NEWS
Editorials on research integrity
Authors declare no competing interests—really? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) June 2024.
Replace the ivory tower with the fire tower. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) p.355, doi:10.1002/fee.2676
'Best available science' and the reproducibility crisis. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) 20(9):495, https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2568
Scientific ethics and the illusion of naïve objectivity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) 7:1.
Research articles
The debate over Wisconsin wolves rages on.
Until the agency transparently shares all data with independent researchers who have asked for it -- including the Carnivore Coexistence Lab -- the debate will remain arid and opaque to the public. Currently, the reluctance of WDNR authors and their affiliates -- Stauffer, Roberts, Wydeven, Stenglein, van Deelen -- to share data suggest that the data won't support their claims.
I go into great detail on the errors in Wisconsin DNR wolf science on a page at right but it is summarized below along with th most recent published, peer-reviewed science.
Treves, A., Agan, SW, Langenberg, JA, Lopez-Bao, J.V., Louchouarn, NX. Parsons, DR, Rabenhorst, MF, Santiago-Ávila, FJ, 2024. Response to Roberts, Stenglein, Wydeven, and others. Journal of Mammalogy 2024 in press.
. Reply to Stauffer et al.: Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: in review at PLoS One available here.
In summary, our rebuttals to Roberts et al. and Stauffer et al, showed how
a. Stauffer et al.’s 2021 model of wolf occupancy in WI relies on data from previous years of winter tracking even if lethal management (such as a wolf-hunt) happened. Therefore, they are likely to be counting dead wolves as alive. That is why no one should trust the state estimate of the wolf population. If Stauffer and Roberts shared data as required by publication ethics, they might be able to support their estimates and their claims. But they have refused to share data again and again since 2012. And even if they did share their Datta we doubt it would show what they claim, so we suspect the state wolf population was lower than what they estimated in all previous years.
b. State estimates of birth rates are based on flawed science that hasn't passed peer review. The methods they use are inaccurate, even A. Wydeven admitted it in 2004, and they presume theirs are superior to mark-recapture methods published by Dick Thiel.
c. State estimates of wolf mortality are large, systematic under-estimates. Roberts and Stauffer both perpetuate a myth that radio-collared wolves who disappear just went off the air because of transmitter or battery failures despite the rate of disappearance being two- to three-fold higher than rates of disappearance for other (non-wolf) animal telemetry data.
d. Neither Stauffer nor Roberts share data so their claims are not credible by current scientific standards of the Open science movement. Neither they nor their co-authors transparently disclose potentially competing interests -- both financial and non-financial. These are breaches of publication ethics and research integrity according to the National Academies of science. We’re working with editors of multiple journals to flag their articles for concern or correction. The evidence for our claims is here. I will remove the disclosures they should have made once resolved. For now they are posted here .
The above evidence of undisclosed affiliations, and interests, both financial and non-financial. These are breaches of scientific integrity long described by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Note Stauffer et al. and Roberts et al., claim we are trying to silence them when we are obviously trying the opposite, to compel transparency about their potentially competing interests, see this article on competing interests.
See this editorial Treves, A. 2024. Authors declare no competing interests—really? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) to understand why disclosures of potentially competing interests are important and why current practices in scientific peer review need an overhaul.
They also routinely engage in selective citation which means they do not cite the work that contradicts their preferred findings and whenever they are compelled to cite contrary findings, they mention rebuttals to it. This creates the illusion that their science is ironclad while critics have been challenged. Such cherry-picking or selective citation also violates National Academies guidelines on research integrity. Ti also further undermines claims that Wisconsin DNR policy is informed by the best available science, let alone 'science-based'.
I explain why scientific integrity is so important to public confidence in our research community and good government at this page.
Best management practices for trapping are neither best science nor good management
Louchouarn, NX, Proulx, G, Serfass, TL, Niemeyer, CC, Treves, A. 2024. Best management practices for trapping are neither best science nor best management. Canadian Wildlife Biology & Management 13(1): 35-49Treves A, Fergus, AR, Hermanstorfer, SJ, Louchouarn, NX, Ohrens, O, Pineda Guerrero, AA. 2024.
Gold-standard experiments to deter predators from attacking farm animals. Animal Frontiers 14(1)"40-52.
After years of research, our conclusions about non-lethal deterrents and how to design randomized, controlled trials with crossover design.
(1) The long-held belief that randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) are impossible in wild ecosystems with working livestock is laid to rest.
(2) Crossover designs reduce most confounding variables between subjects and strengthen inference beyond the gold-standard of RCTs, yet we describe limitations precisely.
(3) Non-lethal methods can be effective in preventing carnivore approaches and attacks on working livestock in fenced pastures or open rangelands. The relationship between approaches and attacks remains uncertain.
(4) Lethal methods of predator control have been subjected to less robust study designs that suggest mixed results including increases in livestock losses.
(5) Non-lethal methods promise the elusive triple-win for wildlife, domestic animals, and livelihoods.
Treves, A., L. M. Elbroch, J. T. Bruskotter 2024.
Evaluating fact claims accompanying policies to liberalize the killing of wolves, peer-reviewed chapter TBA, In press. Alpha Wildlife Publications, Canada.
Replace the ivory tower with the fire tower. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment (guest editorial) p.355, doi:10.1002/fee.2676
Pre-prints available for download
Why use pre-prints?
To reach a larger number of peer scientists before an article goes through the publication process, we present our work in pre-print format. This also has the advantage of reaching the public and policy-makers more quickly. The downside is if we get something wrong (demonstrated by peer-reviewed work or a pre-print shared with us) yet it reached the public and went into effect. We accept that risk because of the pressing public need for scientific information for public policy. We will clearly communicate any corrections if we find an error.
in review. Robust inference and errors in studies of wildlife control. Pre-print posted for pre-publication review at https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-3478813/v1
Dr. Louchouarn and Emily Renn (PhD candidate) explain why Mexican wolf management needs transparency in methods and data inclusion to support suggested policy decisions; a response to Breck et al. (2023), as explained here Naomi X. Louchouran*, Emily J. Renn* (equal lead authors), Greta Anderson, David R. Parsons, Karann Putrevu, Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila, Adrian Treves (2025) tentatively entitled “” Journal of Applied Ecology in press. to CV, website, endnote.