See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324700136

Avian monitoring - comparing structured and unstructured citizen science

Article in Wildlife Research · May 2018

DOI: 10.1071/WR17141

CITATIONS READS

42 946

4 authors:

Corey T. Callaghan John M. Martin

University of Florida Institute of Science and Learning
137 PUBLICATIONS 2,380 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 1,114 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard E. Major Richard T Kingsford

Australian Museum UNSW Sydney
92 PUBLICATIONS 4,022 CITATIONS 317 PUBLICATIONS 11,876 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Corey T. Callaghan on 07 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CSIRO PUBLISHING
Wildlife Research, 2018, 45, 176–184
https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17141

Avian monitoring – comparing structured and unstructured

citizen science

Corey T. Callaghan A,D, John M. Martin A,B, Richard E. Major A,C and Richard T. Kingsford A
A
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia,
Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
B
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
C
Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 1 William Street, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia.
D
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Context. Citizen science is increasingly used to collect biodiversity data to inform conservation management, but its
validity within urban greenspaces remains largely unresolved.
Aims. To assess the validity of eBird data for generating biodiversity estimates within an urban greenspace.
Methods. We compared data from structured avian surveys with eBird data at an urban greenspace in Sydney during
2012–16, using species richness and Shannon diversity indices. We also compared community composition, using non-
metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and dissimilarities using non-parametric MANOVA.
Key results. Structured surveys had a lower overall species richness (80 versus 116) and Shannon diversity (3.64 versus
3.94) than eBird data, but we found no significant differences when using years as replicates. After standardising the
richness and diversity indices by time spent surveying in a given year, structured surveys produced significantly higher
biodiversity estimates. Further, when grouped into species occupying different broad habitats, there were no significant
differences in waterbird or landbird species richness, or in Shannon diversity between data sources.
Conclusions. The most likely explanation for the larger magnitudes of the biodiversity indices from the eBird data is
the increase in effort manifested in the number of observers, time spent surveying and spatial coverage. This resulted in
increased detection of uncommon species, which in turn accounted for a significant difference (R2 = 0.21, P = 0.015)
in overall community composition measured by the two methods.
Implications. Our results highlight the opportunities provided by eBird data as a useful tool for land managers for
monitoring avian communities in urban areas.

Additional keywords: atlas, bird surveys, community composition, eBird, Shannon diversity, species richness, urban
ecology, urban greenspace.

Received 9 October 2017, accepted 10 February 2018, published online 23 April 2018

Introduction grounds of data quality and integrity (Cohn 2008; Dickinson

Citizen science projects vary in scope, scale and study system et al. 2010; Bird et al. 2014). In particular, unstructured projects
(Bonney et al. 2009; Miller-Rushing et al. 2012; MacKenzie can produce spatially and temporally biased data (Boakes et al.
et al. 2017), and have the potential to build and sustain 2010), due to a disproportionate number of sightings along
conservation activities across multiple scales (e.g. Wiersma roadways or in urban areas with high human population
2010; Ellwood et al. 2017). In addition to the benefits of density (Kelling et al. 2015a), and a propensity for surveys to
data collection, citizen science also engages and stimulates be undertaken on weekends (Courter et al. 2013). However,
participants (e.g. Domroese and Johnson 2017; Ellwood et al. statistical solutions, such as mixed-effects models accounting
2017). Citizen science projects can be divided into structured for pseudo-replication, or modelling the sampling process with
(i.e. intentional reporting and standardised survey periods, often hierarchical frameworks (Bird et al. 2014), can help account for
with trained and experienced observers) and unstructured (i.e. biases (e.g. Fink et al. 2010; Welvaert and Caley 2016), especially
intentional reporting and unstandardised survey periods, often when the ‘noise’ is identified (Isaac et al. 2014). Concomitantly,
with no formal training required for participants and generally there is also increasing evidence, across disciplines, that citizen
incidental in nature) designs (Welvaert and Caley 2016). science and expert-collected data show strong agreement (e.g.
However, citizen science data are often questioned on the Hoyer et al. 2012; Gollan et al. 2012; Vianna et al. 2014).
Journal compilation
CSIRO 2018 www.publish.csiro.au/journals/wr
Structured versus unstructured citizen science data Wildlife Research 177

For example, mark–recapture models for whale sharks were eBird data, including effectiveness in sampling entire bird
equally reliable whether using sightings reported by the public communities (Callaghan et al. 2017), are also important, given
or by experienced researchers (Davies et al. 2012), and that management decisions are typically made at fine spatial
volunteers performed almost as well as professionals in scales (Semple and Weins 1989). Determining if eBird data
identifying and monitoring invasive plant species (Crall et al. favour particular species or taxa of birds is also important (e.g.
2011). Citizen science data are increasingly sourced and used Snäll et al. 2011).
by the scientific community, as evidenced by a substantial Our objective was to measure the performance of unstructured
increase in publications related to citizen science (Jordan et al. eBird data in assessing the avifaunal community of an urban
2015; Welvaert and Caley 2016). However, studies that address greenspace in Sydney, Australia. To do this, we compared eBird
the validity of citizen science data across multiple spatial and data with data obtained from structured surveys specifically
temporal scales are still necessary to provide confidence in designed to monitor the park’s avifauna. Both data sources
results stemming from citizen science projects. collected information on the number of birds of each species
Citizen science focusing on birds is well established through encountered during a discrete survey. To investigate bias in
projects such as the Christmas Bird Counts (National Audubon reporting different types of birds, we divided the bird
Society 2012), the British (Risely et al. 2009) and North community into landbirds and waterbirds before testing for
American (Sauer et al. 2014) Breeding Bird Surveys, the Atlas differences between the two datasets in species richness and
of Australian Birds (Blakers et al. 1984; Barrett et al. 2003) and Shannon diversity. Specifically, we predicted that landbirds,
eBird (Sullivan et al. 2009, 2014). Augmenting structured which are generally smaller and more difficult to find, would
surveys with such citizen science data can improve spatial and have more observations through the unstructured protocol than
temporal scales of conservation monitoring (Wood et al. 2011; the structured protocol, as a result of increased survey effort
Lowe et al. 2011; Tulloch et al. 2013), perhaps importantly in (temporal and spatial coverage).
urban ecosystems, which are usually not a priority for such
funding (Kobori and Primack 2003; Evans et al. 2005; Kobori
Methods
et al. 2016).
Despite the long-standing tradition of citizen science in bird Study area
monitoring, investigators have only recently begun to validate Our study was conducted in Centennial Park (33
530 53.8800 S,
certain aspects of citizen-based bird data (e.g. Nagy et al. 2012; 151
140 3.1200 E), a large greenspace (189 ha) in central Sydney,
Jackson et al. 2015; Miller et al. 2016). In particular, Australia, surrounded by residential dwellings and commercial
comparisons between structured and unstructured citizen-based facilities. The park has a range of habitats with native and exotic
bird data have revealed mixed results. For instance, volunteer- vegetation, including woodland areas, native heath and dunes,
collected data were weakly positively related to a national bird modified ponds with islands and wetlands, and open sport fields.
monitoring scheme in Sweden, but the relationship also varied An estimated 20 million people visit the park each year
(positively or negatively) among species groups (Snäll et al. (Centennial Parklands 2015).
2011). Unstructured surveys failed to detect long-term
population declines of common birds in Denmark (Kamp et al.
2016), but there was little difference in relative population Data sources
estimates between structured and unstructured monitoring in Bird surveys were conducted by members of the Birding New
Australia (Szabo et al. 2012). Moreover, unstructured eBird South Wales (NSW) club (hereafter referred to as NSW
data have been shown to provide a similar information surveys). These surveys were standardised area-search surveys
content to that of structured Breeding Bird Surveys (Munson lasting 15 min, adapted from the Atlas of Australian Birds
et al. 2010). However, such coarse spatial scale comparisons 20 min method (Barrett et al. 2003). All birds identified both
are seldom replicated at fine spatial scales (but see Callaghan visually and audibly within 2 ha of a given point were
and Gawlik 2015). recorded, as was each species’ abundance estimate. There
eBird is a citizen science project (Sullivan et al. 2014) with were 15 predetermined locations throughout Centennial Park,
more than 500 million observations reported since its launch in generally visited fortnightly, in either the morning or afternoon.
2002. It capitalises on the behaviour of bird enthusiasts Surveys were collected in paper format. In total, 11 different
worldwide (Wood et al. 2011), following an unstructured observers, all of whom were experienced birdwatchers with
approach, with no formal training required to submit sightings. cumulative decades of experience with Sydney’s birds,
However, most data come from ‘power users’ (Wood et al. 2011) conducted 242 different area-search surveys in teams of one
who can often be considered ‘amateur experts’. Regional to three at the 15 predetermined points between June 2012 and
reviewers validate sightings, based on filters of expected bird June 2016.
species and counts, created by a sighting’s spatiotemporal We compared these data with eBird data collected over the
coordinates (Wood et al. 2011). eBird data at the Cornell Lab same period and submitted by volunteers who recorded the
of Ornithology are freely accessible to researchers, providing an location, date, time of day and duration of their bird-watching.
increasingly powerful source of data. Bird assemblage data, eBirders generally use a mobile phone app to record their
recorded through eBird, are increasingly analysed (>135 observations and can record either abundance estimates or
publications), but generally address broad-scale questions (e.g. solely presence of species seen and/or heard. There are no
Hochachka and Fink 2012; Hochachka et al. 2012; La Sorte et al. restrictions to eBird surveys’ length, frequency or distance
2013, 2016). Analyses of the fine spatial scale applicability of travelled; eBirders are free to survey at any time of day with
178 Wildlife Research C. T. Callaghan et al.

any temporal frequency, but they must indicate whether each list Results
is a complete list of birds seen and/or heard (see Wood et al. 2011; The number of species recorded during the NSW surveys
Sullivan et al. 2014 for further details about eBird methods). (n = 80) was 30% lower than the number recorded through
Contrary to the NSW surveys, which were not vetted or filtered eBird surveys (n = 116; see Table S1 for species names). This
because they relied on a small team of experienced birdwatchers difference in species richness was reflected in the overall Shannon
collecting the data, eBird data are automatically filtered as part diversity, calculated by pooling data from all 5 years, which was
of the collection protocol based on expected bird species, their significantly lower for the NSW surveys (3.64) than the eBird
abundance and the spatiotemporal coordinates of the sighting. data (3.94; t751.7 = –4.0, P < 0.0001). Using years as replicates,
These automatic filters are more critical because eBird relies Shannon diversity (t5.3 = –2.7, P = 0.04) was significantly higher
on observers with a wide range of skills, ranging from beginner for the eBird data than the NSW survey data, and the difference
to expert (Kelling et al. 2015b). Reported observations of in species richness was also correlative (t5.6 = –2.2, P = 0.07).
unexpected species are reviewed by local experts before they The number of contributions to the eBird database and time
are added, or not, to the database. We downloaded the eBird Basic spent surveying increased during the study period (Table 1).
Dataset (version ebd_AU-relAug-2016; data can be downloaded There were also temporal changes in diversity determined from
at https://ebird.org/data/download), and restricted the dataset to eBird data, with species richness increasing over time. In contrast,
complete checklists where observers followed a travelling or species richness based on the NSW surveys remained relatively
exhaustive protocol. Observations without abundance estimates constant (Fig. 1a). However, Shannon diversity remained
(i.e. simple presence or absence data only) were excluded from relatively constant for both data sources over the study period
our analysis of eBird data, resulting in a dataset of 178 surveys (Fig. 1b). To investigate these trends further, we accounted for
contributed by 74 observers. survey effort by dividing by time spent surveying and, after this
adjustment, NSW surveys had significantly higher standardised
Analysis richness (t8.0 = 3.4, P = 0.01) and diversity (t8.0 = 3.0, P = 0.02)
indices (Fig. 2).
We used two commonly employed metrics of biological diversity Using years as replicates, we found no difference between
(Magurran 2004; Morris et al. 2014), species richness (S) and data sources in either the species richness (t8.0 = 1.7, P = 0.13) or
Shannon diversity (H0 ), as well as the Bray–Curtis similarity Shannon diversity (t8.0 = 1.0, P = 0.33) of waterbirds (Fig. 3a).
(Bray and Curtis 1957) as a measure of community composition, Likewise, for landbird species, eBird data did not detect
for our comparisons. Species richness is the total number of significantly different species richness (t8.0 = 2.1, P = 0.07) or
species in a community and Shannon diversity is another measure Shannon diversity (t8.0 = 0.7, P = 0.50; Fig. 3b) from the NSW
of community diversity that accounts for species richness and surveys.
the proportion of each species in a community (Magurran 2004). In total, 42 species recorded in the eBird data were not
Overall species richness and Shannon diversity were calculated detected during the NSW surveys, and six species recorded
by pooling data from all 5 years for each data source. A robust during NSW surveys were not reported in eBird data. Of the
t-test (Hutcheson 1970; Zar 1999) was used to test for a possible 42 species detected solely in eBird data, 22 were detected once
difference in Shannon diversity between the two data sources. and eight were detected twice (Table S1). As such, multivariate
We also calculated species richness and Shannon diversity for analysis of variance identified a significant difference in avian
each year (2012–16). Mean counts of each species were community composition as determined by NSW surveys and
calculated per year to estimate Shannon diversity. We also eBird data (R2 = 0.21, P = 0.015), but no difference among years
repeated these analyses, but accounted for the different survey for either dataset (R2 = 0.48, P = 0.065; Fig. 4). A SIMPER
effort between data sources by dividing species richness and analysis revealed that the difference in community structure
Shannon diversity by the total number of minutes spent surveying was mostly due to species recorded more often in eBird data
during each year. Subsequently, we calculated species richness than in NSW surveys (Tables S1 and S2). For instance, tree
and Shannon diversity separately for both waterbirds and martin, Australian reed-warbler, yellow thornbill, chestnut teal
landbirds. We used t-tests to investigate differences between and great egret were the most influential species accounting for
data sources, using year as a replicate. For samples with equal differences between data sources (Table S2), and they had 12, 21,
or unequal variances, we used the student’s two-sample t-test
(Zar 1999) and Welch’s two-sample t-test, respectively
(Ruxton 2006). Table 1. Number of eBird and structured surveys conducted per year
Lastly, we used non-metric multidimensional scaling from June 2012 to June 2016 in Centennial Park, Sydney
(NMDS) with Bray–Curtis similarity of a presence/absence
Year Number of surveys Total minutes surveying
matrix to visualise differences in community composition
eBird Structured eBird Structured
between data sources. A non-parametric MANOVA (Anderson
area-search area-search
2001) was used to identify significant differences in community surveys surveys
composition due to year and data source, and a similarity
percentages procedure (SIMPER) was used to investigate the 2012 3 38 650 570
species that explained differences in community composition, 2013 7 72 1764 1080
using the vegan package (Oksanen et al. 2016). Significance was 2014 34 42 3180 630
2015 66 52 8248 780
determined at a = 0.05, and all analyses were completed in R
2016 68 38 8986 570
statistical software (R Core Team 2016).
Structured versus unstructured citizen science data Wildlife Research 179

100
(a)

Species richness (S)

75

50

25

5
(b)
Species diversity (H’)

0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fig. 1. Variation in (a) species richness and (b) Shannon diversity (H’) from June 2012 to June 2016 in Centennial Park,
Sydney, calculated from structured surveys (dashed line) and eBird data (continuous line).

19, 24 and 25 observations, respectively, in eBird data, Our analysis of community composition identified significant
compared with 0, 2, 1, 2 and 5 observations, respectively, in differences between the two survey methods, and was most
NSW surveys (Table S1). We found no clear patterns in the influenced by differential reporting (i.e. significantly greater
type of species more likely to be recorded with each survey number of observations in the eBird data than NSW surveys)
method. However, nocturnal species (powerful owl, tawny of a subset of species (Tables S1 and S2). This was likely due to
frogmouth and barn owl) were recorded only in eBird surveys, the flexibility of eBird survey methods to allow exhaustive area
which were also more likely to report common grassland searches, unconstrained by the replicated fixed-area searches
birds (rock pigeon, European starling, little corella and long- of structured surveys, allowing for increased detection of
billed corella). uncommon birds that may only frequent a specific habitat of
the greenspace (i.e. great egret, chestnut teal, yellow thornbill and
Australian reed-warbler; Table S1). For example, nocturnally
Discussion active birds were recorded by unstructured eBird surveys but not
The bird diversity of a discrete urban greenspace, measured by structured surveys (Table S1). eBird surveys probably targeted
species richness and Shannon diversity, was found to be higher locations specifically known for roosting individuals, which had
using records collected through eBird than from structured a low probability of occurrence within the areas of the structured
surveys, but, after accounting for survey effort, structured surveys. Similarly, common grassland birds were detected more
surveys provided significantly higher estimates. This suggests frequently in unstructured eBird surveys than structured surveys
that structured surveys may be a more efficient monitoring (Table S1), reflecting the increased spatial coverage of the eBird
protocol (i.e. biodiversity estimates per unit time), but that surveys (Fig. S1). Clearly, with its increased survey effort,
eBird’s inexpensive and easily collected data can provide eBird provided useful and possibly more accurate estimates of
higher biodiversity estimates (Munson et al. 2010). The higher some biodiversity indices, despite the unstructured method of
estimates derived from eBird observations appear to reflect a data collection. Conversely, by overestimating the importance
combination of increased search effort (time spent surveying, of rare and/or cryptic species, eBird data may give exaggerated
Fig. 2) and spatial coverage (Fig. S1) compared with structured impressions of species abundance. Although calculation of
surveys. This exemplifies the inherent difference between abundance estimates was not attempted in this study (cf.
structured and unstructured citizen science projects (Welvaert Walker and Taylor 2017), we advise caution when considering
and Caley 2016). Furthermore, we found no differences in rare species, and to ensure that data are fit for purpose. In
landbird and waterbird detection between data sources (Fig. 3), regards to many forms of biodiversity monitoring, where land
suggesting that eBirders do a job comparable to structured managers are interested in the full complement of species using
surveys for both bird classification types, contrasting with a particular area, pseudo-replication of surveys (i.e. the same
previous research which has found differences in detection and individual birds being observed and reported by multiple
reporting among species’ groups (Snäll et al. 2011). observers) is not an issue.
180 Wildlife Research C. T. Callaghan et al.

(a)

Adjusted species richness (S)

0.075

0.050

0.025

(b)
0.005
Adjusted species diversity (H′)

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fig. 2. Variation in (a) adjusted species richness and (b) adjusted Shannon diversity (H’) from June 2012 to June 2016
in Centennial Park, Sydney, calculated from structured surveys (dashed line) and eBird data (continuous line). Species
richness and diversity were adjusted by dividing them by total number of minutes spent surveying in that year.

Several studies have now investigated the validity of citizen- checklist-based observational data (e.g. detectability estimation).
based bird data, both at large spatial scales (Snäll et al. 2011; Further, eBird data are likely to be less accurate at measuring
Szabo et al. 2012; Kamp et al. 2016) and in case-specific relative densities of different species because search effort
instances (e.g. Nagy et al. 2012; Miller et al. 2016). Our will vary with habitat type. As such, methods are needed to
analysis has shifted the traditional coarse-scale spatial focus estimate absolute abundance using eBird (as opposed to relative
(e.g. Munson et al. 2010; Kamp et al. 2016) of structured abundance; Walker and Taylor 2017), and improve its application
versus unstructured data to a fine spatial scale typically used for conservation management. In addition, identification of
by land managers and community groups (e.g. Callaghan and the number of eBird surveys that are required for accurate
Gawlik 2015; Sullivan et al. 2017). We demonstrate that at small community metrics is critical (i.e. how many lists are
scales, land managers can be confident that eBird provides necessary; Bibby et al. 1998). For example, our avian
comparable and perhaps even better biodiversity estimates community estimate, based on the eBird data for 2014–16,
than structured surveys. Structured surveys, such as those differed from that of 2012–13 (Fig. 4) when only 10 reports
compared here, usually involve stratification by habitat, and were submitted. From 2014 to 2016, 168 reports were submitted,
habitat classifications inevitably omit some low-occurrence or a number sufficient to confidently describe composition.
mixed habitats, and tend to under-sample extensive habitats. However, we note that this could partially be due to eBird
In our case, for example, results of structured surveys would officially replacing Eremaea birds in Australia in 2014 (http://
have been better if some mixed-habitat roost sites had been ebird.org/content/australia/news/welcome-to-eremaea-ebird-2/
included, or if there had been greater representation of [Verified 27/03/2018]).
grasslands. However, this would have entailed either increased Our results showed that eBird surveys, collected by
survey effort or reduced sampling of core habitats. birdwatchers with a wider range of skills than that of
Many land managers also want to track changes in abundance experienced birdwatchers who conducted the structured surveys,
over time in relation to natural seasonal fluctuations or were a useful source of data for describing the avifauna of an
environmental change (Goldsmith 1991). Currently, eBird data urban greenspace in Sydney. Further, the number of eBird
may not adequately track absolute abundance at Centennial Park, checklists submitted for Centennial Park increased 10-fold
due to the difficulties of extracting population estimates from during our study, potentially increasing their effectiveness in
Structured versus unstructured citizen science data Wildlife Research 181

(a)

60
Species richness (S)

40

20

5
(b)
Shannon diversity (H’)

0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Landbird Waterbird

Fig. 3. Variation in (a) species richness and (b) Shannon diversity calculated from 2012 to 2016 at Centennial Park, Sydney,
Australia, from structured surveys (dashed line) and eBird (continuous line). Richness and diversity were calculated separately
for landbird and waterbird classifications.

reach of eBird data collection (Wood et al. 2011) to historically

2D Stress: 0.09 under-sampled regions. Ultimately, we demonstrate that an
advantage of using eBird is the increased effort of citizen
scientists, and validate biodiversity estimates when compared
2013
2015 with structured surveys. Our study adds to the growing literature
NMDS2

2014 that is validating citizen science projects (Wiersma 2010;

2012 Bonter and Cooper 2012; Ellwood et al. 2017), but we
2015 2016
focused on a small spatial scale. Our analyses have global
2012 2014 implications for monitoring urban greenspaces and our results
2016
2013
are likely generalisable across other taxa that may be the target
of unstructured citizen science projects in urban greenspaces
(Cooper et al. 2007).
NMDS1

Fig. 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) plot showing Conflicts of interest

differences between avian communities, estimated using structured surveys
(filled squares) and eBird data (open squares) from Centennial Park, Sydney, The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Australia, for each year from 2012 to 2016.

monitoring avian biodiversity. eBird has seen an exponential Supplementary material

growth in use and number of contributors, and is now well Supplementary materials include (1) the list of bird species
established around the world (Sullivan et al. 2014). recorded from each of the respective data sources, (2) the
Submissions are likely to increase with the global rise in full results of the SIMPER analysis showing which species
avitourism (Biggs et al. 2011; Steven et al. 2015) and increase contributed to community differences, and (3) a figure showing
in ‘virtual birding’ (Cottman-Fields et al. 2013), extending the the relationship between species richness and Shannon diversity
182 Wildlife Research C. T. Callaghan et al.

and the distance travelled on a given eBird checklist. These Cottman-Fields, M., Brereton, M., and Roe, P. (2013). Virtual birding:
materials are available from the Journal’s website. extending an environmental pastime into the virtual world for citizen
science. In ‘Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems, Association for Computing Machinery, New
Acknowledgements York, NY, USA, pp. 187–194.
Courter, J. R., Johnson, R. J., Stuyck, C. M., Lang, B. A., and Kaiser, E. W.
We thank Birding NSW for allowing us to use their data and all the (2013). Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: implications
volunteers committed to monitoring avian trends at Centennial Park. for phenology studies. International Journal of Biometeorology 57,
We also thank eBird and the Cornell Lab of Ornithology for archiving 715–720. doi:10.1007/s00484-012-0598-7
and collecting vast quantities of avian observational data made publicly Crall, A. W., Newman, G. J., Stohlgren, T. J., Holfelder, K. A., Graham, J., and
available to researchers. We thank D. Callaghan, V. Inman, two anonymous Waller, D. M. (2011). Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive
referees and the journal editors for constructive comments that substantially species case study. Conservation Letters 4, 433–442. doi:10.1111/j.1755-
improved this manuscript. 263X.2011.00196.x
Davies, T. K., Stevens, G., Meekan, M. G., Struve, J., and Rowcliffe, J. M.
(2012). Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations?
References Investigating bias in mark–recapture modelling using identification
Anderson, M. J. (2001). A new method for non-parametric analysis of photographs sourced from the public. Wildlife Research 39, 696–704.
variance. Austral Ecology 26, 32–46. doi:10.1071/WR12092
Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry, S., Cunningham, R., and Poulter, R. (2003). Dickinson, J. L., Zuckerberg, B., and Bonter, D. (2010). Citizen Science as
‘The New Atlas of Australian Birds.’ (Royal Australasian Ornithologists an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Review of
Union: Melbourne.) Ecology Evolution and Systematics 41, 149–172. doi:10.1146/annurev-
Bibby, C. J., Marsden, S., and Jones, M. (1998). ‘Bird Surveys.’ (Expedition ecolsys-102209-144636
Advisory Centre of the Royal Geographical Society: London.) Domroese, M. C., and Johnson, E. A. (2017). Why watch bees? Motivations
Biggs, D., Turpie, J., Fabricius, C., and Spenceley, A. (2011). The value of of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biological
avitourism for conservation and job-creation – an analysis from South Conservation 208, 40–47. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.020
Africa. Conservation & Society 9, 80–90. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.79198 Ellwood, E. R., Crimmins, T. M., and Miller-Rushing, A. J. (2017).
Bird, T. J., Bates, A. E., Lefcheck, J. S., Hill, N. A., Thomson, R. J., Edgar, Citizen science and conservation: recommendations for a rapidly
G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Wotherspoon, S., Krkosek, M., Stuart-Smith, moving field. Biological Conservation 208, 1–4. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.
J. F., Pecl, G. T., Barrett, N., and Frusher, S. (2014). Statistical solutions 2016.10.014
for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reitsma, R., Roux, K., Salmonsen, L., and Marra, P. P.
Conservation 173, 144–154. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037 (2005). The Neighborhood Nestwatch program: participant outcomes of
Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F., and Reilly, P. N. (1984). ‘The Atlas of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology 19,
Australian Birds.’ (Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union: Melbourne.) 589–594. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00s01.x
Boakes, E. H., McGowan, P. J. K., Fuller, R. A., Chang-qing, D., Clark, N. E., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., Zuckerberg, B., Winkler, D. W., Shaby, B.,
O’Connor, K., and Mace, G. M. (2010). Distorted views of biodiversity: Munson, M. A., Hooker, G., Riedewald, M., Sheldon, D., and Kelling, S.
spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology 8, (2010). Spatiotemporal exploratory models for broad-scale survey data.
e1000385. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385 Ecological Applications 20, 2131–2147. doi:10.1890/09-1340.1
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, Goldsmith, F. B. (1991). ‘Monitoring for Conservation and Ecology.’
K. V., and Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for (Chapman and Hall: London.)
expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59, Gollan, J., de Bruyn, L. L., Reid, N., and Wilkie, L. (2012). Can volunteers
977–984. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9 collect data that are comparable to professional scientists? A study of
Bonter, D. N., and Cooper, C. B. (2012). Data validation in citizen science: variables used in monitoring outcomes of ecosystem rehabilitation.
a case study from project feeder watch. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environmental Management 50, 969–978. doi:10.1007/s00267-012-
Environment 10, 305–307. doi:10.1890/110273 9924-4
Bray, J. R., and Curtis, J. T. (1957). An ordination of the upland forest Hochachka, W. M., and Fink, D. (2012). Broad-scale citizen science data
communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27, from checklists: prospects and challenges for macroecology. Frontiers
325–349. doi:10.2307/1942268 of Biogeography 4, 150–154.
Callaghan, C. T., and Gawlik, D. E. (2015). Efficacy of eBird data as an aid Hochachka, W. M., Fink, D., Hutchinson, R. A., Sheldon, D., Wong, W.-K.,
in conservation planning and monitoring. Journal of Field Ornithology and Kelling, S. (2012). Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale
86, 298–304. doi:10.1111/jofo.12121 citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27, 130–137. doi:10.1016/
Callaghan, C. T., Lyons, M. B., Martin, J. M., Major, R. E., and Kingsford, j.tree.2011.11.006
R. T. (2017). Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of Hoyer, M. V., Wellendorf, N., Frydenborg, R., Bartlett, D., and Canfield, D. E.
urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science data. Avian Conservation Jr (2012). A comparison between professionally (Florida Department
and Ecology 12. doi:org/10.5751/ACE-01104-120212 of Environmental Protection) and volunteer (Florida LAKEWATCH)
Centennial Parklands (2015). Centennial Parklands Annual Report collected trophic state chemistry data in Florida. Lake and Reservoir
2014–2015. Available at https://www.centennialparklands.com.au/__ Management Journal 28, 277–281.
data/assets/pdf_file/0018/102816/Centennial_Parklands_Annual_Report_ Hutcheson, K. (1970). A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon
2014-2015_Final.PDF [Verified 27/03/2018] formula. Journal of Theoretical Biology 29, 151–154. doi:10.1016/0022-
Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? 5193(70)90124-4
Bioscience 58, 192–197. doi:10.1641/B580303 Isaac, N. J. B., van Strien, A. J., August, T. A., de Zeeuw, M. P., and Roy, D. B.
Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., and Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen (2014). Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from
science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, 1052–1060.
and Society 12. doi:10.5751/ES-02197-120211 doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12254
Structured versus unstructured citizen science data Wildlife Research 183

Jackson, M. M., Gergel, S. E., and Martin, K. (2015). Citizen science and Kelling, S. (2010). A method for measuring the relative information
field survey observations provide comparable results for mapping content of data from different monitoring protocols. Methods in Ecology
Vancouver Island white-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura saxatilis) and Evolution 1, 263–273.
distributions. Biological Conservation 181, 162–172. doi:10.1016/ Nagy, C., Bardwell, K., Rockwell, R. F., Christie, R., and Weckel, M. (2012).
j.biocon.2014.11.010 Validation of a citizen science-based model of site occupancy for
Jordan, R., Crall, A., Gray, S., Phillips, T., and Mellor, D. (2015). Citizen eastern screech owls with systematic data in suburban New York
science as a distinct field of inquiry. Bioscience 65, 208–211. doi:10.1093/ and Connecticut. Northeastern Naturalist 19, 143–158. doi:10.1656/
biosci/biu217 045.019.s611
Kamp, J., Oppel, S., Heldbjerg, H., Nyegaard, T., and Donald, P. F. (2016). National Audubon Society (2012). ‘The Christmas Bird Count Historical
Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population Results.’ (National Audubon Society: New York.)
declines of common birds in Denmark. Diversity & Distributions 22, Oksanen, J. F., Blanchet, G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn,
1024–1035. doi:10.1111/ddi.12463 D., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Henry, M.,
Kelling, S., Fink, D., La Sorte, F. A., Johnston, A., Bruns, N. E., and Stevens, H., Szoecs, E., and Wagner, H. [online]. (2016). Vegan:
Hochachka, W. M. (2015a). Taking a ‘Big Data’ approach to data Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4–1. Available at
quality in a citizen science project. Ambio 44, 601–611. doi:10.1007/ https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan [Verified 27/03/2018].
s13280-015-0710-4 R Core Team (2016). R: a language and environment for statistical
Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M., Fink, D., Gerbracht, J., computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., Moore, T., Wiggins, A., Wong, W.-K., Wood, Risely, K., Noble, D. G., and Baillie, S. R. (2009). The breeding bird
C., and Yu, J. (2015b). Can observation skills of citizen scientists be survey 2008. BTO Research Report 537, British Trust for Ornithology,
estimated using species accumulation curves? PLoS One 10(10), Thetford, UK.
e0139600. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139600 Ruxton, G. D. (2006). The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative
Kobori, H., and Primack, R. B. (2003). Participatory conservation approaches to Student’s t-test and the Mann–Whitney U test. Behavioral Ecology 17,
for satoyama, the traditional forest and agricultural landscape of Japan. 688–690. doi:10.1093/beheco/ark016
Ambio 32, 307–311. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-32.4.307 Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., Fallon, J. E., Pardieck, K. L., Ziolkowski, D. J., Jr, and
Kobori, H., Dickinson, J. L., Washitani, I., Sakurai, R., Amano, T., Komatsu, Link, W. A. (2014). The North American breeding bird survey, results
N., Kitamura, W., Takagawa, S., Koyama, K., Ogawar, T., and Miller- and analysis 1966–2013. Version 01.30.2015, USGS Patuxent Wildlife
Rushing, A. J. (2016). Citizen science: a new approach to advance Research Center, Laurel, MD.
ecology, education, and conservation. Ecological Research 31, 1–19. Semple, S. A., and Weins, J. A. (1989). Bird populations and environmental
doi:10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y changes: can birds be bio-indicators? American Birds 43, 260–270.
La Sorte, F. A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., DeLong, J. P., and Kelling, S. Snäll, T., Kindvall, O., Nilsson, J., and Part, T. (2011). Evaluating citizen-
(2013). Population-level scaling of avian migration speed with body size based presence data for bird monitoring. Biological Conservation 144,
and migration distance for powered fliers. Ecology 94, 1839–1847. 804–810. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.010
doi:10.1890/12-1768.1 Steven, R., Morrison, C., and Castley, J. G. (2015). Birdwatching and
La Sorte, F. A., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., and Kelling, S. (2016). avitourism: a global review of research into its participant markets,
Convergence of broad-scale migration strategies in terrestrial birds. distribution and impacts, highlighting future research priorities to
Proceedings. Biological Sciences 283, 20152588. doi:10.1098/rspb. inform sustainable avitourism management. Journal of Sustainable
2015.2588 Tourism 23, 1257–1276. doi:10.1080/09669582.2014.924955
Lowe, K., Taylor, C. E., and Major, R. E. (2011). Do common mynas Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C. L., Iliff, M. J., Bonney, R. E., Fink, D., and Kelling,
significantly compete with native birds in urban environments? S. (2009). eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological
Journal of Ornithology 152, 909–921. doi:10.1007/s10336-011-0674-5 sciences. Biological Conservation 142, 2282–2292. doi:10.1016/
MacKenzie, C. M., Murray, G., Primack, R., and Weihrauch, D. (2017). j.biocon.2009.05.006
Lessons from citizen science: assessing volunteer-collected plant Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N.,
phenology data with Mountain Watch. Biological Conservation 208, Cooper, C. B., Damoulas, T., Dhondt, A. A., Dietterich, T., Farnsworth,
121–126. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.027 A., Fink, D., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Frefericks, T., Gerbracht, J., Gomes, C.,
Magurran, A. E. (2004). ‘Measuring Biological Diversity.’ 2nd edn. Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M. J., Lagoze, C., La Sorte, F. A., Merrefield,
(Blackwell Science Ltd: Oxford.) M., Morris, W., Phillips, T. B., Reynolds, M., Rodewald, A. D.,
Miller, R. A., Paprocki, N., Stuber, M. J., Moulton, C. E., and Carlisle, J. D. Rosenberg, K. V., Trautmann, N. M., Wiggins, A., Winkler, D. W.,
(2016). Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) surveys in the North American Wong, W. K., Wood, C. L., Yu, J., and Kelling, S. (2014). The eBird
Intermountain West: utilizing citizen scientists to conduct monitoring enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of
across a broad geographic scale. Avian Conservation & Ecology 11, citizen science. Biological Conservation 169, 31–40. doi:10.1016/j.
doi:10.5751/ACE-00819-110103 biocon.2013.11.003
Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., and Bonney, R. (2012). The history of Sullivan, B. L., Phillips, T., Dayer, A. A., Wood, C. L., Farnsworth, A., Iliff,
public participation in ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the M. J., Davies, I. J., Wiggins, A., Fink, D., and Hochachka, W. M. (2017).
Environment 10, 285–290. doi:10.1890/110278 Using open access observational data for conservation action: a case
Morris, E. K., Caruso, T., Buscot, F., Fischer, M., Hancock, C., Maier, T. S., study for birds. Biological Conservation 208, 5–14. doi:10.1016/
Meiners, T., Müller, C., Obermaier, E., Prati, D., Socher, S. A., j.biocon.2016.04.031
Sonnemann, I., Wäschke, N., Wubet, T., Wurst, S., and Rillig, M. C. Szabo, J. K., Fuller, R. A., and Possingham, H. P. (2012). A comparison
(2014). Choosing and using diversity indices: insights for ecological of estimates of relative abundance from a weakly structured mass-
applications from the German Biodiversity Exploratories. Ecology and participation bird atlas survey and a robustly designed monitoring
Evolution 4, 3514–3524. doi:10.1002/ece3.1155 scheme. The Ibis 154, 468–479. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2012.01229.x
Munson, M. A., Caruana, R., Fink, D., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M., Tulloch, A. I. T., Possingham, H. P., Joseph, L. N., Szabo, J., and Martin, T. G.
Rosenberg, K. V., Sheldon, D., Sullivan, B. L., Wood, C., and (2013). Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring
184 Wildlife Research C. T. Callaghan et al.

programs. Biological Conservation 165, 128–138. doi:10.1016/j.biocon. in a quantitative data framework. SpringerPlus 5, 1890. doi:10.1186/
2013.05.025 s40064-016-3583-5
Vianna, G. M. S., Meekan, M. G., Bornovski, T. H., and Meeuwig, J. J. (2014). Wiersma, Y. F. (2010). Birding 2.0: citizen science and effective monitoring
Acoustic telemetry validates a citizen science approach for monitoring in the Web 2.0 world. Avian Conservation & Ecology 5(2). doi:10.5751/
sharks on coral reefs. PLoS One 9, e95565. doi:10.1371/journal. ACE-00427-050213
pone.0095565 Wood, C., Sullivan, B., Iliff, M., Fink, D., and Kelling, S. (2011). eBird:
Walker, J., and Taylor, P. D. (2017). Using eBird data to model population engaging birders in science and conservation. PLoS Biology 9, e1001220.
change of migratory bird species. Avian Conservation & Ecology 12(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001220
doi:10.5751/ACE-00960-120104 Zar, J. H. (1999). ‘Biostatistical Analysis.’ 4th edn. (Prentice Hall: Upper
Welvaert, M., and Caley, P. (2016). Citizen surveillance for environmental Saddle River, NY.)
monitoring: combining the effects of citizen science and crowdsourcing

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/wr
Wildlife Research 2018, 45, 176–184 © CSIRO 2018
doi:10.1071/WR17141_AC

Supplementary material

Avian monitoring – comparing structured and unstructured citizen science

Corey T. CallaghanA,D, John M. MartinA,B, Richard E. MajorA,C and Richard T. KingsfordA

A
Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
B
Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Mrs Macquaries Road, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
C
Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 1 William Street, Sydney, NSW 2010,
Australia.
D
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
 Table S1. The list of 122 bird species observed at Centennial Park, Sydney, Australia and the number
of records from the eBird database and structured surveys, 2012–2016
Number of records refers to the number of times a species was recorded on a survey. Bird names
follow eBird/Clements v2016 Taxonomy (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist/download/).
N = the number of surveys from the respective data sources

Bird-type Number of Records

Species (W = Waterbird eBird Structured Surveys
L = Landbird) (N = 178) (N = 242)
Black Swan (Cygnus atratus) W 131 73
Magpie-lark (Grallina cyanoleuca) L 127 60
Australian Magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen) L 124 42
Australasian Swamphen (Porphyrio melanotus) W 123 99
Australian Ibis (Threskiornis moluccus) W 121 110
Australian Pelican (Pelecanus conspicillatus) W 121 12
Crested Pigeon (Ocyphaps lophotes) L 121 40
Dusky Moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa) W 121 118
Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus) L 120 53
Pacific Black Duck (Anas superciliosa) W 119 121
Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra) W 116 103
Australian Raven (Corvus coronoides) L 114 41
Rock Pigeon (Columba livia) L 113 8
Noisy Miner (Manorina melanocephala) L 111 186
Silver Gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) W 110 29
Australasian Darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae) W 109 49
Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles) W 108 11
Pied Cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius) W 108 16
Welcome Swallow (Hirundo neoxena) L 106 96
White-eyed Duck (Aythya australis) W 105 60
Willie-wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys) L 105 38
Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) L 104 66
Superb Fairywren (Malurus cyaneus) L 104 80
Common Myna (Acridotheres tristis) L 103 43
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita) L 103 33
Little Corella (Cacatua sanguinea) L 102 4
Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) W 100 38
Little Black Cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris) W 99 52
Little Pied Cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos) W 96 39
Spotted Dove (Streptopelia chinensis) L 87 56
Laughing Kookaburra (Dacelo novaeguineae) L 84 17
Long-billed Corella (Cacatua tenuirostris) L 83 3
Australasian Grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae) W 80 64
Gray Butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus) L 72 23
European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) L 70 4
White-faced Heron (Egretta novaehollandiae) W 66 20
Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) L 64 3
Tawny Frogmouth (Podargus strigoides) L 64 10
Gray Teal (Anas gracilis) W 54 9
Maned Duck (Chenonetta jubata) W 48 4
Buff-banded Rail (Gallirallus philippensis) W 43 9
Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus funereus) L 41 13
Intermediate Egret (Mesophoyx intermedia) W 40 10
Royal Spoonbill (Platalea regia) W 40 7
Rufous Night-Heron (Nycticorax caledonicus) W 36 5
Red Wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata) L 33 25
Australasian Figbird (Sphecotheres vieilloti) L 26 12
Black-faced Cuckooshrike (Coracina novaehollandiae) L 25 15
Fairy Martin (Petrochelidon ariel) L 25 17
Great Egret (Ardea alba) W 25 5
New Holland Honeyeater (Phylidonyris novaehollandiae) L 25 22
Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea) W 24 2
Australian Reed-Warbler (Acrocephalus australis) L 21 2
Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae) L 20 9
Yellow Thornbill (Acanthiza nana) L 19 1
Brown Goshawk (Accipiter fasciatus) L 17 7
Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) W 16 4
Barn Owl (Tyto alba) L 15 1
Tree Martin (Petrochelidon nigricans) L 12 0
Pacific Koel (Eudynamys orientalis) L 10 6
Collared Sparrowhawk (Accipiter cirrocephalus) L 9 0
Gray Fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa) L 9 6
Australian Kestrel (Falco cenchroides) L 8 1
Silver-eye (Zosterops lateralis) L 8 6
Galah (Eolophus roseicapilla) L 7 0
Little Egret (Egretta garzetta) W 7 0
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) L 7 0
Olive-backed Oriole (Oriolus sagittatus) L 5 1
Pink-eared Duck (Malacorhynchus membranaceus) W 5 5
Sacred Kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus) L 5 0
Spotted Pardalote (Pardalotus punctatus) L 5 11
Eastern Spinebill (Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris) L 4 1
White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) L 4 0
Dollarbird (Eurystomus orientalis) L 3 0
Eastern Rosella (Platycercus eximius) L 3 0
Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis) L 3 1
Gray Goshawk (Accipiter novaehollandiae) L 3 1
House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) L 3 0
Little Wattlebird (Anthochaera chrysoptera) L 3 3
Musk Lorikeet (Glossopsitta concinna) L 3 0
Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) L 3 1
Australian Shelduck (Tadorna tadornoides) W 2 0
Australian Shoveler (Anas rhynchotis) W 2 3
Brown Quail (Synoicus ypsilophorus) L 2 1
Eurasian Blackbird (Turdus merula) L 2 0
Fan-tailed Cuckoo (Cacomantis flabelliformis) L 2 1
Hoary-headed Grebe (Poliocephalus poliocephalus) W 2 4
Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) W 2 0
Pied Stilt (Himantopus leucocephalus) W 2 0
Red-whiskered Bulbul (Pycnonotus jocosus) L 2 0
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet (Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus) L 2 0
Southern Boobook (Ninox novaeseelandiae) L 2 0
Spangled Drongo (Dicrurus bracteatus) L 2 0
Straw-necked Ibis (Threskiornis spinicollis) W 2 0
Australian King-Parrot (Alisterus scapularis) L 1 0
Blue-billed Duck (Oxyura australis) W 1 0
Brown Falcon (Falco berigora) L 1 0
Brown Honeyeater (Lichmera indistincta) L 1 0
Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) W 1 0
European Greenfinch (Chloris chloris) L 1 0
Lewin's Honeyeater (Meliphaga lewinii) L 1 0
Mistletoebird (Dicaeum hirundinaceum) L 1 0
Noisy Pitta (Pitta versicolor) L 1 0
Pacific Heron (Ardea pacifica) W 1 0
Red-browed Firetail (Neochmia temporalis) L 1 0
Red-rumped Parrot (Psephotus haematonotus) L 1 0
Rose Robin (Petroica rosea) L 1 0
Rufous Whistler (Pachycephala rufiventris) L 1 0
Striated Thornbill (Acanthiza lineata) L 1 0
Variegated Fairywren (Malurus lamberti) L 1 0
Weebill (Smicrornis brevirostris) L 1 0
Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybrida) W 1 0
Whistling Kite (Haliastur sphenurus) L 1 0
Yellow-billed Spoonbill (Platalea flavipes) L 1 0
Yellow-faced Honeyeater (Caligavis chrysops) L 1 0
Yellow-rumped Thornbill (Acanthiza chrysorrhoa) L 1 0
Australian Hobby (Falco longipennis) L 0 1
Australian Kite (Elanus axillaris) L 0 2
Black-fronted Dotterel (Elseyornis melanops) W 0 1
Musk Duck (Biziura lobata) W 0 1
Noisy Friarbird (Philemon corniculatus) L 0 1
Plumed Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna eytoni) W 0 1
 Table S2. The results of the SIMPER analysis, which demonstrates the species which most
contributed to the difference in community composition
Species are listed in descending contribution. Bird names follow eBird/Clements v2016 Taxonomy
(http://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist/download/)

Species Average s.d. Ratio Cumsum P

Tree Martin 0.006099 0.00319 1.915 0.0236 0.04
Australian Reed-Warbler 0.00535 0.00383 1.395 0.0444 0.17
Yellow Thornbill 0.00535 0.00383 1.395 0.0651 0.17
Chestnut Teal 0.004899 0.00416 1.178 0.0841 0.13
Great Egret 0.004899 0.00416 1.178 0.1031 0.13
Sacred Kingfisher 0.004759 0.00405 1.174 0.1215 0.03
European Starling 0.0047 0.00398 1.181 0.1397 0.15
House Sparrow 0.004656 0.00393 1.185 0.1578 0.04
Peregrine Falcon 0.004656 0.00393 1.185 0.1758 0.04
Brown Goshawk 0.004649 0.00428 1.085 0.1938 0.1
Silver-eye 0.004641 0.00427 1.086 0.2118 0.11
Maned Duck 0.004432 0.00408 1.086 0.229 0.48
Long-billed Corella 0.004397 0.00404 1.087 0.246 0.48
Olive-backed Oriole 0.004373 0.00402 1.089 0.263 0.35
Galah 0.004352 0.00364 1.197 0.2798 0.11
White-bellied Sea-Eagle 0.004352 0.00364 1.197 0.2967 0.11
Barn Owl 0.004202 0.00382 1.1 0.313 0.45
Powerful Owl 0.004054 0.00403 1.006 0.3287 0.97
Gray Fantail 0.003904 0.00419 0.932 0.3438 0.93
Australasian Figbird 0.00386 0.00416 0.929 0.3588 0.96
Channel-billed Cuckoo 0.003757 0.00436 0.861 0.3733 0.19
Pacific Koel 0.003757 0.00436 0.861 0.3879 0.19
Rufous Night-Heron 0.003755 0.00434 0.865 0.4024 0.26
Little Wattlebird 0.003736 0.00401 0.933 0.4169 0.98
Little Corella 0.003638 0.00422 0.862 0.431 0.95
Cattle Egret 0.003627 0.00422 0.86 0.4451 0.91
Dollarbird 0.003609 0.00453 0.797 0.459 0.01
Royal Spoonbill 0.003609 0.00453 0.797 0.473 0.01
Tawny Frogmouth 0.003609 0.00453 0.797 0.487 0.01
Spotted Pardalote 0.003571 0.00418 0.855 0.5009 0.33
Pink-eared Duck 0.00357 0.00418 0.854 0.5147 0.26
Australian Shoveler 0.00339 0.00394 0.861 0.5278 0.86
Fan-tailed Cuckoo 0.003377 0.00396 0.854 0.5409 0.84
Eastern Spinebill 0.00332 0.00385 0.862 0.5538 0.67
Rufous Fantail 0.003318 0.00384 0.863 0.5666 0.67
Australian Shelduck 0.003316 0.00421 0.788 0.5795 0.03
Golden Whistler 0.003312 0.00384 0.863 0.5923 0.68
Australian Kestrel 0.003306 0.00383 0.865 0.6051 0.56
Collared Sparrowhawk 0.003201 0.00404 0.793 0.6175 0.04
Little Egret 0.003201 0.00404 0.793 0.6299 0.04
Rock Pigeon 0.00314 0.00397 0.791 0.6421 0.42
Latham's Snipe 0.002909 0.00364 0.799 0.6534 0.11
Pied Stilt 0.002909 0.00364 0.799 0.6646 0.11
Red-whiskered Bulbul 0.002909 0.00364 0.799 0.6759 0.11
Spangled Drongo 0.002909 0.00364 0.799 0.6872 0.11
Eastern Rosella 0.002898 0.00363 0.799 0.6984 0.11
Musk Lorikeet 0.002898 0.00363 0.799 0.7096 0.11
Black-faced Cuckooshrike 0.002769 0.00414 0.669 0.7204 0.98
Gray Butcherbird 0.002769 0.00414 0.669 0.7311 0.98
White-faced Heron 0.002769 0.00414 0.669 0.7418 0.98
Hoary-headed Grebe 0.002593 0.0039 0.665 0.7519 0.49
Gray Goshawk 0.002489 0.00374 0.665 0.7615 0.93
Brown Quail 0.002397 0.00359 0.669 0.7708 0.96
Blue-billed Duck 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.778 0.03
Buff-banded Rail 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.7852 0.03
European Greenfinch 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.7925 0.03
Gray Teal 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.7997 0.03
Red-rumped Parrot 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.8069 0.03
Red Wattlebird 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.8141 0.03
Striated Thornbill 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.8213 0.03
Variegated Fairywren 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.8285 0.03
Weebill 0.001861 0.00381 0.489 0.8357 0.03
Eurasian Blackbird 0.001747 0.00357 0.489 0.8425 0.04
Pacific Heron 0.001747 0.00357 0.489 0.8493 0.04
Whiskered Tern 0.001747 0.00357 0.489 0.856 0.04
Pied Cormorant 0.001724 0.00355 0.486 0.8627 0.91
Fairy Martin 0.001638 0.00337 0.486 0.8691 0.93
Black-fronted Dotterel 0.001561 0.00321 0.486 0.8751 0.94
Plumed Whistling-Duck 0.001561 0.00321 0.486 0.8812 0.94
Australian Hobby 0.001536 0.00316 0.486 0.8871 0.96
Australian Kite 0.001501 0.00309 0.487 0.8929 0.96
Musk Duck 0.001501 0.00309 0.487 0.8988 0.96
Noisy Friarbird 0.001501 0.00309 0.487 0.9046 0.96
Brown Honeyeater 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9102 0.11
Caspian Tern 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9158 0.11
Lewin's Honeyeater 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9215 0.11
Mistletoebird 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9271 0.11
Rose Robin 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9327 0.11
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9384 0.11
Whistling Kite 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.944 0.11
Yellow-billed Spoonbill 0.001454 0.00297 0.489 0.9497 0.11
Australian King-Parrot 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9552 0.11
Brown Falcon 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9608 0.11
Noisy Pitta 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9664 0.11
Red-browed Firetail 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.972 0.11
Rufous Whistler 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9776 0.11
Southern Boobook 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9832 0.11
Straw-necked Ibis 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9888 0.11
Yellow-faced Honeyeater 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 0.9944 0.11
Yellow-rumped Thornbill 0.001444 0.00295 0.489 1 0.11
Australasian Darter 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australasian Grebe 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australasian Swamphen 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australian Ibis 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australian Magpie 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australian Pelican 0 0 NaN 1 1
Australian Raven 0 0 NaN 1 1
Black Swan 0 0 NaN 1 1
Common Myna 0 0 NaN 1 1
Crested Pigeon 0 0 NaN 1 1
Dusky Moorhen 0 0 NaN 1 1
Eurasian Coot 0 0 NaN 1 1
Great Cormorant 0 0 NaN 1 1
Intermediate Egret 0 0 NaN 1 1
Laughing Kookaburra 0 0 NaN 1 1
Little Black Cormorant 0 0 NaN 1 1
Little Pied Cormorant 0 0 NaN 1 1
Magpie-lark 0 0 NaN 1 1
Masked Lapwing 0 0 NaN 1 1
New Holland Honeyeater 0 0 NaN 1 1
Noisy Miner 0 0 NaN 1 1
Pacific Black Duck 0 0 NaN 1 1
Pied Currawong 0 0 NaN 1 1
Rainbow Lorikeet 0 0 NaN 1 1
Silver Gull 0 0 NaN 1 1
Spotted Dove 0 0 NaN 1 1
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 0 0 NaN 1 1
Superb Fairywren 0 0 NaN 1 1
Welcome Swallow 0 0 NaN 1 1
White-eyed Duck 0 0 NaN 1 1
Willie-wagtail 0 0 NaN 1 1
Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo 0 0 NaN 1 1
 Fig. S1. The average (dark triangle) species richness and Shannon diversity calculated from an eBird
checklist placed in distance bins, based on the reported distance travelled per checklist, using 178
eBird checklists between June 2012 – June 2016. As the distance travelled by an eBirder increases,
there is a general increase with both richness and Shannon diversity.

View publication stats