ArticleEcology and evolution2021
How citizen science could improve species distribution models and their independent assessment.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Where the wolf roams: ecological preferences and wild prey association in a changing Mediterranean landscape.Frontiers in zoology · 2026Article
- Occurrence data for habitat suitability modelling to support conservation planning in Latvia: species list, observations and ecogeographical variable selection.Biodiversity data journal · 2026Article
- Snakes among citizens: distribution and ecology of the Aesculapian snake, Zamenis longissimus (Laurenti, 1768) in Bratislava revealed by citizen science.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Modelling the distribution of the tick Ixodes ricinus in England and Wales using passive surveillance data from citizen science reports.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- Urbanization Drives Habitat Suitability of the Invasive Cuban Knight Anole (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Synergies Between Agricultural Production and Shorebird Conservation With Climate Change in the Central Valley, California, With Optimized Water Allocation and Multi-Benefit Land Use.Global change biology · 2025Article
- Vulnerability of Gubernatrix cristata to climate change, anthropogenic pressures, and hybridization threats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025Review
- Article
- Protected insect species in Italy: occurrence data from a 10-year citizen science initiative.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
- Niche Distribution Pattern of Rüppell's Vulture (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- How Do Age and Attitudes Affect the Quality of Data Collected by Young Citizen Scientists in an Ecological Research Project?Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Using ecological niche modelling to prioritise areas for conservation of the critically endangered Buffy-Headed marmoset (Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Predicting the distribution of Ixodes ricinus and Dermacentor reticulatus in Europe: a comparison of climate niche modelling approaches.Parasites & vectors · 2023Review
- Article
- How citizen science could improve species distribution models and their independent assessment.Ecology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Species distribution models (SDM) have been increasingly developed in recent years, but their validity is questioned. Their assessment can be improved by the use of independent data, but this can be difficult to obtain and prohibitive to collect. Standardized data from citizen science may be used to establish external evaluation datasets and to improve SDM validation and applicability.We used opportunistic presence-only data along with presence-absence data from a standardized citizen science program to establish and assess habitat suitability maps for 9 species of amphibian in western France. We assessed Generalized Additive and Random Forest Models' performance by (1) cross-validation using 30% of the opportunistic dataset used to calibrate the model or (2) external validation using different independent datasets derived from citizen science monitoring. We tested the effects of applying different combinations of filters to the citizen data and of complementing it with additional standardized fieldwork.Cross-validation with an internal evaluation dataset resulted in higher AUC (Area Under the receiver operating Curve) than external evaluation causing overestimation of model accuracy and did not select the same models; models integrating sampling effort performed better with external validation. AUC, specificity, and sensitivity of models calculated with different filtered external datasets differed for some species. However, for most species, complementary fieldwork was not necessary to obtain coherent results, as long as the citizen science data were strongly filtered.Since external validation methods using independent data are considered more robust, filtering data from citizen sciences may make a valuable contribution to the assessment of SDM. Limited complementary fieldwork with volunteer's participation to complete ecological gradients may also possibly enhance citizen involvement and lead to better use of SDM in decision processes for nature conservation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.