|
We are in some agreement with Newsome et al. (2017): the differences between the ecosystems of Yellowstone and Sturt National Parks should not preclude examinations of the influences, whether costs (see Allen and Fleming, 2012) or benefits of the dingo (Canis familiaris), on contemporary Australian ecosystems. It is important to note that at no point did Morgan et al. (in press) suggest that experimentation should not occur. Rather, we acknowledged that proposals to reintroduce dingoes to south east Australia (Letnic and Koch, 2010; Visser et al., 2009) and Sturt National Park (Newsome et al., 2015a) were developed in response to a recognised need for manipulative experiments to understand the true ecological role of the dingo (Allen et al., 2013b; Fleming et al., 2012; Hayward and Marlow, 2014; Letnic and Koch, 2010). Rather than advocating against dingo reintroduction experiments, Morgan et al. (in press) outlined a case for not relying on the conceptual framework of the trophic cascade model to frame predator reintroduction experiments in Australia. This is because the design of experiments based on a theory of trophic cascades, that originated in environments governed by a stable climate, are likely to be constrained by that theory rather than enhanced. We believe a more objective and sound approach would be to consider multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin, 1965). |
|