DOCSLIB.ORG

Microbes Are Trophic Analogs of Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Microbes Are Trophic Analogs of Animals Microbes are trophic analogs of animals Shawn A. Steffana,b,1, Yoshito Chikaraishic, Cameron R. Curried, Heidi Hornd, Hannah R. Gaines-Daya, Jonathan N. Paulie, Juan E. Zalapab, and Naohiko Ohkouchic aDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; bUS Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; cDepartment of Biogeochemistry, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan; dDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; and eDepartment of Forest & Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Edited by James M. Tiedje, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, and approved October 15, 2015 (received for review May 5, 2015) In most ecosystems, microbes are the dominant consumers, com- These organisms commandeer most of the heterotrophic biomass mandeering much of the heterotrophic biomass circulating through circulating through the food web (13). Indeed, in terrestrial systems, food webs. Characterizing functional diversity within the micro- the vast majority of primary production is not captured by herbi- biome, therefore, is critical to understanding ecosystem functioning, vores; rather, it falls to the ground and is consumed by microbes and particularly in an era of global biodiversity loss. Using isotopic fin- small invertebrate detritivores (7, 12, 14). Higher-order carnivores gerprinting, we investigated the trophic positions of a broad di- consume the detritivores, conjoining the upward flow of detritivore versity of heterotrophic organisms. Specifically, we examined the and herbivore biomass (9, 11, 15, 16), but if the trophic positions in naturally occurring stable isotopes of nitrogen (15N:14N) within amino the basal layers of the food web cannot be accurately measured, the acids extracted from proteobacteria, actinomycetes, ascomycetes, entire food web rests on a poorly known, tenuous platform (9). and basidiomycetes, as well as from vertebrate and invertebrate Here, we investigate whether the trophic positions of microor- macrofauna (crustaceans, fish, insects, and mammals). Here, we re- ganisms can be measured empirically, testing whether microbes are port that patterns of intertrophic 15N-discrimination were remark- trophically equivalent to the macrobiotic consumers in a food-chain. – ably similar among bacteria, fungi, and animals, which permitted Using amino acid stable isotope fingerprinting (17 20), we measure unambiguous measurement of consumer trophic position, indepen- with high accuracy the trophic positions (TPs) of cultured and free- dent of phylogeny or ecosystem type. The observed similarities roaming organisms. In past work, this method has produced accu- among bacterial, fungal, and animal consumers suggest that within rate TP estimates of zooplankton (18, 21), fish (17), gastropods a trophic hierarchy, microbiota are equivalent to, and can be inter- (17), amphibians (22), and insects (19, 20), ranging from simple digitated with, macrobiota. To further test the universality of this herbivores to higher-order carnivores. Although the utility of iso- finding, we examined Neotropical fungus gardens, communities in topic fingerprinting has been demonstrated in both aquatic (17, 21, which bacteria, fungi, and animals are entwined in an ancient, quad- 23, 24) and terrestrial ecosystems (19, 20), there remains an un- bridged knowledge gap between the macro- and microbiome. ripartite symbiosis. We reveal that this symbiosis is a discrete four- Recent studies have documented evidence of feeding guilds level food chain, wherein bacteria function as the apex carnivores, among the animals of brown food webs (11, 15, 25), and this animals and fungi are meso-consumers, and the sole herbivores are finding sets up questions as to the trophic positions of the resident fungi. Together, our findings demonstrate that bacteria, fungi, and microbiota. For example, when microbes feed on a resource, do animals can be integrated within a food chain, effectively uniting the they register trophically just as animals do? More specifically, what macro- and microbiome in food web ecology and facilitating greater is the trophic position of a fungus consuming a leaf, or an ar- inclusion of the microbiome in studies of functional diversity. thropod consuming that fungus? We address these questions, testing the hypothesis that fungi and bacteria are trophically compound specific | food chain | leaf-cutter ant | microbe | stable isotope equivalent to animals. We do so by measuring the degree of he trophic functions of species sculpt the unique character- Significance Tistics of the communities in which they are embedded (1, 2). It is not surprising, then, that sustained biodiversity losses (3, 4) are “ ” We report evidence that microbes are trophically equivalent to fueling the trophic downgrading of Earth (5) and altering the animals. When bacteria or fungi are fed the same diets as an- functioning of all major ecosystem types (6). The most abundant, — — imals, the microbes register the same trophic position as ani- ubiquitous organisms in most ecosystems the microbiota are mals. This discovery reframes how microbes can be viewed also likely being impacted, and these organisms are often the least within food chains and facilitates the inclusion of the micro- understood, particularly in terms of functional diversity (7, 8). If we biome in functional diversity studies. To demonstrate the are to better understand the impacts of biodiversity loss on eco- broad applicability of our approach, we investigated the an- ECOLOGY system functioning, we will need to have a means to more com- cient symbioses represented by leaf-cutter ant fungus gardens, prehensively measure the trophic niches of both the macro- and revealing four discrete trophic levels within this community microbiome. Further, such organisms must be examined while in- and providing evidence that fungi, not ants, are the dominant tegrated within their respective communities (1). Assessing the herbivores of the Neotropics. Altogether, we show that mi- trophic niches of microbial and animal species has too often been a crobes can be integrated with plants and animals in a food theoretical endeavor (9), with macrofauna generally associated “ ” chain, thereby unifying the macro- and microbiome in studies with plant-based food webs ( green food webs )andthemicro- of trophic ecology. fauna relegated to the sphere of decomposition (“brown food ” – webs )(911). It has proven difficult to merge these two spheres Author contributions: S.A.S., Y.C., C.R.C., and J.N.P. designed research; S.A.S., Y.C., H.H., and using a shared trophic metric, not only because of the difficulties in J.N.P. performed research; Y.C. and N.O. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; S.A.S., identifying microbial diversity (8), but also because of methodo- H.R.G.-D., and J.E.Z. analyzed data; S.A.S., Y.C., C.R.C., H.R.G.-D., and J.E.Z. wrote the paper; logical obstacles in measuring the trophic position of a microbe. S.A.S. provided project funding; and C.R.C., J.N.P., J.E.Z., and N.O. provided project support. Consequently, trophic ecology has tended to focus on green food The authors declare no conflict of interest. webs, often leaving the trophic hierarchies of brown webs This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. less resolved. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. Uniting green and brown food webs is critically important to 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]. studies of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning because in most This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. ecosystems, microbes are the dominant heterotrophs (3, 7, 12). 1073/pnas.1508782112/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508782112 PNAS | December 8, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 49 | 15119–15124 Downloaded by guest on September 28, 2021 intertrophic 15N-discrimination within amino acids extracted from consumer taxa, focusing on two key compounds: glutamic acid and phenylalanine (17, 19, 20, 26). For microbial organisms to be trophically equivalent to animals, their respective patterns of intertrophic 15N-discrimination in glutamic acid and phenyl- alanine must mirror those of animals. In multiple controlled- feeding studies involving a diversity of vertebrate and invertebrate consumers, net 15N-discrimination between glutamic acid (glu) and phenylalanine (phe), commonly referred to as the trophic discrimination factor (TDFglu-phe) (27), has tended to be centered near +7.64 ± 0.60‰ (17, 20, 21). Although centered at 7.64, variability in the TDFglu-phe can generate “noise” around the trophic position (TPglu-phe) estimate for any given consumer (Eq. 1). Variability in the TDFglu-phe among consumer groups, therefore, must be assessed using known, homogeneous diets. Ultimately, the degree to which the TDFglu-phe is consistent among microbial and animal consumers will dictate whether macro- and microbiota can be considered trophically equivalent. To assess the universality of our approach, we examine the trophic identities of the organisms in leaf-cutter ant fungus gar- dens. Fungus gardens represent discrete community modules in which animals (ants), fungi, and bacteria have coevolved within an ancient symbiosis (28, 29) (Fig. 1). Leaf-cutter ants (Acromyrmex or Atta) are prodigious harvesters of leaf material and have been Fig. 1. Denizens of a leaf-cutter ant fungus
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]
  • 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]
  • Diverse Allochthonous Resource Quality Effects on Headwater Stream Communities Through Insect-Microbe Interactions
    DIVERSE ALLOCHTHONOUS RESOURCE QUALITY EFFECTS ON HEADWATER STREAM COMMUNITIES THROUGH INSECT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS By Courtney Larson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Entomology—Doctor of Philosophy Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior—Dual Major 2020 ABSTRACT DIVERSE ALLOCHTHONOUS RESOURCE QUALITY EFFECTS ON HEADWATER STREAM COMMUNITIES THROUGH INSECT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS By Courtney Larson Freshwater resources are vital to environmental sustainability and human health; yet, they are inundated by multiple stressors, leaving aquatic communities to face unknown consequences. Headwater streams are highly reliant on allochthonous sources of energy. Riparian trees shade the stream, limiting primary production, causing macroinvertebrates to consume an alternative food source. Traditionally, leaf litter fallen from riparian trees is the primary allochthonous resource, but other sources, such as salmon carrion associated with annual salmon runs, may also be important. An alteration in the quantity or quality of these sources may have far reaching effects not only on the organisms that directly consume the allochthonous resource (shredders), but also on other functional feeding groups. Allochthonous resources directly and indirectly change stream microbial communities, which are used by consumers with potential changes to their life histories and behavior traits. The objective of my research was to determine the influence allochthonous resources have on stream
    [Show full text]
  • Regras Entre Assembléias De Espécies: Relação Entre Biodiversidade E Funcionamento Do Ecossistema
    Santos, G.A.P. dos UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PERNAMBUCO Chapter: Open letter. DOUTORADO EM CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS REGRAS ENTRE ASSEMBLÉIAS DE ESPÉCIES: RELAÇÃO ENTRE BIODIVERSIDADE E FUNCIONAMENTO DO ECOSSISTEMA. GIOVANNI AMADEU PAIVA DOS SANTOS I TÍTULO: Species assembly rules and the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship CCB, Recife-PE, 2007. Santos, G.A.P. dos UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE PERNAMBUCO Chapter: Sub-Cover. DOUTORADO EM CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Doutorado em Ciências Biológicas Centro de Ciências Biológicas Regras entre assembléias de espécies: Relação entre biodiversidade e funcionamento do ecossistema. Species assembly rules and the biodiversity- ecosystem functioning relationship. Giovanni Amadeu Paiva dos Santos Tese apresentada ao Doutorado de Ciências Biológicas da UFPE, como requisito necessário para o recebimento do título de Doutor em Ciências Biológicas. RECIFE, JULHO DE 2007. II TÍTULO: Species assembly rules and the biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship CCB, Recife-PE, 2007. 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 Santos, Giovanni Amadeu Paiva dos Regras entre assembléias de espécies: relação entre biodiversidade e funcionamento do ecossistema / Giovanni Amadeu Paiva dos Santos. – Recife: O Autor, 2009. 263 folhas: fig., tab. Tese (doutorado) – Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. CCB. Departamento de Ciências Biológicas, 2009. 1.1.3.1.1.1 Inclui bibliografia. 1. Biodiversidade 2. Funcionamento dos ecossistemas I Título. 574 CDU (2.ed.) UFPE 1.2 577 CDD (22.ed.) CCB – 2009- 043 COMISSAO EXAMINADORA "Regras entre assemblfHas de especies: rela~ao entre biodiversidade e funcionamento do ecossistema" TITULARES ,Ore c'~~ l .l;/'>1i( Ji /',- C'"'-~" -- ia Tereza dos Santos Correia (OrientadorIlJFPE) /~-/z:; , ~ Prof. L Ricardo Coutinho - (IEAPM/RJ) om Gilbert Willem Moens (Ghent UniversityIBelgica) SUPLENTES , " ' '/l{ ) c::< \, /,_k".
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterivory of a Mudflat Nematode Community Under Different Environmental Conditions
    Bacterivory of a mudflat nematode community under different environmental conditions Pierre-Yves Pascal, Christine Dupuy, Pierre Richard, Jadwiga Rzeznik-Orignac, Nathalie Niquil To cite this version: Pierre-Yves Pascal, Christine Dupuy, Pierre Richard, Jadwiga Rzeznik-Orignac, Nathalie Niquil. Bac- terivory of a mudflat nematode community under different environmental conditions. Marine Biology, Springer Verlag, 2008, pp.671-682. 10.1007/s00227-008-0960-9. hal-00293542 HAL Id: hal-00293542 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00293542 Submitted on 4 Jul 2008 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 1 Bacterivory of a mudflat nematode community under different 2 environmental conditions 3 Pierre-Yves Pascal *1, Christine Dupuy 1, Pierre Richard 1, Jadwiga Rzeznik-Orignac 2, 4 Nathalie Niquil 1 5 1Littoral, Environnement et Sociétés (LIENSS) UMR 6250 CNRS-Université de La 6 Rochelle, 2 Rue Olympe de Gouges, 17042 La Rochelle cedex, France 7 2Biologie des organismes marins et écosystèmes (BOME) UMR-CNRS 5178–USM 0401– 8 MNHN, 61 Rue Buffon, 75231 Paris, France 9 *Corresponding author: [email protected]; Tel. 33 (0)5-46-45-83-88 10 Abstract 11 The fate of the benthic bacterial biomass is a topic of major importance in understanding 12 how soft-bottom environments function.
    [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]
  • Rhizophagy Cycle: an Oxidative Process in Plants for Nutrient Extraction from Symbiotic Microbes
    microorganisms Review Rhizophagy Cycle: An Oxidative Process in Plants for Nutrient Extraction from Symbiotic Microbes James F. White 1,* , Kathryn L. Kingsley 1, Satish K. Verma 2 and Kurt P. Kowalski 3 1 Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA; [email protected] 2 Centre of Advanced Study in Botany, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, UP 221005, India; [email protected] 3 U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1451 Green Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2807, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-848-932-6286 Received: 22 August 2018; Accepted: 5 September 2018; Published: 17 September 2018 Abstract: In this paper, we describe a mechanism for the transfer of nutrients from symbiotic microbes (bacteria and fungi) to host plant roots that we term the ‘rhizophagy cycle.’ In the rhizophagy cycle, microbes alternate between a root intracellular endophytic phase and a free-living soil phase. Microbes acquire soil nutrients in the free-living soil phase; nutrients are extracted through exposure to host-produced reactive oxygen in the intracellular endophytic phase. We conducted experiments on several seed-vectored microbes in several host species. We found that initially the symbiotic microbes grow on the rhizoplane in the exudate zone adjacent the root meristem. Microbes enter root tip meristem cells—locating within the periplasmic spaces between cell wall and plasma membrane. In the periplasmic spaces of root cells, microbes convert to wall-less protoplast forms. As root cells mature, microbes continue to be subjected to reactive oxygen (superoxide) produced by NADPH oxidases (NOX) on the root cell plasma membranes.
    [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]
  • Are Fauna the Next Frontier in Soil Biogeochemical Models?
    Soil Biology & Biochemistry 102 (2016) 40e44 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Soil Biology & Biochemistry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soilbio Beyond microbes: Are fauna the next frontier in soil biogeochemical models? * A. Stuart Grandy a, , William R. Wieder b, c, Kyle Wickings d, Emily Kyker-Snowman a a Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA b Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA c Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA d Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY 14456, USA article info abstract Article history: The explicit representation of microbial communities in soil biogeochemical models is improving their Received 2 March 2016 projections, promoting new interdisciplinary research, and stimulating novel theoretical developments. Received in revised form However, microbes are the foundation of complicated soil food webs, with highly intricate and non- 3 August 2016 linear interactions among trophic groups regulating soil biogeochemical cycles. This food web includes Accepted 9 August 2016 fauna, which influence litter decomposition and the structure and activity of the microbial community. Available online 25 August 2016 Given the early success of microbial-explicit models, should we also consider explicitly representing faunal activity and physiology in soil biogeochemistry models? Here we explore this question, arguing Keywords: Microbes that the direct effects of fauna on litter decomposition are stronger than on soil organic matter dynamics, fl Fauna and that fauna can have strong indirect effects on soil biogeochemical cycles by in uencing microbial Earth systems models population dynamics, but the direction and magnitude of these effects remains too unpredictable for Food web interactions models used to predict global biogeochemical patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Microbes Are Trophic Analogs of Animals
    Microbes are trophic analogs of animals Shawn A. Steffana,b,1, Yoshito Chikaraishic, Cameron R. Curried, Heidi Hornd, Hannah R. Gaines-Daya, Jonathan N. Paulie, Juan E. Zalapab, and Naohiko Ohkouchic aDepartment of Entomology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; bUS Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; cDepartment of Biogeochemistry, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokosuka 237-0061, Japan; dDepartment of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706; and eDepartment of Forest & Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 Edited by James M. Tiedje, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, and approved October 15, 2015 (received for review May 5, 2015) In most ecosystems, microbes are the dominant consumers, com- These organisms commandeer most of the heterotrophic biomass mandeering much of the heterotrophic biomass circulating through circulating through the food web (13). Indeed, in terrestrial systems, food webs. Characterizing functional diversity within the micro- the vast majority of primary production is not captured by herbi- biome, therefore, is critical to understanding ecosystem functioning, vores; rather, it falls to the ground and is consumed by microbes and particularly in an era of global biodiversity loss. Using isotopic fin- small invertebrate detritivores (7, 12, 14). Higher-order carnivores gerprinting, we investigated the trophic positions of a broad di- consume the detritivores, conjoining the upward flow of detritivore versity of heterotrophic organisms. Specifically, we examined the and herbivore biomass (9, 11, 15, 16), but if the trophic positions in naturally occurring stable isotopes of nitrogen (15N:14N) within amino the basal layers of the food web cannot be accurately measured, the acids extracted from proteobacteria, actinomycetes, ascomycetes, entire food web rests on a poorly known, tenuous platform (9).
    [Show full text]