Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther

Paul Beier, Michael R. Vaughan, Michael J. Conroy, Howard Quigley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide an independent assessment of the reliability of the scientific literature used to support conservation of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi). We independently reached similar conclusions about unreliable scientific inferences before discussing the issues with each other or with others. Although a quarter-century of research supports many published conclusions, 2 sets of unreliable inferences may compromise efforts to conserve the species. The first is a set of 4 unreliable inferences that underlie the Panther Habitat Evaluation Model (PHEM), used by agencies to evaluate projects that may affect panther habitat. Specifically, the following assertions are unreliable: 1) panthers are forest obligates, 2) panthers require large (>500 ha) forest patches, 3) panthers are reluctant to cross 90-m gaps of nonforest habitat, and 4) the value of potential panther habitat declines linearly with distance to a population core in south Florida, USA. These assertions are unreliable because the analyses excluded (without mention or rationale) almost half the available data, compared used habitats to an inappropriate set of available habitats, made inferences about habitat preference without any data on available habitats, were based only on panther locations during daytime, ignored telemetry error, or suffered from other flaws. The second is a set of 2 unreliable inferences about panther demography prior to the genetic restoration effort initiated in 1995. Inferences that neonate survival was ≥0.84 and that the panther population was demographically vigorous prior to 1995 are flawed because the survival analysis ignored mortality during the first 4 months and because other inferences were based on numbers of births and deaths in samples of convenience rather than appropriate vital rates. These faulty inferences about panther demography brought unwarranted credibility to challenges of the genetic restoration program. Faulty inferences of both sets were repeated in subsequent scientific and popular articles; in several instances, previously published work was mis-cited. In its current (2002-2005) version, PHEM is unreliable and should not be used in decisions about panther habitat. Biologists should obtain better demographic estimates and fully analyze how the introgression program has affected these rates.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)236-245
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Wildlife Management
Volume70
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Puma concolor
habitat
habitats
demography
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
research support
neonate
wildlife management
introgression
telemetry
fish
habitat preferences
nature conservation
habitat selection
biologists
neonates
demographic statistics
death
mortality

Keywords

  • Demography
  • Endangered species
  • Florida panther
  • Genetic restoration
  • Habitat use
  • Puma concolor coryi
  • Reliability
  • Scientific inference

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Ecology

Cite this

Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther. / Beier, Paul; Vaughan, Michael R.; Conroy, Michael J.; Quigley, Howard.

In: Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2006, p. 236-245.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Beier, Paul ; Vaughan, Michael R. ; Conroy, Michael J. ; Quigley, Howard. / Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther. In: Journal of Wildlife Management. 2006 ; Vol. 70, No. 1. pp. 236-245.
@article{d0ea951519bb451090afeb3d0233ca44,
title = "Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther",
abstract = "At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide an independent assessment of the reliability of the scientific literature used to support conservation of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi). We independently reached similar conclusions about unreliable scientific inferences before discussing the issues with each other or with others. Although a quarter-century of research supports many published conclusions, 2 sets of unreliable inferences may compromise efforts to conserve the species. The first is a set of 4 unreliable inferences that underlie the Panther Habitat Evaluation Model (PHEM), used by agencies to evaluate projects that may affect panther habitat. Specifically, the following assertions are unreliable: 1) panthers are forest obligates, 2) panthers require large (>500 ha) forest patches, 3) panthers are reluctant to cross 90-m gaps of nonforest habitat, and 4) the value of potential panther habitat declines linearly with distance to a population core in south Florida, USA. These assertions are unreliable because the analyses excluded (without mention or rationale) almost half the available data, compared used habitats to an inappropriate set of available habitats, made inferences about habitat preference without any data on available habitats, were based only on panther locations during daytime, ignored telemetry error, or suffered from other flaws. The second is a set of 2 unreliable inferences about panther demography prior to the genetic restoration effort initiated in 1995. Inferences that neonate survival was ≥0.84 and that the panther population was demographically vigorous prior to 1995 are flawed because the survival analysis ignored mortality during the first 4 months and because other inferences were based on numbers of births and deaths in samples of convenience rather than appropriate vital rates. These faulty inferences about panther demography brought unwarranted credibility to challenges of the genetic restoration program. Faulty inferences of both sets were repeated in subsequent scientific and popular articles; in several instances, previously published work was mis-cited. In its current (2002-2005) version, PHEM is unreliable and should not be used in decisions about panther habitat. Biologists should obtain better demographic estimates and fully analyze how the introgression program has affected these rates.",
keywords = "Demography, Endangered species, Florida panther, Genetic restoration, Habitat use, Puma concolor coryi, Reliability, Scientific inference",
author = "Paul Beier and Vaughan, {Michael R.} and Conroy, {Michael J.} and Howard Quigley",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[236:ESIATF]2.0.CO;2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "236--245",
journal = "Journal of Wildlife Management",
issn = "0022-541X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating scientific inferences about the Florida panther

AU - Beier, Paul

AU - Vaughan, Michael R.

AU - Conroy, Michael J.

AU - Quigley, Howard

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide an independent assessment of the reliability of the scientific literature used to support conservation of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi). We independently reached similar conclusions about unreliable scientific inferences before discussing the issues with each other or with others. Although a quarter-century of research supports many published conclusions, 2 sets of unreliable inferences may compromise efforts to conserve the species. The first is a set of 4 unreliable inferences that underlie the Panther Habitat Evaluation Model (PHEM), used by agencies to evaluate projects that may affect panther habitat. Specifically, the following assertions are unreliable: 1) panthers are forest obligates, 2) panthers require large (>500 ha) forest patches, 3) panthers are reluctant to cross 90-m gaps of nonforest habitat, and 4) the value of potential panther habitat declines linearly with distance to a population core in south Florida, USA. These assertions are unreliable because the analyses excluded (without mention or rationale) almost half the available data, compared used habitats to an inappropriate set of available habitats, made inferences about habitat preference without any data on available habitats, were based only on panther locations during daytime, ignored telemetry error, or suffered from other flaws. The second is a set of 2 unreliable inferences about panther demography prior to the genetic restoration effort initiated in 1995. Inferences that neonate survival was ≥0.84 and that the panther population was demographically vigorous prior to 1995 are flawed because the survival analysis ignored mortality during the first 4 months and because other inferences were based on numbers of births and deaths in samples of convenience rather than appropriate vital rates. These faulty inferences about panther demography brought unwarranted credibility to challenges of the genetic restoration program. Faulty inferences of both sets were repeated in subsequent scientific and popular articles; in several instances, previously published work was mis-cited. In its current (2002-2005) version, PHEM is unreliable and should not be used in decisions about panther habitat. Biologists should obtain better demographic estimates and fully analyze how the introgression program has affected these rates.

AB - At the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), we provide an independent assessment of the reliability of the scientific literature used to support conservation of Florida panthers (Puma concolor coryi). We independently reached similar conclusions about unreliable scientific inferences before discussing the issues with each other or with others. Although a quarter-century of research supports many published conclusions, 2 sets of unreliable inferences may compromise efforts to conserve the species. The first is a set of 4 unreliable inferences that underlie the Panther Habitat Evaluation Model (PHEM), used by agencies to evaluate projects that may affect panther habitat. Specifically, the following assertions are unreliable: 1) panthers are forest obligates, 2) panthers require large (>500 ha) forest patches, 3) panthers are reluctant to cross 90-m gaps of nonforest habitat, and 4) the value of potential panther habitat declines linearly with distance to a population core in south Florida, USA. These assertions are unreliable because the analyses excluded (without mention or rationale) almost half the available data, compared used habitats to an inappropriate set of available habitats, made inferences about habitat preference without any data on available habitats, were based only on panther locations during daytime, ignored telemetry error, or suffered from other flaws. The second is a set of 2 unreliable inferences about panther demography prior to the genetic restoration effort initiated in 1995. Inferences that neonate survival was ≥0.84 and that the panther population was demographically vigorous prior to 1995 are flawed because the survival analysis ignored mortality during the first 4 months and because other inferences were based on numbers of births and deaths in samples of convenience rather than appropriate vital rates. These faulty inferences about panther demography brought unwarranted credibility to challenges of the genetic restoration program. Faulty inferences of both sets were repeated in subsequent scientific and popular articles; in several instances, previously published work was mis-cited. In its current (2002-2005) version, PHEM is unreliable and should not be used in decisions about panther habitat. Biologists should obtain better demographic estimates and fully analyze how the introgression program has affected these rates.

KW - Demography

KW - Endangered species

KW - Florida panther

KW - Genetic restoration

KW - Habitat use

KW - Puma concolor coryi

KW - Reliability

KW - Scientific inference

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645031146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645031146&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[236:ESIATF]2.0.CO;2

DO - 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[236:ESIATF]2.0.CO;2

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 236

EP - 245

JO - Journal of Wildlife Management

JF - Journal of Wildlife Management

SN - 0022-541X

IS - 1

ER -