4.6 Review

The Role of Community Science in Entomology

期刊

ANNUAL REVIEW OF ENTOMOLOGY
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 437-456

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ento-072121-075258

关键词

citizen science; volunteer; community-supported research; cocreation; crowdsourcing; recording scheme; biological monitoring

资金

  1. National Science Foundation CAREER DEB Ecosystem Studies Program [CAREER 1253197]
  2. National Institute for Food and Agriculture Foundational Program [20176701326595]
  3. Agroecosystem Management Program [20166701925146]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/R016429/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community science, with the involvement of volunteers, has made significant contributions to entomology over the centuries. The future of community science in entomology looks promising with new approaches and increased inclusivity, benefiting both humans and nature globally.
Community (or citizen) science, the involvement of volunteers in scientific endeavors, has a long history. Over the past few centuries, the contributions of volunteers to our understanding of patterns and processes in entomology have been inspiring. From the collation of large-scale and long-term data sets, which have been instrumental in underpinning our knowledge of the status and trends of many insect groups, to action, including species management, whether for conservation or control, community scientists have played pivotal roles. Contributions, such as pest monitoring by farmers and species discoveries by amateur naturalists, set foundations for the research engaging entomologists today. The next decades will undoubtedly bring new approaches, tools, and technologies to underpin community science. The potential to increase inclusion within community science is providing exciting opportunities within entomology. An increase in the diversity of community scientists, alongside an increasing taxonomic and geographic breadth of initiatives, will bring enormous benefits globally for people and nature.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据