<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Routine production of population trends from citizen science data: insights into the dynamics of common bird and plant species in France

Mathilde Vimont, Lise Bartholus, Yves Bas, Benoît Fontaine, Colin Fontaine, Romain Julliard, Grégoire Loïs, Romain Lorrillière, Gabrielle Martin, Emmanuelle Porcher

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Mathilde Vimont, Lise Bartholus, Yves Bas, Benoît Fontaine, Colin Fontaine, et al.. Routine production of population trends from citizen science data: insights into the dynamics of common bird and plant species in France. Comptes Rendus. Biologies, 2025, 348 (G1), pp.229-247. 10.5802/crbiol.184. mnhn-05347077

HAL Id: mnhn-05347077

https://mnhn.hal.science/mnhn-05347077v1

Submitted on 4 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Comptes Rendus
Biologies

Mathilde Vimont, Lise Bartholus, Yves Bas, Benoît Fontaine, Colin Fontaine, Romain Julliard, Grégoire Loïs, Romain Lorrillière, Gabrielle Martin and Emmanuelle Porcher

**Routine production of population trends from citizen science data: insights into the dynamics of common bird and plant species in France**

Volume 348 (2025), p. 229-247

Online since: 29 September 2025

https://doi.org/10.5802/crbiol.184

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

This article is licensed under the

CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL LICENSE.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Research article

# Routine production of population trends from citizen science data: insights into the dynamics of common bird and plant species in France

Mathilde Vimont<sup>*,a</sup>, Lise Bartholus<sup>a</sup>, Yves Bas<sup>a</sup>, Benoît Fontaine<sup>®,a</sup>, Colin Fontaine<sup>®,a</sup>, Romain Julliard<sup>®,a</sup>, Grégoire Loïs<sup>a</sup>, Romain Lorrillière<sup>a</sup>, Gabrielle Martin<sup>®,b</sup> and Emmanuelle Porcher<sup>®,a</sup>

*E-mails:* mathilde.vimont@gmail.com (M. Vimont), lise.bartholus@mnhn.fr (L. Bartholus), yves.bas@mnhn.fr (Y. Bas), benoit.barfontaine@mnhn.fr (B. Fontaine), colin.barfontaine@mnhn.fr (C. Fontaine), romain.julliard@mnhn.fr (R. Julliard), gregoire.lois@mnhn.fr (G. Loïs), romain.lorrilliere@mnhn.fr (R. Lorrillière), gabrielle.martin@univ-tlse3.fr (G. Martin), emmanuelle.porcher@mnhn.fr (E. Porcher)

**Abstract.** The ongoing environmental crisis, driven by human activities, has resulted in significant biodiversity losses across various taxa, affecting ecosystem functioning. To deal with this crisis, policymakers have notably established the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which includes targets to mitigate biodiversity loss by 2050. To achieve this goal, reliable and ecologically relevant indicators are essential to quantify and qualify biodiversity changes. Temporal trends in species abundance or occurrence have been proposed as useful indicators. In France, the Vigie-Nature program engages volunteers in biodiversity monitoring through various schemes, thereby producing relevant data to estimate country-wide temporal trends for various taxonomic groups. Some indicators of population trends are already produced for some taxa, but the analysis pipelines remain unpublished and need extensions to accommodate monitoring schemes collecting presence/absence instead of abundance data, such as the Vigie-flore plant monitoring scheme. Here, we present a newly developed analysis pipeline to estimate population trends, which handles different data types and protocol specificities, and goes beyond linear population trends by considering multiple time periods and visualizing non-linear dynamics. In addition to introducing the methodology and making it available, we ran this pipeline to produce population trends for 148 bird and 181 plant species in France, based on abundance data from STOC (French Breeding Bird Survey) and occurrence data from Vigie-flore schemes. Results show as many increasing as decreasing bird population trends over the past 23 years, and a tendency for more decreasing than increasing plant population trends over the past 15 years, thereby revealing significant changes in community composition. Specifically, for birds, most habitat generalist species showed stable or increasing population trends, while most habitat specialist species showed stable or decreasing population trends, suggesting biotic homogenization. This pipeline and first analyses provide an unprecedented overview of bird and plant population trends, and contribute to the production of biodiversity indicators based on open science and reproducible research.

**Keywords.** Data analysis pipeline, Citizen-science, Biodiversity monitoring, Population trends, Baseline, Plants, Birds.

*Manuscript received 7 July 2024, revised 3 March 2025 and 30 April 2025, accepted 7 July 2025.*

<footnote><sup>a</sup> MNHN - CESCO, 43 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Paul Sabatier University - Toulouse III - EDB Lab, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Human-induced pressures are at the root of the on-going environmental crisis (Ceballos, Ehrlich, et al., 2015), which results in strong biodiversity losses in many taxa, including birds (BirdLife International, 2022; Inger et al., 2015), insects (Hallmann et al., 2017), mammals (Ceballos and Ehrlich, 2002) and plants (Vellend et al., 2017; Jandt et al., 2022), and also has consequences for ecosystem functioning (Bies-meijer et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2019). To deal with this situation, policymakers try to provide guidelines to take action against the current biodiversity crisis. For instance, the recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets four strategic goals and 23 targets to mitigate biodiversity loss by 2050 (CBD, 2022). In particular, the first set of targets aims at *re-ducing threats to biodiversity*, with Target 4 specifi-cally highlighting the need to “ensure urgent man-agement actions to halt human-induced extinction of known threatened species and for the recovery and conservation of species, in particular threatened species, [and] to significantly reduce extinction risk”. This requires the identification of species whose pop-ulations are declining and careful monitoring of the conservation status of threatened species.

To fulfill these goals, there is an urgent need to re-inforce our knowledge of the current state and dy-namics of biodiversity, as well as to develop reliable indicators that quantify and qualify trajectories in biodiversity changes. These indicators must encap-sulate complex phenomena in a simple, understand-able, and non-ambiguous way, be easy to communi-cate, ecologically relevant, sensitive to changes, and possess suitable mathematical properties, especially high precision and absence of bias (Gregory Richard et al., 2005; Van Strien et al., 2012). In view of these characteristics, estimated temporal trends in species abundance or occurrence have been proposed as rel-evant indicators at the population scale (Pereira et al., 2013). However, many methodological choices in the production of these trends remain arbitrary and vary significantly across observatories, which can lead to inconsistencies and hinder their comparability (Dor-nelas et al., 2013; Toszogyova et al., 2024).

The estimation of temporal trends relies on long-term monitoring of species abundance or occurrence. Such data are difficult to collect, especially at large spatial scales, because of the required sampling

effort and associated costs. One way to tackle this issue is to use citizen-based monitoring programs, which rely on non-professional volunteers to collect biodiversity data using standardized protocols. This approach has multiple benefits, including lowering the costs (Levrel et al., 2010; Theobald et al., 2015), expanding the spatial coverage, while also developing public engagement regarding conservation matters (Deguines et al., 2020; Pocock et al., 2018).

Although concerns have been raised regarding the reliability of citizen-based data, with a focus on knowledge gaps between participants and variations in sampling effort over time and space (Dickinson et al., 2010), there are now recommendations on the most suitable monitoring frameworks for temporal trend estimation (Pescott, Walker, et al., 2015) and on statistical tools that facilitate data analysis while possibly accounting for those biases (Pannekoek and Van Strien, 2005). This may explain the success of such programs, measured by the number of scientific studies derived from citizen science (Cooper et al., 2014; Fraisl, Hager, et al., 2022) as well as the development of citizen-based spatial and temporal indicators (e.g., UK plant atlas or European Common Bird Indicator) that are used by local and international institutions (Chandler et al., 2017; Fraisl, Campbell, et al., 2020).

In France, Vigie-Nature is a citizen science program that offers multiple schemes for volunteers to observe and monitor biodiversity, depending on their knowledge and taxa of interest (http://www.vigienature.fr; Julliard, 2017). The French Breeding Bird Survey (called STOC, the French acronym for Suivi Temporel des Oiseaux Communs), which focuses on common bird monitoring by skilled volunteer ornithologists, is one of the oldest schemes (created in 1989). It is already used both nationally and across Europe to inform on trends in bird populations, depending on habitat specialization (Fontaine et al., 2020). Vigie-flore is a more recent scheme that started in 2009, involving a large community of skilled volunteer botanists to record the presence of vascular plants. Although no population trends have yet been estimated from this monitoring program, it has been used to assess the effects of climate change on plant community composition (Martin et al., 2019).

The production of annual population trends is expected by funding institutions, NGOs involved in
biodiversity conservation, and participants. Furthermore, population abundances and their trends are part of the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBV) used to set IUCN conservation statuses; they should hence be produced using open, robust and reproducible statistical methodologies. Some tools already exist for producing population trends based on count data, like the one in (Pannekoek and Van Strien, 2005), and are commonly used for taxa such as birds (see the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS) [https://pecbms.info]). However, they are not yet suitable for analyzing occurrence data, such as those obtained from plant monitoring in Vigie-flore. Beyond the choice of relevant statistical approaches, producing population trends from citizen science data involves fundamental steps of data processing that need to be standardized and made available.

Here, we present the analysis pipeline we developed to estimate population trends, handling various data types (such as counts and presence/absence), and taking into account the protocol specificities of each monitoring scheme. We also present the resulting species population trends for 148 common bird and 181 common plant species in France, based on data collected through the STOC and Vigie-flore monitoring schemes over the past 35 and 15 years, respectively. We further introduce new criteria for trend characterization and classification. Finally, we provide new graphical representations of results to improve outreach, from understanding uncertainty to non-linearity.

## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Data

#### 2.1.1. Bird abundance monitoring scheme

Bird abundance data were produced by the STOC, a citizen science scheme that has been monitoring common birds in France since 1989. This program relies on a network of skilled volunteer ornithologists who are assigned a 2 × 2 km square sampled from a systematic grid. Each square contains 10 counting points that are representative of the habitats found within the square. Each year, volunteers record all bird individuals seen or heard during five minutes at each of these counting points. Each year, there are two recording sessions during the breeding period, separated by four to six weeks. The early session is

held before May 8th to sample the early singing birds, and the late session is held after May 8th, to sample the late migrants. To record only birds that are actual breeders on the monitoring sites, the migratory species that are still on their way to Northern Europe at that time (yellow wagtail *Motacilla flava*, whinchat *Saxicola rubetra*, meadow pipit *Anthus pratinensis*, northern wheatear *Oenanthe oenanthe*, willow warbler *Phylloscopus trochilus* and fieldfare *Turdus pilaris*) are excluded from the dataset of the first session. Recording sessions must occur between one and four hours after sunrise and must be repeated around the same dates every year.

The STOC protocol changed in 2001: before this date, squares were chosen by volunteers. Since 2001, they have been randomly assigned within a 10 km buffer around a location provided by volunteers. This sampling design is more representative of habitats across France. Also, the number of counting points per square ranged from five to 15 before 2001, but was fixed to 10 afterwards. Finally, the number of mandatory visits per square and year increased from one to two in 2001. A full description of the protocol is available on the Vigie-Nature website [http://www.vigienature.fr]. Due to this change in protocol, we generally discarded the 1989–2000 data, except for the estimation of an historical trend (see below).

We analyzed bird counts at the year and square levels. For each year, species, and counting point, we retained the maximum number of individuals recorded over the two sessions, and then summed these values for all points within a square. This sum was used as a proxy for the species abundance in a given square and year.

As volunteers are, by definition, free to join and quit the monitoring program at any time, squares were monitored over a variable number of years. Over the 1989–2023 period of interest, 886 squares (24%) were monitored for a single year, and on average squares have been monitored for 5.9 years. For the analysis, we only retained squares that were visited for at least two years, as squares monitored for a single year are not informative for population trends. This led to a total of 21 010 visits of 2815 squares, of which 1134 visits of 184 squares occurred before the 2001 change in protocol.

We analyzed the 148 most common species, defined as species observed in at least five squares per year on average. As only presence (and abundance)
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Grouping of the CLC 44 land-use classes into five broad classes</caption><thead><tr><th>Broad classes</th><th>Original 44 classes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Forest cover</td><td>Level 3.1-Forests (<i>3 classes</i>)<br>Level 3.2-Shrub and/or herbaceous vegetation associations (<i>4 classes</i>)</td></tr><tr><td>Agricultural cover</td><td>Level 2-Agricultural areas (<i>11 classes</i>)</td></tr><tr><td>Urban cover</td><td>Level 1-Artificial surfaces (<i>11 classes</i>)</td></tr><tr><td>Water cover</td><td>Level 4-Wetland (<i>5 classes</i>)<br>Level 5-Water bodies (<i>5 classes</i>)</td></tr><tr><td>Other covers</td><td>Level 3.3-Open spaces with little or no vegetation (<i>5 classes</i>)</td></tr></tbody></table>

data are registered by volunteers, we reconstructed absence data using the following procedure: a species observed at least one year in a square was assigned an abundance of zero for all years in which the species was not recorded, although the square was monitored.

### 2.1.2. Plant sampling protocol

Plant occurrence data were produced by Vigie-flore, a French citizen science program that monitors wild flora in France since 2009. This program relies on a network of skilled volunteer botanists who are randomly assigned a 1 × 1 km square sampled from a systematic grid. Each square contains eight systematically distributed 10 m² plots, which consist of 10 contiguous quadrats of 1 m². Each year, volunteers record all vascular plant species that are present in each quadrat. The proportion of quadrats in which a species is observed (species frequency) is used as a proxy for its abundance in each plot. The monitoring period is chosen depending on the square location: squares located in the Mediterranean biogeographical region are monitored between April 1st and May 31st; those located in continental or Atlantic regions are monitored between June and July; and squares located in areas with an elevation above 1000 meters (alpine region) are monitored between July and August. A full description of the protocol is available on the Vigie-Nature website [http://www.vigienature.fr].

For the same reasons as for the bird dataset, squares were monitored for a variable number of years: 277 squares (41.6%) were monitored for a single year, and, on average, squares were monitored for four years. For the analysis, we retained squares that were visited for more than one year, meaning 2339 visits of 388 squares.

We analyzed the 181 most common species, defined as species observed in at least ten squares per year on average. This threshold was set higher than that for birds to compensate for the lower precision of presence/absence data regarding count data. Absences were reconstructed using the same methodology as for the bird dataset.

### 2.1.3. Land cover data

We characterized land cover on Vigie-flore plots and STOC squares using the CORINE Land Cover (CLC) inventory (Bossard et al., 2000), which relies on visual interpretation of high-resolution satellite imagery to classify land cover into 44 classes. Four updates were made in 2000, 2006, 2012 and 2018. STOC squares and Vigie-flore plots were thus associated with the closest previous CLC update: CLC 2018 for squares and plots visited since 2018, CLC 2012 for squares and plots visited between 2012 and 2018 (excluded), and so on.

We categorized the 44 land cover classes into five broad classes: forest, agricultural, urban, water and other land cover (see Table 1). For the bird dataset, land cover was characterized through the percent cover of each of the five broad classes found in a 1 km buffer around the center of each STOC square. The percentage of agricultural cover was removed from the analysis to avoid multicollinearity in models, as all percentages sum to 100. For the plant dataset, land cover was characterized through a five-class variable corresponding to the major land cover (i.e., land cover with the largest area) found within a 5-meter buffer around the center of each Vigie-flore plot. This buffer size was chosen so that land cover could be described locally. The choice of a categorical variable is justified by the negligible number
<table><caption>**Table 2.** Variables included as fixed effects in the models for trend estimation</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables name</th><th>Type</th><th>Description</th><th>STOC</th><th>Vigie-flore</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Year</td><td>int</td><td>Observation year</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Forest_cover</td><td>num</td><td>Percent forest cover</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Urban_cover</td><td>num</td><td>Percent urban cover</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water_cover</td><td>num</td><td>Percent water cover</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other_cover</td><td>num</td><td>Percent other covers (excluding agricultural cover)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Longitude</td><td>num</td><td>Longitude coordinates, treated as a 2nd order polynomial</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Latitude</td><td>num</td><td>Latitude coordinates, treated as a 2nd order polynomial</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Longlat</td><td>num</td><td>Interaction between longitude and latitude coordinates</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Elevation</td><td>int</td><td>Elevation</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Date</td><td>int</td><td>Date of observation, in a Julian date format</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Visit</td><td>char</td><td>Recording session (three categories: early session, late session, both sessions)</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

of plots with multiple land cover classes within the buffer.

## 2.2. Estimation of temporal trends in bird abundance or in plant probability of occurrence

### 2.2.1. Population trends estimation

For each species in the plant and bird datasets, we estimated a linear population trend over the entire monitoring period (2001–2023 for birds and 2009–2023 for plants), as well as a linear population trend over the last ten years (2014–2023). To do so, we fitted a generalized linear mixed model for each species, using the R package glmmTMB (Brooks et al., 2017), following previous work on similar datasets (Sauer and Link, 2011). Covariates were introduced to correct for possible biases in trend estimation, following a variable selection procedure based on Bayesian Information Criteria (Supplementary material “Variable Selection Procedure”). For the plant dataset, the only covariate retained was the observation date, in a Julian date format. For the bird dataset, the recording session was included as a three-level variable: early session, late session or both sessions. Land cover (described above) was also retained. For collinearity matters, we excluded agricultural cover. Finally, elevation was also added as a fixed effect, as well as longitude and latitude, which were both treated as 2nd order polynomial effects, and their interaction (see Table 2).

Random effects were also introduced in those models, to take dependence among observations into account. This dependence is mostly due to repeated observations in the same squares and/or by the same volunteers. For birds, we included a random intercept for squares nested within administrative départements. For plants, we included a random intercept for plots nested within squares, as well as a random intercept for volunteers. For both datasets, we also added a random effect of plots on the slope of the year effect.

For bird abundance, we used a negative binomial distribution with a quadratic parametrization as well as a log link function, designed to handle overdispersion in count data. For plant occurrence, we used a beta-binomial distribution with a clog-log link function, designed to handle overdispersion in presence/absence data.

### 2.2.2. Annual variations

To estimate annual variations in bird abundance and plant occurrence, we fitted a generalized linear mixed model with similar specifications as above, but with two major changes. First, the variable *year* was treated as a categorical variable rather than a continuous variable. This allows for the estimation of the difference in mean abundance between each year and a reference level. This reference level is usually set to the abundance of the first year, but due to the low number of observations during the first
year of both monitoring schemes, we set the reference level to the mean abundance across all years, thus avoiding convergence issues. Second, as year is treated as a categorical variable, the models did not include random slopes for the year effect across squares/plots.

For visualization and communication purposes, we smoothed annual variations by fitting a generalized additive mixed model (GAMM), using the R package mgcv (Wood, 2017). Following (Fewster et al., 2000), the number of knots k was set to 30% of the time series, thus authorizing a changepoint every three years on average. As smoothing was used for illustrative purposes, we simplified the model specifications by removing random slopes. Also, due to restrictions on implemented distribution laws, we used a quasi-binomial distribution law to model plant occurrences, which also accounts for overdispersion in presence/absence data.

### 2.2.3. Historical trends

For each species in the bird dataset, we also estimated a linear population trend over the monitoring period that covers both protocols (1989–2023), thus adding historical data collected with the 1989–2001 protocol. Due to changes in protocol and a smaller number of observations before 2001, we simplified the model calibrated on the 2001–2023 period and used different covariates from those described above. First, proportions of water cover and other covers were removed from the covariates. Because the number of monitoring points was variable before 2001, we included it as a covariate in the model. We used the log number of monitoring points to keep proportionality between the number of points and abundance despite the log link function. To account for differences in protocols before and after 2001, we added the corresponding two-class variable as a fixed effect. Finally, recording sessions in the early protocol were not repeated twice, and no information on the timing of the single session was available (early or late session in the description of the bird monitoring protocol). To incorporate this information into the model nonetheless, we randomly assigned a timing for the recording session of each site visited before 2001 (early or late session, both with probability 0.5). This timing of sessions was fixed across the years. Finally, random effects were the same as above.

### 2.2.4. Uncertainty curves

To better communicate on uncertainty, we relied on (Pescott, Stroh, et al., 2022) who suggest the use of ensemble lines to represent a range of possible trajectories that are compatible with medium-term and short-term trends. For each species s, an ensemble line was built using the following procedure:

* Relative abundance means $\beta_s = (\beta_s^1, \beta_s^2, \dots, \beta_s^n)$ and standard errors $se_s = (se_s^1, se_s^2, \dots, se_s^n)$ associated with each year $i = \{1, \dots, n\}$ were extracted from annual variation models;

* We drew 100 simulated sets of yearly relative abundance estimates $X_{j,s} = (x_{j,s}^1, x_{j,s}^2, \dots, x_{j,s}^n)$, $j = \{1, \dots, 100\}$ from a normal distribution with the following parametrization: $X_{j,s} \sim N(\beta_s, se_s)$;

* For each simulated set of estimates, a linear regression was fitted;

* Intercepts and slopes were then extracted from each of these regressions to draw a line ensemble that shows 100 possible trajectories.

### 2.2.5. Trends classification

For each species s, the estimated temporal trends in abundance/occurrence $\beta_s^{year}$ were converted to growth rates, as follows: $GR_s = \exp(\beta_s^{year})$. The standard errors associated with the trend estimates, $se_s^{year}$, were used to infer the lower ($GR_s^{inf}$) and upper bounds ($GR_s^{sup}$) of the growth rate confidence interval:

$$GR_s^{inf} = \exp(\beta_s^{year} - 1.96 \times se_s^{year});$$

$$GR_s^{sup} = \exp(\beta_s^{year} + 1.96 \times se_s^{year}).$$

We relied on the IUCN Red List framework to classify trends into different categories. We specifically used the A2 criterion that states a species should be treated as vulnerable in case of “an observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of ≥30% over the last ten years or three generations, whichever is the longest, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible [...]” (IUCN, 2012).

Therefore, we used as lower (resp. upper) limits of our classification scheme, growth rates that matched a decline (resp. increase) of more than 30% in ten
years, as lower (resp. upper) limits of our classification scheme. That is: $GR_{lower_lim} = 0.961$ and $GR_{upper_lim} = 1.030$. This yielded the exclusive categories that can be found in Figure 1.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Figure 1.** Linear-trend classification depending on estimated growth rates. (a) Strong increase: the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than the upper limit ($GR_s^{inf} > GR_{upper_lim}$); (b) Moderate to strong increase: the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1 (significant increase) and the growth rate is larger than the upper limit ($1 < GR_s^{inf} < GR_{upper_lim}$ and $GR_s > GR_{upper_lim}$); (c) Moderate increase: the lower limit of the confidence interval is larger than 1 (significant increase) and the upper bound of the confidence interval is smaller than the upper limit ($1 < GR_s^{inf}$ and $GR_s^{sup} < GR_{upper_lim}$); (d) Stable: the confidence interval encloses 1 (no significant trend) and is included within the interval [$GR_{lower_lim}$; $GR_{upper_lim}$]; (e) Moderate decline: the upper bound of the confidence interval is smaller than 1 (significant decline) and the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than the lower limit; (f) Moderate to strong decline: the upper bound of the confidence interval is smaller than 1 (significant decline) and the growth rate is smaller than the lower limit ($GR_{lower_lim} > GR_s$ and $GR_s^{sup} < 1$); (g) Strong decline: the upper bound of the confidence interval is smaller than the lower limit ($GR_s^{sup} < GR_{lower_lim}$); (h) Uncertain: the confidence interval encloses 1 (no significant trend) and encloses either $GR_{lower_lim}$ or $GR_{upper_lim}$.

### 2.2.6. Population trends within habitat specialization groups

To better understand variations in species trends, we examined population trends within habitat specialization categories, sensu (Jiguet et al., 2012). We distinguished trends in generalist, rural specialist, farmland specialist, urban specialist, and other common species, hereafter referred to as “others” (Tables 3 and 4; Supplementary material “Habitat Specialization”).

### 2.2.7. Code and data availability

The data and the R code used for the presented analysis is available at https://zenodo.org/records/14957111. As the code is under continuous development, the most up-to-date version of the code is available at https://outils-patrinat.mnhn.fr/gitlab/vigie-nature/tendances/indicatorroutine.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Bird species population trends

The estimation of bird population trends over the 2001–2023 period converged for 146 out of 148 species. The estimated trends in abundance range from -0.093 (95% confidence interval: CI = [-0.109; -0.076]) for the European tree sparrow *Passer montanus*, corresponding to an annual growth rate of 0.911 (CI = [0.897; 0.926]), to 0.206 (CI = [0.169; 0.242]) for the rose-ringed parakeet *Psittacula krameria* i.e., an annual growth rate of 1.229 (CI = [1.184; 1.274]). These extremes represent respectively a mean decrease in abundance of 87.1% and a mean increase in abundance of 9188% over the 23-year monitoring period.

Regarding population trend classification, more than one third of trends over the 23-year period are classified either as “stable” (38 species) or “uncertain” (19 species), see Figure 2. Declining and increasing trends are evenly distributed, with 43 species showing increasing population trends, while 46 species population trends are classified as declining. Regarding the intensity of increase (resp. decline), the majority of species (25 out of 43) was associated with population trends classified as “moderately increasing” (resp. “moderately decreasing”, 30 out of 46). All species estimated trends and classifications over the 2001–2023 period are available in Appendix 1.
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Partitioning of bird long-term trends (2001–2023) within the different habitat specialization categories</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Generalists</th><th>Farmland specialists</th><th>Forest specialists</th><th>Urban specialists</th><th>Other species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Strong increase</th><td>7.1% (1)</td><td>0%</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>12.7% (9)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate to strong increase</th><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>0%</td><td>7% (5)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate increase</th><td>21.4% (3)</td><td>16.7% (4)</td><td>25% (6)</td><td>30.8% (4)</td><td>11.3% (8)</td></tr><tr><th>Stable</th><td>50% (7)</td><td>37.5% (9)</td><td>16.7% (4)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>23.9% (17)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate decline</th><td>21.4% (3)</td><td>20.8% (5)</td><td>41.7% (10)</td><td>30.8% (4)</td><td>11.3% (8)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate to strong decline</th><td>0%</td><td>8.3% (2)</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>7% (5)</td></tr><tr><th>Strong decline</th><td>0%</td><td>12.5% (3)</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>15.4% (2)</td><td>1.4% (1)</td></tr><tr><th>Uncertain</th><td>0%</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>25.4% (18)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Partitioning of the short-term trends (2014–2023) within the different habitat specialization categories</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Generalists</th><th>Farmland specialists</th><th>Forest specialists</th><th>Urban specialists</th><th>Other species</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Strong increase</th><td>7.1% (1)</td><td>12.5% (3)</td><td>8.7% (2)</td><td>15.4% (2)</td><td>19.4% (14)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate to strong increase</th><td>0%</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>8.7% (2)</td><td>15.4% (2)</td><td>11.1% (8)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate increase</th><td>35.7% (5)</td><td>12.5% (3)</td><td>20.9% (5)</td><td>28.6% (4)</td><td>0%</td></tr><tr><th>Stable</th><td>28.6% (4)</td><td>16.7% (4)</td><td>17.4% (4)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>6.9% (5)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate decline</th><td>28.6% (4)</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>20.9% (5)</td><td>28.6% (4)</td><td>6.9% (5)</td></tr><tr><th>Moderate to strong decline</th><td>0%</td><td>20.8% (5)</td><td>8.7% (2)</td><td>0%</td><td>9.7% (7)</td></tr><tr><th>Strong decline</th><td>0%</td><td>4.2% (1)</td><td>8.7% (2)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>1.4% (1)</td></tr><tr><th>Uncertain</th><td>0%</td><td>25% (6)</td><td>8.7% (2)</td><td>7.7% (1)</td><td>44.4% (32)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Over the shorter 2014–2023 period, model convergence was achieved for 145 out of 148 species. Trend estimates over the last ten years range from –0.169 (CI = [–0.215; –0.124]) for the Eurasian tree sparrow *Passer montanus*, corresponding to an annual growth rate of 0.844 (CI = [0.807; 0.883]), to 0.291 (CI = [0.184; 0.398]) for the western cattle egret *Bubulcus ibis*, i.e. an annual growth rate of 1.338 (CI = [1.20Z; 1.489]). These extremes represented respectively a decrease of 78.2% and an increase of 1274% over the ten-year monitoring period. Standard errors for these trend estimates are on average 0.0191, which is more than two times larger than for trend estimates over the 2001–2023 period (0.0079).

Patterns of trend classification are similar for the last ten years and for the 23-year period (Figure 2). A little more than a third of trends over the last ten years are classified as either “stable” (18 species) or “uncertain” (41 species), though we note an increase in the

number of uncertain trends that is consistent with both the decrease in the available number of observations and the resulting increase in standard errors. As for the 23-year period, declining and increasing trends are evenly distributed (50 increasing species population trends against 38 declining). However, moderate trends tend to be less frequent, with 17 “moderately increasing” species population trends (resp. 19 “moderately decreasing” trends) compared to the 23-year period. Also, in the last ten years, there has been a reinforcement of species with a strong increase in abundance (from 12 to 22 species) and no such change regarding strong declines in abundance (from seven to five species). All species estimated trends and classifications over the 2014–2023 period are available in Appendix 2.

Estimating linear trends over a long period (2001–2023), however, masks more complex temporal patterns in abundance, which can be uncovered
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Bird population estimated growth rates and trend classification for the 2001–2023 (A and B) and the 2014–2023 (C and D) periods. In panels A and C, error bars around bird population estimated growth rates represent 95% confidence intervals. Histograms on panels B and D indicate the number of bird species per class of population trend.</figcaption></figure>

by comparing long (2001–2023) vs. shorter (2014–2023) term trends, or more finely by examining the non-linear patterns illustrated by the outputs of the GAMM (Appendix 6). Looking at the changes in trend classification between the 2001–2023 and the 2014–2023 periods for the 125 species for which models converged for both periods and for which trends were not “uncertain” in both periods (Figure 3), we found that species frequently changed trend classes across the two periods, sometimes with a change in the direction of the trend, or with a jump of one or more classes (e.g., from “moderate increase” to “strong increase”). These changes thus covered a variety of situations, from accelerated declines (e.g. the Wood warbler *Phylloscopus sibilatrix*) to recent recoveries, e.g. the Goldfinch *Carduelis carduelis*, or Cetti’s warbler *Cettia cetti*, for which the temporal trends in abundance produced by the GAMM are strongly non-linear (Figure 4). For Cetti’s warbler, examining the 2001–2023 linear trend thus says nothing of the initial decline between 2001 and

2012. Finally, some species show no change in trend classes between the two periods, as is the case with the long-term stability of the Carrion crow *Corvus corone* (Figure 4).

An absence of classification change in estimated population trends is not equivalent to an absence of absolute change in estimated population trends. For example, though the Eurasian golden oriole *Oriolus oriolus* population trend is classified as “moderately increasing” for both periods, the estimated annual growth rate increased from 1.005 to 1.029 (see Appendix 1 and 2), suggesting a recent stronger increase for this species. However, studying all changes in estimated trends between 2001–2023 and 2014–2023, we found that differences in estimates are centered around 0, with a slightly positive mean difference of $8.68 \times 10^{-3}$ (CI = [3.33 $\times$ 10$^{-3}$; 1.40 $\times$ 10$^{-2}$]) corresponding to a mean ratio of 1.0087 (CI = [1.0033; 1.0141]).

Looking at population trends within groups of species habitat specialization, we notice that, for the
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Alluvial plot showing the relationships between bird population trends over the 2001–2023 and the 2014–2023 periods. Each ribbon corresponds to a bird species. Five species for which a model did not converge for one of the periods and 18 species with uncertain trends for both periods (i.e., transitions from “Uncertain” to “Uncertain”) were not represented to improve readability.</figcaption></figure>

2001–2023 period, most habitat generalist species show “stable” (50%) or “moderately increasing” (21.4%) population trends, with no strong declines recorded. In contrast, forest specialists display a high proportion of populations with declining trends (50%), relatively few with stable trends (16.7%) but still a substantial proportion whose trends are increasing (33.3%). Urban specialists show a similar bimodal pattern, with 54% of species displaying declining trends, while 38.5% display increasing trends. The majority of farmland specialist species populations are declining (41.6%) or stable (37.5%) with relatively few increasing population trends (16.7% moderately increasing, and no strong increase).

These patterns slightly differ over the shorter 2014–2023 period (Table 4), with more numerous strongly increasing population trends among

farmland specialist species, and a larger number of uncertain trends, particularly among “other” species.

When adding historical data collected from 1989 to 2001 with a different protocol (see methods) to estimate population trends over the period covering both protocols (1989–2023), model convergence was achieved for 107 species only (Appendix 3). The estimated trends in abundance are very similar to the ones obtained for the 2001–2023 period, with a mean difference of $-2.02 \times 10^{-4}$ (CI = [-7.94 × 10⁻⁴; 3.90 × 10⁻²]) and a maximum absolute difference of $1.51 \times 10^{-2}$. This is almost ten times less than the maximum difference observed between the 2001–2023 and the 2014–2023 periods ($1.37 \times 10^{-1}$), suggesting that observations made before 2001 contribute only marginally to the 1989–2023 estimated trends, mainly due to their scarcity compared to the amount of data collected since 2001.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.** Examples of temporal trends in abundance for four bird species. The orange line corresponds to the temporal trend smoothed over the 2001–2023 period, with the orange ribbon representing uncertainty. Orange dots correspond to ratios of abundance between each year and the reference year. Blue and red lines correspond to uncertainty associated with the population trend estimated over the 2001–2023 period (resp. 2014–2023 period). Blue and red numbers on the left of the plot indicate the estimated annual growth rate for the 2001–2023 period (resp. 2014–2023 period). Stars on the right of the plot specify the significance of these estimates.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.1.1. *Plant species population trends*

The estimation of plant population trends over the 2009–2023 period reached convergence for all 181 plant species. These trend estimates ranged from –0.106 (CI = [–0.197; –0.015]) for the common box Buxus sempervirens corresponding to a growth rate of 0.899 (CI = [0.821; 0.984]), to 0.100 (CI = [0.053; 0.147]) for the dandelion Taraxacum officinale corresponding to a growth rate of 1.105 (CI = [1.055; 1.158]). These extremes represented respectively a decrease of 77.4% and an increase of 307.7% over the 15-year monitoring period. Standard errors for these trend estimates were on average 0.0256, which is about three times larger than for bird species.

Most plant species trends over the 15-year period were classified as “uncertain” (126 species), i.e., the estimation was not precise enough to conclude for 70% of species. For the remaining species, we observed fewer increasing than declining population trends (respectively 15 and 32 species) as well as an over-representation of trends categorized as “moderately to strongly” increasing (9 species) or declining (23 species). All species estimated trends and classifications over the 2009–2023 period are available in Appendix 4.

Turning to the estimation of plant population trends over the last ten years, model convergence was achieved for all 178 species out of 181 (Figure 5).
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 5.** Plant population trend estimates and classification for the 2009–2023 (A and B) and the 2014–2023 (C and D) periods. In panels A and C, error bars associated with plant population trend estimates represent 95% confidence intervals. Histograms on panels B and D indicate the number of plant species per class of population trend.</figcaption></figure>

These trend estimates over the last ten years ranged from -0.209 (CI = [-0.300; -0.117]) for the tor-grass *Brachypodium pinnatum* corresponding to an annual growth rate of 0.811 (CI = [0.740; 0.889]), to 0.235 (CI = [0.139; 0.332]) for the dandelion *Taraxacum officinale* corresponding to an annual growth rate of 1.265 (CI = [1.149; 1.394]). These extremes represented respectively a decrease of 84.8% and an increase of 731.7% over the last ten-year monitoring period. Standard errors for these trend estimates were on average 0.0405, which is around 1.5 times larger than for trend estimates over the 2009–2023 period. All species estimated trends and classifications over the 2014–2023 period are available in Appendix 5.

The pattern obtained in terms of trend classification for the last ten years did not differ much from the one obtained for the 15-year period, except that most species population trends categorized as “stable” over the 2009–2023 period switched to “uncertain” over the last ten-year period and that some species switched from an “uncertain” trend to a

“moderate to strong increase” or “moderate to strong decline” trend (Figure 5). Yet, when comparing trend classification across the two time periods, the few changes in trend classes were diverse, as was the case for birds (Figure 6), including one accelerated increase (the English ryegrass *Lolium perenne*, Figure 7), long-term stability (e.g. blackberry, *Rubus fruticosus*, Figure 7) or transition to “uncertain” trends (e.g. The Traveller’s Joy *Clematis vitalba*, Figure 7). As for birds, the smoothed non-linear trends uncover finer temporal patterns (Appendix 7), such as the recent decline in a species population that appeared to be formerly stable over long- and short-term trends (*Buxus sempervirens*, Figure 7).

## 4. Discussion

In this paper, we present an analysis pipeline for estimating the population trends of multiple species across different taxa and time periods. This pipeline complements existing tools, in particular TRIM 3
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6.** Alluvial plot showing the relationships between plant population trends over the 2009–2023 and the 2014–2023 periods. Each ribbon corresponds to a plant species. To improve readability, the 106 species with uncertain trends for both periods (i.e., transitions from “uncertain” to “uncertain”) were not represented.</figcaption></figure>

(Pannekoek and Van Strien, 2005), by being more versatile for various data types, including occurrence data. We demonstrate this in our analysis of plant species. While we did not implement all TRIM 3 features, such as observation weighting, or missing data imputation, we leveraged mixed models and the glmmTMB package (Brooks et al., 2017), offering users flexibility in model parametrization. We also focused on result visualization and interpretation, proposing new graphical representations of population trends that include a trend over the entire period of the data, a trend over the last ten years, and a smoothed trend to capture non-linear or even non-monotonous patterns. These figures are automatically generated for each species if models converge. Drawing from the IUCN Red List framework (IUCN, 2012) and the PECBMS classification, we developed a seven-class categorization that is better

suited for temporal trend analysis. Our classification is more sensitive to uncertainty and reduces the risk of biologically irrelevant abrupt category changes. Finally, for transparency, we saved all raw models and main results in tables, so that users can access them beyond visual representations.

## 4.1. Overview of population trends in birds and plants

The analysis pipeline that we propose uses data from citizen science monitoring schemes targeting bird and plant species, and provides an unprecedented overview of the current dynamics of common biodiversity in France. While annual bird population trends were already produced from the same dataset using TRIM 3 (Fontaine et al., 2020), this is the first time that plant population trends have
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 7.** Examples of temporal trends in abundance for four plant species. The orange line corresponds to the temporal trend smoothed over the 2009–2023 period, with the orange ribbon representing uncertainty. Orange dots correspond to ratios of abundance between each year and the reference year. Blue and red lines correspond to uncertainty associated with the population trend estimated over the 2009–2023 period (resp. 2014–2023 period). Blue and red numbers on the left of the plot indicate the estimated annual growth rate for the 2009–2023 period (resp. 2014–2023 period). Stars on the right of the plot specify the significance of these estimates.</figcaption></figure>

been made available. Looking at the population trends over the entire monitoring periods (2001–2023 for birds and 2009–2023 for plants), we found almost as many bird species with declining populations as those with increasing ones, and slightly more plant species with declining populations than with increasing ones. For bird species, these results may appear to contrast with recent studies highlighting bird abundance decline in Europe or France (Lehikoinen et al., 2019; Rigal, Dakos, et al., 2023). Such studies usually tend to focus on smaller sets of bird species consisting of habitat specialists (e.g. farmland, woodland, or mountain species), for which

it is worth noting that we also found a majority of declining trends (Tables 3 and 4). In contrast, our analysis covers all common bird species in France, including habitat generalists and exotic species with population sizes that are known to be mostly stable or increasing (Le Viol et al., 2012), similarly to what we found. Such a pattern of habitat generalist species showing increasing populations while habitat specialist species show declining ones is consistent with biotic homogenization (Devictor et al., 2008). However, our results further show that habitat specialization alone does not explain the variations in bird population trends. Indeed, although
we found that 11 out of 14 habitat generalist bird species had stable or increasing populations, the remaining three species showed declining abundances (Dunnock *Prunella modularis*, Green woodpecker *Picus viridis* and Common cuckoo *Cuculus canorus*; see Appendix 1 and Supplementary material “Habitat Specialization”). Similarly, among habitat specialist species, 29 show decreasing trends (e.g. Meadow pipit *Anthus pratensis* or Tree sparrow *Passer montanus*), but 17 population trends are classified as increasing (e.g. Jackdaw *Corvus monedula* or Hawfinch *Coccothraustes coccothraustes*) and 14 as stable (e.g. Hoopoe *Upupa epops* or Kestrel *Falco tinnunculus*). These results therefore suggest that we need to go beyond habitat specialization to fully understand bird population trends. We should consider other potential response traits, such as trophic specialization (Bowler et al., 2019).

An important caveat when interpreting temporal trends is that they might be sensitive to changes in species detectability that are associated with their life cycles. Thus, a change in phenology, which has already been highlighted for birds (Romano et al., 2023) and for plants (Piao et al., 2019), could lead to the detection of a temporal trend in detectability, instead of an actual temporal change in abundance or occurrence. To be precise, because the STOC protocol encourages recording sessions to occur around the same dates every year, a slight phenological advance or delay could lead to the detection of an increasing (resp. decreasing) trend in abundance. Yet, the potential impact of phenological changes on the resulting estimated trends could be tested by incorporating the exact recording session dates into the analysis, so as to model phenology in addition to trends in abundance. Currently, this is done for plants, although phenology might be better estimated using at least a quadratic effect on the observation date. Others have done so, such as (Schmucki et al., 2016) for butterflies or (Moussus et al., 2009) for birds.

Turning to plants, the scarcity of studies on this topic in France makes it difficult to compare our results to previous work (but see (Fried et al., 2009) for arable weeds). Nonetheless, our results are consistent with patterns observed in other countries, such as more numerous losses than gains in frequency for plants in Germany (Jandt et al., 2022). Overall, we observed that many bird and plant species exhibited either declining or increas-

ing population trends. This indicates that the composition of common bird and plant assemblages is strongly changing, a result confirming previous studies, such as (Rigal, Devictor, Gaüzère, et al., 2022) for birds and (Bühler and Roth, 2011) for plants. While several studies have documented such changes in French bird communities (e.g. Devictor et al., 2008; Lorel et al., 2021), the consequences for the composition of plant communities in France remain to be examined.

## 4.2. *Non-linearity in population dynamics*

Our analysis pipeline, by estimating linear population trends over multiple time periods, showed that trends are highly dependent on temporal depths. Indeed both the direction and speed of species' growth rates vary depending on the considered time-period. This is consistent with recent studies that point out the non-linearity of temporal trends in population abundance or occurrence, as well as the impact of the chosen time period on these estimated trends (Duchenne et al., 2022). Such non-linearities in population trends call for detailed and species-specific interpretations. For instance, the population trend of Cetti's warbler *Cettia cetti* goes from “moderate increase” in 2001–2023 to “strong increase” during the 2014–2023 period. This sedentary and insectivorous species is highly vulnerable to harsh winters. It has experienced important population collapses in the past after the 1984–1985 and 1986–1987 cold winters in France (Issa and Muller, 2015). It is likely that this species has benefited from global warming and mild winters in recent years, such that its range is shifting northward in Western Europe (Clement, 2020). However, the explanation for the differences in trends observed over longer vs. shorter time periods is not always straightforward: the changing trends of the Wood warbler *Phylloscopus sibilatrix* may be attributable to a combination of factors, including changing forest management, locally or on their wintering grounds, prey availability, and climate change; however, the exact contribution of each potential driver remains uncertain and needs to be investigated. These examples all illustrate the interest of highlighting trends in different timeframes to get a finer insight into bird population dynamics.

We are aware that our current methodology, which consists of splitting the timeline to cover either the
whole monitoring period or the last ten years, can-
not perfectly encompass the dynamics of species
populations. As a first step, we chose to illustrate
this non-linearity using generalized additive models
to calculate smoothed trends over the entire period.
One major interest of this trend representation is to
reveal complex population dynamics that cannot be
properly described using linear trends, even when
considering different time periods. For instance, the
European hoopoe *Upupa epops* is considered as "sta-
ble" with our categorization during both time pe-
riods. However, its annual variations (Appendix 6,
pp. 2) show remarkable cyclical dynamics, with a pe-
riod of seven years. This pattern could be related to
the population dynamics of one of its important prey
(Barbaro and Battisti, 2011), the pine processionary
moth *Thaumetopoea pityocampa*, whose population
outbreaks every seven to nine years in France (Li et
al., 2015). However, smoothing trends were only im-
plemented as a visual tool in the pipeline, and fur-
ther development is needed to properly characterize
and quantify this non-linearity. (Rigal, Devictor and
Dakos, 2020) for example, suggest the use of a 2nd
order polynomial regression, which allows for non-
linearity of the time effect, while still being under-
standable and biologically relevant.

4.3. *Challenges and limitations in trend estimation*

With this non-linearity in mind, and given that pres-
sures on biodiversity have started long before the
starting dates of biodiversity monitoring schemes
(Mihoub et al., 2017), one of our objectives was to
challenge our current 2001 baseline and study what
would happen if we went back further in time re-
garding bird population trends. Our results, how-
ever, were impacted by the low number of observa-
tions available before 2001, which caused trends to
be mostly driven by observations made after 2001.
This finding was illustrated by the small number
of differences observed between estimated trends
over the 1989–2023 period and the 2001–2023 pe-
riod. Such limitations related to data availability
are also highlighted by the higher uncertainty asso-
ciated with trends over the last ten years for both
bird and plant species. Similarly, the impact of sam-
pling effort was illustrated by the overall wider confi-
dence intervals observed for plant population trends

compared to those observed for birds, as well as the
high number of plant species with population trends
classified as “uncertain”. This is at least partly due
to the fact that the plant monitoring scheme is more
recent than the bird one and relies on fewer mon-
itored squares. These results emphasize the diffi-
culty of detecting very short-term changes in pop-
ulation dynamics, and the need to be thoughtful
when defining both the sampling effort and focus pe-
riod, as stated in (Rigal, Devictor and Dakos, 2020;
Duchenne et al., 2022). It also suggests that more
work need to be done to understand how each ob-
servation contributes to trend estimation and to deal
with any imbalance in sampling efforts across mon-
itoring schemes and over time. One possible solu-
tion could be to weight observations so that each year
contributes equally to the trend, which is the prin-
ciple behind the data imputation method offered by
the tool TRIM 3 (Pannekoek and Van Strien, 2005).
This idea of weighting observations depending on a
representativity criterion has also been implemented
in well-known indicators such as the Living Planet In-
dex (Westveer et al., 2022).

Another limitation comes from the data them-
selves. When trying to routinely analyze multiple
species, we aimed at combining both generic and rel-
evant model specifications. This was made difficult
by the nature of the collected data, which consists
of counts of multiple individuals at the same time,
leading volunteers to round off their observations
to the nearest ten. This is particularly true for the
bird dataset with abundance distributions showing a
higher frequency of tens, thus questioning the choice
of the underlying distribution law. To further assess
model adequacy with respect to data structure and
goodness-of-fit, we conducted diagnostic tests us-
ing the DHARMA package (Hartig, 2024). We did not
detect overdispersion issues for either plant or bird
models, indicating a good fit and the ability to han-
dle large variance with the chosen beta-binomial and
negative binomial distributions, for plants and birds,
respectively. However, we did find underdispersion
in 88 out of 181 plant species, and in approximately
one third of the bird species (56 out of 148). Notably,
the strongest underdispersion occurred in gregarious
birds. This is likely due to a stronger rounding bias in
observations (as discussed above), which may have
resulted in lower variances than expected. While un-
derdispersion leads to fewer concerns than overdis-
persion, as it tends to produce more conservative
estimates (Bolker, 2024), it still warrants considera-
tion: plant trends are notably affected by relatively
large confidence intervals. Therefore, new function-
alities and data treatments should be explored to ad-
dress this issue. One solution may be to use distribu-
tions that specifically deal with both underdispersion
and overdispersion, such as the Conway–Maxwell–
Poisson distribution or the generalized Poisson dis-
tribution for count data, and the quasi-binomial for
occurrence data. For birds, an additional step in
data processing could also be considered to correct
rounding biases, such as adding random noise to
counts.

4.4. *Applications and next steps for the pipeline*

The proposed pipeline is a valuable tool for system-
atically documenting temporal changes in the abun-
dance of common birds or plants. It provides a
proof-of-concept that can be readily adapted to other
monitoring schemes targeting diverse taxa, for which
no systematic appraisal of temporal trends may ex-
ist. In France, citizen science monitoring schemes
exist for bats (Vigie-Chiro) and butterflies (STERF),
which are two obvious candidates for such an exten-
sion. Nevertheless, several areas for improvement
have been identified. First, although the pipeline can
already handle different measures/proxies of abun-
dance, namely count and frequency data, it does not
cover biomass data, which may be frequent in insect
monitoring (see Hallmann et al., 2017) or percent-
cover data, which is common in plant monitoring.
The handling of such data can, however, be eas-
ily implemented in the pipeline, as it requires stan-
dard linear mixed models with a Gaussian distribu-
tion. Second, the thresholds used to classify species
into categories of temporal trends, from strong de-
cline to strong increase, were directly inspired by
the IUCN categories, but may need to be tailored to
the specificities of each taxonomic group. Indeed,
IUCN categories may be operational for groups for
which count data are easily collected (large animals
such as birds and mammals), but they may be less
relevant for other groups with different abundance
measurements and fewer data, such as plants. This
would reduce the number of species in the “uncer-
tain” category and provide a better vision of the cur-
rent dynamics of biodiversity across multiple taxo-

nomic groups. Finally, to make the graphical outputs
of the pipeline accessible to a wide audience, a solu-
tion could be to exploit R functionalities, such as the
RShiny package (Chang et al., 2025), which is espe-
cially adapted to online sharing with an interactive
user interface. By connecting our routine to a web
application, users could update graphics depending
on the selection of species, temporal frames or even
relevant thresholds.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all the volunteers who collected
data for the STOC and Vigie-flore schemes, without
whom these analyses and insights on bird and plant
population dynamics would not have been possible.
We also thank Luc Barbaro for his hypotheses on the
population dynamics of the Eurasian hoopoe.

Declaration of interests

The authors do not work for, advise, own shares in, or
receive funds from any organization that would ben-
efit from this article, and have declared no affiliation
other than their research organizations.

**Supplementary materials**

Appendixes 1 to 7 and supplementary materials are
available on the journal's website under https://doi.
org/10.5802/crbiol.184 or from the author.

**References**

Barbaro, L. and A. Battisti, “Birds as predators of the pine processionary moth (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae)”, *Biol. Control* **56** (2011), no. 2, pp. 107–114.

Biesmeijer, J. C., S. P. Roberts, M. Reemer, et al., “Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands”, *Science* **313** (2006), no. 5785, pp. 351–354.

BirdLife International, *State of the World's Birds 2022: Insights and Solutions for the Biodiversity Crisis*, BirdLife International: Cambridge, 2022.

Bolker, B., GLMM FAQ, 2024. Online at https://bbolker.github.io/mixedmodels-misc/glmmFAQ.html # underdispersion (accessed on February 25, 2025). Github (August 6, 2024).

Bossard, M., J. Feranec and J. Otahel, *CORINE Land Cover Technical Guide – Addendum 2000*, Technical report No 40, European Environment Agency, 2000.
Bowler, D. E., H. Heldbjerg, A. D. Fox, M. de Jong and K. Böhning-Gaese, "Long-term declines of European insectivorous bird populations and potential causes", *Conserv. Biol.* **33** (2019), no. 5, pp. 1120–1130.

Brooks, M. E., K. Kristensen, K. J. van Benthem, et al., "glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling", *R. J.* **9** (2017), no. 2, pp. 378–400.

Bühler, C. and T. Roth, "Spread of common species results in local-scale floristic homogenization in grassland of Switzerland", *Div. Distr.* **17** (2011), pp. 1089–1098.

CBD, *Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity*. 15/4. *Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework*, 2022. Online at https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf (accessed on November 7, 2023).

Ceballos, G. and P. R. Ehrlich, "Mammal population losses and the extinction crisis", *Science* **296** (2002), no. 5569, pp. 904–907.

Ceballos, G., P. R. Ehrlich, A. D. Barnosky, A. García, R. M. Pringle and T. M. Palmer, "Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction", *Sci. Adv.* **1** (2015), no. 5, article no. 1400253.

Chandler, M., L. See, K. Copas, et al., "Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring", *Biol. Conserv.* **213** (2017), pp. 280–294.

Chang, W., J. Cheng, J. Allaire, et al., *shiny: Web Application Framework for R*, 2025. Online at https://github.com/rstudio/shiny (accessed on June 3, 2025). R package version 1.10.0.9000.

Clement, P., "Cetti's Warbler (Cettia cetti), version 1.0", in *In Birds of the World* (del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott, J. Sargatal, D. A. Christie and E. de Juana, eds.), Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, 2020.

Cooper, C. B., J. Shirk and B. Zuckerberg, "The invisible prevalence of citizen science in global research: migratory birds and climate change", *PLoS One* **9** (2014), no. 9, article no. e106508.

Deguines, N., K. Princé, A. C. Prévot and B. Fontaine, "Assessing the emergence of pro-biodiversity practices in citizen scientists of a backyard butterfly survey", *Sci. Total Environ.* **716** (2020), article no. 136842.

Devictor, V., R. Julliard, J. Clavel, F. Jiguet, A. Lee and D. Couvet, "Functional biotic homogenization of bird communities in disturbed landscapes", *Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr.* **17** (2008), no. 2, pp. 252–261.

Dickinson, J., B. Zuckerberg and D. Bonter, "Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits", *Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.* **41** (2010), pp. 149–172.

Dornelas, M., A. E. Magurran, S. T. Buckland, et al., "Quantifying temporal change in biodiversity: challenges and opportunities", *Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci.* **280** (2013), no. 1750, article no. 20121931.

Duchenne, F., E. Porcher, J. B. Mihoub, G. Loïs and C. Fontaine, "Controversy over the decline of arthropods: a matter of temporal baseline?", *Peer Commun. J.* **2** (2022), article no. e33.

Fewster, R. M., S. T. Buckland, G. M. Siriwardena, S. R. Baillie and J. D. Wilson, "Analysis of population trends for farmland birds using generalized additive models", *Ecology* **81** (2000), pp. 1970–1984.

Fontaine, B., C. Moussy, J. Chiffard Carricaburu, et al., *Suivi des oiseaux communs en France 1989-2019 : 30 ans de suivis par-

*ticipatifs*, Ouvrage Rapport d'étude, MNHN- Centre d'Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation, LPO BirdLife France - Service Connaissance, Ministère de la Transition écologique et solidaire, 2020, p. 46.

Fraisl, D., J. Campbell, L. See, et al., "Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals", *Sustain. Sci.* **15** (2020), pp. 1735–1751.

Fraisl, D., G. Hager, B. Bedessem, et al., "Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences", *Nat. Rev. Methods Primers* **2** (2022), no. 1, article no. 64.

Fried, G., S. Petit, F. Dessaint and X. Reboud, "Arable weed decline in Northern France: crop edges as refugia for weed conservation?", *Biol. Conserv.* **142** (2009), no. 1, pp. 238–243.

Gregory Richard, D., A. van Strien, P. Vorisek, W. Gmelig Meyling Adriaan, G. Noble David, P. B. Foppen Ruud and W. Gibbons David, "Developing indicators for European birdsPhil", *Trans. R. Soc. B* **360** (2005), pp. 269–288.

Hallmann, C. A., M. Sorg, E. Jongejans, et al., "More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas", *PLoS One* **12** (2017), no. 10, article no. 0185809.

Hartig, F., *DHARMA: Residual Diagnostics for Hierarchical (Multi-Level/Mixed) Regression Models*, 2024. Online at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DHARMA/vignettes/DHARMA.html (accessed on April 10, 2025).

Inger, R., R. Gregory, J. P. Duffy, I. Stott, P. Voříšek and K. J. Gas-ton, "Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species' numbers are rising", *Ecol. Lett.* **18** (2015), pp. 28–36.

Issa, N. and Y. C. Muller, *Atlas des oiseaux de France métropolitaine. Nidification et présence hivernale*. LPO, *SEOF MNHN*, Delachaux et Niestlé: Paris, 2015.

IUCN, *IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1*, 2nd edition, IUCN: Gland and Cambridge, 2012. iv + 32pp.

Jandt, U., H. Bruelheide, F. Jansen, et al., "More losses than gains during one century of plant biodiversity change in Germany", *Nature* **611** (2022), pp. 512–518.

Jiguet, F., V. Devictor, R. Julliard and D. Couvet, "French citizens monitoring ordinary birds provide tools for conservation and ecological sciences", *Acta Oecol.* **44** (2012), pp. 58–66.

Julliard, R., "Science participative et suivi de la biodiversité : l'expérience Vigie-Nature", *Nat. Sci. Soc.* **25** (2017), no. 4, pp. 412–417.

Le Viol, I., F. Jiguet, L. Brotons, et al., "More and more generalists: two decades of changes in the European avifauna", *Biol. Lett.* **8** (2012), no. 5, pp. 780–782.

Lehikoinen, A., L. Brotons, J. Calladine, et al., "Declining population trends of European mountain birds", *Glob. Change Biol.* **25** (2019), no. 2, pp. 577–588.

Levrel, H., B. Fontaine, P. Y. Henry, F. Jiguet, R. Julliard, C. Kerbiriou and D. Couvet, "Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: A French example", *Ecol. Econ.* **69** (2010), no. 7, pp. 1580–1586.

Li, S., J. J. Daudin, D. Piou, C. Robinet and H. Jactel, "Periodicity and synchrony of pine processionary moth outbreaks in France", *For. Ecol. Manag.* **354** (2015), pp. 309–317.

Lorel, C., I. Le Viol, C. Plutzar, F. Jiguet and M. Mouchet, "Linking the diversity and structure of French avian communities with
landscape parameters, climate and NPP flows", *Reg. Environ. Change* **21** (2021), no. 2, article no. 61.

Martin, G., V. Devictor, E. Motard, N. Machon and E. Porcher, "Short-term climate-induced change in French plant communities", *Biol. Lett.* **15** (2019), article no. 20190280.

Mihoub, J. B., K. Henle, N. Titeux, L. Brotons, N. A. Brummitt and D. S. Schmeller, "Setting temporal baselines for biodiversity: the limits of available monitoring data for capturing the full impact of anthropogenic pressures", *Sci. Rep.* **7** (2017), no. 1, article no. 41591.

Moussus, J., F. Jiguet, J. Clavel and R. Julliard, "A method to estimate phenological variation using data from large-scale abundance monitoring programmes", *Bird Study* **56** (2009), no. 2, pp. 198-212.

Pannekoek, J. and A. J. Van Strien, *TRIM 3 Manual (TRends and Indices for Monitoring Data)*, Statistics Netherlands, 2005.

Pereira, H. M., S. Ferrier, M. Walters, et al., "Essential biodiversity variables", *Science* **339** (2013), no. 6117, pp. 277-278.

Pescott, O. L., P. A. Stroh, T. A. Humphrey and K. J. Walker, "Simple methods for improving the communication of uncertainty in species' temporal trends", *Ecol. Indic.* **141** (2022), article no. 109117.

Pescott, O. L., K. J. Walker, M. J. O. Pocock, M. Jitlal, C. L. Outhwaite, C. M. Cheffings, F. Harris and D. B. Roy, "Ecological monitoring with citizen science: the design and implementation of schemes for recording plants in Britain and Ireland", *Biol. J. Linn. Soc.* **115** (2015), no. 3, pp. 505-521.

Piao, S., Q. Liu, A. Chen, et al., "Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges", *Glob. Change Biol.* **25** (2019), pp. 1922-1940.

Pocock, M. J. O., M. Chandler, R. Bonney, et al., "A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science", *Adv. Ecol. Res.* **59** (2018), pp. 169-223.

Rigal, S., V. Dakos, H. Alonso, et al., "Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe", *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA* **120** (2023), no. 21, article no. e2216573120.

Rigal, S., V. Devictor and V. Dakos, "A method for classifying and comparing non-linear trajectories of ecological variables", *Ecol. Indic.* **112** (2020), article no. 106113.

Rigal, S., V. Devictor, P. Gaüzère, et al., "Biotic homogenisation in bird communities leads to large-scale changes in species associations", *Oikos* **2022** (2022), no. 3, article no. e08756.

Romano, A., L. Z. Garamzegi, D. Rubolini and R. Ambrosini, "Temporal shifts in avian phenology across the circannual cycle in a rapidly changing climate: a global meta-analysis", *Ecol. Monogr.* **93** (2023), no. 1, article no. e1552.

Sauer, J. R. and W. A. Link, "Analysis of the North American breeding bird survey using hierarchical models", *Auk* **128** (2011), no. 1, pp. 87-98.

Schmucki, R., G. Pe'er, D. B. Roy, et al., "A regionally informed abundance index for supporting integrative analyses across butterfly monitoring schemes", *J. Appl. Ecol.* **53** (2016), pp. 501-510.

Theobald, E. J., A. K. Ettinger, H. K. Burgess, et al., "Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research", *Biol. Conserv.* **181** (2015), pp. 236-244.

Toszogyova, A., J. Smyčka and D. Storch, "Mathematical biases in the calculation of the Living Planet Index lead to overestimation of vertebrate population decline", *Nat. Commun.* **15** (2024), no. 1, article no. 5295.

Van Strien, A. J., L. L. Soldaat and R. D. Gregory, "Desirable mathematical properties of indicators for biodiversity change", *Ecol. Indic.* **14** (2012), no. 1, pp. 202-208.

Vellend, M., L. Baeten, A. Becker-Scarpitta, V. Boucher-Lalonde, J. L. McCune, J. Messier, I. H. Myers-Smith and D. F. Sax, "Plant biodiveristy change across scales during during the anthropocene", *Ann. Rev. Plant Biol.* **68** (2017), pp. 563-586.

Westveer, J., R. Freeman, L. McRae, V. Marconi, R. E. A. Almond and M. Grooten, *A Deep Dive into the Living Planet Index: A Technical Report*, WWF: Gland, 2022.

Wood, S. N., *Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R*, 2nd edition, Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, 2017.