Observing the Observers: How Participants Contribute Data to iNaturalist and Implications for Biodiversity Science

The availability of citizen science data has resulted in growing applications in biodiversity science. One widely used platform, iNaturalist, provides millions of digitally vouchered observations submitted by a global user base. These observation records include a date and a location but otherwise do not contain any information about the sampling process. As a result, sampling biases must be inferred from the data themselves. In the present article, we examine spatial and temporal biases in iNaturalist observations from the platform's launch in 2008 through the end of 2019. We also characterize user behavior on the platform in terms of individual activity level and taxonomic specialization. We found that, at the level of taxonomic class, the users typically specialized on a particular group, especially plants or insects, and rarely made observations of the same species twice. Biodiversity scientists should consider whether user behavior results in systematic biases in their analyses before using iNaturalist data.

Automated summary

The availability and use of citizen science data, particularly on platforms like iNaturalist, have increased in biodiversity science applications. However, a study on iNaturalist observations revealed spatial and temporal biases, as well as user behaviors where individuals tend to specialize on specific taxonomic groups and rarely observe the same species twice. Biodiversity scientists should be cautious of potential systematic biases in their analyses when utilizing iNaturalist data.