Crowdsourcing fungal biodiversity: revision of iNaturalist observations in Northwestern Siberia

Abstract

The paper presents the first analysis of crowdsourcing data of all observations of fungi (including lichens) and myxomycetes in Northwestern Siberia uploaded to iNaturalist.org to date (24.02.2022). The Introduction presents an analysis of fungal diversity crowdsourcing globally, in Russia, and in the region of interest. Materials and methods describe the protocol of uploading data to iNaturalist.org, the structure of the crowdsourcing community, initiative to revise the accumulated data, procedures of data analysis, and compilation of a dataset of revised crowdsourced data. The Results present the analysis of accumulated data by several parameters: temporal, geographical and taxonomical scope, observation and identification efforts, identifiability of various taxa, species novelty and Red Data Book categories and the protection status of registered observations. The Discussion provides data on usability of crowdsourcing data for biodiversity research and conservation of fungi, including pros and contras. The Electronic Supplements to the paper include an annotated checklist of observations of protected species with information on Red Data Book categories and the protection status, and an annotated checklist of regional records of new taxa. The paper is supplemented with a dataset of about 15 000 revised and annotated records available through Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). The tradition of crowdsourcing is rooted in mycological societies around the world, including Russia. In Northwestern Siberia, a regional mycological club was established in 2018, encouraging its members to contribute observations of fungi on iNaturalist.org. A total of about 15 000 observations of fungi and myxomycetes were uploaded so far, by about 200 observers, from three administrative regions (Yamalo-Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, and Tyumen Region). The geographical coverage of crowdsourcing observations remains low. However, the observation activity has increased in the last four years. The goal of this study consisted of a collaborative effort of professional mycologists invited to help with the identification of these observations and analysis of the accumulated data. As a result, all observations were reviewed by at least one expert. About half of all the observations have been identified reliably to the species level and received Research Grade status. Of those, 90 species (195 records) represented records of taxa new to their respective regions; 876 records of 53 species of protected species provide important data for conservation programmes. The other half of the observations consists of records still under-identified for various reasons: poor quality photographs, complex taxa (impossible to identify without microscopic or molecular study), or lack of experts in a particular taxonomic group. The Discussion section summarises the pros and cons of the use of crowdsourcing for the study and conservation of regional fungal diversity, and summarises the dispute on this subject among mycologists. Further research initiatives involving crowdsourcing data must focus on an increase in the quality of observations and strive to introduce the habit of collecting voucher specimens among the community of amateurs. The timely feedback from experts is also important to provide quality and the increase of personal involvement.

Monitoring of protected fungi species by methods of modern information technologies

“…At the moment, iNaturalist cannot be considered as a good mobile tool for identifying fungi in the field as well as a reliable way to determination based on photographs with the help of experts, since in most cases many different characters (including microstructures) are needed for accurate identification, and photographs of fruit bodies are clearly insufficient for this. Nevertheless, the program can be successfully used for the certain tasks in the study of fungi [Filippova et al, 2022;Sheehan, 2021].…”

“…Среди них прежде всего необходимо отметить две обширных статьи на тему краудсорсинга биоразнообразия грибов. В первой из них представлены результаты ревизии фотонаблюдений грибов на севере Западной Сибири [Filippova et al, 2022] и рассмотрены возможности, достоинства и недостатки iNaturalist при работе с указанной группой организмов. Во второй [Sheehan, 2021] отражены основные подходы и стандарты, которые могут использоваться в реализации научных проектов, вовлекающих сообщества волонтеров и направленных на достижение различных целей.…”