Subscribe
The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted nearly every aspect of human life and now, a new study has highlighted its impact on biodiversity monitoring worldwide.
Researchers have found that lockdown measures led to a sharp decline in species occurrence records, particularly in developing nations that rely heavily on international researchers and eco-tourists for biodiversity data collection.
The study, titled Global Impact of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Biodiversity Data Collection, was published in Scientific Reports on March 13, 2025. It analysed biodiversity records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) during the first global lockdown (March 15-May 1, 2020) and compared them to pre-pandemic levels.
The findings revealed that developing countries experienced a steeper decline in biodiversity records than developed ones, exposing vulnerabilities in global biodiversity monitoring systems.
The researchers examined biodiversity records from 129 countries using one of the world’s largest biodiversity databases GBIF. They compared species occurrence records from the 2020 lockdown period to the same period in 2019.
They also analysed human mobility patterns using Google’s COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports and assessed the impact of government-imposed restrictions. Additionally, data from eBird, the largest citizen science birdwatching platform, was used to evaluate how movement restrictions affected public participation in biodiversity monitoring.
The study revealed that developing countries saw a greater decline in biodiversity records than developed nations. Many of these regions depend on international scientists and tourists for biodiversity data collection. Their absence during lockdowns led to significant gaps in records. Countries in Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia, such as Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda and Venezuela, recorded notably fewer species occurrences than before the pandemic.
Strict lockdowns in some European nations resulted in a sharp decline in biodiversity data. Countries like Italy and Spain, which implemented stringent lockdowns and restricted park visits, experienced the steepest declines. In contrast, nations that permitted outdoor movement, such as Germany, Sweden and Finland, saw an increase in biodiversity observations.
eBird participation declined in developing countries but increased in developed nations. While countries like the United States, Canada and Australia recorded a rise in eBird activity, most African and Latin American nations saw a significant drop. This suggests that local participation in biodiversity monitoring was lower in developing countries, making them more vulnerable to data gaps.
International observer decline contributed to data loss in the Global South. Many biodiversity contributors in developing nations were international visitors, including researchers and birdwatchers, who were unable to travel during lockdowns.
The pandemic exposed a major flaw in biodiversity research — its heavy reliance on international observers. The study underscores the need for robust, community-driven biodiversity monitoring programmes that can operate independently of global mobility.
In developed countries, citizen science platforms like eBird and iNaturalist helped maintain biodiversity records during the lockdown, as more people engaged in nature activities near their homes. However, in developing nations, where such platforms are less widely used, biodiversity monitoring suffered.
To address these disparities, the researchers recommended:
Investing in community-based biodiversity monitoring to ensure consistent data collection, even during crises.
Encouraging the use of citizen science platforms in developing nations to increase local participation in biodiversity research.
Strengthening policies to integrate local biodiversity monitoring into national conservation strategies.
The COVID-19 lockdowns provided a rare opportunity to study the relationship between human activity and biodiversity. As the world moves forward, experts stress that conservation efforts must not rely solely on international researchers but should empower local communities to document and protect their biodiversity.