Amazing Jack Rabbit Recovery
Remember the stories last month about the jack rabbit disappearing from Yellowstone National Park (examples here, here, and here)? It had people speculating on all sorts of potential causes and ramifications. But now we know the root of the problem...sloppy science.
A Montana biologist has withdrawn his claim in a recent study that a rabbit species has disappeared from the Yellowstone area.
Joel Berger, a senior scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, said Thursday that he has been contacted by at least six biologists and naturalists refuting his conclusions about the white-tailed jack rabbit. He said they provided photos and anecdotal evidence the rabbit still lives in the area.
"Yes, there were some left," Berger said. "I've got egg on the face, absolutely."
...
On Thursday, Berger said he now believes the rabbits survive in small numbers within Yellowstone National Park and nearby Gardiner. He provided a copy of a letter he said will correct the record in Oryx's April issue.
Berger is an ungulate specialist (hoofed animals like the moose and bison) that the University of Montana was really proud to hire into an endowed position last summer. He was supposed to help UM attract the best and brightest to the nation's fourth-ranked wildlife biology program.
The conclusion that the rabbits had vanished was based on Berger's own work in the Yellowstone region, historical records and interviews with park biologists and naturalists. In the letter, Berger acknowledges interviewing more people for the study "would have improved abilities to detect whether the hares still persist."
He said the study's broader point--that the rabbit's decline may have forced predators to turn to other food sources--remains valid.
How did this scientific gaffe happen? Well for instance, Berger may have been overly reliant upon data which proved not to be very conclusive--historical comparisons of hare hair in coyote scat. The park biologists and naturalists he interviewed obviously weren't keeping up with Yellowstone's jack rabbits either, were they? Whatever the cause, Berger fessed up to the error...but then he kept on talking.
Berger now believes that there are a small number of jack rabbits in Yellowstone--less than there used to be. With his study having been discredited, this subject obviously merits further research. Nevertheless, Berger continues to believe that a decline in jack rabbit numbers may have forced predators to eat something else. May have? That's not a broader point, that's speculation.
Has this been just a momentary lapse in his scientific rigor, or is it indicative of something deeper? Do we need to look back at Berger's previous studies for signs of bias, shoddy work, etc.? Will anybody bother?
Katy Christomanou, an editor with Oryx's publisher, Cambridge University Press, said Thursday she was not aware of questions raised about Berger's study and had not seen his subsequent correction letter.
She referred questions to Oryx editor Martin Fisher. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Oryx's website claims that "Manuscripts are subject to rigorous peer review." Wonder if there will be any repercussions for the scientists involved in that process? There should be.
Excellent post. See also
http://westinstenv.org/wildpeop/2008/03/05/are-the-bunnies-really-missing/
Posted by: Mike | March 09, 2008 at 11:26
I'd missed the Skinner article and post. I definitely agree that journals and researchers shouldn't seek publicity for research which hasn't been published yet. I had the same frustration--read the initial articles on the jack rabbit disappearance, went to read the study, and no luck...it wasn't out for another week. Wonder if Oryx is providing refunds for those who paid to read the discredited study?
Posted by: RoguePundit | March 09, 2008 at 12:59
ROTFLOL
Posted by: Mike | March 09, 2008 at 15:35