Fig 1.
Flow chart of paper selection for a) the citizen science (CS) papers and b) for the entire species distributions models (SDMs) field.
All 207 papers in a) are listed in S1 Table. From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Iterns for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org.
Fig 2.
(a) Annual number of papers that have used species distribution models (SDMs) with citizen science (CS) data; (b) generalized linear model with Poisson distribution of the total papers using SDMs (blue) and the papers using CS data (red) across the 10-year period covered by our review (difference in slopes: -0.16, Z = -5.4, P < 0.001), resulting in publication growth of 16% for SDMs and 36% for CS on average per year.
Fig 3.
Proportion of citizen science (CS) papers from this review (red point) relative to the proportion of global richness in the Catalogue of Life (grey bars) by taxa and number of global occurrence in GBIF (green bars), for (a) vertebrates and (b) invertebrates; (c) proportion of CS papers by data collection region (red dotted lines) relative to each region’s fraction of the Earth’s land area (grey bars); and (d) proportion of CS papers by country.
Fig 4.
Sources of information used in the papers included in the literature review (n = 207).
Only databases with three or more papers are shown. Great Count: world-wide surveys targeting birds and mammals.
Fig 5.
Papers that have analyzed species distribution models (SDMs) using citizen science (CS) data in our literature review illustrating (a) study scope illustrated by a Venn diagram (intersections containing a single study not shown); (b) study scope per year; (c) method of collecting citizen science data; (d) data type used; (e) statistical approach and (f) statistical approach per year.
All details for the 207 papers are cited in S1 Table.