The power of citizen science to contribute to both science and society is gaining increased recognition, particularly in physics and biology. Although there is a long history of public engagement in agriculture and food science, the term ‘citizen science’ has rarely been applied to these efforts. Similarly, in the emerging field of citizen science, most new citizen science projects do not focus on food or agriculture. Here, we convened thought leaders from a broad range of fields related to citizen science, agriculture, and food science to highlight key opportunities for bridging these overlapping yet disconnected communities/fields and identify ways to leverage their respective strengths. Specifically, we show that (i) citizen science projects are addressing many grand challenges facing our food systems, as outlined by the United States National Institute of Food and Agriculture, as well as broader Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations Development Programme, (ii) there exist emerging opportunities and unique challenges for citizen science in agriculture/food research, and (iii) the greatest opportunities for the development of citizen science projects in agriculture and food science will be gained by using the existing infrastructure and tools of Extension programmes and through the engagement of urban communities. Further, we argue there is no better time to foster greater collaboration between these fields given the trend of shrinking Extension programmes, the increasing need to apply innovative solutions to address rising demands on agricultural systems, and the exponential growth of the field of citizen science.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species uses geographical distribution as a key criterion in assessing the conservation status of species. Accurate knowledge of a species' distribution is therefore essential to ensure the correct categorization is applied. Here we compare the geographical distribution of 35 species of chameleons endemic to East Africa, using data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and data compiled by a taxonomic expert. Data screening showed 99.9% of GBIF records used outdated taxonomy and 20% had no locality coordinates. Conversely the expert dataset used 100% up-to-date taxonomy and only seven records (3%) had no coordinates. Both datasets were used to generate range maps for each species, which were then used in preliminary Red List categorization. There was disparity in the categories of 10 species, with eight being assigned a lower threat category based on GBIF data compared with expert data, and the other two assigned a higher category. Our results suggest that before conducting desktop assessments of the threatened status of species, aggregated museum locality data should be vetted against current taxonomy and localities should be verified. We conclude that available online databases are not an adequate substitute for taxonomic experts in assessing the threatened status of species and that Red List assessments may be compromised unless this extra step of verification is carried out.

No abstract

Standards set up by Biodiversity Information Standards-Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG), initially developed as a way to share taxonomical data, greatly facilitated the establishment of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) as the largest index to digitally-accessible primary biodiversity information records (PBR) held by many institutions around the world. The level of detail and coverage of the body of standards that later became the Darwin Core terms enabled increasingly precise retrieval of relevant records useful for increased digitally-accessible knowledge (DAK) which, in turn, may have helped to solve ecologically-relevant questions. After more than a decade of data accrual and release, an increasing number of papers and reports are citing GBIF either as a source of data or as a pointer to the original datasets. GBIF has curated a list of over 5,000 citations that were examined for contents, and to which tags were applied describing such contents as additional keywords. The list now provides a window on what users want to accomplish using such DAK. We performed a preliminary word frequency analysis of this literature, starting at titles, which refers to GBIF as a resource. Through a standardization and mapping of terms, we examined how the facility-enabled data seem to have been used by scientists and other practitioners through time: what concepts/issues are pervasive, which taxon groups are mostly addressed, and whether data concentrate around specific geographical or biogeographical regions. We hoped to cast light on which types of ecological problems the community believes are amenable to study through the judicious use of this data commons and found that, indeed, a few themes were distinctly more frequently mentioned than others. Among those, generally-perceived issues such as climate change and its effect on biodiversity at global and regional scales seemed prevalent. The taxonomic groups were also unevenly mentioned, with birds and plants being the most frequently named. However, the entire list of potential subjects that might have used GBIF-enabled data is now quite wide, showing that the availability of well-structured data has spawned a widening spectrum of possible use cases. Among them, some enjoy early and continuous presence (e.g. species, biodiversity, climate) while others have started to show up only later, once a critical mass of data seemed to have been attained (e.g. ecosystems, suitability, endemism). Biodiversity information in the form of standards-compliant DAK may thus already have become a commodity enabling insight into an increasingly more complex and diverse body of science. Paraphrasing Tennyson, more things were wrought by data than TDWG dreamt of.