Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna

The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Conservation biology 2014-08, Vol.28 (4), p.1045-1056
Hauptverfasser: MILLER, KIMBERLY A, BELL, TRENT P, GERMANO, JENNIFER M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1056
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1045
container_title Conservation biology
container_volume 28
creator MILLER, KIMBERLY A
BELL, TRENT P
GERMANO, JENNIFER M
description The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews. Entendiendo el Sesgo de Publicaciones en la Biología de la Reintroducción Mediante el Estudio de Traslocaciones de la Herpetofauna de Nueva Zelanda
doi_str_mv 10.1111/cobi.12254
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1554947532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24480083</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24480083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6154-64cf6687c8f2c85ab5013b6ca5050e151d4041cd9b39060ef93f1c310bff8e7a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkd9rFDEQxxdR7Fl98V1dEFGErZOfm33sHfYHlFa0h-BLyGaTI-fe5prsUu-_N-teq_ggBkJg5jPfmcw3y54jOELpfNC-dkcIY0YfZDPEMClQSaqH2QyEEIUQFT7InsS4BoCKIfo4O8CUA-dAZ1lYdo0JsVdd47pV_mmoW6dV73yXz52Kuevyz8Z1ffDNoPdh3_rVLq93-XGMJsax7jqoLrZ-qoy5t_mluc2_GdUm4bcxPzNha3pv1dCpp9kjq9ponu3fw2x58vF6cVZcXJ2eL44vCs0RowWn2nIuSi0s1oKpmgEiNdeKAQODGGooUKSbqiYVcDC2IhZpgqC2VphSkcPs3aS7Df5mMLGXGxe1adNIxg9RIsZoRUtG8H-gVKC0uwol9PVf6NoPoUsfGamS8BJjSNT7idLBxxiMldvgNirsJAI5miZH0-Qv0xL8ci851BvT3KN3LiXgzR5QUavWpmVrF39zglclKsfZ0MTdutbs_tFSLq7m53fNX0w169j78EdvKgAESfliyrvYmx_3eRW-S16Sksmvl6cSgBByMsdSJP7VxFvlpVqFNOfyCwZEYbyUcPIT3grPcQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1547367220</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>MILLER, KIMBERLY A ; BELL, TRENT P ; GERMANO, JENNIFER M</creator><creatorcontrib>MILLER, KIMBERLY A ; BELL, TRENT P ; GERMANO, JENNIFER M</creatorcontrib><description>The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews. Entendiendo el Sesgo de Publicaciones en la Biología de la Reintroducción Mediante el Estudio de Traslocaciones de la Herpetofauna de Nueva Zelanda</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-8892</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1523-1739</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12254</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24606604</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CBIOEF</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Scientific Publications</publisher><subject>Amphibia. Reptilia ; Amphibians ; Animal, plant and microbial ecology ; Animals ; Applied ecology ; Bias ; Biodiversity conservation ; Biological and medical sciences ; Conservation biology ; Conservation of Natural Resources - methods ; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife ; Contributed Papers ; criterios de éxito ; Ecological genetics ; Ecosystem ; ecosystems ; Endangered &amp; extinct species ; Endangered Species ; Environmental conservation ; Frogs ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; General aspects ; herpetofauna ; land use ; Leiopelmatidae ; life history ; New Zealand ; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking ; Publication Bias ; reintroducción ; reintroduction ; Reproductive success ; Reptiles &amp; amphibians ; Species reintroduction ; success criteria ; tuatara ; Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution ; Wildlife conservation ; Wildlife management</subject><ispartof>Conservation biology, 2014-08, Vol.28 (4), p.1045-1056</ispartof><rights>2014 Society for Conservation Biology</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>2014 Society for Conservation Biology.</rights><rights>2014, Society for Conservation Biology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6154-64cf6687c8f2c85ab5013b6ca5050e151d4041cd9b39060ef93f1c310bff8e7a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c6154-64cf6687c8f2c85ab5013b6ca5050e151d4041cd9b39060ef93f1c310bff8e7a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24480083$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24480083$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28697171$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24606604$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MILLER, KIMBERLY A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BELL, TRENT P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GERMANO, JENNIFER M</creatorcontrib><title>Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna</title><title>Conservation biology</title><addtitle>Conservation Biology</addtitle><description>The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews. Entendiendo el Sesgo de Publicaciones en la Biología de la Reintroducción Mediante el Estudio de Traslocaciones de la Herpetofauna de Nueva Zelanda</description><subject>Amphibia. Reptilia</subject><subject>Amphibians</subject><subject>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Applied ecology</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Conservation biology</subject><subject>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</subject><subject>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</subject><subject>Contributed Papers</subject><subject>criterios de éxito</subject><subject>Ecological genetics</subject><subject>Ecosystem</subject><subject>ecosystems</subject><subject>Endangered &amp; extinct species</subject><subject>Endangered Species</subject><subject>Environmental conservation</subject><subject>Frogs</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>herpetofauna</subject><subject>land use</subject><subject>Leiopelmatidae</subject><subject>life history</subject><subject>New Zealand</subject><subject>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</subject><subject>Publication Bias</subject><subject>reintroducción</subject><subject>reintroduction</subject><subject>Reproductive success</subject><subject>Reptiles &amp; amphibians</subject><subject>Species reintroduction</subject><subject>success criteria</subject><subject>tuatara</subject><subject>Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Wildlife management</subject><issn>0888-8892</issn><issn>1523-1739</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkd9rFDEQxxdR7Fl98V1dEFGErZOfm33sHfYHlFa0h-BLyGaTI-fe5prsUu-_N-teq_ggBkJg5jPfmcw3y54jOELpfNC-dkcIY0YfZDPEMClQSaqH2QyEEIUQFT7InsS4BoCKIfo4O8CUA-dAZ1lYdo0JsVdd47pV_mmoW6dV73yXz52Kuevyz8Z1ffDNoPdh3_rVLq93-XGMJsax7jqoLrZ-qoy5t_mluc2_GdUm4bcxPzNha3pv1dCpp9kjq9ponu3fw2x58vF6cVZcXJ2eL44vCs0RowWn2nIuSi0s1oKpmgEiNdeKAQODGGooUKSbqiYVcDC2IhZpgqC2VphSkcPs3aS7Df5mMLGXGxe1adNIxg9RIsZoRUtG8H-gVKC0uwol9PVf6NoPoUsfGamS8BJjSNT7idLBxxiMldvgNirsJAI5miZH0-Qv0xL8ci851BvT3KN3LiXgzR5QUavWpmVrF39zglclKsfZ0MTdutbs_tFSLq7m53fNX0w169j78EdvKgAESfliyrvYmx_3eRW-S16Sksmvl6cSgBByMsdSJP7VxFvlpVqFNOfyCwZEYbyUcPIT3grPcQ</recordid><startdate>201408</startdate><enddate>201408</enddate><creator>MILLER, KIMBERLY A</creator><creator>BELL, TRENT P</creator><creator>GERMANO, JENNIFER M</creator><general>Blackwell Scientific Publications</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Periodicals Inc</general><general>Wiley-Blackwell</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201408</creationdate><title>Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna</title><author>MILLER, KIMBERLY A ; BELL, TRENT P ; GERMANO, JENNIFER M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c6154-64cf6687c8f2c85ab5013b6ca5050e151d4041cd9b39060ef93f1c310bff8e7a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Amphibia. Reptilia</topic><topic>Amphibians</topic><topic>Animal, plant and microbial ecology</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Applied ecology</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Conservation biology</topic><topic>Conservation of Natural Resources - methods</topic><topic>Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife</topic><topic>Contributed Papers</topic><topic>criterios de éxito</topic><topic>Ecological genetics</topic><topic>Ecosystem</topic><topic>ecosystems</topic><topic>Endangered &amp; extinct species</topic><topic>Endangered Species</topic><topic>Environmental conservation</topic><topic>Frogs</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>herpetofauna</topic><topic>land use</topic><topic>Leiopelmatidae</topic><topic>life history</topic><topic>New Zealand</topic><topic>Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking</topic><topic>Publication Bias</topic><topic>reintroducción</topic><topic>reintroduction</topic><topic>Reproductive success</topic><topic>Reptiles &amp; amphibians</topic><topic>Species reintroduction</topic><topic>success criteria</topic><topic>tuatara</topic><topic>Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Wildlife management</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MILLER, KIMBERLY A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BELL, TRENT P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GERMANO, JENNIFER M</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Conservation biology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MILLER, KIMBERLY A</au><au>BELL, TRENT P</au><au>GERMANO, JENNIFER M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna</atitle><jtitle>Conservation biology</jtitle><addtitle>Conservation Biology</addtitle><date>2014-08</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1045</spage><epage>1056</epage><pages>1045-1056</pages><issn>0888-8892</issn><eissn>1523-1739</eissn><coden>CBIOEF</coden><abstract>The intentional translocation of animals is an important tool for species conservation and ecosystem restoration, but reported success rates are low, particularly for threatened and endangered species. Publication bias further distorts success rates because the results of successful translocations may be more likely to be published than failed translocations. We conducted the first comprehensive review of all published and unpublished translocations of herpetofauna in New Zealand to assess publication bias. Of 74 translocations of 29 species in 25 years, 35 have been reported in the published literature, and the outcomes of 12 have been published. Using a traditional definition of success, publication bias resulted in a gross overestimate of translocation success rates (41.7% and 8.1% for published and all translocations, respectively), but bias against failed translocations was minimal (8.3% and 6.8%, respectively). Publication bias against translocations with uncertain outcomes, the vast majority of projects, was also strong (50.0% and 85.1% for published and all translocations, respectively). Recent translocations were less likely to be published than older translocations. The reasons behind translocations were related to publication. A greater percentage of translocations for conservation and research were published (63.3% and 40.0%, respectively) than translocations for mitigation during land development (10.0%). Translocations conducted in collaboration with a university were more frequently published (82.7% and 24.4%, respectively). To account for some of this publication bias, we reassessed the outcome of each translocation using a standardized definition of success, which takes into consideration the species’ life history and the time since release. Our standardized definition of translocation success provided a more accurate summary of success rates and allows for a more rigorous evaluation of the causes of translocation success and failure in large‐scale reviews. Entendiendo el Sesgo de Publicaciones en la Biología de la Reintroducción Mediante el Estudio de Traslocaciones de la Herpetofauna de Nueva Zelanda</abstract><cop>Hoboken, NJ</cop><pub>Blackwell Scientific Publications</pub><pmid>24606604</pmid><doi>10.1111/cobi.12254</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0888-8892
ispartof Conservation biology, 2014-08, Vol.28 (4), p.1045-1056
issn 0888-8892
1523-1739
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1554947532
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Amphibia. Reptilia
Amphibians
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Animals
Applied ecology
Bias
Biodiversity conservation
Biological and medical sciences
Conservation biology
Conservation of Natural Resources - methods
Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife
Contributed Papers
criterios de éxito
Ecological genetics
Ecosystem
ecosystems
Endangered & extinct species
Endangered Species
Environmental conservation
Frogs
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
herpetofauna
land use
Leiopelmatidae
life history
New Zealand
Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking
Publication Bias
reintroducción
reintroduction
Reproductive success
Reptiles & amphibians
Species reintroduction
success criteria
tuatara
Vertebrates: general zoology, morphology, phylogeny, systematics, cytogenetics, geographical distribution
Wildlife conservation
Wildlife management
title Understanding Publication Bias in Reintroduction Biology by Assessing Translocations of New Zealand's Herpetofauna
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T04%3A14%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Understanding%20Publication%20Bias%20in%20Reintroduction%20Biology%20by%20Assessing%20Translocations%20of%20New%20Zealand's%20Herpetofauna&rft.jtitle=Conservation%20biology&rft.au=MILLER,%20KIMBERLY%20A&rft.date=2014-08&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1045&rft.epage=1056&rft.pages=1045-1056&rft.issn=0888-8892&rft.eissn=1523-1739&rft.coden=CBIOEF&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cobi.12254&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24480083%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1547367220&rft_id=info:pmid/24606604&rft_jstor_id=24480083&rfr_iscdi=true