Wide-ranging carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther

Maehr, David S.; Deason, Jonathan P.

doi:10.1007/s10098-001-0129-4

Cited by 15 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Panther Habitat Evaluation Model (Maehr and Deason 2002) affects important decisions on land use and consultations under the Endangered Species Act. The goal of PHEM is to provide ''an empirical approach [that] can be used by permitting agencies to ensure an objective and consistent landscape approach to panther conservation throughout south Florida.…”

Section: Inferences Underlying the Panther Habitat Evaluation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Scientific Inferences about the Florida Panther

Beier

Vaughan

Conroy

et al. 2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Inferences Underlying the Panther Habitat Evaluation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Scientific Inferences about the Florida Panther

Beier

Vaughan

Conroy

et al. 2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Delisting of the Florida panther requires: (1) the establishment of three viable, self-sustaining populations each containing at least 240 adults and sub-adults; and (2) securing and protecting habitat of sufficient quality, quantity and spatial configuration to support panther populations in the long run (USFWS, 2008). Delisting also requires natural dispersal of panthers and gene flow among the three viable, self-sustaining populations, which is contingent on habitat connectivity (Maehr et al, 2002). Accordingly, recovery of the panther depends on habitat conservation on both public and private lands, as well as private landowner support for panther conservation.…”

Section: The Need For Panther Habitat Conservationmentioning

confidence: 98%

A critical review of efforts to protect Florida panther habitat on private lands

Kreye

Pienaar

2015

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although they cannot check all inferences attributed to previous literature, referees should make it a habit to verify the 1 or 2 most improbable attributions to previous literature. For example, we believe that a referee familiar with studies of large mammal habitat use and movements would have considered improbable the Maehr and Deason (2002) assertion (attributed to Maehr and Cox 1995) that panthers are reluctant to cross 90 m of nonforested habitat.…”

Section: Four Paths To Publishing Unreliable Inferences-andmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Incorrectly attributing an inference to an earlier paper, or citing a non-IMRAD a paper as if it were rigorously peer reviewed. Maehr and Deason (2002) wrongly cited Maehr and Cox (1995) as demonstrating that panthers were ''reluctant to cross'' 90 m of nonforest. The population viability analysis by used estimates of kitten survival provided in an editorial by Maehr and Caddick (1995).…”

Section: Type Of Unreliable Inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, by the mid-1990s published work seemed focused on a single hypothesis, namely that Florida panthers depended on forests for their existence (Maehr 1997), required large forest patches (Maehr and Cox 1995), and rarely traveled more than 90 m from forest edge (Maehr and Deason 2002). As we described (Beier et al 2006), selective use of data, biased analyses, and miscitation of earlier work were used to support these conclusions.…”

Section: How Editors Can Encourage Better Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving The Use Of Science In Conservation: Lessons From The Florida Panther

Conroy¹,

Beier²,

Quigley³

et al. 2006

Journal of Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a companion article (Beier et al. 2006), we identified 2 sets of unreliable inferences that may compromise efforts to conserve the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). In spite of serious flaws in methodology and interpretation, these unreliable conclusions have appeared in prominent, peer‐refereed scientific journals and have been repeatedly cited and miscited in support of panther conservation. Future editors and referees may reduce these errors by insisting on adherence to an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) format; checking improbable assertions attributed to earlier papers; and refusing to allow scientific inference in publication formats not subject to scientific peer review (e.g., editorials). We urge conservation biologists to view science as an adaptive process and to use the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin 1890) that are now a central feature of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986, Williams et al. 2002). We advocate a workshop approach, similar to that used for analysis of data for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis; Anderson et al. 1999), to deal with scientific disagreement where, as in the case with panthers, stakeholders have entrenched points of view. Finally, we recommend the creation of an independent Scientific Steering Committee to address long‐term issues of future research and monitoring of Florida panthers.

show abstract

Wide-ranging carnivores and development permits: constructing a multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on the Florida panther

Cited by 15 publications

References 13 publications

Evaluating Scientific Inferences about the Florida Panther

Evaluating Scientific Inferences about the Florida Panther

A critical review of efforts to protect Florida panther habitat on private lands

Improving The Use Of Science In Conservation: Lessons From The Florida Panther

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About