Define the survey boundary before starting. Flag it with cones or mark it on a shared map. Announce the time limit. The goal is to find as many different species as possible within the boundary before time is called.
Turn over rocks, logs, bark, and leaf litter carefully. Look on the underside of leaves and in the folds of plants. Replace everything you move exactly as you found it. Ground-dwelling beetles, weta, spiders, native snails, and slaters are commonly found this way.
Swing a net in a wide figure-of-eight motion through long grass, shrubs, and low vegetation. After ten to twenty sweeps, close the net and examine what is inside using a white tray. Release everything after photographing and recording.
Hold a white tray or container under a shrub or tree branch and shake the branch firmly. Insects, spiders, and larvae drop onto the white surface. This method is particularly effective for discovering species that are invisible from above.
Sink a small cup level with the ground surface in a grassy area. Leave overnight, check in the morning, photograph contents, then remove the trap. Ground-active beetles and invertebrates walk in and cannot climb out. Reset the ground surface after removing the trap.
Photograph every organism against a plain white background before releasing it. Submit each photograph as an iNaturalistNZ observation. Include location and any habitat notes. If signal is poor, save as drafts and submit back in the classroom.
Release all organisms to exactly where they were found. Return any rocks, bark, or logs to their original position. Leave the survey area in the same state you found it.
The goal of a BioBlitz is to find as many different species as possible. What matters more than any single find is the pattern: a biodiverse area supports a wide range of organisms across different feeding roles and habitat layers. For Southland schools in particular, even a modest patch of native vegetation or an undisturbed corner of the school grounds can produce an impressive species list.
LEARNZ has produced a free Backyard BioBlitz activity that works well as a preparation resource before heading out to run your own BioBlitz. The activity is built around a video with Biodiversity Ranger Brad, filmed at Ō Tū Wharekai, a high-country wetland in the Southern Alps, demonstrating four methods for catching and observing invertebrates. iNaturalistNZ is recommended throughout as the identification tool. The activity is free and requires no registration.
These prompts build on what students observed and recorded during the BioBlitz. iNaturalistNZ observations are the starting point for most prompts. Where gen AI is used alongside iNaturalistNZ, the comparison between the two outputs is the learning task, not the AI output itself.
Look at your iNaturalistNZ observation. What did the app identify your creature as? Describe the same creature to a gen AI chatbot without showing a photo. Did they agree? Which answer do you trust more and why?
Choose one organism from your BioBlitz. Ask a gen AI chatbot: "Where does a [organism name] live and what does it eat?" Then check the answer against your iNaturalistNZ observation and what you actually saw at the BioBlitz site.
Ask a gen AI chatbot: "What would happen to other animals in this area if all the [organism] disappeared?" Tell it what other animals you found in the same place. Does its answer make sense based on what you saw?
Tell a gen AI chatbot how many different types of living things your group found: "We found [number] different species in [location] in [time]. Is that a lot or a little for a school ground?" What would it need to know to give you a better answer?
Submit your most interesting specimen to iNaturalistNZ. Then describe it to a gen AI chatbot without a photograph. Where do the identifications agree? Where do they differ? What does the difference tell you about how each tool works and what data it is drawing on?
Share your complete BioBlitz species list with a gen AI chatbot: "We found these species at [location type] in [region]: [list]. What does this combination of species tell you about the condition of this habitat?" Evaluate the response against what you observed on the day.
Find one of your iNaturalistNZ observations online and look at where else in NZ this species has been recorded. Ask a gen AI chatbot: "Why might ecologists track where this species appears and disappears over time?" What would a change in distribution tell researchers?
Ask a gen AI chatbot to help you design a repeat BioBlitz: "If I wanted to know whether the biodiversity of this site had changed in six months, what would I need to measure, how would I measure it, and what result would tell me something had changed?"
For an ambiguous specimen, compare: iNaturalistNZ with location enabled, iNaturalistNZ with location disabled, and a gen AI chatbot with a written description only. Document the results. What does this comparison reveal about the training data, design assumptions, and appropriate use cases for each tool?
Ask a gen AI chatbot to explain the Shannon Diversity Index and how it is calculated. Apply it to your BioBlitz data. Then ask: "What does a higher Shannon index tell a conservation manager, and what does it not tell them?" Verify the explanation against an authoritative source such as a university ecology resource or Statistics NZ guidance.
Ask a gen AI chatbot: "Given a BioBlitz at [your site type] that found [your species list], what land use history would most likely explain this result, and what changes to the immediate area would most improve biodiversity within five years?" Evaluate the causal chain against your knowledge of the actual site and its surroundings.
Research what makes iNaturalistNZ observations scientifically credible: sampling protocol, location accuracy, expert verification, and data accessibility. Ask a gen AI chatbot the same question. Write a short critical comparison: what can citizen science data contribute that neither professional ecological surveys nor AI-generated responses can replicate, and where are its limits?
| Level | Years 0–6 | Years 7–10 | Years 11–13 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Student names at least one organism found during the BioBlitz and can point to it in a photograph or their field notes. Understands that the organisms came from a real outdoor location, not a textbook or screen. | Student identifies organisms from the BioBlitz sample by name, notes their ecological role, and makes a basic claim about habitat condition based on what was found. | Student identifies organisms to species level where possible, notes their functional role in the ecosystem, and produces an initial habitat quality assessment from the field data. |
| 2 | Student links the organisms found to a habitat claim: "We found a lot of different types of invertebrates, which means there is good habitat here" or equivalent. Can explain in simple terms why more species types usually means a healthier place. | Student explains the connection between species diversity and habitat quality, linking specific finds to specific conditions such as the presence of native vegetation, undisturbed soil, or nearby water. | Student constructs a causal account connecting habitat characteristics, land use history, and organism community composition, using the BioBlitz data as the evidence base. |
| 3 | Student compares what iNaturalistNZ said about a specimen with what a gen AI chatbot said, and can explain in simple terms why the two tools gave different answers. | Student documents a systematic comparison between iNaturalistNZ and gen AI identification for at least one specimen, identifies where they agreed and differed, and explains what the difference reveals about how each tool works. | Student analyses identification results across multiple specimens, draws conclusions about the conditions under which each tool is reliable, and evaluates the implications for using AI in biodiversity and conservation practice. |
| 4 | Student explains what being at the BioBlitz site added that a video, photograph, or AI explanation could not: the experience of searching carefully, the surprise of what turned up, the feel of the soil or bark, the noise and movement of something found under a rock. | Student articulates what direct field observation provides that secondary sources cannot: independently collected, location-specific, time-stamped data. Explains why that matters for a biodiversity claim. | Student reflects on the epistemological difference between field-collected data, citizen science observation, and AI-generated explanation, considering what each can and cannot constitute as evidence in an environmental science or conservation context. |
| 5 | Student submits at least one iNaturalistNZ observation from the BioBlitz and can explain that experts will review it and that it will be used by scientists. Generates one question they would want to investigate at the same site in a different season or weather condition. | Student submits iNaturalistNZ observations, checks back for expert identifications, and formulates a testable monitoring question: what would need to change in the species list or count to conclude that the habitat had improved or declined? | Student designs a monitoring protocol for repeat BioBlitz sampling: specifies the survey method, site boundaries, time parameters, species to record, a biodiversity index to calculate, and a hypothesis about what future change would look like and why. |