Impending extinction of the world’s primates due to human activities; immediate global attention is needed to reverse the trend.

Accurate estimates of a primate’s home range are important, yet methods vary greatly. This paper examines the accuracy of minimum convex polygon (MCP), adaptive kernel (AK) and fixed kernel (FK) estimators by comparing home range estimates of northern bearded saki monkeys (Chiropotes satanas chiropotes) living in forest fragments and continuous forest in the Brazilian Amazon area. MCP was more accurate than AK and FK in calculating home and day range when sample size was small, and AK overestimated range most frequently. It is important to consider the various home range methods, as the appropriate method may depend on sample size and the species’ behavioral ecology.

Technological advances and increasing availability of high-resolution satellite imagery offer the potential for more accurate land cover classifications and pattern analyses, which could greatly improve the detection and quantification of land cover change for conservation. Such remotely-sensed products, however, are often expensive and difficult to acquire, which prohibits or reduces their use. We tested whether imagery of high spatial resolution (≤5 m) differs from lower-resolution imagery (≥30 m) in performance and extent of use for conservation applications. To assess performance, we classified land cover in a heterogeneous region of Interior Atlantic Forest in Paraguay, which has undergone recent and dramatic human-induced habitat loss and fragmentation. We used 4 m multispectral IKONOS and 30 m multispectral Landsat imagery and determined the extent to which resolution influenced the delineation of land cover classes and patch-level metrics. Higher-resolution imagery more accurately delineated cover classes, identified smaller patches, retained patch shape, and detected narrower, linear patches. To assess extent of use, we surveyed three conservation journals (Biological Conservation, Biotropica, Conservation Biology) and found limited application of high-resolution imagery in research, with only 26.8% of land cover studies analyzing satellite imagery, and of these studies only 10.4% used imagery ≤5 m resolution. Our results suggest that high-resolution imagery is warranted yet under-utilized in conservation research, but is needed to adequately monitor and evaluate forest loss and conversion, and to delineate potentially important stepping-stone fragments that may serve as corridors in a human-modified landscape. Greater access to low-cost, multiband, high-resolution satellite imagery would therefore greatly facilitate conservation management and decision-making.

Although variation in effect sizes and predicted values among studies of similar phenomena is inevitable, such variation far exceeds what might be produced by sampling error alone. One possible explanation for variation among results is differences among researchers in the decisions they make regarding statistical analyses. A growing array of studies has explored this analytical variability in different fields and has found substantial variability among results despite analysts having the same data and research question. Many of these studies have been in the social sciences, but one small “many analyst” study found similar variability in ecology. We expanded the scope of this prior work by implementing a large-scale empirical exploration of the variation in effect sizes and model predictions generated by the analytical decisions of different researchers in ecology and evolutionary biology. We used two unpublished datasets, one from evolutionary ecology (blue tit, Cyanistes caeruleus, to compare sibling number and nestling growth) and one from conservation ecology (Eucalyptus, to compare grass cover and tree seedling recruitment). The project leaders recruited 174 analyst teams, comprising 246 analysts, to investigate the answers to prespecified research questions. Analyses conducted by these teams yielded 141 usable effects (compatible with our meta-analyses and with all necessary information provided) for the blue tit dataset, and 85 usable effects for the Eucalyptus dataset. We found substantial heterogeneity among results for both datasets, although the patterns of variation differed between them. For the blue tit analyses, the average effect was convincingly negative, with less growth for nestlings living with more siblings, but there was near continuous variation in effect size from large negative effects to effects near zero, and even effects crossing the traditional threshold of statistical significance in the opposite direction. In contrast, the average relationship between grass cover and Eucalyptus seedling number was only slightly negative and not convincingly different from zero, and most effects ranged from weakly negative to weakly positive, with about a third of effects crossing the traditional threshold of significance in one direction or the other. However, there were also several striking outliers in the Eucalyptus dataset, with effects far from zero. For both datasets, we found substantial variation in the variable selection and random effects structures among analyses, as well as in the ratings of the analytical methods by peer reviewers, but we found no strong relationship between any of these and deviation from the meta-analytic mean. In other words, analyses with results that were far from the mean were no more or less likely to have dissimilar variable sets, use random effects in their models, or receive poor peer reviews than those analyses that found results that were close to the mean. The existence of substantial variability among analysis outcomes raises important questions about how ecologists and evolutionary biologists should interpret published results, and how they should conduct analyses in the future.