Conservation agencies entrusted with recovery of iconic mammals may exaggerate population trends without adequate scientific evidence. Recently, such populations were termed as "political populations" in the conservation literature. We surmise that political populations emerge when agencies are pressured to report abundances at large spatial scales for species that are difficult to survey. Indian tiger conservation agencies use an experimental approach called double-sampling using index-calibration models. A recent, mathematical, study demonstrated the unreliability of this approach in the context of India's tigers. Yet, this approach continues to be applied and even promoted by global tiger conservation agencies in other tiger range countries. In this article, we aim to: (1) discuss the ecological oddities emerging from results of India's national tiger surveys, (2) demystify the mathematics underlying the problems of this survey methodology and (3) confront these findings with results from India's recent national tiger survey of 2014. Our analyses show that the predictions of tiger abundance using sign-based indices reported in the 2014 survey in fact vary greatly and can be severely misleading and confirming the presence of high sampling-based overdispersion and parameter covariance. We call for species conservation initiatives to implement monitoring methods that are designed to clearly answer, a priori, scientific or management objectives instead of potentially implementing them as reactions to extraneous, social or fund raising pressures.
- Downloaded 419 times
- Download rankings, all-time:
- Site-wide: 72,519
- In ecology: 1,994
- Year to date:
- Site-wide: 130,101
- Since beginning of last month:
- Site-wide: 129,750
Downloads over time
Distribution of downloads per paper, site-wide
- 27 Nov 2020: The website and API now include results pulled from medRxiv as well as bioRxiv.
- 18 Dec 2019: We're pleased to announce PanLingua, a new tool that enables you to search for machine-translated bioRxiv preprints using more than 100 different languages.
- 21 May 2019: PLOS Biology has published a community page about Rxivist.org and its design.
- 10 May 2019: The paper analyzing the Rxivist dataset has been published at eLife.
- 1 Mar 2019: We now have summary statistics about bioRxiv downloads and submissions.
- 8 Feb 2019: Data from Altmetric is now available on the Rxivist details page for every preprint. Look for the "donut" under the download metrics.
- 30 Jan 2019: preLights has featured the Rxivist preprint and written about our findings.
- 22 Jan 2019: Nature just published an article about Rxivist and our data.
- 13 Jan 2019: The Rxivist preprint is live!