Large margins of error in polar bear population estimates means the conservation status threshold of a 30% decline (real or predicted) used by the US Endangered Species Act and the IUCN Red List is probably not valid for this species.
Several recent subpopulation estimates have shown an increase between one estimate and another of greater than 30% yet deemed not to be statistically significant due to large margins of error. How can such estimates be used to assess whether population numbers have declined enough to warrant IUCN Red List or ESA protection?
What do polar bear population numbers mean for conservation status, if anything?
Posted in Conservation Status, Population
Tagged baffin bay, declining, Derocher, errors, ESA, estimate, facts, IUCN Red List, numbers, polar bear, population, science, significance, statistics, Svalbard, western hudson bay
You just have to laugh: the promised miniscule changes were finally made to the embarrassing Harvey et al. 2018 BioScience paper last week but today were retracted.
The corrigendum was erroneously published 28 March 2018 at the journal Neurosurgery. And that blunder attracted the attention of the folks at Retraction Watch.
Posted in Advocacy, Scientists hit back, Uncategorized
Tagged BioScience, Collins, corrigendum, editor, errors, Harvey, retraction, Retraction Watch, reviewers, spelling