
==== Front
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
RSTB
royptb
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
0962-8436
1471-2970
The Royal Society

10.1098/rstb.2023.0106
rstb20230106
100160Articles
Opinion Piece
Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring
Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1073-0221
Sheard Julie Koch julie.sheard@biologie.uni-marburg.de
Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Project administration 1 2 3
Adriaens Tim Conceptualization Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 4
Bowler Diana E. Conceptualization Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 5
https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1107-8743
Büermann Andrea Conceptualization Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 3
Callaghan Corey T. Conceptualization Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 6
Camprasse Elodie C. M. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 7
Chowdhury Shawan Data curation Investigation Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 2 3
Engel Thore Conceptualization Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 2 3
Finch Elizabeth A. Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 2 3
von Gönner Julia Conceptualization Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 2 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5394-879X
Hsing Pen-Yuan Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 8
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2731-9105
Mikula Peter Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 9 10 11
Rachel Oh Rui Ying Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Methodology Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 3
Peters Birte Conceptualization Data curation Methodology Writing – review & editing 1 3
Phartyal Shyam S. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 12
Pocock Michael J. O. Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 5
Wäldchen Jana Conceptualization Writing – review & editing 3 13
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8345-4600
Bonn Aletta Conceptualization Methodology Visualization Writing – review & editing 1 2 3
1 Department of Ecosystem Services, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany
2 Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Straße 159, 07743 Jena, Germany
3 German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany
4 Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Havenlaan 88 bus 73, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
5 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 8BB, UK
6 Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, FL 33314, USA
7 School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia
8 Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK
9 TUM School of Life Sciences, Ecoclimatology, Technical University of Munich, Hans-Carl-von-Carlowitz-Platz 2, 85354 Freising, Germany
10 Institute for Advanced Study, Technical University of Munich, Lichtenbergstraße 2a, 85748 Garching, Germany
11 Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic
12 School of Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda University, Rajgir 803116, India
13 Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Hans-Knöll-Straße 10, 07745 Jena, Germany
One contribution of 23 to a theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’.

Electronic supplementary material is available online at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7183284.

24 6 2024 June 24, 2024
6 5 2024 May 6, 2024
6 5 2024 May 6, 2024
379 1904 Theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’ compiled and edited by Roel van Klink, Julie K. Sheard, Toke T. Høye, Tomas Roslin, Leandro A. Do Nascimento and Silke Bauer 2023010629 10 2023 October 29, 2023
29 3 2024 March 29, 2024
© 2024 The Authors.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.

Emerging technologies are increasingly employed in environmental citizen science projects. This integration offers benefits and opportunities for scientists and participants alike. Citizen science can support large-scale, long-term monitoring of species occurrences, behaviour and interactions. At the same time, technologies can foster participant engagement, regardless of pre-existing taxonomic expertise or experience, and permit new types of data to be collected. Yet, technologies may also create challenges by potentially increasing financial costs, necessitating technological expertise or demanding training of participants. Technology could also reduce people's direct involvement and engagement with nature. In this perspective, we discuss how current technologies have spurred an increase in citizen science projects and how the implementation of emerging technologies in citizen science may enhance scientific impact and public engagement. We show how technology can act as (i) a facilitator of current citizen science and monitoring efforts, (ii) an enabler of new research opportunities, and (iii) a transformer of science, policy and public participation, but could also become (iv) an inhibitor of participation, equity and scientific rigour. Technology is developing fast and promises to provide many exciting opportunities for citizen science and insect monitoring, but while we seize these opportunities, we must remain vigilant against potential risks.

This article is part of the theme issue ‘Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring’.

biodiversity monitoring
, community science
, novel technologies
, public participation in scientific research
, insects
, artificial intelligence
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001659 442032008 DFG-FZT 118, 202548816 IAS TUM – Hans Fisher Senior Fellowship The Carlsberg Foundation CF20-0501 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347 01IS20062 cover-dateJune 24, 2024
==== Body
pmc1. Introduction

Citizen science, also referred to as community science or public participation in scientific research, is a practice with historical roots dating back centuries. This collaborative approach to scientific investigation involves individuals from diverse backgrounds, including those without formal scientific training, actively engaging in research activities [1,2]. The number and diversity of citizen science projects and their significance have grown in the twenty-first century, thanks in large part to advancements in technology, including the widespread availability of the Internet and the proliferation of digital platforms [3–6]. Today, technological equipment, such as mobile phones and digital cameras, along with their applications (e.g. smartphone apps), are commonly used in citizen science projects, potentially shifting project design towards simpler, mass-participation approaches [4] (figure 1). Figure 1. Technology is developing fast and promises to provide many exciting opportunities for citizen science and insect monitoring, including (a) online training of volunteers; as in the German FLOW project (photo by Julia von Gönner), (b) smartphone apps with image recognition to verify identifications submitted by recorders; as demonstrated in the iRecord smartphone app (photo by Michael Pocock), (c) cameras for detecting species in hard-to-access locations and during unsociable hours; as demonstrated by the Australian Spider Crab Watch project (photo by Elodie Camprasse), (d) audio recorders combined with automated sound analysis for vocalizing species; here an AudioMoth recorder from Open Acoustic Devices (photo by Julie K. Sheard), (e) climate loggers for recording environmental covariates; as used in the German MikroSafari project (photo by Aletta Bonn), (f) image recognition or robotics for bulk samples (photo by Julie K. Sheard) and (g) molecular methods on volunteer-collected samples where laboratory work is also carried out by volunteers; as demonstrated by the Danish DNA&Liv project (photo by Frederik Wolff Nisbeth Teglhus).

Aided by an open survey and two online workshops, we discuss how the rapid advancement of current technologies has spurred an increase in citizen science projects. We highlight how the implementation of emerging technologies—technologies in the early stages of development, adoption and commercialization—may act as facilitators of what is already being done, enablers of new research avenues, transformers of science, policy and public participation and/or inhibitors of equity and openness in citizen science biodiversity research.

As an incredibly diverse and abundant animal group [7], insects play major roles in ecosystem functioning [8], yet despite widespread concern about their decline [8,9], our understanding of their conservation status is limited [10,11]. For this special issue, we focus on possible ways to improve insect monitoring techniques through the integration of technology in citizen science projects, but we note that our perspective is broadly relevant to biodiversity monitoring beyond insects.

2. The rapid advancement of technology has spurred an increase in citizen science projects

Smartphone applications have already revolutionized data collection and submission of species observations [4,12]. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is the largest aggregator of biodiversity records in the world, where species occurrence data are primarily sourced through disparate citizen science applications. It is estimated that in 2020, as much as 65% of all data on GBIF [13] and a minimum of 74.5% of all insect observations [14] were contributed by citizen scientists.

Technology, including instant messaging apps, social media and online meeting tools, has revolutionized data transfer and strengthened connections among participants, project managers and researchers across vast distances. This has promoted engagement and facilitated the exchange of training and data (Box 1). The simplicity of creating short training videos, direct interaction with fellow citizen scientists and self-organized support through social media networks foster a sense of community and enrich opportunities for collaborative research and exchange [18]. Social media are also being harnessed to address biodiversity data gaps, as many people use these channels to share species photographs [19–21]. Besides smartphone applications and social media, other emerging technologies are currently being developed to assist with biodiversity monitoring. These include, but are not limited to, computer vision, acoustic monitoring, radar and molecular methods [22]. These technologies are also being included, to varying extents, in citizen science projects (figure 1), but the extent of uptake and experiences of application have yet to be documented.

Box 1. The potential of citizen science to advance insect research – Project FLOW.

The citizen science project FLOW (www.flow-projekt.de) invites citizen groups (e.g. high school students, members of fishing clubs and environmental NGOs) to analyse the ecological status and pesticide exposure of their local streams by sampling benthic invertebrates [15,16]. Participants are trained through online identification guides, video tutorials and online quizzes along with yearly online and on-site training sessions, which are important because learning to identify benthic invertebrates requires hands-on practice and personal, direct feedback from experts.

By providing an engaging approach to insect monitoring and identification, citizen science projects such as FLOW can help increase public awareness of insect diversity, and particularly of lesser-studied taxonomic groups [17]. Thus, citizen scientists can help increase the availability of data on underrepresented insect taxa such as caddisflies, mayflies or stoneflies. In addition, experienced citizen scientists can participate in the analysis and digitization of insect data. This citizen engagement can be strongly supported by digital data management tools. For example, the FLOW project provides a web application for collecting, analysing, visualizing, accessing and archiving citizen science data, which is integrated into the coordinating institute's biodiversity data platform. The web application allows project coordinators and external experts to assess data quality, e.g. by reviewing photo vouchers of assessed stream sites and identified species. Potential data users can use the web application to request access to the FLOW data.

The development and launch of the FLOW web application, however, also presented challenges. To successfully establish a new digital citizen science data management system, it is important to clearly identify the goals, functions and working methods of the new tool and communicate them in an easy to understand and engaging way to the volunteers. Importantly, at the point of development, different user perspectives and user feedback should be included in the technical development process. This needs to be integrated from the beginning of the project to create acceptance for the new digital system and to integrate it permanently into the research activities of citizen scientists.

Furthermore, successful implementation of digital data management requires a certain level of media literacy and understanding on the part of the volunteers. As these skills often vary widely across the community, support services such as instructional videos, wikis/FAQs or personalized email/phone consultations are helpful in enabling different audiences to access and use the digital tools.

By addressing these challenges and creating synergies between participatory insect monitoring and digital data management, citizen science projects such as FLOW can help produce valuable insect data and reduce taxonomic bias, thereby advancing insect research.

3. A survey of current use of technology in citizen science

We conducted an open online survey from 9th July to 14th August 2023 that was distributed via email and social media. The target audience included anyone with experience in citizen science, whether as a project coordinator or participant, and regardless of whether or not they used technology. The survey was focused towards biodiversity citizen science projects, but was kept intentionally broad to ensure that we captured as comprehensive a spectrum of technologies and applications as possible, such that we could then explore and expand the use of technologies not currently used for insect citizen science projects. The questionnaire was approved as anonymous and performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulation according to the legal department of the Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung - UFZ and disseminated using the open source web application LimeSurvey [23]. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. Further methodology and the full survey have been uploaded to Zenodo [24].

A total of 70 respondents from Europe (40 respondents), North America (12 respondents), Asia (7 respondents), Oceania/Australia (6 respondents) and Africa (5 respondents), representing 66 citizen science projects and platforms, completed the full survey [24]. Most respondents were citizen science project leaders, organizers or coordinators (55 respondents), of which 23 respondents had more than 10 years of experience working with citizen science.

The survey focused largely on how technology is acting as a facilitator for current citizen science projects and highlighted 11 example technologies and applications that are used in citizen science projects (figure 2). Respondents stated that cameras, smartphones and apps were the most commonly used of the 11 technologies. Other studies have considered an even wider range of technologies that are, or could be, implemented in citizen science (see for example [25]). Figure 2. Online survey responses from 70 participants to the question ‘Please indicate which of the following technologies you are familiar with and how. Check all that apply’. This led to some categories with over 70 responses. While cameras, cell phones and apps are widely used in citizen science projects, more advanced and emerging technologies have seen less uptake. Technologies are ordered by the response ‘I have used often’.

Overall, there was a positive attitude among survey respondents towards the inclusion of technologies in citizen science projects (electronic supplementary material, figure S1, Q1–3), with 91% agreeing or strongly agreeing that they will use technologies for citizen science in the future and 86% agreeing or strongly agreeing that using technologies will benefit citizen science by increasing the data quality and impact (electronic supplementary material, figure S1, Q6+7). There was also a strong belief among these respondents that technologies make it easier to participate in citizen science and increase learning (electronic supplementary material, figure S1, Q5+8). Despite this, respondents felt that implementing technologies will not necessarily increase the attractiveness of participating, with only 44% agreeing or strongly agreeing that implementing technologies in citizen science would increase their willingness to participate (electronic supplementary material, figure S1, Q9). Nor would technology necessarily help participants be more engaged in nature, with 43% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the use of technology would help them be more engaged in nature (electronic supplementary material, figure S1, Q10). Another caution was that only 41% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that it is easy to learn to use technologies for citizen science, and 40% agreed or strongly agreed that it is easy to become skilful in using technologies (electronic supplementary material figure s1, Q11–12).

Two follow-up online workshops held on 30th and 31st August 2023 with 15 participants aimed to elicit further in-depth discussions and reflections on how the technologies could affect citizen science initiatives and enable us to pursue new research avenues and transform how we do citizen science for insect monitoring in the future. Most of the workshop participants joined in writing this paper and as a result of these insights, we frame the rest of the paper around four themes, namely (i) Technology as a facilitator—making citizen science and monitoring easier, (ii) Technology as an enabler—opening up new research avenues, (iii) Technology as a transformer—rethinking science and collaboration and (iv) Technology as an inhibitor—complicating methods and excluding participants (figure 3). We keep our discussions broad to consider opportunities and challenges of technology for citizen science in general, and conclude with a perspective for future directions for insect monitoring. A list of all citizen science projects, apps and platforms mentioned in this paper has been included as electronic supplementary material S2. Figure 3. Technology as an enabler, facilitator, transformer and inhibitor of citizen science.

4. Technology as a facilitator—making citizen science and monitoring easier

The integration of technology in citizen science has already proven very useful in facilitating existing citizen science projects through improved data collection, identification and verification [4,12], along with the collection of more detailed environmental and ecological data. In particular, smartphone apps have increased the quality of data by facilitating metadata collection, such as automatically recording location through integrated global positioning systems (GPS) and date and time information [26–28]. Furthermore, using smartphone apps for live-tracking of location and time spent on a citizen science activity captures information on observation effort, which is a crucial variable to accurately estimate species occurrence trends and/or compare data from atlases and checklists.

Apps and technology have also been developed to help people collect more detailed ecological data. For instance, some citizen science projects have been developed to study plant–pollinator interactions, by asking participants to spend 15–20 min photographing every invertebrate landing on a focal flower [29,30]. Continuous monitoring of ecosystem services, such as pollination, has historically been labour-intensive and is rarely done to species level [31], but the development of camera traps for automated pollinator monitoring with built-in insect classification is revolutionizing this [32,33]. Open access, DIY (do it yourself) instructions are now available that enable anyone to build or adapt camera traps or photomicroscopes for insect monitoring, including hardware assembly, software setup, programming, model training and deployment (e.g. [34,35]). Utilizing technology to perform the labour-intensive job of continuous recording opens the possibility for participants to focus on the enjoyment of observing species. However, for some participants, the use of DIY technology may also represent motivation in itself [28,36]. These participants could be aided by citizen science platforms, such as SciStarter, which is compiling a database of tools that citizen scientists and project coordinators can build, borrow or buy [36]. Today, many people have personal weather stations in their homes. Crowdsourcing information from these stations can provide detailed information on climatic conditions, especially in urban areas [37,38]. Since most insect species live either on or near the soil surface, they are very sensitive to changes in climatic conditions, so the use of citizen science to collect microclimate data (soil temperature and moisture) through weather stations or projects like SoilTemp [39] combined with macroclimate (wet/dry and cold/warm season) data can help us model the environmental niches of insect species or predict insect pest populations and their control (e.g. [40]).

In terms of data processing and species identification, automated image recognition and sound classification used in apps such as Seek, eButterfly, Flora Incognita, Pl@ntNet, ObsIdentify and BirdNET, have opened up the identification of nature to everyone, helping participants to verify their observations regardless of their identification skills [41–43]. One example is the Mosquito Alert citizen science system, which incorporates a dedicated mobile application for the collection of geotagged images. This system offers a practical means of tracking the global distribution of mosquito species, although its efficacy depends upon the quality of the submitted photos. Expert entomologists review the submitted images, so providing feedback to the participating volunteers and generating verified data that are valuable for public health agencies. Automated identification tools can also enable the collection of secondary data, such as species interactions, from submitted records [44]. For instance, plants could be automatically identified from photos of flower-visiting insects submitted by citizen scientists to capture these plant–pollinator interactions.

As data amounts increase, relying on manual inspection for species identification based on images or sounds is slow, laboursome and not a sustainable long-term solution. Recordings made and classified by citizen scientists are simultaneously playing a crucial role in developing automated methods. Citizen science apps are helping to build training datasets for the development of classification algorithms [45–48]. In the Mosquito Alert project, a deep-learning model was trained on the curated image library to detect tiger mosquitoes (Aedes albopictus), an invasive species responsible for transmitting diseases like chikungunya, dengue and Zika [49]. InsectNet is proposing a deep-learning model that will be trained on data from iNaturalist and capable of robustly identifying insect species in images with even the most complex backgrounds. Moreover, it refrains from making predictions when uncertainties arise, instead identifying the need for human intervention, so combining automation with human in-the-loop verification [50].

One impact of using automated species identification is that it opens up citizen science participation to a more diverse set of participants. For instance, a comparison of two similar citizen science projects focusing on mosquitoes—one analogue, where participants submit physical samples by post, and one digital, where participants submit photos through an app—showed that there was a significantly higher proportion of female, younger and non-academic participants in the digital project [51]. Also, in 2020, BirdNET—an app that uses artificial intelligence to identify birds based on sound—engaged more than 1.1 million participants compared to the 317,792 participants of eBird—an app where participation requires pre-existing identification skills [52]. While BirdNET generates probabilistic, less well-validated data, it may act as a gateway for participants to become skilled birders who may then move on to the more advanced protocols of eBird. Although acoustic monitoring is not yet routinely deployed for insects, bush crickets have been monitored as part of a citizen science bat monitoring scheme in France since 2006, which has resulted in 16 349 individual sampling locations and the detection of significant declines for several species [53,54]. Recently, scientists have also been able to distinguish European honeybees from wild bees based on wing beat signatures [55,56], and it is possible that future monitoring of pollinators could be done by farmers or gardeners with small audio or movement recorders [57,58].

5. Technology as an enabler—opening up new research avenues

Besides facilitating existing citizen science projects, technology also offers the promise of enabling new ways of doing citizen science. One fruitful opportunity is through more complete ecosystem monitoring, rather than reliance only on popular insect groups as bioindicators [59]. The use of emerging technological equipment can enable the monitoring of species that are small, elusive, cryptic or hard to identify and simultaneously open people's eyes to nature that would otherwise be inaccessible to them [60]. Molecular methods, such as environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling, continuous real-time observation by cameras, audio recorders and remote sensing using drones, lidar and laser vibrometry [61] can help detect the diversity, behaviour and interactions of insect species overlooked by the human eye and ear. Technologies, such as infrared sensors, audio sensors and image-based classification, that were developed for pest management [62] show that it is possible to count and differentiate insects as small as aphids and fruit flies at least to order level [63–65]. Sensitive acoustic recorders have been used to detect non-vocalizing beetles based on sounds made from chewing, biting and movement activities [66–68] and so could be developed for use in citizen science.

Technologies can also be used in citizen science activities to fill in spatial or temporal data gaps by increasing observations in remote regions or at unsociable hours. For instance, the monitoring of nocturnal bird migrations with acoustic recorders became popular in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 lockdowns. The process involved the use of sound recording equipment and computer software for call signature identification and has led to build-up of online communities through which to share expertise, e.g. xeno-canto [69]. Similar advances enabling citizen scientists to use technology to fill spatial and temporal gaps could be explored for different types of insect monitoring; for example, camera traps for automatic monitoring of night-active insects are being developed. The advances are rapid—just a couple of years ago they could only identify few and distinct species [33,70], whereas now automated moth identification can be done for thousands of species [71].

Collection of samples for DNA analysis is an enticing and valuable future prospect for involving citizen scientists in expedited biodiversity assessments by collecting DNA samples from the environment, such as from soil, water, plants and air, instead of the insects themselves [72–74]. DNA sampling and analysis of single individuals or bulk insect samples are being developed rapidly and have already been implemented in citizen science projects, where participants have collected bulk insect samples in nets fixed above their cars (e.g. [75,76]). These collection methods could be further combined with recent developments in robotics, where systems such as the DiversityScanner [77] and the BIODISCOVER machine [33] can help speed up the processing of the many bulk samples collected by citizen scientists.

Environmental DNA sampling from water, soil, plants, faeces and air goes one step further by not necessitating species' presence when sampling [78] and eDNA metabarcoding has demonstrated notable efficacy in the detection and surveillance of terrestrial and semi-aquatic animals (e.g. [73,79]). This may prove especially important due to recent increased focus on ethical insect monitoring and the shifting public opinion of insects [80]). Importantly, it has been shown that citizen scientists with minimal training are effective in eDNA sampling [72], thus opening participation to people who have previously been under-served, and participants can even be involved in the corresponding laboratory analyses [81,82]. Furthermore, such participation can enhance citizen scientists' understanding of biodiversity, ecosystems, and the principles of eDNA [73,83]. A further step could be the development of commercially available in-field diagnostic tests, similar to the COVID-19 lateral flow tests, which could be developed for rare or invasive species [74,84].

At the cutting edge of technological development, lidar has been employed to monitor patterns of insect swarms around the top of wind turbines [85], while radar can track aerial movements of e.g. birds, bats and insects such as ladybirds [86–88]. Most recently, photonic sensors have been shown capable of distinguishing 30 free-flying hoverfly species and their sex by spectral analysis of thin-film wing interference signals [89]. Many modern cars are fitted with high-resolution cameras, lidar and radar systems that are capable of detecting insects. Conceivably, there is future potential for a global network of millions of cars counting insects [90], although the provision of feedback to public participants will be crucial in evolving this into engaging citizen science (rather than just extracting data from sensors). Already, researchers have used Google Street View images to map the distribution of insects such as the pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) from its easily detectable larval nests in pine trees [91], and citizen science annotations provide crucial datasets for training the algorithms [92]. Lidar is now also included within some premium smartphones, and could potentially be used for assessments of habitat condition [93,94]. This demonstrates how expensive technology can quickly be miniaturized and made affordable and accessible by technology companies, just as happened when GPS was included as standard in smartphones 15 years ago. If, in the future, platforms like iNaturalist were to incorporate the capability to upload lidar scans of the habitat where a species was observed then scientists would have a detailed, yet objective, description of the habitat in which a species occurs [94]. These scans could be further analysed and annotated using crowd-sourcing platforms such as Zooniverse.

Technology also offers solutions to tackle one of the biggest critiques of citizen science: data quality [95–97]. Manually verifying the increasing amounts of records is time-consuming, error-prone, difficult to reproduce and limited to known geographical areas and taxonomic groups. Some data platforms, such as iRecord, Artsobservasjoner and Observation.org, include plausibility checks based on predefined rules [98]. However, more sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms could be developed to perform automatic checks of submitted data, e.g. plausibility of the record based on existing data or image classification of uploaded photos, as already included in some of these platforms, and so provide immediate feedback to data providers [28,99–101]. In addition, natural language generation [102] and real-time feedback to volunteers could aid species identification. For example, upon submission of a photo and suggested species name, feedback can be sent explaining reasons for misidentification and highlighting key features to look for in order to identify the species correctly, enabling the participant to learn and improve over time.

Technology can also be used to directly influence recorders. Existing recorders can be informed where best to record based on current data [103] (and see also the DECIDE tool in [104]). There has also been exploration of the potential to implement chatbots in citizen science projects or on social media. Project participants or social media users can be prompted to provide more information or to look for other species, such as host plants or things like habitat and environmental conditions [97,101].

New technologies can support learning in other ways as well. In addition to easy access to learning materials, such as videos and tutorials (see Box 1), social interaction on apps or websites can also foster social recognition, visibility of contributions and reputation gain through regular feedback from the citizen science project and—possibly combined with motivational designs using game-like elements—can enhance the participation and retention of citizen scientists by rewarding participants with visualization of personal activity and achievements [105].

6. Technology as a transformer—rethinking science and collaboration

The inclusion of technology in citizen science may transform the way that people think about science and nature, leading to a fundamental reorganization of the monitoring landscape of actors and activities [106]. Monitoring our living world is not done solely by academic researchers or experienced naturalists but, when supported by the use of new technologies, can be done by anyone who has an interest, regardless of expertise. By changing the types of tasks and necessary skills, technologies can engage participants with diverse backgrounds, promoting inclusivity and widening societal engagement [51]. The development and inclusion of affordable technology in citizen science may help fill geographical data gaps, which is a major limiting factor of current biodiversity databases and large-scale predictions of biodiversity trends [97]. It could also help increase the reach of citizen science in the global south and make citizen science more inclusive [107,108]. Online platforms, such as Zooniverse and Agouti [109], are enabling citizen scientists to explore the natural world virtually through sounds, photos and images, can transport people beyond the places they can physically explore and generate new interest in the natural world [110]. Platforms like iNaturalist and CitSci allow participants to create their own projects, democratizing science and empowering people to influence and drive change [36].

By combining technologies, we may further expand what is possible. The KInsecta project is developing a platform designed to automate observation and identification of pollinating insects through combining a variety of sensors, including automatic image recognition and the precise measurement of wing beats. The entire sensor system is designed to be accessible to citizen science enthusiasts, allowing them to build and operate the hardware independently at a minimal cost [111]. Automated multisensor stations are being conceived for combined monitoring of multiple aspects of biodiversity. Current iterations include automatized visual monitoring, image analyses and bioacoustics monitoring [71], but could be extended to the detection of smellscapes using volatile organic compounds or malaise and pollen traps for metabarcoding [70].

The prospect of real-time whole-ecosystem monitoring—when there are seamless data flows between collection and analysis—has broad repercussions. Real-time interaction and prompts may increase the information content of collected data and the experience and knowledge gained by citizen scientists. By combining data streams with artificial intelligence, projects like BirdCast and Whale Safe are guiding people to take action that optimally benefits nature by turning off lights at night or reducing ship speed, respectively, to protect migrating animals at critical times and places [112,113]. Connecting live streams leads to the development of the ‘Internet of animals’, which is currently mostly employed for vertebrates [90]. Such real-time monitoring also contributes to the development of digital twins of landscapes, which comprise statistical and mechanistic models that are continuously calibrated with real-world data [114]. Digital twins are attracting attention across the environmental sciences for their potential in improving our understanding of ecosystems and also in supporting decision-making about contrasting policy and management options. Improved predictive models and forecasting could help identify the general pathways towards ‘bending the curve’ of species loss [115] as well as help to tackle specific problems such as predicting pest outbreaks or the spread of insect-transmitted diseases.

7. Technology as an inhibitor—complicating methods and excluding participants

The strength of citizen science projects lies in their participants and potential for collecting and/or analysing large amounts of data. Although we have discussed the positive role of technology in facilitating, enabling, and even transforming citizen science, it is also possible that technology can act as an inhibitor by limiting people's involvement with and connection to nature and by increasing costs, both for equipment and for the staff needed for data processing, and prolonging verification times. Furthermore, many technologies are in a developmental stage and ceding authority to them prematurely may lead to an increase in inaccurate or biased data. It is easy to get excited by new technologies, but just because we can implement them in citizen science activities does not mean that we should.

Traditional citizen science monitoring projects, especially for insects, are generally biased towards older generations and men [116–118], which may affect rates of uptake of new technologies. Current participants may disengage if the deployment of technology restricts the range of potential contributions that they can make, resulting in tasks that are either overly simplistic or excessively complex [119]. Technology can create a barrier between people and nature, increasing people's distance from nature or the sense of commodification of nature, thus reducing nature connectedness [120]. This can happen either through the phone screen acting as a filter through which people experience nature, or by reducing people's direct engagement, e.g. just taking water samples for eDNA analysis rather than searching for and directly observing organisms. Other deterring factors may include lack of acknowledgement [121], a diminished sense of community such as that reported by students with online teaching compared with face-to-face teaching [122], and uncertainties about privacy and data protection, especially if citizen science projects start tracking the movement of participants in order to estimate observation effort.

It is also likely that we will see an initial further increase in the biases of data collection towards countries from the Global North where technologies are being developed and likely to be deployed first [119]. Implementation of technology in citizen science projects could be prohibitive for participants who are unable to access or use the necessary technology [123]. For example, in a survey of 27 countries, national smartphone ownership among adults ranged from 47–98% between countries, while Internet usage varied from 56–99% [124]. Furthermore, technology compatibility issues may also inhibit participants' involvement in a project; for example, LeafByte, a citizen science app for measuring the area of leaves [125] and Monarch SOS, an app for identifying and recording monarch butterflies [126], are currently only compatible with Apple's proprietary iOS platforms. Updates to smartphone operating systems (Android or iOS) can make apps inoperative until they are updated, at cost to the project organizer. Where this inability to access the necessary technology is largely financial, it may become less problematic as technologies develop and become cheaper. Respondents in our survey (mainly citizen science organizers) did show some willingness to buy equipment specifically to participate in citizen science projects (figure 4a Q2), but the amount that they were willing to spend varied (figure 4b) and participants were more inclined to use equipment they already own and control (figure 4a Q1). Accessibility of technology is therefore an important consideration when developing new citizen science projects, and this is especially true for indigenous people for whom technology may be especially inaccessible, yet whose territories cover 22% of the world's land surface and 80% of the world's biodiversity [127]. Researchers working in partnership with these people should consider costing the provision of technology into funding proposals to reduce these barriers, and should adapt applications to serve local issues, e.g. using pictures rather than words in apps when working with non-literate people, as was done in the Sapelli collector [128]. Figure 4. (a) Survey answers to questions regarding willingness to acquire or use pre-owned technologies for citizen science projects. (b) Survey answers to the question ‘How much would you be willing to pay to participate in citizen science?’. Number of responses given in percent out of 70 respondents in total.

It is also important to consider the sustainability of access to these technologies once implemented. Despite increasingly available low-cost, user-friendly technology, there can be huge costs in developing platforms for insect citizen science and maintaining their long-term viability, stability and security, especially those that serve thousands of participants. These include incurring initial implementation costs (associated with the acquisition and installation of technological infrastructure), ongoing maintenance costs (for the technical support to ensure full functionality, and expenses for regular maintenance updates), operational costs (such as the day-to-day expense of using technology, for example energy consumption and licensing fees) and integration costs (if the new technology needs to be integrated within existing systems to ensure seamless compatibility and data transfer).

Bias in data collection may unintentionally lead to a bias in technology performance, especially because image classification algorithms will be influenced by the data on which they are trained [129]. For example, most iNaturalist users rarely record the same species twice [130] and rarities are reported and documented more often than common species [129], which can furthermore create major issues in using the data for ecological monitoring. In the case of smartphones, technology is currently a limitation for capturing images of small or fast-moving insects due to limited camera resolution, focus distance or shutter speed [131]. Some within-camera software can create visual artefacts that would affect identification accuracy. This is likely to enhance people's natural bias towards large and conspicuous species, although camera hardware and software in smartphones may improve over time to overcome these limitations. However, as hardware and AI algorithms advance over time, technology could lead to a reverse shifting baseline enabling detection of previously overlooked species, so researchers will need to consider this when seeking to use their data for long-term insect monitoring.

Scientists also need to consider the ethical challenges associated with collecting, storing and sharing sensitive data, like movement patterns of observers or locations of endangered species. Although there is much advice on this topic (e.g. [132]), automation of data capture and publishing could lead to unforeseen risks that should be carefully considered in advance. Another ethical issue concerns the ownership of data gathered and analysed by citizen scientists; for example, there might be ambiguity over the intellectual property rights for novel data/pictures of species new to science [26]. To pre-empt such disputes, a written code of conduct that defines the necessary procedures, including good data citation practices, may be appropriate. Platforms need to make clear which data are being collected, the meanings of different licences (e.g. which of the six Creative Commons licences should apply; see https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/) and the potential risks and possible downstream uses of data that are shared (e.g. that images being shared may be used to train machine-learning algorithms).

Another ethical challenge is that many emerging technologies used in citizen science are closed source (i.e. proprietary), meaning they are legally enforced ‘black boxes’ preventing users from studying how they work or adapting them to suit different needs. Proprietary technology enforces lock-in to a single vendor, high switching costs and lack of interoperability and reproducibility. This is especially pertinent to citizen science, where many participants are doing science for the first time, and using proprietary technologies may inadvertently normalize a 'black box' approach to science. Therefore, as emphasized in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science [133], open source technologies—defined as those with freedoms for users to use, study, modify and share them without restrictions [134,135]—are essential for not only economic savings [136] but also more inclusive and equitable research, especially outside the Global North (e.g. [137,138]). Successful examples of open innovation in citizen science include the source code of the iNaturalist mobile apps or hardware designs for the EnviroDIY water quality sensors, while successful business models have been developed to support them, such as the company Open Acoustic Devices for acoustic ecological monitoring [139]. Citizen science practitioners should exercise due diligence in searching for, adopting and developing existing open-source technologies in their projects.

Finally, the possibilities of emerging technologies should not lead to the assumption, both by coordinators, volunteers and especially funders, that all citizen science projects need to employ or advance technology. As discussed throughout this manuscript, technology should not be seen as a panacea, and it can also place additional burdens on coordinating scientists because they may not be experts in data science, machine learning, or high-performance computing. As a solution, effective collaborations should be sought, bringing together diverse expertise from ecologists and taxonomists to data scientists and IT specialists (see the PRISE project [140]) to help citizen science projects to be designed as fit for purpose, and then these consortia also need adequate funding for these collaborations and technology development.

8. The future is bright and should be diverse

The future of citizen science and insect monitoring, enhanced by technology, presents promising prospects for research advances and participant engagement and raises critical questions about equity. Scientists and project organizers should look to the future for the benefits that new technologies can bring to citizen science, but should be careful to avoid the trap of inflated expectations of these new technologies. First and foremost, technology offers the opportunity to work towards global, whole-ecosystem monitoring, including small, cryptic and elusive insects coupled with species behaviour, movement and interactions. Technology can serve as a powerful tool to extend and democratize data collection, processing and validation, but raises concerns about exacerbating existing disparities. Bridging this gap will require thoughtful design of projects and implementation, considering the local infrastructure, technological literacy and available resources of the potential participants. While technologies are constantly developing and becoming cheaper and attainable for more people, it is important that their use is context-appropriate rather than their inclusion being solely for the sake of their novelty. Participatory development of the technologies [36] can help to align needs and empower citizen scientists to find joint solutions for participant engagement in citizen science [105]. This shift toward inclusivity and appropriate use of technologies should prioritize regions with limited access to scientific resources, fostering global collaboration and supporting data collection in some of the data-poorest areas.

The responsibility for creating an equitable future for technology-driven citizen science lies with both coordinators and participants. Coordinators should ensure that their applications are user-friendly, open source, compatible with various operating systems and open to diverse participants, with multiple access points allowing for flexibility in what the participants wish to learn [141]. For example, iNaturalist and Pl@ntNet have been globally successful in large part because of their customizability, allowing the inclusion of place-based localized projects within the greater platform ecosystem (e.g. [142]).

The ongoing value of skilled citizen science participants making field observations without technological devices should also still be recognized. Engaging new participants should not come at the cost of disengaging previous ones. We strongly advocate that advances in citizen science monitoring of insects with new technologies should seek complementarities and diversification rather than replacement. Long-term monitoring schemes, with continuity of methods, are essential in providing consistent evidence for decision-making so researchers need to consider how new technology can be incorporated to support, not scupper, the consistency and longevity of this monitoring. Fortunately, new statistical approaches can help. Integrated distribution models [143,144] allow information from multiple data streams (e.g. traditional citizen science and new technologies) to be harnessed. Such models can also include the probabilistic data collected through autonomous sensors (e.g. camera traps and acoustic recorders) and analysed using deep learning algorithms [145].

New technologies provide opportunities to enhance insect monitoring through citizen science in so many ways: they can facilitate and make easier what is already done; they can expand the potential of citizen science to contribute to new monitoring; and they can help to transform the relationships between people and nature, and between different communities of people, to enhance equity and diversity in our environmental monitoring. Here, we have focused on the current state and development of 11 technologies, some of which have already seen wide implementation while others are in their infancy, but we deem show great scientific potential (table 1). While not all technologies have been implemented in citizen science projects for insect monitoring, we believe there is much to be excited about. As we navigate the increased technology and capabilities in environmental and insect monitoring it is essential that we collectively strive to make technology-enhanced citizen science an avenue where diversity and participant engagement are at the forefront of our efforts. In this way, emerging technologies can truly foster and enhance the engagement and impact of citizen science. Table 1. Examples of how the technologies presented in the online survey are being used in citizen science projects. Their current level of implementation in citizen science projects (implementation), level of engagement between people (engagement) and untapped scientific potential (potential) were independently scored from 0–3 where 3 is the highest by authors J.K.S., T.A., D.E.B. and C.T.C. and a consensus reached.

	

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Sri Ranjni T.S. from FireflyWatch, India, Amy Mertl, Michael Weber from Rechenkraft.net e.V., Marburg, Maxim Larrivée and Cecilia Wambui from the Action Towards Reducing Aquatic snail-borne Parasite diseases (ATRAP) along with all survey and workshop participants for their valuable insights and very fruitful discussions.

Data accessibility

The data are provided in Zenodo [24] and electronic supplementary material [146].

Declaration of AI use

We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.

Authors' contributions

J.K.S.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; T.A.: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing; D.E.B.: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing; A.B.: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing; C.T.C.: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing---review and editing; E.C.M.C.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; S.C.: data curation, investigation, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing; T.E.: conceptualization, visualization, writing—review and editing; E.A.F.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, writing—review and editing; J.G.: conceptualization, visualization, writing—review and editing; P.-Y.H.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; P.M.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; R.Y.R.O.: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, writing—review and editing; B.P.: conceptualization, data curation, methodology, writing—review and editing; S.S.P.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; M.J.O.P.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; J.W.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing; A.B.: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing—review and editing.

All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.

Conflict of interest declaration

We declare we have no competing interests.

Funding

J.K.S. was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation (CF20-0501). J.K.S., A.Büermann, S.C., T.E., E.A.F., J.G., R.Y.R.O., B.P. and A.Bonn acknowledge the support of the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816) to the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, in particular the sMon project for A.Bonn and S.C. The work of A.Bonn and T.E. was further supported by the German Research Foundation DFG under the grant agreement number 442032008 (NFDI4Biodiversity). A.Büermann, B.P. and A.Bonn were also supported by the VielFalterGarten Projekt (Bundesprogramm Biologische VielFalt, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, FZ: 3520685A01). J.W. was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, 01IS20062). P.M. is thankful for the support from the Faculty of Environmental Sciences CZU Prague within the framework of the Research Excellence in Environmental Sciences (Project REES; REES 003) and was supported by IAS TUM – Hans Fisher Senior Fellowship. D.E.B. and M.J.O.P. were supported by the Terrestrial Surveillance Development and Analysis partnership of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, British Trust for Ornithology and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) and by the Natural Environment Research Council award number NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE programme delivering National Capability.
==== Refs
References

1. Bonney R, Ballard HL, Jordan RC, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wildermann CC. 2009 Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.
2. Irwin A. 1995 Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, UK: Routledge.
3. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK. 2014 Next Steps for Citizen Science. Science 343 , 1436-1437. (10.1126/science.1251554)24675940
4. Pocock MJO, Tweddle JC, Savage J, Robinson LD, Roy HE. 2017 The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS ONE 12 , e0172579. (10.1371/journal.pone.0172579)28369087
5. Roger E, Kellie D, Slatyer C, Brenton P, Torresan O, Wallis E, Zerger A. 2023 Open Access Research Infrastructures are Critical for Improving the Accessibility and Utility of Citizen Science: A Case Study of Australia's National Biodiversity Infrastructure, the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). Citizen Sci.: Theory Practice 8 , 56. (10.5334/cstp.564)
6. Silvertown J. 2009 A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24 , 467-471. (10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017)19586682
7. Stork NE. 2018 How Many Species of Insects and Other Terrestrial Arthropods Are There on Earth? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 63 , 31-45. (10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043348)28938083
8. Wagner DL. 2020 Insect Declines in the Anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65 , 457-480. (10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151)31610138
9. Van Klink R, Bowler DE, Gongalsky KB, Swengel AB, Gentile A, Chase JM. 2020 Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368 , 417-420. (10.1126/science.aax9931)32327596
10. Eisenhauer N, Bonn A, Guerra AC. 2019 Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates. Nat. Commun. 10 , 50. (10.1038/s41467-018-07916-1)30604746
11. Montgomery GA, Dunn RR, Fox R, Jongejans E, Leather SR, Saunders ME, Shortall CR, Tingley MW, Wagner DL. 2020 Is the insect apocalypse upon us? How to find out. Biol. Conserv. 241 , 108327. (10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108327)
12. August T, Harvey M, Lightfoot P, Kilbey D, Papadopoulos T, Jepson P. 2015 Emerging technologies for biological recording. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 115 , 731-749. (10.1111/bij.12534)
13. Heberling JM, Miller JT, Noesgaard D, Weingart SB, Schigel D. 2021 Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2018093118. (10.1073/pnas.2018093118)33526679
14. Gbif.org. 2023 GBIF Insecta metrics [dataset]. https://www.gbif.org
15. Von Gönner J, Bowler DE, Gröning J, Klauer A-K, Liess M, Neuer L, Bonn A. 2023 Citizen science for assessing pesticide impacts in agricultural streams. Sci.Total Environ. 857 , 159607. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159607)36273564
16. Ward. 2014 Understanding sampling and taxonomic biases recorded by citizen scientists. J. Insect Conserv. 18 , 753-756. (10.1007/s10841-014-9676-y)
17. Troudet J, Grandcolas P, Blin A, Vignes-Lebbe R, Legendre F. 2017 Taxonomic bias in biodiversity data and societal preferences. Sci. Rep. 7 , 9132. (10.1038/s41598-017-09084-6)28831097
18. McKie R. 2019 How an army of ‘citizen scientists’ is helping save our most elusive animals. The Guardian. See https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/28/britain-elusive-animals-fall-into-camera-trapcitizen-scientist.
19. Chowdhury S et al. 2023a Increasing biodiversity knowledge through social media: A case study from tropical Bangladesh. BioScience 73 , 453-459. (10.1093/biosci/biad042)37397834
20. Chowdhury S et al . 2023b Using social media records to inform conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 38 , e14161. (10.1111/cobi.14161)37551776
21. Toivonen T, Heikinheimo V, Fink C, Hausmann A, Hiippala T, Järv O, Tenkanen H, Di Minin E. 2019 Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biol. Conserv. 233 , 298-315. (10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.023)
22. Van Klink R et al. 2022 Emerging technologies revolutionise insect ecology and monitoring. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37 , 872-885. (10.1016/j.tree.2022.06.001)35811172
23. LimeSurvey GmbH. 2023 LimeSurvey online survey tool [Computer software]. https://www.limesurvey.org/
24. Sheard JK, Büermann A, Chowdhury S, Engel T, Finch EA, Oh RYR, Peters B, Bonn A. 2024 Survey: CITIZEN SCIENCE TECHNOLOGIES - How can we harness and improve the use of technologies in citizen science? (1.0.0) [dataset]. Zenodo. (10.5281/zenodo.10051199)
25. Adriaens T et al . 2023 An annotated list of horizon scanned technologies with potential for application in alien species citizen science projects [dataset]. Zenodo. (10.5281/zenodo.7961855)
26. Adriaens T et al. 2015 Trying to engage the crowd in recording invasive alien species in Europe: Experiences from two smartphone applications in northwest Europe. Manage. Biol. Invasions 6 , 215-225. (10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.12)
27. Howard L, Van Rees CB, Dahlquist Z, Luikart G, Hand BK. 2022 A review of invasive species reporting apps for citizen science and opportunities for innovation. NeoBiota 71 , 165-188. (10.3897/neobiota.71.79597)
28. Kelling S et al. 2019 Using Semistructured Surveys to Improve Citizen Science Data for Monitoring Biodiversity. BioScience 69 , 170-179. (10.1093/biosci/biz010)30905970
29. Deguines N, Julliard R, De Flores M, Fontaine C. 2012 The Whereabouts of Flower Visitors: Contrasting Land-Use Preferences Revealed by a Country-Wide Survey Based on Citizen Science. PLoS ONE 7 , e45822. (10.1371/journal.pone.0045822)23029262
30. UK Pollinator Monitoring Scheme. 2023 The UK PoMS annual report 2022. Wallingford, UK: UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
31. Klein A-M, Boreux V, Fornoff F, Mupepele A-C, Pufal G. 2018 Relevance of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 26 , 82-88. (10.1016/j.cois.2018.02.011)29764666
32. Bjerge K, Mann HM. R., Høye TT. 2022 Real-time insect tracking and monitoring with computer vision and deep learning. Remote Sens. Ecol. Conserv. 8 , 315-327. (10.1002/rse2.245)
33. Høye TT et al. 2021 Deep learning and computer vision will transform entomology. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2002545117. (10.1073/pnas.2002545117)33431561
34. Sittinger M. 2022 Insect Detect—Software for automated insect monitoring with a DIY camera trap system (1.6) [Computer software]. (10.5281/zenodo.7472238)
35. Wührl L, Rettenberger L, Meier R, Hartop E, Graf J, Pylatiuk C. 2024 Entomoscope: An Open-Source Photomicroscope for Biodiversity Discovery. IEEE Access 12 , 11 785-11 794. (10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3355272)
36. Mazumdar S, Ceccaroni L, Piera J, Hölker F, Berre AJ, Arlinghaus R, Bowser A. 2018 Citizen science technologies and new opportunities for participation. In Citizen science: innovation in open science, society and policy (eds S Hecker, M Haklay, A Bowser, Z Makuch, J Vogel, A Bonn), pp. 303-320. London, UK: UCL Press.
37. Chapman L, Bell C, Bell S. 2017 Can the crowdsourcing data paradigm take atmospheric science to a new level? A case study of the urban heat island of London quantified using Netatmo weather stations. Int. J. Climatol. 37 , 3597-3605. (10.1002/joc.4940)
38. Meier F, Fenner D, Grassmann T, Otto M, Scherer D. 2017 Crowdsourcing air temperature from citizen weather stations for urban climate research. Urban Climate 19 , 170-191. (10.1016/j.uclim.2017.01.006)
39. Lembrechts JJ et al. 2020 SoilTemp: A global database of near-surface temperature. Glob. Change Biol. 26 , 6616-6629. (10.1111/gcb.15123)
40. Finch EA, Li H, Cornelius A, Styles J, Beeken J, Cheng Y, Wang G, Qiu G, Luke B. 2023 An updated and validated model for predicting the performance of a biological control agent for the oriental migratory locust. Pest Manag. Sci. 80 , 442-451. (10.1002/ps.7775)37717207
41. Leach B, Parkinson S, Lichten C, Marjanovic S. 2020 Emerging developments in citizen science: reflecting on areas of innovation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
42. Van Horn G, Mac Aodha O, Song Y, Cui Y, Sun C, Shepard A, Adam H, Perona P, Belongie S. 2018 The iNaturalist Species Classification and Detection Dataset. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 8769-8778. Salt Lake City, UT: IEEE.
43. Wäldchen J, Mäder P. 2018 Plant Species Identification Using Computer Vision Techniques: A Systematic Literature Review. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 25 , 507-543. (10.1007/s11831-016-9206-z)29962832
44. Pernat N et al. 2024 Overcoming biodiversity blindness: Secondary data in primary citizen science observations. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 5 , e12295. (10.1002/2688-8319.12295)
45. Boho D, Rzanny M, Wäldchen J, Nitsche F, Deggelmann A, Wittich HC, Seeland M, Mäder P. 2020 Flora Capture: A citizen science application for collecting structured plant observations. BMC Bioinf. 21 , 576. (10.1186/s12859-020-03920-9)
46. Bowser A, Wiggins A, Shanley L, Preece J, Henderson S. 2014 Sharing data while protecting privacy in citizen science. Interactions 21 , 70-73. (10.1145/2540032)
47. Koch W, Hogeweg L, Nilsen EB, Finstad AG. 2022 Maximizing citizen scientists' contribution to automated species recognition. Sci. Rep. 12 , 7648. (10.1038/s41598-022-11257-x)35538130
48. Wäldchen J, Rzanny M, Seeland M, Mäder P. 2018 Automated plant species identification—Trends and future directions. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14 , e1005993. (10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005993)29621236
49. Pataki BA, Garriga J, Eritja R, Palmer JRB, Bartumeus F, Csabai I. 2021 Deep learning identification for citizen science surveillance of tiger mosquitoes. Sci. Rep. 11 , 4718. (10.1038/s41598-021-83657-4)33633197
50. Chiranjeevi S et al . 2023 Deep learning powered real-time identification of insects using citizen science data (arXiv:2306.02507). arXiv. (10.48550/arXiv.2306.02507)
51. Dekramanjian B, Bartumeus F, Kampen H, Palmer JRB, Werner D, Pernat N. 2023 Demographic and motivational differences between participants in analog and digital citizen science projects for monitoring mosquitoes. Sci. Rep. 13 , 12384. (10.1038/s41598-023-38656-y)37524770
52. Wood CM, Kahl S, Rahaman A, Klinck H. 2022 The machine learning-powered BirdNET App reduces barriers to global bird research by enabling citizen science participation. PLoS Biol. 20 , e3001670. (10.1371/journal.pbio.3001670)35763486
53. Bas Y, Bas D, Julien J-F. 2017 Tadarida: A Toolbox for Animal Detection on Acoustic Recordings. J. Open Res. Softw. 5 , 6. (10.5334/jors.154)
54. Jeliazkov A, Bas Y, Kerbiriou C, Julien J-F, Penone C, Le Viol I. 2016 Large-scale semi-automated acoustic monitoring allows to detect temporal decline of bush-crickets. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 6 , 208-218. (10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.008)
55. Kawakita S, Ichikawa K. 2019 Automated classification of bees and hornet using acoustic analysis of their flight sounds. Apidologie 50 , 71-79. (10.1007/s13592-018-0619-6)
56. Rodriguez A, Desjonquères C, Hevia V, Llorente M, Ulloa J, Llusia D. 2024 Towards acoustic monitoring of bees: wingbeat sounds are related to species and individual traits. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379 , 20230111. (10.1098/rstb.2023.0111)
57. Parsons L, Ross R, Robert K. 2020 A survey on wireless sensor network technologies in pest management applications. SN Appl. Sci. 2 , 28. (10.1007/s42452-019-1834-0)
58. Schellhorn NA, Jones LK. 2021 Real-time insect detection and monitoring: Breaking barriers to area-wide integrated management of insect pests. In Area-Wide integrated pest management (eds J Hendrichs, R Pereira, MJB Vreysen), pp. 889-902. Boca Raton, FL and Abingdon, UK: CRC Press. (10.1201/9781003169239-51)
59. Mesaglio T, Callaghan CT, Samonte F, Gorta SB, Cornwell WK. 2023 Recognition and completeness: Two key metrics for judging the utility of citizen science data. Front. Ecol. Environ. 21 , 167-174. (10.1002/fee.2604)
60. Schuttler SG, Sorensen AE, Jordan RC, Cooper C, Shwartz A. 2018 Bridging the nature gap: Can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience? Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 , 405-411. (10.1002/fee.1826)
61. Zorović M, Čokl A. 2015 Laser vibrometry as a diagnostic tool for detecting wood-boring beetle larvae. J. Pest Sci. 88 , 107-112. (10.1007/s10340-014-0567-5)
62. Lima MCF, Damascena De Almeida Leandro ME, Valero C, Pereira Coronel LC, Gonçalves Bazzo CO. 2020 Automatic Detection and Monitoring of Insect Pests—A Review. Agriculture 10 , 161. (10.3390/agriculture10050161)
63. Bodhe TS, Mukherji P. 2013 Selection of color space for image segmentation in pest detection. In 2013 International Conference on Advances in Technology and Engineering (ICATE), Mumbai, India, 23–25 Jan. 2013, pp. 1-7. (10.1109/ICAdTE.2013.6524753)
64. Xia C, Chon T-S, Ren Z, Lee J.-M. 2015 Automatic identification and counting of small size pests in greenhouse conditions with low computational cost. Ecol. Inform. 29 , 139-146. (10.1016/j.ecoinf.2014.09.006)
65. Xuesong S, Zi L, Lei S, Jiao W, Yang Z. 2017 Aphid Identification and Counting Based on Smartphone and Machine Vision. J. Sensors 2017 , 1-7. (10.1155/2017/3964376)
66. Dosunmu OG, Herrick NJ, Haseeb M, Hix RL, Mankin RW. 2014 Acoustic Detectability of Rhynchophorus cruentatus (Coleoptera: Dryophthoridae). Florida Entomol. 97 , 431-438. (10.1653/024.097.0213)
67. Martin B, Shaby SM, Premi MSG. 2015 Studies on Acoustic Activity of Red Palm Weevil the Deadly Pest on Coconut Crops. Procedia Mater. Sci. 10 , 455-466. (10.1016/j.mspro.2015.06.081)
68. Martin B, Juliet V. 2013 A Novel Approach to Identify Red Palm Weevil on Palms. Adv. Mater. Res. 634–638 , 3853-3857. (10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.634-638.3853)
69. Heath J. 2019 Nocmig: A beginner’s guide. See https://www.bto.org/community/blog/nocmig-beginners-guide.
70. Wägele JW et al. 2022 Towards a multisensor station for automated biodiversity monitoring. Basic Appl. Ecol. 59 , 105-138. (10.1016/j.baae.2022.01.003)
71. Roy D et al. 2024 Towards a standardized framework for AI-assisted, image-based monitoring of nocturnal insects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379 , 20230108. (10.1098/rstb.2023.0108)
72. Biggs J et al. 2015 Using eDNA to develop a national citizen science-based monitoring programme for the great crested newt (Triturus cristatus). Biol. Conserv. 183 , 19-28. (10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029)
73. Broadhurst HA et al. 2021 Mapping differences in mammalian distributions and diversity using environmental DNA from rivers. Sci. Total Environ. 801 , 149724. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149724)34467903
74. Lynggaard C et al. 2023 Vertebrate environmental DNA from leaf swabs. Curr. Biol. 33 , R853-R854. (10.1016/j.cub.2023.06.031)37607478
75. Svenningsen CS et al. 2021 Detecting flying insects using car nets and DNA metabarcoding. Biol. Lett. 17 , 20200833. (10.1098/rsbl.2020.0833)33784872
76. Svenningsen CS, Peters B, Bowler DE, Dunn RR, Bonn A, Tøttrup AP. 2024 Insect biomass shows a stronger decrease than species richness along urban gradients. Insect Conserv. Div. 17 , 182-188. (10.1111/icad.12694)
77. Wührl L, Pylatiuk C, Giersch M, Lapp F, von Rintelen T, Balke M, Schmidt S, Cerretti P, Meier R. 2022 DiversityScanner: Robotic handling of small invertebrates with machine learning methods. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 22 , 1626-1638. (10.1111/1755-0998.13567)34863029
78. Pawlowski J, Apothéloz-Perret-Gentil L, Altermatt F. 2020 Environmental DNA: What's behind the term? Clarifying the terminology and recommendations for its future use in biomonitoring. Mol. Ecol. 29 , 4258-4264. (10.1111/mec.15643)32966665
79. Sales NG et al. 2020 Fishing for mammals: Landscape-level monitoring of terrestrial and semi-aquatic communities using eDNA from riverine systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 57 , 707-716. (10.1111/1365-2664.13592)
80. Drinkwater E, Robinson EJH, Hart AG. 2019 Keeping invertebrate research ethical in a landscape of shifting public opinion. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10 , 1265-1273. (10.1111/2041-210X.13208)
81. Berg TB, Achiam M, Poulsen KM, Sanderhoff LB, Tøttrup AP. 2021 The Role and Value of Out-of-School Environments in Science Education for 21st Century Skills. Front. Educ. 6 , 674541. (10.3389/feduc.2021.674541)
82. Knudsen SW et al. 2023 Detection of environmental DNA from amphibians in Northern Europe applied in citizen science. Environ. DNA 5 , edn3.462. (10.1002/edn3.462)
83. Suzuki-Ohno Y, Tanabe AS, Kasai A, Masuda R, Seino S, Dazai A, Suzuki S, Abe T, Kondoh M. 2023 Evaluation of community science monitoring with environmental DNA for marine fish species: ‘Fish survey project using environmental DNA’. Environ. DNA 5 , 613-623. (10.1002/edn3.425)
84. Capron A, Stewart D, Hrywkiw K, Allen K, Feau N, Bilodeau G, Tanguay P, Cusson M, Hamelin RC. 2020 In Situ Processing and Efficient Environmental Detection (iSPEED) of tree pests and pathogens using point-of-use real-time PCR. PLoS ONE 15 , e0226863. (10.1371/journal.pone.0226863)32240194
85. Jansson S, Malmqvist E, Brydegaard M, Åkesson S, Rydell J. 2020 A Scheimpflug lidar used to observe insect swarming at a wind turbine. Ecol. Indic. 117 , 106578. (10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106578)
86. Bauer S et al. 2019 The grand challenges of migration ecology that radar aeroecology can help answer. Ecography 42 , 861-875. (10.1111/ecog.04083)
87. Jeffries DL, Chapman J, Roy HE, Humphries S, Harrington R, Brown PMJ, Handley L-JL. 2013 Characteristics and Drivers of High-Altitude Ladybird Flight: Insights from Vertical-Looking Entomological Radar. PLoS ONE 8 , e82278. (10.1371/journal.pone.0082278)24367512
88. Shamoun-Baranes J et al. 2014 Continental-scale radar monitoring of the aerial movements of animals. Mov. Ecol. 2 , 9. (10.1186/2051-3933-2-9)
89. Li M, Runemark A, Hernandez J, Rota J, Bygebjerg R, Brydegaard M. 2023 Discrimination of Hover Fly Species and Sexes by Wing Interference Signals. Adv. Sci. 10 , 2304657. (10.1002/advs.202304657)
90. Kays R, Wikelski M. 2023 The Internet of Animals: What it is, what it could be. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38 , 859-869. (10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.007)37263824
91. Rousselet J et al. 2013 Assessing Species Distribution Using Google Street View: A Pilot Study with the Pine Processionary Moth. PLoS ONE 8 , e74918. (10.1371/journal.pone.0074918)24130675
92. Rey N, Volpi M, Joost S, Tuia D. 2017 Detecting animals in African Savanna with UAVs and the crowds. Remote Sens. Environ. 200 , 341-351. (10.1016/j.rse.2017.08.026)
93. Tavani S, Billi A, Corradetti A, Mercuri M, Bosman A, Cuffaro M, Seers T, Carminati E. 2022 Smartphone assisted fieldwork: Towards the digital transition of geoscience fieldwork using LiDAR-equipped iPhones. Earth Sci. Rev. 227 , 103969. (10.1016/j.earscirev.2022.103969)
94. Zizka A, Joerger-Hickfang T, Imhof S, Méndez L. 2023 LiDAR sensors in smartphones can enrich herbarium specimens with 3D models of habitat at high precision and little cost. TAXON 72 , 233-236. (10.1002/tax.12861)
95. Johnston A, Matechou E, Dennis EB. 2023 Outstanding challenges and future directions for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 14 , 103-116. (10.1111/2041-210X.13834)
96. Probert AF et al. 2022 Identifying, reducing, and communicating uncertainty in community science: A focus on alien species. Biol. Invasions 24 , 3395-3421. (10.1007/s10530-022-02858-8)36277057
97. Pocock MJO et al. 2024 Citizen science is a vital partnership for invasive alien species management and research. iScience 27 , 108623. (10.1016/j.isci.2023.108623)38205243
98. Adriaens T et al . 2021 Data-validation solutions for citizen science data on invasive alien species (JRC126140). Luxembourg city, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
99. Balázs B, Mooney P, Nováková E, Bastin L, Arsanjani JJ. 2021 Chapter 8: Data Quality in Citizen Science. In The science of citizen science (eds K Vohland, K Wagenknecht, A Land-Zandstra, L Ceccaroni, R Lemmens, J Perelló, M Ponti, R Samson). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Link. (10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4)
100. Cruickshank SS, Bühler C, Schmidt BR. 2019 Quantifying data quality in a citizen science monitoring program: False negatives, false positives and occupancy trends. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1 , e54. (10.1111/csp2.54)
101. Schade S, Tsinaraki C, Manzoni M, Berti Suman A, Spinelli FA, Mitton I, Kotsev A, Delipetrev B, Fullerton KT. 2020 Activity report on citizen science: discoveries from a five year journey. Luxembourg city, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
102. Van Der Wal R, Sharma N, Mellish C, Robinson A, Siddharthan A. 2016 The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30 , 550-561. (10.1111/cobi.12705)27111194
103. Callaghan CT et al . 2023 Experimental evidence that behavioral nudges in citizen science projects can improve biodiversity data. BioScience 73 , 302-313. (10.1093/biosci/biad012)
104. Center for Ecology and Hydrology. n.d. Decide tool, version 1.1.1. Retrieved 14 April 2024 from https://decide.ceh.ac.uk.
105. Novak J, Becker M, Grey F, Mondardini R. 2018 Citizen engagement and collective intelligence for participatory digital social innovation. In Citizen science—innovation in open science, society and policy (eds S Hecker, M Haklay, A Bowser, Z Makuch, J Vogel, A Bonn), pp. 124-145. UCL Press. (See http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv550cf2.16.)
106. Kühl HS et al. 2020 Effective Biodiversity Monitoring Needs a Culture of Integration. One Earth 3 , 462-474. (10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.010)
107. Meeus S et al. 2023 More than a Bit of Fun: The Multiple Outcomes of a Bioblitz. BioScience 73 , 168-181. (10.1093/biosci/biac100)36936381
108. Pocock MJO et al. 2019 Developing the global potential of citizen science: Assessing opportunities that benefit people, society and the environment in East Africa. J. Appl. Ecol. 56 , 274-281. (10.1111/1365-2664.13279)
109. Casaer J, Milotic T, Liefting Y, Desmet P, Jansen P. 2019 Agouti: A platform for processing and archiving of camera trap images. Biodivers.Inf. Sci. Stand. 3 , e45590. (10.3897/biss.3.46690)
110. Silk M, Correia R, Veríssimo D, Verma A, Crowley SL. 2021 The implications of digital visual media for human–nature relationships. People Nature 3 , 1130-1137. (10.1002/pan3.10284)
111. Tschaikner M et al. 2023 Multisensor data fusion for automatized insect monitoring (KInsecta). Remote Sensing Agricult. Ecosyst. Hydrol. 12727 , 1272702-1-1272702-7. (10.1117/12.2679927)
112. Baumgartner MF et al. 2019 Persistent near real-time passive acoustic monitoring for baleen whales from a moored buoy: System description and evaluation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10 , 1476-1489. (10.1111/2041-210X.13244)
113. Sokol J. 2022 Bright lights, big pity. Science 376 , 340-343. (10.1126/science.abq4280)35446655
114. De Koning K, Broekhuijsen J, Kühn I, Ovaskainen O, Taubert F, Endresen D, Schigel D, Grimm V. 2023 Digital twins: Dynamic model-data fusion for ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38 , 916-926. (10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.010)37208222
115. Leclère D et al. 2020 Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585 , 551-556. (10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y)32908312
116. Bowler DE et al. 2022 Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations. Sci. Rep. 12 , 11069. (10.1038/s41598-022-15218-2)35773384
117. Jönsson M, Kasperowski D, Coulson SJ, Nilsson J, Bína P, Kullenberg C, Hagen N, Van Der Wal R, Peterson J. 2023 Inequality persists in a large citizen science programme despite increased participation through ICT innovations. Ambio. 53 , 126-137. (10.1007/s13280-023-01917-1)37707687
118. Pateman R, Dyke A, West S. 2021 The Diversity of Participants in Environmental Citizen Science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6 , 9. (10.5334/cstp.369)
119. Ceccaroni L, Bibby J, Roger E, Flemons P, Michael K, Fagan L, Oliver JL. 2019 Opportunities and Risks for Citizen Science in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4 , 29. (10.5334/cstp.241)
120. Altrudi S. 2021 Connecting to nature through tech? The case of the iNaturalist app. Convergence 27 , 124-141. (10.1177/1354856520933064)
121. Cappa F, Laut J, Porfiri M, Giustiniano L. 2018 Bring them aboard: Rewarding participation in technology-mediated citizen science projects. Comput. Hum. Behav. 89 , 246-257. (10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.017)
122. Serhan D. 2020 Transitioning from Face-to-Face to Remote Learning: Students' Attitudes and Perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Technol. Edu. Sci. 4 , 335-342. (10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.148)
123. Benyei P et al. 2023 Challenges, Strategies, and Impacts of Doing Citizen Science with Marginalised and Indigenous Communities: Reflections from Project Coordinators. Citizen Sci.: Theory Pract. 8 , 21. (10.5334/cstp.514)
124. Pew Research Center. 2024 8 charts on technology use around the world. Pew Research Center. See https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/02/05/8-charts-on-technology-use-around-the-world/.
125. Getman-Pickering ZL, Campbell A, Aflitto N, Grele A, Davis JK, Ugine TA. 2020 LeafByte: A mobile application that measures leaf area and herbivory quickly and accurately. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11 , 215-221. (10.1111/2041-210X.13340)
126. Naturedigger, LCC. 2015 Monarch SOS (Version 3.3) [Mobile app]. App Store. See https://apps.apple.com/us/app/monarch-sos/id956347677.
127. Sobrevila C. 2008 The role of indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation: the natural but often forgotten partners. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
128. Chiaravalloti RM, Skarlatidou A, Hoyte S, Badia MM, Haklay M, Lewis J. 2022 Extreme citizen science: Lessons learned from initiatives around the globe. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4 , e577. (10.1111/csp2.577)
129. Koch W, Hogeweg L, Nilsen EB, Finstad AG. 2023 Recognizability bias in citizen science photographs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 10 , 221063. (10.1098/rsos.221063)36756065
130. Di Cecco GJ, Barve V, Belitz MW, Stucky BJ, Guralnick RP, Hurlbert AH. 2021 Observing the Observers: How Participants Contribute Data to iNaturalist and Implications for Biodiversity Science. BioScience 71 , 1179-1188. (10.1093/biosci/biab093)
131. Riyaz M, Ignacimuthu S. 2023 Smart phone-macro lens setup (SPMLS): A low-cost and portable photography device for amateur taxonomists, biodiversity researchers, and citizen enthusiasts. Bulletin Natl Res. Cent. 47 , 143. (10.1186/s42269-023-01120-y)
132. Tulloch AIT et al. 2018 A decision tree for assessing the risks and benefits of publishing biodiversity data. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 1209-1217. (10.1038/s41559-018-0608-1)30038417
133. United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. See https://unesco.org/en/open-science/about?hub=686.
134. Open Source Hardware Association. 2023 Open Source Hardware Definition. See https://www.oshwa.org/definition/.
135. Open Source Initiative. 2023 Open Source Definition. See https://www.opensource.org/osd/.
136. Pearce JM. 2020 Economic savings for scientific free and open source technology: A review. HardwareX 8 , e00139. (10.1016/j.ohx.2020.e00139)32923748
137. Arancio J. 2023 From inequalities to epistemic innovation: Insights from open science hardware projects in Latin America. Environ. Sci. Policy 150 , 103576. (10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103576)
138. Arancio J, Tirado MM, Pearce JM. 2022 Equitable research capacity towards the Sustainable Development Goals: The case for open source hardware. J. Sci. Pol. Govern. 21 , 1-16. (10.38126/JSPG210202)
139. Hill AP, Prince P, Snaddon JL, Doncaster CP, Rogers A. 2019 AudioMoth: A low-cost acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment. HardwareX 6 , e00073. (10.1016/j.ohx.2019.e00073)
140. Day C et al. 2024 Forecasting the population development of within-season insect crop pests in sub-Saharan Africa: The Pest Risk Information Service. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 15 , 7. (10.1093/jipm/pmad026)
141. Nov O, Arazy O, Anderson D. 2021 Technology-Mediated Citizen Science Participation: A Motivational Model. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 5 , 249-256. (10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14113)
142. Kirchhoff C et al. 2021 Rapidly mapping fire effects on biodiversity at a large-scale using citizen science. Sci. Total Environ. 755 , 142348. (10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142348)33045599
143. Isaac NJB et al. 2020 Data Integration for Large-Scale Models of Species Distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35 , 56-67. (10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.006)31676190
144. Miller DAW, Pacifici K, Sanderlin JS, Reich BJ. 2019 The recent past and promising future for data integration methods to estimate species' distributions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10 , 22-37. (10.1111/2041-210X.13110)
145. Rhinehart TA, Turek D, Kitzes J. 2022 A continuous-score occupancy model that incorporates uncertain machine learning output from autonomous biodiversity surveys. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13 , 1778-1789. (10.1111/2041-210X.13905)
146. Sheard JK et al. 2024 Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring. Figshare. (10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7183284)
