Flaws in the current method for calculating methane emissions during dairy manure management in New Zealand

New Zealand's Greenhouse Gas Inventory (the NZ Inventory) currently estimates methane (CH4) emissions from anaerobic dairy effluent ponds by: (1) determining the total pond volume across New Zealand; (2) dividing this volume by depth to obtain the total pond surface area; and (3) multiplying this area by an observational average CH4 flux. Unfortunately, a mathematically erroneous determination of pond volume has led to an imbalanced equation and a geometry error was made when scaling-up the observational CH4 flux. Furthermore, even if these errors are corrected, the nationwide estimate still hinges on field data from a study that used a debatable method to measure pond CH4 emissions at a single site, as well as a potentially inaccurate estimation of the amount of organic waste anaerobically treated. The development of a new methodology is therefore critically needed.

Wild dogma: An examination of recent "evidence" for dingo regulation of invasive mesopredator release in Australia

There is growing interest in the role that apex predators play in shaping terrestrial ecosystems and maintaining trophic cascades. In line with the mesopredator release hypothesis, Australian dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids) are assumed by many to regulate the abundance of invasive mesopredators, such as red foxes Vulpes vulpes and feral cats Felis catus, thereby providing indirect benefits to various threatened vertebrates. Several recent papers have claimed to provide evidence for the biodiversity benefits of dingoes in this way. Nevertheless, in this paper we highlight several critical weaknesses in the methodological approaches used in many of these reports, including lack of consideration for seasonal and habitat differences in activity, the complication of simple track-based indices by incorporating difficult-to-meet assumptions, and a reduction in sensitivity for assessing populations by using binary measures rather than potentially continuous measures. Of the 20 studies reviewed, 15 of them (75%) contained serious methodological flaws, which may partly explain the inconclusive nature of the literature nvestigating interactions between invasive Australian predators. We therefore assert that most of the “growing body of evidence” for mesopredator release is merely an inconclusive growing body of literature only. We encourage those interested in studying the ecological roles of dingoes relative to invasive mesopredators and native prey species to account for the factors we identify, and caution the value of studies that have not done so.

Wild dogma II: the role and implications of wild dogma for wild dog management in Australia

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.

As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes

Top-predators have been reported to have an important role in structuring food webs and maintaining ecological processes for the benefit of biodiversity at lower trophic levels. This is thought to be achieved through their suppressive effects on sympatric mesopredators and prey. Great scientific and public interest surrounds the potential use of top-predators as biodiversity conservation tools, and it can often be difficult to separate what we think we know and what we really know about their ecological utility. Not all the claims made about the ecological roles of top-predators can be substantiated by current evidence. We review the methodology underpinning empirical data on the ecological roles of Australian dingoes (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids) to provide a comprehensive and objective benchmark for knowledge of the ecological roles of Australia's largest terrestrial predator. From a wide variety of methodological flaws, sampling bias, and experimental design constraints inherent to 38 of the 40 field studies we assessed, we demonstrate that there is presently unreliable and inconclusive evidence for dingoes role as a biodiversity regulator. We also discuss the widespread (both taxonomically and geographically) and direct negative effects of dingoes to native fauna, and the few robust studies investigating their positive roles. In light of the highly variable and context-specific impacts of dingoes on faunal biodiversity and the inconclusive state of the literature, we strongly caution against the positive management of dingoes in the absence of a supporting evidence-base for such action.