Utility of citizen science data: A case study in land-based shark fishing

English version

Autoři: Kesley J. Gibson ^aff001; Matthew K. Streich ^aff001; Tara S. Topping ^aff001; Gregory W. Stunz ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas, United States of America ^aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0226782

Souhrn

Involving citizen scientists in research has become increasingly popular in natural resource management and allows for an increased research effort at low cost, distribution of scientific information to relevant audiences, and meaningful public engagement. Scientists engaging fishing tournament participants as citizen scientists represent ideal scenarios for testing citizen science initiatives. For example, the Texas Shark Rodeo has begun shifting to conservation-oriented catch-and-release practices, which provides a unique opportunity to collect data on a large scale for extended periods of time, particularly through tagging large numbers of sharks for very little cost compared to a directed scientific study. However, critics are somewhat skeptical of citizen science due to the potential for lack of rigor in data collection and validation. A major management concern for shark fisheries is the ability of anglers to identify species. We tested some of the assumptions and value of citizen-collected data by cross-verifying species identification. Specifically, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of shark species identifications made by anglers fishing in the Texas Shark Rodeo using photographs that were submitted as a requirement for tournament participation. Using a confusion matrix, we determined that anglers correctly identified 97.2% of all shark catches submitted during the Texas Shark Rodeo from 2014–2018; however, smaller sharks and certain species, including blacknose and spinner sharks, were more difficult to identify than others. Most commonly confused with blacktip sharks, spinner sharks were most commonly identified incorrectly (76.1% true positive rate [TPR]) followed by blacknose (86.8% TPR), finetooth (88.0% TPR), and Atlantic sharpnose sharks (93.8% TPR). This study demonstrated that citizen scientists have the ability to identify sharks with relatively low error. This is important for science and management, as these long-term datasets with relatively wide geographic scope could potentially be incorporated into future assessments of sharks in the Gulf of Mexico.

Klíčová slova:

Citizen science – Data management – Fisheries – Gulf of Mexico – Near-infrared spectroscopy – Scientists – Sharks – Texas

Zdroje

1. Silverton J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009; 24:467–471. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 19586682

2. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions. 2008; 10: 117–128. doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0

3. Ajemian MJ, Jose PD, Froeschke JT, Wildhaber ML, Stunz GW. Was everything bigger in Texas? Characterization and trends of a land-based recreational shark fishery, Mar Coast Fish. 2016; 8: 553–566. doi: 10.1080/19425120.2016.1227404

4. Bray GS, Schramm HL. Evaluation of a statewide volunteer angler diary program for use as a fishery assessment tool. N Am J Fish Manag. 2001; 21: 606–615.

5. Darwall WRT, Dulvy NK. An evaluation of the suitability of non-specialist volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys. Mafia Island, Tanzania—a case study. Biol Conserv. 1996; 78:223–231.

6. Fore LS, Paulsen K, O’Laughlin K. Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biol. 2001; 46:109. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x

7. Ohrel JR, Ronald L, Register KM. Volunteer estuary monitoring: a methods manual. 2nd ed. Center for Marine Conservation, EPA; 2000.

8. Wetz MS, Cira EK, Sterba-Boatwright B, Montagna PA, Palmer TA, Hayes KC. Exceptionally high organic nitrogen concentrations in a semi-arid South Texas estuary susceptible to brown tide blooms. Estuar Coast Shelf S. 2017; 188: 27–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2017.02.001

9. Butcher GS, Niven DK. Combining data from the Christmas bird count and the breeding bird survey to determine the continental status and trends of North America birds. National Audubon Society. 2007.

10. Foster-Smith J, Evans SM. The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biol Conserv. 2003; 113: 199–213. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00373-7

11. Stunz GW, Johnson MJ, Yoskowitz D, Robillard M, Wetz J. iSnapper: design, testing, and analysis of an iPhone‐based application as an electronic logbook in the for‐hire Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper fishery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Final Report NA10NMF4540111. 64 pp. 2014.

12. Venturelli PA, Hyder K, Skov C. Angler apps as a source of recreational fisheries data: opportunities, challenges and proposed standards. Fish Fish. 2016; 18: 578–595. doi: 10.1111/faf.12189

13. Williams SM, Holmes BJ, Pepperell JG. The novel application of non-lethal citizen science tissue sampling in recreational fisheries. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135743 26376487

14. Newman C, Buesching CD, Macdonald DW. Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation-“Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Biol Conserv. 2003; 113: 189–197. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00374-9

15. Saunders DA. Conservation research leads to a paradigm shift in farming practice: a case study from the Western Australian wheatbelt. In: Lunney D, Dickman CR, Burgin S, editors. Community and research-based conservation: a clash of paradigms. Mosman: Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. 2002. pp. 54–63.

16. Hunt E. New Zealand hunters apologise over accidental shooting of takahē. The Guardian. 21 August 2015. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/21/new-zealand-conservationists-apologise-over-accidental-shooting-of-endangered-takahe Cited 21 May 2019.

17. Beerkircher L, Arocha F, Barse A. Effects of species misidentification on population assessment of overfished white marlin Tetrapturus albidus and roundscale spearfish T. georgii. Endanger. Species Res. 2009; 9, 81–90. doi: 10.3354/esr00234

18. Solow A, Smit W, Burgman M, Rout T, Wintle B, Roberts D. Uncertain sightings and the extinction of the ivory-billed woodpecker. Conserv. Biol. 2012; 26: 180–184. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01743.x 21967229

19. Austen GE, Bindemann M, Griffiths RA, Roberts DL. Species identification by experts and non-experts: comparing images from field guides. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 33634. doi: 10.1038/srep33634 27644140

20. Culverhouse PF, Williams R, Reguera, B, Herry V, González-Gil S. Do experts make mistakes? A comparison of human and machine identification of dinoflagellates. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2003; 247: 17–25. doi: 10.3354/meps247017

21. Gibbon GEM, Bindemann M, Roberts DL. Factors affecting the identification of individual mountain bongo antelope. PeerJ. 2015; 3, e1303. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1303 26587336

22. Azzurro E, Broglio E, Maynou F, Bariche M. Citizen science detects the undetected: the case of Abudefduf saxatilis from the Mediterranean Sea. Manag Biol Invasion, 2013; 4(2): 167–170. doi: 10.3391/mbi.2013.4.2.10

23. RCoreTeam. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria (http://www.R-project.org/).

24. Kuhn M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J Stat Softw. 2008; 28: 1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v028.i07

25. Williams CK, Engelhardt A, Cooper T, Mayer Z, Ziem A, Scrucca L, et al. Package ‘caret’. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/caret/caret.pdf. Cited 21 May 2019.

26. Aldrich CL. Shoreline management at Padre Island National Seashore: an investigation of angler relationships to the beach. Master’s thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 2009. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4276208.pdf.

27. Graefe AR, Ditton RB. Recreational shark fishing on the Texas Gulf coast: an exploratory study of behavior and attitudes. Marine Fisheries Review. 1976; 38:10–20.

28. Gallagher AJ, Hammerschlag N, Danylchuk AJ, Cooke SJ. Shark recreational fishing: status, challenges, and research needs. Ambio. 2017; 46:385–398. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0856-8 27995551

29. Jose PD. Population trends and migration patterns of the Texas nearshore shark assemblage. Master's thesis.Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi. 2014. Available from: https://www.sportfishcenter.org/sites/default/files/2018-07/jose_thesis_0.pdf.

30. Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PMJ, Losey JE, Roy HE, Smyth RR. Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front Ecol Environ. 2012; 10:471–476. doi: 10.1890/110185

31. Fuccillo KK, Crimmins TM, de Rivera CA, Elder TS. Assessing accuracy in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring. Int J Biometeorol. 2015; 59:914–926. doi: 10.1007/s00484-014-0892-7 25179528

32. Swanson A, Kosmala M, Lintott C, Packer C. A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images: citizen science data quality. Conserv Biol. 2016; 30:520–531. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12695 27111678

33. Branstetter S. Problems associated with the identification and separation of the spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna, and the blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus. Copia. 1982; 2: 461–465.

34. Lesueur CA. Description of a Squalus, of a very large size, which was taken on the coast of New Jersey. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 1882; 2: 343–352.

35. Parsons GR. Sharks, skates, and rays of the Gulf of Mexico. The University Press of Mississippi. 2006. pp.165.

36. Pine WE, Pollock KH, Hightower JE, Kwak TJ, Rice JA. A review of tagging methods for estimating fish population size and components of mortality. Fish. 2003; 28(10):10–23. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2003)28[10:AROTMF]2.0.CO;2

37. Guindon K, Neidig C, Tringali M, Gray S, King T, Gardinal C, et al. An overview of the tarpon genetic recapture study in Florida—a citizen science success story. Environ Biol Fish. 2015; 98: 2239–2250. doi: 10.1007/s10641-015-0440-2

38. Gallagher AJ, Serafy JE, Cooke SJ, Hammerschlag N. Physiological stress response, reflex impairment, and survival of five sympatric shark species following experimental capture and release. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 2014; 496: 207–218.

39. Marshall H, Skomal G, Ross PG, Bernal D. At-vessel and post-release mortality of the dusky (Carcharhinus obscurus) and sandbar (C. plumbeus) sharks after longline capture. Fish Res. 2015; 172: 373–384.

40. Morgan A, Burgess GH. At-vessel fishing mortality for six species of sharks caught in the northwest Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Gulf Caribb Res. 2007; 19: 123–129.

Utility of citizen science data: A case study in land-based shark fishing

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

INSIGHTS from European Respiratory Congress

Současné pohledy na riziko v parodontologii

Svět praktické medicíny 3/2024 (znalostní test z časopisu)

Kardiologické projevy hypereozinofilií

Střevní příprava před kolonoskopií