13 research outputs found
Prey preferences of the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)
The common chimpanzee Pan troglodytes is the closest extant relative of modern
humans and is often used as a model organism to help understand prehistoric human
behavior and ecology. Originally presumed herbivorous, chimpanzees have been observed
hunting 24 species of birds, ungulates, rodents, and other primates, using an
array of techniques from tools to group cooperation. Using the literature on chimpanzee
hunting behavior and diet from 13 studies, we aimed to determine the prey
preferences of chimpanzees. We extracted data on prey-specific
variables such as
targeted species, their body weight, and their abundance within the prey community,
and hunter-specific
variables such as hunting method, and chimpanzee group size and
sex ratio. We used these data in a generalized linear model to determine what factors
drive chimpanzee prey preference. We calculated a Jacobsâ index value for each
prey species killed at two sites in Uganda and two sites in Tanzania. Chimpanzees
prefer prey with a body weight of 7.6 ± 0.4 kg or less, which corresponds to animals
such as juvenile bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and adult ashy red colobus monkeys
(Piliocolobus tephrosceles). Sex ratio in chimpanzee groups is a main driver in developing
these preferences, where chimpanzees increasingly prefer prey when in proportionally
male-dominated
groups. Prey preference information from chimpanzee
research can assist conservation management programs by identifying key prey species
to manage, as well as contribute to a better understanding of the evolution of
human hunting behavior.The University of Newcastle.http://www.ecolevol.orgam2022Mammal Research Institut
PUTTING THE PASS IN CLASS: IN-CLASS PEER MENTORING ON CAMPUS AND ONLINE
We analyse the introduction of peer mentors into classrooms to understand how in-class mentoring supports studentsâ learning in first-year courses. Peer mentors are high-achieving students who have completed the same course previously, and are hired and trained by the university to facilitate Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). PASS sessions give students the opportunity to deepen their understanding through revision and active learning and are typically held outside of class time. In contrast, our trial embedded peer mentors into the classes for Professional Scientific Thinking, a large (~250 students) workshop-based course at the University of Newcastle. Analysis of Blackboard analytics, student responses to Brookfieldâs Critical Incident Questionnaire and peer mentorsâ journals found that during face-to-face workshops, peer mentors role-modelled ideal student behaviour (e.g. asking questions), rather than act as additional teachers. This helped students new to university to better understand how to interact and learn effectively in class. Moving classes online mid-semester reshaped mentorsâ roles, including through the technical aspects of their work and their engagement with students â adaptations that were essential for supporting students to also adapt effectively to changed learning circumstances. This study highlights the benefits of embedding student mentors in classrooms, both on campus and online
Putting the PASS in Class: Peer Mentorsâ Identities in Science Workshops on Campus and Online
In this paper, we analyse the introduction of peer mentors into timetabled classes to understand how in-class mentoring supports studentsâ learning. The peer mentors in this study are high-achieving students who previously completed the same course and who were hired and trained to facilitate Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS). PASS gives students the opportunity to deepen their understanding through revision and active learning and are typically held outside of class time. In contrast, our trial embedded peer mentors into classes for a large (~250 students) first-year workshop-based course. We employed a participatory action research methodology to facilitate the peer mentorsâ co-creation of the research process. Data sources include peer mentorsâ journal entries, student cohort data, and a focus group with teaching staff. We found that during face-to-face workshops, peer mentors role-modelled ideal student behaviour (e.g., asking questions) rather than acting as additional teachers, and this helped students to better understand how to interact effectively in class. The identity of embedded peer mentors is neither that of teachers nor of students, and it instead spans aspects of both as described using a three-part schema comprising (i) identity, (ii) associated roles, and (iii) associated practices. As we moved classes online mid-semester in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, mentorsâ identities remained stable, but mentors adjusted their associated roles and practices, including through the technical aspects of their engagement with students. This study highlights the benefits of embedding mentors in classrooms on campus and online
Beyond species counts for assessing, valuing, and conserving biodiversity:response to Wallach et al. 2019
Deconstructing compassionate conservation
Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public
The hunting modes of human predation and potential nonconsumptive effects on animal populations
When seeking prey, predators adaptively deploy strategies coarsely divided into sit-and-wait, sit-and-pursue, or active hunting modes. Though the hunting modes of many predators have been extensively studied, the implications of the hunting modes of human (Homo sapiens) predation are not yet fully understood. We conducted an extensive literature review to document human hunting modes and explore the ways in which these modes may shape animal populations via nonconsumptive effects (NCEs) of human predation. Among 167 studies published between 1972 and 2020, we found that humans used 27 hunting tools among 19 different hunting techniques when pursuing terrestrial prey. Most accounts described humans as using the active hunting mode (58%; n = 140 of 241), followed by the sit-and-wait hunting mode (41%; n = 99 of 241), and finally the sit-and-pursue hunting mode (2%; n = 4 of 241). While non-human predators tend to be evolutionarily adapted to the use of just one hunting mode, humans showed profound plasticity by deploying all three hunting modes in pursuit of prey species from 34 taxonomic orders spanning six orders of magnitude in body size (from 27 g to 4,400 kg). Considerable evidence has documented the vast number of ways in which humans directly impact the functioning of the natural world. Our research complements that work by demonstrating the indirect pathways by which humans may affect animal populations and the landscapes over which these interactions occur, via NCEs deriving from the hunting modes of human predation, with important implications for animal conservation
Intergenerational inequity : stealing the joy and benefits of nature from our children
No abstract available.The Australia-Africa Universities Networkâ Partnership Research and Development Fund, a PRIME-DAAD fellowship and the Australian Research Council Linkage Grant. he article processing charge was covered by the Baden-Wuerttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art and the University of Freiburg through the funding programme Open Access Publishing.http://frontiersin.org/Ecology_and_Evolutiondm2022Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog
Response to comments on âCompassionate Conservation deserves a morally serious rather than dismissive response - reply to Callen et al., 2020â
[No abstract available
Deconstructing compassionate conservation
Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so-called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public
Envisioning the future with âcompassionate conservationâ:An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity
The âCompassionate Conservationâ movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of âethicalâ conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of âfirst-do-no-harmâ and âindividuals matterâ. We argue that the tenets of âCompassionate Conservationâ are ideological - that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with âCompassionate Conservationâ and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, âCompassionate Conservationâ will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by âCompassionate Conservationâ. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that âCompassionate Conservationâ aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of âCompassionate Conservationâ could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations.Fil: Callen, Alex. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Hayward, Matt W.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Nelson Mandela University; SudĂĄfrica. Universidad de Pretoria; SudĂĄfricaFil: Klop Toker, Kaya. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Allen, Benjamin L.. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Ballard, Guy. University of New England Australia; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Beranek, Chad T.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudĂĄfricaFil: Broekhuis, Femke. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Bugir, Cassandra K.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudĂĄfricaFil: Clarke, Rohan H.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Clulow, John. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Clulow, Simon. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Macquarie University; AustraliaFil: Daltry, Jennifer C.. Fauna & Flora International; Reino UnidoFil: Davies Mostert, Harriet T.. Universidad de Pretoria; SudĂĄfrica. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudĂĄfricaFil: Di Blanco, Yamil Edgardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de BiologĂa Subtropical. Instituto de BiologĂa Subtropical - Nodo Puerto IguazĂș | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de BiologĂa Subtropical. Instituto de BiologĂa Subtropical - Nodo Puerto IguazĂș; ArgentinaFil: Dixon, Victoria. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Fleming, Peter J. S.. University of Queensland; Australia. University of New England; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Howell, Lachlan G.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Kerley, Graham I. H.. Nelson Mandela University; SudĂĄfricaFil: Legge, Sarah M.. Australian National University, Fenner School Of Environment And Society; Australia. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Lenga, Dean J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Major, Tom. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Montgomery, Robert A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Moseby, Katherine. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Meyer, Ninon. Fondation Yaguara Panama; PanamĂĄFil: Parker, Dan M.. University of Mpumalanga; SudĂĄfrica. Rhodes University.; SudĂĄfricaFil: PĂ©riquet, StĂ©phanie. Ongava Research Centre; SudĂĄfricaFil: Read, John. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Scanlon, Robert J.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Shuttleworth, Craig. Bangor University; Reino Unido. Red Squirrel Trust Wales; Reino UnidoFil: Tamessar, Cottrell T.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Taylor, William Andrew. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudĂĄfricaFil: Tuft, Katherine. Arid Recovery; AustraliaFil: Upton, Rose M. O.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Valenzuela, Marcia. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Instituto PolitĂ©cnico Nacional. Centro de InvestigaciĂłn y de Estudios Avanzados. Departamento de Fisica.; MĂ©xicoFil: Witt, Ryan R.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: WĂŒster, Wolfgang. Bangor University; Reino Unid