A comment on García et al. (2005, 2007) and related papers on mating patterns and gene dispersal in Prunus mahaleb

In two studies on mating patterns and spatial components of pollen and seed dispersal of Prunus mahaleb based on parentage analysis, García et al. (2005, 2007) depicted their 196 focal trees as a spatially isolated population where all reproductive trees had been genotyped. Additional distributional data for P. mahaleb trees in their study area, however, revealed that García and colleagues’ depiction of their study system bears little resemblance to reality. The trees these authors studied did not form a discrete, geographically isolated population. Around 300 ungenotyped reproductive trees occurred within the 1.5‐km distributional gap to the nearest population proclaimed by García and colleagues. Since exhaustive sampling of potential parental genotypes is essential in parentage analyses, the occurrence of a large number of ungenotyped trees in the immediate neighbourhood of focal trees can severely affect the main conclusions of García et al. (2005, 2007) as well as of several related publications on gene dispersal and mating patterns of P. mahaleb conducted on the same trees and relying on the same false premises of spatial isolation and exhaustive sampling.     

On the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN): a reply to Zaragüeta-Bagils et al.

In 2007 the Systematic and Evolutionary Biogeographical Association (SEBA) wrote and ratified the first draft of the International Code of Area Nomenclature (ICAN), which was posted subsequently on the SEBA website. The ICAN was published, along with an explanatory discussion, by Ebach et al. ( Journal of Biogeography , 35 , 2008, 1153–1157), an article that is the subject of criticism by Zaragüeta-Bagils et al. ( Journal of Biogeography , 36 , 2009, 1617–1618). We welcome discussion of the issues raised by these authors and respond to them briefly here. For many reasons, we reject the proposition that implementation of the ICAN be postponed until it is flawless. The ICAN has already been implemented. Further, it is the nature of nomenclatural codes to be proposed and then revised periodically to suit our applications. Most importantly, standardization of area names in biogeography is long overdue.     

Evidence for epistasis: reply to Trouve et al.

Salathé and Ebert (2003, J. Evol. Biol. 16: 976–985) have shown that the mean logarithmic fitness of Daphnia magna clones declined faster than linearly with increasing inbreeding coefficient F. They interpreted this result as evidence for synergistic epistasis. Trouve et al. (2004, J. Evol. Biol., doi: 10.1111/j.1420‐9101.2004.00755.x) suggested that hybrid vigour could be an alternative explanation for this finding. We use a population genetic model to support the original claim that the marked deviation from linearity cannot be explained without epistasis. We further argue that the relevant reference population is the metapopulation and not the subpopulation. Taken together, we believe that synergistic epistasis between recessive deleterious alleles segregating in the D. magna metapopulation is the most likely explanation for the finding of Salathé and Ebert.     

Marine reserve effects on fishery profits: a comment on White et al. (2008)

A recent study ( White et al. 2008 ) claimed that fishery profits will often be higher with management that employs no‐take marine reserves than conventional fisheries management alone. However, this conclusion was based on the erroneous assumption that all landed fish have equal value regardless of size, and questionable assumptions regarding density‐dependence. Examination of an age‐structured version of the White et al. (2008) model demonstrates that their results are not robust to these assumptions. Models with more realistic assumptions generally do not indicate increased fishery yield or profits from marine reserves except for overfished stocks.     

Reliability of map accuracy assessments: A reply to Roff et al. (2016)

Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17 , 2016, 000) provide a discussion of the criteria expected for the best approach to validation of mapping programs and uses Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40) to highlight issues involved. While we support the general principles outlined, we note that the review does not apply the same standards to Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011), the original document critiqued by Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40). The Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40) validation was based on a larger sample size, greater sampling within mapping units and greater representation of landscapes than Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011). Survey and validation sites being placed along public roads and lands are common to both the general Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40) validation methodologies. Thus, the criticisms of Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17 , 2016, 000) of the Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40) approach apply equally, if not more, to Sivertsen et al. (Greater Hunter Native Vegetation Mapping Geodatabase Guide (Version 4.0). Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, Australia, 2011). We outline in the article how the Roff et al. (Ecological Management and Restoration, 17 , 2016, 000) critique was selective and in some cases incorrect in its analysis of issues presented in Hunter (Ecological Management & Restoration 17 , 2016, 40) and did not apply the same criteria to their own work. We conclude by discussing future directions for validating and mapping vegetation communities.     

Reliability of map accuracy assessments: A comment on Hunter et al. (2016)

Map validation data that are ambiguously allocated to map units and collected via poorly designed sampling methods are not statistically reliable and will misrepresent map quality. A recent paper published in Ecological Management and Restoration (Ecological Management & Restoration, 17, 2016 and 40) reported that a map in south‐eastern Australia provided little or no predictive accuracy based on new field data, but the validation suffered from the aforementioned pitfalls. In this comment, we outline the basic guidelines for a robust, reliable and transparent accuracy assessment of thematic maps, pointing out where (Ecological Management & Restoration, 17, 2016 and 40) fails to meets these guidelines.     

Management implications of the Macquarie Island trophic cascade revisited: a reply to Dowding et al. (2009)

1. The management of non-indigenous species is not without its complications. In Bergstrom et al. 's (2009) study, we demonstrated that feral cats Felis catus on sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island were exerting top-down control on the feral rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus population, and that the eradication of the cats led to a substantial increase in rabbit numbers and an associated trophic cascade.
2. Dowding et al. (2009) claim our modelling was flawed for various reasons, but primarily that a reduction in the application of the rabbit control agent, Myxoma virus, coinciding with cat removal, was a major driver of rabbit population release.
3. We explore this proposition (as well as others) by examining rates of Myxoma viral release between 1991 and 2006 (with an attenuation factor for the years, 2003–2006) in association with presence/absence of cats against two estimates of rabbit population size. Myxoma viral release was a significant factor in the lower estimates of rabbit population, but the effect was small, and was not significant for higher rabbit population estimates. By contrast, the presence or absence of cats remained highly significant for both estimates.
4. Synthesis and applications. We re-affirm our position that top-down control of rabbit numbers by cats, prior to their eradication, was occurring on Macquarie Island. Nonetheless, we agree with Dowding et al. (2009) that systems with multiple invasive species represent complex situations that require careful scrutiny. Such scrutiny should occur in advance of, during, and following management interventions.