Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution

1. Abiotic environmental predictors and broad-scale vegetation have been used widely to model the regional distributions of faunal species within forested regions of Australia. These models have been developed using stepwise statistical procedures but incorporate only limited expert involvement of t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of applied ecology 2001-04, Vol.38 (2), p.412-424
Hauptverfasser: Pearce, J. L., Cherry, K., Drielsma, M., Ferrier, S., Whish, G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 424
container_issue 2
container_start_page 412
container_title The Journal of applied ecology
container_volume 38
creator Pearce, J. L.
Cherry, K.
Drielsma, M.
Ferrier, S.
Whish, G.
description 1. Abiotic environmental predictors and broad-scale vegetation have been used widely to model the regional distributions of faunal species within forested regions of Australia. These models have been developed using stepwise statistical procedures but incorporate only limited expert involvement of the type sometimes advocated in distribution modelling. The objectives of this study were twofold. First, to evaluate techniques for incorporating fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping into models of species distribution. Secondly, to compare methods that incorporate expert opinion directly into statistical models derived using stepwise statistical procedures. 2. Using faunal data from north-east New South Wales, Australia, logistic regression models using fine-scale vegetation and expert opinion were compared with models employing only abiotic and broad vegetation variables. 3. Vegetation and growth-stage information was incorporated into models of species distribution in two ways, both of which used expert opinion to derive new explanatory variables. The first approach amalgamated fine-scaled vegetation classes into broader classes of ecological relevance to fauna. In the second approach, ordinal habitat indices were derived from vegetation and growth-stage mapping using rules specified by an expert panel. These indices described habitat features thought to be relevant to the faunal groups studied (e.g. tree hollow availability, fleshy fruit production). Landscape composition was calculated using these new variables within a 500-m and 2-km radius of each site. Each habitat index generated a spatially neutral variable and two spatial context variables. 4. Expert opinion was incorporated during the pre-modelling, model-fitting and post-modelling stages. At the pre-modelling stage experts developed new explanatory variables based on mapped fine-scale vegetation and growth-stage information. At the model-fitting stage an expert panel selected a subset of potential explanatory variables from the available set. At the post-modelling stage expert opinion modified or refined maps of predicted species distribution generated by statistical models. For comparative purposes expert opinion was also used to develop maps of species distribution by defining rules within a geographical information system, without the aid of statistical modelling. 5. Predictive accuracy was not improved significantly by incorporating habitat indices derived by applying expert opinion t
doi_str_mv 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00608.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17888046</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>2655808</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>2655808</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4998-3d4d519a55498bc0fd0875aae721e19558ee350af76bcc66aabe3e196a29de713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUFv1DAQhSNEJZaWf8DBQohbwjiOHUfigtpdKGpVpAJXy-tMKkdZO9iJ2P57nN2qSL2Uk6153xvZ72UZoVBQqMTHvqBM8LwUoipKAFoACJDF_kW2ehReZiuAkuayAfoqex1jDwANZ2yV7S6d8WH0QU_W3ZH1fsQwkZvROusd0a4lG-swvzV6QPIL73BKYFKu9TguBusmT26XYZxsgsi1b3GIxHdko2eXBhdJCXY7L7az7KTTQ8Q3D-dp9nOz_nH-Nb-6-XJ5_vkqN1XTyJy1VctpozmvGrk10LUga6411iVF2nAuERkH3dVia4wQWm-RJUHosmmxpuw0-3DcOwb_e8Y4qZ2NBodBO_RzVLSWUqb0ngcrXlf8AL57AvZ-Dul_UZWMJQQYJEgeIRN8jAE7NQa70-FeUVBLW6pXSylqKUUtbalDW2qfrO8f9uuYYuyCdsbGf35KWXV4xqcj9scOeP_f69W37-t0Sfa3R3sfJx8e7aVIkSb5L3fksVY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>233454030</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Pearce, J. L. ; Cherry, K. ; Drielsma, M. ; Ferrier, S. ; Whish, G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pearce, J. L. ; Cherry, K. ; Drielsma, M. ; Ferrier, S. ; Whish, G.</creatorcontrib><description>1. Abiotic environmental predictors and broad-scale vegetation have been used widely to model the regional distributions of faunal species within forested regions of Australia. These models have been developed using stepwise statistical procedures but incorporate only limited expert involvement of the type sometimes advocated in distribution modelling. The objectives of this study were twofold. First, to evaluate techniques for incorporating fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping into models of species distribution. Secondly, to compare methods that incorporate expert opinion directly into statistical models derived using stepwise statistical procedures. 2. Using faunal data from north-east New South Wales, Australia, logistic regression models using fine-scale vegetation and expert opinion were compared with models employing only abiotic and broad vegetation variables. 3. Vegetation and growth-stage information was incorporated into models of species distribution in two ways, both of which used expert opinion to derive new explanatory variables. The first approach amalgamated fine-scaled vegetation classes into broader classes of ecological relevance to fauna. In the second approach, ordinal habitat indices were derived from vegetation and growth-stage mapping using rules specified by an expert panel. These indices described habitat features thought to be relevant to the faunal groups studied (e.g. tree hollow availability, fleshy fruit production). Landscape composition was calculated using these new variables within a 500-m and 2-km radius of each site. Each habitat index generated a spatially neutral variable and two spatial context variables. 4. Expert opinion was incorporated during the pre-modelling, model-fitting and post-modelling stages. At the pre-modelling stage experts developed new explanatory variables based on mapped fine-scale vegetation and growth-stage information. At the model-fitting stage an expert panel selected a subset of potential explanatory variables from the available set. At the post-modelling stage expert opinion modified or refined maps of predicted species distribution generated by statistical models. For comparative purposes expert opinion was also used to develop maps of species distribution by defining rules within a geographical information system, without the aid of statistical modelling. 5. Predictive accuracy was not improved significantly by incorporating habitat indices derived by applying expert opinion to fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping. Use of expert input at the pre-modelling stage to derive and select potential explanatory variables therefore does not provide more information than that provided by remotely mapped vegetation. 6. The incorporation of expert opinion at the model-fitting or post-modelling stages resulted in small but insignificant gains in predictive accuracy. The predictive accuracy of purely expert models was less than that achieved by approaches based on statistical modelling. 7. The study, one of few available evaluations of expert opinion in models of species distribution, suggests that expert modification of fitted statistical models should be confined to species for which models are grossly in error, or for which insufficient data exist to construct solely statistical models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8901</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2664</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00608.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JAPEAI</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Applied ecology ; Australia ; Biological and medical sciences ; conservation ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Ecological modeling ; Forest conservation ; Forest ecology ; Forest habitats ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; Habitat conservation ; Modeling ; prediction ; Predictive modeling ; Species ; species distribution models ; State forests</subject><ispartof>The Journal of applied ecology, 2001-04, Vol.38 (2), p.412-424</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2001 British Ecological Society</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Blackwell Science Ltd. Apr 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4998-3d4d519a55498bc0fd0875aae721e19558ee350af76bcc66aabe3e196a29de713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4998-3d4d519a55498bc0fd0875aae721e19558ee350af76bcc66aabe3e196a29de713</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2655808$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2655808$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1113446$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pearce, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherry, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drielsma, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrier, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whish, G.</creatorcontrib><title>Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution</title><title>The Journal of applied ecology</title><description>1. Abiotic environmental predictors and broad-scale vegetation have been used widely to model the regional distributions of faunal species within forested regions of Australia. These models have been developed using stepwise statistical procedures but incorporate only limited expert involvement of the type sometimes advocated in distribution modelling. The objectives of this study were twofold. First, to evaluate techniques for incorporating fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping into models of species distribution. Secondly, to compare methods that incorporate expert opinion directly into statistical models derived using stepwise statistical procedures. 2. Using faunal data from north-east New South Wales, Australia, logistic regression models using fine-scale vegetation and expert opinion were compared with models employing only abiotic and broad vegetation variables. 3. Vegetation and growth-stage information was incorporated into models of species distribution in two ways, both of which used expert opinion to derive new explanatory variables. The first approach amalgamated fine-scaled vegetation classes into broader classes of ecological relevance to fauna. In the second approach, ordinal habitat indices were derived from vegetation and growth-stage mapping using rules specified by an expert panel. These indices described habitat features thought to be relevant to the faunal groups studied (e.g. tree hollow availability, fleshy fruit production). Landscape composition was calculated using these new variables within a 500-m and 2-km radius of each site. Each habitat index generated a spatially neutral variable and two spatial context variables. 4. Expert opinion was incorporated during the pre-modelling, model-fitting and post-modelling stages. At the pre-modelling stage experts developed new explanatory variables based on mapped fine-scale vegetation and growth-stage information. At the model-fitting stage an expert panel selected a subset of potential explanatory variables from the available set. At the post-modelling stage expert opinion modified or refined maps of predicted species distribution generated by statistical models. For comparative purposes expert opinion was also used to develop maps of species distribution by defining rules within a geographical information system, without the aid of statistical modelling. 5. Predictive accuracy was not improved significantly by incorporating habitat indices derived by applying expert opinion to fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping. Use of expert input at the pre-modelling stage to derive and select potential explanatory variables therefore does not provide more information than that provided by remotely mapped vegetation. 6. The incorporation of expert opinion at the model-fitting or post-modelling stages resulted in small but insignificant gains in predictive accuracy. The predictive accuracy of purely expert models was less than that achieved by approaches based on statistical modelling. 7. The study, one of few available evaluations of expert opinion in models of species distribution, suggests that expert modification of fitted statistical models should be confined to species for which models are grossly in error, or for which insufficient data exist to construct solely statistical models.</description><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Australia</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>conservation</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Ecological modeling</subject><subject>Forest conservation</subject><subject>Forest ecology</subject><subject>Forest habitats</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Predictive modeling</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>species distribution models</subject><subject>State forests</subject><issn>0021-8901</issn><issn>1365-2664</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUFv1DAQhSNEJZaWf8DBQohbwjiOHUfigtpdKGpVpAJXy-tMKkdZO9iJ2P57nN2qSL2Uk6153xvZ72UZoVBQqMTHvqBM8LwUoipKAFoACJDF_kW2ehReZiuAkuayAfoqex1jDwANZ2yV7S6d8WH0QU_W3ZH1fsQwkZvROusd0a4lG-swvzV6QPIL73BKYFKu9TguBusmT26XYZxsgsi1b3GIxHdko2eXBhdJCXY7L7az7KTTQ8Q3D-dp9nOz_nH-Nb-6-XJ5_vkqN1XTyJy1VctpozmvGrk10LUga6411iVF2nAuERkH3dVia4wQWm-RJUHosmmxpuw0-3DcOwb_e8Y4qZ2NBodBO_RzVLSWUqb0ngcrXlf8AL57AvZ-Dul_UZWMJQQYJEgeIRN8jAE7NQa70-FeUVBLW6pXSylqKUUtbalDW2qfrO8f9uuYYuyCdsbGf35KWXV4xqcj9scOeP_f69W37-t0Sfa3R3sfJx8e7aVIkSb5L3fksVY</recordid><startdate>200104</startdate><enddate>200104</enddate><creator>Pearce, J. L.</creator><creator>Cherry, K.</creator><creator>Drielsma, M.</creator><creator>Ferrier, S.</creator><creator>Whish, G.</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell Science</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200104</creationdate><title>Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution</title><author>Pearce, J. L. ; Cherry, K. ; Drielsma, M. ; Ferrier, S. ; Whish, G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4998-3d4d519a55498bc0fd0875aae721e19558ee350af76bcc66aabe3e196a29de713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Australia</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>conservation</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Ecological modeling</topic><topic>Forest conservation</topic><topic>Forest ecology</topic><topic>Forest habitats</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Predictive modeling</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>species distribution models</topic><topic>State forests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pearce, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cherry, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drielsma, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferrier, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whish, G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pearce, J. L.</au><au>Cherry, K.</au><au>Drielsma, M.</au><au>Ferrier, S.</au><au>Whish, G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of applied ecology</jtitle><date>2001-04</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>412</spage><epage>424</epage><pages>412-424</pages><issn>0021-8901</issn><eissn>1365-2664</eissn><coden>JAPEAI</coden><abstract>1. Abiotic environmental predictors and broad-scale vegetation have been used widely to model the regional distributions of faunal species within forested regions of Australia. These models have been developed using stepwise statistical procedures but incorporate only limited expert involvement of the type sometimes advocated in distribution modelling. The objectives of this study were twofold. First, to evaluate techniques for incorporating fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping into models of species distribution. Secondly, to compare methods that incorporate expert opinion directly into statistical models derived using stepwise statistical procedures. 2. Using faunal data from north-east New South Wales, Australia, logistic regression models using fine-scale vegetation and expert opinion were compared with models employing only abiotic and broad vegetation variables. 3. Vegetation and growth-stage information was incorporated into models of species distribution in two ways, both of which used expert opinion to derive new explanatory variables. The first approach amalgamated fine-scaled vegetation classes into broader classes of ecological relevance to fauna. In the second approach, ordinal habitat indices were derived from vegetation and growth-stage mapping using rules specified by an expert panel. These indices described habitat features thought to be relevant to the faunal groups studied (e.g. tree hollow availability, fleshy fruit production). Landscape composition was calculated using these new variables within a 500-m and 2-km radius of each site. Each habitat index generated a spatially neutral variable and two spatial context variables. 4. Expert opinion was incorporated during the pre-modelling, model-fitting and post-modelling stages. At the pre-modelling stage experts developed new explanatory variables based on mapped fine-scale vegetation and growth-stage information. At the model-fitting stage an expert panel selected a subset of potential explanatory variables from the available set. At the post-modelling stage expert opinion modified or refined maps of predicted species distribution generated by statistical models. For comparative purposes expert opinion was also used to develop maps of species distribution by defining rules within a geographical information system, without the aid of statistical modelling. 5. Predictive accuracy was not improved significantly by incorporating habitat indices derived by applying expert opinion to fine-scaled vegetation and growth-stage mapping. Use of expert input at the pre-modelling stage to derive and select potential explanatory variables therefore does not provide more information than that provided by remotely mapped vegetation. 6. The incorporation of expert opinion at the model-fitting or post-modelling stages resulted in small but insignificant gains in predictive accuracy. The predictive accuracy of purely expert models was less than that achieved by approaches based on statistical modelling. 7. The study, one of few available evaluations of expert opinion in models of species distribution, suggests that expert modification of fitted statistical models should be confined to species for which models are grossly in error, or for which insufficient data exist to construct solely statistical models.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><doi>10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00608.x</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8901
ispartof The Journal of applied ecology, 2001-04, Vol.38 (2), p.412-424
issn 0021-8901
1365-2664
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17888046
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Wiley Free Content; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Applied ecology
Australia
Biological and medical sciences
conservation
Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife
Ecological modeling
Forest conservation
Forest ecology
Forest habitats
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
Habitat conservation
Modeling
prediction
Predictive modeling
Species
species distribution models
State forests
title Incorporating Expert Opinion and Fine-Scale Vegetation Mapping into Statistical Models of Faunal Distribution
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T15%3A19%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incorporating%20Expert%20Opinion%20and%20Fine-Scale%20Vegetation%20Mapping%20into%20Statistical%20Models%20of%20Faunal%20Distribution&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20applied%20ecology&rft.au=Pearce,%20J.%20L.&rft.date=2001-04&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=412&rft.epage=424&rft.pages=412-424&rft.issn=0021-8901&rft.eissn=1365-2664&rft.coden=JAPEAI&rft_id=info:doi/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00608.x&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E2655808%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=233454030&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=2655808&rfr_iscdi=true