Premium
Testing a priori hypotheses improves the reliability of wildlife research
Author(s) -
Mitchell Michael S.,
Sells Sarah N.,
Barker Kristin J.,
Bassing Sarah B.,
Keever Allison C.,
Forshee Shan C.,
Goerz James W.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
the journal of wildlife management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.94
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1937-2817
pISSN - 0022-541X
DOI - 10.1002/jwmg.21568
Subject(s) - wildlife , unit (ring theory) , geography , library science , ecology , biology , computer science , psychology , mathematics education
We appreciate the contributions of Gula and Theuerkauf (2018) to what we hope will be an ongoing discussion within the wildlife profession. Their response to Sells et al. (2018) reflects a common perspective in wildlife biology (Romesburg 1981, Williams 1997) that our synthesis of the history, logic, and practice behind the concept of rigorous science was intended to address. Although the arguments put forth by Gula and Theuerkauf (2018) are useful and thoughtprovoking, they suggest a misunderstanding of key points made by Sells et al. (2018) regarding the logical strengths of hypothesis testing, the relative merits of a posteriori hypotheses, and why a priori hypotheses are useful for wildlife management.