Biodiversity Data Journal 13: e151742 CO) doi: 10.3897/BDJ.13.e151 742 open access Data Paper Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen science initiative Alice Lenzi*§, Silvia Gisondi!, Marco Bardiani', Sénke Hardersen!, Emanuela Maurizi!, Fabio Mosconi, Gianluca Nardi!, Alessandro Campanarot + Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification, Florence, Italy § University of Siena, Department of Life Sciences, Siena, ltaly | Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification, Rome, Italy | Centro Nazionale Carabinieri Biodiversita “Bosco Fontana”, Marmirolo, Italy Corresponding author: Alice Lenzi (alice.lenzi@crea.gov.it) Academic editor: Paulo Borges Received: 28 Feb 2025 | Accepted: 22 Apr 2025 | Published: 07 May 2025 Citation: Lenzi A, Gisondi S, Bardiani M, Hardersen S, Maurizi E, Mosconi F, Nardi G, Campanaro A (2025) Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen science initiative. Biodiversity Data Journal 13: e151742. https ://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.13.e151742 Abstract Background Occurrence data provide an important baseline for the planning of conservation strategies and for the protection of species and habitats. However, collecting such data usually requires energy and it is time-consuming. Recently, citizen science has been shown to be a suitable approach for the study and monitoring of biodiversity, as it allows for the collection of a large number of records, distributed spatially and over time. Additionally, this approach enable the generation of new knowledge and fosters environmental awareness in the participating volunteers. New information The present paper describes the data collected during the first citizenscience project on protected insect species in Italy. The dataset contains occurrence records of 31 taxa observed all over Italian national territory in 10 years for a total of 5,975 records. The aim ©Lenzi A etal. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 2 Lenzi A et al of the project was to increase the knowledge, to document the distribution of the target taxa and to provide valuable data useful for the reporting of these insects as required by Articles 11 and 17 ofthe Habitats Directive. Keywords Coleoptera, conservation, dataset, entomology, GBIF repository, Habitats Directive, Lepidoptera, Odonata, Orthoptera, volunteering Introduction In a changing world, exacerbated by the climate crises, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Pereira et al. 2012, Pereira et al. 2024), species distribution data are a valuable source of information that improves our knowledge on population dynamics (Samy etal. 2013, Isaac and Pocock 2015) and can provide a reliable baseline for conservation planning (Powney and Isaac 2015). Concerning insects, their taxonomic diversity, species distribution, local conservation status and population trends are still poorly known (Mora et al. 2011, Leandro et al. 2017, Wilson 2017), despite proofs of their dramatic decline in diversity and abundance (Hallmann et al. 2017, Hallmann etal. 2021, Wagner et al. 2021, Outhwaite et al. 2022). This does not only apply to hyper-diverse and little-studied groups, but also to more charismatic and easily detectable taxa, including those protected at national or international level and/or flagship/umbrella species. Importantly, these taxa are often employed as proxies for a rich community and as indicators for habitat conservation status (Caro 2011, Lindenmayer and Westgate 2020) and they are often targeted by conservation programmes and initiatives. In addition, the European Commission requires Member States to monitor biodiversity through constant surveillance (Art. 11 of Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC) of protected species and habitats (i.e. listed in Annexes I, Il and IV of the Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC) and to report the results every 6 years (ex Art. 17 of Habitats Directive 92/43/ECC). In order to comply with these obligations, a large number of spatially and temporally distributed records are needed, which requires energy- and time-consuming efforts for data collection and analysis. Since the late twentieth century, an engaging and promising tool for collecting a large number of species records is represented by the citizen science (CS) approach. This consists in involving volunteers from the general public in scientific processes under the coordination of experts (ECSA 2015, Eitzel et al. 2017, Shanley et al. 2019). Such initiatives find applications in many scientific fields (Bonney et al. 2009, Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016, Chandler et al. 2017, Pocock et al. 2018), with a remarkable number of emerging projects (most are accessible through European or global repositories, such as eu-citizen.science and SciStarter). A small number of these CS projects are dedicated to the study of insects, often focusing on charismatic groups (Sheard et al. 2024) which are easily detectable and identifiable also by non-experts after specific training. Amongst CS projects that focus on insects, most target pollinators (e.g. bees, bumblebees and Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 3 butterflies) (van Swaay et al. 2008, Dennis et al. 2017, Schultz et al. 2017, Barahona- Segovia et al. 2022) and some large-sized and conspicuous Coleoptera (Percy et al. 2000, Losey et al. 2012, Mason et al. 2015, Campanaro et al. 2017, Thomaes et al. 2021, Bardiani et al. 2022, Lenzi et al. 2023). Considering these groups, many studies have shown that the involvement of volunteers in collecting occurrence data of observed individuals provides important information on the distribution of species as well as their habitat requirements (Campanaro et al. 2017, Tiago et al. 2017, Soroye et al. 2018, Brown and Williams 2018, Matutini et al. 2021, Lenzi et al. 2022, Redolfi De Zan et al. 2023). Accordingly, CS has been recognised as a valid approach, complementary to traditional science, since it allows gathering data faster and on a wider scale, thanks to the involvement of a large number of participants (Gardiner et al. 2012, Dennis et al. 2017, Soroye et al. 2018, Robinson et al. 2020, Fontaine et al. 2021). An important issue concerning CS projects is the reliability of the recorded data, commonly ensured by a data quality assessment process by expert scientists (Kosmala et al. 2016, Aceves-Bueno et al. 2017). For instance, in some projects the verification of species identification is carried out by the community of volunteers or by advanced technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence) (Leibovici et al. 2017, Aristeidou et al. 2021, Lopez-Guillén et al. 2024), while other projects employ a team of experts to ensure that the collected data are correct (Wiggins et al. 2011, Tulloch et al. 2013, Campanaro et al. 2017, Flaminio et al. 2021). Once data are collected, it is recommended to make them publicly available, together with the metadata, if possible and results should be published in an open access format (Ten Principles of Citizen Science, ECSA (2015), Cooper et al. (2021)). For this reason, it is increasingly common and recomended to share data and results from CS projects, possibly following the FAIR principles (i.e. Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable, Wilkinson et al. (2016), Boeckhout et al. (2018)), while complying with any possibile restrictions, for example, sensitive data on rare and protected species, privacy data. This paper presents and describes the dataset from a citizen initiative called MIPP/InNat, developed in the framework of two projects (LIFE MIPP "Monitoring of Insects with Public Participation" and InNat "Promozione della Rete Natura 2000 e il Monitoraggio a scala nazionale di specie di insetti protetti"), which is accessible through GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). The paper also provides some descriptive statistics. The CS-based data collection, which started in 2014 and ended in 2024, was supported by funding from different international and national sources and focused on the collection of occurrence data of selected and protected insect taxa. General description Purpose: The purpose of this publication is to share and make freely available occurrence data on protected insect species (i.e. listed in Annexes Il and IV of the Habitats Directive) recorded in Italy and collected during the above-mentioned 10-year CS initiative. We describe the dataset consisting of occurrence data of 31 selected 4 Lenzi A et al species belonging to four insect orders: Coleoptera (6 taxa), Lepidoptera (16 taxa), Odonata (7 taxa) and Orthoptera (2 taxa). These records contribute to further the knowledge on the distribution of the target insects, thus providing an additional tool for planning specific conservation actions (Wilkinson et al. 2016, Boeckhout et al. 2018). Indeed, these data are also included and stored in the database of the Italian National Network of Biodiversity (NNB) which is one of the main sources that are considered for the reporting required by Arts. 11 and 17 of the Habitats Directive. Project description Title: MIPP/InNat initiative. Study area description: Data were collected in all of Italy. Design description: The MIPP/InNat initiative engaged volunteers in collecting occurrence data of protected insects. Funding: The MIPP/InNat initiative was funded under different projects: ° the LIFE project MIPP (LIFE11 NAT/IT/000252), “Monitoring of insects with public participation,’ co-funded by the European Commission [2012-2017]; ° the national agreement entitled InNat "Promozione della Rete Natura 2000 e il Monitoraggio a scala nazionale di specie di insetti protetti" funded by the former Direzione Generale per la Protezione della Natura e del Mare — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and the Comando Unita Forestali, Ambientali e Agroalimentari Carabinieri - Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela Della Biodiversita e dei Parchi [2017-2018]: ° the national agreement entitled START2000 "Sviluppo di strumenti di coordinamento finalizzati all'attuazione degli obiettivi e delle misure di conservazione nei siti Natura 2000 compresi nelle Riserve ed altre Aree demaniali gestiti dall'Arma dei Carabinieri" funded by the former Direzione Generale per la Protezione della Natura e del Mare — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and the Comando Unita Forestali, Ambientali e Agroalimentari Carabinieri — Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela Della Biodiversita e dei Parchi [2019-2022]: ° the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4 — Call for tender Ne 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree Ne 3175 of 18 December 2021 of Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union — NextGenerationEU; Award Number: Project code CN_00000033, Concession Decree Ne 1034 of 17 June 2022 adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP B83D21014060006, Project title “National Biodiversity Future Center — NBFC” [2022-2024]. Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 5 Sampling methods Sampling description: Volunteers were asked to use the project websites of the two projects or a specific app for Android and iOS (called MIPP and then InNat, discontinued) to upload pictures of observed target insects. The volunteers were free as to where or when to perform the observations. The following information was required during the uploading process: 1) tentative identification (Species or genus level); 2) date and hour of the sighting; 3) geografic coordinates (WGS84, decimal); 4) location; 5) additional notes. The geographic coordinates were collected using the GPS sensor of the smartphone, manually by using Google Maps (which was accessible through the platforms) or by entering coordinates by hand. These precise coordinates were thus stored in the InNat database and were downloadable upon request during the project. Finally, the volunteers provided their e-mail addresses and a nicknames (no sensitive data were collected), in order to receive any feedback about their record. Quality control: In order to aid the volunteers in recognising and finding the various insects, fact sheets were provided, which included information on the morphology and ecology of the target insects. The platform was developed using MySQL and was accessible with credentials by the project staff. Once a record was uploaded, it entered the project database with the initial status "pending". Subsequently, the experts validated the associated images and the information provided. If the record was "confirmed", it became visible on the project website to everyone. When no images were provided, the volunteers were contacted by the project team and were asked to provide further details on the record. Data without images were classified as valid only after careful consideration. This strict approach resulted in only approximately 3% of records without images being confirmed. Only validated and confirmed records were analysed and published as a dataset in the GBIF repository and are here described. Moreover, even if the volunteers had not been asked to provide the number of observed individuals during data submission, in the present dataset, an additional column about the number of the individuals observed for each record is presented and this was obtained by the project staff by counting the number of specimens portrayed in each image recorded. Geographic coverage Description: The dataset contains records from all the Italian territory (Fig. 1). The majority of these records was collected in Central-Northern Italy possibly due to the fact that, amongst the ten most recorded species, three (i.e. Lucanus cervus, Lopinga achine and Lycaena dispar) are distributed exclusively in north-central regions. Moreover, five "hotspots" (Fig. 1, B) can be observed, corresponding to protected and mountain areas in which the target species are present with quite abundant populations. The altitudes at which the target insects were recorded (Fig. 2) are consistent with the species ecology. The lowest altitude recorded was 0 m a.s.|. (Cerambyx cerdo) and the highest altitude was 2,958 maz.s.|. (Parnassius apollo). 6 Lenzi A et al Figure 1. EES Geographic coverage of records. A The colour scale of the data points indicates the year of the sightings; a lighter colour indicates a more recent sighting, while a darker colour denotes older records; B Heatmap representing the concentration of records in Italy from the the lowest (in purple) to the highest (in yellow). The regions with the majority of data correspond to protected areas: Parchi Regionali dell'area Torinese (1), Parco Nazionale della Val Grande (2), Parco Regionale delle Prealpi Giulie e Parco Nazionale delle Dolomiti Bellunesi (3), Parco Nazionale delle Foreste Casentinesi (4), Parco Nazionale d'Abruzzo, Lazio e Molise (5), Parco Nazionale del Gargano (6), Parco Nazionale dell'Alta Murgia (7), Parco Nazionale del Pollino (8), Parco Regionale delle Madonie (9). Elevations per species 2800 4 2600 4 2400 4 2200 4 . 2000 4 18004 1600 4 = 14004 ° 1200 4 1000 4 8004 ; 6004 e 4004 4 e . 2004 ‘ cy e Figure 2. EES Boxplot showing the span of elevations at which target taxa were recorded. Elevation of records (m) e* eecce Species Coordinates: 36.71 and 46.94 Latitude; 6.664 and 17.230 Longitude. Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... ra Taxonomic coverage Description: At the beginning, LIFE MIPP covered nine target species. Subsequently, during the projects InNat and START2000, additional taxa were included, reaching gradually a total of 31 protected species listed in the Annexes II and IV of the Habitats Directive, belonging to Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Odonata and Orthoptera (Table 1). Such later additions concern also species that are rather rare, with limited and scattered distribution and whose detection requires a somewhat higher level of volunteer training and experience (e.g. Brachytrupes megacephalus (Lefevre, 1827), Papilio alexanor Esper, 1800 and Phengaris teleius (Bergstrasser, 1779)). Despite the fact that fewer records were expected, these species were nevertheless included in the initiative as even the addition of a few occurrence data would be valuable for increasing the knowledge of their distribution. In general, the names of target species were based on those adopted by the Habitats Directive. Table 1. List of the 31 insect taxa targeted by the MIPP/InNat initiative and included in the dataset with information about taxonomic position (genus/species, order and family) and protection status (Annex HD: Annex of the Habitats Directive in which the species is listed). Taxa originally included in the MIPP project are in bold. Remarks: Osmoderma eremita comprises the two subspecies O. eremita eremita (Scopoli, 1763) and O. eremita italicum Sparacio, 2000, as the taxonomic position of these two taxa is still under debate (Audisio et al. 2009). The Habitats Directive lists exclusively Morimus funereus (Mulsant, 1862) from the genus Morimus. This species is present in Italy only in a narrow part of the north- east (Carso Triestino e Goriziano within the Carnic Alps). According to several authors (Hardersen et al. 2017 and cited literature), M. funereus should be considered a subspecies of M. asper (Sulzer, 1776) and, therefore, the project collected data for both M. a. funereus and M. a. asper and the taxon is here indicated as Morimus asper. The two sister species Zerynthia polyxena (Denis & Schiffermiuller, 1775) and Zerynthia cassandra Geyer, 1828, were not differentiated in the InNat/MIPP initiative (i.e. reported at the genus level, as Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816), as the two taxa cannot be separated based on wing patterns, even if they are genetically distinct (Dapporto 2010). The species Euphydryas aurina (Rottemburg, 1775) is treated as a single taxon, in accordance with the the recent checklist of the European Butterflies (VWiemers et al. 2018), even if Balletto et al. (Balletto et al. 2014) considered it to consist of the three different species E. aurina, E. glaciegenita and E. provincialis (Wiemers et al. 2018). Target taxon Order Family Annex HD 1. Brachytrupes megacephalus (Lefévre, 1827) Orthoptera Gryllidae Il, IV 2. Cerambyx cerdo Linnaeus, 1758 Coleoptera Cerambycidae Il, IV 3. Coenagrion mercuriale (Charpentier, 1840) Odonata Coenagrionidae I 4. Coenonympha oedippus (Fabricius, 1787) Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Il, IV 5. Cordulegaster trinacriae Waterstone, 1976 Odonata Cordulegastridae Il, IV Target taxon 6. Euphyadryas aurinia (Rottemburg, 1775) 7. Euphydryas maturna (Linnaeus, 1758) 8. Euplagia quadripunctaria (Poda, 1761) 9. Gomphus flavipes (Charpentier, 1825) 10. Leucorrhinia pectoralis (Charpentier, 1825) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Lopinga achine (Scopoli, 1763) Lucanus cervus (Linnaeus, 1758) Lycaena dispar (Haworth, 1802) Melanargia arge (Sulzer, 1776) Morimus asper (Sulzer, 1776) Ophiogomphus cecilia (Fourcroy, 1785) Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) Osmoderma cristinae Sparacio, 1994 Oxygastra curtisii (Dale, 1834) Papilio alex anor Esper, 1800 Papilio hospiton Géné, 1839 Parnassius apollo (Linnaeus, 1758) Parnassius mnemosyne (Linnaeus, 1758) Phengaris arion (Linnaeus, 1758) Phengaris teleius (Bergstrasser, 1779) Proserpinus proserpina (Pallas, 1772) Rosalia alpina (Linnaeus, 1758) Saga pedo (Pallas, 1771) Sympecma paedisca (Brauer, 1877) Zerynthia cassandra Geyer, 1828 Zerynthia polyxena (Denis & Schiffermiiller, 1775) Temporal coverage Data range: 1973-7-13 - 2024-2-18. Lenzi A et al Order Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Odonata Odonata Lepidoptera Coleoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Coleoptera Odonata Coleoptera Coleoptera Odonata Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Coleoptera Orthoptera Odonata Lepidoptera Lepidoptera Family Nymphalidae Nymphalidae Erebidae Gomphidae Libellulidae Nymphalidae Lucanidae Lycaenidae Nymphalidae Cerambycidae Gomphidae Scarabaeidae Scarabaeidae Corduliidae Papilionidae Papilionidae Papilionidae Papilionidae Lycaenidae Lycaenidae Sphingidae Cerambycidae Tettigoniidae Lestidae Papilionidae Papilionidae Annex HD Notes: Although the data collection carried out by the MIPP/InNat initiative started in 2014, the dataset contains records from 1973 to 2024 (Fig. 3), because volunteers also provided occurrence data recorded previously. These data are considered useful and Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 9 interesting for the purposes of the project and have been retained and published in the GBIF repository. 6004 order ~ @ Coleoptera 5 4004 Lepidoptera ° a Odonata feat] Orthoptera 2004 | | ol | ih of —— F r 1970 1980 =) 2000 year Figure 3. EESI Temporal distribution of the occurrence records. The period during which the project was active is highlighted with a black bar. Orders are identified by different colours: Coleoptera in brown, Lepidoptera in light brown, Odonata in turquoise and Orthoptera in teal. Usage licence Usage licence: Other IP rights notes: Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Licence (CC-BY-NC 4.0) Data resources Data package title: Occurrences of protected species of insects in Italy Resource link: https://doi.org/10.15468/m5sfc6 Number of data sets: 1 Data set name: Occurrences of protected species of insects in Italy. Download URL: https://cloud.gbif.org/eca/archive.do?r=protected_insects_of_italy Description: The dataset “Occurrences of protected species of insects in Italy” was published on the repository Global Biodiversity Information Facility - GBIF under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) as an open access file (Campanaro et al. 2024). 10 Lenzi A et al The file consists of occurrence data for 31 species protected under the Habitats Directive (92/43/ECC). Fields in the dataset follow the Darwin Core standard (Darwin Core Maintenance Group 2021, Wieczorek et al. (2012)). The dataset contains 5,968 occurrence records for a total of 6,292 specimens (numbers of individuals were counted, based on the images sent by the volunteers) (Fig. 4): 4,577 Coleoptera, 1,568 Lepidoptera, 108 Odonata and 39 Orthoptera. Even if commonly lepidopterans are the most recorded taxa in CS projects, our result, highlighting a majority of coleopteran records, was quite expected. In fact, the LIFE MIPP was originally mostly focused on six saproxylic beetle species that had benefitted from further dissemination and scientific activity unlike the four butterflies and the one bush cricket. In addition to this, butterflies listed in the Habitats Directive Annexes are often rarer and with a more limited and/or scattered distribution in respect to coleopterans. 2500 42473 325 Value in individuals i) Records N. of occurrence data 461 433 428 | 417 409 li i 229 224 ir ee TO me 59 58 39 39 37 37 Baa en igs 3030 30 28 29 29 27 23 Species Figure 4. EE Barplot representing the total number of individuals and records for each insect taxon collected by the project. Only taxa with more than 20 records are plotted here. Approximately 97% of the records are associated with an image portraying the reported insect. Data were collected by a total of 1,180 volunteers between 2014 and 2024 during different citizen-science projects, but, as specified in the "Temporal Coverage" section, some of the reported observations were collected before the start of the project (Fig. 3). The highest number of records was collected in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, with a total of 781, 725 and 780 records, respectively (Fig. 3). Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 11 The pattern of the records collected during a year mainly reflects the months when adults of the 31 target species are usually most active, with the bulk of records having been collected in mid-July. This may be due to the fact that the majority of records are on Lucanus cervus (Fig. 4), which has its peak of adult activity in those weeks (Fig. 5). Monty detributon of Euptagss quacnipunctaria ambys cerdo | Moca vorwe Montly datrution of Lucanus cervus Moritty distribution of Lopinga achive Lh ony distribution of Parnassas apoio Monitly dastnbution of Rosaka alpina Figure 5. EES Barplot representing the mean montly distribution of the number of the recorded individuals , with the related standard error (grey bars). Only records from 2014 to 2023 were considered. Column label Column description occurrencelD An identifier for the occurrence datum including the name of the project under which it has been collected and a unique code. associatedMedia URL to the repository where images related to the record are stored, freely accessible and downloadable. catalogNumber A unique identifier of the occurrence datum within the dataset. 12 basisOfRecord eventDate year month day kingdom scientificName order family scientificNamelD verbatim|dentification genus specificEpithet taxonRank taxonRemarks identifiedBy decimalLatitude decimalLongitude geodeticDatum countryCode individualC ount organismQuantity organismQuantity Type preparations Lenzi A et al The nature of the provided data. The complete date in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The year in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The month in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The day in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The scientific name of the kingdom in which the recorded specimen/s is/are classified. The full scientific name, with authorship and date information if known. The scientific name of the order in which the recorded specimen/s is/are classified. The scientific name of the family in which the recorded specimen/s is/are classified. An identifier of the scientific name of the currently valid taxon. The name under which the record was uploaded by the volunteer into the project database. The scientific name of the genus in which the recorded specimen/s is/are classified. The name of the lowest or terminal specific epithet of the scientificName. The lower taxonomic rank assigned to the identified specimen (e.g. subspecies, species, genus, tribe). Comments or notes about the recorded taxon. The name of the project expert who was in charge of validating the records received from the volunteers. The geographic latitude (in decimal degrees, EPSG:4326 - WGS84) of the geographic centre in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The geographic latitude (in decimal degrees, EPSG:4326 - WGS84) of the geographic centre in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The geodetic datum upon which the given geographic coordinates are based. The standard code for the country in which the specimen/s was/were observed. The number of individuals of the same species observed at the same time. The type of quantification system used for the quantity of organisms. The type of quantification system used for the quantity of the recorded organisms. Indication of methods used in the preparations/preservation of the samples. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the volunteers who contributed to the MIPP/InNat initiative. Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 13 The projects LIFE MIPP, InNat and START2000 would not have been possible without the perseverance, dedication and tutoring of Franco Mason, to whom we are deeply grateful. We are also grateful to the people who were part of the aforementioned projects in different phases, with different roles and responsabilities and from various institutions: Vincenzo Andriani, Serena Corezzola, Emma Minari, llaria Toni (Reparto Carabinieri Biodiversita di Verona, Centro Nazionale Carabinieri Biodiversita “Bosco Fontana’); Paolo Aldo Audisio (Sapienza Universita di Roma); Eleonora Bianchi, Luisa Farina, Laura Pettiti (Ministero dell'’Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica); Marco Alberto Bologna, Giuseppe Maria Carpaneto, Stefano Chiari, Emiliano Mancini, Michela Maura, Sarah Rossi de Gasperis, Agnese Zauli (Universita RomaTre); Alessandro Cini, Pio Federico Roversi, Giuseppino Sabbatini Peverieri, Livia Zapponi (Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e I'analisi dell'economia agraria); Rocco Oliveto (Universita degli Studi del Molise). We would like to acknowledge Fausto Leandri, contract collaborator of Fondazione Lombardia per l’Ambiente, within action D3 “Percorso innovativo per l’implementazione del Programma di monitoraggio di GESTIRE” of the Project LIFE14 IPE IT 018GESTIRE2020 — Nature Integrated Management to 2020, who participated in the expert team for the verification of data. Special thanks are dedicated to Lara Redolfi De Zan, who contributed to this initiative with endless passion and tireless tenacity. She was a firm believer in citizen science and its potential to make a difference; unfortunately, she left us far too soon in 2024. References ° Aceves-Bueno E, Adeleye A, Feraud M, Huang Y, Tao M, Yang Y, Anderson S (2017) The accuracy of citizen science data: a quantitative review. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 98 (4): 278-290. https ://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1336 ° Aristeidou M, Herodotou C, Ballard H, Higgins L, Johnson R, Miller A, Young A, Robinson L (2021) How do young community and citizen science volunteers support scientific research on biodiversity? The case of iNaturalist. Diversity 13 (7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ d13070318 ° Audisio P, Brustel H, Carpaneto GM, Coletti G, Mancini E, Trizzino M, Antonini G, De Biase A (2009) Data on molecular taxonomy and genetic diversification of the European Hermit beetles, a species complex of endangered insects (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Cetoniinae,Osmoderma). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 47 (1): 88-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/).1439-0469.2008.00475.x ° Balletto E, Cassulo L, Bonelli S (2014) An annotated Checklist of the Italian Butterflies and Skippers (Papilionoidea, Hesperiioidea). Zootaxa 3853 (1). httos://doi.org/10.11646/ zootaxa.3853.1.1 ° Barahona-Segovia R, Duran-Sanzana V, Murua M (2022) This flower is our bed: long- term citizen science reveals that hummingbird flies use flowers with certain shapes as sleeping places. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 17 (1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/ $11829-022-09936-7 14 Lenzi A et al Bardiani M, Campanaro A, Damiani G, Civita FL, Lenzi A, Minari E, Petriccione B, Zan LRd, Romano M, Ruocco M (2022) Monitoring of protected species and habitats with the involvment of volunteers: the experience of LIFE ESC360. Cierre Grafica. htips://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.7400475 Boeckhout M, Zielhuis G, Bredenoord A (2018) The FAIR guiding principles for data stewardship: fair enough? European Journal of Human Genetics 26 (7): 931-936. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41431-018-0160-0 Bonney R, Cooper C, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T,; Rosenberg K, Shirk J (2009) Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59 (11): 977-984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio0.2009.59.11.9 Brown E, Williams B (2018) The potential for citizen science to produce reliable and useful information in ecology. Conservation Biology 33 (3): 561-569. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/cobi.13223 Campanaro A, Hardersen S, Redolfi De Zan L, Antonini G, Bardiani M, Maura M, Maurizi E, Mosconi F, Zauli A, Bologna M, Roversi P, Sabbatini Peverieri G, Mason F (2017) Analyses of occurrence data of protected insect species collected by citizens in Italy. Nature Conservation 20: 265-297. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.20.12704 Campanaro A, Bardiani M, Hardersen S, Gisondi S, Lenzi A (2024) Occurrences of protected species of insects in Italy. Occurrence dataset. Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification. URL: https ://doi.org/10.15468/m5sfc6 Caro T (2011) Conservation by proxy: indicator, umbrella, keystone, flagship, and other surrogate species. Choice Reviews Online 48 (06): 48-3255. httos://doi.org/10.5860/ choice.48-3255 Chandler M, See L, Copas K, Bonde AZ, Lopez BC, Danielsen F, Legind JK, Masinde S, Miller-Rushing A, Newman G, Rosemartin A, Turak E (2017) Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation 213: 280-294. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004 Cooper C, Rasmussen L, Jones E (2021) Perspective: the power (dynamics) of open data in citizen science. Frontiers in Climate 3 https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.637037 Dapporto L (2010) Speciation in Mediterranean refugia and post-glacial expansion of Zerynthia polyxena (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/).1439-0469.2009.00550.x Dennis E, Morgan BT, Brereton T, Roy D, Fox R (2017) Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conservation Biology 31 (6): 1350-1361. https ://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12956 ECSA (2015) Ten principles of citizen science. Zenodo. htips://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.!O/ XPR2N Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West SE, Kyba CCM, Bowser A, Cooper CB, Sforzi A, Metcalfe AN, Harris ES, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling FM, Dérler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis BY, Jiang Q (2017) Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key erms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96 Flaminio S, Ranalli R, Zavatta L, Galloni M, Bortolotti L (2021) Beewatching: a project for monitoring bees through photos. Insects 12 (9). httos://doi.org/10.3390/insects 12090841 Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 15 Fontaine C, Fontaine B, Prevot A (2021) Do amateurs and citizen science fill the gaps left by scientists? Current Opinion in Insect Science 46: 83-87. httos://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois. 2021.03.001 Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PM, Losey JE, Roy HE, Smyth RR (2012) Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (9): 471-476. httos://doi.org/10.1890/110185 Hallmann C, Sorg M, Jongejans E, Siepel H, Hofland N, Schwan H, Stenmans W, Muller A, Sumser H, Horren T, Goulson D, de Kroon H (2017) More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLOS One 12 (10). hittps:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 Hallmann C, Ssymank A, Sorg M, de Kroon H, Jongejans E (2021) Insect biomass decline scaled to species diversity: general patterns derived from a hoverfly community. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (2). httos://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2002554117 Hardersen S, Bardiani M, Chiari S, Maura M, Maurizi E, Roversi P, Mason F, Bologna M (2017) Guidelines for the monitoring of Morimus asper funereus and Morimus asper asper . Nature Conservation 20: 205-236. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.20.12676 Isaac NB, Pocock MO (2015) Bias and information in biological records. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115 (3): 522-531. httos://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12532 Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B (2016) Assessing data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14 (10): 551-560. httos://doi.org/ 10.1002/fee.1436 Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D (2016) What is citizen science? — A scientometric meta- analysis. PLOS One 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 Leandro C, Jay-Robert P, Vergnes A (2017) Bias and perspectives in insect conservation: a European scale analysis. Biological Conservation 215: 213-224. https ://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biocon.2017.07.033 Leibovici D, Williams J, Rosser J, Hodges C, Chapman C, Higgins C, Jackson M (2017) Earth observation for citizen science validation, or citizen science for earth observation validation? The role of quality assurance of volunteered observations. Data 2 (4). https:// doi.org/10.3390/data2040035 Lenzi A, Maurizi E, Mosconi F, Francescato S, Cecchetti M, Valle MD, Noal A, Stolfa G, Roversi PF, Campanaro A (2022) Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera Scarabeidae Cetoniinae) in Circeo State Forest (central Italy). Redia 105: 71-75. https:// doi.org/10.19263/redia-105.22.08 Lenzi A, Casali A, Bardiani M, Stefano CD, Hardersen S, Civita FL, Miozzo M, Petriccione B, Zan LRD, Romano M, Ruocco M, Andriani V, Campanaro A (2023) La citizen science per monitorare specie e habitat protetti: i dati del progetto LIFE ESC360 nel network nazionale della biodiversita. Reticula 33: 29-42. URL: https:// www.isprambiente.gov.it/files2023/pubblicazioni/periodici-tecnici/reticula/reticula-n33.pdf Lindenmayer D, Westgate M (2020) Are flagship, umbrella and keystone species useful surrogates to understand the consequences of landscape change? Current Landscape Ecology Reports 5 (3): 76-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-020-00052-x Lopez-Guillén E, Herrera |, Bensid B, Gomez-Bellver C, Ibafhez N, Jiménez-Mejias P, Mairal M, Mena-Garcia L, Nualart N, Ut}és-Masco M, Lopez-Pujol J (2024) Strengths and challenges of using iNaturalist in plant research with focus on data quality. Diversity 16 (1). https ://doi.org/10.3390/d16010042 16 Lenzi A et al Losey J, Allee L, Smyth R (2012) The Lost Ladybug project: citizen spotting surpasses scientist's surveys. American Entomologist 58 (1): 22-24. https ://doi.org/10.1093/ae/ 58.1.0022 Mason F, Roversi PF, Audisio P, Bologna MA, Carpaneto GM, Antonini G, Mancini E, Peverieri GS, Mosconi F, Solano E, Maurizi E, Maura M, Chiari S, Sabatelli S, Bardiani M, Toni |, Zan LRD, Gasperis SRD, Tini M, Cini A, Zauli A, Nigro G, Bottacci A, Hardersen S, Campanaro A (2015) Monitoring of insects with public participation (MIPP; EU LIFE project 11 NAT/IT/000252): overview on a citizen science initiative and a monitoring programme (Insecta: Coleoptera; Lepidoptera; Orthoptera). Fragmenta entomologica 1 (47). https://doi.org/10.13133/2284-4880/134 Matutini F, Baudry J, Pain G, Sineau M, Pithon J (2021) How citizen science could improve species distribution models and their independent assessment. Ecology and Evolution 11 (7): 3028-3039. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7210 Mora C, Tittensor D, Adl S, Simpson AB, Worm B (2011) How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology 9 (8). htips://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127 Outhwaite C, McCann P, Newbold T (2022) Agriculture and climate change are reshaping insect biodiversity worldwide. Nature 605 (7908): 97-102. https ://doi.org/10.1038/ $41586-022-04644-x Percy C, Bassford G, Keeble V, Robb C (2000) Findings of the 1998 National Stag Beetle Survey. People’s trust for endangered species. London UK. Pereira H, Martins |, Rosa ID, Kim H, Leadley P, Popp A, van Vuuren D, Hurtt G, Quoss L, Arneth A, Baisero D, Bakkenes M, Chaplin-Kramer R, Chini L, Di Marco M, Ferrier S, Fujimori S, Guerra C, Harfoot M, Harwood T, Hasegawa T, Haverd V, Havlik P, Hellweg S, Hilbers J, Hill SL, Hirata A, Hoskins A, Humpendder F, Janse J, Jetz W, Johnson J, Krause A, Leclere D, Matsui T, Meijer J, Merow C, Obersteiner M, Ohashi H, De Palma A, Poulter B, Purvis A, Quesada B, Rondinini C, Schipper A, Settele J, Sharp R, Stehfest E, Strassburg BN, Takahashi K, Talluto M, Thuiller W, Titeux N, Visconti P, Ware C, Wolf F, Alkemade R (2024) Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050. Science 384 (6694): 458-465. https ://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.adn3441 Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Martins IS (2012) Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 25-50. htips:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042911-093511 Pocock MO, Chandler M, Bonney R, Thornhill I, Albin A, August T, Bachman S, Brown PJ, Cunha DGF, Grez A, Jackson C, Peters M, Rabarijaon NR, Roy H, Zaviezo T, Danielsen F (2018) A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. Advances in Ecological Research169-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs .aecr.2018.06.003 Powney G, lsaac NB (2015) Beyond maps: a review of the applications of biological records. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 115 (3): 532-542. httos://doi.org/ 10.1111/bij.12517 Redolfi De Zan L, Rossi de Gasperis S, Andriani V, Bardiani M, Campanaro A, Gisondi S, Hardersen S, Maurizi E, Mosconi F, Nardi G, Zapponi L, Rombola P, Romiti F (2023) The big five: species distribution models from citizen science data as tool for preserving the largest protected saproxylic beetles in Italy. Diversity 15 (1). httos://doi.org/10.3390/ d15010096 Robinson O, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Reynolds M, Golet G, Strimas-Mackey M, Fink D (2020) Integrating citizen science data with expert surveys increases accuracy and spatial Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen ... 17 extent of species distribution models. Diversity and Distributions 26 (8): 976-986. httos:// doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13068 Samy G, Chavan V, Arifio A, Otegui J, Hobern D, Sood R, Robles E (2013) Content assessment of the primary biodiversity data published through GBIF network: Status, challenges and potentials. Biodiversity Informatics 8 (2). https ://doi.org/10.17161/ bi.v8i2.4124 Schultz C, Brown L, Pelton E, Crone E (2017) Citizen science monitoring demonstrates dramatic declines of monarch butterflies in western North America. Biological Conservation 214: 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.019 Shanley LA, Hulbert J, Haklay M (2019) Citizen science definitions. v1.2. Zenodo. Release date: 2019-11-25. URL: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3552753 Sheard JK, Adriaens T, Bowler D, Buermann A, Callaghan C, Camprasse EM, Chowdhury S, Engel T, Finch E, von Gonner J, Hsing P, Mikula P, Rachel Oh RY, Peters B, Phartyal S, Pocock MO, Waldchen J, Bonn A (2024) Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 379 (1904). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0106 Soroye P, Ahmed N, Kerr J (2018) Opportunistic citizen science data transform understanding of species distributions, phenology, and diversity gradients for global change research. Global Change Biology 24 (11): 5281-5291. httos://doi.org/10.1111/gcb. 14358 Thomaes A, Barbalat S, Bardiani M, Bower L, Campanaro A, Fanega Sleziak N, Gongalo Soutinho J, Govaert S, Harvey D, Hawes C, Kadej M, Méndez M, Meriguet B, Rink M, Rossi De Gasperis S, Ruyts S, Jelaska LS, Smit J, Smolis A, Snegin E, Tagliani A, Vrezec A (2021) The European stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) Monitoring Network: international citizen science cooperation reveals regional differences in phenology and temperature response. Insects 12 (9). https://doi.org/10.3390/insects 12090813 Tiago P, Pereira H, Capinha C (2017) Using citizen science data to estimate climatic niches and species distributions. Basic and Applied Ecology 20: 75-85. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.baae.2017.04.001 Tulloch AT, Possingham H, Joseph L, Szabo J, Martin T (2013) Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation 165: 128-138. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025 van Swaay CM, Nowicki P, Settele J, van Strien A (2008) Butterfly monitoring in Europe: methods, applications and perspectives. Biodiversity and Conservation 17 (14): 3455-3469. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s 10531-008-9491-4 Wagner D, Grames E, Forister M, Berenbaum M, Stopak D (2021) Insect decline in the Anthropocene: death by a thousand cuts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (2). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023989118 Wieczorek J, Bloom D, Guralnick R, Blum S, Déring M, Giovanni R, Robertson T, Vieglais D (2012) Darwin Core: an evolving community-developed biodiversity data standard. PLoS ONE 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029715 Wiemers M, Balletto E, Dinca V, Fric ZF, Lamas G, Lukhtanov V, Munguira M, van Swaay CM, Vila R, Vliegenthart A, Wahlberg N, Verovnik R (2018) An updated checklist of the European Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea). ZooKeys 811: 9-45. https://doi.org/ 10.3897/zookeys.811.28712 18 Lenzi A et al Wiggins A, Newman G, Stevenson R, Crowston K (2011) Mechanisms for data quality and validation in citizen science. 2011 IEEE Seventh International Conference on e- Science Workshops https://doi.org/10.1109/esciencew.2011.27 Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, Appleton G, Axton M, Baak A, Blomberg N, Boiten J, da Silva Santos LB, Bourne P, Bouwman J, Brookes A, Clark T, Crosas M, Dillo |, Dumon O, Edmunds S, Evelo C, Finkers R, Gonzalez-Beltran A, Gray AG, Groth P, Goble C, Grethe J, Heringa J, ’t Hoen PC, Hooft R, Kuhn T, Kok R, Kok J, Lusher S, Martone M, Mons A, Packer A, Persson B, Rocca-Serra P, Roos M, van Schaik R, Sansone S, Schultes E, Sengstag T, Slater T, Strawn G, Swertz M, Thompson M, van der Lei J, van Mulligen E, Velterop J, Waagmeester A, Wittenburg P, Wolstencroft K, Zhao J, Mons B (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3 (1). httos://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 Wilson E (2017) Biodiversity research requires more boots on the ground. Nature Ecology & Evolution 1 (11): 1590-1591. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-01 7-0360-y