Support for improved quality control but misplaced criticism of GBR science. Reply to viewpoint "The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science" by P. Larcombe and P. Ridd (Marine Pollution Bulletin 126: 449-461, 2018)

被引：2

作者：

Schaffelke, Britta ^{[1
]}

Fabricius, Katharina ^{[1
]}

Kroon, Frederieke ^{[1
]}

Brodie, Jon ^{[2
]}

De'ath, Glenn ^{[1
]}

Shaw, Roger ^{[3
]}

Tarte, Diane ^{[4
,5
]}

Warne, Michael ^{[6
,7
]}

Thorburn, Peter ^{[8
]}

机构：

[1] Australian Inst Marine Sci, PMB 3, Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia

[2] James Cook Univ, Ctr Excellence Coral Reef Studies, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia

[3] Reef Independent Sci Panel, Graceville Q 4075, Australia

[4] Marine Ecosyst Policy Advisors, Redland Bay Q 4165, Australia

[5] Mackay Whitsunday Hlth Rivers Reef Partnership, Mackay, Qld, Australia

[6] Coventry Univ, Ctr Agroecol Water & Resilience, Coventry CV1 5FB, W Midlands, England

[7] Queensland Dept Environm & Sci, Dutton Pk, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia

[8] CSIRO Agr & Food, Brisbane, Qld 4067, Australia

来源：

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN | 2018年 / 129卷 / 01期

关键词：

Great Barrier Reef; Quality control; Water quality; Policy; GREAT-BARRIER-REEF; ECOLOGICALLY RELEVANT TARGETS; OF-THORNS STARFISH; SEASTAR ACANTHASTER-PLANCI; CORAL CALCIFICATION RATES; WATER-QUALITY; TEMPORAL PATTERNS; CF; SOLARIS; SEDIMENT; NITROGEN;

D O I：

10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.02.054

中图分类号：

X [环境科学、安全科学];

学科分类号：

08 ; 0830 ;

摘要：

This is a response to the published Viewpoint by Larcombe and Ridd (2018). We agree with Larcombe and Ridd (2018) that scientific merit goes hand in hand with rigorous quality control. However, we are responding here to several points raised by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) which in our view were misrepresented. We describe the formal and effective science review, synthesis and advice processes that are in place for science supporting decision-making in the Great Barrier Reef. We also respond in detail to critiques of selected publications that were used by Larcombe and Ridd (2018) as a case study to illustrate shortcomings in science quality control. We provide evidence that their representation of the published research and arguments to support the statement that "many (...) conclusions are demonstrably incorrect" is based on misinterpretation, selective use of data and oversimplification, and also ignores formal responses to previously published critiques.

引用

页码：357 / 363

页数：7