Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://openscholar.ump.ac.za/handle/20.500.12714/171
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorParker, Daniel M.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-25T07:13:39Z-
dc.date.available2020-11-25T07:13:39Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscholar.ump.ac.za/handle/20.500.12714/171-
dc.descriptionPlease note that only UMP researchers are shown in the metadata. To access the co-authors, please view the full text.en_US
dc.description.abstractLarge 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relationResearch Council of Norwayen_US
dc.relation.ispartofFood Websen_US
dc.subjectApex predator.en_US
dc.subjectBehaviourally-mediated trophic cascades.en_US
dc.subjectAdaptive management.en_US
dc.subjectExperimental design.en_US
dc.subjectMesopredator release hypothesis.en_US
dc.subjectScience denial.en_US
dc.titleCan we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?en_US
dc.typejournal articleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.008-
dc.contributor.affiliationSchool of Biology and Environmental Sciencesen_US
dc.relation.issn2352-2496en_US
dc.description.volume12en_US
dc.description.startpage64en_US
dc.description.endpage75en_US
dc.relation.grantno251112en_US
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
item.openairetypejournal article-
crisitem.author.deptSchool of Biology and Environmental Sciences-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Can-we-save-large-carnivores-without-losing-large-carnivore-science.pdfPublished version611.31 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

36
checked on Jan 8, 2021

Download(s)

4
checked on Jan 8, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in UMP Scholarship are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.