Overview Articles More than a Bit of Fun: The Multiple Outcomes of a Bioblitz SOFIE MEEUS , IOLANDA SILVA-ROCHA , TIM ADRIAENS , PETER M.J. BROWN , NIKI CHARTOSIA , BERNAT CLARAMUNT-LÓPEZ , ANGELIKI F. MARTINOU , MICHAEL J. O. POCOCK , CRISTINA PREDA , HELEN E. ROY , ELENA TRICARICO , AND QUENTIN J. GROOM Bioblitzes are a popular approach to engage people and collect biodiversity data. Despite this, few studies have actually evaluated the multiple outcomes of bioblitz activities. We used a systematic review, an analysis of data from more than 1000 bioblitzes, and a detailed analysis of one specific bioblitz to inform our inquiry. We evaluated five possible bioblitz outcomes, which were creating a species inventory, engaging people in biological recording, enhancing learning about nature, discovering a species new to an area, and promoting an organization. We conclude that bioblitzes are diverse but overall effective at their aims and have advantages over unstructured biodiversity recording. We demonstrate for the first time that bioblitzes increase the recording activity of the participants for several months after the event. In addition, we provide evidence that bioblitzes are effective at bringing people and organizations together to build communities of professionals and amateurs, critical for conserving and protecting biodiversity. Keywords: engagement, species inventory, iNaturalist, invasive alien species, Bioblitz T he word bioblitz (also written BioBlitz) first entered the scientific vocabulary in 1996, when it was coined by Susan Rudy, of the US National Park Service, who assisted et al. 2018). Bioblitzes are used for rapid biodiversity assess- ment but also as a way of widening engagement with nature for a general audience. In the present article, in this review in a 24-hour event in the suburbs of Washington, DC, in the on bioblitzes, we use this consensus definition while recog- United States (Ruch et al. 2010). The event was organized by nizing that some people use the term to refer to different Sam Droege and Dan Roddy, and it attracted scientists and activities (e.g., personal bioblitzes; box 1). wildlife experts, employed locally either by the government In bioblitzes, scientists and experts spanning different or by educational establishments, such as the Smithsonian taxonomic groups often organize the event or are specifi- Institution (Postles and Bartlett 2018, Patuxent Wildlife cally invited to attend to contribute their survey and iden- Research Center 2020). The goals of this event were scien- tification skills. Indeed, in an “expert” bioblitz, an expert tific, conservation, management, educational, public rela- team of professional scientists and conservation practitio- tions, and social (Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 2020), ners are the only ones invited to participate (Parker et al. just as they are for many bioblitzes today. Indeed, it has con- 2018). However, in many bioblitzes, there is a high degree tinued to be a tool used by the National Park Service in the of outreach, both to experts in biodiversity recording and United States (Baker et al. 2014, National Park Service 2022). to inexperienced members of the public. Bioblitzes can Since the inception of the term, bioblitzes have been used provide an informal and fun way to create a snapshot of the all over the world as a means of gathering and sharing infor- variety of species that can be found in an area; they can be mation about biodiversity in parks and in natural and urban an opportunity for the participants to learn, share expertise, areas while also often engaging large numbers of people with and be enthused, breaking down barriers to engagement nature (Robinson et al. 2013, Baker et al. 2014, Postles and with science (Robinson et al. 2013). Bioblitzes have become Bartlett 2018). Bioblitzes are diverse, but the typical event a recognized tool for environmental citizen science (DITOs seeks to attract many people and is usually defined as a Consortium 2017). They can also support outreach, where rapid assessment of the biodiversity present in a specific geo- scientists communicate the importance of biodiversity in a graphic area over a relatively short period of time (figure 1). place to the public, local communities, and policymakers The participants can include professional scientists and (Lundmark 2003). communicators, volunteer experts, and amateur naturalists, Bioblitzes can have many outcomes that can be divided often from the local community (Lundmark 2003, Parker into those for the individual participant, those for the BioScience 73: 168–181. © The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac100 Advance Access publication 1 March 2023 168 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 168 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles description of the bioblitz to capture data on the type (box 1), country, scale, duration, number of participants and species found, surface area, records of new species in the area, habitat, presence of a checklist, and target audience of the bioblitz. All 60 articles were then ranked on the basis of the importance—from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest)—of the five most common aims (Baker et al. 2014, DITOs Consortium 2017, Postles and Bartlett 2018): creating a biodiversity inventory, improving knowledge of the participants, discovering new species to an area, pro- moting an organization, engaging the public. Thirteen papers were read and scored twice by different people. We applied Jaccard's similarity coefficient Figure 1. Word cloud of 1860 descriptions of iNaturalist projects to assess agreement between the raters, with bioblitz in their title conducted between 2013 and 2020. because it can easily be interpreted as the Bioblitzes are usually pitched as fun challenges in which everyone percentage of agreement (Stemler 2004). can participate to help observe wildlife and nature by finding or Second, we obtained summary sta- documenting as many species as possible in a certain area either a tistics of the projects containing the word bioblitz in their title in iNatural- city or park by, in this case, using the iNaturalist app. ist between 2013 and 2020, with 1860 strictly fitting into the general definition environment, those for the community, and those for busi- of a bioblitz—that is, a short-term event from a specific ness or the economy (Robinson et al. 2013). A bioblitz place with more than one observer and at least one identifier always involves the collection of biodiversity data, although (see Groom 2021 for code and documentation). iNaturalist this is not necessarily the primary aim or outcome. is a recording platform often used in bioblitzes to inform In the present article, we evaluate whether bioblitzes are the participants, collect wildlife records, keep score of the suited to reach five popular outcomes indicated by bioblitz number of species observed, rank the participants, and so organizers: creating a biodiversity inventory for a specific on (Unger et al. 2020). Anyone can use iNaturalist to set up time and place, discovering of new species to an area, engag- their own bioblitz project, ranging from local events with ing the public with natural history and research, improving a small number of participants (e.g., White Lake BioBlitz) the participants’ knowledge of biodiversity and the environ- to bioblitzes that run globally, such as the City Nature ment, and promoting an organization. Challenge. A word cloud was created from the projects’ To evaluate these outcomes, we conducted a systematic descriptions of the same sample of projects (Groom 2021). review of published bioblitzes and a meta-analysis of bioblitz To assess the use of bioblitzes in the Global South, we exam- projects from the popular global recording app iNaturalist ined the iNaturalist bioblitz data in three global regions (www.inaturalist.org). We also describe and evaluate a case where citizen science has tended to have lower prevalence— study of a bioblitz in Akrotiri, Cyprus, which the authors Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean—and looked organized and in which they participated. for correlations with country-level variables such as popula- Starting as they did at the end of the twentieth century, tion size and Internet penetration (for details on the meth- bioblitzes have emerged in parallel to the Internet, GPS, odology, see Brown et al. 2021). and mobile phones. We, therefore, also show how they have To evaluate the impact of the bioblitz on the recording evolved with information technology but still retain their activity of the users—including only those people who used original aims. iNaturalist both before and after the event and users who used iNaturalist only during and after the event—a random sub- The dimensions of a bioblitz sample of 100 iNaturalist bioblitz projects with all their users To understand the scope and activity of bioblitzes, we used (N = 3425) was selected, and recording activity, expressed as two sources of information. First, we conducted a review of the median weekly devoted days (Ponciano and Brasiliero published information on bioblitzes using a search in Google 2014) of each of the participants was extracted for up to a year Scholar for the term bioblitz on 31 July 2020 (for full details, before and a year after the bioblitz event. For each user, we see Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). We obtained information on calculated the difference in recording activity as the number 60 unique bioblitzes from published literature. We used the of recording days per week before and after the bioblitz for https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 169 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 169 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Box 1. The different kinds of events that are eponymously bioblitzes. The variety below shows the broad range of events but also the common themes of intensive biological recording in specific times and places. These descriptions are not exclusive; that is, a bioblitz can be both guided and place based. Bioblitz (general). A rapid assessment of the biodiversity present in a specific geographic area over a relatively short period of time, in which multiple people engage and participate, either being expert scientists, naturalists or amateurs. Expert bioblitz. An event, usually place based, that involves a team of professional scientists and conservation practitioners. The main aim of an expert bioblitz is to collect high-quality biological records. Place-based bioblitz. A bioblitz held in a particular place at a particular time. This may or may not include public engagement. Dispersed (or virtual) bioblitz. A focused, short-term event promoted via the media or social media that engages people in their loca- tion of choice. There is usually an emphasis on the total number of species recorded making it different to many other citizen science projects for nature recording. Personal bioblitz. A term used by some individuals for purposeful biological recording activities undertaken by a single person. Targeted bioblitz. Focus on a particular taxon. This can be a single species (e.g., an invasive alien species), insects visiting a species of flower, or a broader taxon such as birds. Intensive scientific survey. A bioblitz with an emphasis on rigorous scientific data collection. The participants typically survey the site in taxon-specific teams during the whole duration of the bioblitz (cf. BioBlitz Canada 150). Guided bioblitzes. An event where experts guide participants in groups; the groups may actively participate in searching for nature (so enhancing the likelihood of finding species) or may simply observe the expert undertaking recording. Guidance is provided in observing and identifying wildlife, but can also be used to ensure greater engagement, to avoid people getting lost, or to prevent them straying into conservation sensitive areas. Biodiversity festival. An event offering fun and educational activities in the theme of biodiversity meant to engage people in science and nature. A biodiversity festival can be run in parallel to one or more of the bioblitz types in this box. paired weeks of the year. This approach is taken to account for or global. The United States is the leading country in the seasonal variation in the detectability of species. We modeled number of bioblitzes (63% of published descriptions, 68% an exponential decay function (y = a × exp(–bx)) using the of iNaturalist bioblitzes), followed by Canada (10% and 8%, saemix R package (Comets et al. 2017), with project as a ran- respectively; figure 2, supplemental figure S1). We did not dom factor. This model both fitted the data well and enabled find published accounts from Argentina, Brazil, or China, us to calculate a half-life for the boost in activity generated by although these countries do organize bioblitzes (figure 2). the bioblitz. For more information on the methodology, we Most bioblitzes were not taxon specific (63%); the remaining refer you to Groom (2021) and the results in box 2. one-third of bioblitzes specifically targeted birds, arthro- By exploring these two sources of information, we found pods, bats, fungi, or lichens. The number of participants that the vast majority of bioblitzes do not have a published varied greatly, from 10 to over 1000 (mean = 253). In terms summary of the outcomes. However, some report the num- of the output, the number of recorded species ranged from 8 ber of participants, the approaches, and the rationale behind to 6576 (average = 805; Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). the event. We found 60 published accounts of bioblitzes that Most of the iNaturalist bioblitzes were run over a week- fell within our selection criteria (Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). end and especially on a Saturday (supplemental figure S2). In our literature review, 59 of the 60 reports with the word By far, the most popular months for organizing a bioblitz bioblitz in the title (or abstract) fitted within the consensus were April and September (supplemental figure S3). Most definition, with an average duration of 31 hours. One paper bioblitzes lasted less than 72 hours (76%). The average describing a “personal” bioblitz of 76 days (Pollock et al. bioblitz yielded 2156 observations of 299 species, engaged 2015) was omitted from further analyses. We also collated 123 participants during the event, and had 154 identifiers recommendations from these sources on how to conduct an assisting with species identifications on the iNaturalist plat- effective bioblitz and have made these available as supple- form (supplemental figure S4). The word cloud generated mental material (Adriaens et al. 2021). from the descriptions of these projects in figure 1 shows at a We categorized bioblitzes from the literature into glance how bioblitzes are being promoted. three different types of participation (cf. Ontaria Eight authors of this study (ISR, SM, TA, QG, NC, CP, Bioblitz, www.ontariobioblitz.ca): intensive scientific sur- AM, and BC) ranked each of the published bioblitzes veys, guided bioblitzes, and biodiversity festivals (box 1). with respect to the five bioblitz aims previously outlined. More than half (57%) of the bioblitzes were guided. Most of Public engagement and collecting data, either inventories these published bioblitzes (73%) had a local extent, with a or first records, were the main drivers for organizing a median of 1.98 square kilometers; a fifth were regional (e.g., bioblitz in this corpus of published accounts (figure 3; a state or cluster of states); and the remaining were national Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). Although none of the published 170 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 170 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Box 2. An analysis of bioblitz data from the popular recording app iNaturalist. To explore the long-term impact of bioblitzes on participant engagement we studied the observing activity of 3378 unique partici- pants from a random sample of 100 iNaturalist bioblitzes. We did this by comparing people's activity in the year before and the year after the bioblitz. Three-quarters (77%) of the participants used only iNaturalist during the bioblitz and a small number of people (1.5%) used iNaturalist before the bioblitz, but stopped after the event. However, 21.5% of new and existing users continued to use it after the bioblitz. For those who continued using iNaturalist, we measured their activity as the number of days they made records per week or weekly devoted days (Ponciano and Brasiliero 2014). Then we compared their activity in the 50 weeks following the bioblitz with the same weeks in the preceding year (figure 4). Their activity was higher immediately after the bioblitz and declined toward their preexisting level of activity. According to the exponential decay model, recording activity per participant in the year after the bioblitz increased by a cumulative total of 7.4 days, and on average, the increased activity after the bioblitz halved every 12.8 weeks (decay constant = 0.054, standard error [SE] = 0.005, n = 38,850). Regardless of whether people were new to iNaturalist at the bioblitz or previous users of the app, a similar decay in activity was seen, although new users seemed to have a longer half-life (16.9 weeks; decay constant = 0.041, SE = 0.004, n = 20,950). Nevertheless, we caution overinterpretation of these results, because these are only from one app, and the proportion of new and veteran users will vary considerably between projects. The cumulative total of 7.4 days additional recording activity could have a huge impact. Even with just one observation per additional day of recording, the 113,076 people who physically engaged in iNaturalist bioblitzes in 2019 would add 180,390 additional observations after the bioblitz, equivalent to 10% of the number of observations made during all the iNaturalist bioblitzes in 2019 (N = 1,851,444). Figure 2. The distribution of iNaturalist bioblitz projects between 2013 and 2020 (N = 1836). This map uses a Mollweide equal-area map projection. bioblitzes received the top score for learning, it is clearly iNaturalist is used more often in medium and high an important aim; 11 publications had it ranked as the income, often anglophone countries (figure 2, figure S1). second most important outcome. Bioblitz organizers For the three global regions in the Global South—Africa rarely mentioned the promotion of their organization to (30 bioblitzes in 13 countries), Asia (71 bioblitzes in 11 coun- be an aim. tries), and Latin America and the Caribbean (153 bioblitzes https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 171 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 171 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Figure 3. Fifty-nine published accounts on bioblitzes were Figure 4. Bioblitzes trigger increased participant activity screened for the five most common aims for running a bioblitz with biological recording that lasts for several weeks after after which, for each of the publications, the aims were the bioblitz. The difference of recording activity in days ranked in accordance to their importance ranging between per week for 3378 recorders from 100 bioblitzes 1 year 1 for the aim with the lowest importance and 5 for the aim before and 1 year after the bioblitz they participated in. with the highest importance. The following five aims were The y-axis shows the difference in the number of recording scored: inventory (i.e., creating a biodiversity inventory), days per week compared with the same week in the year learning (i.e., improving knowledge of the participants), new preceding the bioblitzes (enlarged on left). Values range species (i.e., discovering new species to an area), promotion between −7 (i.e., if a person recorded 7 days less in the (i.e., promoting an organization), and public engagement. year after the bioblitz) and 7 (i.e., if a person recorded 7 Either inventory or public engagement was found to be the days more in the year after the bioblitz) however points most important aim (scores of 5) in 90% of the publications, are jittered to make them visible. The line is fitted with whereas the promotion of an organization was the lowest a nonlinear exponential model. Pre- and postbioblitz ranked aim (scores of 1) in most of the publications. activity were compared each week to remove any seasonal effects of recording activity and we compared recording activity expressed as the weekly devoted days rather than in 13 countries)—we found a significant correlation between number of observations to help remove differences related the number of bioblitzes in a country and its population size to species abundances. (p < .001). There was also a significant relationship with Internet penetration (p < .05; Brown et al. 2021). and colleagues (2018) found that bioblitzes are cheaper, Evaluation of bioblitz outcomes quicker, and more suited to small areas than many alterna- The first outcome of a bioblitz is the generation of use- tive methods of rapid biodiversity assessment. Comparing ful biological records. Most bioblitzes gather biological the efficacy of a bioblitz with that of a traditional expert records that are submitted to a repository of biodiversity survey in detecting herpetofauna and small mammals, data (boxes 2 and 3). Bioblitzes in the United Kingdom are Foster and colleagues (2013) found a similar efficacy of both estimated to have contributed over 113,000 species records methods to detect salamanders, snakes, and small mammals, to local and national biodiversity recording schemes from but there was a lower detection of anurans and of rare and 2006 to 2013 (Postles and Bartlett 2018). At a global scale, elusive species by the bioblitz. This was, in part, because the 2,963,742 records were contributed by 1329 bioblitz projects time limitation of the bioblitz meant that species that were on the iNaturalist platform between 2013 and 2019 (box 2). not active or conspicuous were not detected, as was also The six bioblitzes ran in 2013 contributed less than 1% to the reported by Ramírez Bravo and colleagues (2022). Despite yearly total of iNaturalist records, but this increased to 377 limitations of bias that many types of biodiversity surveys bioblitzes, contributing 13% of the total iNaturalist records suffer from, such as preferences for emotive taxa (Groom in 2019 (supplemental figure S5). et al. 2021) and uneven sampling effort in time and space By being a form of rapid, intense biodiversity assessment, (Amano et al. 2016), bioblitzes are more structured than ad bioblitzes can fill gaps in knowledge and provide up-to- hoc biodiversity recording because some aspects of the sur- date data that can contribute to conservation planning vey are controlled; that is, intensity, duration, and extent are and management (Parker et al. 2018). These taxa may be at least partially controlled. Bioblitzes might therefore gen- protected species, species of conservation concern, invasive erate more scientifically valuable data if basic information alien species, or managed species in general (Balmford and about the event—as a proxy of survey intensity—is provided Gaston 1999, Alonso et al. 2011, Patrick et al. 2014). Parker (Kelling et al. 2019). 172 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 172 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Box 3. The Akrotiri BioBlitz. The Akrotiri BioBlitz took place for 24 hours in February 2019. The Akrotiri wetland is the largest natural wetland complex of Cyprus and it is famously biodiverse. It is a UNESCO Ramsar site, a BirdLife International Important Bird Area and an EU Natura 2000 Special Protection Area. The aims of the BioBlitz were to improve knowledge of the biodiversity of the Akrotiri Peninsula, to identify potential risks to the biodiversity caused by alien species, and to engage with local researchers, visiting scientists and the residents of the Peninsula. Several authors of this article participated in and organized the bioblitz, which gives us an opportunity to evaluate how well it met its aims. Aim 1: Improve knowledge of the biodiversity of the Akrotiri Peninsula. A total of 2192 observations were made on over 500 taxa. The majority of these records covered plants, insects, and birds. Most of the observations were recorded using the iNaturalist app, whereas 13% were submitted in spreadsheets and afterward published to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; Hadjikyriakou et al. 2019). Thirty-one species found during the bioblitz were not yet documented to occur in Akrotiri, with five of them being first records for the whole of Cyprus (Silva-Rocha et al. 2021). In this species checklist, 267 species were not yet documented to occur in Akrotiri in GBIF. These species include plants, fungi, invertebrates, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, from terrestrial, freshwater, and saline habitats. They also include some rare and underrecorded species, such as Riccia beyrichiana, Petalophyllum ralfsii, and Seirophora villosa. Aim 2: Early warning for invasive alien species. Most of the species recorded during the bioblitz were native to Cyprus (Silva-Rocha et al. 2021). Eighty-seven introduced species were recorded, of which 51 are established aliens and invasive alien species. These included well known invasive alien species such as Acacia saligna, Gambusia holbrooki, Oxalis pes-caprae, and Procambarus clarkii. The bioblitz discovered 12 new alien species for Akrotiri and added 58 new alien species to those already known from the area on GBIF. Of the 12 new taxa, some are unlikely to become invasive (e.g., Yucca aloifolia), others may have been overlooked native species (e.g., Naticarius hebraeus), and others may prove to be misidentifications and require more investigation to resolve. However, making these records avail- able either by directly publishing them to GBIF or via the iNaturalist platform is important for further investigation and timely action against emerging problem species (Groom et al. 2015, Reyserhove et al. 2020). Aim 3: Engagement. Fifty-six observers contributed observations, although close to 100 people took part. Some of the people that did not contribute observations played supporting roles, and others contributed to observations indirectly by acting as an additional pair of eyes in a recorder team. Additional people contributed to the bioblitz by identifying the species in the records made during the bioblitz, with more than 250 people involved in the identification of these records (figure 5). Clearly, the event engaged an additional online com- munity of people contributing through identifications, doubling the amount of people engaged during the bioblitz. Interestingly, even though most of the bioblitz observers were also involved in the identification of the records, quite a few external identifiers identified more than the people physically involved in the bioblitz (figure 5). Furthermore, although 20% of the observers were already using the iNaturalist app and continued to do so after the bioblitz, 80% of the observers were using the iNaturalist app for the first time. Of those new users, 46% continued to use the application after the bioblitz event to record their own observations. Expert bioblitzes, in particular, can have long-term biodiversity monitoring for recording the presence and loca- conservation outcomes, because they generate conserva- tion of organisms, dating and locating different biological tion-relevant survey data, increase research capacity in events (i.e., reproduction), and identifying patterns of land undersurveyed taxa or areas, and build cross-disciplinary or seabed cover (Chandler et al. 2017, Luna et al. 2018). partnerships between people and organizations that can Examples of popular biological recording apps are iNatural- advance biodiversity conservation initiatives (Parker et al. ist (www.inaturalist.org), Pl@ntNet (https://identify.plant- 2018, Menchetti et al. 2021). This makes an expert bioblitz net.org), iSpot (www.ispotnature.org), iRecord (www.brc. akin to a rapid biodiversity assessment with parataxono- ac.uk/irecord) and eBird (https://ebird.org), although there mists, which is an established method for biodiversity sur- are many others. Many of these apps have been used to cap- veys in information-poor regions (Basset et al. 2000). One ture the data during bioblitzes, and some, such as iNaturalist, such expert bioblitz involving 117 taxonomic experts, over actively facilitate it by providing a platform for data capture 50 students, and relevant stakeholders from the government and online engagement tools for organizers. and corporate industry has even led to the nomination of a Bioblitzes can discover new taxa even in well-sampled Malaysian rainforest site as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere areas (Outcome 2) (e.g., Pierson et al. 2014, Nicolai et al. Reserve (Lowman et al. 2019). 2020). Even though discovering new species is not the most Smartphone technology, including integrated GPS, high- important motivation for organizing a bioblitz (figure 3), quality cameras, and the possibility to store data and 63% of the papers reviewed claim discovery of taxa that photographs locally and upload to a server, has extended are new to the area where the bioblitz was held (box 3; e.g., the scope of mobile apps to be used in environmental and Cantonwine et al. 2019). Some of these newly discovered https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 173 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 173 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Cock 2005, Vander Zanden et al. 2010, Tollington et al. 2017). Early detection requires ubiquitous and regular surveying of a broad range of species, and for this reason, citizen science has been suggested as a useful strategy for getting many eyes on the ground (Thomas et al. 2017, Parker et al. 2018, Roy et al. 2018, Dumas et al. 2020, Encarnação et al. 2021). However, one of the challenges of invasive alien species management is how to efficiently implement the detection of new arrivals. Standardized biodiversity surveys such as bioblitzes, if repeated over time, can represent a gold standard for detection of diverse taxa and patterns of introduction (Ruiz and Hewitt 2002, Ruiz et al. 2017). Existing examples are bioblitzes organized to detect yellow- legged hornets (Vespa velutina) on ivy (Hedera helix) and so help to locate the nests of this invasive species in Belgium (Schoonvaere et al. 2020) and in the coastal waters of Alaska to detect marine invaders such as the bryozoan Schizoporella japonica (Ruiz et al. 2017). Bioblitzes can also play an important role in the monitor- ing of invasive alien species and the prioritization of invasive alien species removal actions, because these actions requires a coordinated approach that is informed by recent, accurate, Figure 5. The Akrotiri bioblitz observer–identifier network and complete occurrence data, including data from nature was constructed using iNaturalist data on the participants reserves and private properties that could act as sources of engaged in the Akrotiri bioblitz (box 3) that were making reinvasion (Foxcroft et al. 2007). For example, the Texas observations (“observers,” the black nodes), doing Invasive Species BioBlitz—a 2021 bioblitz run on iNaturalist identifications (“identifiers,” the blue nodes) or both (the as part of the National Invasive Species Awareness Week— orange nodes), and the Gephi software for the visualization aimed to follow up populations of invasive alien plants by (Bastian et al. 2009). The size of the nodes is proportional inviting the participants to revisit previously infested sites. to the number of identifications someone did. The observer– Most bioblitzes are not explicitly designed to detect alien identifier network shows that bioblitzes have the potential to species (but see Ruiz et al. 2017, Schofield 2020), but 45% engage an audience beyond the bioblitz participants by using of the published records specifically mention observations digital platforms such as iNaturalist. Many people (blue of non-native species (Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). A bioblitz is nodes) got engaged in the Akrotiri bioblitz by identifying therefore an opportunity to raise awareness of the impacts the records made during the bioblitz by the observers. The that alien species can have on local communities (Meshaka identifiers in the center, the bigger blue nodes in the network, et al. 2008, Ruiz et al. 2017), or they can be organized as part engage with multiple records from the bioblitz whereas the of larger public engagement and awareness initiatives (e.g., small peripheral blue nodes are identifiers that helped in the Meeus et al. 2021, Million 2016). This raised awareness in identification of just one record. combination with the increased recording activity of the par- ticipants for many weeks after the bioblitz (box 2) can be seen as an added bonus of using bioblitzes for early warning. taxa are native and previously unrecorded (Maharani et al. Engagement of the public is included among the primary 2022), and others are native but new to the area (coloniz- goals of many citizen science projects (Van Brussel and Huyse ing due to conservation action), whereas others are newly 2018), and this is true for bioblitzes (Outcome 3) (­ figure 3). introduced species (Silva-Rocha et al. 2022). In a 24-hour Governmental organizations are increasingly making use bioblitz at Christchurch Botanic Gardens and the surround- of citizen science to inform aspects of the environment, ing park, for example, the participants found around 1200 including, among other objectives, engagement and raising different wild organisms, over a third of which were overseas awareness (Owen and Parker 2018, Bonney 2021), and so introductions (Clemens and Brockerhoff 2016). During the where bioblitzes engage public audiences, they too support Akrotiri (Cyprus) bioblitz, we found 12 alien species new to these aims. However, most of the published evidence on the Akrotiri (box 3). effectiveness of citizen science on environmental engage- New records of invasive alien species can inform rapid ment is based on relatively long citizen science projects (for response actions and alien species monitoring and can help examples, see Rubio-Iglesias et al. 2020). For bioblitzes spe- in control program planning (Groom et al. 2019). Early cifically, Postles and Bartlett (2018) showed that bioblitzes detection and the timely eradication of invasive alien spe- inspire positive action with their participants; however, cies are key to their cost-effective control (Wittenberg and follow-up with these participants after the event is needed 174 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 174 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles to observe conversion from intent to action, such as increas- have been recognized as an opportunity for dialogue ing biological recording activity. To explore the impact of between experts, including scientists, and the general pub- bioblitzes on the long-term engagement of people with lic, with the goal of building trust and raising awareness biodiversity recording, we used iNaturalist data to assess the of environmental research (Leong and Kyle 2014, Roger recording activity of 3378 bioblitz participants before and and Klistorner 2016). Also, using apps and the built-in after the bioblitz and found a clear effect of the bioblitz: The automated identification technology may support learning people attending the bioblitz were likely to use iNaturalist (Hitchcock et al. 2021), particularly in conjunction with about half a day more frequently in the week following a peer and expert identification and involvement, which bioblitz than before it (taking the season into account), and can include both participants and non-participants in the this boost in activity lasted for several months (box 2). event (box 3; Peter et al. 2019). Rosamilia (2016) noted The advent of digital recording includes the opportunity that learning was the most important factor in influencing to “democratize” site-based bioblitz recording—that is, wel- satisfaction, perceptions of bioblitz success, and intentions coming participants of different ages, genders, classes, and to participate in a future event. Participants highly value the education levels to collect records (e.g., Aristeidou et al. learning aspect of their attendance in a bioblitz, and both 2021, Stevenson et al. 2021). The advance of technology has experts and non-experts feel they have learned from their played a key role in facilitating the participation of volunteers participation (Roger and Klistorner 2016). This is perhaps in citizen science projects and have notably transformed the unsurprising; it is well known that active engagement, col- way bioblitzes can be organized: from the traditional struc- laboration, and respect for diverse talents are valuable tools ture in which scientists and volunteers survey together a for learning retention (Chickering and Gamson 1987). given region to dispersed bioblitzes such as the City Nature Bioblitzes meet the public's growing demand for free-choice Challenge, where organizers operate remotely and where learning—that is, the learning that individuals engage in volunteers may not engage physically either with organizers throughout their lives when they have the opportunity to or even with other contributors but engage online through choose what, where, when, and with whom to learn, which web-based recording platforms and social media. The dis- makes a significant contribution to public understanding persed nature of the City Nature Challenge has allowed it to of science (Falk et al. 2007). Indeed, for citizen science in operate during the COVID-19 pandemic. general, the outcomes demonstrate a high potential for Another benefit of uploading records to a digital platform learning (Peter et al. 2019, 2021), which is in line with the such as iNaturalist is that identification and verification of brain-based learning concept, which states that learning is records with photographic or audio evidence can be opened a process that occurs through experience (Duman 2010). to an audience far wider than those who attended a specific Following up on a campus bioblitz in Canada involving 631 event (box 3, figure 5). This enriches the observations made students, Gass and colleagues (2021) showed that students during bioblitzes, creates a sense of community, and extends appreciate the outdoor learning, that they believe a bioblitz the bioblitz experience. Through such a process of com- provides valuable hands-on learning, that they acquired munity verification, the interactions among people through new skills in species identification, and even that they expe- associated email alerts by others invoke a memory of the past rienced an increased sense of environmental stewardship bioblitz that can motivate the participants to sustain involve- and a positive sense of place on campus. ment with biological recording and so provide a legacy of the Like any other public event, a bioblitz can increase the bioblitz event. Engagement (e.g., the Eyal model, Eyal 2014) visibility of an organization and increase engagement with and gamification strategies (Dorward et al. 2017, Tang and it (Outcome 5). Bioblitzes—because they are place based— Prestopnik 2019) have considerable potential to promote can create a greater connection to a place for participants bioblitzes and retain the participation of volunteers within than would otherwise be the case. This can help to raise the biological recording and more widely citizen science. This profile of the group organizing the bioblitz, supporting its also highlights the many ways in which people can engage aims for promotion and building membership (Seakins and with a bioblitz, allowing people to be involved at many levels Wilkinson 2014). Although the promotion of their organi- (e.g., Lorke et al. 2021). zation does not appear to be a primary reason to organize Despite the many clear advantages of apps, it is also a bioblitz (figure 3), several papers in our literature review important to be mindful of their pitfalls. Not everyone has mentioned radio and television coverage. Bioblitzes are access to or has the desire to use technology. The use of apps often branded with logos of their organizers and sponsors— might lead to more opportunistic recording behavior, aimed for example, on promotional materials such as T-shirts and at record quantity rather than quality (Altrudi 2021). It is badges—and this shows that, although promotion may not also likely that recording will be biased toward organisms be a primary driver for organizing a bioblitz, it certainly is that can easily be photographed (Adriaens et al. 2015). an opportunity for that. The degree of public participation From our review of bioblitzes reported in the literature, could also be used to recruit members of societies and spon- many ranked the improvement of knowledge of the par- sors in the context of corporate social responsibility and ticipants (Outcome 4) highly, however none had learning green agendas. In this respect, the unique place-based aspect as the highest priority objective (figures 1 and 3). Bioblitzes of a bioblitz might be used to good effect. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 175 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 175 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Bioblitzes also act as brokerage events bringing together of environmental citizen science in, for example, species numerous institutions. This was clearly evident from our monitoring and mapping in these regions (Pocock et al. literature review (Silva-Rocha et al. 2022), where, although 2019). Although the priorities for citizen science will vary there was usually one coordinating institution, on average, among regions, similar themes recur in other parts of the there were an additional three coorganizing partners, but world, such as in Madagascar and Chile (see the case stud- with as many as 20–30 partners represented (e.g., Telfer ies in Pocock et al. 2018). et al. 2015, Schofield 2020). These partners included societ- In Europe, the relevance of bioblitzes has increased since ies, museums, botanic gardens, universities, governmental the European Commission proposed that the European organizations, and national park administrations. Bioblitzes Union must ensure that the post-2020 global framework present an informal opportunity for people of different orga- for biodiversity include a principle of equality (Convention nizations to meet, share experiences, and, importantly, build on Biological Diversity 2020). This includes respect for trust (Schofield 2020). the rights and the full and effective participation of indig- enous peoples and local communities. There should be Opportunities for bioblitzes an inclusive approach, with participation of all stakehold- Stemming from the five outcomes of bioblitzes evaluated ers, including women, young people, civil society, local above, we have identified three key areas of additional authorities, the private sector, academia, and scientific opportunities for bioblitz use in the future. First, because institutions. When considering activities such as bioblitzes in the past, most bioblitzes have been run in high- and that are open to many people, it may be valuable to design medium-income countries (mostly in North America for the margins to increase inclusivity (Cooper et al. 2021). and Europe) and often with quite limited participation To implement the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030, the links in terms of the demographics of the participants, there is between biodiversity protection and the role of indig- major scope for internationalization and broadening par- enous people and local communities must be strengthened ticipation. Second, the very rapid technological advances (European Commission 2020). These changes should not and access to technologies observed in most parts of the be seen as an additional burden but a considerable oppor- world offer major scope for increasing the use of new tunity to collect data in new places and to catalogue differ- technologies in bioblitzes. Third, there are opportuni- ent aspects of biodiversity. ties for bioblitzes to have clearer links to (often local) In a large study examining the participation in environ- biodiversity actions, in order to enhance their value and mental citizen science in the United Kingdom, there were sustainability. large disparities in the participation of different demo- graphic groups. Ethnic minorities, the young, and women Internationalization and designing for inclusive participation. tended to have lower participation rates, and this was iNaturalist is used more often in medium- and high-income, compounded in lower socioeconomic groups (Pateman often anglophone, countries (figure 2), but bioblitzes could et al. 2021). Callaghan and colleagues (2020) outlined be adopted globally. Apps and websites, such as iNaturalist, that advancing biodiversity understanding in developing are available in a large number of languages, which eliminate countries and remote areas should be a priority for citi- one possible barrier to participation. Mobile technology has zen science. Bioblitzes have a potential role to play in this, also simplified the data management associated with biodi- broadening participation in environmental citizen science versity data, which allows organizers to concentrate more on and ensuring that the benefits of participation are equitably the promotional and engagement aspects. spread—particularly as they provide many ways to partici- In our analysis of iNaturalist bioblitz data from coun- pate. Planning for diverse participation can have enormous tries in the Global South, it is unsurprising that there is a benefits for both organizers and participants but may require significant correlation between the number of bioblitzes compromise or rethinking of the data-gathering objectives. in a country and its population size (Brown et al. 2021). Initiatives such as Black Birders Week 2021 (www.blacka- But the significant correlation with Internet penetration finstem.com) build communities in minority groups and suggests that the growth of both Internet and smartphone includes a bioblitz element. Particularly relevant to bioblitzes penetration may facilitate bioblitzes. However, Internet are the siting and timing of the events. The location of the penetration is also correlated with gross domestic product bioblitz is crucial for including people who use public trans- per capita, and we should be cautious in ascribing causal- port, and the nature of the site is important to people with ity (World Bank 2008). The possibility for engagement in reduced mobility (Pateman et al. 2021). Urban locations may participatory activities using mobile technology (including facilitate inclusive participation in biodiversity citizen sci- bioblitzes) continues to increase extremely rapidly; for ence through increased accessibility (Pandya 2012), both in example, in Sub-Saharan Africa, smartphone adoption is terms of transport to sites and prior biodiversity knowledge. predicted to increase to 67% by 2025 (from 45% in 2018; Similarly, the timing and duration of bioblitzes can influence Okeleke and Suardi 2021). Increased access to mobile participation; for example, public holidays are potentially technology and the Internet might also increase the reach attractive times for events but might exclude people who of platforms such as iNaturalist and, in general, the use have religious observances. 176 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 176 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Technology-assisted bioblitzes. Novel technologies for biological more strongly to action. An in-depth study into the experi- recording have great potential for citizen science. They can ences of environmental citizen science participants shows be used to gather information on biodiversity that would that one of the main motivations to engage in environmental otherwise not be available, they can increase the levels of monitoring is the commitment to protect the local environ- engagement and the experience of the participants, and they ment (Dunkley 2019). One way to create this strong link may attract new audiences (August et al. 2015). between records and action is to repeat recording across time One exciting development is the use of genetic detection so that the people can discover the impact of their records and techniques—that is, the genetic identification of species develop a greater connection and care for the place. from a range of sample types, including specimens or envi- ronmental samples (such as water or soil; i.e., environmen- Conclusions tal DNA, eDNA) and feces. This can greatly increase the We have focused on one particular approach within completeness of rapid biodiversity assessments—for exam- biodiversity monitoring, that of the bioblitz. This event- ple, in protected areas and especially for difficult taxa that based format has grown in popularity and has capitalized are otherwise unrecorded. Researchers and resource man- on social media and mobile phone technology to create agers have been using eDNA methods to reveal and moni- something quite distinctive within biodiversity surveying. tor endangered species, trail the emergence and spread of Bioblitzes have been widely used in citizen science but are invasive species, and inventory biodiversity in a range of not exclusive to it. They provide data at broad spatiotem- habitats, demonstrating the breadth of applications of this poral scales and are able to collect fine-grain data suitable emerging technique (Meyer et al. 2021). Agersnap and col- to address global scale conservation issues (Burgess et al. leagues (2022) showed that by involving citizen scientists 2017). in eDNA sampling, researchers were able to detect patterns We have shown that bioblitzes contribute a huge number in marine biodiversity that would have been logistically of wildlife records that can be used in local and global nature impossible to detect without the help of volunteers. Even conservation and serve as a trigger for further exploration though the participants in bioblitz events enjoy observing of biodiversity and recording activity with the participants. biodiversity itself, there is educational value and excite- We have presented the results of a literature review, of an ment in detecting biodiversity that cannot immediately be analysis of over a thousand iNaturalist bioblitz projects, and observed (Hupało et al. 2021). DNA barcoding can also of the bioblitz we organized ourselves in Akrotiri, Cyprus, significantly accelerate and facilitate the identification to explore the common characteristics of bioblitzes and to process when applying mass sampling techniques such as make recommendations that could increase their scientific malaise traps in bioblitzes (Sobel et al. 2017). The time lag and engagement potential. between sampling and getting the results from DNA analy- We found that bioblitzes have an added value over indi- sis could be a challenge for engagement, although some vidual unstructured biological recording in that they allow rapid techniques could shorten this lag (Matos-Maraví communities to be built between experts and the public et al. 2019, Meyer et al. 2021). In addition, there can be and that they are more structured and therefore yield health and safety concerns associated with taking environ- higher-quality data. We recommend that bioblitz organiz- mental samples—particularly feces. ers publish their data and metadata (i.e., information on Other approaches that have been used in citizen science the event) in order to make the records from the bioblitz and could be deployed during bioblitzes include wildlife more reusable. cameras, especially for nocturnal mammals (Hsing et al. Smartphone applications have transformed biodiversity 2018), and acoustic recording devices, for bats, amphibians, recording by lowering the strong dependence on experts birds, and insects (Gibb et al. 2019). In both cases, deploy- on site during physical bioblitzes and simplifying the data ing the technology might be engaging in itself for public management and have therefore democratized data collec- audiences. Then automated analyses (e.g., the BTO Acoustic tion. This has the added benefit of allowing socially distant Pipeline) or crowdsourced classification (e.g., MammalWeb; bioblitzes during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we Hsing et al. 2018) could be used in addition to expertise recommend working with experts because this improves during the bioblitz itself. Some technology developments the participants’ experience and can decrease bias toward could also allow for entirely different bioblitz formats. For easy-to-detect and active species by making the participants example, Google Street View and non-Google equivalents aware of elusive and difficult to photograph taxa and dem- offer possibilities for virtual bioblitzes, potentially aided by onstrate the (new) technologies used to detect these taxa. image recognition. There is great value in repeating a bioblitz across time for maintaining engagement of the public with wildlife record- Linking to action. A bioblitz is a place-based biodiversity ing, for connecting people to places by linking records recording activity and fills a gap between individual unstruc- to actions, and for obtaining more complete biodiversity tured recording and large-scale structured recording schemes. inventories; therefore, we recommend that this is considered Bioblitzes are often linked to places that have organizations when bioblitzes are being planned. The strong link between owning them, providing the opportunity for a bioblitz to link records and action is especially obvious in invasive alien https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 177 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 177 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles species management, a field that can clearly benefit from scale “BioBlitz” using citizen science and eDNA metabarcoding bioblitzes and that can use bioblitzes as a tool to increase for monitoring coastal marine fish. Frontiers in Marine Science 9: 824100. awareness on this problem. Alonso LE, Deichmann JL, McKenna SA, Naskrecki P, Richards SJ. 2011. Bioblitzes are a great activity to promote organizations, Still Counting…: Biodiversity Exploration for Conservation: The First both with the public and with other organizations, and to 20 Years of the Rapid Assessment Program. Conservation International. build trust. We recommend that organizers, whether part of Altrudi S. 2021. Connecting to nature through tech? The case of the iNatu- a hosting organization or a community enterprise, should ralist app. Convergence 27: 124–141. Amano T, Lamming JDL, Sutherland WJ. 2016. Spatial gaps in global reach out to other organizations, collaborate, and let the biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. BioScience 66: bioblitz be a place to connect informally. 393–400. Although compromise is required for bioblitzes to Aristeidou M, Herodotou C, Ballard HL, Higgins L, Johnson RF, Miller AE, achieve multiple outcomes, as opposed to methods with Young AN, Robinson LD. 2021. How do young community and citizen a single focus, we have shown that these outcomes work science volunteers support scientific research on biodiversity? The case of iNaturalist. Diversity 13: 318. synergistically together to create events that do more than August T, Harvey M, Lightfoot P, Kilbey D, Papadopoulos T, Jepson P. 2015. if they were focused on just one outcome. Furthermore, Emerging technologies for biological recording. Biological Journal of the parallel evolution of bioblitzes with new technologies the Linnean Society 115: 731–749. is only likely to strengthen the ability to support these Baker GM, Duncan N, Gostomski T, Horner MA, Manski D. 2014. The multiple outcomes. For these reasons, we see a positive bioblitz: Good science, good outreach, good fun. Park Science 31: 39–45. future for bioblitzes and would encourage those think- Balmford A, Gaston KJ. 1999. Why biodiversity surveys are good value. ing about organizing one to develop and implement their Nature 398: 204–205. ideas. We also recommend creative exploration of the Basset Y, Novotny V, Miller SE, Pyle R. 2000. Quantifying biodiversity: format of event-based biodiversity recording to extend Experience with parataxonomists and digital photography in Papua its scope, because we feel that bioblitzes have a long and New Guinea and Guyana. BioScience 50: 899–908. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. 2009. Gephi: An open source soft- diverse future ahead. ware for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 3: 361–362. Acknowledgments Bonney R. 2021. Expanding the impact of citizen science. BioScience 71: We acknowledge the support of the Belgian Science Policy 448–451. Office under the TrIAS and TrIAS Aware projects (no. Brown P, Adriaens T, Groom Q. 2021. Analysis of Internet usage and bioblitz frequency in the Global South [Data set]. Zenodo. BR/165/A1/TrIAS). This publication is based on work from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5809085. COST Action CA17122–Alien CSI supported by COST Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE, Schmidt N, Theobald EJ, Ettinger (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) and AK, HilleRisLambers J, Tewksbury J, Parrish JK. 2017. The science of the support to Meise Botanic Garden by the Department of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Economy, Science, and Innovation of the Flemish govern- Biological Conservation 208: 113–120. Callaghan CT, Poore AGB, Mesaglio T, Moles AT, Nakagawa S, Roberts C, ment under the Green Pioneers project. HER and MJOP are Rowley JJL, Vergés A, Wilshire JH, Cornwell WK. 2020. Three fron- supported by the Natural Environment Research Council tiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. award no. NE/R016429/1 as part of the UK-SCAPE pro- BioScience 71: 55–63. gram delivering national capability. The authors thank Matt Cantonwine E, et al. 2019. Results of a fall and spring BioBlitz at Grassy Postles for fruitful discussion on bioblitzes and three anony- Pond Recreational Area, Lowndes County, Georgia. Georgia Journal of Science 77: 17. mous reviewers whose comments have led to an improved Chandler M, et al . 2017. Contribution of citizen science towards inter- manuscript. national biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation 213: 280–294. Conflict of interest Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in The authors declare no conflicts of interest. undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 3: 7. Clemens J, Brockerhoff E. 2016. Contributions of christchurch botanic gardens to plant health and biosecurity in New Zealand. BGjournal Supplemental material 13: 12–15. Supplemental data are available at BIOSCI online. Comets E, Lavenu A, Lavielle M. 2017. Parameter estimation in nonlinear mixed effect models using saemix, an R implementation of the SAEM References cited algorithm. Journal of Statistical Software 80: 1–41. Adriaens T, Sutton-Croft M, Owen K, Brosens D, van Valkenburg J, Kilbey Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Update of the Zero Draft D, Groom Q, Ehmig C, Thürkow F, Van Hende P. 2015. Trying to engage of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. United Nations the crowd in recording invasive alien species in Europe: Experiences Environment Programme. Report no. CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1. from two smartphone applications in northwest Europe. Management Cooper CB, et al. 2021. Inclusion in citizen science: The conundrum of of Biological Invasions 6: 215. rebranding. Science 372: 1386–1388. Adriaens T, Chartosia N, Claramunt-López B, Meeus S, Pocock M, Preda [DITOs Consortium] Doing It Together Science Consortium. 2017. C, Tricarico E, Groom Q. 2021. Recommendations on improving the BioBlitz: Promoting Cross Border Research and Collaborative Practices value of bioblitzes for science, engagement and learning. Zenodo. for Biodiversity Conservation. DITOs. Citizen science policy brief no. 1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5810398 Dorward LJ, Mittermeier JC, Sandbrook C, Spooner F. 2017. Pokémon Agersnap S, Sigsgaard EE, Jensen MR, Avila MDP, Carl H, Møller PR, go: Benefits, costs, and lessons for the conservation movement. Krøs SL, Knudsen SW, Wisz MS, Thomsen PF. 2022. A national Conservation Letters 10: 160–165. 178 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 178 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Duman B. 2010. The effects of brain-based learning on the academic Lowman M, Ruppert N, Mohd Nor SA. 2019. Further advancing the expert achievement of students with different learning styles. Educational bioblitz for the rainforest conservation toolkit. Conservation Science Sciences: Theory and Practice 10: 2077–2103. and Practice 1: e2. Dumas P, Fiat S, Durbano A, Peignon C, Mou-Tham G, Ham J, Gereva S, Luna S, Gold M, Albert A, Ceccaroni L, Claramunt B, Danylo O, Kaku R, Chateau O, Wantiez L. 2020. Citizen science, a promising tool Haklay M, Kottmann R, Kyba C, Piera J. 2018. Developing mobile for detecting and monitoring outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish applications for environmental and biodiversity citizen science: Acanthaster spp. Scientific Reports 10: 1–10. Considerations and recommendations. Pages 9–30 in Joly A, Vrochidis Dunkley RA. 2019. Monitoring ecological change in UK woodlands and S, Karatzas K, Karppinen A, Bonnet P, eds. Multimedia Tools and rivers: An exploration of the relational geographies of citizen science. Applications for Environmental and Biodiversity Informatics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 44: 16–31. Springer. Encarnação J, Teodósio MA, Morais P. 2021. Citizen science and biological Lundmark C. 2003. BioBlitz: Getting into backyard biodiversity. BioScience invasions: A review. Frontiers in Environmental Science 8: 303. 53: 329–329. European Commission. 2020. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing Maharani N, Kusrini MD, Hamidy A. 2022. Increasing herpetofauna data Nature Back into our Lives. Communication from the Commission to the through citizen science in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Environmental Science 950: 012063. Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Document 52020DC0380. Matos-Maraví P, Duarte Ritter C, Barnes C, Nielsen M, Olsson U, Wahlberg Eyal N. 2014. Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products. Penguin. N, Marquina D, Sääksjärvi I, Antonelli A. 2019. Biodiversity seen Falk JH, Storksdieck M, Dierking LD. 2007. Investigating public science through the perspective of insects: 10 simple rules on methodologi- interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice cal choices and experimental design for genomic studies. Peer J 7: learning. Public Understanding of Science 16: 455–469. e6727. Foster MA, Muller LI, Dykes SA, Wyatt RP, Gray MJ. 2013. Efficacy of Meeus S, De Smedt S, Bogaerts A, Kleber J, Groom Q. 2021. Final report of BioBlitz surveys with implications for sampling nongame species. the Green Pioneers project. Zenodo. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 88: 56–62. Menchetti M et al. 2021. Checklist of macro-invertebrates of the special Foxcroft LC, Rouget M, Richardson DM. 2007. Risk assessment of riparian conservation area “Poggi di Prata” (Grosseto, central Italy)through a plant invasions into protected areas. Conservation Biology 21: 412–421. citizen-science and expert-based approach. Redia 104: 63–68. Gass S, Mui A, Manning P, Cray H, Gibson L. 2021. Exploring the value of Meshaka WEJ, Smith HT, Gibbons JW, Jackson T, Mandica M, Boler KA. a BioBlitz as a biodiversity education tool in a post-secondary environ- 2008. An exotic herpetofaunal bioblitz survey at a state park in southern ment. Environmental Education Research 27: 1538–1556. Florida. Herpetology 26: 14–16. Gibb R, Browning E, Glover-Kapfer P, Jones KE. 2019. Emerging opportu- Meyer RS et al. 2021. The CALeDNA program: Citizen scientists and nities and challenges for passive acoustics in ecological assessment and researchers inventory California's biodiversity. California Agriculture monitoring. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10: 169–185. 75: 20–32. Groom Q. 2021. AgentschapPlantentuinMeise/iNatBioblitzes: Initial Million K. 2016. Darter Festival and BioBlitz raise public awareness of three release. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5555975. endangered fish species in Alabama. Fisheries 41: 511–512. Groom Q, Desmet P, Vanderhoeven S, Adriaens T. 2015. The importance of National Park Service. 2022. The NPS/National Geographic Society open data for invasive alien species research, policy and management. BioBlitzes: Exploring Biodiversity Together. National Park Service. Management of Biological Invasions 6: 119–125. www.nps.gov/subjects/biodiversity/the-nps-national-geographic-soci- Groom Q, Desmet P, Reyserhove L, Adriaens T, Oldoni D, Vanderhoeven ety-bioblitzes.htm. S, Baskauf SJ, Chapman A, McGeoch M, Walls R. 2019. Improving Nicolai A, Guernion M, Guillocheau S, Hoeffner K, Le Gouar P, Ménard Darwin Core for research and management of alien species. Biodiversity N, Piscart C, Vallet D, Hervé ME, Benezeth E. 2020. Transdisciplinary Information Science and Standards 3: e38084. Bioblitz: Rapid biotic and abiotic inventory allows studying environ- Groom Q, et al. 2021. Species interactions: Next-level citizen science. mental changes over 60 years at the biological field station of Paimpont Ecography 44: 1781–1789. (Brittany, France) and opens new interdisciplinary research opportuni- Hadjikyriakou T, Winfield I, Kaminski D, Mountford O, Groom Q. 2019. ties. Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e50451. Additional data to the Akrotiri Bioblitz, Cyprus, ver. 1.4. Botanic Okeleke K, Suardi S. 2021. The Mobile Economy 2021. GSMA. Garden Meise. Owen RP, Parker AJ. 2018. Citizen science in environmental protection Hitchcock C, Sullivan J, O'Donnell K. 2021. Cultivating bioliteracy, bio- agencies. Pages 284–300 in Hecker S, Haklay M, Bowser A, Makuch discovery, data literacy, and ecological monitoring in undergraduate Z, Vogel J, Bonn A, eds. Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, courses with iNaturalist. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6: 26. Society and Policy. UCL Press. Hsing P-Y, Bradley S, Kent VT, Hill RA, Smith GC, Whittingham MJ, Pandya RE. 2012. A framework for engaging diverse communities in citi- Cokill J, Crawley D, volunteers M, Stephens PA. 2018. Economical zen science in the US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: crowdsourcing for camera trap image classification. Remote Sensing in 314–317. Ecology and Conservation 4: 361–374. Parker SS, Pauly GB, Moore J, Fraga NS, Knapp JJ, Principe Z, Hupało K, Majaneva M, Czachur MV, Sire L, Marquina D, Lijtmaer Brown BV, Randall JM, Cohen BS, Wake TA. 2018. Adapting the DA, Ivanov V, Leidenberger S, Čiampor FJr, Čiamporová-Zaťovičová bioblitz to meet conservation needs. Conservation Biology 32: Z. 2021. An urban Blitz with a twist: Rapid biodiversity assess- 1007–1019. ment using aquatic environmental DNA. Environmental DNA 3: Pateman RM, Dyke A, West SE. 2021. The diversity of participants 200–213. in environmental citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Kelling S, Johnston A, Bonn A, Fink D, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Bonney R, Practice 6: 9. Fernandez M, Hochachka WM, Julliard R, Kraemer R. 2019. Using Patrick B, McCllelan R, Martin T, Tocher M, Borkin K, McKoy J, Smith semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring D. 2014. Guidelines for undertaking rapid biodiversity assessments in biodiversity. BioScience 69: 170–179. terrestrial and marine environments in the Pacific. Pacific Regional Leong KM, Kyle G. 2014. Engaging park stewards through biodiversity Environment Programme. discovery: Social outcomes of participation in bioblitzes. Park Science Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. 2020. (May 31–June 1, 1996) Kenilworth 31: 106. Park and Aquatic Gardens: BioBlitz. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Lorke J, et al. 2021. Step by step towards citizen science: Deconstructing Peter M, Diekötter T, Kremer K. 2019. Participant outcomes of biodiversity youth participation in BioBlitzes. Journal of Science Communication citizen science projects: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 20: A03. 11: 2780. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 179 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 179 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Peter M, Diekötter T, Höffler T, Kremer K. 2021. Biodiversity citizen sci- Schofield PJ. 2020. Expert bioblitzes facilitate non-native fish tracking ence: Outcomes for the participating citizens. People and Nature 3: and interagency partnerships. Management of Biological Invasions 11: 294–311. 139–154. Pierson T, Stratmann T, White EC, Clause A, Carter C, Herr M, Jenkins A, Schoonvaere K, Laget D, Adriaens T, Desmet P, Villers V, de Graaf D. Vogel H, Knoerr M, Folt B. 2014. New county records of amphibians 2020. Vespa-Watch: Invasiemonitoring van de Aziatische Hoornaar and reptiles resulting from a bioblitz competition in North-Central met Hobbyimkers en het Publiek: Eindrapport in het Kader van de Georgia, USA. Herpetological Review 45: 296–297. Oproep Citizen Science van het Departement Economie, Wetenschap Pocock MJ, Chandler M, Bonney R, Thornhill I, Albin A, August T, en Innovatie (EWI) van December 2017. Honeybee Valley en Instituut Bachman S, Brown PM, Cunha DGF, Grez A. 2018. A vision for global voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek. biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Advances in Ecological Seakins A, Wilkinson C. 2014. BioBlitz in the spotlight: Citizen science Research 59: 169–223. working in and with the media. Pages 56–62 in Grand A, ed. UWE Pocock MJ, Roy HE, August T, Kuria A, Barasa F, Bett J, Githiru M, Kairo Science Communication Postgraduate Papers: 2014, vol. 2. University J, Kimani J, Kinuthia W. 2019. Developing the global potential of of the West of England. citizen science: Assessing opportunities that benefit people, society Silva-Rocha I, Meeus S, Adriaens T, Tricarico E, Chartosia N, Claramunt- and the environment in East Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology 56: López B, Martinou AF, Pocock M, Preda C, Roy H, Groom Q. 2021. 274–281. Alien CSI Akrotiri Bioblitz 2019 [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi. Pollock NB, Howe N, Irizarry I, Lorusso N, Kruger A, Himmler K, Struwe org/10.5281/zenodo.5809172. L. 2015. Personal BioBlitz: A new way to encourage biodiversity dis- Silva-Rocha I, Meeus S, Adriaens T, Chartosia N, Claramunt-López B, covery and knowledge in K–99 education and outreach. BioScience 65: Martinou AF, Preda C, Groom Q. 2022. Systematic literature review 1154–1164. on bioblitzes: Methodology and results (Version 2) [Data set]. Zenodo. Ponciano L, Brasileiro F. 2014. Finding volunteers’ engagement profiles in https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6614794. human computation for citizen science projects. Human Computation Sobel CN, Young MR, Telfer AC, Perez K, Sones JE, Levesque-Beaudin V, 1: 245–264. Eagalle T, Tsao N, Quinn J, Dewaard JR. 2017. The complete picture: An Postles M, Bartlett M. 2018. The rise of BioBlitz: Evaluating a popular event update on the rapid biological inventory of a temperate nature reserve format for public engagement and wildlife recording in the United using DNA barcoding. Genome 60: 997. Kingdom. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 17: Stemler SE. 2004. A comparison of consensus, consistency, and mea- 365–379. surement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Ramírez Bravo OE, Camargo Rivera EE, Jiménez González A. 2022. Ciencia Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 9: 4. ciudadana y biodiversidad en entornos urbanos: Lecciones aprendidas Stevenson R, Merrill C, Burn P. 2021. Useful biodiversity data were obtained en la Ciudad de Puebla y su zona conurbada en el centro de México. by novice observers using iNaturalist during college orientation retreats. Cuadernos de Biodiversidad 62: 03. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 6: 27. Reyserhove L, Desmet P, Oldoni D, Adriaens T, Strubbe D, Davis Tang J, Prestopnik NR. 2019. Exploring the impact of game fram- AJS, Vanderhoeven S, Verloove F, Groom Q. 2020. A check- ing and task framing on user participation in citizen sci- list recipe: Making species data open and FAIR. Database 2020: ence projects. Aslib Journal of Information Management 71: baaa084. 260–280. Robinson LD, Tweddle JC, Postles MC, West SE, Sewell J. 2013. Guide to Telfer AC, Young MR, Quinn J, Perez K, Sobel CN, Sones JE, Levesque- Running a BioBlitz. Natural History Museum, Bristol Natural History Beaudin V, Derbyshire R, Fernandez-Triana J, Rougerie R. 2015. Consortium, Stockholm Environment Institute York, Marine Biological Biodiversity inventories in high gear: DNA barcoding facilitates a rapid Association London. biotic survey of a temperate nature reserve. Biodiversity Data Journal Roger E, Klistorner S. 2016. BioBlitzes help science communicators engage 3: e6313. local communities in environmental research. Journal of Science The World Bank. 2008. Global Economic Prospects 2008: Technology Communication 15: A06. Diffusion in the Developing World. The World Bank. Rosamilia B. 2016. Perceptions of Bioblitz Organizers and Participants Thomas ML, Gunawardene N, Horton K, Williams A, O'Connor S, on Event-Related Goals, Interactions, and Motivations: A Way to McKirdy S, van der Merwe J. 2017. Many eyes on the ground: Citizen Understand How a Bioblitz Contributes to Environmental Education. science is an effective early detection tool for biosecurity. Biological Master's thesis, State University of New York, Syracuse, New York, Invasions 19: 2751–2765. United States. Tollington S, Turbé A, Rabitsch W, Groombridge JJ, Scalera Roy H et al. 2018. Increasing understanding of alien species through R, Essl F, Shwartz A. 2017. Making the EU legislation on inva- citizen science (Alien-CSI). Research Ideas and Outcomes 4: sive species a conservation success. Conservation Letters 10: e31412. 112–120. Rubio-Iglesias JM, Edovald T, Grew R, Kark T, Kideys AE, Peltola T, Unger S, Rollins M, Tietz A, Dumais H. 2020. iNaturalist as an engaging Volten H. 2020. Citizen science and environmental protection agencies: tool for identifying organisms in outdoor activities. Journal of Biological Engaging citizens to address key environmental challenges. Frontiers in Education 55: 537–547. Climate 2: 600998. Van Brussel S, Huyse H. 2018. Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple Ruch DG, Karns DR, McMurray P, Moore-Palm J, Murphy W, Namestnik objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engage- SA, Roth K. 2010. Results of the loblolly marsh wetland preserve ment in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in BioBlitz, Jay County, Indiana. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Antwerp. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62: Science. 119: 1–3. 534–551. Ruiz GM, Hewitt CL. 2002. Toward understanding patterns of coastal Vander Zanden MJ, Hansen GJ, Higgins SN, Kornis MS. 2010. A pound marine invasions: A prospectus. Pages 529–547 in Leppäkoski of prevention, plus a pound of cure: Early detection and eradication of E, Gollasch S, Olenin S, eds. Invasive Aquatic Species of Europe: invasive species in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Distribution, Impacts, and Management. Springer. Research 36: 199–205. Ruiz G, McCann L, Marraffini M, Holzer K, Ashton G. 2017. Bioblitz Wittenberg R, Cock MJ. 2005. Best practices for the prevention and 2016: Re-assessing Marine Invasions in Valdez, Prince William Sound, management of invasive alien species. Scope-Scientific Committee Alaska. Prince William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council. on Problems of the Environment International Council of Scientific Contract no. 952.17.01. Unions 63: 209–232. 180 BioScience • March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 180 15/03/23 1:25 PM Overview Articles Niki Chartosia is a marine biologist in the Department of Biological Sciences Sofie Meeus (sofie.meeus@plantentuinmeise.be) and Quentin Groom are at the University of Cyprus, in Nicosia, Cyprus. Bernat Claramunt-López is a biologists at Meise Botanic Garden, in Meise, Belgium. Iolanda Silva- professor of ecology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, in Bellaterra, Rocha (irsr.14@gmail.com) is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centro de Catalonia, Spain. Angeliki (Kelly) Martinou is an entomologist with the Joint Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Services Health Unit British Forces Cyprus, in Akrotiri, Cyprus. Cristina Associado, in the BIOPOLIS Program in Genomics, Biodiversity and Land Preda is affiliated with Ovidius University, in Constanța, Romania. Helen Planning, at the University of Porto, in Vairão, Portugal. Tim Adriaens is a Roy and Michael Pocock are ecologists at the UK Centre for Ecology and senior scientist at the Research Institute for Nature and Forest in Brussels, Hydrology in Wallingford, England, in the United Kingdom. Elena Tricarico Belgium. Peter Brown is an ecologist in zoology in the School of Life Sciences is a lecturer in the Department of Biology at the University of Florence, in at Anglia Ruskin University, in Cambridge, England, in the United Kingdom. Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience March 2023 / Vol. 73 No. 3 • BioScience 181 168-181-biac100_COW.indd 181 15/03/23 1:25 PM