" I have studied Clive's response copied below and I thank him for this
and fully accept many parts of the reply that are clearly correct,
however the stated conclusions about survival rates of small migratory
waders after banding are based on statistical data not robust enough to
be used adequately for such conclusions, nor collected for the purpose
in a project environment designed to test banding impacts."
Ian, could you please explain to us why you think the statistical data
presented by Clive are not robust. The sample sizes for each treatment
(metal bands, metal bands + some flags, metal bands + lots of flags) are
very large (5,489 to 11,258), yet calculated annual survival rates
associated with each treatment are very similar. Most
zoologists/ornithologists/field ecologists/biostatisticians would be envious
of such large data sets.
How did you reach the conclusion that the data are skewed, biased or
statistically manipulated? From reading Clive's response, I don't see any
evidence of this. Perhaps I am missing something, so would be delighted to
hear your explanation.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)