The role of science in understanding (and saving) large carnivores: A response to Allen and colleagues

摘要: Abstract Allen and colleagues contend that the study designs used to test for indirect effects of large carnivores on lower trophic levels are limited insomuch as they “rely weak inference when valuing roles in ecosystems.” Based upon their review gray wolf dingo studies, conclude “that evidence ecological roles” (i.e., top-down effect) these species is “equivocal.” Further, assert carnivore science being distorted both scientific popular literature order justify restoration carnivores. They prescribe use manipulative experiments best means understanding systems, systematic studies “have only investigate hypotheses.” We take issue with colleagues' characterization empirical field ecology, we question strength present support prosecutorial assertions levied against scientists communicators. Ultimately, justification provided by two claims unperturbed Colleagues critique routinely have important impacts ungulate abundance, overabundant populations often adversely impact structure biodiversity habitats).