Open Science principles for accelerating trait-based science across the Tree of Life.

Synthesizing trait observations and knowledge across the Tree of Life remains a grand challenge for biodiversity science. Species traits are widely used in ecological and evolutionary science, and new data and methods have proliferated rapidly. Yet accessing and integrating disparate data sources remains a considerable challenge, slowing progress toward a global synthesis to integrate trait data across organisms. Trait science needs a vision for achieving global integration across all organisms. Here, we outline how the adoption of key Open Science principles-open data, open source and open methods-is transforming trait science, increasing transparency, democratizing access and accelerating global synthesis. To enhance widespread adoption of these principles, we introduce the Open Traits Network (OTN), a global, decentralized community welcoming all researchers and institutions pursuing the collaborative goal of standardizing and integrating trait data across organisms. We demonstrate how adherence to Open Science principles is key to the OTN community and outline five activities that can accelerate the synthesis of trait data across the Tree of Life, thereby facilitating rapid advances to address scientific inquiries and environmental issues. Lessons learned along the path to a global synthesis of trait data will provide a framework for addressing similarly complex data science and informatics challenges

When Does an Alien Become a Native Species? A Vulnerable Native Mammal Recognizes and Responds to Its Long-Term Alien Predator

The impact of alien predators on native prey populations is often attributed to prey naiveté towards a novel threat. Yet evolutionary theory predicts that alien predators cannot remain eternally novel; prey species must either become extinct or learn and adapt to the new threat. As local enemies lose their naiveté and coexistence becomes possible, an introduced species must eventually become ‘native’. But when exactly does an alien become a native species? The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) was introduced to Australia about 4000 years ago, yet its native status remains disputed. To determine whether a vulnerable native mammal (Perameles nasuta) recognizes the close relative of the dingo, the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), we surveyed local residents to determine levels of bandicoot visitation to yards with and without resident dogs. Bandicoots in this area regularly emerge from bushland to forage in residential yards at night, leaving behind tell-tale deep, conical diggings in lawns and garden beds. These diggings were less likely to appear at all, and appeared less frequently and in smaller quantities in yards with dogs than in yards with either resident cats (Felis catus) or no pets. Most dogs were kept indoors at night, meaning that bandicoots were not simply chased out of the yards or killed before they could leave diggings, but rather they recognized the threat posed by dogs and avoided those yards. Native Australian mammals have had thousands of years experience with wild dingoes, which are very closely related to domestic dogs. Our study suggests that these bandicoots may no longer be naïve towards dogs. We argue that the logical criterion for determining native status of a long-term alien species must be once its native enemies are no longer naïve

Data for Dryad

Data used to create Figures 1 and 2

How do germination responses to smoke relate to phylogeny, growth form, fire response strategies and vegetation type? A focus on eastern Australia

2 page(s

Naiveté is not forever : responses of a vulnerable native rodent to its long term alien predators

Alien predators have wreaked havoc on isolated endemic and island fauna worldwide, a phenomenon generally attributed to prey naiveté, or a failure to display effective antipredator behaviour due to a lack of experience. While the failure to recognise and/or respond to a novel predator has devastating impacts in the short term after predators are introduced, few studies have asked whether medium to long term experience with alien predators enables native species to overcome their naiveté. In Australia, introduced dogs Canis lupus familiaris, foxes Vulpes vulpes and cats Felis catus have caused rapid extinctions and declines in small–medium sized native mammals since they were introduced ∼150 years ago. However, native wildlife have had ∼4000 years experience with another dog – the dingo Canis lupus dingo. Native bush rats Rattus fuscipes remain common despite predation from these predators. We predicted that prior experience with dingoes would mean that bush rats recognise and respond to dogs, but suspect that hundreds of years experience may not be enough for effective responses to cats and foxes. To test these predictions, we combined the giving-up density (GUD) with analysis of remote camera footage to measure bush rat foraging and behavioural responses to body odour from dogs, foxes, cats and native spotted-tail quolls Dasyurus maculatus. Bush rats responded strongly to dogs with increased GUDs, increased vigilance and decreased foraging. However, mixed responses to foxes and cats suggest that at least some individuals remain naïve towards these predators. Naiveté is not necessarily forever: alien predators devastate many native prey species, but others may learn or adapt to the new threat.9 page(s

Naïveté in novel ecological interactions : lessons from theory and experimental evidence

The invasion of alien species into areas beyond their native ranges is having profound effects on ecosystems around the world. In particular, novel alien predators are causing rapid extinctions or declines in many native prey species, and these impacts are generally attributed to ecological naïveté or the failure to recognise a novel enemy and respond appropriately due to a lack of experience. Despite a large body of research concerning the recognition of alien predation risk by native prey, the literature lacks an extensive review of naïveté theory that specifically asks how naïveté between novel pairings of alien predators and native prey disrupts our classical understanding of predator–prey ecological theory. Here we critically review both classic and current theory relating to predator–prey interactions between both predators and prey with shared evolutionary histories, and those that are ecologically ‘mismatched’ through the outcomes of biological invasions. The review is structured around the multiple levels of naïveté framework of Banks & Dickman (2007), and concepts and examples are discussed as they relate to each stage in the process from failure to recognise a novel predator (Level 1 naïveté), through to appropriate (Level 2) and effective (Level 3) antipredator responses. We discuss the relative contributions of recognition, cue types and the implied risk of cues used by novel alien and familiar native predators, to the probability that prey will recognise a novel predator. We then cover the antipredator response types available to prey and the factors that predict whether these responses will be appropriate or effective against novel alien and familiar native predators. In general, the level of naïveté of native prey can be predicted by the degree of novelty (in terms of appearance, behaviour or habitat use) of the alien predator compared to native predators with which prey are experienced. Appearance in this sense includes cue types, spatial distribution and implied risk of cues, whilst behaviour and habitat use include hunting modes and the habitat domain of the predator. Finally, we discuss whether the antipredator response can occur without recognition per se, for example in the case of morphological defences, and then consider a potential extension of the multiple levels of naïveté framework. The review concludes with recommendations for the design and execution of naïveté experiments incorporating the key concepts and issues covered here. This review aims to critique and combine classic ideas about predator–prey interactions with current naïveté theory, to further develop the multiple levels of naïveté framework, and to suggest the most fruitful avenues for future research.18 page(s

Foraging in groups affects giving-up densities : solo foragers quit sooner

The giving-up density framework is an elegant and widely adopted mathematical approach to measuring animals' foraging decisions at non-replenishing artificial resource patches. Under this framework, an animal should "give up" when the benefits of foraging are outweighed by the costs (e.g., predation risk, energetic, and/or missed opportunity costs). However, animals of many species may forage in groups, and group size is expected to alter perceived predation risk and hence influence quitting decisions. Yet, most giving-up density studies assume either that individuals forage alone or that giving-up densities are not affected by group foraging. For animals that forage both alone and in groups, differences in giving-up densities due to group foraging rather than experimental variables may substantially alter interpretation. However, no research to date has directly investigated how group foraging affects the giving-up density. We used remote-sensing cameras to identify instances of group foraging in two species of Rattus across three giving-up density experiments to determine whether group foraging influences giving-up densities. Both Rattus species have been observed to vary between foraging alone and in groups. In all three experiments, solo foragers left higher giving-up densities on average than did group foragers. This result has important implications for studies using giving-up densities to investigate perceived risk, the energetic costs of searching, handling time, digestion, and missed opportunity costs, particularly if groups of animals are more likely to experience certain experimental treatments. It is critically important that future giving-up density studies consider the effects of group foraging.7 page(s

Competitive naïveté between a highly successful invader and a functionally similar native species

Naïveté can occur within any novel antagonistic interaction, and competitive forces play a fundamental role in shaping community structure, yet competitive naïveté has received very little attention in the literature to date. Naïveté towards a novel competitor is unlikely to result in immediate mortality, but could potentially affect access to resources and hence population growth and survival. In cases where only one species (either native or alien) remains naïve to the other, the species that recognizes the other will gain advantage, with implications for both the persistence of the native species and the establishment and spread of the invasive. The invasive black rat (Rattus rattus) has spread throughout many coastal areas of Australia, and competes with the native bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) wherever they coexist. As these rats have now been interacting for approximately 200 years, and multi-species rodent communities generally maintain their structure through olfactory communication, our aim was to determine whether these two very closely related species recognize one another's odors and use them to mediate their interactions. We used remote-sensing cameras deployed in single- and mixed-species sites to record the behavioral responses of each species to conspecific, heterospecific and control odors. Black rats investigated bush rat odors but not vice versa, suggesting that bush rats may remain naïve towards their new competitor. Highly successful invaders such as black rats may possess traits such as broad recognition templates and rapid learning capabilities that contribute to their ongoing success in invading new environments.12 page(s

Negotiating a noisy, information-rich environment in search of cryptic prey : olfactory predators need patchiness in prey cues

Olfactory predator search processes differ fundamentally to those based on vision, particularly when odour cues are deposited rather than airborne or emanating from a point source. When searching for visually cryptic prey that may have moved some distance from a deposited odour cue, cue context and spatial variability are the most likely sources of information about prey location available to an olfactory predator. We tested whether the house mouse (Mus domesticus), a model olfactory predator, would use cue context and spatial variability when searching for buried food items; specifically, we tested the effect of varying cue patchiness, odour strength, and cue-prey association on mouse foraging success. Within mouse- and predator-proof enclosures, we created grids of 100 sand-filled Petri dishes and buried peanut pieces in a set number of these patches to represent visually cryptic 'prey'. By adding peanut oil to selected dishes, we varied the spatial distribution of prey odour relative to the distribution of prey patches in each grid, to reflect different levels of cue patchiness (Experiment 1), odour strength (Experiment 2) and cue-prey association (Experiment 3). We measured the overnight foraging success of individual mice (percentage of searched patches containing prey), as well as their foraging activity (percentage of patches searched), and prey survival (percentage of unsearched prey patches). Mouse foraging success was highest where odour cues were patchy rather than uniform (Experiment 1), and where cues were tightly associated with prey location, rather than randomly or uniformly distributed (Experiment 3). However, when cues at prey patches were ten times stronger than a uniformly distributed weak background odour, mice did not improve their foraging success over that experienced when cues were of uniform strength and distribution (Experiment 2). These results suggest that spatial variability and cue context are important means by which olfactory predators can use deposited odour cues to locate visually cryptic prey. They also indicate that chemical crypsis can disrupt these search processes as effectively as background matching in visually based predator-prey systems.11 page(s

Typical frequency (A) and quantity (B) of diggings appearing in yards with each pet type.

<p>Dog owners were more likely to report rarely or never seeing fresh diggings (A), and seeing no new diggings (B). Data are proportions of survey respondents choosing each answer. Numbers above the bars are adjusted standardized residuals from the contingency analysis of each question for dogs versus no pets and cats versus no pets. Residuals greater than two indicate a lack of fit of the null model in that cell (denoted by asterisks). Negative residuals indicate a smaller proportion choosing that answer, and positive residuals indicate a greater proportion choosing that answer than expected if factors were independent.</p