Add your feedback. Send Feedback By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies. Content Alert. I published in PeerJ and it is very fast, has good editors, has consistently given good quality and rigorous reviews of my work, and produces visually appealing manuscripts. Matthew Jackson PeerJ author. Usage since published - updated daily. L The authors might consider rephrasing aim iii as their findings and that of others touched on from L suggest that detecting population change should not be one of the main reasons for obtaining population estimates census work , rather systematic monitoring should be employed.
Unfortunately, this has been the case in many studies to date, but a reader could misquote this going forward. L As mentioned, what screening took place to narrow studies down to 71? L and throughout: To aid readability, if it fits with the journal formatting, it would be useful to identify the section of the supplementary material this additional information can be found.
Is it the method used to count burrows irrespective of whether or not they are occupied? If so, perhaps the authors could explain this within the table. Again, image quality should be improved.
L Figure 5, R2 and p values either overlapping in most panels and the F value in panel e is outside of the plot.
This Figure should be tidied and replotted. L This could be brought in within the introduction as a strength or justification for this review and meta-analysis. Supplementary Discussion: 4th paragraph. The authors present a meta-analysis of population estimates of petrels from 71 studies with a focus on the uncertainty around the population estimate. They conducted a literature review of petrel population estimates to explore the motivations of the researchers for obtaining those estimates.
Is the CI the width of the interval? How did you construct the CI? Table 3: this is really confusing to me…. Esp as there are rows for Mean and CI, yet the CI as a proportion of estimate and subsequent columns contains the normalised CI sometimes across both rows.
I think they have tried to fit too much into the one table. The paper talks about reviewing time series data Line , however in the power analysis section, only two time periods were used. The authors rightly acknowledge that power to detect a trend could be increased by having more than two estimates of population size.
What is the trade-off between increasing precision vs carrying out additional surveys? The authors present values for the percentage of estimates that could reliably detect declines of varying magnitudes. However it would be good to know whether these differed by survey method used. At the very least it would be useful for the authors to provide a guidance as to the sizer of the normalized CI that researchers should be trying to achieve: 0.
Line modern advances in statistical methods may not have reduced uncertainty, but they may well have reduced bias in estimates!
I think this is important to point out: an uncertain yet unbiased estimate is more valuable than a precise yet biased one. I know the focus of the paper is on uncertainty, however I think discussion on bias should be included. Minor points What were the size of the CIs? What were the alpha and beta values for the power analysis? Line Studies were classified according to their motivation — were studies not able ton have more than one of the a priori reasons?
If not, why not? Line how was a normalised CI of 0. Line is uncertainty in occupancy not possible from binomial confidence intervals of a proportion? Log in. Web of Science. Identifiers publons. Navigate Abstract. Pre-publication review final round Decision letter, Apr Author response, Apr Decision letter, Mar Reviewer report, Mar Reviewer report, Feb Decision letter, Dec Reviewer report, Dec Reviewer report, Nov Publication History.
For example, the available analyses to assign effective detection distances do not yet cover the full range of species, are limited in geographic coverage, or are not conducted using road-side point-counts and thus are not directly applicable to estimating population size based on BBS counts.
We hope that future work in this area will allow us to improve the detection-distance adjustment factor, because it is an important source of uncertainty. The main source of data for PIF population estimation has been the BBS, which was designed to estimate avian population trends through time. The BBS methodology does not include techniques to estimate population density for a known area Link and Sauer , Sauer et al. However, no other systematic bird survey program has the breadth of spatial, temporal, and taxonomic coverage as the BBS Rosenberg et al.
For species and regions where alternative data are available, those approaches may be preferable to extrapolations of data from the BBS. In addition, the rapid growth of eBird Sullivan et al. Constructing such a model for all landbirds breeding in North America, as well as extending these approaches to the nonlandbird avifauna, remain areas for future work. We wish to acknowledge the staff, scientists, and volunteers who have contributed over the years to the invaluable data resource that is the North American Breeding Bird Survey.
This manuscript benefited from comments provided on earlier drafts from J. Sauer, and four anonymous reviewers. Any use of trade, product, or firm names are for descriptive purposes only and do not imply endorsement by the U. Ferson, M. Burgman, D.
Keith, G. Mace, and C. Making consistent IUCN classifications under uncertainty. Conservation Biology Bickford, D. Posa, L. Qie, A.
Campos-Arceiz, and E. Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation Blancher, P. Rosenberg, A. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. Beardmore, G. Butcher, D. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E. Dunn, W. Easton, W. Hunter, E. Pashley, C. Ralph, T. Rich, C. Rustay, J. Ruth, and T. Guide to the Partners in Flight population estimates database.
North American Landbird Conservation Plan Partners in Flight Technical Series No 5. Altman, A. Couturier, and W. Handbook to the Partners in Flight population estimates database, Version 2.
Partners in Flight Technical Series No 6. Briggs, S. Integrating policy and science in natural resources: why so difficult?
Ecological Management and Restoration Carter, M. Hunter, D. Pashley, and K. Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk A proposed framework for delineating ecologically-based planning, implementation, and evaluation units for cooperative bird conservation in the U.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. Confer, J. Serrell, M. Hager, and E. Field tests of the Rosenberg-Blancher method for converting point counts to abundance estimates. Dail, D. Models for estimating abundance from repeated counts of an open metapopulation. Biometrics Erickson, W. Wolfe, K. Bay, D. Johnson, and J. A comprehensive analysis of small-passerine fatalities from collision with turbines at wind energy facilities. Faber-Langendoen, D. Nichols, L. Master, K. Snow, A. Tomaino, R.
Bittman, G. Hammerson, B. Heidel, L. Ramsay, A. Teucher, and B. NatureServe conservation status assessments: methodology for assigning ranks.
Finch, D. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: introduction. Pages in D. Finch and P. Stangel, editors. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. General Technical Report RM Fink, D. Hochachka, B. Zuckerberg, D.
Winkler, B. Shaby, M. Munson, G. Hooker, M. Riedewald, D. Sheldon, and S. Spatiotemporal exploratory models for broad-scale survey data. Ecological Applications Hamel, P. Welton, C. Smith III, and R. Test of Partners in Flight effective detection distance for Cerulean Warbler. Pages in T. Arizmendi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson, editors.
Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. Hobbs, N. Bayesian models: a statistical primer for ecologists. First edition. Hunter, W. Carter, D. The Partners in Flight prioritization scheme. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds.
Johnson, F. Walters, and G. Allowable levels of take for the trade in Nearctic songbirds. Johnston, A. Fink, M. Reynolds, W. Sullivan, N. Bruns, E. Hallstein, M. Merrifield, S. Matsumoto, and S. Abundance models improve spatial and temporal prioritization of conservation resources. So while our estimate of the number of species on the planet remains frustratingly imprecise, the one thing we do know is that we have probably named and described only a tiny percentage of living things.
Read more: Squid team finds high species diversity off Kermadec Islands, part of stalled marine reserve proposal. New species are turning up all the time, at a rate of roughly 18, species each year. For example, researchers in Los Angeles found 30 new species of scuttle fly living in urban parks, while researchers also in the US discovered more than 1, new species of bacteria living in the belly buttons of university students.
Even if we take the more conservative estimate of 8. If the 1 trillion figure is correct, then we have done an abysmally poor job, with The question now is how much of that awe-inspiring diversity we choose to save. Portsmouth Climate Festival — Portsmouth, Portsmouth. Edition: Available editions United Kingdom. Become an author Sign up as a reader Sign in.
0コメント