Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep 20:6:33634.
doi: 10.1038/srep33634.

Species identification by experts and non-experts: comparing images from field guides

G E Austen  1 , M Bindemann  2 , R A Griffiths  1 , D L Roberts  1
Affiliations

Species identification by experts and non-experts: comparing images from field guides

G E Austen et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Accurate species identification is fundamental when recording ecological data. However, the ability to correctly identify organisms visually is rarely questioned. We investigated how experts and non-experts compared in the identification of bumblebees, a group of insects of considerable conservation concern. Experts and non-experts were asked whether two concurrent bumblebee images depicted the same or two different species. Overall accuracy was below 60% and comparable for experts and non-experts. However, experts were more consistent in their answers when the same images were repeated, and more cautious in committing to a definitive answer. Our findings demonstrate the difficulty of correctly identifying bumblebees using images from field guides. Such error rates need to be accounted for when interpreting species data, whether or not they have been collected by experts. We suggest that investigation of how experts and non-experts make observations should be incorporated into study design, and could be used to improve training in species identification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Percentage (±1 s.e.) for correct, incorrect and “don’t know” responses (left graph), and accuracy (±1 s.e.) for match and mismatch pairs (right graph) as a function of expertise.
Overall accuracy is low and comparable (54% to 57%) between expert groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mean accuracy (±1 s.e.) across groups for each match (top) and mismatch (bottom) image.
Effects of expertise were present for only three of these images (match 2, match 6 and mismatch 7).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Percentage (±1 s.e.) consistency in responses across presentations of stimuli.
Experts were more consistent than non-experts in both overall and accurate answers.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Correlation of consistent and consistently accurate responses.
Individuals with consistent responses are more likely to be consistently accurate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Elphick C. S. How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1313–1320 (2008).
    1. Farnsworth E. J. et al. Next-Generation Field Guides. Bioscience 63, 891–899 (2013).
    1. Sutherland W. J., Roy D. B. & Amano T. An agenda for the future of biological recording for ecological monitoring and citizen science. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 115, 779–784 (2015).
    1. Rodrigues A. S. L., Pilgrim J. D., Lamoreux J. F., Hoffmann M. & Brooks T. M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76 (2006). - PubMed
    1. Fitzpatrick M. C., Preisser E. L., Ellison A. M. & Elkinton J. S. Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations Ecol. Appl. 19, 1673–79 (2009). - PubMed

Publication types