Key informant perceptions on wildlife hunting during the first COVID-19 lockdown in India

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.16.444344: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: This survey was reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee at Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF-EC-29/04/2020-(49)) prior to circulation.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.


    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).


    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    We would like the readers to consider the following caveats: 1) data was collected from key respondents and media reports, not directly from hunters and therefore reflects perceptions rather than a real measure of hunting or motivations (Kahler and Gore 2015); 2) There were a number of “Don’t knows”, which might be attributed to low access to information during the lockdown, and hunting being understudied and a sensitive subject, especially within the Indian conservation scenario. We also acknowledge that the coarse scale of our data cannot reflect local nuances and tends towards oversimplification, for instance it is hard to distinguish illegal fishing from legal fishing (Oyanedel, Gelcich and Milner‐Gulland 2020). We posit that one reason for the increase in hunting during the lockdown was the disruption of food supply chains. Shutting down of meat shops may have increased bushmeat demand, a possibility that has also been highlighted by eleven respondents in the open-ended section of our survey. Dietary habits vary dramatically across India. Some regions within the country are predominantly vegetarian and in other parts up to 90% of the households consume meat (Natrajan and Jacob 2018). The protein needs of people are met by inexpensive and easily accessible domestic protein options in most cases. However, in its absence it is possible that many would have turned to bushmeat consumption. Listing domestic meat shops as essential businesses along with grocery stores, especial...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).


    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.


    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.