Comparing community birdwatching and professional bird monitoring with implications for avian diversity research: a case study of Suzhou, China

Abstract

Background In the past decades, birdwatching as a hobby developed rapidly and produced ample scientific records that have aided conservation efforts. Therefore, it is increasingly attractive to promote avian research by providing data from birdwatching. Methods We compared records from 16 years of community birdwatching and a 1-year formalized bird monitoring in Suzhou, China to study the similarities and differences between the two monitoring methods. Results We showed that within the 325 bird species recorded by the two methods, an annual average of 108 species were documented by community science and 223 bird species were recorded by 1-year formalized monitoring. Measured by the number of bird species recorded per survey trip, the bird monitoring activity of community birdwatchers was significantly lower. Furthermore, the monitoring intensity of community birdwatching measured as the average survey trips per site each survey year was also lower than that of formalized bird monitoring. In addition, community birdwatchers preferred urban landscapes to rural areas. Conclusions Community birdwatching could record the majority of local birds and complements the professional surveys in avian research. Well designed and coordinated community science can be used to expand the knowledge about avian distribution and population dynamics. These findings are critical for the development of conservation science with regard to community involvement.

Local ecological knowledge and regional sighting histories of Hainan Peacock-pheasant Polyplectron katsumatae: pessimism or optimism for a threatened island endemic?

“…2018, Zhou et al . 2020). However, the relatively limited sightings obtained across all landscapes in this study suggest that further use of LEK in Peacock-pheasant conservation might benefit from targeting specific individuals with known expertise about local wildlife, using methods such as snowball sampling rather than opportunistic or random respondent selection (Newing 2011).…”

Species inventories from different data sources “shaping” slightly different avifauna diversity patterns

“…Many studies on different biological groups have attempted to compare the species distribution patterns shown from observational data sources with randomness (including digital specimens, observation records, etc.) and standardized data sources (such as atlas, actual surveys, and literature records; Soroye et al, 2018;Alhajeri and Fourcade, 2019;Rotenberry and Balasubramaniam, 2020;Zhou et al, 2020). However, few studies have compared the relationship between diversity indices (taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity) and environmental factors based on different data sources at the same time.…”

Nilai Willingness To Pay Birdwatching di Indonesia

“…Birdwatcher dikenal memiliki kepedulian lebih tinggi terhadap lingkungan dan konservasi (Cooper et al 2015). Birdwatching juga telah dimanfaatkan sebagai bagian dari pendidikan lingkungan (White et al 2018;Cheung et al 2017) serta bagian dari jejaring sains warga (Zhou et al 2020;Alexandrino et al 2019). Aktivitas birdwatching juga diakui menjadi pendukung konservasi kawasan dilindungi (Steven et al 2013;Biggs et al 2011) dan menjadi jalan tengah bagi kepentingan ekonomi dan konservasi (Ocampo-Peñuela & Winton, 2017) Birdwatching merupakan bentuk pemanfaatan ekosistem tanpa merusak ekosistem tersebut, sehingga dapat dilakukan atau bahkan harus dilakukan di kawasan dilindungi (Kordowska & Kulczyk, 2014).…”