Social spiders of the genus Anelosimus occur in wetter, more productive environments than non-social species

Latitude, rainfall, and productivity have been shown to influence social organisation and level of sociality in arthropods on large geographic scales. Social spiders form permanent group-living societies where they cooperate in brood care, web maintenance, and foraging. Sociality has evolved independently in a number of unrelated spider genera and may reflect convergent evolutionary responses to common environmental drivers. The genus Anelosimus contains a third of approximately 25 described permanently social spider species, eight to nine species that all occur in the Americas. To test for environmental correlates of sociality in Anelosimus across the Americas, we used logistic regression to detect effects of annual rainfall, productivity, and precipitation seasonality on the relative likelihood of occurrence of social and non-social Anelosimus spiders. Our analyses show that social species tend to occur at higher annual rainfall and productivity than non-social species, supporting the hypothesised effects of these environmental variables on the geographical distribution of social species. We did not find support for the hypothesis that permanently social species occur in areas with low precipitation seasonality. High annual precipitation and, to less extent, high productivity favour the occurrence of permanently group-living Anelosimus spiders relative to subsocial and solitary species. These results are partially consistent with previous findings for the Old World spider genus Stegodyphus, where a link between high habitat productivity and sociality was also found. Unlike Anelosimus, however, Stegodyphus typically occur in dry habitats negating a general importance of high precipitation for sociality. Sociality in spiders thus seems to be strongly linked to productivity, probably reflecting the need for relatively high availability of large prey to sustain social colonies.     

Insights on plant interaction between dominating species from patterns of plant association: expected covariance of pin-point cover measurements of two species

It has been suggested that in order to infer ecological processes from observed patterns of species abundance we need to investigate the covariance in species abundance. Consequently, an expression for the expected covariance of pin-point cover measurements of two species is developed. By comparing the observed covariance with the expected covariance we get a new type of information on the spatial arrangement of two species. Here the discrepancy between the observed and expected covariance may be thought of as a measure of the spatial configuration of the two species that may indicate underling ecological processes. The method is applied in a case study of Calluna vulgaris and Deschampsia flexuosa on dry heathland sites. The observed covariance of Calluna and Deschampsia at the level of the sites was positively and significantly correlated with the expected covariance. Negative covariance was observed on sites where both Calluna and Deschampsia had a high cover, which is in agreement with the notion that both species form distinct patches. Oppositely, at sites where both species have a low cover, we found that both the expected and observed covariance were positive. The proposed measure for the expected covariance of two species does capture information on the combined spatial configuration of the two species if the species are common. We show how this may be relevant for understanding the underlying ecological processes leading to the observed covariance.     

Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.     

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

Proactive approaches that anticipate the long-term effects of current and future conservation threats could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation. However, such approaches can be obstructed by a lack of knowledge of habitat requirements for wildlife. To aggregate and assess the suitability of current information available on habitat requirements needed for proactive conservation, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on elephant and rhinoceros habitat requirements and synthesized data by combining a vote counting assessment with bibliometric and term maps. We contextualized these numeric and terminological results with a narrative review. We mapped current methods, results, terminology, and collaborations of 693 studies. Quantitative evidence for factors that influence the suitability of an area for elephants and rhinoceros was biased toward African savanna elephants and ecological variables. Less than one third of holistic approaches considered equal amounts of ecological and anthropogenic variables in their assessments. There was a general lack of quantitative evidence for direct proxies of anthropogenic variables that were expected to play an important role based on qualitative evidence and policy documents. However, there was evidence for a segregation in conceptual frameworks among countries and species and between science versus policy literature. There was also evidence of unused potential for collaborations among southern hemisphere researchers. Our results indicated that the success of proactive conservation interventions can be increased if ecological and anthropogenic dimensions are integrated into holistic habitat assessments and holistic carrying capacities and quantitative evidence for anthropogenic variables is improved. To avoid wasting limited resources, it is necessary to form inclusive collaborations within and across networks of researchers studying different species across regional and continental borders and in the science–policy realm.     

Guiding principles for rewilding

There has been much recent interest in the concept of rewilding as a tool for nature conservation, but also confusion over the idea, which has limited its utility. We developed a unifying definition and 10 guiding principles for rewilding through a survey of 59 rewilding experts, a summary of key organizations’ rewilding visions, and workshops involving over 100 participants from around the world. The guiding principles convey that rewilding exits on a continuum of scale, connectivity, and level of human influence and aims to restore ecosystem structure and functions to achieve a self-sustaining autonomous nature. These principles clarify the concept of rewilding and improve its effectiveness as a tool to achieve global conservation targets, including those of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Finally, we suggest differences in rewilding perspectives lie largely in the extent to which it is seen as achievable and in specific interventions. An understanding of the context of rewilding projects is the key to success, and careful site-specific interpretations will help achieve the aims of rewilding.     

Rewilding-inspired transhumance for the restoration of semiarid silvopastoral systems in Chile

Regional Environmental Change - Nomadic pastoralism and transhumance are ancient human adaptations to the movements of large herbivores, which themselves migrate to follow favorable environmental...     

Savviness of prey to introduced predators

The prey naivety hypothesis posits that prey are vulnerable to introduced predators because many generations in slow gradual coevolution are needed for appropriate avoidance responses to develop. It predicts that prey will be more responsive to native than introduced predators and less responsive to introduced predators that differ substantially from native predators and from those newly established. To test these predictions, we conducted a global meta-analysis of studies that measured the wariness responses of small mammals to the scent of sympatric mammalian mesopredators. We identified 26 studies that met our selection criteria. These studies comprised 134 experiments reporting on the responses of 36 small mammal species to the scent of six introduced mesopredators and 12 native mesopredators. For each introduced mesopredator, we measured their phylogenetic and functional distance to local native mesopredators and the number of years sympatric with their prey. We used predator and prey body mass as a measure of predation risk. Globally, small mammals were similarly wary of the scent of native and introduced mesopredators; phylogenetic and functional distance between introduced mesopredators and closest native mesopredators had no effect on wariness; and wariness was unrelated to the number of prey generations, or years, since first contact with introduced mesopredators. Small mammal wariness was associated with predator-prey body mass ratio, regardless of the nativity. The one thing animals do not seem to recognize is whether their predators are native.