Species’ range maps based on expert opinion are a critical resource for conservation planning. Expert maps are usually accompanied by species descriptions that specify sources of internal range heterogeneity, such as habitat associations, but these are rarely considered when using expert maps for analyses. We developed a quantitative metric (expert score) to evaluate the agreement between an expert map and a habitat probability surface obtained from a species distribution model. This method rewards both the avoidance of unsuitable sites and the inclusion of suitable sites in the expert map. We obtained expert maps of 330 butterfly species from each of 2 widely used North American sources (Glassberg [1999, 2001] and Scott [1986]) and computed species‐wise expert scores for each. Overall, the Glassberg maps secured higher expert scores than Scott (0.61 and 0.41, respectively) due to the specific rules (e.g., Glassberg only included regions where the species was known to reproduce whereas Scott included all areas a species expanded to each year) they used to include or exclude areas from ranges. The predictive performance of expert maps was almost always hampered by the inclusion of unsuitable sites, rather than by exclusion of suitable sites (deviance outside of expert maps was extremely low). Map topology was the primary predictor of expert performance rather than any factor related to species characteristics such as mobility. Given the heterogeneity and discontinuity of suitable landscapes, expert maps drawn with more detail are more likely to agree with species distribution models and thus minimize both commission and omission errors.
- Award ID(s):
- 1913673
- PAR ID:
- 10088715
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Global Ecology and Biogeography
- Volume:
- 26
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1466-822X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 243 to 258
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Anders Ericsson’s seminal research on expert performance spurred a number of streams of research across psychological disciplines. Though his work was primarily focused on expert individual performance, there has been increasing interest over the past several decades on the factors underlying expert teamwork. This paper advances eight principles of expert team performance based on decades of team science research: shared mental models, learning and adaptation, role clarity, shared vision, dynamic leadership, psychological safety, cooperation and coordination, and resilience. In addition, we review a number of team development interventions aimed at building team expertise including team training, simulation, coaching, and debriefing. Accordingly, this paper is divided into three sections addressing (1) how expert teams perform, (2) interventions to develop expert team performance, and (3) a reflection on the role Anders Ericsson’s work has played in team science, including a personal reflection from Eduardo Salas on deliberate and guided practice.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract We often need to have beliefs about things on which we are not experts. Luckily, we often have access to expert judgements on such topics. But how should we form our beliefs on the basis of expert opinion when experts conflict in their judgments? This is the core of the novice/2-expert problem in social epistemology. A closely related question is important in the context of policy making: how should a policy maker use expert judgments when making policy in domains in which she is not herself an expert? This question is more complex, given the messy and strategic nature of politics. In this paper we argue that the prediction with expert advice (PWEA) framework from machine learning provides helpful tools for addressing these problems. We outline conditions under which we should expert PWEA to be helpful and those under which we should not expect these methods to perform well.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12539
