From: "Andrew Tarter" <andrew_tarter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you for sharing, Stuart.
I had crafted a lengthy blog response to this recent research publication,
but I was prompted by others to take that post down, and instead co-author
an official response in the same journal of publication.
That response is forthcoming, and I believe it will highlight some serious
questions about the authors’ extrapolation to the national level, among
other methodological concerns related to their classification/definition
of ‘primary forest’. Peter Wampler points out just one of these concerns
in the PDF article you attached.
I do believe the PNAS research accurately identifies those areas of Haiti
that are likely to have the highest levels of faunal (and likely floral)
terrestrial biodiversity, and for that reason alone the research is
valuable to ecologists, biologists, conservationists, and others.
However, I have serious reservations about their methodology as it
pertains to estimating *national* levels of forest cover, even using their
“stringent” (their words) new definition and parameter of ‘forest’.
When the published response is live, I will share it here, along with my
lengthier blog post on the methodological shortcomings of same article.
Best,
Andrew
Thank you. If you wish to join or unsubscribe please click on this link:
//www.freelists.org/list/corbettlist
