Merging precaution with sound science under the endangered species act

BioScience

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 65-70

  McGarvey, Daniel J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA   (United States)

Author keywords

Burden of proof; Equivalence test; Hypothesis test; Statistical power; Type I and type II error

Indexed keywords

PISCES;

EID: 33846337790     PISSN: 00063568     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1641/B570110     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL. 2000. Null hypothesis testing: Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. Journal of Wildlife Management 64: 912-923.
2. Brennan MJ, Roth DE, Feldman MD, Greene AR. 2003. Square pegs and round holes: Application of the "best scientific data available" standard in the Endangered Species Act. Tulane Environmental Law Journal 16: 387-444.
3. Buck EH, Corn ML, Sheikh P, Baldwin P, Meltz R. 2005. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the 109th Congress: Conflicting Values and Difficult Choices. Washington (DC): Library of Congress. (28 November 2006; www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/05apr/IB10144.pdf)
4. Carroll R, Augspurger C, Dobson A, Franklin J, Orians G, Reid W, Tracy R, Wilcove D, Wilson J, Lubchenco J. 1996. Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: An assessment by the Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications 6: 1-11.
5. Dixon PM, Pechmann JHK. 2005. A statistical test to show negligible trend. Ecology 86: 1751-1756.
6. Doremus H. 2004. The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate. Environmental Law 34: 397-450.
7. Ellison AM. 2004. Bayesian inference in ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 509-520.
8. Foster KR, Vecchia P, Repacholi MH. 2000. Science and the Precautionary Principle. Science 288: 979-981.
9. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer.
10. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. American Statistician 55: 19-24.
11. Kinzig A, et al. 2003. Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio 32: 330-335.
12. Kuhn T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Ludwig D, Mangel M, Haddad B. 2001. Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32: 481-517.
14. Manson C. 2002. Testimony of Craig Manson, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the House Resources Committee, regarding H.R. 4840. (9 December 2006; www.fws.gov/laws/ Testimony/107th/2002/2002june19.htm)
15. McBride GB. 1999. Equivalence tests can enhance environmental science and management. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 41: 19-29.
16. Norris S. 2004. Only 30: A portrait of the Endangered Species Act as a young law. BioScience 54: 288-294.
17. [NRC] National Research Council. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
18. -. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Fishes in the Klamath River Basin: Causes of Decline and Strategies for Recovery. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
19. Parkhurst DF. 2001. Statistical significance tests: Equivalence and reverse tests should reduce misinterpretation. BioScience 51: 1051-1057.
20. Peterman RM. 1990. Statistical power analysis can improve fisheries research and management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47: 2-15.
21. Pombo RW. 2004. The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to Update and Strengthen the Law. Committee Report. Washington (DC): US House of Representatives Committee on Resources. (29 November 2006; http://resourcescommittee.house. gov/issues/more/esa/whitepaper.htm)
22. Ruhl JB. 2004. The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environmental Law 34: 555-603.
23. [SCB] Society for Conservation Biology. 2005. Society for Conservation Biology code of ethics. Conservation Biology 19: 3.
24. Shrader-Frechette KS, McCoy ED. 1992. Statistics, costs and rationality in ecological inference. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 96-99.
25. Sidle JG. 1998. Arbitrary and capricious species conservation. Conservation Biology 12: 248-249.
26. Taylor BL, Gerrodette T. 1993. The uses of statistical power in conservation biology: The vaquita and northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 7: 489-500.
27. Toft CA, Shea PJ. 1983. Detecting community-wide patterns: Estimating power strengthens statistical inference. American Naturalist 122: 618-625.
28. [USFWS] US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological/Conference Opinion Regarding the Effects of Operation of the Bureau of Reclamation's Klamath Project on the Endangered Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus), Endangered Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), Threatened Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Proposed Critical Habitat for the Lost River/Shortnose Suckers. Washington (DC): US Department of the Interior. (29 November 2006; www.usbr.gov/mp/kbao/esa/34_ final_sucker_bo_4_06_01.pdf)
29. Welch EB, Burke T. 2001. Interim Summary Report: Relationship between Lake Elevation and Water Quality in Upper Klamath Lake, Oregon. Portland (OR): Bureau of Indian Affairs.
30. Yoccoz NG. 1991. Use, overuse, and misuse of significance tests in evolutionary biology and ecology. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 72: 106-111.