Natural history collections are an important record of Earth’s biodiversity and are used to examine a range of scientific questions in areas from biodiversity monitoring to biosecurity, the impacts of climate change and public health. To be most useful, collections should be all-encompassing – representing all life on Earth. However, collections are often biased, largely driven by the specific interests of researchers and geographic proximity, and this can impact their use. In addition, collecting has declined globally, partly because of reduced funding. To obtain more representative natural history collections in a cost-effective way, there have been calls for new approaches to collecting. Research scientist Lara Shepherd and Botany Curator Leon Perrie have recently published a method for targeting specimen collection using the citizen science platform iNaturalist.
Harnessing the power of iNaturalist
In our new paper in the journal Biodiversity Informatics we describe an approach that uses the observations made by citizen scientists on the iNaturalist platform to identify and fill collection gaps.
A Wellington case study
To illustrate the method, we undertook a five-year case study focused on collecting plants in the Wellington region. The project began during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, when we were restricted to collecting locally.
With the help of then-student Joe Dillon we created a project that showed all iNaturalist plant observations within the Wellington region. Next we generated a list of all plant species that had been collected for Te Papa’s herbarium from the same area during the previous 20 years. We then subtracted this list from the total pool of observations, leaving only records of species that were missing from the collection. These are the target species we wanted to collect to ‘fill in the gaps’.
From observations to specimens
It is incredibly useful to have mapped observations or target species, including photographs that allow identifications to be verified. We now regularly take weekend or after work trips to selected areas where we can collect several target species in a single outing, particularly focusing on weeds.
In the Wellington region, we added more than 200 previously uncollected plant species to Te Papa’s herbarium during the case study, representing more than a fourfold increase compared with the previous five-year period.
Expanding the approach across Aotearoa New Zealand
We have since established similar collecting projects for other regions we frequently visit, including Lower Hutt, the Pohangina Valley, and New Plymouth. We also created a project covering all of New Zealand, allowing us to identify and collect species that are not represented in any New Zealand herbarium database, as far as we are aware. This project also provides a useful way to detect newly arriving organisms before they become widely established.
This approach is highly flexible and can be customised by region, taxonomic group, time period or whether species are native or introduced. By combining the collecting expertise of museums with the extensive observations contributed by citizen scientists, it provides a practical and cost-effective way to build more representative natural history collections while also supporting biodiversity monitoring and biosecurity efforts.
Enjoying these blogs?
Even a small donation helps Te Papa continue making its collections and research accessible to everyone.
Facts Only
* Lara Shepherd and Leon Perrie published a specimen collection method in the journal Biodiversity Informatics.
* The method utilizes citizen science observations from the iNaturalist platform.
* Te Papa’s herbarium is the receiving institution for the collected specimens.
* A case study was conducted over five years in the Wellington region.
* The project began during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns.
* Joe Dillon assisted in creating a project to map plant observations in Wellington.
* The method involves subtracting existing herbarium records from iNaturalist observations to identify missing species.
* Over 200 previously uncollected plant species were added to the herbarium during the study.
* The collection rate represents a fourfold increase over the previous five-year period.
* The approach has been expanded to Lower Hutt, the Pohangina Valley, and New Plymouth.
* A New Zealand-wide project exists to identify species not represented in any national herbarium database.
Executive Summary
Natural history collections serve as critical records for biodiversity monitoring, biosecurity, and climate change research. However, these collections often suffer from geographic and researcher-driven biases, compounded by a global decline in funding for traditional collecting. To address these gaps cost-effectively, a new methodology integrates professional museum expertise with citizen science data.
By utilizing observations from the iNaturalist platform, researchers can identify specific species present in a region that are missing from official herbarium records. A five-year case study in Wellington demonstrated the efficacy of this approach, resulting in the addition of over 200 new plant species to Te Papa’s herbarium—a fourfold increase compared to the previous five-year window. This flexible framework has since been scaled to other regions and applied nationwide across Aotearoa New Zealand to detect newly arriving organisms and fill systemic taxonomic gaps.
Full Take
This methodology represents a shift toward "data-driven foraging," where digital crowdsourcing directs physical scientific labor. Using ACADEMIC MODE, the design appears logically sound for its stated purpose: reducing "collector's bias" by substituting the researcher's intuition with a comprehensive digital dataset. However, a peer reviewer would likely flag a significant selection bias inherent in the source data. iNaturalist observations are not random; they are clustered around hiking trails, urban parks, and accessible roads. Consequently, the "filled gaps" may still omit species in inaccessible terrains, meaning the collection is becoming more representative of *observed* biodiversity rather than *actual* biodiversity.
The claim of a "fourfold increase" in specimens is a measure of efficiency, not necessarily a measure of total biodiversity capture. While the method is cost-effective, the reliance on citizen science introduces a variable of identification accuracy. While the authors mention verifying identifications via photographs, the scale of national-level projects may challenge the capacity for rigorous professional verification of every target.
If this approach is scaled, it transforms the role of the museum curator from a generalist explorer to a targeted harvester. This increases the speed of collection but may decrease the serendipitous discovery of species that neither the curator nor the citizen scientist knows to look for.
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the bias of citizen science geography (the "roadside effect") compare to the bias of professional researcher interests?
2. Would integrating satellite imagery or ecological niche modeling alongside iNaturalist data provide a more objective map of collection gaps?
3. What is the error rate of citizen identifications for cryptic species, and how does that affect the efficiency of targeted trips?