Downloads provided by UsageCounts
doi: 10.1002/ece3.6832
pmid: 33209273
pmc: PMC7663073
handle: 10261/236836 , 20.500.14243/378775 , 11585/927454
doi: 10.1002/ece3.6832
pmid: 33209273
pmc: PMC7663073
handle: 10261/236836 , 20.500.14243/378775 , 11585/927454
AbstractCitizen science platforms are increasingly growing, and, storing a huge amount of data on species locations, they provide researchers with essential information to develop sound strategies for species conservation. However, the lack of information on surveyed sites (i.e., where the observers did not record the target species) and sampling effort (e.g., the number of surveys at a given site, by how many observers, and for how much time) strongly limit the use of citizen science data. Thus, we examined the advantage of using an observer‐oriented approach (i.e., considering occurrences of species other than the target species collected by the observers of the target species as pseudo‐absences and additional predictors relative to the total number of observations, observers, and days in which locations were collected in a given sampling unit, as proxies of sampling effort) to develop species distribution models. Specifically, we considered 15 mammal species occurring in Italy and compared the predictive accuracy of the ensemble predictions of nine species distribution models carried out considering random pseudo‐absences versus observer‐oriented approach. Through cross‐validations, we found that the observer‐oriented approach improved species distribution models, providing a higher predictive accuracy than random pseudo‐absences. Our results showed that species distribution modeling developed using pseudo‐absences derived citizen science data outperform those carried out using random pseudo‐absences and thus improve the capacity of species distribution models to accurately predict the geographic range of species when deriving robust surrogate of sampling effort.
Mammals, selection of pseudo-absences, Ecology, Selection of pseudo-absences, Biodiversity platforms, spatial ecology, selection of pseudo‐absences, sampling effort, biodiversity platforms, ecological niche modelling, Sampling effort, Ecological niche modeling, Spatial ecology, biodiversity platforms; ecological niche modeling; mammals; sampling effort; selection of pseudo-absences; spatial ecology, mammals, ecological niche modeling, QH540-549.5, Original Research
Mammals, selection of pseudo-absences, Ecology, Selection of pseudo-absences, Biodiversity platforms, spatial ecology, selection of pseudo‐absences, sampling effort, biodiversity platforms, ecological niche modelling, Sampling effort, Ecological niche modeling, Spatial ecology, biodiversity platforms; ecological niche modeling; mammals; sampling effort; selection of pseudo-absences; spatial ecology, mammals, ecological niche modeling, QH540-549.5, Original Research
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 35 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
| views | 33 | |
| downloads | 53 |

Views provided by UsageCounts
Downloads provided by UsageCounts