Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

A recent study by Brook et al. empirically tested the performance of population viability analysis (PVA) using data from 21 populations across a wide range of species. The study concluded that PVAs are good at predicting the future dynamics of populations. We suggest that this conclusion is a result of a bias in the studies that Brook et al. included in their analyses. We present arguments that PVAs can only be accurate at predicting extinction probabilities if data are extensive and reliable, and if the distribution of vital rates between individuals and years can be assumed stationary in the future, or if any changes can be accurately predicted. In particular, we note that although catastrophes are likely to have precipitated many extinctions, estimates of the probability of catastrophes are unreliable.

Type

Journal article

Journal

Trends Ecol Evol

Publication Date

01/05/2001

Volume

16

Pages

219 - 221