Abstract
Understanding the causal relationships that contribute to mortality in populations is a priority for epidemiology, animal husbandry and ecology. Of all the sources of mortality in nature, predation is perhaps the most important, while simultaneously being one of the most difficult to study and understand. In this opinion piece, we use the epidemiological concept of the sufficient-component cause model to outline why we believe that predation studies often misrepresent predators as sufficient cause of death (or natural mortality) in ecological studies. This is pivotal in conservation biology because such studies have often led to demands for predator removal throughout the world. We use the sufficient-component cause model to illustrate the paradox that multiple studies, each studying singular putative causes of mortality (including predation), will sum to more than 100% mortality when added together. We suggest that the sufficient-component framework should be integrated into both fundamental and applied ecology to better understand the role of predators in natural ecosystems.