Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeinterspecific competition ignored
Posted by andrewt on 15 Aug 2012 at 23:45 GMT
At the outset of this study, we postulated that Common Myna establishment would negatively affect the abundance of cavity-nesting species
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0040622#article1.body1.sec4.sec1.p1
The model choice ignores interspecific competition except from mynas. The time series presented show large density changes for other cavity nesters but any effects of these are excluded by the model choice and several of these, for example Sulphur-crested Cockatoos show density changes of similar or larger magnitude than mynahs. This limitation would seem to preclude the model being informative regarding competition between cavity nesters.
RE: interspecific competition ignored
KateRock replied to andrewt on 30 Oct 2012 at 09:21 GMT
We agree that competition by other species may impact native bird populations. However, our analysis focused on bird populations before and after the specific time points of Common Myna establishment. Therefore, our analysis focused on comparing if there was a change in bird populations after a specific time point for each region (when the Common Myna became established).
No model will capture the complete complexities of the natural environment. We encourage investigations into the impact of interspecific completion from other species such as the Noisy Minor.