Statistical inference, type II error, and decision making under the US endangered species act

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Volumn 7, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 487-494

  Brosi, Berry J ^a   Biber, Eric G ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CONSERVATION STATUS; DECISION MAKING; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ERROR ANALYSIS; FEDERAL SYSTEM; MEADOW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RODENT; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

NORTH AMERICA; OHIO; PREBLE COUNTY; UNITED STATES;

ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PALLIDUS; ZAPUS HUDSONIUS PREBLEI;

EID: 70450145514     PISSN: 15409295     EISSN: 15409309     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1890/080003     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Adelman DE. 2004- Scientific activism and restraint: the interplay of statistics, judgment, and procedure in environmental law. Notre Dame Law Rev 79: 497-583.
2. Biber E. 2008. The importance of resource allocation in administrative law: a case study of agency inaction under the Administrative Procedure Act. Admin Law Rev 60: 1-69.
3. Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2004- Peer review of Ramey et al. 2004- www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/peerreview/Peer ReviewPrebles.htm. Viewed 16 Dec 2007.
4. Doremus H. 2005. Science plays defense: natural resource management in the Bush Administration. Ecol Law Quart 32: 249-305. (Pubitemid 41640457)
5. Doremus H and Tarlock AD. 2005. Science, judgment, and controversy in natural resource regulation. Public Larui Resour Law Rev 26: 1-37.
6. Fallon SM. 2007. Genetic data and the listing of species under the US Endangered Species Act. Conserv Biol 21: 1186-1195 (Pubitemid 47460211)
7. Fidler F, Burgman MA, Cumming G, et al. 2006. Impact of criticism of null-hypothesis significance testing on statistical reporting practices in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 20: 1539-1544
8. Goldstein PZ, LaSalle R, Amato G, and Vogler AP. 2000. Conservation genetics at the species boundary. Conserv Biol 14: 120-131
9. Goodman SN and Berlin JA. 1994. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 121: 200-206
10. Hoenig JM and Heisey DM. 2001. The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat 55: 19-24. (Pubitemid 33227057)
11. Holthouse D. 2005. Building a better mousetrap. Denver Westword. www.westword.com/2005-01-20/news/building-a-bettermousetrap/. Viewed 18 Aug 2008.
12. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, and Ebbutt AF. 1996. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. Brit Med J 313: 36-45.
13. Kendall PC and Grove WM. 1988. Normative comparisons in therapy outcome. Behav Assess 10: 147-158
14. King TL, Switzer JF, Morrison CL, et al. 2006. Comprehensive genetic analyses reveal evolutionary distinction of a mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) proposed for delisting from the US Endangered Species Act. Mol Ecol 15: 4331-4359
15. Lemons J, Shrader-Frechette K, and Cranor C. 1997. The precautionary principle: scientific uncertainty and Type I and Type II errors. Found Sci 2: 207-236
16. McGarvey DJ. 2007. Merging precaution with sound science under the Endangered Species Act. BioScience 57: 65-70. (Pubitemid 46135336)
17. NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
18. Palsbøll PJ, Berube M, and Allendorf FW. 2006. Identification of management units using population genetic data. Trends Ecol Evol 22:11-16.
19. Ramey RR, Liu HP, Carpenter LM, and Epps CW. 2004. Testing the uniqueness of Z h intermedius relative to Z h campestris. Denver, CO: Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Technical report 2004-2008
20. Ramey RR, Liu HP, Epps CW, et al. 2005. Genetic relatedness of the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) to nearby subspecies of Z hudsonius as inferred from variation in cranial morphology, mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA: implications for taxonomy and conservation. Anim Conserv 8: 329-346
21. Robinson A. 2008. Equivalence: provides tests and graphics for assessing tests of equivalence. Package for the R Statistical Computing Language, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ equivalence/index.html. Viewed May 2008.
22. Ruhl JR. 2004- The battle over Endangered Species Act methodology. Environ Law 34: 555-603.
23. Sokal RR and Rohlf FJ. 1995. Biometry, the principles and practice of statistics in biological research, 3rd edn. New York, NY: WH Freeman and Company.
24. Taylor BL and Dizon AE. 1996. The need to estimate power to link genetics and demography for conservation. Conserv Biol 10: 661-664
25. Toft CA and Shea PJ. 1983. Detecting community-wide patterns: estimating statistical power strengthens inference. Am Nat 122: 618-625
26. US FWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1996. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: 61 Fed Reg 4722.
27. US FWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Recovery goals: amendment and supplement to the humpback chub recovery plan. Phoenix, AZ: US FWS.
28. Wade PR. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 14:1308-1316
29. Waples RS and Gaggiotti O. 2006. What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419-1439
30. Wellek S. 2002. Testing statistical hypotheses of equivalence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.