Testing <i>a priori</i> hypotheses improves the reliability of wildlife research

Mitchell, Michael S.; Sells, Sarah N.; Barker, Kristin J.; Bassing, Sarah B.; Keever, Allison C.; Forshee, Shannon C.; Goerz, James W.

doi:10.1002/jwmg.21568

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The former could reveal biological peculiarities to a single population or place. The latter could test for general mechanisms that underlie biological processes (Mitchell et al ). Some studies addressed puma population limitation and regulation directly; others speculated on those themes incidental to observations in a study or in references to literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?

Logan

2019

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife managers require reliable information on factors that influence animal populations to develop successful management programs, including the puma (Puma concolor), in western North America. As puma populations have recovered in recent decades because of restrictions on human‐caused mortality, managers need a clear understanding of the factors that limit or regulate puma populations and how those factors might be manipulated to achieve management objectives, including sustaining puma and other wildlife populations, providing hunting opportunity, and reducing puma interactions with people. I synthesized technical literature on puma populations, behavior, and relationships with prey that have contributed to hypotheses on puma population limitation and regulation. Current hypotheses on puma population limitation include the social limitation hypothesis and the food limitation hypothesis. Associated with each of those are 2 hypotheses on puma population regulation: the social regulation hypothesis and the competition regulation hypothesis. I organize the biological and ecological attributes of pumas reported in the literature under these hypotheses. I discuss the validity of these hypotheses based on the limits of the research associated with the hypotheses and the evolutionary processes theoretically underlying them. I review the management predictions as framed by these hypotheses as they pertain to puma hunting, puma‐prey relationships, and human‐puma interactions. The food limitation and competition regulation hypotheses explain more phenomena associated with puma and likely would guide more successful management outcomes. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?

Logan

2019

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Debunking these unsubstantiated claims is more a matter of lack of theoretical support than of specific data (i.e., the data might eventually match some expectations of such allegations just by chance) (McNutt 2014) in the worthy task of avoiding the slipperiness of empiricism (Bunge 1998;Kerr 1998;Lehrer 2010) or the 'one shot game' in hypotheses testing (Marone et al 2019). This reasoning is the most important argument against hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing) (Kerr 1998), which is typical of data-driven exploratory research (Ihle et al 2017;Mitchell et al 2018). HARKing often leads to generate a hypothesis that researchers would never have deduced from theory (Forstmeier et al 2017), and whose plausibility was therefore never established (Bunge 1998).…”

Section: ₁₃₆ L M��mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of theory in mitigating the ‘reproducibility crisis’

Marone

2024

Ecol Austral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of reproducibility of scientific results is jeopardizing the trust in science. An effort to inform the dynamic, but non-arbitrary, nature of scientific evidence is required along with strengthening the reliability of published results. Concerns and actions aimed at testing and increasing the reproducibility of scientific conclusions are usually directed at increasing data validation through careful management of the data-curation process, paying attention to the empirical aspects of hypotheses testing. But important as they are, these aspects may be vulnerable to the perils of radical empiricism and therefore should be combined with more theoretical and conceptual tools. Pattern consistency and an understanding of the physiological, behavioral, or ecological mechanisms that cause patterns make scientific assertions more robust. Testing a priori hypotheses (e.g., about functional biological traits) with fresh (and redundant) evidence offers theoretical as well as empirical support for ecological research and may help strengthen the reliability of published results.

show abstract

“…Additionally, Loehle (1987) suggested that many questions in ecology (e.g., the what, when, and where questions) constituted observational or descriptive studies and did not lend themselves easily to the H-D methods. Mitchell et al (2018) responded to Gula and Theuerkauf (2018), suggesting that they misunderstood the main points made by Sells et al (2018). Platt (1964) correctly observed that criticism or challenges to scientific methodology strikes at our respective egos.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Additional thoughts on rigor in wildlife science: Unappreciated impediments

Bissonette

2019

J Wildl Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testing a priori hypotheses improves the reliability of wildlife research

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?

Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?

The role of theory in mitigating the ‘reproducibility crisis’

Additional thoughts on rigor in wildlife science: Unappreciated impediments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About