Review of dingo literature focusing on (1) methodological flaws, (2) sampling bias, and (3) limitations of various experimental designs.
Type of Study:
38 of the 40 field studies were assessed: demonstrate that there is presently unreliable and inconclusive evidence for dingoes’ roleas a biodiversity regulator
This paper is repeat of Allen et al. (2011) Wild dogma: an examination of recent "evidence" for dingo regulation of invasive mesopredator release in Australia. Current Zoology 57, 568−83. It has some flaws, such as misunderstanding of statistical approaches used. For example, confusing confounding, with variability, criticising the coarse indices used in some studies, but the effect sizes are large, overcoming this limitation, and misquoting some authors such as Glen et al.2007. Non-target impacts of poison baiting for predator control in Australia. Mammal Review 37: 191–205. Allen et al 2011 & 2013 also dismiss the growing body of evidence for the ecological role of the dingo, some referenced in this spreadsheet, that have been conducted from a range of environments across Australia. They dismiss this meta-pattern, even though multiple methods, each with their own strengths and limitations, have reached similar conclusions. See Letnic et al. (2011) Demonising the dingo: how much wild dogma is enough. Current zoology 57, 668-70. and Glen A. S. (2012) Enough dogma: Seeking the middle ground on the role of dingoes. Current Zoology 58, 856-8 for more.
Response variable :
Allen B. L., Fleming P. J. S., Allen L. R., Engeman R. M., Ballard G. & Leung L. K. P. (2013) As clear as mud: A critical review of evidence for the ecological roles of Australian dingoes. Biological Conservation 159, 158-74.