Anna Holzner, Nadine Ruppert, Kurnia Ilham, Stefano S K Kaburu, André Luiz Koch Liston, Agustin Fuentes, Malene F Hansen
{"title":"Threatened synanthropes depend on intact forests: a critical evaluation of Moore et al. (2023).","authors":"Anna Holzner, Nadine Ruppert, Kurnia Ilham, Stefano S K Kaburu, André Luiz Koch Liston, Agustin Fuentes, Malene F Hansen","doi":"10.1111/brv.70007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Synanthropes are known for their remarkable adaptability to coexist with humans, yet increased visibility exposes them to significant threats, such as hunting or conflict over resources. Moore et al.'s review 'The rise of hyperabundant native generalists threatens both humans and nature' (https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12985) explores distribution patterns and impacts of macaques and pigs in anthropogenic environments. Our critical evaluation of this study revealed several substantial issues: the pooling of data from species that are ecologically and behaviourally distinct, an error in data acquisition, potential biases in statistical analyses, and critical misrepresentations of threats to and from wildlife in human-impacted habitats. Additionally, we highlight the lack of evidence supporting the authors' core assertion of hyperabundance of the study species. While Moore et al. compare species densities and abundance across various habitat types, their analyses did not demonstrate population increases over time. On the contrary, our re-analysis of their data sets showed a decreasing population trend in Macaca nemestrina and the absence of M. fascicularis from 44% of surveyed habitats characterized by medium to high forest integrity. Further, our findings emphasize the importance of intact forests for predicting a high relative abundance of macaques and pigs. Overall, we recommend a more careful interpretation of the data, as misrepresentations of abundance data can result in negative or sensational discourses about overabundance, which may threaten the conservation of species that often thrive in anthropogenic landscapes.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.70007","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Synanthropes are known for their remarkable adaptability to coexist with humans, yet increased visibility exposes them to significant threats, such as hunting or conflict over resources. Moore et al.'s review 'The rise of hyperabundant native generalists threatens both humans and nature' (https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12985) explores distribution patterns and impacts of macaques and pigs in anthropogenic environments. Our critical evaluation of this study revealed several substantial issues: the pooling of data from species that are ecologically and behaviourally distinct, an error in data acquisition, potential biases in statistical analyses, and critical misrepresentations of threats to and from wildlife in human-impacted habitats. Additionally, we highlight the lack of evidence supporting the authors' core assertion of hyperabundance of the study species. While Moore et al. compare species densities and abundance across various habitat types, their analyses did not demonstrate population increases over time. On the contrary, our re-analysis of their data sets showed a decreasing population trend in Macaca nemestrina and the absence of M. fascicularis from 44% of surveyed habitats characterized by medium to high forest integrity. Further, our findings emphasize the importance of intact forests for predicting a high relative abundance of macaques and pigs. Overall, we recommend a more careful interpretation of the data, as misrepresentations of abundance data can result in negative or sensational discourses about overabundance, which may threaten the conservation of species that often thrive in anthropogenic landscapes.
期刊介绍:
Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly.
The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions.
The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field.
Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.