wild dogma ii: the role and implications of wild dogma for wild dog management in australia
Clicks: 228
ID: 211908
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
228 views
19 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #27 of 45 articles by views in neuroscience letters
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The studies of Allen (2011) and Allen et al. (2011) recently examined the methodology underpinning claims that dingoes provide net benefits to biodiversity by suppressing foxes and cats. They found most studies to have design flaws and/or observational methods that preclude valid interpretations from the data, describing most of the current literature as ‘wild dogma’. In this short supplement, we briefly highlight the roles and implications of wild dogma for wild dog management in Australia. We discuss nomenclature, and the influence that unreliable science can have on policy and practice changes related to apex predator management [Current Zoology 57 (6): 737–740, 2011].
| Reference Key |
allen2011currentwild
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Benjamin L. ALLEN, Richard M. ENGEMAN, Lee R. ALLEN |
| Journal | neuroscience letters |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
DOI not found
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.