Scientific progress depends upon the accumulation of empirical knowledge via reproducible methodology. Although reproducibility is a main tenet of the scientific method, recent studies have highlighted widespread failures in adherence to this ideal. The goal of this study was to gauge the level of computational reproducibility, or the ability to obtain the same results using the same data and analytic methods as in the original publication, in the field of wildlife science. We randomly selected 80 papers published in the Journal of Wildlife Management and Wildlife Society Bulletin between 1 June 2016 and 1 June 2018. Of those that were suitable for reproducibility review (n = 74), we attempted to obtain study data from online repositories or directly from authors. Forty‐two authors did not respond to our requests, and we were further unable to obtain data from authors of 13 other studies. Of the 19 studies for which we were able to obtain data and complete our analysis, we judged that 13 were mostly or fully reproducible. We conclude that the studies with publicly available data or data shared upon request were largely reproducible, but we remain concerned about the difficulty in obtaining data from recently published papers. We recommend increased data‐sharing, data organization and documentation, communication, and training to advance computational reproducibility in the wildlife sciences. © 2020 The Authors. The Journal of Wildlife Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Wildlife Society.

Recent work has suggested that a tradeoff exists between habitat area and habitat heterogeneity, with a moderate amount of heterogeneity supporting greatest species richness. Support for this unimodal relationship has been mixed and has differed among habitats and taxa. We examined the relationship between habitat heterogeneity and species richness after accounting for habitat area in glacially formed wetlands in the Prairie Pothole Region in the United States at both local and landscape scales. We tested for area–habitat heterogeneity tradeoffs in wetland bird species richness, the richness of groups of similar species, and in species’ abundances. We then identified the habitat relationships for individual species and the relative importance of wetland area vs. habitat heterogeneity and other wetland characteristics. We found that habitat area was the primary driver of species richness and abundance. Additional variation in richness and abundance could be explained by habitat heterogeneity or other wetland and landscape characteristics. Overall avian species richness responded unimodally to habitat heterogeneity, suggesting an area–heterogeneity tradeoff. Group richness and abundance metrics showed either unimodal or linear relationships with habitat heterogeneity. Habitat heterogeneity indices at local and landscape scales were important for some, but not all, species and avian groups. Both abundance of individual species and species richness of most avian groups were higher on publicly owned wetlands than on privately owned wetlands, on restored wetlands than natural wetlands, and on permanent wetlands than on wetlands of other classes. However, we found that all wetlands examined, regardless of ownership, restoration status, and wetland class, supported wetland-obligate birds. Thus, protection of all wetland types contributes to species conservation. Our results support conventional wisdom that protection of large wetlands is a priority but also indicate that maintaining habitat heterogeneity will enhance biodiversity and support higher populations of individual species.

No abstract

No abstract