Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

  • Benjamin L. Allen
  • , Lee R. Allen
  • , Henrik Andrien
  • , Guy Ballard
  • , Luigi Boitani
  • , Richard M. Engeman
  • , Peter J.S. Fleming
  • , Adam T. Ford
  • , Peter Haswell
  • , Rafal Kowalczyk
  • , John D. C. Linnell
  • , L. David Mech
  • , Daniel M. Parker

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    259 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    We recently described the following six interrelated issues that justify questioning some of the discourse about the reliability of the literature on the ecological roles of large carnivores (Allen et al. In press): 1. The overall paucity of available data, 2. The reliability of carnivore population sampling techniques, 3. The general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, 4. The lack of applied science studies, 5. The frequent use of logical fallacies, 6. The generalisation of results from relatively pristine systems to those substantially altered by humans.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)49-50
    JournalFood Webs
    Volume13
    Early online date16 Jun 2017
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this