Big Decisions and Sparse Data: Adapting Scientific Publishing to the Needs of Practical Conservation Grandes décisions et données éparses: adapter le processus de publication scientifique aux aspects concrets de la conservation

The biggest challenge in conservation biology is breaking down the gap between research and practical management. A major obstacle is the fact that many researchers are unwilling to tackle projects likely to produce sparse or messy data because the results would be difficult to publish in refereed journals. The obvious solution to sparse data is to build up results from multiple studies. Consequently, we suggest that there needs to be greater emphasis in conservation biology on publishing papers that can be built on by subsequent research rather than on papers that produce clear results individually. This building approach requires: (1) a stronger theoretical framework, in which researchers attempt to anticipate models that will be relevant in future studies and incorporate expected differences among studies into those models; (2) use of modern methods for model selection and multi-model inference, and publication of parameter estimates under a range of plausible models; (3) explicit incorporation of prior information into each case study; and (4) planning management treatments in an adaptive framework that considers treatments applied in other studies. We encourage journals to publish papers that promote this building approach rather than expecting papers to conform to traditional standards of rigor as stand-alone papers, and believe that this shift in publishing philosophy would better encourage researchers to tackle the most urgent conservation problems.

[1]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources , 1986 .

[2]  Douglas H. Johnson The Insignificance of Statistical Significance Testing , 1999 .

[3]  Kai N. Lee Appraising Adaptive Management , 1999 .

[4]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  What do conservation biologists publish , 2005 .

[5]  M. McCarthy,et al.  Profiting from prior information in Bayesian analyses of ecological data , 2005 .

[6]  R. Griffiths,et al.  Using adaptive management to determine requirements of re‐introduced populations: the case of the New Zealand hihi , 2007 .

[7]  K. Mengersen,et al.  The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: impact of grazing on birds , 2005 .

[8]  A. Pullin,et al.  Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? , 2004 .

[9]  M. Conroy,et al.  Analysis and Management of Animal Populations , 2002 .

[10]  H. Charles Romesburg,et al.  WILDLIFE SCIENCE: GAINING RELIABLE KNOWLEDGE , 1981 .

[11]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Model selection and multimodel inference : a practical information-theoretic approach , 2003 .

[12]  M. McCarthy Bayesian Methods for Ecology: Frontmatter , 2007 .

[13]  Scott Ferson,et al.  Logistic sensitivity and bounds for extinction risks , 1996 .

[14]  Mervyn Thomas,et al.  A Novel Bayesian Approach to Assessing Impacts of Rain Forest Logging , 1996 .

[15]  N Thompson Hobbs,et al.  Alternatives to statistical hypothesis testing in ecology: a guide to self teaching. , 2006, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.