Mining Oregon eBird Data – IV

Back on Tuesday the 22nd, we put forth the hypothesis “More people are using eBird”.

I have not been able to find data points for the actual number of observers when that number goes over a hundred.  Some counties have less than 100 observers per year but many don’t so it is not possible with the data i have to determine the actual number of eBird recorders in Oregon.  But what is possible is to tally the number of checklists submitted.

For all of Oregon it looks like this:

 Year  Lists
2009        7,774
2010      16,612
2011      25,730
2012      39,745

Plotted by week is shown below (Left Click to Enlarge):

Number of Cchecklists Submitted to eBird by Week.

Number of Checklists Submitted to eBird by Week.

Extrapolating from existing 2013 data would yield a approximate 2013 total of  63,750

Growth in the number of checklists submitted in Oregon is shown in the table below:

 Year  Lists  Growth
2009       7,777
2010      16,612 114%
2011      25,730 55%
2012      39,745 54%
2013      63,682 60%

At the County level, using only 2010 to 2012 data, eBird reporting from 2010 to 2012 is shown in the (large) table below:

County 2010 2011 2012  Total % Growth (’10 to ’12)
MORROW         11         23       262       296 2281.8%
COLUMBIA         66       256       478       800 624.2%
UNION         39         89       238       366 510.3%
LINN       107       374       625     1,106 484.1%
YAMHILL         91       153       432       676 374.7%
DOUGLAS       152       401       693     1,246 355.9%
POLK       263       485     1,143     1,891 334.6%
UMATILLA         58       106       246       410 324.1%
HARNEY       438       545     1,529     2,512 249.1%
BENTON     1,331     3,921     4,626     9,878 247.6%
LINCOLN       758     1,412     2,564     4,734 238.3%
LANE       954     1,466     3,112     5,532 226.2%
SHERMAN         43       115       135       293 214.0%
TILLAMOOK       394       638     1,219     2,251 209.4%
GRANT         39         36       116       191 197.4%
WASCO       151       168       438       757 190.1%
KLAMATH       669     1,050     1,916     3,635 186.4%
MALHEUR         59         61       164       284 178.0%
GILLIAM         20         33         51       104 155.0%
MULTNOMAH     1,833     3,081     4,606     9,520 151.3%
CLATSOP       248       414       606     1,268 144.4%
COOS       373       395       891     1,659 138.9%
WASHINGTON     1,521     2,155     3,439     7,115 126.1%
MARION       584       886     1,307     2,777 123.8%
CLACKAMAS       635     1,028     1,360     3,023 114.2%
WALLOWA         50         57       102       209 104.0%
JOSEPHINE       145       172       262       579 80.7%
HOOD RIVER       112       147       186       445 66.1%
JACKSON     1,757     2,084     2,788     6,629 58.7%
WHEELER         26       100         41       167 57.7%
DESCHUTES     1,325     1,487     1,849     4,661 39.5%
BAKER         30         32         40       102 33.3%
LAKE       310       328       385     1,023 24.2%
JEFFERSON       292       315       307       914 5.1%
CROOK       844     1,105       810     2,759 -4.0%
CURRY       884       612       779     2,275 -11.9%

.. with the data points representing the number of checklists submitted to eBird per year.

The same data representation for all of Oregon:

2010 2011 2012  Total % Growth (’10 to ’12)
 Oregon Total   16,612   25,730   39,745   82,087 139%

I think that’s rather impressive.  Not only in the expanded use but in the shear volume of the reports.  (we’re going to need more Oregon eBird Reviewers at this pace)

With eBird’s stated purpose: “With thousands of birdwatchers across the continent helping to construct it [the eBird database] by contributing their sightings, eBird will soon become a vast source of bird and environmental information useful not only to bird watchers but to scientists and conservationists the world over.”  I’d say Oregon eBirders are doing their part.

Advertisements