Stress triangle: do introduced predators exert indirect costs on native predators and prey?

Non-consumptive effects of predators on each other and on prey populations often exceed the effects of direct predation. These effects can arise from fear responses elevating glucocorticoid (GC) hormone levels (predator stress hypothesis) or from increased vigilance that reduces foraging efficiency and body condition (predator sensitive foraging hypothesis); both responses can lead to immunosuppression and increased parasite loads. Non-consumptive effects of invasive predators have been little studied, even though their direct impacts on local species are usually greater than those of their native counterparts. To address this issue, we explored the non-consumptive effects of the invasive red fox Vulpes vulpes on two native species in eastern Australia: a reptilian predator, the lace monitor Varanus varius and a marsupial, the ringtail possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus. In particular, we tested predictions derived from the above two hypotheses by comparing the basal glucocorticoid levels, foraging behaviour, body condition and haemoparasite loads of both native species in areas with and without fox suppression. Lace monitors showed no GC response or differences in haemoparasite loads but were more likely to trade safety for higher food rewards, and had higher body condition, in areas of fox suppression than in areas where foxes remained abundant. In contrast, ringtails showed no physiological or behavioural differences between fox-suppressed and control areas. Predator sensitive foraging is a non-consumptive cost for lace monitors in the presence of the fox and most likely represents a response to competition. The ringtail\u27s lack of response to the fox potentially represents complete naiveté or strong and rapid selection to the invasive predator. We suggest evolutionary responses are often overlooked in interactions between native and introduced species, but must be incorporated if we are to understand the suite of forces that shape community assembly and function in the wake of biological invasions

Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic

Funding: This work is an output from the Morally Contested Conservation research project, supported by Jamma International, WWF Deutschland, and the Luc Hoffmann Institute (now Unearthodox) to the University of Oxford [grant number ATR04380].Fierce international debates rage over whether trophy hunting is socially acceptable, especially when people from the Global North hunt well-known animals in sub-Saharan Africa. We used an online vignette experiment to investigate public perceptions of the acceptability of trophy hunting in sub-Saharan Africa among people who live in urban areas of the USA, UK and South Africa. Acceptability depended on specific attributes of different hunts as well as participants' characteristics. Zebra hunts were more acceptable than elephant hunts, hunts that would provide meat to local people were more acceptable than hunts in which meat would be left for wildlife, and hunts in which revenues would support wildlife conservation were more acceptable than hunts in which revenues would support either economic development or hunting enterprises. Acceptability was generally lower among participants from the UK and those who more strongly identified as an animal protectionist, but higher among participants with more formal education, who more strongly identified as a hunter, or who would more strongly prioritize people over wild animals. Overall, acceptability was higher when hunts would produce tangible benefits for local people, suggesting that members of three urban publics adopt more pragmatic positions than are typically evident in polarized international debates.Peer reviewe

Anthropogenic resource subsidies determine space use by Australian arid zone dingoes: an improved resource selection modelling approach

Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) were introduced to Australia and became feral at least 4,000 years ago. We hypothesized that dingoes, being of domestic origin, would be adaptable to anthropogenic resource subsidies and that their space use would be affected by the dispersion of those resources. We tested this by analyzing Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) developed from GPS fixes (locations) of dingoes in arid central Australia. Using Generalized Linear Mixed-effect Models (GLMMs), we investigated resource relationships for dingoes that had access to abundant food near mine facilities, and for those that did not. From these models, we predicted the probability of dingo occurrence in relation to anthropogenic resource subsidies and other habitat characteristics over ∼ 18,000 km(2). Very small standard errors and subsequent pervasively high P-values of results will become more important as the size of data sets, such as our GPS tracking logs, increases. Therefore, we also investigated methods to minimize the effects of serial and spatio-temporal correlation among samples and unbalanced study designs. Using GLMMs, we accounted for some of the correlation structure of GPS animal tracking data; however, parameter standard errors remained very small and all predictors were highly significant. Consequently, we developed an alternative approach that allowed us to review effect sizes at different spatial scales and determine which predictors were sufficiently ecologically meaningful to include in final RSF models. We determined that the most important predictor for dingo occurrence around mine sites was distance to the refuse facility. Away from mine sites, close proximity to human-provided watering points was predictive of dingo dispersion as were other landscape factors including palaeochannels, rocky rises and elevated drainage depressions. Our models demonstrate that anthropogenically supplemented food and water can alter dingo-resource relationships. The spatial distribution of such resources is therefore critical for the conservation and management of dingoes and other top predators

A massive reservoir of low-excitation molecular gas at high redshift

Molecular hydrogen is an important component of galaxies because it fuels star formation and accretion onto AGN, the two processes that generate the large infrared luminosities of gas-rich galaxies. Observations of spectral-line emission from the tracer molecule CO are used to probe the properties of this gas. But the lines that have been studied in the local Universe, mostly the lower rotational transitions of J = 1-0 and J = 2-1, have hitherto been unobservable in high-redshift galaxies. Instead, higher transitions have been used, although the densities and temperatures required to excite these higher transitions may not be reached by much of the gas. As a result, past observations may have underestimated the total amount of molecular gas by a substantial amount. Here we report the discovery of large amounts of low-excitation molecular gas around the infrared-luminous quasar, APM 08279+5255 at z = 3.91, using the two lowest excitation lines of 12CO (J = 1-0 and J = 2-1). The maps confirm the presence of hot and dense gas near the nucleus, and reveal an extended reservoir of molecular gas with low excitation that is 10 to 100 times more massive than the gas traced by higher-excitation observations. This raises the possibility that significant amounts of low-excitation molecular gas may lurk in the environments of high-redshift (z > 3) galaxies.Comment: To appear as a Letter to Nature, 4th January 200

Conserving the World’s Megafauna and Biodiversity: The Fierce Urgency of Now

First paragraph: In our recent perspective article, we noted that most (approximately 60 percent) terrestrial large carnivore and large herbivore species are now threatened with extinction, and we offered a 13-point declaration designed to promote and guide actions to save these iconic mammalian megafauna (Ripple et al. 2016). Some may worry that a focus on saving megafauna might undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity more broadly. We believe that all dimensions of biodiversity are important and that efforts to conserve megafauna are not in themselves sufficient to halt the dispiriting trends of species and population losses in recent decades. From 1970 to 2012, a recent global analysis showed a 58 percent overall decline in vertebrate population abundance (WWF 2016). Bold and varied approaches are necessary to conserve what remains of Earth’s biodiversity, and our declaration in no way disputes the value of specific conservation initiatives targeting other taxa. Indeed, the evidence is clear that without massively scaling up conservation efforts for all species, we will fail to achieve internationally agreed-upon targets for biodiversity (Tittensor et al. 2014).Additional co-authors: Holly T Dublin, James A Estes, Kristoffer T Everatt, Mauro Galetti, Varun R Goswami, Matt W Hayward, Simon Hedges, Michael Hoffmann, Luke TB Hunter, Graham IH Kerley, Mike Letnic, Taal Levi, John C Morrison, Michael Paul Nelson, Thomas M Newsome, Luke Painter, Robert M Pringle, Christopher J Sandom, John Terborgh, Adrian Treves, Blaire Van Valkenburgh, John A Vucetich, Aaron J Wirsing, Arian D Wallach, Christopher Wolf, Rosie Woodroffe, Hillary Young, And Li Zhan

Counting the bodies: Estimating the numbers and spatial variation of Australian reptiles, birds and mammals killed by two invasive mesopredators

Aim Introduced predators negatively impact biodiversity globally, with insular fauna often most severely affected. Here, we assess spatial variation in the number of terrestrial vertebrates (excluding amphibians) killed by two mammalian mesopredators introduced to Australia, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat (Felis catus). We aim to identify prey groups that suffer especially high rates of predation, and regions where losses to foxes and/or cats are most substantial. Location Australia. Methods We draw information on the spatial variation in tallies of reptiles, birds and mammals killed by cats in Australia from published studies. We derive tallies for fox predation by (i) modelling continental-scale spatial variation in fox density, (ii) modelling spatial variation in the frequency of occurrence of prey groups in fox diet, (iii) analysing the number of prey individuals within dietary samples and (iv) discounting animals taken as carrion. We derive point estimates of the numbers of individuals killed annually by foxes and by cats and map spatial variation in these tallies. Results Foxes kill more reptiles, birds and mammals (peaking at 1071 km−2 year−1) than cats (55 km−2 year−1) across most of the unmodified temperate and forested areas of mainland Australia, reflecting the generally higher density of foxes than cats in these environments. However, across most of the continent – mainly the arid central and tropical northern regions (and on most Australian islands) – cats kill more animals than foxes. We estimate that foxes and cats together kill 697 million reptiles annually in Australia, 510 million birds and 1435 million mammals. Main conclusions This continental-scale analysis demonstrates that predation by two introduced species takes a substantial and ongoing toll on Australian reptiles, birds and mammals. Continuing population declines and potential extinctions of some of these species threatens to further compound Australia's poor contemporary conservation record

Environmental heterogeneity modulates the effect of plant diversity on the spatial variability of grassland biomass

Plant productivity varies due to environmental heterogeneity, and theory suggests that plant diversity can reduce this variation. While there is strong evidence of diversity effects on temporal variability of productivity, whether this mechanism extends to variability across space remains elusive. Here we determine the relationship between plant diversity and spatial variability of productivity in 83 grasslands, and quantify the effect of experimentally increased spatial heterogeneity in environmental conditions on this relationship. We found that communities with higher plant species richness (alpha and gamma diversity) have lower spatial variability of productivity as reduced abundance of some species can be compensated for by increased abundance of other species. In contrast, high species dissimilarity among local communities (beta diversity) is positively associated with spatial variability of productivity, suggesting that changes in species composition can scale up to affect productivity. Experimentally increased spatial environmental heterogeneity weakens the effect of plant alpha and gamma diversity, and reveals that beta diversity can simultaneously decrease and increase spatial variability of productivity. Our findings unveil the generality of the diversity-stability theory across space, and suggest that reduced local diversity and biotic homogenization can affect the spatial reliability of key ecosystem functions.Fil: Daleo, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Alberti, Juan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Chaneton, Enrique Jose. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Iribarne, Oscar Osvaldo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Bruschetti, Carlos Martin. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: MacDougall, Andrew S.. University Of Guelph. Department Of Integrative Biology.; CanadáFil: Pascual, Jesus Maria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Sankaran, Mahesh. University of Leeds; Reino Unido. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research; IndiaFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Wang, Shaopeng. Peking University; ChinaFil: Bagchi, Sumanta. Indian Institute of Science; IndiaFil: Brudvig, Lars A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Catford, Jane A.. University of Melbourne; Australia. Kings College London (kcl);Fil: Dickman, Chris R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Dickson, Tymothy L.. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; Reino UnidoFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. Universitat Leipzig; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Gruner, Daniel S.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Haider, Sylvia. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. Leuphana University of Lüneburg; AlemaniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University; ChinaFil: Lekberg, Ylva. University of Montana; Estados UnidosFil: McCulley, Rebecca L.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. University of Melbourne; Australia. Monash University; Australia. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research; AustraliaFil: Mortensen, Brent. Benedictine College; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Rocca, Camila. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; Argentin

Making ecological monitoring successful: Insights and lessons from the Long Term Ecological Research Network

Ecological monitoring allows us to track changes in the environment and helps us see how our actions affect the environment. Long-term monitoring is particularly important, yielding valuable insights that are not possible from shorter-term investigations. We consider successful ecological monitoring to be monitoring that generates knowledge that is useful to others, and can be valuable in adaptive and effective environmental management. Any effective monitoring program requires a number of fundamental considerations, and additional factors should be considered in the design of a long-term monitoring program. This booklet describes what we consider to be the key characteristics of successful ecological monitoring, including long-term monitoring.All these characteristics work together. For example, good project design cannot meet its objectives without long-term funding; data management must be matched by good communication; and good partnerships must be maintained through succession and project planning. In discussing these characteristics and our recommendations for how they may be achieved, we present a series of stories and quotes. These insights are based on the collective experience of research leaders of the 12 plot networks within the Long Term Ecological Research Network, along with other professionals associated with the network. These stories highlight just how difficult it is to do long-term ecological research in Australia. They also illustrate the unique value of this kind of research for helping to understand and manage the Australian environment. We hope that this booklet will support the development of more effective and influential long-term ecological projects in Australia.LTERN is a facility within the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network (TERN). TERN is supported by the Australian Government through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy