Search

Context A challenge in grassland conservation is to maintain both the openness and the heterogeneity of the habitat to support the diversity of their animal communities, including birds—a taxon that is known to be sensitive to disturbance. An increasingly used management tool in European grassland conservation, especially in rewilding projects, is grazing by large herbivores such as horses and cattle. These grazers are believed to create and maintain patchy landscapes that promote diversity and richness of other species, but their influence on birds is often debated by conservationists, who raise concerns about the impact of disturbance by the grazers. Objectives Our aim was to examine the relationship between the abundance and species richness of birds across four foraging guilds and the area utilization patterns of Highland cattle and Konik horses in an alluvial grassland in France. We also aimed to examine the influence of land cover and season on the spatial distribution, including abundance and species richness, of different bird guilds present in the grazed area. Methods We used GPS-collars on all grazers and recorded their positions on an hourly basis over a study period of 1.5 years, assessing patterns of area usage. We counted birds weekly along three transects to describe their distribution within the grazed area and carried out land-cover surveys to describe the habitat. To assess how species richness and abundance of birds of different guilds were related to grazer density, season, and habitat characteristics, we used GAMM models in a spatially explicit framework. We also compared bird numbers at our main study site with a nearby non-grazed control area. Results The number of birds in the grazed area was about twice the number in the non-grazed control area. Within the grazed area, the abundance of open-area foraging birds increased with increasing grazer density. The number of woodland-foraging birds was also positively correlated with grazer density but less so than open-area foraging birds. The number of individuals in the aerial and wetland bird guilds was not correlated with the density of grazers. Most bird species and individuals were observed on open landscapes scattered with woody patches and waterbodies, and on areas with moderate grazer density. Conclusions Low-intensity grazing represents a potentially important management tool in creating heterogeneity in alluvial grasslands, thereby promoting suitable habitat for a diverse assemblage of bird species.

The widespread use of ‘statistical significance’ as a license for making a claim of a scientific finding leads to considerable distortion of the scientific process (according to the American Statistical Association). We review why degrading p-values into ‘significant’ and ‘nonsignificant’ contributes to making studies irreproducible, or to making them seem irreproducible. A major problem is that we tend to take small p-values at face value, but mistrust results with larger p-values. In either case, p-values tell little about reliability of research, because they are hardly replicable even if an alternative hypothesis is true. Also significance (p ≤ 0.05) is hardly replicable: at a good statistical power of 80%, two studies will be ‘conflicting’, meaning that one is significant and the other is not, in one third of the cases if there is a true effect. A replication can therefore not be interpreted as having failed only because it is nonsignificant. Many apparent replication failures may thus reflect faulty judgment based on significance thresholds rather than a crisis of unreplicable research. Reliable conclusions on replicability and practical importance of a finding can only be drawn using cumulative evidence from multiple independent studies. However, applying significance thresholds makes cumulative knowledge unreliable. One reason is that with anything but ideal statistical power, significant effect sizes will be biased upwards. Interpreting inflated significant results while ignoring nonsignificant results will thus lead to wrong conclusions. But current incentives to hunt for significance lead to selective reporting and to publication bias against nonsignificant findings. Data dredging, p-hacking, and publication bias should be addressed by removing fixed significance thresholds. Consistent with the recommendations of the late Ronald Fisher, p-values should be interpreted as graded measures of the strength of evidence against the null hypothesis. Also larger p-values offer some evidence against the null hypothesis, and they cannot be interpreted as supporting the null hypothesis, falsely concluding that ‘there is no effect’. Information on possible true effect sizes that are compatible with the data must be obtained from the point estimate, e.g., from a sample average, and from the interval estimate, such as a confidence interval. We review how confusion about interpretation of larger p-values can be traced back to historical disputes among the founders of modern statistics. We further discuss potential arguments against removing significance thresholds, for example that decision rules should rather be more stringent, that sample sizes could decrease, or that p-values should better be completely abandoned. We conclude that whatever method of statistical inference we use, dichotomous threshold thinking must give way to non-automated informed judgment.