Documenting butterflies with the help of citizen science in Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, India
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The availability of information on the distribution and occurrence of different species in a landscape is crucial to developing an informed conservation and management plan, however such information in the Himalaya is often limited. Citizen science, which builds on the knowledge and interest of communities to contribute to science, can be a solution to this problem. In this study, we used butterflies as a model taxon in the Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya which shows how citizen science can aid in documenting biodiversity. The study employed both citizen science, and researcher-survey approaches to collect data, and the collective effort resulted in 407 species, which is the highest by any study carried out in the region. Results show that citizen science can be helpful as a supplementary tool for data collection in biodiversity documentation projects, and can aid in adding to the diversity and distribution records of species, including those that are unique, rare, seasonal, and nationally protected. Citizen science outreach was used to muster potential participants from the local community to participate in the study. Thus, it is advisable for citizen science projects to find means to recruit a larger pool of contributors, and citizen science outreach can be key to their success.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors own the copyright to the articles published in JoTT. This is indicated explicitly in each publication. The authors grant permission to the publisher Wildlife Information Liaison Development (WILD) Society to publish the article in the Journal of Threatened Taxa. The authors recognize WILD as the original publisher, and to sell hard copies of the Journal and article to any buyer. JoTT is registered under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY), which allows authors to retain copyright ownership. Under this license the authors allow anyone to download, cite, use the data, modify, reprint, copy and distribute provided the authors and source of publication are credited through appropriate citations (e.g., Son et al. (2016). Bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) of the southeastern Truong Son Mountains, Quang Ngai Province, Vietnam. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(7): 8953–8969. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2785.8.7.8953-8969). Users of the data do not require specific permission from the authors or the publisher.
Funding data
-
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Grant numbers NMHS-2017/MG-01/477
References
Amano, T., J.D. Lamming & W.J. Sutherland (2016). Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. Bioscience 66(5): 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022
Aristeidou, M., C. Herodotou, H.L. Ballard, A.N. Young, A.E. Miller, L. Higgins & R.F. Johnson (2021). Exploring the participation of young citizen scientists in scientific research: The case of iNaturalist. PloS ONE 16(1): e0245682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245682
Arjun, C.P. & R. Roshnath (2018). Status of Greater Flamingos Phoenicopterus roseus in Kerala. Indian BIRDS14(2): 43–45.
Bird, T., A. Bates, J. Lefcheck, N. Hill, R. Thomson, G. Edgar, R. Stuart-Smith, S. Wotherspoon, M. Krkosek, J. Stuart-Smith, G. Pecl, N. Barrett & S. Frusher (2014). Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation 173: 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037
Callaghan, C.T., A.G. Poore, M. Hofmann, C.J. Roberts & H.M. Pereira (2021). Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data. Scientific reports 11(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98584-7
Chatzigeorgiou, G., S. Faulwetter, T. Dailianis, V.S. Smith, P. Koulouri, C. Dounas & C. Arvanitidis (2016). Testing the robustness of Citizen Science projects: Evaluating the results of pilot project COMBER. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e10859. https://doi.org/10.3897%2FBDJ.4.e10859
Curtis, V. (2014). Online citizen science games: Opportunities for the biological sciences. Applied & Translational Genomics 3(4): 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atg.2014.07.001
Datta, A., R. Naniwadekar, M. Rao, R. Sreenivasan & V. Hiresavi (2018). Hornbill Watch: A citizen science initiative for Indian hornbills. Indian BIRDS 14(3): 65–70.
Devictor, V., R.J. Whittaker & C. Beltrame (2010). Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions 16(3): 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x
Dickinson, J., B. Zuckerberg & D. Bonter (2010). Citizen Science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41(1): 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
Donnelly, A., O. Crowe, E. Regan, S. Begley & A. Caffarra (2014). The role of citizen science in monitoring biodiversity in Ireland. International Journal of Biometeorology 58(6): 1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0717-0
Feldman, M.J., L. Imbeau, P. Marchand, M.J. Mazerolle, M. Darveau & N.J. Fenton (2021). Trends and gaps in the use of citizen science derived data as input for species distribution models: a quantitative review. PloS ONE 16(3): e0234587. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234587
Feldman, R.E., I. Žemaitė & A.J. Miller-Rushing (2018). How training citizen scientists affects the accuracy and precision of phenological data. International Journal of Biometeorology 62(8): 1421–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1540-4
Galván, S., R. Barrientos & S. Varela (2021). No bird database is perfect: citizen science and professional datasets contain different and complementary biodiversity information. Ardeola 69(1): 97–114. https://doi.org/10.13157/arla.69.1.2022.ra6
Greenwood, J.J. (2007). Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology 148(1): 77–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-007-0239-9
Haribal, M. (1992). The Butterflies of Sikkim Himalaya and Their Natural History. Natraj Publishers, Dehradun, 217 pp.
Hyder, K., B. Townhill, L. Anderson, J. Delany & J. Pinnegar (2015). Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Marine Policy 59: 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022
Jaiswara, R., S. Sreebin, M. Monaal & T. Robillard (2022). A new species of Indigryllus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae, Eneopterinae, Xenogryllini) from Kerala, India, with first data on acoustics and natural habitat. Zootaxa 5205(6): 532–546. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5205.6.2
Johnson, M., C. Hannah, L. Acton, R. Popovici, K. Karanth & E. Weinthal (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change 29: 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.006
Karmakar, T., S.W. Lepcha, D.N. Basu & K. Kunte (2021). A new species of Zographetus Watson, 1893 (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) from Sikkim, eastern Himalaya, India. Zootaxa 5072(4): 373–379.
Kehimkar, I. (2016). Butterflies of India. Bombay Natural History Society, Mumbai, 516 pp.
Kulkarni, S. & S. Joseph (2015). First record of genus Siler Simon, 1889 (Araneae: Salticidae) from India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(10): 7701–7703. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o4266.7701-3
Land-Zandstra, A.M., J.L. Devilee, F. Snik, F. Buurmeijer & J.M. van den Broek (2016). Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding of Science 25(1): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625156024
Mason, L. & S. Arathi (2019). Assessing the efficacy of citizen scientists monitoring native bees in urban areas. Global Ecology and Conservation 17: e00561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00561
Matteson, K.C., D.J. Taron & E.S. Minor (2012). Assessing citizen contributions to butterfly monitoring in two large cities. Conservation Biology 26(3): 557–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01825.x
Moskowitz, D. & L. Haramaty (2013). National Moth Week-a new global citizen science project focused on moths. Terrestrial Arthropod Reviews 6(3): 185–200.
Odenwald, S. (2018). A citation study of citizen science projects in space science and astronomy. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3(2): 5. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.152
Pandya, R.E. (2012). A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 314–317. https://doi.org/10.1890/120007
Paul, K., M. Quinn, M. Huijser, J. Graham & L. Broberg (2014). An evaluation of a citizen science data collection program for recording wildlife observations along a highway. Journal of Environmental Management 139:180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.018
Pernat, N., H. Kampen, J.M. Jeschke & D. Werner (2021). Citizen science versus professional data collection: Comparison of approaches to mosquito monitoring in Germany. Journal of Applied Ecology 58(2): 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13767
Poisson, A.C., I.M. McCullough, K.S. Cheruvelil, K.C. Elliott, J.A. Latimore & P.A. Soranno (2020). Quantifying the contribution of citizen science to broad‐scale ecological databases. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 18(1): 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2128
Pradhan, A. & R. Yonle (2021). Socio-ecological assessment of squamate reptiles in a human-modified ecosystem of Darjeeling, Eastern Himalaya. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.1905114
Pradhan, A. & S. Khaling (2023). Community priorities, values, and perceptions associated with ecosystem services provided by the socio-ecological landscapes of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya. Regional Environmental Change 23(1): 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02028-z
Rahmani, A., S. Laad & Z. Islam (2003). Status of the AWC in India and future development. Newsletter of the Asian Waterbird Census, 4–5.
Rotman, D., J. Preece, J. Hammock, K. Procita, D. Hansen, C. Parr, D. Lewis & D. Jacobs (2012). Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects, pp. 217–226. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work.
Schulwitz, S.E., G.C. Hill, V. Fry & C.J. McClure (2021). Evaluating citizen science outreach: A case-study with The Peregrine Fund’s American Kestrel Partnership. PloS ONE 16(3): e0248948. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248948
Segal, A., Y.A. Gal, R.J. Simpson, V. Homsy, M. Hartswood, K.R. Page & M. Jirotka (2015). Improving productivity in citizen science through controlled intervention. Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web, 331–337 pp.
Sharma D.C. (2019). Citizen science growing in India: Study. Down to Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/science-technology/citizen-science-growing-in-india-study-66375. Electronic version accessed on 15 April 2022.
Sharma, K., B.K. Acharya, G. Sharma, D. Valente, M.R. Pasimeni, I. Petrosillo & T. Selvan. (2020). Land use effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecological Indicators 110: 105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605
Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9): 467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
State of India’s Birds. (2020). State of India’s Birds: Range, trends and conservation status. The State of India’s Birds Partnership, 50 pp.
Spear, D.M., G.B. Pauly & K. Kaiser. (2017). Citizen science as a tool for augmenting museum collection data from urban areas. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5: 86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2017.00086
Theobald, E.J., A.K. Ettinger, H.K. Burgess, L.B. DeBey, N.R. Schmidt, H.E. Froehlich, C. Wagner, J.H.R. Lambers, J. Tewksbury, M.A. Harsch & J.K. Parrish (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation 181: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021
Tobler M.W., S.E. Carrillo‐Percastegui, R.L. Pitman, R. Mares & G. Powell (2008). An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large‐and medium‐sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11(3): 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00169.x
Trojan J., S. Schade, R. Lemmens & B. Frantál (2019). Citizen science as a new approach in geography and beyond: Review and reflections. Moravian Geographical Reports 27(4): 254–264. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgr-2019-0020
Tulloch, A.T., H. Possingham, L. Joseph, J. Szabo & T. Martin (2013). Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 165: 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
van der Velde, T., D.A. Milton, T.J. Lawson, C. Wilcox, M. Lansdell, G. Davis, G. Perkeins & B.D. Hardesty (2017). Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Is citizen science data worth the effort? Biological conservation 208: 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025
Vattakaven, T., R.M. George, D. Balabsubramanian, M. Rejou-Mechain, G. Muthusankar, B.R. Ramesh & R. Prabhakar (2016). India Biodiversity Portal: an integrated, interactive and participatory biodiversity informatics platform. Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e10279. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e10279
West, S.E., R.M. Pateman & A. Dyke (2021). Variations in the motivations of environmental citizen scientists. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6(1): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.370
Wright, D.R., L.G. Underhill, M. Keene & A.T. Knight (2015). Understanding the motivations and satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society & Natural Resources 28(9): 1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976