Cautionary considerations for positive dingo management: a response to the Johnson and Ritchie critique of Fleming et al. (2012)

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. S. Fleming ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Mesopredator Release ◽  
Livestock Predation ◽  
Adaptive Comanagement ◽  
Opinion Piece ◽  
Free Ranging

Johnson and Ritchie (2012) have provided a criticism of our opinion piece (Fleming et al. 2012). There is some common ground, but we remain unconvinced by their view that our reasoning was unsound or beside the point. In this response, we discuss where Johnson and Ritchie have provided unconvincing evidence to refute our seven considerations, and reiterate and demonstrate why these considerations remain important. The mesopredator release or suppression hypothesis in Australian ecosystems must be objectively evaluated before positive management of dingoes and other free-ranging dogs is recommended or implemented. Adaptive comanagement of free-ranging dogs can be used for both biodiversity conservation and the mitigation of livestock predation but caution must be exercised when considering using free-ranging dogs as a conservation tool.

What to call a dog? A review of the common names for Australian free-ranging dogs

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 124 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. L. Kreplins ◽  
A. Gaynor ◽  
M. S. Kennedy ◽  
C. M. Baudains ◽  
P. Adams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Livestock Production ◽  
Scaling Analysis ◽  
Mesopredator Release ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Wild Dog ◽  
Wild Dogs ◽  
Free Ranging

Wildlife research is informed by human values and interests, and these are reflected in, and reinforced by, the language used to describe particular species and animals. Examining factors that influence the use of common names of contentious taxa such free-ranging dogs is important, as naming can influence the design and reception of scientific studies. There are a range of common names for free-ranging dogs in Australian scientific literature but the most common names are ‘dingoes’ and ‘wild dogs’. This review investigated influences on the terminology used to describe Australian free-ranging dogs in scientific studies from October 1952 to January 2018. Using a multidimensional scaling analysis, we tested the effects of several potential factors on terminology around Australian free-ranging dogs. We found a significant correlation between studies that reported on ‘wild dog’ control within livestock production–focussed papers and the use of the term ‘dingo’ and discussion of mesopredator release in conservation-related papers. There was a bias associated with author employment, with studies funded by a livestock production organisation more likely to employ ‘wild dog’ terminology. Year of publication and dingo purity within the locale of the study made a lesser contribution to differences in terminology. Our study explores the contextual factors that influence the choice of common names in scientific papers. Although referring to the same species, this review highlights that common terminology within scientific papers is reliant on the discussion of mesopredators release, control programs and the paper’s context.

Seven considerations about dingoes as biodiversity engineers: the socioecological niches of dogs in Australia

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. S. Fleming ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Landscape Changes ◽  
Apex Predator ◽  
Mesopredator Release ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Management Framework ◽  
Human Perceptions ◽  
Threatened Fauna

Australian dingoes have recently been suggested as a tool to aid biodiversity conservation through the reversal or prevention of trophic cascades and mesopredator release. However, at least seven ecological and sociological considerations must be addressed before dog populations are positively managed.Domestication and feralisation of dingoes have resulted in behavioural changes that continue to expose a broad range of native and introduced fauna to predation.Dingoes and other dogs are classic mesopredators, while humans are the apex predator and primary ecosystem engineers in Australia.Anthropogenic landscape changes could prevent modern dingoes from fulfilling their pre-European roles.Dingoes are known to exploit many of the same species they are often presumed to ‘protect’, predisposing them to present direct risks to many threatened species.The assertion that contemporary dog control facilitates the release of mesopredators disregards the realities of effective dog control, which simultaneously reduces fox and dog abundance and is unlikely to enable increases in fox abundance.The processes affecting threatened fauna are likely a combination of both top-down and bottom-up effects, which will not be solved or reversed by concentrating efforts on managing only predator effects.Most importantly, human social and economic niches are highly variable across the ecosystems where dingoes are present or proposed. Human perceptions will ultimately determine acceptance of positive dingo management.Outside of an adaptive management framework, positively managing dingoes while ignoring these seven considerations is unlikely to succeed in conserving native faunal biodiversity but is likely to have negative effects on ecological, social and economic values.

Finding Common Ground between Adaptive Management and Evidence-Based Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Gillson ◽  
Harry Biggs ◽  
Izak P.J. Smit ◽  
Malika Virah-Sawmy ◽  
Kevin Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Evidence Based

Talking Across Cultures in Early Intervention: Finding Common Ground to Meet Children's Communication Needs

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth D. Peña ◽  
Christine Fiestas
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Cultural Orientation ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Communication Needs ◽  
Caregiver Role

Abstract In this paper, we explore cultural values and expectations that might vary among different groups. Using the collectivist-individualist framework, we discuss differences in beliefs about the caregiver role in teaching and interacting with young children. Differences in these beliefs can lead to dissatisfaction with services on the part of caregivers and with frustration in service delivery on the part of service providers. We propose that variation in caregiver and service provider perspectives arise from cultural values, some of which are instilled through our own training as speech-language pathologists. Understanding where these differences in cultural orientation originate can help to bridge these differences. These can lead to positive adaptations in the ways that speech-language pathology services are provided within an early intervention setting that will contribute to effective intervention.

Spatial Representations as an Emergent Feature of Perceptual Processing

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edmund Wascher ◽  
C. Beste
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Vertical Axis ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Integrated Network ◽  
Perceptual Maps ◽  
Emergent Feature ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Selection Of

Spatial selection of relevant information has been proposed to reflect an emergent feature of stimulus processing within an integrated network of perceptual areas. Stimulus-based and intention-based sources of information might converge in a common stage when spatial maps are generated. This approach appears to be inconsistent with the assumption of distinct mechanisms for stimulus-driven and top-down controlled attention. In two experiments, the common ground of stimulus-driven and intention-based attention was tested by means of event-related potentials (ERPs) in the human EEG. In both experiments, the processing of a single transient was compared to the selection of a physically comparable stimulus among distractors. While single transients evoked a spatially sensitive N1, the extraction of relevant information out of a more complex display was reflected in an N2pc. The high similarity of the spatial portion of these two components (Experiment 1), and the replication of this finding for the vertical axis (Experiment 2) indicate that these two ERP components might both reflect the spatial representation of relevant information as derived from the organization of perceptual maps, just at different points in time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document