Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 3269–3276

Safety in numbers? Supplanting data quality with fanciful models in wildlife monitoring and conservation

  • Guillermo Blanco
  • Fabrizio Sergio
  • José A. Sanchéz-Zapata
  • Juan M. Pérez-García
  • Francisco Botella
  • Félix Martínez
  • Iñigo Zuberogoitia
  • Oscar Frías
  • Federico Roviralta
  • José E. Martínez
  • Fernando Hiraldo
Brief Communication
  • 389 Downloads

Abstract

Ecologists and conservation biologists seem increasingly attracted to sophisticated modelling approaches, sometimes at the expense of attention to data quality and appropriateness of fieldwork design. This dissociation may lead to a loss of perspective promoting biological unrealities as conclusions, which may be used in conservation applications. We illustrate this concern by focusing on recent attempts to estimate population size of breeding birds at large scales without any explicit testing of the reliability of the predictions through comparison with direct counts. Disconnection of analysts from “nature” can lead to cases of biological unrealities such as that used here to illustrate such trends. To counter this risk, we encourage investment in well-rounded scientists or more collaborative, multi-disciplinary teams capable of integrating sophisticated analyses with in-depth knowledge of the natural history of their study subjects.

Keywords

Biological unrealities Data quality Sophisticated modelling Population size estimates 

References

  1. Andersen DE (2007) Survey techniques. In: Bird DM, Bildstein KL (eds) Raptor research and management techniques. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, pp 89–100Google Scholar
  2. Araújo MB, Guilhaumon F, Neto DR, Pozo I, Calmaestra R (2011). Impactos, vulnerabilidad y adaptación al cambio climático de la biodiversidad española. 2 Fauna de vertebrados. Dirección General de Medio Natural y Política Forestal. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino, Madrid, p 640. http://www.ibiochange.mncn.csic.es/atlascc/. Accessed 26 Dec 2011
  3. Baillie JEM, Collen B, Amin R, Akcakaya HRA, Butchart SHM, Brummitt N, Meagher TR, Ram M, Hilton-Taylor C, Mace GM (2008) Towards monitoring global biodiversity. Conserv Lett. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00009.x Google Scholar
  4. Belovsky GE, Botkin DB, Crowl TA, Cummins KW, Franklin JF, Hunter MLJ, Joern A, Lindenmayer DB, Macmahon JA, Margules CR, Scott JM (2004) Ten suggestions to strengthen the science of ecology. Bioscience 54:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cardiel I (2006) El Milano Real en España. II censo nacional. SEO/BirdLife, MadridGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrascal L, Palomino D (2008) Las aves comunes reproductoras en España. Población en 2004–2006. SEO/BirdLife, MadridGoogle Scholar
  7. Dayton P (2003) The importance of the natural sciences to conservation. Am Nat 162:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doak DF, Mills LS (1994) A useful role for theory in conservation. Ecology 75:615–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elphick CS (2008) How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. J Appl Ecol 45:1313–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Futuyma D (1998) Wherefore and whither the naturalist? Am Nat 151:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene HW (2005) Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology. Trends Ecol Evol 20:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenwood JJD (2007) Citizens, science and bird conservation. J Ornithol 148:77–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guthery FS (2008a) A primer on natural resource science. Texas University Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  14. Guthery FS (2008b) Statistical ritual versus knowledge accrual in wildlife science. J Wildl Manag 72:1872–1875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardey J, Crick H, Wernham C, Riley H, Etheridge B, Thompson D (2009) Raptors: a field guide to surveys and monitoring. The Stationery Office, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris JBC, Haskell DG (2007). Land cover sampling biases associated with roadside bird surveys. Avian Conserv Ecol 2(2):12. http://www.ace-eco.org/vol2/iss2/art12/. Accessed 15 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  17. Herrando S, Brotons L, Estrada J, Pedrocchi V (2008) The catalan common bird survey (SOCC): a tool to estimate species population numbers. Revista Catalana d′Ornitologia 24:138–146Google Scholar
  18. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 24:482–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murgui E (2011) How many common breeding birds are there in Spain? A comparison of census methods and national population size estimates. Ardeola 58:343–364Google Scholar
  20. Murtaugh PA (2007) Simplicity and complexity in ecological data analysis. Ecology 88:56–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newson SE, Woodburn RJW, Noble DG, Baillie SR, Gregory RD (2005) Evaluating the breeding bird survey for producing national population size and density estimates. Bird Study 52:42–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Newton I, Davies PE, Moss D (1994) Philopatry and population growth of red kites Milvus milvus, in Wales. Proc R Soc B 257:317–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nichols JD, Williams BK (2006) Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Norman D, Harris RJ, Newson SE (2011) Producing regional estimates of population size for common and widespread breeding birds from national monitoring data. Bird Study. doi:10.1080/00063657.2011.623766 Google Scholar
  25. Palomino D,Valls J (2011) Las rapaces forestales en España. Población reproductora en 2009–2010 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife, Madrid. http://www.seo.org/media/docs/36mono.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2011
  26. Pereira HM, Cooper HD (2006) Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends Ecol Evol 21:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollock KH, Nichols JD, Simonst TR, Farnsworth GL, Bailey L, Sauer JR (2002) Large scale wildlife monitoring studies: statistical methods for design and analysis. Environmetrics 13:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roviralta F, Tello J, Alcobendas G, Lopez-Septiem JL Traverso JM, Pontón Ó (2004) Censo de abejero europeo (Pernis apivorus) en la Comunidad de Madrid, 2003. Anuario Ornitológico de Madrid 2003, p 86–93Google Scholar
  29. SCV (2003) Censo de parejas reproductoras de milano real (Milvus milvus) en la Comunidad de Madrid, año 2001. http://es.geocities.com/scv_conservacion/milanoreal/milanoreal.html. Accessed 16 Dec 2011
  30. Sierdsema H, Van Loon EE (2008) Filling the gaps: using count survey data to predict density distribution patterns and estimate population sizes. Revista Catalana d′Ornitologia 24:88–99Google Scholar
  31. Tavecchia G, Adrover J, Muñoz Navarro A, Pradel R (2011) Modelling mortality causes in longitudinal data in the presence of tag loss: application to raptor poisoning and electrocution. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02074.x Google Scholar
  32. Thompson WL (2004) Sampling rare and elusive species. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Viñuela J, Martí R, Ruiz A (1999) El Milano Real en España, Monografía nº6. SEO/BirdLife, MadridGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson EO (2004) On human nature. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Zuberogoitia I, Castillo I, Zabala J, Iraeta A, Azkona A (2011) Population trends of diurnal forest raptors in Biscay. In: Zuberogoitia I, Martínez JE (eds) Ecology and conservation of european forest-dwelling raptors. Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, Bilbao, pp 70–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo Blanco
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Sergio
    • 2
  • José A. Sanchéz-Zapata
    • 3
  • Juan M. Pérez-García
    • 3
  • Francisco Botella
    • 3
  • Félix Martínez
    • 4
  • Iñigo Zuberogoitia
    • 5
  • Oscar Frías
    • 1
  • Federico Roviralta
    • 4
  • José E. Martínez
    • 6
  • Fernando Hiraldo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Evolutionary EcologyNational Museum of Natural History (CSIC)MadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Conservation BiologyEstación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC)SevilleSpain
  3. 3.Department of Applied BiologyUniversity Miguel HernándezOrihuelaSpain
  4. 4.Sociedad para la Conservación de los VertebradosLeganésSpain
  5. 5.Estudios Medioambientales Icarus S.L.LogroñoSpain
  6. 6.Departamento de Ecología e HidrologíaUniversidad de MurciaEspinardo, MurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations