Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Citizen Science and the Pandemic: A Case Study of the Christmas Bird Count Cover

Citizen Science and the Pandemic: A Case Study of the Christmas Bird Count

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 7 (2022): Issue 1
By: Cade Coldren  
Open Access
|Jul 2022

References

  1. 1Alabama Public Health Department. 2020. Alabamians urged to take responsibility and slow transmission of COVID-19. 12 November 2020. Available at https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/blog/2020/11/23.html [Last accessed 17 March 2022].
    Back to article
  2. 2Basile, M, Russo, LF, Russo, VG, Senese, A and Bernardo, N. 2021. Birds seen and not seen during the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of lockdown measures on citizen science bird observations. Biological Conservation, 256: 109079. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109079
    Back to article
  3. 3Bock, CE and Root, TL. 1981. The Christmas Bird Count and avian ecology. Studies in Avian Biology, 6: 17–23.
    Back to article
  4. 4Bonter, DN and Greig, EI. 2021. Over 30 years of standardized birds counts at supplementary feeding stations in North America: A citizen science data report for Project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9: 619682. DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2021.619682
    Back to article
  5. 5California Department of Public Health. 2020. State officials announce latest COVID-19 facts. 1 December 2020. Available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR20-319.aspx [Last accessed 17 March 2022].
    Back to article
  6. 6Crimmins, TM, Posthumus, E, Schaffer, S and Prudic, KL. 2021. COVID-19 impacts on participation in large scale biodiversity-themeed community science projects in the United States. Biological Conservation, 256: 109017. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109017
    Back to article
  7. 7Dorler, D and Heigl, F. 2021. A decrease in reports on road-killed animals based on citizen science during COVID-19 lockdown. PeerJ, 9: e12464. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12464
    Back to article
  8. 8Drill, S, Rosenblatt, C, Cooper, C, Cavalier, D and Ballard, H. 2022. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on participation in community and citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 7(23): 1–14. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.463
    Back to article
  9. 9Gammon, DE and Maurer, BA. 2002. Evidence for non-uniform dispersal in the biological invasions of two naturalised North American bird species. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11: 155–161. DOI: 10.1046/j.1466-822X.2002.00269.x
    Back to article
  10. 10Gillings, S, Balmer, DE, Harris, SJ, Massimino, D and Pearce-Higgins, JW. 2021. Impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on capacity to monitor bird populations: a case study using the UK Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Study, 68: 220–232. DOI: 10.1080/00063657.2021.2019187
    Back to article
  11. 11Gundelund, C and Skov, C. 2021. Changes in angler demography and angling patterns during the Covid-19 lockdown in spring 2020 measured through a citizen science program. Marine Policy, 131: 104602. DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104602
    Back to article
  12. 12Hagan, JM, III. 1993. Decline of the Rufous-sided Towhee in the eastern United States. Auk, 110: 863–874. DOI: 10.2307/4088640
    Back to article
  13. 13Hentati-Sundberg, J, Berglund, P-A, Hejdstrom, A and Olsson, O. 2021. COVID-19 lockdown reveals tourists as seabird guardians. Biological Conservation, 254: 108950. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108950
    Back to article
  14. 14Hochachka, WM, Alonso, H, Gutierrez-Exposito, C, Miller, E and Johnston, A. 2021. Regional variation in the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quantity and quality of data collected by the project eBird. Biological Conservation, 254: 108974. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108974
    Back to article
  15. 15Kishimoto, K and Kobori, H. 2021. COVID-19 pandemic drives changes in participation in citizen science project “City Nature Challenge” in Tokyo. Biological Conservation, 255: 109001. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109001
    Back to article
  16. 16Koenig, WD. 2003. European Starlings and their effect on native cavity-nesting birds. Conservation Biology, 17: 1134–1140. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02262.x
    Back to article
  17. 17Kricher, JC. 1981. Range expansion of the Tufted Titmouse (Parus bicolor) in Massachusetts. American Birds, 35: 750–753.
    Back to article
  18. 18La Sorte, FA and Thompson, FR, III. 2007. Poleward shifts in winter ranges of North American birds. Ecology, 88: 1803–1812. DOI: 10.1890/06-1072.1
    Back to article
  19. 19Lepthien, LW and Bock, CE. 1976. Winter abundance patterns of North American kinglets. Wilson Bulletin, 88: 483–485.
    Back to article
  20. 20LeTourneux, F, Grandmont, T, Dulude-de Broin, F, Martin, M-C, Lefebvre, J, Kato, A, Bety, J, Gauthier, G and Legagneux, P. 2021. COVID-19-induced reduction in human disturbance enhances fattening of an overabundant goose species. Biological Conservation, 255: 108968. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108968
    Back to article
  21. 21National Audubon Society. 2020. Christmas Bird Count compiler announcements. Available at https://www.audubon.org/news/christmas-bird-count-compiler-announcements [Last accessed 9 August 2021].
    Back to article
  22. 22National Audubon Society. 2021. Audubon Christmas Bird Count. Available at audubon.org/conservation/science/christmas-bird-count [Last accessed 24 March 2022].
    Back to article
  23. 23Phillips, TB, Bailey, RL, Martin, V, Faulkner-Grant, H and Bonter, DN. 2021. The role of citizen science in management of invasive avian species: What people think, know, and do. Journal of Environmental Management, 280: 111709. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111709
    Back to article
  24. 24Randler, C, Tryjanowski, P, Jokimaki, J, Kaisanlahti-Jokimaki, ML and Staller, N. 2020. SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown influences nature-based recreational activity: The case of birders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17: 7310. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17197310
    Back to article
  25. 25Rose, S, Suri, J, Brooks, M and Ryan, PG. 2020. COVID-19 and citizen science: lessons learned from southern Africa. Ostrich, 91: 188–191. DOI: 10.2989/00306525.2020.1783589
    Back to article
  26. 26Sanchez-Clavijo, LM, Martinez-Callejas, SJ, Acevedo-Charry, O, Diaz-Pulido, A, Gomez-Valencia, B, Ocampo-Penuela, N, Ocampo, D, Olaya-Rodriguez, MH, Rey-Velasco, JC, Soto-Vargas, C and Ochoa-Quintero, JM. 2021. Differential reporting of biodiversity in two citizen science platforms during COVID-19 lockdown in Columbia. Biological Conservation, 256: 109077. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109077
    Back to article
  27. 27Sauer, JR, Fallon, JE and Johnson, R. 2003. Use of North American Breeding Bird Survey data to estimate population change for bird conservation regions. Journal of Wildlife Management, 67: 372–389. DOI: 10.2307/3802778
    Back to article
  28. 28Stenhouse, A, Perry, T, Grutzner, F, Rismiller, P, Koh, LP and Lewis, M. 2022. COVID restrictions impact wildlife monitoring in Australia. Biological Conservation, 267: 109470. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109470
    Back to article
  29. 29Yunick, RP. 1984. An assessment of the irruptive status of the Boreal Chickadee in New York state. Journal of Field Ornithology, 55: 31–37.
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.473 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Nov 4, 2021
Accepted on: Jul 4, 2022
Published on: Jul 20, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Christmas Bird Count,
novel coronavirus,
pandemic effects,
scientific validity,
spatial distribution

© 2022 Cade Coldren, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 7 (2022): Issue 1Next article