Chemically mediated competition between microbes and animals: microbes as consumers in food webs

Microbes are known to affect ecosystems and communities as decomposers, pathogens, and mutualists. However, they also may function as classic consumers and competitors with animals if they chemically deter larger consumers from using rich food-falls such as carrion, fruits, and seeds that can represent critical windfalls to both microbes and animals. Microbes often use chemicals (i.e., antibiotics) to compete against other microbes. Thus using chemicals against larger competitors might be expected and could redirect significant energy subsidies from upper trophic levels to the detrital pathway. When we baited traps in a coastal marine ecosystem with fresh vs. microbe-laden fish carrion, fresh carrion attracted 2.6 times as many animals per trap as microbe-laden carrion. This resulted from fresh carrion being found more frequently and from attracting more animals when found. Microbe-laden carrion was four times more likely to be uncolonized by large consumers than was fresh carrion. In the lab, the most common animal found in our traps (the stone crab Menippe mercenaria) ate fresh carrion 2.4 times more frequently than microbe-laden carrion. Bacteria-removal experiments and feeding bioassays using organic extracts of microbe-laden carrion showed that bacteria produced noxious chemicals that deterred animal consumers. Thus bacteria compete with large animal scavengers by rendering carcasses chemically repugnant. Because food-fall resources such as carrion are major food subsidies in many ecosystems, chemically mediated competition between microbes and animals could be an important, common, but underappreciated interaction within many communities.     

Different Shades of Green: A Case Study of Support for Wind Farms in the Rural Midwest

Benton County, in north-central Indiana, USA has successfully sited more than 500 turbines. To understand Benton County’s acceptance of wind farms, a holistic case study was conducted that included a document review, a survey of local residents and interviews with key stakeholders. Survey questionnaires were sent to 750 residents asking questions about attitudes toward the wind farms, perceived benefits and impacts from the wind farms, environmental attitudes, and demographic information. Key stakeholders were also interviewed for a deeper understanding of the historical timeline and community acceptance of the wind farm development. While there is limited opposition to the turbines, on the whole the community presents a front of acceptance. Financial, rather than environmental, benefits are the main reason for the acceptance. Although significant in other case studies, transparency and participation do not play a large role in Benton County’s acceptance. Most residents are not concerned with either visual impacts or noise from the wind turbines. More concrete benefits to the community, such as reduced energy bills for county residents, could help to extend acceptance even further within the community. Although there are concerns about the acceptance of wind farms and the impacts of those farms on local residents in both peer-reviewed literature and popular media, we found little evidence of those concerns in Benton County. Instead, we found Benton County to be a community largely accepting of wind farms.     

The first world conservation lecture

Summary This, The First World Conservation Lecture, was presented at the Royal Institution, London, UK, on 12 March 1981. The Lecture celebrated the 20th anniversary of the World Wildlife Fund, and the first anniversary of the World Conservation Strategy. The Lecture was organized by the World Wildlife Fund, UK.Published with the kind permission of the World Wildlife Fund, UK.Edward Max Nicholson, CB, CVO, Commandeur (Netherlands), Order of the Golden Ark, holds honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen, and The Royal College of Art London. He was educated at the University of Oxford, and was a member of the University's expeditions to Greenland (1928) and to British Guiana (1929). He was General Secretary (until 1940), later Chairman of PEP (Political and Economic Planning): now Vice-President of its successor body, the Policy Studies Institute. From 1945 to 1952 he was Secretary of the Office of the Lord President of the Council, then Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was member of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy from 1948–1964. In 1952 he was leader of the joint UN/FAO Development Team in Baluchistan. Charter Member from 1949, and Director-General (1952–1966) of the Nature Conservancy, London, UK. From 1963 to 1974 he was Convenor of the Conservation Section of the International Council of Scientific Unions' International Biological Programme. President of the IUCN Technical Meeting in Edinburgh in 1956, concerned with rehabilitation of areas biologically devastated by human disturbance, and relation of ecology to landscape planning. Member, Panel on Landscape Action Program, The White House Conference (USA) on Natural Beauty (1965). Secretary, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference on The Countryside in 1970 (1963 and 1965). Council and Board Member of IIED. Godman-Salvin Medallist British Ornithologist Unions. Phillips Medallist and Member of Honour IUCN, Geoffroy St. Hilaire Gold Medal, Société Nationale de Protection de Nature de France, Premio Europeo Cortina-Ulisse (1971), Europa Preis für Landespflege (1972), Hon Member of World Wildlife Fund, Chairman Ecological Parks Trust, President RSPB, 1980. Principal Consultant and Chairman of Land Use Consultants Ltd (London) since 1966. Author of many books,Birds and Men (1951);Britain's Nature Reserves (1958),The System (1967);The Environmental Revolution (1970).