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

Allbwn ymchwil: Cyfraniad at gyfnodolynErthygladolygiad gan gymheiriaid

Fersiynau electronig


Dangosydd eitem ddigidol (DOI)

  • Benjamin L. Allen
    University of Southern Queensland
  • Lee R. Allen
    University of Southern Queensland
  • Henrik Andrien
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
  • Guy Ballard
    The University of New England
  • Luigi Boitani
    University La Sapienza of Rome
  • Richard M. Engeman
    National Wildlife Research Centre, USA
  • Peter J.S. Fleming
    New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
  • Adam T. Ford
    University of British Columbia
  • Peter Haswell
  • Rafal Kowalczyk
    Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
  • John D. C. Linnell
    Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim
  • L. David Mech
    US Geological Survey
  • Daniel M. Parker
    University of Mpumalanga
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.
Iaith wreiddiolSaesneg
Tudalennau (o-i)49-50
CyfnodolynFood Webs
Dyddiad ar-lein cynnar16 Meh 2017
Dynodwyr Gwrthrych Digidol (DOIs)
StatwsCyhoeddwyd - 1 Rhag 2017

Cyfanswm lawlrlwytho

Nid oes data ar gael
Gweld graff cysylltiadau