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.
closeAnalysis of Eastern Arc ecosystems was based on inappropriate dataset
Posted by rgereau on 30 Apr 2014 at 20:47 GMT
The authors have responded to our criticisms (Gereau et al., 2013) in the following major areas: inadequate knowledge of the study area and its flora, lack of transparent or repeatable methods for data selection, and an inconsistent dataset. However, their misunderstanding of data sources has led to a number of serious errors, both in the original article (Yessoufou et al., 2012) and in their subsequent defense (Daru et al., 2014):
• The CEPF database used to compile the checklist of Red Listed flora within the Eastern Arc forest blocks (Table S2 in Yessoufou et al., 2012) can only be the list of species outcomes for the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests (www.cepf.net/Documents/fi... Appendix 1). The authors failed to recognize that this database includes species from throughout the Eastern Arc Mountains and Coastal Forests, not only from the Eastern Arc. As a result, the 229 species in Table S2 includes 63 species (28% of the total) that do not occur anywhere within the Eastern Arc (list available on request from roy.gereau@mobot.org).
• The authors claim to have analyzed only the 12 Tanzanian mountain blocs of the Eastern Arc, excluding the Taita Hills in Kenya. In fact, due to the above error, Table S2 includes three species endemic to the Taita Hills, as well as five species endemic to the coastal forests of Kenya.
• The Tanzanian plant data downloaded from the IUCN Red List (Table S1 in Yessoufou et al., 2012) includes species assessed in all Red List categories, threatened and non-threatened. The data from the CEPF database (Table S2) includes only species assessed in threatened categories. The differences between the tables regarding inclusiveness by category (all categories vs. threatened only) as well as selection by country (Tanzania only vs. Tanzania and Kenya) make the two datasets incompatible.
In addition to the concerns outlined previously (Gereau et al., 2013), we find that the authors have analyzed a dataset not belonging to their stated geographic study area and placed it in the context of an incompatible dataset from a larger study area that does not include all of the former. Our original conclusion, that the results of the study should be disregarded, remains unaltered.
Daru B, Yessoufou K, Davies J (2014). Speculation versus data-driven conclusions: A response to Gereau et al.’s "Phylogenetic patterns of extinction risk: the need for critical application of appropriate datasets". PeerJ PrePrints 2:e323v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7287...
Gereau RE, Burgess ND, Fjeldså J, Hall J, Hemp A, Jump AS, Kajuni AR, Marchant RA, Marshall AR, Platts PJ, Taylor CM, Tibazarwa FI (2013). Phylogenetic patterns of extinction risk: the need for critical application of appropriate datasets. PeerJ PrePrints 1:e55v1 http://dx.doi.org/10.7287...
Yessoufou K, Daru BH, Davies TJ (2012). Phylogenetic patters of extinction risk in the Eastern Arc ecosystems, an African biodiversity hotspot. PLoS ONE 7(10): e47082. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047082