Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Correction to ‘Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore’

2016; Royal Society; Volume: 283; Issue: 1845 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1098/rspb.2016.2577

1471-2954

Guillaume Chapron, Adrian Treves,

Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Open AccessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Chapron Guillaume and Treves Adrian 2016Correction to 'Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore'Proc. R. Soc. B.2832016257720162577http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2577SectionSupplemental MaterialOpen AccessCorrectionCorrection to 'Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore' Guillaume Chapron Guillaume Chapron http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-1070 Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author and Adrian Treves Adrian Treves Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Guillaume Chapron Guillaume Chapron http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6727-1070 Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed and Adrian Treves Adrian Treves Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Published:28 December 2016https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2577This article corrects the followingResearch ArticleBlood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivorehttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2939 Guillaume Chapron and Adrian Treves volume 283issue 1830Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences11 May 2016Proc. R. Soc. B283, 20152939. (2016; Published online 11 May 2016) (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2939)We recently discovered an error in [1] due to a misalignment of rows between columns in the dataset. Specifically, we misaligned by 1 year the population size with the number of wolves culled and the policy signal. The correct results are slightly different than the ones we presented: the effect we report becomes slightly stronger and some parameters see minor adjustments of their posterior values. The conclusion of our paper is still supported by the correct results.The correct results indicate that with no culling policy signal, the annual potential growth rate was r = 0.17 ± 0.02 95% credible interval (CI) = 0.13–0.21 in Wisconsin (r = 0.15 ± 0.02 95% CI = 0.11–0.19 in Michigan). However, with a year-long culling policy signal, we found annual growth rate had a 92% probability to be lower (figure 1 in this article) with r = 0.12 ± 0.03 95% CI = 0.06–0.18 in Wisconsin (r = 0.10 ± 0.03 95% CI = 0.04–0.16 in Michigan). Corrected prior and posterior values for all model parameters are given in table 1. In the electronic supplementary material, we provide a commented R code with both the mis-aligned and the properly aligned datasets so that the reader can replicate both the original results and the corrected ones. Running this code requires the software JAGS [2] with the package R2jags [3]. Figure 1. The posterior density distribution shows a decline of growth rate is 12 times more likely (light grey area) than an increase (dark grey area).Download figureOpen in new tabDownload PowerPointTable 1.Prior and posterior values for the dynamic model parameters. Collapse prior choiceposterior distributionmedian ± s.d.95% credible intervalpopulation dynamic0.06 ± 0.020.03–0.091.06 ± 0.070.92–1.20.17 ± 0.020.13–0.210.15 ± 0.020.11–0.19−0.05 ± 0.03−0.12–0.024.38 ± 3.30.17–12.295.53 ± 4.40.23–16.420.97 ± 0.020.93–11.03 ± 0.021–1.0891.10 ± 6.1579.43–103.5792.06 ± 7.478.15–107.39Two other typographical errors were not detected during the proof process. was the proportion (and not the number) of days that culling was allowed in state S during year t. The equation describing area as a linear function of population size should indicate we took the logarithm of area: which explains the very small (but positive) values for .FootnotesElectronic supplementary material is available online at https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3634499.© 2016 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.References1Chapron G, Treves A. 2016Blood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20152939. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2939) Link, ISI, Google Scholar2Plummer M. 2003JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (eds Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A). Vienna, Austria. Google Scholar3Yu-Sung S, Masanao Y. 2015R2jags: Using R to Run 'JAGS'. See https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/R2jags/index.html. Google Scholar Previous Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsCited bySantiago-Ávila F, Agan S, Hinton J and Treves A (2022) Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance, Royal Society Open Science, 9:5, Online publication date: 1-May-2022.Louchouarn N, Santiago-Ávila F, Parsons D and Treves A (2021) Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves, Royal Society Open Science, 8:3, Online publication date: 1-Mar-2021. Terraube J, Van doninck J, Helle P and Cabeza M (2020) Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation, Nature Communications, 10.1038/s41467-020-16792-7, 11:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Santiago-Ávila F, Chappell R and Treves A (2020) Liberalizing the killing of endangered wolves was associated with more disappearances of collared individuals in Wisconsin, USA, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-020-70837-x, 10:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Chapron G and Treves A (2017) Reply to comment by Pepin et al. 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284:1851, Online publication date: 29-Mar-2017.Stien A (2017) Blood may buy goodwill: no evidence for a positive relationship between legal culling and poaching in Wisconsin, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284:1867, Online publication date: 29-Nov-2017.Olson E, Crimmins S, Beyer D, MacNulty D, Patterson B, Rudolph B, Wydeven A and Van Deelen T (2017) Flawed analysis and unconvincing interpretation: a comment on Chapron and Treves 2016, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284:1867, Online publication date: 29-Nov-2017.Chapron G and Treves A (2017) Reply to comments by Olson et al. 2017 and Stien 2017, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284:1867, Online publication date: 29-Nov-2017. Treves A, Krofel M, Ohrens O and van Eeden L (2019) Predator Control Needs a Standard of Unbiased Randomized Experiments With Cross-Over Design, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10.3389/fevo.2019.00462, 7 Treves A, Santiago-Ávila F and Putrevu K (2021) Quantifying the effects of delisting wolves after the first state began lethal management, PeerJ, 10.7717/peerj.11666, 9, (e11666) Related articlesBlood does not buy goodwill: allowing culling increases poaching of a large carnivore11 May 2016Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences This Issue28 December 2016Volume 283Issue 1845 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2577PubMed:28003458Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1471-2954History: Published online28/12/2016Published in print28/12/2016 License:© 2016 The Authors.Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Citations and impact Subjectsecology Large datasets are available through Proceedings B's partnership with Dryad