Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33705414›Full record

ReviewPloS one2021

Trends and gaps in the use of citizen science derived data as input for species distribution models: A quantitative review.

Mariano J Feldman, Louis Imbeau, Philippe Marchand, Marc J Mazerolle, Marcel Darveau, Nicole J Fenton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. PhytoKeys · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Incorporating citizen science into IUCN Red List assessments.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Ecology and evolution · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mariano J FeldmanCentre d'étude de la forêt, Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts (IRF), Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT), Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2966-5562
Louis ImbeauCentre d'étude de la forêt, Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts (IRF), Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT), Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada.
Philippe MarchandCentre d'étude de la forêt, Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts (IRF), Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT), Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada.
Marc J MazerolleDépartement des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Centre d'étude de la forêt, Faculté de foresterie, de géographie et de géomatique, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec City, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0486-0310
Marcel DarveauDépartement des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Centre d'étude de la forêt, Faculté de foresterie, de géographie et de géomatique, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec City, Canada.
Nicole J FentonCentre d'étude de la forêt, Institut de Recherche sur les Forêts (IRF), Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue (UQAT), Rouyn-Noranda, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Citizen science (CS) currently refers to the participation of non-scientist volunteers in any discipline of conventional scientific research. Over the last two decades, nature-based CS has flourished due to innovative technology, novel devices, and widespread digital platforms used to collect and classify species occurrence data. For scientists, CS offers a low-cost approach of collecting species occurrence information at large spatial scales that otherwise would be prohibitively expensive. We examined the trends and gaps linked to the use of CS as a source of data for species distribution models (SDMs), in order to propose guidelines and highlight solutions. We conducted a quantitative literature review of 207 peer-reviewed articles to measure how the representation of different taxa, regions, and data types have changed in SDM publications since the 2010s. Our review shows that the number of papers using CS for SDMs has increased at approximately double the rate of the overall number of SDM papers. However, disparities in taxonomic and geographic coverage remain in studies using CS. Western Europe and North America were the regions with the most coverage (73%). Papers on birds (49%) and mammals (19.3%) outnumbered other taxa. Among invertebrates, flying insects including Lepidoptera, Odonata and Hymenoptera received the most attention. Discrepancies between research interest and availability of data were as especially important for amphibians, reptiles and fishes. Compared to studies on animal taxa, papers on plants using CS data remain rare. Although the aims and scope of papers are diverse, species conservation remained the central theme of SDM using CS data. We present examples of the use of CS and highlight recommendations to motivate further research, such as combining multiple data sources and promoting local and traditional knowledge. We hope our findings will strengthen citizen-researchers partnerships to better inform SDMs, especially for less-studied taxa and regions. Researchers stand to benefit from the large quantity of data available from CS sources to improve global predictions of species distributions.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiodiversityCitizen ScienceDatabases, FactualLinear ModelsPeer Review, Research

Identifiers

PMID33705414
PMCPMC7951830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.