Feeding associations between capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus) (Mammalia, Hydrochaeridae) and birds in the Lami Biological Reserve, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Feeding associations between capybaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766) and some bird species were registered in the Lami Biological Reserve, southern Brazil, through observations in a set of transects established in the five major vegetation types of the study area: shrubby and herbaceous swamps, wet grasslands, sandy grasslands and forests. Data included: date and time, vegetation type, bird species, number of individuals (birds and capybaras), type of prey consumed, foraging strategy of the birds and the behavior of the capybaras in relation to the presence of birds. Five species of birds were registered: Caracara plancus (Miller, 1777), Furnarius rufus (Gmelin, 1788), Machetornis rixosus (Vieillot, 1819), Milvago chimachima (Vieillot, 1816) and Molothrus bonariensis (Gmelin, 1789). The interactions were observed in the shrubby swamp (M. bonariensis), forest (C. plancus) and wet grassland (F. rufus, M. rixosus, M. chimachima). The foraging strategies were: (1) use of the capybara as a perch, hunting from its back (M. rixosus, M. bonariensis); (2) use of the capybara as a beater, hunting in the ground (F. rufus, M. rixosus, M. bonariensis); (3) foraging in the skin of the capybara, by picking the ectoparasites (C. plancus, F. rufus, M. chimachima). Strategies (1) and (2) were employed to catch arthropods flushed from the vegetation. Sometimes, capybaras lay down and exposed the abdomen and lateral areas of their bodies to facilitate cleaning by M. chimachima, but the presence of other bird species seemed to be neutral to capybaras.<br>Foram registradas associações alimentares entre capivaras Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766) e aves na Reserva Biológica do Lami, sul do Brasil, por meio de observações em um conjunto de transecções estabelecidas nos cinco principais tipos de vegetação existentes na área: banhado arbustivo, banhado herbáceo, campo úmido, campo arenoso e mata. As informações coletadas foram: data, horário, tipo de vegetação, espécie de ave, número de indivíduos (para aves e capivaras), tipo de presa consumida e estratégia de forrageamento das aves e comportamento das capivaras em relação à presença das aves. Cinco espécies de aves foram registradas: Caracara plancus (Miller, 1777), Furnarius rufus (Gmelin, 1788), Machetornis rixosus (Vieillot, 1819), Milvago chimachima (Vieillot, 1816) and Molothrus bonariensis (Gmelin, 1789). As interações foram observadas no banhado arbustivo (M. bonariensis), na mata (C. plancus) e no campo úmido (F. rufus, M. rixosus, M. chimachima). As estratégias de forrageamento registradas foram: (1) uso da capivara como "poleiro"; (2) uso da capivara como "batedor"; (3) forrageio no pêlo da capivara, para captura de ectoparasitas. As estratégias (1) e (2) foram empregadas pelas aves para capturar artrópodos que saltavam da vegetação pela movimentação das capivaras. Foi observado que as capivaras, em algumas ocasiões, apresentavam comportamento de exposição do abdômen e partes laterais do corpo para facilitar a retirada de ectoparasitas por M. chimachima. A presença das demais espécies de aves não interferiu no comportamento das capivaras

The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project

The PREDICTS project—Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (www.predicts.org.uk)—has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity