Comparing wildlife habitat suitability models based on expert opinion with camera trap detections.

Expert knowledge is used in the development of wildlife habitat suitability models (HSMs) for management and conservation decisions. However, the consistency of such models has been questioned. Focusing on 1 method for elicitation, the analytic hierarchy process, we generated expert-based HSMs for 4 felid species: 2 forest specialists (ocelot [Leopardus pardalis] and margay [Leopardus wiedii]) and 2 habitat generalist species (Pampas cat [Leopardus colocola] and puma [Puma concolor]). Using these HSMs, species detections from camera-trap surveys, and generalized linear models, we assessed the effect of study species and expert attributes on the correspondence between expert models and camera-trap detections. We also examined whether aggregation of participant responses and iterative feedback improved model performance. We ran 160 HSMs and found that models for specialist species showed higher correspondence with camera-trap detections (AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] >0.7) than those for generalists (AUC < 0.7). Model correspondence increased as participant years of experience in the study area increased, but only for the understudied generalist species, Pampas cat (β = 0.024 [SE 0.007]). No other participant attribute was associated with model correspondence. Feedback and revision of models improved model correspondence, and aggregating judgments across multiple participants improved correspondence only for specialist species. The average correspondence of aggregated judgments increased as group size increased but leveled off after 5 experts for all species. Our results suggest that correspondence between expert models and empirical surveys increases as habitat specialization increases. We encourage inclusion of participants knowledgeable of the study area and model validation for expert-based modeling of understudied and generalist species.