Assessing the usefulness of citizen science data for habitat suitability modelling: Opportunistic reporting versus sampling based on a systematic protocol

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the potential of models based on opportunistic reporting (OR) compared to models based on data from a systematic protocol (SP) for modelling species distributions. We compared model performance for eight forest bird species with contrasting spatial distributions, habitat requirements and rarity. Differences in the reporting of species were also assessed. Finally, we tested potential improvement of models when inferring high‐quality absences from OR based on questionnaires sent to observers. Location Both datasets cover the same large area (Sweden) and time period (2000–2013). Methods Species distributions were modelled using logistic regression. Predictive performance of OR models to predict SP data was assessed based on AUC. We quantified the congruence in spatial predictions using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. We related these results to species characteristics and reporting behaviour of observers. We also assessed the gain in predictive performance of OR models by adding inferred absences. Finally, we investigated the potential impact of sampling bias in OR. Results For all species, and despite the sampling biases, results from OR overall agreed well with those of SP, for the nationwide spatial congruence of habitat suitability maps and the selection and directions of species–environment relationships. The OR models also performed well in predicting the SP data. The predictive performance of the OR models increased with species rarity and even outperformed the SP model for the rarest species. No significant impact of observer behaviour was found. Main conclusions Relatively simple analyses with inferred absences could produce reliable spatial predictions of habitat suitability. This was especially true for rare species. OR data should be seen as a complement to SP, as the weakness of one is the strength of the other, and OR may be especially useful at large spatial scales or where no systematic data collection protocols exist.

Modeling Fine-Scale Cetaceans’ Distributions in Oceanic Islands: Madeira Archipelago as a Case Study

“…Even if the AUC values alone might not be the best model performance indicator (Lobo et al, 2008), all selected models ranged between 0.7 and 0.9, which, together with the low omission rate values, indicates good overall predictive performance. This reinforces the potential of opportunistically collected datasets to produce reliable estimates of habitat suitability, as Henckel et al (2020) found recently.…”

Large-bodied birds are over-represented in unstructured citizen science data

“…Indeed, a study of bugs and beetles found that smaller species are typically less represented in citizen science data 68 . Importantly, because this body size bias is systematic, it may be easier to model, as we know that these data are not missing at random (e.g., 70 ) and thus body size can be included in various modelling processes when using unstructured citizen science data (e.g., 67 ).…”

Climate change has different predicted effects on the range shifts of two hybridizing ambush bug (Phymata, Family Reduviidae, Order Hemiptera) species

“…Nevertheless, our goal was to examine potential range shifts in regions pertinent to possible hybridization, and perhaps a cautious approach is to interpret our results as predictions confined to a subset of the geographical range. Citizen science data may be particularly prone to opportunistic collection, and hence, biased occurrence data (Syfert et al, 2013;Tiago et al, 2017 (Henckel et al, 2020). In the present study, the contributions of citizen science data were limited to only three data points retained in any of the model; the subset of the observations that temporally overlapped with the available environmental data happened to be comprised mostly of museum data.…”