eBird or Birdata

[Jack Worcester <>]

Hi Chris,

I asked the question to try to understand the usefulness and accessibility of the data to researchers and government/conservation organisations from both platforms, but you raise an interesting point regarding the quality of the 2ha 20min data itself. My understanding is that although in your experience the 2ha 20min survey type greatly under-reports the number of species within an area, data is nonetheless more suited to statistical analysis and is therefore more scientifically useful when collected in a standardised way. There are many different ways to collect data, and the most important factors for citizen science are that they are accessible to the general public and consistent in their method. I'm guessing the 2ha 20min survey type was deemed more accessible to the public than the grid system and therefore adopted by Birdlife Australia. Incidental and presence/absence type surveys are the least useful as meaningful spacial and temporal comparison to other surveys is difficult.

I'm interested to know if the 10' grid surveys encompassed different habitat to the 2ha 20min surveys you conducted, or were there other factors which contributed to the large difference in the number of species sighted?

To others who have responded to the question, thank you for your input but i was not asking for personal preferences and ease of use. With the release of the Birdata app data entry in both platforms is easy, but i agree that once entered, the eBird data is more accessible to the public and the user, with more functionally. What i was most interested in is the usefulness and accessibility of the data to researchers and government/conservation organisations. Basically, data entered into which platform will provide the most benefit to birds?

Cheers,

Jack

On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 7:28 PM Chris Brandis <> wrote:

Hi Jack

I am a member of the NSW Bird Atlassers that continued to follow the first atlas surveying of 10 minute grids, we do up to a month but only presence, and when the new atlas came out with the 2 ha 20 min system I tried it out at Conimbla NP, near Cowra, NSW, where I camped for 2 days. I picked 5 sites and did the 2/2 surveys each day plus kept a record of what I saw in the 10' grid. The 2/2 surveys totaled 32 species while the 10' survey was 64 species. I repeated this during the Birds on Farm project and got over twice the species recorded with the 5 (I think) 2/2 surveys.

To my mind birds have a much bigger range than 2 ha and move a long way in 20 mins. so is too limited to show the the real number of species, especially the more cryptic ones and for sea birds it is a total loss.

Cheers Chris

On 6/06/2019 7:41 am, Jack Worcester wrote:

I'm interested in opinions regarding the scientific usefulness of standardised surveys (2ha/20min) submitted to either eBird or Birdata. I understand data entered under a specific format into eBird will be incorporated within Birdata at quarterly intervals, but I don't believe there is any data flow in the other direction. I use Birdata to conduct monthly standardised surveys around our property on Fraser Island, however the local QLD Parks and Wildlife Service have suggested eBird data is more useful and easier to access compared with Birdata. From a purely scientific point of view, where's the best place to upload the data?

Cheers,

Jack

<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> m("birding-aus.org","Birding-Aus");" target="_blank">
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>

<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> 
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>