Another bivalve victim (moderated)

To: "'Ian May'" <>, "'Darryl McKay'" <>
Subject: Another bivalve victim (moderated)
From: "Stephen Ambrose" <>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:11:37 +1100
Ian said:

" 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. 

Kind regards,

Stephen Ambrose
Ryde NSW 


To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU