Trophic consequences of an invasive, small-bodied non-native fish, sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus, for native pond fishes

Assessments of the trophic consequences of invasive fishes are important for quantifying their ecological impacts on native species more generally. A small-bodied cyprinid fish native to continental Europe and introduced in the 1970s to the U.K, the sunbleak Leuciscus delineatus, has been shown previously to establish closer social associations with native species of similar size than do native species amongst themselves. To assess the potential detrimental trophic consequences of native species associations with L. delineatus, a field-based experiment was undertaken in summer 2015 in six outdoor, artificial ponds containing three native cyprinid species (rudd Scardinius erthrophthalamus, gudgeon Gobio gobio, tench Tinca tinca). Three ponds were controls (no L. delineatus) and three were treatments (L. delineatus present). The results of stable isotope analysis (SIA) of fish tissue samples provided strong evidence that the isotopic niches of both native benthic fishes were reduced in the presence of L. delineatus, although there were no significant effects on the trophic position, body size or condition of two of the three native fish species. Introduced L. delineatus maintained a core isotopic niche that was distinct from the two native benthic fishes, with no overlap detected between native and non-native fishes when including 40 % and 95% of the data. These results indicate that the response of the native fishes to the introduction of L. delineatus was niche constriction via trophic specialisation, with this response sufficient to maintain their growth rates and condition. This result is similar to studies on a range of small-bodied invasive fishes, suggesting the trophic impacts of these invaders are relatively consistent across species and systems

Are novel ecosystems the only novelty of rewilding?

Since the introduction of the term “rewilding” in 1998, several definitions have been proposed, sparking debate around terminology and how (or if) rewilding differs from restoration. Many papers attempt to distinguish between the two terms through a series of descriptive attributes: historic baselines, landscape-driven transformation, ongoing human intervention, the connection of people with nature, and the creation of novel ecosystems. Here, we discuss the overlap between these terms and illustrate that the creation of novel ecosystems provides the clearest distinction between rewilding and restoration. If the definition of rewilding is distilled down to its most unique component, the creation of novel ecosystems, perhaps scientists can then work to produce a clear framework for rewilding that is based on best conservation practice.https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/1526100xhj2021Mammal Research Institut

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

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 \u27compassionate conservation\u27: 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

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