View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2017 Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science? Benjamin L. Allen University of Southern Queensland, [email protected] Lee R. Allen Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, [email protected] Henrik Andrén Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, [email protected] Guy Ballard University of New England, [email protected] Luigi Boitani University of Rome, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Life Sciences Commons Allen, Benjamin L.; Allen, Lee R.; Andrén, Henrik; Ballard, Guy; Boitani, Luigi; Engeman, Richard M.; Fleming, Peter J. S.; Ford, Adam T.; Haswell, Peter M.; Kowalczyk, Rafal; Linnell, John D. C.; Mech, L. David; and Parker, Daniel M., "Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?" (2017). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 1990. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1990 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Benjamin L. Allen, Lee R. Allen, Henrik Andrén, Guy Ballard, Luigi Boitani, Richard M. Engeman, Peter J. S. Fleming, Adam T. Ford, Peter M. Haswell, Rafal Kowalczyk, John D. C. Linnell, L. David Mech, and Daniel M. Parker This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ icwdm_usdanwrc/1990 Food Webs 12 (2017) 64–75 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Webs journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/food-webs Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science? Benjamin L. Allen a,⁎, Lee R. Allen b, Henrik Andrén c, Guy Ballard d, Luigi Boitani e, Richard M. Engeman f, Peter J.S. Fleming g, Adam T. Ford h, Peter M. Haswell i,Rafał Kowalczyk j,JohnD.C.Linnellk, L. David Mech l,DanielM.Parkerm a University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia b Robert Wicks Pest Animal Research Centre, Biosecurity Queensland, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia c Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE–73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden d Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, The University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia e Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome, Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy f National Wildlife Research Centre, US Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154, United States g Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales 2800, Australia h Department of Biology, University of British Columbia, Kelowna V1V 1V7, Canada i School of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, United Kingdom j Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland k Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway l Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Centre, US Geological Survey, 8711 -37th Street, SE, Jamestown, ND 58401-7317, USA m School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa article info abstract Article history: Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these Received 23 December 2016 processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintro- Accepted 27 February 2017 duction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue Available online 1 March 2017 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. Keywords: Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the Apex predator Behaviourally-mediated trophic cascades ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population Adaptive management sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied Experimental design science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine sys- Mesopredator release hypothesis tems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, Science denial show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus)anddingoes(Canis lupus dingo)ininitiating 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 manipula- tive 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. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction...............................................................65 2. IssuesthatweakentheavailableliteraturesupportingtheMRH,TCHandBMTCH................................66 2.1. Thereisnotenoughevidenceofanykind,reliableorotherwise.....................................66 2.2. Samplingmethodsforcarnivoresareoftenunreliable.........................................67 2.3. Alternativehypothesesareseldomtested...............................................67 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.L. Allen), [email protected] (L.R. Allen), [email protected] (H. Andrén), [email protected] (G. Ballard), [email protected] (L. Boitani), [email protected] (R.M. Engeman), peter.fl[email protected] (P.J.S. Fleming), [email protected] (A.T. Ford), [email protected] (P.M. Haswell), [email protected] (R. Kowalczyk), [email protected] (J.D.C. Linnell), [email protected] (L. David Mech), [email protected] (D.M. Parker). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.008 2352-2496/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. B.L. Allen et al. / Food Webs 12 (2017) 64–75 65 2.4. Thereisadearthofapplied-sciencestudies.............................................. 68 2.5. Logicalfallaciesunderpinmuchoftheliterature............................................ 69 2.6. Most of the ‘best evidence’ comesfromecosystemsthatdonotrepresentthemajorityoftheearth'ssurfaceorspecies........... 69 3. Implicationsforlargecarnivorescienceandmanagement........................................... 70 Acknowledgments............................................................... 72 References.................................................................. 72 1. Introduction 5. Documentation of the MRH, TCH and BMTCH in some studies has been common enough that these processes should be considered Large carnivores are some of the most charismatic and ecologically- universal across ecosystem types and independent of carnivore size influential organisms on Earth. Through their interactions with other or phylogeny. animals, large carnivores may affect faunal and floral communities The way these theories have been mainstreamed are perhaps best across multiple trophic levels (Darwin, 1859; Leopold, 1949; Hairston encapsulated in the short online video titled How wolves change rivers et al., 1960). This process is known as a trophic cascade (Paine, 1980), (Sustainable Human, 2014), which has been viewed over 34 million and is a concept now fully entrenched amongst ecologists, conservation times since early 2014, but which does not consider the contrary (and biologists and many land and wildlife managers. often superior) evidence for the processes it claims. Proponents of the Seldom have such novel ecological concepts been so rapidly MRH, TCH, and BMTCH argue that these hypotheses should be accepted mainstreamed to the extent that they are identified as one of the 20 by scientists and society as ecological laws by default (not as mere the- most influential topics in biodiversity conservation (Bradshaw et al., ories or hypotheses) and that the burden of proof for demonstrating 2011). Yet the ‘mesopredator release hypothesis’ (MRH) and its cousins their reality should be placed on those who do not believe them the ‘large-carnivore control-induced trophic cascade hypothesis’ (TCH) (Estes et al., 2011). These theories also provide the scientificjustification and the ‘behaviourally-mediated trophic cascade hypothesis’ (BMTCH)
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages14 Page
-
File Size-