Open AccessDistortion of inferences and undue exaggeration of study limitations: Response to Shrotriya et al.
Author(s) -
Majgaonkar Iravatee,
Vaidyanathan Srinivas,
Srivathsa Arjun,
Shivakumar Shweta,
Limaye Sunil,
Athreya Vidya
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
conservation science and practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2578-4854
DOI - 10.1111/csp2.135
Subject(s) - exaggeration , carnivore , distortion (music) , psychology , geography , peck (imperial) , data science , social psychology , computer science , ecology , psychoanalysis , mathematics , telecommunications , biology , amplifier , bandwidth (computing) , geometry , predation
Our study titled “Land sharing potential of large carnivores in human‐modified landscapes of western India” used an occupancy framework to provide baseline information on patterns and determinants of large carnivore presence in human‐use landscapes. In their letter, Shrotriya et al. raise concerns about our survey design, distort our inferences, and present unwarranted exaggeration of our study limitations. Here, we provide detailed responses to key the issues raised by the authors while reiterating the accurate interpretations of our findings.