Multiple comparisons tests (MCTs) include the statistical tests used to compare groups (treatments) often following a significant effect reported in one of many types of linear models. Due to a variety of data and statistical considerations, several dozen MCTs have been developed over the decades, with tests ranging from very similar to each other to very different from each other. Many scientific disciplines use MCTs, including >40,000 reports of their use in ecological journals in the last 60 years. Despite the ubiquity and utility of MCTs, several issues remain in terms of their correct use and reporting. In this study, we evaluated 17 different MCTs. We first reviewed the published literature for recommendations on their correct use. Second, we created a simulation that evaluated the performance of nine common MCTs. The tests examined in the simulation were those that often overlapped in usage, meaning the selection of the test based on fit to the data is not unique and that the simulations could inform the selection of one or more tests when a researcher has choices. Based on the literature review and recommendations: planned comparisons are overwhelmingly recommended over unplanned comparisons, for planned non-parametric comparisons the Mann-Whitney-WilcoxonUtest is recommended, Scheffé’sStest is recommended for any linear combination of (unplanned) means, Tukey’s HSD and the Bonferroni or the Dunn-Sidak tests are recommended for pairwise comparisons of groups, and that many other tests exist for particular types of data. All code and data used to generate this paper are available at:https://github.com/stevemidway/MultipleComparisons.

We live in a contemporary society surrounded by visuals, which, along with software options and electronic distribution, has created an increased importance on effective scientific visuals. Unfortunately, across scientific disciplines, many figures incorrectly present information or, when not incorrect, still use suboptimal data visualization practices. Presented here are ten principles that serve as guidance for authors who seek to improve their visual message. Some principles are less technical, such as determining the message before starting the visual, while other principles are more technical, such as how different color combinations imply different information. Because figure making is often not formally taught and figure standards are not readily enforced in science, it is incumbent upon scientists to be aware of best practices in order to most effectively tell the story of their data.

Shark attacks are a global phenomenon that attracts widespread attention and publicity, often with negative outcomes for shark populations. Despite the widespread perceptions of shark attacks, trends in human water activities and shark populations are both dynamic, resulting in variable rates of shark attacks over space and time. Understanding variable trends in shark attacks may contribute to a better understanding of risk, and a more tempered response in the wake of an attack. We found that global shark attack rates are low, yet variable across global regions and over decades. Countries with low populations were found to have the highest rates of attack, while countries with high populations (U.S.A., Australia, South Africa) tended to have overall low attack rates, but also much more interannual variability. From the 1960s to the present, those countries with the highest populations also tended to be the places where attack rates have increased. Ultimately, shark attack risk is also driven by local conditions (e.g., time of day, species present); however, a global scale understanding of attack rates helps place risk into perspective and may contribute to a more scientifically-grounded discussion of sharks, and their management and conservation.

Growth models estimate life history parameters (e.g., growth rates and asymptotic size) that are used in the management of fisheries stocks. Traditionally in fisheries science, it was common to fit one growth model—the von Bertalanffy growth model—to size-at-age data. However, in recent years, fisheries science has seen an increase in the number of growth models available and the evaluation of multiple growth models for a given species or study. We reviewed n = 196 peer-reviewed age and growth studies and n = 50 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) regional stock assessments to examine trends in the use of growth models and model selection in fisheries over time. Our results indicate that the total number of age and growth studies increased annually since 1988 with a slight proportional increase in the use of multi-model frameworks. Information theoretic approaches are replacing goodness-of-fit and a priori model selection in fisheries studies; however, this trend is not reflected in NOAA stock assessments, which almost exclusively rely on the von Bertalanffy growth model. Covariates such as system (e.g., marine or fresh), location of study, diet, family, maximum age, and range of age data used in model fitting did not contribute to which model was ultimately the best fitting, suggesting that there are no large-scale patterns of specific growth models being applied to species with common life histories or other attributes. Given the importance and ubiquity of growth modeling to fisheries science, a historical and contemporary understanding of the practice is critical to evaluate improvements that have been made and future challenges.