An assessment of data accuracy and best practice recommendations for observations of lichens and other taxonomically difficult taxa on iNaturalist

• Published in: Botany Vol. 100; no. 6; pp. 491 - 497
• Main Authors: McMullin, R. Troy, Allen, Jessica L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 1840 Woodward Drive, Suite 1, Ottawa, ON K2C 0P7 Canadian Science Publishing 01.06.2022; NRC Research Press
• Subjects: biodiversity; biodiversity conservation; biodiversité; Biological diversity conservation; Botanical research; botany; citizen science; Citizen scientists; conservation; data accuracy; data quality; espèces en péril; exactitude des données; Identification and classification; Lichens; Observations; Practice; science citoyenne; species at risk; United States
• ISSN: 1916-2790; 1916-2804; 1916-2804
• DOI: 10.1139/cjb-2021-0160

We assess the identification accuracy of ‘research grade’ observations of lichens posted on the online platform iNaturalist. Our results show that these observations are frequently misidentified or lack the necessary chemical and (or) microscopic information for accurate identification. Lichens are a taxonomically difficult group, but they are ubiquitous and eye-catching and are regularly the subject of observations posted on iNaturalist. Therefore, we provide best practice recommendations for posting lichen observations and commenting on observations. Data from iNaturalist are a valuable tool for understanding and managing biodiversity, particularly at this crucial time when large scale biodiversity decline is occurring globally. However, the data must be accurate for them to effectively support biodiversity conservation efforts. Our recommendations are also applicable to other taxonomically difficult taxa.