Characteristics that make trophy hunting of giant pandas inconceivable

In November 1928, Theodore Jr. and Kermit Roosevelt led an expedition to China with the expressed purpose of being the first Westerners to kill the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). The expedition lasted 8 months and resulted in the brothers shooting a giant panda in the mountains of Sichuan Province. Given the concurrent attention in the popular press describing this celebrated expedition, the giant panda was poised to be trophy hunted much like other large mammals around the world. Today, however, the killing of giant pandas, even for the generation of conservation revenue, is unthinkable for reasons related to the species itself and the context, in time and space, in which the species was popularized in the West. We found that the giant panda's status as a conservation symbol, exceptional charisma and gentle disposition, rarity, value as a nonconsumptive ecotourism attraction, and endemism are integral to the explanation of why the species is not trophy hunted. We compared these intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics with 20 of the most common trophy-hunted mammals to determine whether the principles applying to giant pandas are generalizable to other species. Although certain characteristics of the 20 trophy-hunted mammals aligned with the giant panda, many did not. Charisma, economic value, and endemism, in particular, were comparatively unique to the giant panda. Our analysis suggests that, at present, exceptional characteristics may be necessary for certain mammals to be excepted from trophy hunting. However, because discourse relating to the role of trophy hunting in supporting conservation outcomes is dynamic in both science and society, we suspect these valuations will also change in future.     

Fishing‐gear restrictions and biomass gains for coral reef fishes in marine protected areas

Considerable empirical evidence supports recovery of reef fish populations with fishery closures. In countries where full exclusion of people from fishing may be perceived as inequitable, fishing‐gear restrictions on nonselective and destructive gears may offer socially relevant management alternatives to build recovery of fish biomass. Even so, few researchers have statistically compared the responses of tropical reef fisheries to alternative management strategies. We tested for the effects of fishery closures and fishing gear restrictions on tropical reef fish biomass at the community and family level. We conducted 1,396 underwater surveys at 617 unique sites across a spatial hierarchy within 22 global marine ecoregions that represented 5 realms. We compared total biomass across local fish assemblages and among 20 families of reef fishes inside marine protected areas (MPAs) with different fishing restrictions: no‐take, hook‐and‐line fishing only, several fishing gears allowed, and sites open to all fishing gears. We included a further category representing remote sites, where fishing pressure is low. As expected, full fishery closures, (i.e., no‐take zones) most benefited community‐ and family‐level fish biomass in comparison with restrictions on fishing gears and openly fished sites. Although biomass responses to fishery closures were highly variable across families, some fishery targets (e.g., Carcharhinidae and Lutjanidae) responded positively to multiple restrictions on fishing gears (i.e., where gears other than hook and line were not permitted). Remoteness also positively affected the response of community‐level fish biomass and many fish families. Our findings provide strong support for the role of fishing restrictions in building recovery of fish biomass and indicate important interactions among fishing‐gear types that affect biomass of a diverse set of reef fish families.     

Contaminant exposure in terrestrial vertebrates

Here we review mechanisms and factors influencing contaminant exposure among terrestrial vertebrate wildlife. There exists a complex mixture of biotic and abiotic factors that dictate potential for contaminant exposure among terrestrial and semi-terrestrial vertebrates. Chemical fate and transport in the environment determine contaminant bioaccessibility. Species-specific natural history characteristics and behavioral traits then play significant roles in the likelihood that exposure pathways, from source to receptor, are complete. Detailed knowledge of natural history traits of receptors considered in conjunction with the knowledge of contaminant behavior and distribution on a site are critical when assessing and quantifying exposure. We review limitations in our understanding of elements of exposure and the unique aspects of exposure associated with terrestrial and semi-terrestrial taxa. We provide insight on taxa-specific traits that contribute, or limit exposure to, transport phenomenon that influence exposure throughout terrestrial systems, novel contaminants, bioavailability, exposure data analysis, and uncertainty associated with exposure in wildlife risk assessments. Lastly, we identify areas related to exposure among terrestrial and semi-terrestrial organisms that warrant additional research.     

Factors affecting river health and its assessment over broad geographic ranges: the Western Australian experience

AusRivAS is an Australia-wide program that measures river condition using predictive models to compare the macroinvertebrate families occurring at a river site with those expected if the site were in natural condition. Results of assessment of 685 sites across all major rivers in Western Australia are presented. Most rivers were in relatively natural condition in the northern half of the state where the human population is low and pastoralism is the major land use. In the south, where the human population is higher and agriculture is more intensive, rivers were mostly more disturbed. AusRivAS assessment produced some erroneous results in rivers of the south-west cropping zone because of the lack of appropriate reference site groups and biased distribution of sampling sites. Collecting low numbers of animals from many forested streams, because of low stream productivity and samples that were difficult to sort, also affected assessments. Overall, however, AusRivAs assessment identified catchment processes that were inimical to river health. These processes included salinisation, high nutrient and organic loads, erosion and loss of riparian vegetation. River regulation, channel modification and fire were also associated with river degradation. As is the case with other assessment methods, one-off sampling at individual sites using AusRivAS may be misleading. Seasonal drought, in particular, may make it difficult to relate conditions at the time of sampling to longer-term river health. AusRivAS has shown river condition in Western Australia is not markedly different from other parts of Australia which, as a whole, lacks the substantial segments of severely degraded river systems reported in England.     

Acute toxic hazard evaluations of glyphosate herbicide on terrestrial vertebrates of the oregon coast range

GOAL, SCOPE AND BACKGROUND: The degree to which dose responses of model organisms (lab rodents) can adequately predict dose responses of free-ranging wild mammals or amphibians is unknown, and the relative sensitivity of such species to body loading of a toxicant such as glyphosate is seldom reported. For relative effects of dosage, we compare sensitivity of nine wild vertebrate species to effects of high doses of glyphosate in Swiss-Webster laboratory mice both by gavage and by intraperitoneal injection. We also evaluate sublethal effects of herbicide exposure on behavior and reproductive success of one mammal and one amphibian species. METHODS: Comparisons of acute toxicity of glyphosate were made with intraperitoneal dosings of technical glyphosate isopropylamine salt to nine species of terrestrial vertebrates (five amphibians, four mammals) and compared with responses in Swiss-Webster laboratory mice. Animals collected from sites that had no recent herbicide application were allowed 7-14 days to equilibrate in captivity before treatment. RESULTS: Median lethal dose ranged from 800 to 1,340 mg kg(-1) in mammals, and 1,170 to >2,000 mg kg(-1) in amphibians, with Oregon vole being the most sensitive. White lab mice were in the middle of the mammalian range. Tailed frog, at >2,000 mg kg(-1) was the least sensitive. Calibration of IP sensitivity to oral administration by gavage indicated that roughly four times as much glyphosate must be administered to obtain a comparable estimate of lethality. Administration by gavage in highly concentrated solutions tended to cause physical injury, hence may prove less useful as a relative indicator of toxicity. When sublethal dosages were given to roughskin newts or chipmunks, mobility and use of cover appeared largely unaffected. DISCUSSION: Direct toxic effects of spraying glyphosate under normal forest management seem unlikely for the nine species examined. Nor could we detect significant indirect effects of exposure on behavior and use of cover features in two species. There may be effects on other aspects of the field biology of these animals, such as reproductive rates, which we did not investigate. Recent field data indicate that changes in habitat quality following herbicide application can result in high reproductive activity in species associated with the grasses and forbs that proliferate following field applications. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to field data on body burdens of wild mammals exposed after aerial application of glyphosate at maximum rates in forests, there seems to be a large margin of safety between dosages encountered and those causing either death or limitation of movement, foraging or shelter. RECOMMENDATIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: Margins of safety for small mammals and amphibians appear to be large under any probable exposure scenarios, however our results indicate high variability in responses among species. Uncertainty introduced into field studies from unknown sources of mortality (e.g, likely predation) must be considered when interpreting our results.