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-wallabiesPetrogale penicillata
Murray, Justine V., Goldizen, Anne W., O’Leary, Rebecca A., McAlpine, Clive A., Possingham, Hugh P., & Choy, Samantha Low (2009) 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-wallabiesPetrogale penicillata. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(4), pp. 842-851.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Impact and interest:
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||Bayesian, Elicitation, Expert Knowledge, Extrapolation, Model Transferability, Spatial Habitat Modelling|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (060000) > ECOLOGY (060200)|
|Divisions:||Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Science and Technology|
Past > Schools > Mathematical Sciences
|Deposited On:||28 Jan 2010 11:35|
|Last Modified:||03 Sep 2012 08:58|
Repository Staff Only: item control page