4.3 Article

The need for standardization in wildlife science: home range estimators as an example

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 713-718

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10344-013-0726-7

关键词

Methods; Home range; Meta-analysis; Scientific hypothesis testing; Standardization; Measurements

资金

  1. Polish National Committee for Scientific Research [KBN 6P04F 006]
  2. Museum and Institute of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences
  3. German Donors' Association for the Promotion of Sciences and Humanities
  4. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [MNSW 2P04F 001 29, NCN 2011/01/B/NZ8/04233]
  5. Loro Parque Fundacion (Spain)
  6. Conservation des Especes et Populations Animales (France)
  7. La Fondation Nature et Decouvertes (France)
  8. Fonds fur bedrohte Papageien, Zoologische Gesellschaft fur Arten, und Populationsschutz (Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Individual studies in wildlife science are indicative rather than conclusive. Although multiple studies can be meta-analyzed in such a way that scientific hypotheses can be tested, robust meta-analyses are often difficult or impossible if variables of interest are not measured in a uniform manner. We hypothesized that measurements, even of basic and unequivocal variables, are rarely standardized in wildlife sciences. We tested this assumption by reviewing randomly selected papers that describe the home range of mammals (n = 25) and birds (n = 25). In these papers, home ranges were calculated using 11 methods and 8 computer programs. The number of radiolocations used to calculate home ranges varied from 9 to > 2,000. By estimating home ranges for two radiotelemetry data sets, we demonstrate that home ranges are not comparable if different methods are used and that estimates of home range are not standardized. We assume that measurements of other biological variables are even less consistent across studies. In order to advance wildlife sciences, we believe that standardization initiatives are required at an international level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据