DOCSLIB.ORG

Can We Save Large Carnivores Without Losing Large Carnivore Science?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can We Save Large Carnivores Without Losing Large Carnivore Science? View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UNL | Libraries University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service 2017 Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science? Benjamin L. Allen University of Southern Queensland, [email protected] Lee R. Allen Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, [email protected] Henrik Andrén Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, [email protected] Guy Ballard University of New England, [email protected] Luigi Boitani University of Rome, [email protected] See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Life Sciences Commons Allen, Benjamin L.; Allen, Lee R.; Andrén, Henrik; Ballard, Guy; Boitani, Luigi; Engeman, Richard M.; Fleming, Peter J. S.; Ford, Adam T.; Haswell, Peter M.; Kowalczyk, Rafal; Linnell, John D. C.; Mech, L. David; and Parker, Daniel M., "Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science?" (2017). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 1990. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/1990 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Benjamin L. Allen, Lee R. Allen, Henrik Andrén, Guy Ballard, Luigi Boitani, Richard M. Engeman, Peter J. S. Fleming, Adam T. Ford, Peter M. Haswell, Rafal Kowalczyk, John D. C. Linnell, L. David Mech, and Daniel M. Parker This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ icwdm_usdanwrc/1990 Food Webs 12 (2017) 64–75 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Webs journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/food-webs Can we save large carnivores without losing large carnivore science? Benjamin L. Allen a,⁎, Lee R. Allen b, Henrik Andrén c, Guy Ballard d, Luigi Boitani e, Richard M. Engeman f, Peter J.S. Fleming g, Adam T. Ford h, Peter M. Haswell i,Rafał Kowalczyk j,JohnD.C.Linnellk, L. David Mech l,DanielM.Parkerm a University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Agriculture and the Environment, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia b Robert Wicks Pest Animal Research Centre, Biosecurity Queensland, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia c Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), SE–73091 Riddarhyttan, Sweden d Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, The University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia e Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Rome, Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy f National Wildlife Research Centre, US Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO 80521-2154, United States g Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales 2800, Australia h Department of Biology, University of British Columbia, Kelowna V1V 1V7, Canada i School of Biological Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, United Kingdom j Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland k Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, PO Box 5685, Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway l Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Centre, US Geological Survey, 8711 -37th Street, SE, Jamestown, ND 58401-7317, USA m School of Biology and Environmental Sciences, University of Mpumalanga, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa article info abstract Article history: Large carnivores are depicted to shape entire ecosystems through top-down processes. Studies describing these Received 23 December 2016 processes are often used to support interventionist wildlife management practices, including carnivore reintro- Accepted 27 February 2017 duction or lethal control programs. Unfortunately, there is an increasing tendency to ignore, disregard or devalue Available online 1 March 2017 fundamental principles of the scientific method when communicating the reliability of current evidence for the ecological roles that large carnivores may play, eroding public confidence in large carnivore science and scientists. Keywords: Here, we discuss six interrelated issues that currently undermine the reliability of the available literature on the Apex predator Behaviourally-mediated trophic cascades ecological roles of large carnivores: (1) the overall paucity of available data, (2) reliability of carnivore population Adaptive management sampling techniques, (3) general disregard for alternative hypotheses to top-down forcing, (4) lack of applied Experimental design science studies, (5) frequent use of logical fallacies, and (6) generalisation of results from relatively pristine sys- Mesopredator release hypothesis tems to those substantially altered by humans. We first describe how widespread these issues are, and given this, Science denial show, for example, that evidence for the roles of wolves (Canis lupus)anddingoes(Canis lupus dingo)ininitiating trophic cascades is not as strong as is often claimed. Managers and policy makers should exercise caution when relying on this literature to inform wildlife management decisions. We emphasise the value of manipula- tive experiments and discuss the role of scientific knowledge in the decision-making process. We hope that the issues we raise here prompt deeper consideration of actual evidence, leading towards an improvement in both the rigour and communication of large carnivore science. © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction...............................................................65 2. IssuesthatweakentheavailableliteraturesupportingtheMRH,TCHandBMTCH................................66 2.1. Thereisnotenoughevidenceofanykind,reliableorotherwise.....................................66 2.2. Samplingmethodsforcarnivoresareoftenunreliable.........................................67 2.3. Alternativehypothesesareseldomtested...............................................67 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.L. Allen), [email protected] (L.R. Allen), [email protected] (H. Andrén), [email protected] (G. Ballard), [email protected] (L. Boitani), [email protected] (R.M. Engeman), peter.fl[email protected] (P.J.S. Fleming), [email protected] (A.T. Ford), [email protected] (P.M. Haswell), [email protected] (R. Kowalczyk), [email protected] (J.D.C. Linnell), [email protected] (L. David Mech), [email protected] (D.M. Parker). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.02.008 2352-2496/© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. B.L. Allen et al. / Food Webs 12 (2017) 64–75 65 2.4. Thereisadearthofapplied-sciencestudies.............................................. 68 2.5. Logicalfallaciesunderpinmuchoftheliterature............................................ 69 2.6. Most of the ‘best evidence’ comesfromecosystemsthatdonotrepresentthemajorityoftheearth'ssurfaceorspecies........... 69 3. Implicationsforlargecarnivorescienceandmanagement........................................... 70 Acknowledgments............................................................... 72 References.................................................................. 72 1. Introduction 5. Documentation of the MRH, TCH and BMTCH in some studies has been common enough that these processes should be considered Large carnivores are some of the most charismatic and ecologically- universal across ecosystem types and independent of carnivore size influential organisms on Earth. Through their interactions with other or phylogeny. animals, large carnivores may affect faunal and floral communities The way these theories have been mainstreamed are perhaps best across multiple trophic levels (Darwin, 1859; Leopold, 1949; Hairston encapsulated in the short online video titled How wolves change rivers et al., 1960). This process is known as a trophic cascade (Paine, 1980), (Sustainable Human, 2014), which has been viewed over 34 million and is a concept now fully entrenched amongst ecologists, conservation times since early 2014, but which does not consider the contrary (and biologists and many land and wildlife managers. often superior) evidence for the processes it claims. Proponents of the Seldom have such novel ecological concepts been so rapidly MRH, TCH, and BMTCH argue that these hypotheses should be accepted mainstreamed to the extent that they are identified as one of the 20 by scientists and society as ecological laws by default (not as mere the- most influential topics in biodiversity conservation (Bradshaw et al., ories or hypotheses) and that the burden of proof for demonstrating 2011). Yet the ‘mesopredator release hypothesis’ (MRH) and its cousins their reality should be placed on those who do not believe them the ‘large-carnivore control-induced trophic cascade hypothesis’ (TCH) (Estes et al., 2011). These theories also provide the scientificjustification and the ‘behaviourally-mediated trophic cascade hypothesis’ (BMTCH)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Food
    Suggested Grades: 2nd - 5th BACKYARD FOOD WEB Wildlife Champions at Home Science Experiment 2-LS4-1: Make observations of plants and animals to compare the diversity of life in different habitats. What is a food web? All living things on earth are either producers, consumers or decomposers. Producers are organisms that create their own food through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is when a living thing uses sunlight, water and nutrients from the soil to create its food. Most plants are producers. Consumers get their energy by eating other living things. Consumers can be either herbivores (eat only plants – like deer), carnivores (eat only meat – like wolves) or omnivores (eat both plants and meat - like humans!) Decomposers are organisms that get their energy by eating dead plants or animals. After a living thing dies, decomposers will break down the body and turn it into nutritious soil for plants to use. Mushrooms, worms and bacteria are all examples of decomposers. A food web is a picture that shows how energy (food) passes through an ecosystem. The easiest way to build a food web is by starting with the producers. Every ecosystem has plants that make their own food through photosynthesis. These plants are eaten by herbivorous consumers. These herbivores are then hunted by carnivorous consumers. Eventually, these carnivores die of illness or old age and become food for decomposers. As decomposers break down the carnivore’s body, they create delicious nutrients in the soil which plants will use to live and grow! When drawing a food web, it is important to show the flow of energy (food) using arrows.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Human Disturbance on Terrestrial Apex Predators
    diversity Review Effects of Human Disturbance on Terrestrial Apex Predators Andrés Ordiz 1,2,* , Malin Aronsson 1,3, Jens Persson 1 , Ole-Gunnar Støen 4, Jon E. Swenson 2 and Jonas Kindberg 4,5 1 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden; [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (J.P.) 2 Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected] 3 Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] (O.-G.S.); [email protected] (J.K.) 5 Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The effects of human disturbance spread over virtually all ecosystems and ecological communities on Earth. In this review, we focus on the effects of human disturbance on terrestrial apex predators. We summarize their ecological role in nature and how they respond to different sources of human disturbance. Apex predators control their prey and smaller predators numerically and via behavioral changes to avoid predation risk, which in turn can affect lower trophic levels. Crucially, reducing population numbers and triggering behavioral responses are also the effects that human disturbance causes to apex predators, which may in turn influence their ecological role. Some populations continue to be at the brink of extinction, but others are partially recovering former ranges, via natural recolonization and through reintroductions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Livestock Protection Dogs on Mesocarnivore
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Texas A&M Repository THE INFLUENCE OF LIVESTOCK PROTECTION DOGS ON MESOCARNIVORE ACTIVITY IN THE EDWARDS PLATEAU OF TEXAS A Thesis by NICHOLAS A. BROMEN Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee: John M. Tomeček Co-Chair of Committee: Nova J. Silvy Committee Member: Fred E. Smeins Head of Department: Michael P. Masser December 2017 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Copyright 2017 Nick Bromen ABSTRACT The use of livestock protection dogs (LPDs; Canis lupus familiaris) to deter predators from preying upon sheep and goat herds continues to increase across the United States. Most research regarding the efficacy of LPDs has been based on queries of rancher satisfaction with their performance, yet little is known regarding whether LPDs actually displace the predators they are commissioned to protect livestock from. Here, I examined whether the presence of LPDs amid livestock resulted in fewer observable detections of carnivores in pastures they occupied throughout 1 year on a ranch in central Texas. To detect and quantify the presence of carnivores across the ranch, a remote camera grid and scat transects were simultaneously surveyed to compare results produced between each method. Four LPDs were fitted with GPS collars to collect their positions and evaluate their occupancy across the ranch over time. These GPS collars also collected proximity data on a random sample of UHF collared sheep (n = 40) and goats (n = 20) to gauge the frequency to which the LPDs were near livestock.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are Producers! Draw the Different Producers Below
    Name: ______________________________ The Unique Producer Every food chain begins with a producer. Plants are producers. They make their own food, which creates energy for them to grow, reproduce and survive. Being able to make their own food makes them unique; they are the only living things on Earth that can make their own source of food energy. Of course, they require sun, water and air to thrive. Given these three essential ingredients, you will have a healthy plant to begin the food chain. All plants are producers! Draw the different producers below. Apple Tree Rose Bushes Watermelon Grasses Plant Blueberry Flower Fern Daisy Bush List the three essential needs that every producer must have in order to live. © 2009 by Heather Motley Name: ______________________________ Producers can make their own food and energy, but consumers are different. Living things that have to hunt, gather and eat their food are called consumers. Consumers have to eat to gain energy or they will die. There are four types of consumers: omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and decomposers. Herbivores are living things that only eat plants to get the food and energy they need. Animals like whales, elephants, cows, pigs, rabbits, and horses are herbivores. Carnivores are living things that only eat meat. Animals like owls, tigers, sharks and cougars are carnivores. You would not catch a plant in these animals’ mouths. Then, we have the omnivores. Omnivores will eat both plants and animals to get energy. Whichever food source is abundant or available is what they will eat. Animals like the brown bear, dogs, turtles, raccoons and even some people are omnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatio-Temporal Coexistence of Sympatric Mesocarnivores with a Single Apex Carnivore in a fine-Scale Landscape
    Global Ecology and Conservation 21 (2020) e00897 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Ecology and Conservation journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/gecco Original Research Article Spatio-temporal coexistence of sympatric mesocarnivores with a single apex carnivore in a fine-scale landscape Guojing Zhao a, b, c, d, e, 1, Haitao Yang a, b, c, d, e, 1, Bing Xie a, b, c, d, e, * Yinan Gong a, b, c, d, e, Jianping Ge a, b, c, d, e, Limin Feng a, b, c, d, e, a Northeast Tiger and Leopard Biodiversity National Observation and Research Station, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China b National Forestry and Grassland Administration Key Laboratory for Conservation Ecology of Northeast Tiger and Leopard National Park, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China c National Forestry and Grassland Administration Amur Tiger and Amur Leopard Monitoring and Research Center, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China d Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Engineering, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China e College of Life Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China article info abstract Article history: Mesocarnivores uniquely and profoundly impact ecosystem function, structure, and dy- Received 23 July 2019 namics. Sympatric species tend to spatially and temporally partition limited resources to Received in revised form 22 December 2019 facilitate coexistence. We investigated the seasonal spatial and temporal cooccurrences Accepted 22 December 2019 among six mesocarnivores, the leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), Asian badger (Meles leucurus), Siberian weasel (Mustela sibirica), masked palm Keywords: civet (Paguma larvata) and yellow-throated marten (Martes flavigula), as well as a single Camera trap apex predator (Northern Chinese leopard, Panthera pardus japonensis).
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Framework for Contextualizing Carnivore–Livestock Conflict
    Special Section Review An ecological framework for contextualizing carnivore–livestock conflict Christine E. Wilkinson ,1 ∗ Alex McInturff,1 Jennifer R. B. Miller,1,2 Veronica Yovovich,1 Kaitlyn M. Gaynor,1 Kendall Calhoun,1 Harshad Karandikar,1 Jeff Vance Martin,3 Phoebe Parker-Shames,1 Avery Shawler,1 Amy Van Scoyoc,1 and Justin S. Brashares1 1Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, 139 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, U.S.A. 2Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th St. NW, Washington DC, 20036, U.S.A. 3Department of Geography, University of California, 505 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, U.S.A. Abstract: Carnivore predation on livestock is a complex management and policy challenge, yet it is also intrinsi- cally an ecological interaction between predators and prey. Human–wildlife interactions occur in socioecological systems in which human and environmental processes are closely linked. However, underlying human–wildlife conflict and key to unpacking its complexity are concrete and identifiable ecological mechanisms that lead to predation events. To better understand how ecological theory accords with interactions between wild predators and domestic prey, we developed a framework to describe ecological drivers of predation on livestock. We based this framework on foundational ecological theory and current research on interactions between predators and domestic prey. We used this framework to examine ecological mechanisms (e.g., density-mediated effects, behaviorally mediated effects, and optimal foraging theory) through which specific management interventions operate, and we analyzed the ecological determinants of failure and success of management interventions in 3 case studies: snow leopards (Panthera uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and cougars (Puma concolor).
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecific Killing Among Mammalian Carnivores
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital.CSIC vol. 153, no. 5 the american naturalist may 1999 Interspeci®c Killing among Mammalian Carnivores F. Palomares1,* and T. M. Caro2,² 1. Department of Applied Biology, EstacioÂn BioloÂgica de DonÄana, thought to act as keystone species in the top-down control CSIC, Avda. MarõÂa Luisa s/n, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; of terrestrial ecosystems (Terborgh and Winter 1980; Ter- 2. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology and borgh 1992; McLaren and Peterson 1994). One factor af- Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, fecting carnivore populations is interspeci®c killing by California 95616 other carnivores (sometimes called intraguild predation; Submitted February 9, 1998; Accepted December 11, 1998 Polis et al. 1989), which has been hypothesized as having direct and indirect effects on population and community structure that may be more complex than the effects of either competition or predation alone (see, e.g., Latham 1952; Rosenzweig 1966; Mech 1970; Polis and Holt 1992; abstract: Interspeci®c killing among mammalian carnivores is Holt and Polis 1997). Currently, there is renewed interest common in nature and accounts for up to 68% of known mortalities in some species. Interactions may be symmetrical (both species kill in intraguild predation from a conservation standpoint each other) or asymmetrical (one species kills the other), and in since top predator removal is thought to release other some interactions adults of one species kill young but not adults of predator populations with consequences for lower trophic the other.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pattern and Cost of Carnivore Predation on Livestock in Maasai Homesteads of Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from a Carnivore Compensation Programme
    Vol. 6(7), pp. 502-521, July 2014 DOI: 10.5897/IJBC2014.0678 Article Number: 492C21546199 International Journal of Biodiversity ISSN 2141-243X Copyright © 2014 and Conservation Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJBC Full Length Research Paper The pattern and cost of carnivore predation on livestock in maasai homesteads of Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from a carnivore compensation programme Moses Makonjio Okello1*, Richard Bonham2 and Tom Hill2 1SFS Center for Wildlife Management Studies, Kenya, P.O. Box 27743- 00505 Nairobi, Kenya. 2Big Life Foundation, Kenya. P. O. Box 24133 - 00502, Nairobi, Kenya. Received 3 January, 2014; Accepted 16 June, 2014 Several papers have been written on the experiences, successes and challenges facing compensation schemes for wildlife, some of whom criticize the strategy while others support it. What is clear among the Maasai is that the burden of conserving wildlife, particularly predators that roam freely on their land and predate upon their livestock, is too great to bear: support in terms of financial compensation and mitigation strategies to reduce socio-economic loss from livestock deaths would help communities tolerate predators, and discourage some among them to kill carnivores in retaliation. Such programs in the Amboseli ecosystem are critical for the long term future of wildlife conservation. The Mbirikani Predator Compensation Fund (MPCF) is such a compensation scheme administered by the Big Life Foundation since 2003. Data from Big Life Foundation’s monitoring records of compensation paid between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed in order to establish insights into the pattern and cost of predation in the Amboseli ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Super Predator' Reduces Feeding Time in Large Carnivores
    Downloaded from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on July 24, 2017 Fear of the human ‘super predator’ rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org reduces feeding time in large carnivores Justine A. Smith1, Justin P. Suraci1,2, Michael Clinchy2, Ayana Crawford1, Devin Roberts2, Liana Y. Zanette2,† and Christopher C. Wilmers1,† Research 1Center for Integrated Spatial Research, Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Cite this article: Smith JA, Suraci JP, Clinchy 2Department of Biology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7 M, Crawford A, Roberts D, Zanette LY, Wilmers JAS, 0000-0001-8753-4061; JPS, 0000-0001-5952-2186; MC, 0000-0003-4691-3879; CC. 2017 Fear of the human ‘super predator’ LYZ, 0000-0003-2574-3452; CCW, 0000-0003-2063-1478 reduces feeding time in large carnivores. Proc. R. Soc. B 284: 20170433. Large carnivores’ fear of the human ‘super predator’ has the potential to alter their feeding behaviour and result in human-induced trophic cascades. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0433 However, it has yet to be experimentally tested if large carnivores perceive humans as predators and react strongly enough to have cascading effects on their prey. We conducted a predator playback experiment exposing pumas to predator (human) and non-predator control (frog) sounds at puma feeding Received: 28 February 2017 sites to measure immediate fear responses to humans and the subsequent Accepted: 19 May 2017 impacts on feeding. We found that pumas fled more frequently, took longer to return, and reduced their overall feeding time by more than half in response to hearing the human ‘super predator’.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Energy And
    Unit 6: Energy! From Food to Forces Chemical Energy and LESSON 1 LESSON FOOD CHAIN Unit 6: Energy! From Food to Forces Chemical Energy and LESSON 1 LESSON FOOD CHAIN Food chains and webs show the flow of chemical energy through an ecosystem. From the sun to tertiary consumers. students learn about the transfer of chemical energy and how producers and consumers depend on each other. They also learn scientists classifiy living things based on what they eat. Table of Contents 4 Launch! Sun. Chemical energy passing through the food chain starts with the sun. 6 Chemical Collisions A1: Chemical Energy. Hydrogen and helium are the chemical elements in the sun. 12 Productive Primary Producers A2: Producers. Producers use energy from the sun during photosynthesis. 18 Primary Producer Eaters A3: Primary Consumers. Primary consumers get energy by eating producers. 26 Consuming Critters A4: Secondary Consumers. Secondary consumers get energy by eating primary consumers. 34 Web of Life A5: Food Chains and Webs. Food chains and webs show the transfer of chemical energy in an ecosystem. 50 Tropical Trophic Tiers A6: Energy Pyramid. Scientists show energy transfers from the sun to producers to consumers with trophic levels. Launch! (Sun) SUN! where does chemical energy begin in a food chain? Chemical energy passing through the food chain starts with the sun. Unit 6: Chemical Energy and Food Chain Ready? Materials Nothing to prepare. Sticky notes Pencil Set? • Unit 4-Lesson 1-All Activities: Sun • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 1: Chemical Collisions (Chemical Energy) • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 2: Productive Primary Producers (Producers) • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 3: Primary Producer Eaters (Primary Consumers) • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 4: Consuming Critters (Secondary Consumers) • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 5: Web of Life (Food Chains and Webs) • Unit 6-Lesson 1-Activity 6: Tropical Trophic Tiers (Energy Pyramid) Hawaii Standards Go! SC.K.3.1 Develop Know-Wonder-Learn chart with students.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Noninvasive Survey Methods For
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Forestry and Natural Resources Resources 2012 A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY Bryan Matthew omT University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Recommended Citation Tom, Bryan Matthew, "A COMPARISON OF NONINVASIVE SURVEY METHODS FOR MONITORING MESOCARNIVORE POPULATIONS IN KENTUCKY" (2012). Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Resources. 10. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/forestry_etds/10 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Forestry and Natural Resources at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Forestry and Natural Resources by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained and attached hereto needed written permission statements(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine). I hereby grant to The nivU ersity of Kentucky and its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I agree that the document mentioned above may be made available immediately for worldwide access unless a preapproved embargo applies.
    [Show full text]
  • CARNIVORE SCORES! K8 4 Wellness Follow This Chart to Eat Smart; Plants À La Carte SUPPLEMENTS
    CARNIVORE SCORES! K8 4 Wellness Follow this chart to eat smart; plants à la carte SUPPLEMENTS Grassfed Liver Oysters Salmon Roe GLOBAL (Bonus points: consume (Lightly grilled, broiled, or and Caviar ALL-STARS ▼ raw or medium rare) roasted, never deep-fried) Rich in iodine, choline, The world’s most Superior micronutrient Aphrodisiac properties are omega-3 fatty acids SITY nutrient-dense foods profile, including validated by the incredible EPA and DHA. (sorry kale, time to bail). off-the-charts in vitamin zinc and B12 levels. A and vitamin B group DEN Liver plus Bone Broth Organ Supplements (Capsules) ANIMAL ORGANS ▼ AncestralSupplements.com: Reclaim the forgotten Heart, Kidney, Sweetbread, ancestral tradition of Rocky Mountain Oysters, Tripe freeze-dried, 100% grassfed organs (capsules) “like supports like.” Choose grassfed animals PrimalKitchen.com: collagen peptides (powder) IENT WILD-CAUGHT, OILY, “SMASH” Family: COLD-WATER FISH ▼ Convenient, affordable, best Sardines, Mackerel, Anchovies, Salmon, Herring dietary source of omega-3s. SHELLFISH ▼ Excellent source of Oysters plus Clams, Crab, Lobster, Mussels, Octopus, Scallops monounsaturated and omega-3 Sushi bar fare! fats. Choose sustainably caught/raised. M NUTR EGGS ▼ Local, Certified Humane Other Eggs: Goose, Duck, Healthful fats, choline, B-vitamins, and Pasture-Raised Quail, Ostrich MU and life-force essence. Vastly superior to conventional Healthier animals; no mass production RED MEAT ▼ Local or 100% Grassfed Other Red Meat: Buffalo/Bison, AXI Superior nutritional and Bone-in cuts best Elk, Lamb, Venison fatty acid profile to poultry. Healthier animals, no mass production M THE STEAK LINE Emphasize foods above line for maximum dietary nutrient density Chicken, Turkey, Pork Inferior nutrient density and Local or 100% grassfed/pasture-raised poultry; heritage breed pork fatty acid profile if corn/soy fed.
    [Show full text]