Title: Adapting the bioblitz to meet conservation needs

Authors: Parker, S.S. 1; Pauly, G.B.2; Moore, J.3; Fraga, N.S.4; Knapp, J.J.5; Principe, Z.6 2
;

Randall, J.M.6; Cohen, B.S.6; and Wake, T.A.7

Affiliations and Addresses:

1
Corresponding Author: sophie_parker@tnc.org; The Nature Conservancy, 445 S. Figueroa St., Suite

1950, Los Angeles, CA 90071

2
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90007
3
The Nature Conservancy, 915 E. Bonneville Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89101
4
Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711
5
The Nature Conservancy, 532 E. Main Street, Suite 200, Ventura, CA 93001
6
The Nature Conservancy, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1350. San Diego, CA 92101
7
Zooarchaeology Laboratory, The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los

Angeles, CA 90095

Running Head: Adapting the bioblitz for conservation

Keywords

Archaeology, botanical garden, Bureau of Land Management, citizen science, expert bioblitz,

museum, rapid assessment, resource management

Article Impact Statement

Expert bioblitzes generate conservation-relevant data, enhance research capacity, and build working

partnerships focused on conservation.

Abstract

This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1111/cobi.13103.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

When conservation strategies require new, field-based information, practitioners must find the best

ways to rapidly deliver high-quality survey data. To address this challenge, several rapid assessment

approaches have been developed since the early 1990s. These typically involve large areas, take

many months to complete, and are not appropriate when conservation-relevant survey data are

quickly needed for a specific locale. In contrast, bioblitzes are designed to quickly collect site-specific

survey data. While bioblitzes are commonly used to achieve educational or public engagement goals,

conservation practitioners are increasingly using a modified bioblitz approach to generate

conservation-relevant data while simultaneously enhancing research capacity and building working

pa t e ships f cused c se vati c ce s We te m these m dified eve ts “expe t bi blitzes”

Several expert bioblitzes have recently taken place on lands of conservation concern in Southern

California, and have involved the collaborative efforts of government agencies, non-profit

organizations, botanic gardens, museums, and universities. We document how expert bioblitz results

directly informed on-the-ground conservation management and decision-making; increased capacity

for rapid deployment of expert bioblitzes in the future; and fostered collaboration and

communication amongst taxonomically and institutionally diverse experts. As research and

conservation funding becomes increasingly scarce, expert bioblitzes can play an increasingly

important role in biodiversity conservation.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2
Introduction

Conservation practitioners have long faced the challenge of making decisions using limited

information. Uncertainty and information gaps are pervasive in ecological data (Regan et al. 2002),

and severe gaps may lead to inaction or undesirable outcomes (Regan et al. 2005). Many

conservation management decisions hinge on information about the presumed or modelled

distribution and abundance of target species. Unfortunately, fundamental occurrence data is often

unavailable or out-of-date. For this reason, the first steps in systematic conservation planning

(Margules & Pressey 2000) commonly involve identifying data gaps and collecting field data to fill

them, thereby providing accurate and timely information on the localities of species within a

planning area. This information is needed to make and implement better conservation management

and land use decisions.

Various biodiversity assessment methods have been developed to gather occurrence data and

inventory species, natural communities, and ecosystems (Table 1). These efforts include cataloguing

the presence of priority plant communities and completing landscape-scale inventories (Noss 1987),

establishing natural heritage programs dedicated to cataloging the biodiversity of a given state or

region (Groves et al. 1995), and completing comprehensive bioassessments to gauge ecosystem

health (Bailey et al. 2014). While these efforts contribute greatly to generating a more complete

understanding of the natural world, and therefore allow for more informed conservation decision-

making, several challenges exist. Professionally conducted, systematic field surveys may be one of

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

3
the best solutions for filling knowledge gaps, but they can be slow and costly (Margules & Pressey

2000). Natural heritage programs have faced criticism for being expensive, difficult to maintain, and

patchy in coverage (Bittman 2001). They also require continued updates as natural and technological

systems change. Securing adequate funding and targeting limited resources available at the expert

level to provide information on the places and topics of conservation concern are continuing

challenges (Braunisch et al. 2012). Further, many existing assessment methodologies (e.g., Rapid

Ecological Assessments, the Rapid Assessment Program, and Ecoregional Assessments) focus on

large areas (e.g., landscapes, regions, or ecoregions) for which little existing biodiversity information

has been synthesized, and typically take many months to complete (Table 1). These methodologies

are therefore not appropriate for conservation opportunities at smaller geographic scales or for

assessments where knowledge of existing biodiversity is relatively high for the broader region—as is

often the case in developed nations—but knowledge about the concentration of conservation-

relevant taxa and resources is needed for a specific locale within a broader region.

The challenge of how to best conduct new, expert-based field surveys to address data gaps and

provide guidance to conservation practitioners is well-illustrated in cases where land acquisition is

being considered as a primary conservation strategy. A conservation organization or land trust will

often develop acquisition plans to identify for purchase the properties most valuable for

conservation (e.g., Parker et al. 2014). However, barriers to private property access may impede

fieldwork during the planning phase (Hilty & Merenlender 2003). Limited time and funding

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

4
designated for field reconnaissance during acquisition often requires that field assessments be rapid,

potentially narrow in focus, and carried out during the “ g” seas f easily fi di g a d

identifying taxa of interest; that a limited number of surveyors be involved; and that these

individuals be well-organized and able to conduct their work with minimal guidance and supervision.

Similar challenges also arise for federal, state and local land management agencies seeking to better

manage natural resources. Permission for access may be easier to obtain on public lands, but many

are remote and distant from researchers with the appropriate expertise. Under circumstances like

these, where land management decisions require new, field-based information, conservation

practitioners must find a way of optimizing the rapid delivery of low-cost and high-quality survey

data.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

5
Rapid Field Surveys: the BioBlitz

To address the challenges outlined above, conservation practitioners are increasingly turning to a

new type of rapid field-based assessment: the i litz The te m “ i litz” (als itte “bi blitz”

“bi -blitz”) as c i ed by the Nati al Pa k Se vice (NPS) to describe a 1996 survey effort conducted

in Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens in Washington, D.C., and in the intervening years has been

broadly adopted by educators, scientists, and conservation practitioners (Laforest et al. 2013).

Typically, a bioblitz involves a rapid field survey effort where volunteers document as many species

as possible in a defined location during a defined period of time.

According to Droege (2004), one of the founders of the modern-day bi blitz c cept “the ame a d

concept of the BioBlitz is not registered, not copyrighted, not trademarked, and not a government

thi g It’s a idea that can be used, adapted, and modified by any group, who should freely use the

ame i litz f thei pu p ses” This stateme t may stem pa tially f m a u de sta di g

that bioblitz-type surveys are not new; volunteer-based collection of natural history information

dates back centuries (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). In recent years, the engagement of volunteers in

gathe i g scie tific i f mati (a app ach fte efe ed t as “citize scie ce”) has gai ed

increasing attention (Bonney et al. 2014). Individual citizen science projects may contribute to

collective knowledge about the natural world, but direct applicability of these projects to on-the-

ground conservation management and decision-making varies (Conrad & Hilchey 2011; Ballard et al.

2017). In a review of natural history museum-led citizen science efforts, Ballard et al. (2017) found

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

6
that bioblitzes contributed to site and species management more than any other type of citizen

science program; they also found that partnering with land managers produced positive

conservation outcomes.

Bioblitzes are growing in popularity; as of October 2017, the citizen science platform iNaturalist

(https://www.inaturalist.org) listed over 1,000 bioblitz projects involving at least five participants

and 25 observations, and institutions and organizations from around the world have developed

guidance for bioblitz organizers (e.g., Censky 2001, Hepburn et al. 2015). Although the raw

observation data generated during a bioblitz may be available through platforms such as iNaturalist

or the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (https://www.gbif.org), the summaries, results, and

key findings from bioblitzes that have potential conservation management relevance are rarely

published in the peer-reviewed literature (Laforest et al. 2013), and are therefore less likely to be

widely available. A May 2017 literature search using ISI Web of Science

(https://www.webofknowledge.com/) found that out of more than 65 million records, only 22

records contained the sea ch te m “bi blitz” “bi -blitz” The ldest as published i 2003 A

similar search using Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) returned about 1,230 results, only

a few of which are peer-reviewed journal articles. One notable publication is a side-by-side field trial

demonstrating that for some commonly-detected taxonomic groups (salamanders, reptiles, and

small mammals), a short-duration bioblitz was comparable to longer-duration, traditional survey

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

7
methods (Foster et al. 2013). This study suggests that a bioblitz may be a cost-effective way to

rapidly generate conservation-relevant data, at least for larger, more easily surveyed organisms.

Museums, aquariums, zoos, botanical gardens, institutions of higher learning, and federal agencies

contribute directly to conservation education and conservation science (Miller et al. 2004), and are

increasingly the hosts and organizers of bioblitzes. For this reason, staff members of these

institutions have become more familiar with bioblitz events over time. As these events become

increasingly common, it becomes easier to adapt the bioblitz concept to meet the needs and

interests of conservation practitioners such as land managers, while also involving institutional

partners in endeavors which contribute to their missions.

Adapting BioBlitzes to Meet Conservation Needs: the Expert BioBlitz

As representatives of institutional and non-governmental entities involved in various aspects of

conservation research and implementation, we have begun to work in partnership to adapt

bioblitzes to better meet the needs of conservation. The most fundamental modification involves

the primary purpose of these events. Bioblitzes are often conducted by entities with education as

part of their mission, and are explicitly used as an educational and public engagement tool, often to

a broad public audience (Lundmark 2003). By primarily or exclusively involving participants who are

collaborative, field-ready scientists, the focus of an event can shift from education and outreach, or

a mix of education and research goals, to one primarily focused on filling information gaps to better

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

8
inform conservation decisions. We use the term “expe t bi blitz” t efe t apid field-based survey

efforts within a specific geographic area that involve a team of professional scientists and

conservation practitioners working collaboratively to (1) generate conservation-relevant data on

taxa and/or other resources, (2) enhance research capacity, and (3) build working partnerships

focused on conservation concerns.

The first objective of an expert bioblitz is to generate survey data that can be used by conservation

practitioners. Usable data fall into two main categories: information used to make management

decisions, and information used to generate conservation interest because it reveals the presence of

phylogenetically significant, globally rare, or otherwise unique taxa that may serve as flagship

species for conservation (Walpole & Leader-Williams 2002). While almost any data collected by field

scientists could eventually be conservation relevant, studies indicate that most land management

decisions are based on experience and guesswork rather than evidence (Pullin et al. 2004;

Sutherland et al. 2004), suggesting that field-collected data are not typically used to guide

conservation efforts, or to enable better land management decisions. By involving both research

scientists and conservation practitioners, an expert bioblitz can help bridge the conservation

“ esea ch-impleme tati gap” (sensu Knight et al. 2008) by steering researchers towards collecting

data that are more useable by practitioners.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

9
The second objective of an expert bioblitz is to enhance research capacity in locations or on topics

that are understudied, and where there are gaps in information that hinder evidence-based

decision-making for conservation and natural resource management. When organizing an expert

bioblitz, conservation practitioners who represent land trusts or other land-owning conservation

organizations can provide access to privately owned lands, some of which may otherwise be difficult

to access, or may never have been surveyed before (Hilty & Merenlender 2003). This can help

collection managers and curators address geographic and taxonomic gaps within their own

collections (Ponder et al. 2001), and can even result in the discovery of taxa that are new to science

(Ridling et al. 2014), or to the region being surveyed (Graeter et al. 2015).

The third objective of an expert bioblitz is to build working partnerships focused on conservation

concerns. Bioblitz organizers can initiate productive working relationships between agency staff,

other land managers, taxonomic experts, and other researchers. These relationships can be crucial

to expanding the geographic scope of field surveys and securing required collections permissions for

experts who otherwise lack connections to staff within federal, state, local and NGO land

management entities. Similarly, participating researchers can meet specialists from other

institutions, resulting in new collaborations and/or new or improved working relationships as part of

a cross-disciplinary project. Herpetologists, botanists and entomologists do not often perform

surveys together, but participation in an expert bioblitz can create opportunities for cross-

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

10
disciplinary synergy and exchange of information that may inform conservation management and

pa ticipa ts’ esea ch.

For researchers from collections-based museums and herbaria, there are several reciprocal benefits

to participating in an expert bioblitz. Because collections-based institutions such as natural history

museums and herbaria are storehouses of biogeographical information (Nielsen & West 1994), they

already support and conduct research that guides conservation decision-making. Curatorial and

research staff at these institutions may be deeply committed to seeing their work applied in a

practical conservation context (Kress et al. 2001) and may already conduct short collecting trips for

their own scientific needs, but they may not know what information is needed, when it is needed, or

who needs it to maximize conservation impact. Through an expert bioblitz, researchers can provide

immediate conservation-relevant outcomes from short collecting trips. Specimens collected during

an expert bioblitz may also be added to museum/herbarium collections (Spear et al. 2017). Many

institutions regard adding to their collections as part of their core missions but have experienced

noteworthy declines in their ability to do so in recent years (Prather et al. 2004). In turn, new

techniques are allowing analyses of specimens that may yield information on genetic relationships,

diet, change over time, and a suite of other factors that may be of great value to conservation

practitioners (Suarez and Tsutsui 2004; Lavoie 2013). Thus, facilitating specimen collections during

expert bioblitzes is of mutual benefit to participants and organizers.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

11
Expert BioBlitz Best Practices

Organizers must deliberately plan an expert bioblitz to address the objectives of generating usable

data, enhancing capacity, and building partnerships. Having conducted several of these events in

recent years, we have developed a set of best practices to guide planning and execution. This

includes guidance related to participant selection, strategic planning, event logistics, and data

reporting. Special attention must be paid to understanding the motivation for participation by

volunteer experts, as event hosts may not have funding to reimburse experts for their time.

Silvertown et al. (2013) describe best practices for motivating, recruiting, and retaining volunteers.

Below we describe some of the other considerations for leading a successful expert bioblitz.

Organizers of an expert bioblitz must clearly articulate their goals to volunteers participating in the

eve t While use f the te m “bi blitz” typically suggests that pa ticipants should record as many

taxa as possible, data needs for conservation vary. Instead of broad taxonomic coverage, organizers

may want participants to target specific taxa, or generate spatial assessments of species or

communities. Bioblitzes have largely embraced a broad view of biodiversity (Baker et al. 2014), but

taxonomic bias permeates all aspects of conservation, from research and planning to

implementation (Clark & May 2002; Darwall et al. 2011). Given the realities of conservation practice,

practical application of bioblitz-collected data may vary by taxonomic group or site, and it is

important for participants to understand what results are most usable by conservation practitioners.

These expectations are best communicated to potential participants well in advance of the event.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

12
Organizers may place participants into groups based on taxonomic specialty, and assign leaders to

ga ize a g up’s activities. This prevents duplication of field effort, allows for better planning and

spatial coverage of the geographic area of interest, and aids in acquiring any necessary permits.

Teams may be active in different areas at different times of day (e.g. herpetologists are more likely

to survey at night, whereas ornithologists may be most active in the early morning). Therefore,

cross-disciplinary collaboration between experts can be promoted through informal social time (e.g.

over meals).

Organizers should anticipate and plan interventions to prevent conflicts that may arise between

exploration and resource preservation in areas with easily-disturbed features such as archaeological

sites, soil biological crusts, or sensitive plant communities. Coordination between experts using

disparate collection methodologies and managers responsible for protecting these features is key to

preventing and minimizing conflicts. With a smaller group of field-savvy scientists, an expert bioblitz

may have the advantage of generating less disturbance than a typical bioblitz event involving a

greater number of non-experts.

Methods of data collection during the event can involve a combination of traditional and recently-

developed techniques. Some experts will conduct taxon-focused surveys and keep lists with and

without voucher specimens. Newer techniques may include the use of data sharing platforms such

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

13
as eBird and iNaturalist, or other detection methods, such as acoustic bat detection, camera

trapping, DNA barcoding, or environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling. While iNaturalist, eBird, and

other open access sites are useful for sharing data and provide a record that is readily available to a

broad audience for inclusion in future analyses and potential conservation decision-making efforts

(Spear et al. 2017), these platforms are not optimized for the collection of all types of data. If the

event will include the collection of data that are non-biological, such as information about

archaeological sites, ecosystem processes, or geophysical features, organizers and participants must

decide how best to integrate data collection and reporting across disciplines, perhaps through

discussions among participants prior to the event.

Field Tests and Outcomes of the Expert BioBlitz

Rapid, field-based assessments focused on influencing specific conservation actions are beginning to

occur in various locations around the world. In November 2013, 21 researchers representing 11

organizations conducted week-long surveys to document terrestrial biodiversity of lands adjacent to

the coral reefs of Cabo Pulmo in Mexico (Vanderplank et al. 2014). Likewise, for a week in April 2017,

25 scientists from four countries conducted surveys to document the aquatic and terrestrial

biodiversity of the Vjosa River valley of Albania (Graf et al., 2017). Both efforts resulted in

conservation actions; the Cabo Pulmo work led to a decision by the ati ’s auth ity

environment and natural resources to reject development plans for a large resort, while the Vjosa

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

14
River event led to the initiation of a campaign to stop the development of a dam and hydropower

plant.

Since 2015, several conservation-applicable, rapid field survey events have taken place on lands of

conservation concern in Southern California. Some of these events have been specifically billed as

expe t bi blitzes hile the s have bee te med “ a e pla t t easu e hu ts ” I all cases these

events were deliberately planned, executed, and documented to demonstrate the benefits of

collaboration between government agencies, non-profit organizations, botanic gardens, museums,

and universities. Participants at each event were limited to an invited, targeted group of expert

researchers and highly experienced citizen scientists (typically veterans of other expert bioblitzes

and survey events), including individuals representing entities beyond the organizing parties. The

results were directly applied to on-the-ground conservation management and decision-making

(Table 2). Participating researchers gained access to lands that were typically off-limits, thereby

increasing research capacity and benefitting museum and herbaria collections. Discoveries of new

archaeological sites as well as newly documented populations, species, and/or habitat associations

for plants and animals spurred follow-up studies. Below we discuss the elements of four of these

Southern California events, and how successful they were in generating conservation-relevant data,

augmenting research capacity, and building conservation partnerships.

Tehachapi Mountains Expert BioBlitz, Spring 2015

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

15
The Tehachapi Region is geologically diverse, topographically complex, and relatively un-fragmented

by human infrastructure. The region is a hot-spot of evolutionary divergence and is home to

narrowly endemic plants, invertebrates, and amphibians. While much of the region is under private

ownership, recent conservation investments have expanded access to lands, and provided an

opportunity to employ an expert bioblitz to increase knowledge of biological resources. This event

was a collaborative effort initiated by Tejon Ranch Conservancy that involved lands owned or

managed by The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Audubon Kern River Preserve, multiple private

landowners, and the Southern Sierra Research Station.

The goals of this expert bioblitz were three-fold: (1) to catalog as many plants, birds, mammals,

amphibians, reptiles, insects, spiders, and lichens as possible in a 24-hour period to help inform

regional conservation work; (2) to demonstrate collaboration between the various conservation

entities in the region; (3) to build additional support for research and conservation in the region by

engaging new individuals and entities from the nearby Los Angeles and Bakersfield areas.

Sixty-five volunteer experts participated in this event. The event strengthened relationships between

participants and highlighted the importance of the region to scientists and institutions previously

unfamiliar with its rich biological resources (Table 2). Land managers and conservation practitioners

in the region can apply the knowledge gained from this event to refine management actions and

conservation priorities. Participants made new natural history discoveries and collected specimens

from under-sampled regions, providing evidence of enhanced research capacity (Table 2). The event

also reinforced the relationship between the organizations working in the region and among

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

16
institutions with complementary missions, specifically the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles

County (NHMLA) and Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG).

Mojave Desert I: Chicago Valley Bio-Archaeo-Blitz, Spring 2016

Chicago Valley is a relatively undisturbed valley located in California, near the center of the Mojave

Desert Ecoregion, and just a few km from the border with Nevada. It overlies an ancient, deep

g u d ate fl ‐path that feeds the Ama g sa Rive from the east. High groundwater levels in the

valley support a robust mesquite bosque and a desert spring. While most of Chicago Valley is Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) wilderness, over 400 hectares remain in private ownership, and have

yet to be adequately protected. TNC a d the Ama g sa C se va cy ga ized a 24‐h u expe t

bioblitz to explore privately owned lands in Chicago Valley that were available for purchase. We

invited a broad suite of volunteers skilled in the identification of plants, animals, natural

communities, and archaeological resources.

The g als f this eve t e e f u ‐f ld: (1) t b i g expe ts t a u de ‐studied area to collect

information to build the case for conservation land acquisition (2) t fu the test “bioblitzi g” ith

scie tists as a apid‐ esp se high etu ‐ ‐i vestme t meth d f the c llecti f high‐quality

su vey data (3) t build a c llegial c mmu ity f dese t‐i te ested scientists that could be called

up t b i g thei tax mic expe tise t se ve c se vati p actiti e ’s eeds f gathe i g

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

17
reliable field-based information, and (4) to bring attention to, and increase the constituency for, an

understudied Mojave Desert region.

Twenty-one volunteer experts participated in the event, and 194 taxa were recorded (Table 3 and

Fig. 1). Discoveries of new populations and ecological interactions provided conservation-relevant

information and evidence of expanded research capacity. In addition, 12 new archaeological sites

were recorded during this event (Table 2). To our knowledge, the Chicago Valley event represents

the first example of the inclusion of environmental archaeology during a bioblitz. One month later,

NPS held an archaeologically-f cused “A chae litz” eve t f middle sch l child e at the K ife

River Indian Villages in North Dakota (NPS 2017). The identification and assessment of archaeological

sites during an expert bioblitz can inform managers and conservation practitioners of past human

presence and activities at the site, and may serve to enhance overall conservation potential. Plant

and animal remains recorded at archaeological sites can provide critical information concerning the

past presence of extirpated or protected species and changing species compositions through time

(Lyman 2006; Lyman and Cannon 2004; Wolverton and Lyman 2012). As a caution, organizers should

be aware that archaeological site locations constitute sensitive information, so best practices (King

1978) should be applied in data collection and reporting.

Ultimately, information gathered in this event rekindled an interest in protecting, through fee

acquisition, the privately-owned lands in Chicago Valley. The conservation values of the property are

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

18
now well understood and can easily be used to justify its purchase for conservation if the land-owner

again offers it for sale at fair market value.

Mojave Desert II: Amargosa River Expert BioBlitz, Spring 2017

The Amargosa River and associated wetlands contain one of the most impressive suites of endemic,

isolated, and imperiled species in the world. Since the early 1970s, TNC, the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), and the Amargosa Conservancy have partnered to protect the biodiversity in

the watershed through a combination of land acquisition, restoration, scientific study, and

conservation-focused land management. In 2009, the United States Congress designated the

California portion of the river that flows above ground year-round as Wild and Scenic. TNC and BLM

co-organized a 48-hour expert bioblitz timed to occur 45 years after multi-taxa surveys conducted in

1972. The goals for this event were similar to those for the Chicago Valley Bio-Archaeo-Blitz.

Thirty-six volunteer experts participated in the event, and 378 taxa were recorded (Table 3 and Fig.

1). Travel costs incurred by participants were reimbursed by TNC at a cost of less than $10,000; a

similar effort by contracted surveyors would have greatly exceed this amount (Table 4). Compared

to the 1972 surveys, botanists documented 74 additional plant taxa in 2017. This may be because

the expert bioblitz was conducted at the peak season for annuals in the relatively wet spring of 2017,

whereas surveys in 1972 were conducted in a dry year, and few annuals were observed.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

19
Ultimately, this event catalyzed conservation by reinvigorating the relationship between TNC and

the BLM, a partnership that has been a key to conservation success in this landscape over the past

40 years. As the BLM moves forward with management of the Wild and Scenic Amargosa River, they

do so with the knowledge gained from this expert bioblitz event, and with the interest and

engagement of several researchers who have participated in both the Chicago Valley and Amargosa

Expert BioBlitzes. Discoveries made during this event, including fly species new to science and new

ecological interactions, helped to inform and catalyze additional focused studies, including a more

detailed survey of Amargosa River springsnails by BLM and partners (Table 2). The event also

strengthened relationships between RSABG, TNC, and NHMLA.

Santa Cruz Island Rare Plant Treasure Hunt, Spring 2015–2017

Santa Cruz Island is nearly 250 square km in size with two parallel mountain ranges reaching over

825 m in height. Twenty-four percent of the island is managed by NPS; the other 76% is owned and

managed by TNC as a preserve. The island is home to eight endemic plant taxa (Junak et al. 1995)

and nine federally endangered or threatened plants. After 40 years of active conservation

management and nearly 170 years of habitat degradation, the island was finally free of introduced

mainland vertebrates in 2006. Non-native Argentine ants and 32 invasive plant species are in the

final phase of eradication. With high priority threats abated, island managers are focusing

conservation efforts on recovering imperiled species and communities, and reintroducing

biodiversity lost due to invasive herbivores and historic land management practices.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

20
In 2015, TNC began hosting annual rare plant treasure hunts to find new populations of listed plant

taxa, and hopefully rediscover taxa that are presumed extirpated or extinct. Approximately ten

volunteers with taxa-specific experience are invited to conduct targeted surveys once a month from

February to June over a three-day period. Treasure hunts resulted in surveys conducted 12 times

faster and at half the cost of using contractual labor for the same work.

To date, we have documented 15 new occurrences of two federally threatened plant species,

documented two new species for the island, and recorded dozens of occurrences of many other rare

plants. Surveys that did not yield localities of target species are also important as they inform land

managers of the timing of emergence in the case of annual plants known to occur in the area, or

highlight what has been lost. These efforts have also resulted in development of a database to house

rare plant data, including data from treasure hunts on other islands. Through these treasure hunts,

we gained a greater understanding of endemic taxa throughout their range and can better prioritize

which taxa need conservation intervention, and which ones have recovered and may be proposed

for down- or de-listing under state and federal endangered species acts.

Conclusion

We have developed a basic framework for adapting the bioblitz model to meet the needs of

conservation. Our expert bioblitzes and other field survey efforts involving expert, volunteer

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

21
researchers have succeeded in generating conservation-relevant data, augmenting research

capacity, and building conservation partnerships. As research and conservation funding becomes

increasingly limited, the interest generated in key natural resources among research institutions and

individuals is vital to conservation management. Fortunately, expert bioblitzes attract informed

researchers who are dedicated to contributing to the conservation of species and communities.

References

Abate T. 1992. Environmental rapid-assessment programs have appeal and critics. BioScience

42:486-489.

Bailey RC, Linke S, Yates AG. 2014. Bioassessment of freshwater ecosystems using the Reference

Condition Approach: comparing established and new methods with common data sets.

Freshwater Science 33:1204–1211.

Baker GM, Duncan N, Gostomski T, Horner MA, Manski D. 2014. The bioblitz: Good science, good

outreach, good fun. Park Science 31:1.

Ballard HL, Robinson LD, Young AN, Pauly GB, Higgins LM, Johnson RF, Tweddle JC. 2017.

Contributions to conservation outcomes by natural history museum-led citizen science:

Examining evidence and next steps. Biological Conservation 208:87–97.

Bittman R. 2001. The California Natural Diversity Database: a natural heritage program for rare

species and vegetation. Fremontia 29:3–4.

Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK. 2014. Next steps

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

22
 for citizen science. Science 343:1436 LP-1437.

Braunisch V, Home R, Pellet J, Arlettaz R. 2012. Conservation science relevant to action: a research

agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:201–210.

Censky, E.J. 2001. BioBlitz Organization Guide. Connecticut State Museum of Natural History, Storrs,

Connecticut, USA. Available from http://web.uconn.edu/mnh/bioblitz/BioBlitzGuide.pdf

(accessed October 17, 2017).

Clark JA, May RM. 2002. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191–192.

Conrad CC, Hilchey KG. 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental

monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 176:273–

291.

Darwall WRT, Holland RA, Smith KG, Allen D, Brooks EGE, Katarya V, Pollock CM, Shi Y, Clausnitzer V,

Cumberlidge N. 2011. Implications of bias in conservation research and investment for

freshwater species. Conservation Letters 4:474–482.

Donnelly RR, Neville DD, Mous PP. 2003. Report on a rapid ecological assessment of the Raja Ampat

Islands, Papua, Eastern Indonesia, held October 30-November 22, 2002. The Nature

Conservancy, Sanur, Bali, Indonesia. Available at: http://www.rajaampat.org/downloads

/RajaAmpatREAFinalDraft%20Screen.pdf (accessed October 17, 2017).

Droege S. 2004. BioBlitz. United States Geological Survey. Washington, D.C. Available from

https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/blitz.html (accessed Jul 2017).

Faith DP, Nix HA, Margules CR, Hutchinson MF, Walker PA, West J, Stein JL, Kesteven JL, Allison A,

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

23
 Natera G. 2001. The BioRap biodiversity assessment and planning study for Papua New

Guinea. Pacific Conservation Biology 6:279-288.

Foster MA, Muller LI, Dykes SA, Pete Wyatt RL, Gray MJ. 2013. Efficacy of bioblitz surveys with

implications for sampling nongame species. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science

88:1.

Graeter GJ, Diggins CA, Weeks KC, Clark MK. 2015. New distribution records for bats in Northwestern

North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 14:98–105.

Graf W, Bauernfeind E, Bequirai S, Duda M, Frank T, Gunczy J, Heckes U, Hess M, Kunz G,

Meulenbroek P, Paill W, Rabitsch W, Vitecek S. 2017. The fauna of the Vjosa River and the

adjacent floodplain at Poçem. University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Available from

http://balkanrivers.net/sites/default/files/Vjosa_assessment_201709.pdf (accessed Oct 1,

2017).

Groves CR, Klein ML, Breden TF. 1995. Natural heritage programs: public-private partnerships for

biodiversity conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23:784–790.

Hayden T. 2007. Conservation science: Ground force. Nature 445:481–483.

Hepburn L, Tegart P, Roetman P, von Gavel S, Niedra S, Roger E, Miller S, Fyffe T, Brenton P, Lambkin

C. 2015. The Australian Guide to Running a BioBlitz. Australian Citizen Science Association,

Brisbane, Australia. Available from http://csna.gaiaresources.com.au/wp-

content/uploads/2015/07/BIOBLITZ_Guidelines_WEB-ACSA-logo.pdf (accessed July 31,

2017).

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

24
Hilty J, Merenlender AM. 2003. Studying biodiversity on private lands. Conservation Biology 17:132–

137.

Janzen D, Hallwachs W. 1994. All taxa biodiversity inventory (ATBI) of terrestrial systems. A generic

protocol for preparing wildland biodiversity for non-damaging use. Report of an NSF

Workshop, 16-18 April 1993, Philadelphia, PA. 132 pp.

Junak S, Ayers T, Scott R, Wilken D, Young D. 1995. A Flora of Santa Cruz Island. Santa Barbara

Botanic Garden in collaboration with California Native Plant Society, Santa Barbara, CA. 397

pp.

King TF. 1978. The archeological survey: methods and uses. Washington, DC: Heritage Conservation

and Recreation Service, US Department of the Interior. Available from

http://www.fire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/archaeology/downloads/archsurveymethods.pdf

(accessed January 17, 2018).

Knight AT, Cowling RM, Rouget M, Balmford A, Lombard AT, Campbell BM. 2008. Knowing but not

doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research–implementation gap.

Conservation Biology 22:610–617.

Kress WJ, Miller SE, Krupnick GA, Lovejoy TE. 2001. Museum collections and conservation efforts.

Science 291:828–829.

Laforest BJ, Winegardner AK, Zaheer OA, Jeffery NW, Boyle EE, Adamowicz SJ. 2013. Insights into

biodiversity sampling strategies for freshwater microinvertebrate faunas through bioblitz

campaigns and DNA barcoding. BMC ecology 13:13.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

25
Lavoie C. 2013. Biological collections in an ever-changing world: Herbaria as tools for

biogeographical and environmental studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and

Systematics 15:68-76

Lundmark C. 2003. BioBlitz: getting into backyard biodiversity. Bioscience 53:329.

Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253.

Margules CR, Redhead TD, Hutchinson MF, Faith DP. 1995 BioRap. Guidelines for using the BioRap

methodology and tools. Commonwealth Scientific, Industrial, and Research Organization,

Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Miller B, Conway W, Reading RP, Wemmer C, Wildt D, Kleiman D, Monfort S, Rabinowitz A,

Armstrong B, Hutchins M. 2004. Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums,

botanical gardens, and natural history museums. Conservation Biology 18:86–93.

Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R. 2012. The history of public participation in ecological

research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:285–290.

Muchoney DM, Grossman DH, Solomon R. 1991. Rapid ecological assessment for conservation

planning. Technical Paper, ACSM-ASPRS Annual Convention 4:141-145

National Park Service. 2017. ArchaeoBlitz. Available from https://www.nps.gov/knri/learn/news/

archeoblitz.htm (accessed January 18, 2018).

Nielsen ES, West JG. 1994. Biodiversity research and biological collections: transfer of information.

Systematics Association Special Volume 50:101.

Noss RF. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

26
 Nature Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation 41:11–37.

Parker SS, Remson EJ, Verdone LN. 2014. Restoring conservation nodes to enhance biodiversity and

ecosystem function along the Santa Clara River. Ecological Restoration 32:6–8.

Ponder WF, Carter GA, Flemons P, Chapman RR. 2001. Evaluation of museum collection data for use

in biodiversity assessment. Conservation Biology 15:648–657.

Prather LA, Alvarez-Fuentes O, Mayfield MH, Ferguson CJ. 2004a. The decline of plant collecting in

the United States: A threat to the infrastructure of biodiversity studies. Systematic Botany

29:15–28.

Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence

to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation 119:245–252.

Randall JM, Parker SS, Moore J, Cohen B, Crane L, Christian B, Cameron D, MacKenzie JB, Klausmeyer

K, Morrison S. 2010. Mojave Desert Ecoregional Assessment. The Nature Conservancy, San

Francisco, California, USA. Available at: http://scienceforconservation.org

/downloads/mojave_desert_ecoregional_assessment (accessed Oct 17, 2017).

Regan HM, Ben-Haim Y, Langford B, Wilson WG, Lundberg P, Andelman SJ, Burgman MA. 2005.

Robust decision-making under severe uncertainty for conservation management. Ecological

Applications 15:1471–1477.

Regan HM, Colyvan M, Burgman MA. 2002. A taxonomy and treatment of uncertainty for ecology

and conservation biology. Ecological Applications 12:618–628.

Ridling SK, Scudder GGE, Sikes DS, LaBounty K. 2014. Sitka bioblitz discovery produces first

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

27
 Notonecta (Hemiptera: Notonectidae) recorded in Alaska. Proceedings of the Entomological

Society of Washington 116:195–196.

Sayre R, Roca E, Sedaghatkish G, Young B, Keel S, Roca R. 1999. Nature in focus: rapid ecological

assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Silvertown J, Buesching CD, Jacobson SK, Rebelo T. 2013. Citizen science and nature conservation.

Pages 127–142 in DW Macdonald and KJ Willis, eds. Key topics in conservation biology.

Wiley-Blackwell.

Spear DM, Pauly GB, Kaiser K. 2017. Citizen science as a tool for augmenting museum collection data

from urban areas. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5:86.

Suarez AV, Tsutsui ND. 2004. The value of museum collections for research and society. BioScience,

54:66-74.

Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:305–308.

Vanderplank, S, Wilder, BT, Ezcurra, E. 2014. Uncovering the dryland biodiversity of the Cabo Pulmo

region. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Next Generation Sonoran Desert Researchers,

and UC MEXUS, USA. Available from http://nextgensd. com/uncovering-the-dryland-

biodiversity-of-the-cabo-pulmo-region (accessed Oct 1, 2017).

Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N. 2002. Tourism and flagship species in conservation. Biodiversity and

Conservation 11:543–547.

Acknowledgments

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

28
We thank our agency partners at the Bureau of Land Management, particularly C. Otahal, who

provided helpful comments on an early draft of this manuscript. We also thank the Tejon Ranch

Conservancy for initiating and organizing components of the Tehachapi BioBlitz, and the Amargosa

Conservancy for co-hosting the Chicago Valley Bio-Archaeo-Blitz. We are grateful to private land-

owners B. Brown of China Ranch and S. Sorrells of Shoshone Village, for hosting expert bioblitz

volunteers on their property. Finally, we recognize the volunteer contributions of scientists and

researchers, without whom expert bioblitzes would be impossible.

Table 1. Comparison of the methodologies developed around the world for the rapid, field-based
assessment of biodiversity for conservation.

Conserva Where
Metho Participa Durati Approa tion deploy Commen Citatio
d Scale Purpose nts on ch Costs* outcomes ed? ts ns
Rapid Medium Document Taxonomi Weeks Heavy High Designatio South & Begun in Mucho
Ecologic (landsca biodiversity c experts to fieldwor depend n of new Central 1988 by ny et
al pe scale) in with Month k with ing on protected America, TNC – al.
Assessm threatened strategic s some location areas Caribbea primarily 1991;
ent landscapes partners prelimin n, Africa, in Sayre
ary Asia countries et al.
spatial Pacific where 1999;
analysis Natural Donnel
Heritage- ly et al.
type data 2003
do not
exist
Rapid Medium Document Taxonomi Weeks Heavy Modera Designatio South Begun in Abate
Assessm (landsca biodiversity c experts to fieldwor te n of new America, 1992 by 1992
ent pe scale) in only Month k with depend protected Africa, Conservati
Program to Large threatened s prelimin ing on areas and Southea on
(regional landscapes ary amount NGO st Asia Internatio
scale) and spatial of field programm nal–
recommend analysis time atic mostly in
priority priorities South
actions America

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

29
BioRAP Small Synthesize Spatial Month Usually Low – Identificati Australia CSIRO Margul
(site existing analysts, s no Modera on and , Papua version of es &
specific) data, modelers, fieldwor te prioritizati New RAP Redhea
to including geograph k– on of Guinea emphasizi d 1995;
Medium socio- ers almost conservati ng Faith et
(landsca economic exclusive on areas analyses al.
pe scale) factors, into ly GIS/ needed to of 2001
spatially compute meet total available
explicit r-based area target imagery
hotspots for exercise (e.g. 10% data and
conservatio of whole de-
n action country) emphasizi
ng
fieldwork
Rapid Small Document Taxonomi One Heavy High Identificati Cuba, Field Hayden
Biologic (site biodiversity c experts Month fieldwor ($300K) on of and Museum 2007
al specific) in only k with important upper version of
Inventor to threatened prelimin biological Amazon RAP
y (RBI) Medium landscapes ary communiti and emphasizi
(landsca and spatial es and Andean ng
pe scale) recommend analysis determinat foothills fieldwork
priority ion regions
actions whether of
they are Ecuador,
outstandin Peru and
g in a Bolivia
regional or
global
context
All Taxa Small Document Taxonomi 5-10 Fieldwor High Identificati Great Complete Janzen
Biodiver (site all species c experts Years k on of all Smoky biodiversit and
sity specific) on site and followed species Mountai y Hallwa
Inventor to citizen by lab- within a ns inventory chs
y (ATBI) Medium scientists based protected National 1994
(landsca specime area Park and
pe scale) n ID Costa
Rica

Ecoregio Very Identify In-house 18–24 Targeted High Identificati USA, TNC Groves
nal large conservatio staff, Month fieldwor ($150– on of Africa, product to et al.
Assessm (ecoregio n priority expert s k to 300K) landscape- Indonesi implemen 1995;
ent nal scale) landscapes/ input via groundtr scale a, Papua t larger Randall
sites within workshop uth after priorities New scale et al.
an s spatial for Guinea, focus of 2010
ecoregion analysis conservati Asia 1995
on Pacific “C se va
investment region tion by
Desig ”

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

30
 Expert Small Determine Taxonomi Days Primarily Low** Document To date, Arose in Graf et
BioBlitz (site biodiversity c experts, fieldwor (<$10,0 the mostly 2000’s t al.
specific) of partners, k, with 00) biodiversit USA, fill need 2017;
threatened sometime aid of y at sites Albania, for more and
site or s citizen spatial where Mexico site- see
triage scientists info conservati specific Table 2
conservatio on action biodiversit
n could be y
opportunity deployed assessmen
to abate ts
threats
*Costs are estimated from references or inferred from duration and participants, and fall into three
categories: Low (<$10,000); Moderate (<$100,000); High (>$100,000)

** reimbursement for time contributed by volunteer participants was not included in the calculation of cost
for this method (see Table 4)

Table 2. Summary of Conservation Outcomes from four rapid survey events involving The Nature

Conservancy (TNC), the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Natural History

Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLA), the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden (RSABG), the Tejon

Ranch Conservancy, the Amargosa Conservancy, and other partners.

Conservation-Relevant Research Capacity Working Partnerships

Data Generated Augmented Built or Enhanced
Tehachapi  Confirmed ● Very few records for Relationship between
Mountains persistence of rare these properties NHMLA, RSABG, TNC and
Expert plant populations existed prior to the the Tejon Ranch
BioBlitz under existing expert bioblitz Conservancy enhanced
(2015) livestock grazing ● Discovery of unusually

regime, indicating large individuals of the

that it is compatible otherwise common

with achieving and well-studied

conservation goals Western Fence Lizard

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

31
  Populations of
invasive plant
species were
identified to help
guide management
action
Mojave ● Biological and ● Very few records for Relationship between
Desert I: archaeological this property existed NHMLA, RSABG, TNC, and
Chicago records generated prior to the expert Amargosa Conservancy
Valley Bio- during this event can bioblitz enhanced
Archaeo- be used to justify the ● Discovery of novel
Blitz purchase of this plant associations for
(2016) property for the Desert Night Lizard,
conservation likely related to dense
● Discovery of mesquite bosques
established ● Documented four
populations of a previously
nonnative gecko and undocumented rare
frog, and the plant populations of
documented recent two species (Pahrump
arrival of Western orache and forked
Toads in an adjacent buckwheat) on alkaline
townsite, showcase flats
threats associated ● Discovery of previously
with nearby undocumented
urbanization nonnative species at an
adjacent townsite

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

32
 including the
Mediterranean House
Gecko, which is the
second population
record for the county,
and the American
Bullfrog
● Discovery of a
previously
undocumented
population of Western
Toads at an adjacent
spring complex
● Mapping of 13
archaeological sites, 12
of which were
previously
undocumented

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

33
Mojave ● New occurrences of ● Very few records for Relationship between
Desert II: rare plants recorded arthropods existed for BLM and TNC enhanced
Amargosa in "hanging gardens", this part of the Wild
River a rare wetland and Scenic River prior
Expert habitat, directly to the expert bioblitz;
BioBlitz inform the many records for other
(2017) generation of the taxa were decades old
Amargosa Wild and ● Documentation of the
Scenic River Plan rare, phylogenetically
● Presence of important fly family
springsnails Apsilocephalidae
reconfirmed within ● Discovery of at least 4
Wild and Scenic fly species new to
River, allowing for science, including one
follow-up BLM that is likely a new
management actions genus
● Photo-documentation
of a previously
unknown association
of mites on Pheidole
ant larvae
● Documented the
ranges of three species
of toads in the area,
including a recently
discovered population
fW dh use’s T ad

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

34
Santa Cruz ● 15 new occurrences ● New occurrences of Relationships started
Island of two federally listed species can now with four research
Rare Plant threatened plant be used to model institutions, existing
Treasure species. 2 new habitat preferences of relationships enhanced
Hunt species recorded for rare listed species with nine entities, and
(2015– the island. Nearly 35 engagement with a
2017) rare plant species regulatory agency
recorded.
iNaturalist Project Sites for these events include:

Tehachapi Mountains Expert BioBlitz (2015): https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/2015-san-

emgidio-tehachapi-southern-sierra-bioblitz

Mojave Desert I: Chicago Valley Bio-Archaeo-Blitz (2016):

https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/chicago-valley-bio-archaeo-blitz-2016

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

35
 Mojave Desert II: Amargosa River Expert BioBlitz (2017): https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/2017-
amargosa-river-bioblitz

Table 3. Number of taxa recorded during expert bioblitz events.

Tehachapi

Mountains

Expert Mojave Desert I: Mojave Desert II:

BioBlitz Chicago Valley Bio- Amargosa River

Taxonomic Group (2015) Archaeo-Blitz (2016) Expert BioBlitz (2017)

Fungi 8 2 1

Soil Crust Lichen 0 1 1

Plants 296 69 121

Arthropods 69 81 154

Mollusks 0 0 2

Fish 0 0 3

Amphibians 2 0 5

Reptiles 6 4 9

Birds 81 35 66

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

36
Mammals 9 4 16

Total 473 194 378

Table 4. Cost comparison for rapid field surveys conducted via expert bioblitz vs. contractual labor.

Costs are based on the Amargosa River Expert BioBlitz event hosted by The Nature Conservancy in

2017, which involved the participation of 35 experts and one host individual over a 48-hour period.

All figures in US dollars. A rate of $75.00/hr was used for estimating labor costs.

Item Expert BioBlitz Costs Estimated Costs for a

Comparable set of Field
Surveys Conducted
using Contractual Labor

Expert Participant Expenses (Reimbursed by Host)

Mileage (@ $0.35/mi) 1,222 2,250

Fuel for Rental Vehicles 284 -

Rental Vehicles 125 -

Airfare 1,373 -

Airport Parking 36 -

Meals 2,043 3,240

Lodging 2,010 4,032

Supplies 26 300

Labor

Background Research - 2,625

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

37
 Field Work - 43,200

Specimen Identification - 10,800

Report Completion - 2,625

Contract Management - 1,800

Planning and Logistics 2,625 -

Grand Total 9,744 70,872

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

38
Figure 1. Maps of occurrence data added to iNaturalist during the Mojave Desert Expert BioBlitzes in

(A) Chicago Valley as conducted in April 2016 and (B) Amargosa River in April 2017, as compared to

pre-existing occurrence data in the iNaturalist database (left panel). Note: 10 observations (9

species) shown for Amargosa River prior to 2017 were collected immediately after the 2016 Chicago

Valley Expert BioBlitz by participants from that event. The numbers of species observed during the

expert bioblitzes (A and B, right panels) differ from those reported in Table 3 because the values

here are only for observations submitted to iNaturalist.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

39