Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Iglesias, R. M.
dc.contributor.authorKothmann, M. M.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-23T05:55:08Z
dc.date.available2020-09-23T05:55:08Z
dc.date.issued1998-05-01
dc.identifier.citationRodríguez Iglesias, R. M., & Kothmann, M. M. (1998). Evaluating expert knowledge: plant species responses to cattle grazing and fire. Journal of Range Management, 51(3), 332-344.
dc.identifier.issn0022-409X
dc.identifier.doi10.2307/4003420
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/644097
dc.description.abstractExpert judgment, standardized in a meaningful format, can be used to identify research/survey needs and to characterize areas of (dis)agreement in species responses, associated traits, and factors affecting responses. Feasible methods are needed to facilitate the evaluation of expertise in a complex domain characterized by moderate to low learnability. Specific objectives for this study were 1) to evaluate agreement among experts on range plant species behavior and 2) to develop an agreement-based classification method for plant species responses. Declarative information at landscape scale was elicited from 7 role-suggested experts on expected responses to cattle grazing (none, moderate, or heavy) and fire (absent, applied in late summer or fall, or applied in late winter or spring) of 198 plant species from the Edwards Plateau (Texas). Trends were requested to be assessed in a 3-level ordinal scale (decrease, unaffected, increase). Kappa statistics (pair-wise and multi-rater versions) and log-linear models were used to evaluate agreement. A procedure based upon cumulative probability distributions of possible rating combinations was developed to classify plant species while accounting for agreement. A total of 4,584 opinions (cattle grazing: 2,959; fire: 1,625) was elicited and analyzed. Low to moderate agreement was observed. Average pair-wise kappa statistics ranged from 0.07 to 0.39; multiple-rater kappa coefficients ranged from -0.17 to 0.53. Log-linear analyses were consistent with those estimations: agreement beyond chance or baseline association between ratings (P < 0.05) was observed in 62 out of 114 possible pair-wise cases. Non-homogeneous marginal distributions of opinion were an important source of disagreement. Experts performed beyond chance expectations in all scenarios but agreement was better (and pattern of agreement more consistent) when scenarios were most familiar to the experts (e.g., heavy grazing and winter/spring burning). Almost 80% of species was classified beyond chance (P < 0.15) in grazing scenarios in contrast to only 40 to 60% in fire scenarios. This resulted from less agreement among experts but also from apparent lack of knowledge. The procedure developed to classify plant species provides an objective criterion for evaluating agreement in an ordinal scale. Graphical representations facilitate understanding of relationships between the number of expert sources and their ability to distinguish among classes for a pre-defined confidence level.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSociety for Range Management
dc.relation.urlhttps://rangelands.org/
dc.rightsCopyright © Society for Range Management.
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
dc.subjectexperts
dc.subjectprobability analysis
dc.subjectplants
dc.subjectprescribed burning
dc.subjectgrazing intensity
dc.subjectTexas
dc.subjectrange management
dc.titleEvaluating expert knowledge: plant species responses to cattle grazing and fire
dc.typetext
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Range Management
dc.description.collectioninformationThe Journal of Range Management archives are made available by the Society for Range Management and the University of Arizona Libraries. Contact lbry-journals@email.arizona.edu for further information.
dc.eprint.versionFinal published version
dc.description.admin-noteMigrated from OJS platform August 2020
dc.source.volume51
dc.source.issue3
dc.source.beginpage332-344
refterms.dateFOA2020-09-23T05:55:08Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
9321-9202-1-PB.pdf
Size:
1.464Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record