A review of selection‐based tests of abiotic surrogates for species representation

Because conservation planners typically lack data on where species occur, environmental surrogates—including geophysical settings and climate types—have been used to prioritize sites within a planning area. We reviewed 622 evaluations of the effectiveness of abiotic surrogates in representing species in 19 study areas. Sites selected using abiotic surrogates represented more species than an equal number of randomly selected sites in 43% of tests (55% for plants) and on average improved on random selection of sites by about 8% (21% for plants). Environmental diversity (ED) (42% median improvement on random selection) and biotically informed clusters showed promising results and merit additional testing. We suggest 4 ways to improve performance of abiotic surrogates. First, analysts should consider a broad spectrum of candidate variables to define surrogates, including rarely used variables related to geographic separation, distance from coast, hydrology, and within‐site abiotic diversity. Second, abiotic surrogates should be defined at fine thematic resolution. Third, sites (the landscape units prioritized within a planning area) should be small enough to ensure that surrogates reflect species’ environments and to produce prioritizations that match the spatial resolution of conservation decisions. Fourth, if species inventories are available for some planning units, planners should define surrogates based on the abiotic variables that most influence species turnover in the planning area. Although species inventories increase the cost of using abiotic surrogates, a modest number of inventories could provide the data needed to select variables and evaluate surrogates. Additional tests of nonclimate abiotic surrogates are needed to evaluate the utility of conserving nature's stage as a strategy for conservation planning in the face of climate change.     

Satin bowerbird parasites: a test of the bright male hypothesis

Summary The number of a common parasite (Cuclotogaster sp.) on male satin bowerbirds was related to male mating success in a test of Hamilton and Zuk's (1982) bright male hypothesis. The data do not show the expected inverse correlation between female mating preferences and the level of parasitic infection of males predicted by that model. Nearly all matings are accomplished by bower-holding males (Borgia 1985a), but the vast majority of these males were uninfected. There were large differences in mating success among the uninfected bower holders, but this could not be explained by between male differences in the level of parasitic infection. From this I conclude that levels of parasitic infection are not now an important direct cause of intermale variation in mating success. The results are, however, consistent with a hypothesis that a low level of infection is indicative of the overall healthy condition of a male. If this is true, it supports the hypothesis that the ability to hold a bower may be an indicator of male condition to females.     

Localized defecation by pike: a response to labelling by cyprinid alarm pheromone?

Fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) that have never encountered a predatory pike (Esox lucius), are able to detect conspecific alarm pheromone in a pike's diet if the pike has recently consumed minnows. It remains unclear how this minnow alarm pheromone is secreted by pike and if a pike is able to avoid being labelled as a potential predator by localizing these cues away from its foraging range. The first experiment determined that minnow alarm pheromone is present in pike feces when pike are fed minnows. Individual fathead minnows exhibited a fright response to a stimulus of pike feces if the pike had been fed minnows, but not if the pike had been fed swordtails, which lack alarm pheromone. Individual minnows also exhibited a fright reaction to alarm pheromone in the water (which contained no feces) housing pike which had been fed minnows, suggesting that alarm pheromone is also released in urine, mucous secretions and/or via respiration. The second experiment determined that test pike spent a significantly greater proportion of time in the home area of the test tanks (i.e. where they were fed) but the majority of feces were deposited in the opposite end of the test tank. By localizing their defecation away from the home or foraging area, pike may be able to counter the effects of being labelled as a predator by the alarm pheromone of the prey species.     

Inter-specific variation in anti-predator behavior in sympatric species of kangaroo rat

Kangaroo rats, Dipodomys, occupy desert habitats with little cover and thus are under high predation risk from diverse predators. The behavior used to assess predation risk or to escape capture is unknown. We therefore compared anti-predator behavior of two sympatric species of kangaroo rat of different sizes, D. merriami and D. spectabilis. We first examined whether kangaroo rats use olfaction as a first line of defense against snake predation and tested the rats for their responses to scent extracted from two species of snake that live sympatrically with the kangaroo rats, the Mojave rattlesnake (Crotalus scutulatus) and the gopher snake (Pitophis melanoleucus). We also tested for species differences in anti-predator behavior through 15-min interactions between the kangaroo rats and free-moving gopher snakes. We found that D. spectabilis actively approached the scent of both rattlesnakes and gopher snakes more than controls of vegetable oil and evaporated solvent (Fig. 1). In contrast, D. merriami did not differentiate snake odors from controls in the experimental arena, but they sniffed the sand where a free-moving snake had passed more than D. spectabilis. Both species successfully avoided predation in encounters with live snakes. Although total numbers of approaches and withdrawals were similar (Fig. 2), D. spectabilis spent significantly more time within striking distance of the snake than D. merriami. D. spectabilis approached the head of the snake in 93% of its approaches and often engaged in nose to snout contact with the snake. If the snake struck, D. spectabilis jumped directly backward to avoid a strike and footdrummed at a safe distance. In contrast, D. merriami oriented to the snake more than D. spectabilis, but approached the head in only 41% of the approaches and rarely engaged in nose-to-snout contact. The snakes struck, hissed and decreased predatory approaches with D. spectabilis but not with D. merriami (Fig. 3). These results show that kangaroo rats can behaviorally influence the risk of being preyed on by snakes. The two species differ, however, in how they react to snakes. The larger D. spectabilis confronts snakes while the smaller D. merriami monitors snakes from a safe distance and avoids them.