How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush‐tailed rock‐wallabies Petrogale penicillata

How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the... Summary 1. Species’ distribution modelling relies on adequate data sets to build reliable statistical models with high predictive ability. However, the money spent collecting empirical data might be better spent on management. A less expensive source of species’ distribution information is expert opinion. This study evaluates expert knowledge and its source. In particular, we determine whether models built on expert knowledge apply over multiple regions or only within the region where the knowledge was derived. 2. The case study focuses on the distribution of the brush‐tailed rock‐wallaby Petrogale penicillata in eastern Australia. We brought together from two biogeographically different regions substantial and well‐designed field data and knowledge from nine experts. We used a novel elicitation tool within a geographical information system to systematically collect expert opinions. The tool utilized an indirect approach to elicitation, asking experts simpler questions about observable rather than abstract quantities, with measures in place to identify uncertainty and offer feedback. Bayesian analysis was used to combine field data and expert knowledge in each region to determine: (i) how expert opinion affected models based on field data and (ii) how similar expert‐informed models were within regions and across regions. 3. The elicitation tool effectively captured the experts’ opinions and their uncertainties. Experts were comfortable with the map‐based elicitation approach used, especially with graphical feedback. Experts tended to predict lower values of species occurrence compared with field data. 4. Across experts, consensus on effect sizes occurred for several habitat variables. Expert opinion generally influenced predictions from field data. However, south‐east Queensland and north‐east New South Wales experts had different opinions on the influence of elevation and geology, with these differences attributable to geological differences between these regions. 5. Synthesis and applications. When formulated as priors in Bayesian analysis, expert opinion is useful for modifying or strengthening patterns exhibited by empirical data sets that are limited in size or scope. Nevertheless, the ability of an expert to extrapolate beyond their region of knowledge may be poor. Hence there is significant merit in obtaining information from local experts when compiling species’ distribution models across several regions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Ecology Wiley

How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush‐tailed rock‐wallabies Petrogale penicillata

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/how-useful-is-expert-opinion-for-predicting-the-distribution-of-a-3D42HG1Wve
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 British Ecological Society
ISSN
0021-8901
eISSN
1365-2664
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01671.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Summary 1. Species’ distribution modelling relies on adequate data sets to build reliable statistical models with high predictive ability. However, the money spent collecting empirical data might be better spent on management. A less expensive source of species’ distribution information is expert opinion. This study evaluates expert knowledge and its source. In particular, we determine whether models built on expert knowledge apply over multiple regions or only within the region where the knowledge was derived. 2. The case study focuses on the distribution of the brush‐tailed rock‐wallaby Petrogale penicillata in eastern Australia. We brought together from two biogeographically different regions substantial and well‐designed field data and knowledge from nine experts. We used a novel elicitation tool within a geographical information system to systematically collect expert opinions. The tool utilized an indirect approach to elicitation, asking experts simpler questions about observable rather than abstract quantities, with measures in place to identify uncertainty and offer feedback. Bayesian analysis was used to combine field data and expert knowledge in each region to determine: (i) how expert opinion affected models based on field data and (ii) how similar expert‐informed models were within regions and across regions. 3. The elicitation tool effectively captured the experts’ opinions and their uncertainties. Experts were comfortable with the map‐based elicitation approach used, especially with graphical feedback. Experts tended to predict lower values of species occurrence compared with field data. 4. Across experts, consensus on effect sizes occurred for several habitat variables. Expert opinion generally influenced predictions from field data. However, south‐east Queensland and north‐east New South Wales experts had different opinions on the influence of elevation and geology, with these differences attributable to geological differences between these regions. 5. Synthesis and applications. When formulated as priors in Bayesian analysis, expert opinion is useful for modifying or strengthening patterns exhibited by empirical data sets that are limited in size or scope. Nevertheless, the ability of an expert to extrapolate beyond their region of knowledge may be poor. Hence there is significant merit in obtaining information from local experts when compiling species’ distribution models across several regions.

Journal

Journal of Applied EcologyWiley

Published: Aug 1, 2009

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off