» Articles » PMID: 33841764

How Citizen Science Could Improve Species Distribution Models and Their Independent Assessment

Overview
Journal Ecol Evol
Date 2021 Apr 12
PMID 33841764
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Niche Distribution Pattern of Rüppell's Vulture () and Conservation Implication in Kenya.

Chepkirui P, Chiawo D, James J, Jemimah S, Ellwood E, Mugo J Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(12):e70371.

PMID: 39650540 PMC: 11621865. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70371.


Using vessels of opportunity for determining important habitats of bottlenose dolphins in Port Phillip Bay, south-eastern Australia.

Ledwidge M, Monk J, Mason S, Arnould J PeerJ. 2024; 12:e18400.

PMID: 39494272 PMC: 11531264. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.18400.


How Do Age and Attitudes Affect the Quality of Data Collected by Young Citizen Scientists in an Ecological Research Project?.

Aivelo T Ecol Evol. 2024; 14(10):e70428.

PMID: 39398631 PMC: 11467035. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.70428.


Reassessment of French breeding bird population sizes using citizen science and accounting for species detectability.

Nabias J, Barbaro L, Fontaine B, Dupuy J, Couzi L, Valle C PeerJ. 2024; 12:e17889.

PMID: 39221279 PMC: 11363910. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17889.


Treating gaps and biases in biodiversity data as a missing data problem.

Bowler D, Boyd R, Callaghan C, Robinson R, Isaac N, Pocock M Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2024; 100(1):50-67.

PMID: 39114921 PMC: 11718628. DOI: 10.1111/brv.13127.


References
1.
Petrovan S, Schmidt B . Volunteer Conservation Action Data Reveals Large-Scale and Long-Term Negative Population Trends of a Widespread Amphibian, the Common Toad (Bufo bufo). PLoS One. 2016; 11(10):e0161943. PMC: 5051710. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161943. View

2.
Schmeller D, Henry P, Julliard R, Gruber B, Clobert J, Dziock F . Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conserv Biol. 2009; 23(2):307-16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01125.x. View

3.
Guisan A, Thuiller W . Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett. 2021; 8(9):993-1009. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00792.x. View

4.
Sutherland W, Wordley C . Evidence complacency hampers conservation. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017; 1(9):1215-1216. DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0244-1. View

5.
Phillips S, Dudik M, Elith J, Graham C, Lehmann A, Leathwick J . Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol Appl. 2009; 19(1):181-97. DOI: 10.1890/07-2153.1. View