Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Reply to ‘Consider species specialism when publishing datasets’ and ‘Decision trees for data publishing may exacerbate conservation conflict’

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 3, pages 320–321 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — In our Perspective1, we demonstrate a decision protocol for publishing biodiversity data. The protocol steps users through the risks and benefits of publishing these data via a decision tree and results in choices ranging from making biodiversity data fully public to restricting access. Lunghi et al.2 and Minderman et al.3 correctly point out that our decision protocol will not always prevent certain threats from occurring, such as people using published location data to exploit a species’s habitat. Minderman et al. also argue that decision trees have limited use owing to unequivocal choices that need to be made at each step and that the decision protocol has the potential to inadvertently fuel conservation conflicts because it does not encompass all socio-political situations that exist and does not resolve conservation conflict disagreements. Here, we respond to these comments.

Our decision tree was developed to deal with a single decision-making component that scientists, researchers, and land managers routinely face: how best to release data on the occurrence and ecology of species such that threats to populations are not exacerbated by those wishing to exploit them while also ensuring data are available to those wishing to help them4. Currently, guidance for releasing biodiversity data ranges from not publishing anything5 to publishing everything (as is requested by many scientific journals). Decision trees are designed to identify nonlinear, context-dependent choices and therefore are well-suited to questions about data publishing that occur across many conservation contexts. Decision-tree frameworks are currently used by numerous conservation organizations and resource managers to answer a broad range of questions, such as deciding how or when to invest in monitoring6,7, identifying and prioritizing actions to increase the adaptive capacity of species8, and performing risk assessment for how to proceed with assisted colonization under climate change9.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Tulloch, A. I. T. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1209–1217 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lunghi, E. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0803-8 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Minderman, J. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0804-7 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lowe, A. J. et al. Science 357, 141 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindenmayer, D. & Scheele, B. Science 356, 800–801 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. McDonald-Madden, E. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 547–550 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Strindberg, S. & O'Brien, T. A Decision Tree for Monitoring Wildlife to Assess the Effectiveness of Conservation Interventions. Working Paper No. 41. (Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, 2012).

  8. Oliver, T. H., Smithers, R. J., Bailey, S., Walmsley, C. A. & Watts, K. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 1247–1255 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. Science 321, 345–346 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Redpath, S. M. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tulloch, A. I. T., Nicol, S. & Bunnefeld, N. Biol. Conserv. 214, 147–155 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapman, A. D. & Grafton, O. Guide to Best Practices for Generalising Sensitive Species Occurrence Data. (Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Copenhagen, 2008).

  13. Balmford, A., Crane, P., Dobson, A., Green, R. E. & Mace, G. M. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 360, 221–228 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ceballos, G. & Ehrlich, P. R. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3841–3846 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Nicholas P. Leseberg, Zoe Stone & James E. M. Watson

  2. Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, Bronx, NY, USA

    Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Hedley Grantham & James E. M. Watson

  3. Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Chris R. Dickman & Glenda M. Wardle

  4. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Nancy Auerbach, Stephanie Avery-Gomm, Diana O. Fisher, Matthew H. Holden, Leslie Roberson & Vivitskaia Tulloch

  5. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Stephanie Avery-Gomm

  6. Biodiversity Institute, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA

    Tyrone H. Lavery

  7. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    James O’Connor

  8. Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN), The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Anita K. Smyth

  9. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Eren Turak

  10. Australian Museum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Eren Turak

Authors
  1. Ayesha I. T. Tulloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy Auerbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Avery-Gomm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris R. Dickman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Diana O. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hedley Grantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Matthew H. Holden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tyrone H. Lavery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nicholas P. Leseberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. James O’Connor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Leslie Roberson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Anita K. Smyth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Zoe Stone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Vivitskaia Tulloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Eren Turak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. James E. M. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Glenda M. Wardle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayesha I. T. Tulloch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tulloch, A.I.T., Auerbach, N., Avery-Gomm, S. et al. Reply to ‘Consider species specialism when publishing datasets’ and ‘Decision trees for data publishing may exacerbate conservation conflict’. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 320–321 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0805-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0805-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing