Explaining spatial variation in the recording effort of citizen science data across multiple taxa

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Mair, Louise ^a   Ruete, Alejandro ^a  

^a SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; POPULATION DENSITY; SAMPLING BIAS; SCIENTIST; SWEDEN; UNCERTAINTY; VOLUNTARY REPORTING; ANIMAL; ANIMAL DISPERSAL; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE; OBSERVER VARIATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMAL DISTRIBUTION; ANIMALS; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; OBSERVER VARIATION; SWEDEN;

EID: 84958225519     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147796     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Schmeller DS, Henry PY, Julliard R, Gruber B, Clobert J, Dziock F, et al. Advantages of Volunteer-Based Biodiversity Monitoring in Europe. Conservation Biology. 2009;23(2):307-16. doi: 10.1111/j. 1523-1739.2008.01125.x PMID: 19183201
2. Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2009;24(9):467-71.
3. Asher J, Warren M, Fox R, Harding P, Jeffcoate G, Jeffcoate J. The Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.
4. Ficetola GF, Rondinini C, Bonardi A, Katariya V, Padoa-Schioppa E, Angulo A. An evaluation of the robustness of global amphibian range maps. Journal of Biogeography. 2014;41(2):211-21.
5. Ward EJ, Marshall KN, Ross T, Sedgley A, Hass T, Pearson SF, et al. Using citizen-science data to identify local hotspots of seabird occurrence. PeerJ. 2015;3:e704. doi: 10.7717/peerj.704 PMID: 25653898
6. Isaac NJB, Girardello M, Brereton TM, Roy DB. Butterfly abundance in a warming climate: patterns in space and time are not congruent. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2011;15(1-2):233-40.
7. Breed GA, Stichter S, Crone EE. Climate-driven changes in northeastern US butterfly communities. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3(2):142-5.
8. Mair L, Thomas CD, Anderson BJ, Fox R, Botham M, Hill JK. Temporal variation in responses of species to four decades of climate warming. Global Change Biology. 2012;18(8):2439-47.
9. Lemoine N, Schaefer H-C, Böhning-Gaese K. Species richness of migratory birds is influenced by global climate change. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2007;16(1):55-64.
10. Devictor V, Godet L, Julliard R, Couvet D, Jiguet F. Can common species benefit from protected areas? Biological Conservation. 2007;139(1-2):29-36.
11. Hurlbert AH, Jetz W. Species richness, hotspots, and the scale dependence of range maps in ecology and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2007;104(33):13384-9.
12. Tulloch AIT, Mustin K, Possingham HP, Szabo JK, Wilson KA. To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale. Diversity and Distributions. 2013;19(4):465-80.
13. Barbosa FG, Schneck F. Characteristics of the top-cited papers in species distribution predictive models. Ecological Modelling. 2015;313:77-83.
14. Keil P, Wilson AM, Jetz W. Uncertainty, priors, autocorrelation and disparate data in downscaling of species distributions. Diversity and Distributions. 2014;20(7):797-812.
15. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN. Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2010;41:149-72.
16. Rocchini D, Hortal J, Lengyel S, Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Ricotta C, et al. Accounting for uncertainty when mapping species distributions: The need for maps of ignorance. Progress in Physical Geography. 2011;35(2):211-26.
17. Romo H, Garcia-Barros E, Lobo JM. Identifying recorder-induced geographic bias in an Iberian butterfly database. Ecography. 2006;29(6):873-85.
18. Dennis RLH, Thomas CD. Bias in butterfly distribution maps: the influence of hot spots and recorder's home range. Journal of Insect Conservation. 2000;4:73-7.
19. Tulloch AIT, Szabo JK. A behavioural ecology approach to understand volunteer surveying for citizen science datasets. Emu. 2012;112(4):313-25.
20. Snäll T, Kindvall O, Nilsson J, Pärt T. Evaluating citizen-based presence data for bird monitoring. Biological Conservation. 2011;144(2):804-10.
21. van Strien AJ, van Swaay CAM, Termaat T. Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2013;50(6):1450-8.
22. Isaac NJB, van Strien AJ, August TA, de Zeeuw MP, Roy DB. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2014;5(10):1052-60.
23. Stolar J, Nielsen SE. Accounting for spatially biased sampling effort in presence-only species distribution modelling. Diversity and Distributions. 2015;21(5):595-608.
24. Ruete A. Displaying bias in sampling effort of data accessed from biodiversity databases using ignorance maps. Biodiversity Data Journal. 2015(3:):e5361. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.3.e5361 PMID: 26312050
25. Syfert MM, Smith MJ, Coomes DA. The effects of sampling bias and model complexity on the predictive performance of MaxEnt species distribution models. Plos One. 2013;8(2):10.
26. Ruete A. Simple algorithms to display ignorance maps of raw distributional data accessed from biodiversity databases. under review.
27. Kadmon R, Farber O, Danin A. Effect of roadside bias on the accuracy of predictive maps produced by bioclimatic models. Ecological Applications. 2004;14(2):401-13.
28. Fernández D, Nakamura M. Estimation of spatial sampling effort based on presence-only data and accessibility. Ecological Modelling. 2015;299(0):147-55.
29. Plummer M. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. 2012, http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net.
30. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BR, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Statistical Methodology. 2002;64:583-616.
31. Phillips SJ, Dudik M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31(2):161-75.
32. Phillips SJ, Dudik M, Elith J, Graham CH, Lehmann A, Leathwick J, et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecological Applications. 2009;19(1):181-97. PMID: 19323182
33. Fithian W, Elith J, Hastie T, Keith DA. Bias correction in species distribution models: pooling survey and collection data for multiple species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2015;6(4):424-38.
34. Warton DI, Renner IW, Ramp D. Model-Based Control of Observer Bias for the Analysis of Presence-Only Data in Ecology. Plos One. 2013;8(11).
35. Kramer-Schadt S, Niedballa J, Pilgrim JD, Schroder B, Lindenborn J, Reinfelder V, et al. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Diversity and Distributions. 2013;19(11):1366-79.
36. McInerny GJ, Chen M, Freeman R, Gavaghan D, Meyer M, Rowland F, et al. Information visualisation for science and policy: engaging users and avoiding bias. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2014;29(3):148-57.