Moorland vegetation burning debates should avoid contextomy and anachronism: a comment on Davies et al. (2016).
Moorland vegetation burning debates should avoid contextomy and anachronism: a comment on Davies et al. (2016).
复制标题
Moorland植被燃烧的辩论应避免上下文和过时：对Davies等人的评论。 （2016）。
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2016.0432
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-19
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Palmer SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brown LE;Holden J;Palmer SM
Davies等[1]呼吁对英国泥炭地和高沼地管理中火的作用进行知情和公正的辩论。我们完全同意这个普遍的信息，我们已经看到我们的研究以耸人听闻和/或党派的方式出现在各种渠道中（见[1，表1]）。遗憾的是，戴维斯等人犯了错误，我们认为这些错误放大了问题，导致媒体标题进一步不那么精致[2]。在这里，我们详细说明并纠正了我们认为[1]对我们工作的歪曲的许多例子中的一些，以便将来在这一领域的辩论确实可以以知情和公正的方式进行。断章取义的引用可能会扭曲辩论[3]，扭曲科学理解和媒体报道。为了避免与我们在这篇评论中的引用混淆，从[1]中引用的引用已经删除了原始引用编号。[1，p.7 -8]中的第一个上下文分离的例子是他们说的：Brown et al....对燃烧可能引起水文和水生系统变化的有限现有证据作了比较全面的概述。然而，在某些地方，他们的讨论似乎重申了普遍持有但没有得到支持的假设，并严重依赖于未发表的材料。例如，在他们的论文中关于火对陆地植被的影响的部分，他们说“燃烧被认为对泥炭形成的泥炭藓物种特别有害”。虽然他们承认科学文献中有“来自少量实验燃烧图”的矛盾证据，但支持最初断言的唯一引用是皇家鸟类保护协会（RSPB）的一份报告，该报告尚未正式发表，据我们所知，也没有经过同行评审。我们的评论文章[4，第1412页]实际上是这样说的：
Davies et al.[1] called for informed and unbiased debate into the role of fire in UK peatland and moorland management. This general message is something we wholeheartedly agree with, having seen our research presented in various outlets in both a sensationalist and/or a partisan manner (see [1, table 1]). Regrettably though, Davies et al. have made mistakes which we believe have amplified the problems, leading to further less-than-refined media headlines [2]. Here, we detail and correct some of the many examples of what we consider to be misrepresentations of our work by [1], such that future debates in this area can indeed proceed in an informed and unbiased manner. Taking quotations out of context can distort debates [3], skewing both scientific understanding and media representation. To avoid confusion with our citations in this comment, quotes taken from [1] have the original citation numbers removed. A first example of contextomy within [1, p. 7–8] is where they stated:Brown et al.... gave a relatively thorough overview of the limited existing evidence of the changes that burning can induce in hydrological and aquatic systems. In some places, however, their discussion appears to restate popularly held but unsupported assumptions and to rely heavily on unpublished material. For instance, in the section of their paper concerning fire effects on terrestrial vegetation, they state ‘Burning is considered particularly detrimental to peat-forming Sphagnum species’. Although they do acknowledge that there is contradictory evidence in the scientific literature ‘from a small number of experimental burning plots’, the only citation to support the initial assertion is a report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) that has not been formally published or, to our knowledge, peer reviewed. Our review paper [4, p. 1412] actually said the following:
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Lee, Hyohyemi;Alday, Josu G.;Marrs, Rob H.
通讯作者：
Marrs, Rob H.
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Brown, Lee E.;Holden, Joseph;Grayson, Richard
通讯作者：
Grayson, Richard
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
McGlone, MS
通讯作者：
McGlone, MS
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Douglas, David J. T.;Buchanan, Graeme M.;Wilson, Jeremy D.
通讯作者：
Wilson, Jeremy D.
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Yallop, A. R.;Thacker, J. I.;Sannier, C. A. D.
通讯作者：
Sannier, C. A. D.