Victoria J. MacPhail

In a time of increasing threats to bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus), it is important to understand their ecology and distribution. As experts are limited in resources to conduct field surveys, there is potential for community scientists to help. The Bumble Bee Watch (BBW) community science program involves volunteers taking photos of bumble bees in Canada and the USA and submitting them, along with geographic and optional plant information, to a website or through an app. Taxon experts then verify the bee species identification. The Bumble Bees of North America database (BBNA) stores data (no photographs) collected and identified by more traditional scientific methods over the same range. Here we compared BBW data to BBNA data over all years and just 2010–2020 to understand the scientific contribution of community scientists to the state of the knowledge about native bumble bees. We found that BBW had similar geographic and species coverage as BBNA. It had records from all 63 provinces, states, and territories where bumble bees occur (including four more than BBNA in 2010–2020), and represented 41 of the 48 species in BBNA (with ten more species than BBNA in 2010–2020). While BBW contributed only 8.50% of records overall, it contributed 25.06% of all records over 2010–2020. BBW confirmed the persistence of species and identified new locations of species, both inside and outside of the previously known extent of occurrences. BBW also contributed a wealth of ecological information, such as unique plant genera and species data for almost all the bee species. Thus, while BBW had fewer bee records than the BBNA database overall, it helped to fill in data gaps and provided novel information, complementing the traditional methods. This community science program is valuable in helping to inform conservation management for bumble bee species.

Understanding the general public's knowledge and perceptions of an issue can help drive action on the part of decision‐makers. Such understanding is critical when decision‐makers are faced with multiple stakeholders, which is the case with biodiversity conservation issues. We surveyed the Canadian general public using a telephone questionnaire to assess the level of knowledge and perceptions of native wild bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) health and conservation. We found that the general level of bee knowledge among participants was low. Half of participants named the non‐native managed European honeybee ( Apis mellifera Linnaeus 1758) as a wild bee, native to Canada. Over two‐thirds of participants stated the provisioning of ecosystem services (ES) is the most important reason to conserve bees. Half of participants thought the Canadian federal and provincial government should be principally responsible for bee conservation. One‐third of participants perceived no personal barriers to bee conservation and nearly one‐quarter stated they did not know how to help bee conservation efforts. Our results highlight that scientific researchers can play an important role in outreach and education and environmental non‐governmental organizations (ENGOs) can take an active lobbying role at the provincial and federal levels with respect to bee conservation.

Community science programs provide an opportunity to gather scientific data to inform conservation policy and management. This study examines the accuracy of community science identifications submitted to the North American Bumble Bee Watch program on a per species level and as compared to each species’ conservation status, as well as users (members of the public) and experts (those with expertise in the field of bumble bee biology) perceived ease of species identification. Photos of bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus) are submitted to the program by users and verified (species name corrected or assigned as necessary) by an expert. Over 22,000 records from over 4,900 users were used in the analyses. Accuracy was measured in two ways: percent agreement (percent of all records submitted correctly by users) and veracity (percent of all verified records submitted correctly by the users). Users generally perceived it harder to identify species than experts. User perceptions were not significantly different from the observed percent agreement or veracity, while expert perceptions were significantly different (overly optimistic) from the observed percent agreement but not the veracity. We compared user submitted names to final expert verified names and found that, for all species combined, the average percent agreement was 53.20% while the average veracity was 55.86%. There was a wide range in percent agreement values per species, although sample size and the role of chance did affect some species agreements. As the conservation status of species increased to higher levels of extinction risk, species were increasingly more likely to have a lower percent agreement but higher levels of veracity than species of least concern. For each species name submitted, the number of different species verified by experts varied from 1 to 32. Future research may investigate which factors relate to success in user identification through community science. These findings could play a role in informing the design of community science programs in the future, including for use in long-term and national-level monitoring of wild pollinators.

Bumble Bee Watch is a community science program where participants submit photos of bumble bees from across Canada and the United States for expert verification. The data can be used to help better understand bumble bee biology and aid in their conservation. Yet for community science programs like this to be successful and sustainable, it is important to understand the participant demographics, what motivates them, and the outcomes of their participation, as well as areas that are working well or could be improved. It is also important to understand who verifies the submissions, who uses the data and their views on the program. Of the surveyed users, most participate to contribute to scientific data collection (88%), because of a worry about bees and a desire to help save them (80%), to learn more about species in their property (63%) or region (56%), and because of a personal interest (59%). About 77% report increased awareness of species diversity, while 84% report improvement in their identification skills. We found that 81% had at least one college or university degree. There were more respondents from suburban and rural areas than urban areas, but area did not affect numbers of submissions. While half were between 45 and 64 years of age, age did not influence motivation or number of submissions. Respondents were happy with the program, particularly the website resources, the contribution to knowledge and conservation efforts, the educational values, and the ability to get identifications. Areas for improvement included app and website functionality, faster and more detailed feedback, localized resources, and more communication. Most respondents participate rarely and have submitted fewer than ten records, although about five percent are super users who participate often and submit more than fifty records. Suggested improvements to the program may increase this participation rate. Indeed, increased recruitment and retention of users in general is important, and advertising should promote the outcomes of participation. Fifteen experts responded to a separate survey and were favorable of the program although there were suggestions on how to improve the verification process and the quality of the submitted data. Suggested research questions that could be asked or answered from the data included filling knowledge gaps (species diversity, ranges, habitat, phenology, floral associations, etc.), supporting species status assessments, effecting policy and legislation, encouraging habitat restoration and management efforts, and guiding further research. However, only about half have used data from the project to date. Further promotion of Bumble Bee Watch and community science programs in general should occur amongst academia, conservationists, policy makers, and the general public. This would help to increase the number and scope of submissions, knowledge of these species, interest in conserving them, and the overall program impact.