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

doi:10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002

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

University of Southern Queensland
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
The University of New England
University La Sapienza of Rome
National Wildlife Research Centre, USA
New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
University of British Columbia
Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim
U.S. Geological Survey
University of Mpumalanga

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

271 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 language	English
Pages (from-to)	49-50
Journal	Food Webs
Volume	13
Early online date	16 Jun 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2017

Access to Document

10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002

Allen et al_2017_large carnivore science_experiments are better_post printAccepted author manuscript, 117 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{ff9f346e381040398bf880e0775fab81,

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

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.",

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

year = "2017",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

pages = "49--50",

journal = "Food Webs",

issn = "2352-2496",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Large carnivore science: non-experimental studies are useful, but experiments are better

AU - Allen, Benjamin L.

AU - Allen, Lee R.

AU - Andrien, Henrik

AU - Ballard, Guy

AU - Boitani, Luigi

AU - Engeman, Richard M.

AU - Fleming, Peter J.S.

AU - Ford, Adam T.

AU - Haswell, Peter

AU - Kowalczyk, Rafal

AU - Linnell, John D. C.

AU - Mech, L. David

AU - Parker, Daniel M.

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002

DO - 10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.06.002

M3 - Article

SN - 2352-2496

VL - 13

SP - 49

EP - 50

JO - Food Webs

JF - Food Webs

ER -

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

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this