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 Jacobs’ 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: Peer Mentors’ 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 students’ 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 mentors’ co-creation of the research process. Data sources include peer mentors’ 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, mentors’ 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

Intergenerational inequity : stealing the joy and benefits of nature from our children

No abstract available.The Australia-Africa Universities Network— 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 “Compassionate Conservation deserves a morally serious rather than dismissive response - reply to Callen et al., 2020”

[No abstract available

Envisioning the future with ‘compassionate conservation’:An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The ‘Compassionate Conservation’ movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of ‘ethical’ conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of ‘first-do-no-harm’ and ‘individuals matter’. We argue that the tenets of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ 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 ‘Compassionate Conservation’ and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, ‘Compassionate Conservation’ 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 ‘Compassionate Conservation’. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that ‘Compassionate Conservation’ aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of ‘Compassionate Conservation’ 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; Sudáfrica. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: 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; SudáfricaFil: Broekhuis, Femke. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Bugir, Cassandra K.. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Universidad de Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: 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; Sudáfrica. Endangered Wildlife Trust; SudáfricaFil: Di Blanco, Yamil Edgardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; 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; SudáfricaFil: 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; PanamáFil: Parker, Dan M.. University of Mpumalanga; Sudáfrica. Rhodes University.; SudáfricaFil: Périquet, Stéphanie. Ongava Research Centre; SudáfricaFil: 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; SudáfricaFil: Tuft, Katherine. Arid Recovery; AustraliaFil: Upton, Rose M. O.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Valenzuela, Marcia. Universidad de Newcastle; Australia. Instituto Politécnico Nacional. Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados. Departamento de Fisica.; MéxicoFil: Witt, Ryan R.. Universidad de Newcastle; AustraliaFil: Wüster, Wolfgang. Bangor University; Reino Unid

Reintroducing rewilding to restoration – a search for novelty

Rewilding is emerging as a major issue in conservation. However, there are currently a dozen definitions of rewilding that include Pleistocene rewilding, island rewilding, trophic rewilding, functional rewilding and passive rewilding, and these remain fuzzy, lack clarity and, hence, hinder scientific discourse. Based on current definitions, it is unclear how the interventions described under the rewilding umbrella differ from those framed within the long-standing term 'restoration'. Even projects held up as iconic rewilding endeavours invariably began as restoration projects (e.g., Oostvaaderplassen; Pleistocene Park; the return of wolves to Yellowstone, etc.). Similarly, rewilding organisations (e.g., Rewilding Europe) typically began with a restoration focus. Scientific discourse requires precise language. The fuzziness of existing definitions of rewilding and lack of distinction from restoration practices means that scientific messages cannot be transferred accurately to a policy or practice framework. We suggest that the utility of 'rewilding' as a term is obsolete, and hence recommend scientists and practitioners use 'restoration' instead233255259MWH and MJS are funded by the Australia-Africa Universities Network - Partnership Research & Development Fund 201

Envisioning the future with 'compassionate conservation': An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

The 'Compassionate Conservation' movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of 'ethical' conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of 'first-do-no-harm' and 'individuals matter'. We argue that the tenets of 'Compassionate Conservation' 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 'Compassionate Conservation' and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, 'Compassionate Conservation' 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 'Compassionate Conservation'. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that 'Compassionate Conservation' aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of 'Compassionate Conservation' 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