaire
open access
dcterms.isPartOf.eissn
1932-6203
refubium.resourceType.provider
WoS-Alert