Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?
Article
Article Title | Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science? |
---|---|
ERA Journal ID | 212528 |
Article Category | Article |
Authors | Allen, Benjamin L. (Author), Allen, Lee R. (Author), Andren, Henrik (Author), Ballard, Guy (Author), Boitani, Luigi (Author), Engeman, Richard M. (Author), Fleming, Peter J. S. (Author), Ford, Adam T. (Author), Haswell, Peter M. (Author), Kowalczyk, Rafał (Author), Linnell, John D. C. (Author), Mech, L. David (Author) and Parker, Daniel M. (Author) |
Journal Title | Food Webs |
Journal Citation | 12, pp. 64-75 |
Number of Pages | 12 |
Year | 2017 |
Publisher | Elsevier BV |
Place of Publication | Netherlands |
ISSN | 2352-2496 |
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.008 |
Abstract | Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintroduction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus) and dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) in initiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipulative experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science. |
Keywords | adaptive management; apex predator; behaviourally-mediated trophic cascades; experimental design; mesopredator release hypothesis; science denial; |
ANZSRC Field of Research 2020 | 310399. Ecology not elsewhere classified |
410401. Conservation and biodiversity | |
Public Notes | Files associated with this item cannot be displayed due to copyright restrictions. |
Byline Affiliations | Institute for Agriculture and the Environment |
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland | |
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden | |
Department of Primary Industries, New South Wales | |
University of Rome, Italy | |
National Wildlife Research Centre, United States | |
University of British Columbia, Canada | |
Bangor University, United Kingdom | |
Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland | |
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway | |
Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Centre, United States | |
University of Mpumalanga, South Africa | |
Institution of Origin | University of Southern Queensland |
https://research.usq.edu.au/item/q4242/can-we-save-large-carnivores-without-losing-large-carnivore-science
990
total views12
total downloads0
views this month0
downloads this month