Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Naturalistic Observations02:30

Naturalistic Observations

17.0K
If you want to understand how behavior occurs, one of the best ways to gain information is to simply observe the behavior in its natural context. However, people might change their behavior in unexpected ways if they know they are being observed. How do researchers obtain accurate information when people tend to hide their natural behavior? As an example, imagine that your professor asks everyone in your class to raise their hand if they always wash their hands after using the restroom. Chances...
17.0K
Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

1.3K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.3K
Bias01:22

Bias

7.2K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
7.2K
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

9.1K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
9.1K
Conservation of Small Populations02:04

Conservation of Small Populations

16.6K
Small population sizes put a species at extreme risk of extinction due to a lack of variation, and a consequent decrease in adaptability. This weakens the chances of survival under pressures such as climate change, competition from other species, or new diseases. Large populations are more likely to survive pressures such as these, as such populations are more likely to harbor individuals that have genetic variants that are adaptive under new stresses. Small populations are much less...
16.6K
Habitat Fragmentation02:31

Habitat Fragmentation

21.1K
Habitat fragmentation describes the division of a more extensive, continuous habitat into smaller, discontinuous areas. Human activities such as land conversion, as well as slower geological processes leading to changes in the physical environment, are the two leading causes of habitat fragmentation. The fragmentation process typically follows the same steps: perforation, dissection, fragmentation, shrinkage, and attrition.
21.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Contrasting patterns of alpine biodiversity across mountains and taxa worldwide.

Nature communications·2026
Same author

Irreproducible research and a typology of replication efforts.

Research integrity and peer review·2026
Same author

Uncertainty and precaution in hunting wolves twice in a year: Reanalysis of Treves and Louchouarn: Reply to Stauffer et al.

PloS one·2025
Same author

Trenches reduce crop foraging by elephants: Lessons from Kibale National Park, Uganda for elephant conservation in densely settled rural landscapes.

PloS one·2023
Same author

Low-stress livestock handling protects cattle in a five-predator habitat.

PeerJ·2023
Same author

Evaluating how management policies affect red wolf mortality and disappearance.

Royal Society open science·2022

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 16, 2026

A Trap-Vaccinate-Release Protocol for Immunization of Skunks and Additional Rabies Vectors Against Rabies
04:10

A Trap-Vaccinate-Release Protocol for Immunization of Skunks and Additional Rabies Vectors Against Rabies

Published on: November 29, 2024

1.2K

Robust inference and errors in studies of wildlife control.

Adrian Treves1, Igor Khorozyan2,3,4

  • 1University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA. atreves@wisc.edu.

Scientific Reports
|September 27, 2025
PubMed
Summary

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) offer stronger causal inference than other study designs. Simulations show non-randomized studies are unreliable for wildlife damage interventions, unlike RCTs with bias safeguards.

More Related Videos

Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid
09:09

Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid

Published on: August 8, 2017

7.9K
Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps
05:28

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps

Published on: January 19, 2020

5.9K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 16, 2026

A Trap-Vaccinate-Release Protocol for Immunization of Skunks and Additional Rabies Vectors Against Rabies
04:10

A Trap-Vaccinate-Release Protocol for Immunization of Skunks and Additional Rabies Vectors Against Rabies

Published on: November 29, 2024

1.2K
Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid
09:09

Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid

Published on: August 8, 2017

7.9K
Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps
05:28

Quantifying Corticolous Arthropods Using Sticky Traps

Published on: January 19, 2020

5.9K

Area of Science:

  • Ecological research
  • Wildlife management
  • Causal inference methodology

Background:

  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for causal inference in scientific research.
  • However, their comparative inferential strength and error rates against other study designs remain unquantified, particularly for wildlife damage prevention interventions.
  • Existing studies on interventions, especially lethal ones against predatory wildlife, may suffer from unaddressed biases and confounding factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To quantify the inferential strengths and error rates of common study designs used in wildlife damage prevention research.
  • To compare the reliability of non-randomized versus randomized study designs under simulated confounding scenarios.
  • To assess the validity of existing research on lethal wildlife interventions.

Main Methods:

  • Simulation of common study designs, ranging from simple correlation to randomized controlled trials with crossover.
  • Evaluation of error rates (false positive, false negative, over-estimation of treatment effects) across designs.
  • Inclusion of various confounding interactions and effect sizes in the simulations.

Main Results:

  • Non-randomized study designs demonstrated significant unreliability in inferring causal effects.
  • Randomized designs, when incorporating safeguards against biases, exhibited substantially lower error rates.
  • Simulations suggest that most existing studies on lethal interventions against predatory wildlife are likely unreliable due to methodological weaknesses.

Conclusions:

  • Robust study designs, particularly randomized controlled trials with bias mitigation, are crucial for accurate causal inference in wildlife damage prevention.
  • The findings necessitate a critical re-evaluation of past research, especially concerning lethal wildlife control methods.
  • Applied scientific fields should prioritize more rigorous research designs to overcome common confounding effects.