Ornitolojik Araştırmalarda Vatandaş Bilimi Katkıları

Öz

Vatandaş bilimi, kuşları incelemek için hızla önemli bir yöntem haline geldi. Bu bilim, profesyonel olmayan kuş gözlemcilerinin ve amatörlerin çok çeşitli verilerin toplanmasına yardımcı olmasını sağlar. Bu çalışma, 1999 ile 2024 yılları arasında SCOPUS veri tabanından alınan ve vatandaş bilimi ile ornitolojinin kesişim noktasına odaklanan 179 makalenin kapsamlı bir bibliyometrik analizini sunmaktadır. Sonuçlar, son on yılda bilimsel üretimin önemli ölçüde arttığını göstermektedir. Amerika Birleşik Devletleri, Birleşik Krallık ve Avustralya, araştırma üretkenliği açısından diğer ülkelerle işbirliği yaparak öncülük etmektedir. Çalışma, vatandaş biliminin tür bolluğunu incelemede, biyoçeşitliliği izlemede ve göç, iklim değişikliği ve kentleşme gibi ekolojik süreçleri anlamada çok önemli bir rol oynadığını bulmaktadır. Bulgular, kuş bilimselliği yönden vatandaş araştırmasının çeşitli ve işbirlikçi olduğunu ve veri yönetimi, gönüllü desteği ve etik uygulamalarda sürekli iyileştirmeler yapılması gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır. Bu çalışma, vatandaş Bilim'inin sadece ornitolojik araştırmaları geliştirmekle kalmayıp, aynı zamanda biyoçeşitliliğin korunması ve küresel ekolojik izleme için önemli içgörüler sunduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Halk Katılımı,
• Biyoçeşitlik Değerlendirmesi
• Ekolojik İzleme
• │ Gönüllü Katılımı

Citizen Science Contributions in Ornithological Research

Öz

Citizen science has quickly become an important way to study birds. It allows non-professional birdwatchers and amateurs to help collect a wide range of data. This study provides a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 179 articles published between 1999 and 2024, sourced from the SCOPUS database, focusing on the intersection of citizen science and ornithology. Results show that scholarly production has gone up a lot in the last ten years. The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are leading the way in terms of research productivity, collaborating with other countries. The study finds that citizen science plays a crucial role in studying species abundance, monitoring biodiversity, and understanding ecological processes such as migration, climate change, and urbanisation. The findings suggest that ornithological citizen research is diverse and collaborative, highlighting the need for continuous improvements in data management, volunteer support, and ethical practices. This study finds that citizen science not only enhances ornithological research but also offers substantial insights for biodiversity conservation and global ecological monitoring..

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Public Participation
• Biodiversity Assessment
• Ecological Monitoring
• Volunteer Engagement

Kaynakça

1. Atabey, A. and Karakaş, R. (2024) The bird diversity and conservation recommendations for Mount Zülküf in southeast Anatolia, Türkiye. Journal of Animal Diversity, 6(1), 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.22034/JAD.2024.6.1.2
2. Backstrom, L.J., Leseberg, N.P., Callaghan, C.T., Fuller, R.A., and Watson, J.E.M. (2024). Using citizen science to identify Australia’s least known birds and inform conservation action. Emu, 124, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2023.2283443
3. Baillie, S. R., Wernham, C. V., and Clark, J. A. (1999). Development of the British and Irish ringing scheme and its role in conservation biology. Ringing & Migration, 19(S1), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03078698.1999.9674207
4. Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A.J., and Parrish, J.K. (2014). Citizen science: Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343, 1436-1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554.
5. Bornmann, L., and Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO reports, 15, 1228- 1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608
6. Börner, K., Chen, C., and Boyack, K.W. (2003) Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual review of information science and technology, 37, 179–255
7. Butler, C.J., King, C., and Reinking, D.L. (2021). Do citizen science methods identify regions of high avian biodiversity? Diversity, 13, 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13120656.
8. Büyük, G., and Karakaş, R. (2022) Bird diversity at the Adıyaman-Gölbaşı Lakes important bird area (IBA), in southeast Turkey. Wildfowl, 72, 116–131.

9. Cavarzere, V. (2021). 200 Years of Caprimulgid Records in Southern Brazil: A Comparison between the Literature and Citizen Science Data. Birds, 4, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/birds4040026
10. Celik, E., and Azizoglu, E. (2025). How does urbani (s) zation affect the bird diversity?: a bibliometric aided comprehensive analysis. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025-06714-2
11. Celik, E., Durmus, A., Adizel, O., and Nergiz Uyar, H. (2021) A bibliometric analysis: what do we know about metals(loids) accumulation in wild birds? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28,10302–10334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12344-8
12. Cervantes, F., Lee, A. T. K., Henry, D. A. W., Job, N., and Altwegg, R. (2023). The Africa Bird Data packages: African citizen science bird data in R. Ostrich, 95, 312–320. https://doi.org/10.2989/00306525.2024.2423652
13. Chandler, M., See, L., Copas, K., Bonde, A. M., López, B. C., Danielsen, F., and Turak, E. (2017). Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation, 213, 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004
14. Chen, C. (2020). Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 5, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2020-0008.
15. Chen, S., and Wang, S. (2017). Bird diversities and their responses to urbanization in China. In Ecology and conservation of birds in urban environments (pp. 55-74). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43314-1_4
16. Clark, C.J., Areta, J.I., and Quiroga, J. (2024). Citizen science data reveal molt into drab nonbreeding plumage in five woodstar species (Mellisuginae, Trochilidae). The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 136, 307–319.
17. Clements, J.F., Schulenberg, T.S., Iliff, M.J., Roberson, D., Fredericks, T.A., Sullivan, B.L., and Wood, C.L. (2019, February). The eBird/Clements checklist of birds of the world: v2019.
18. Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., and Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12, 11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267884
19. Cooper, C.B., Shirk, J., and Zuckerberg, B. (2014). The invisible prevalence of citizen science in global research: migratory birds and climate change. PloS one, 9, e106508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106508
20. Crall, A.W., Jordan, R., Holfelder, K., Newman, G.J., Graham, J., and Waller, D.M. (2013). The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes,behavior, and science literacy. Public understanding of Science, 22, 745-764. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251143489
21. Çelik, M. A., and Çelik, E. (2024). Are Urbanisation and Biodiversity Antithetical? A Bibliometric Analysis. Coğrafya Dergisi, 48, 121-135. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2024-1350047
22. Çelik, E., and Sarıboğa, L. (2023) Assessment of the role of birds in seed distribution: a bibliometric analysis of studies on this subject. In: Recent advances in natural and engineering Sciences. Livre De Lyon, Lyon, 29–53.
23. de Camargo Barbosa, K.V., Develey, P.F., Ribeiro, M.C., and Jahn, A.E. (2023). The contribution of citizen science to research on migratory and urban birds in Brazil. Ornithology Research, 29, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43388-020-00031-0
24. Devictor, V., Whittaker, R.J., and Beltrame, C. (2010). Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions, 16, 354-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x
25. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., and Lim, W.M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
26. Ebidor, L.L., and Ikhide, I.G. (2024) Literature Review in Scientific Research: An Overview. East African Journal of Education Studies, 7, 179–186. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajes.7.2.1909
27. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., and Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB journal, 22, 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
28. Farr, C.M., Ngo, F., and Olsen, B. (2023). Evaluating Data Quality and Changes in Species Identification in a Citizen Science Bird Monitoring Project. Citizen Science Theory and Practice, 8, 24. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.604
29. Garson, G.D. (2022) Factor analysis and dimension reduction in R: a social Scientist’s Toolkit. Taylor &Francis, New York Gusenbauer, M., and Haddaway, N.R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐ analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research synthesis methods, 11, 181-217. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003279693
30. Gusenbauer, M., and Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research synthesis methods, 11(2), 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
31. Hertzog, L.R., Frank, C., Klimek, S., Böhner, H.G.S., and Kamp, J. (2021). Model-based integration of citizen science data from disparate sources increases the precision of bird population trends. Diversity and Distributions, 27, 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13259
32. Hood, W.W., and Wilson, C.S. (2001) The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics. Scientometrics, 52, 291–314.
33. Irwin, A. (2018). No PhDs needed: how citizen science is transforming research. Nature, 562, 480-483.
34. Jäckel, D., Mortega, K.G., Darwin, S., Lehmann, G.U.C., and Voigt-Heucke, S.L. (2023). Community engagement and data quality: best practices and lessons learned from a citizen science project on birdsong. Journal of Ornithology, 164, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-022-02018-8
35. Kelling, S., Fink, D., La Sorte, F.A., Johnston, A., Bruns, N.E., and Hochachka, W.M. (2015). Taking a ‘Big Data’approach to data quality in a citizen science project. Ambio, 44, 601-611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0710-4
36. Kelling, S., Johnston, A., Bonn, A., Fink, D., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Bonney, R., and Guralnick, R. (2019). Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. BioScience, 69, 170-179. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz010
37. Kerr, G.D., and Auld, H. (2024). Implementing a citizen science bird monitoring project in the Grampians/Gariwerd National Park, Victoria, Australia. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 148, 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/03721426.2024.2341350
38. Kittelberger, K.D., Tanner, C.J., Orton, N.D., and Şekercioğlu, Ç.H. (2023). The value of community science data to analyze long-term avian trends in understudied regions: The state of birds in Türkiye. Avian Research, 14, 100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avrs.2023.100140
39. Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A., and Simmons, B. (2016). Assessing data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 551-560.https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436
40. Kulak, M., Ozkan, A., and Bindak, R. (2019) A bibliometric analysis of the essential oil-bearing plants exposed to the water stress: How long way we have come and how much further? Scientia Horticulturae, 246, 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.031
41. Kumar, R. (2025). Bibliometric analysis: comprehensive insights into tools, techniques, applications, and solutions for research excellence. Spectrum of Engineering and Management Sciences, 3, 45-62. https://doi.org/10.31181/sems31202535k
42. Moed, H.F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis, 57, 13-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5
43. Nabias, J., Barbaro, L., Fontaine, B., Vallé, C., and Lorrilliere, R. (2024). Reassessment of French breeding bird population sizes using citizen science and accounting for species detectability. PeerJ, 12, e17889. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17889
44. Neate-Clegg, M.H.C., Horns, J.J., Adler, F.R., Kemahlı Aytekin, M.Ç., and Şekercioğlu, Ç.H. (2020). Monitoring the world's bird populations with community science data. Biological Conservation, 248, 108653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108653
45. Pankiv, K. and Kloetzer, L. (2024) Does using artificial intelligence in citizen science support volunteers’ learning? An experimental study in ornithology. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 9, 36. https://doi.org/10. 5334/cstp.733.
46. Passarotto, A., and Costanzo, A. (2024). The pitfalls and potential of citizen science in ornithology. Avocetta, 48, 2024E001. https://doi.org/10.30456/avo.2024e1
47. Randler, C. (2022). Motivations and Specialization of Birders Are Differently Related to Engagement in Citizen Science Projects of Different Complexity. Behavioral Sciences, 12, 395. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100395
48. Ráos, A.M., Viazzi, A., Blandon, J.S., and Gil-Gonzalez, J. (2024). Assessing Bias in Citizen Science Data through Linear Regression. In 2024 IEEE URUCON (pp. 1-5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/URUCON63440.2024.10850429
49. Scher, C. L., and Clark, J. S. (2023). Species traits and observer behaviors that bias data assimilation and how to accommodate them. Ecological Applications, 33(3), e2815. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2815
50. Shen, F.Y., Ding, T.S., and Tsai, J.S. (2023). Comparing avian species richness estimates from structured and semi-structured citizen science data. Scientific Reports, 13, 1214. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159 8-023-28064-7
51. Sullivan, B.L., Aycrigg, J.L., Barry, J.H., Bonney, R.E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C.B., and Kelling, S. (2014). The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
52. Sun, B., Lu, Y., Yang, Y., Yu, M., Yuan, J., Yu, R., and Li, J. (2022). Urbanization affects spatial variation and species similarity of bird diversity distribution. Science Advances, 8, eade3061. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.ade3061
53. Theobald, E.J., Ettinger, A.K., Burgess, H.K., DeBey, L.B., Schmidt, N.R., Froehlich, H.E., and Parrish, J.K. (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation, 181, 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021
54. Toivonen, T., Heikinheimo, V., Fink, C., Hausmann, A., Hiippala, T., Järv, O., and Di Minin, E. (2019). Social media data for conservation science: A methodological overview. Biological Conservation, 233, 298-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.023
55. Tryjanowski, P., Skórka, P., Sparks, T.H., Biaduń, W., Brauze, T., Hetmański, T., and Wysocki, D. (2015). Urban and rural habitats differ in number and type of bird feeders and in bird species consuming supplementary food. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22, 15097-15103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4723-0
56. Tulloch, A.I., Possingham, H.P., Joseph, L.N., Szabo, J., and Martin, T.G. (2013). Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 165, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
57. Van Eck, N.J., and Waltman, L. (2007) VOS: A New Method for Visualizing Similarities Between Objects. In: Decker R, Lenz H-J (eds) Advances in Data Analysis. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70981-7_34
58. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10, 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
59. Waltman, L., and van Eck, N.J. (2013). A systematic empirical comparison of different approaches for normalizing citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 833-849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.002
60. Zhao, Q., Latif, Q.S., Nuse, B.L., Ryder, T.B., and Latimer, C.E. (2024). Integrating counts from rigorous surveys and participatory science to better understand spatiotemporal variation in population processes. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 1380–1393. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14368