DOCSLIB.ORG

Carnivore Distributions in Botswana Are Shaped by Resource Availability and Intraguild Species

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Carnivore Distributions in Botswana Are Shaped by Resource Availability and Intraguild Species See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317136591 Carnivore distributions in Botswana are shaped by resource availability and intraguild species Article in Journal of Zoology · May 2017 DOI: 10.1111/jzo.12470 CITATIONS READS 41 778 5 authors, including: Lindsey Rich J. Weldon Mcnutt California Department of Fish and Wildlife 132 PUBLICATIONS 3,502 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 757 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Marcella J. Kelly Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 207 PUBLICATIONS 5,184 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: African wild dog population monitoring in Northern Botswana View project Master's Research View project All content following this page was uploaded by Lindsey Rich on 04 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal of Zoology. Print ISSN 0952-8369 Carnivore distributions in Botswana are shaped by resource availability and intraguild species L. N. Rich1, D. A. W. Miller2, H. S. Robinson3,4, J. W. McNutt5 & M. J. Kelly1 1 Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA 2 Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA 3 College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA 4 Panthera, New York, NY, USA 5 Botswana Predator Conservation Trust, Maun, Botswana Keywords Abstract camera trap; carnivore; community dynamics; intraguild species; occupancy modeling; seasonal The composition of ecological communities is shaped by the interplay between distributions. interspecific interactions and species’ habitat and food requirements. The influence of interspecific interactions is particularly widespread within carnivore guilds, Correspondence where species must balance the trade-off between resource acquisition and poten- Lindsey N. Rich, Department of Fish and Wildlife tially costly encounters with intraguild competitors/predators. We tested whether Conservation, Virginia Tech, 318 Cheatham Hall, intraguild species activity or resource availability had a stronger influence on the Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321, USA. seasonal distributions of 10 carnivore species in northern Botswana. We deployed Email: [email protected] 132 camera stations across a 330 km2 area during the 2014 dry season and 2015 wet season. For each species and season, we developed occupancy models based Editor: Matthew Hayward on resource availability (i.e. prey, vegetation and water) and on intraguild species (i.e. photographic detection rates of intraguild competitors and predators). We then Received 16 June 2016; revised 29 March 2017; used k-fold cross-validation to assess the relative predictive ability of each model. accepted 4 April 2017 Carnivore distributions were generally negatively associated with dense vegetation and contrary to expectations, positively associated with the detection rate of intra- doi:10.1111/jzo.12470 guild species. This suggests competitor/predator avoidance did not play a large role in influencing carnivore distributions in northern Botswana, a result that differs from other systems, and might be attributed to differences in habitat, carnivore den- sities, and prey availability. The predictive ability of our resource availability vs. intraguild species models differed between seasons and among species. Leopard distributions, for example, were best predicted by resource availability during the dry season and by the activity of intraguild species in the wet season. The majority of seasonal distributions were best predicted by intraguild species activity or a combination of both resource availability and intraguild species activity. As envi- ronments continually change, studies similar to ours are pertinent as they can be used to monitor distributions of wildlife communities and to better understand the relative importance of the diversity of ecological processes impacting wildlife com- munities. Introduction Such information is especially pertinent for mammalian carni- vores as they are wide ranging, sensitive to environmental and Carnivore populations have declined globally due to increasing land use changes, and generally exist at low densities, making human populations, widespread habitat loss, and declining prey them particularly vulnerable to local extinctions (Woodroffe & populations (Ripple et al., 2014; Bauer et al., 2015). African Ginsberg, 1998; Bauer et al., 2015). wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), tigers (Panthera tigris), and lions The composition of carnivore communities is shaped by the (Panthera leo), for example, have each disappeared from interplay between competitive interactions, and species’ habitat >80% of their historical range (Ripple et al., 2014; Bauer and food requirements (Rosenzweig, 1966; Holt, 1984). Com- et al., 2015). As the extent and quality of wildlife habitat petitive interactions are particularly widespread within the car- erodes, information on the distributions of remaining carnivore nivore community, influencing individual behavior, population populations is needed to facilitate informed conservation dynamics, and community structure (Rosenzweig, 1966; Palo- actions aimed at mitigating declines (Pettorelli et al., 2010). mares & Caro, 1999; Caro & Stoner, 2003). Typically, Journal of Zoology (2017) – ª 2017 The Zoological Society of London 1 Carnivore distributions in Botswana L. N. Rich et al. competition increases as carnivore species become more similar availability, whereas the distributions of meso-carnivores would in habitat selection, diet, activity pattern, and body size be influenced by both resource availability and the activity of (Rosenzweig, 1966). Interspecific killing (i.e. killing with or intraguild species (Palomares & Caro, 1999; Heithaus, 2001). without consumption), alternatively, is more likely among car- By evaluating the relative importance of the diversity of eco- nivore species with body sizes that differ by a factor of 2–5.4 logical processes impacting carnivore communities, our and with overlapping diets (Donadio & Buskirk, 2006). The research aims to inform the conservation of these wildlife pop- potential for intraguild interactions can result in spatial and ulations in sub-Saharan Africa. temporal niche partitioning among species, with subordinate species often changing their habitat use to less optimal areas in Materials and methods an effort to minimize encounters with dominant species (Creel & Creel, 1996; Durant, 1998). This can result in top predators Study area matching the distributions of their prey, while subordinate predators balance the trade-off between resource acquisition Our study was carried out in Ngamiland District of northern and risk of aggression and kleptoparasitism from larger preda- Botswana. The dominant land covers included floodplains, tors (Palomares & Caro, 1999; Heithaus, 2001). In East Africa, grasslands, and mopane shrub (Colophospermum mopane) and for example, cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) and wild dogs, both woodlands. Our study site encompassed the eastern section of subordinate competitors, occurred in areas with lower prey Moremi Game Reserve and parts of wildlife management areas densities than areas frequented by lions and spotted hyenas NG33/34 (Fig. 1). Wildlife was fully protected within Moremi (Crocuta crocuta), the dominant competitors (Creel & Creel, Game Reserve and partially protected within the wildlife man- 1996; Durant, 1998). agement areas. Both areas were used for photographic tourism When modeling intraguild interactions and community (i.e. no hunting or livestock grazing). The region has two dis- dynamics, it is also vital to account for species’ decisions tinct seasons, dry and wet, with rain (~300–600 mm/year) fall- regarding habitat use, as habitat selection plays an important ing almost exclusively during the wet season, which generally role in determining population dynamics and community struc- lasts from November to April. ture (Brown, Laundre & Gurung, 1999; Heithaus, 2001). Prey density, for example, has been found to be a fundamental dri- Camera trap survey ver of carnivore densities and distributions (Carbone & Gittle- man, 2002) as has water availability, with carnivore occupancy We deployed camera stations at 132 locations across a 330 km2 often increasing close to permanent water sources (Pettorelli area between August and November 2014 (dry season) and again et al., 2010; Schuette et al., 2013). Vegetation cover and pro- between February and May 2015 (wet season). Each camera sta- ductivity may also influence carnivore distributions, often due tion included two opposing cameras, offset by 0.5–1 m. The to their relationships with prey abundance (Pettorelli et al., majority of cameras were Panthera v4 incandescent-flash camera 2005). traps (0.18 s trigger speed) but we also used several Bushnell The mammalian carnivore community in northern Botswana TrophyCam infra-red camera traps (0.3 s trigger speed). To keep is one of the most diverse assemblages of carnivores in Africa detection rates comparable among stations, we ensured every (Caro & Stoner, 2003). The strength and frequency of interac- camera station included at least one Panthera camera trap. We tions within this carnivore guild likely varies based on resource mounted cameras on trees and if no trees were available, on availability, the respective species’ resource requirements, and metal fence posts hammered into the ground. We secured cam- their rank
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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.
    [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]
  • 1 Animal Rights and the Problem of R-Strategists 1. Introduction Animal
    Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists 1. Introduction Animal rights (AR) theory has traditionally focused on the negative duties that follow from ascribing moral status to sentient animals, e.g., obligations not to kill them, imprison them, etc (Singer 1975; Regan 1983).1 However, ascribing moral status to animals also entails that we owe positive duties to them. After all, we owe duties of ‘humanity’ or assistance to human beings in need, even when we have no special relationship with them. If, as AR theorists believe, animals are our moral equals, then don’t we owe similar duties to them, too?2 With respect to wild animals in particular (as opposed to domesticated or liminal animals),3 the extension of positive duties presents a difficulty. The wild is an incredibly violent place. It is normal for animals to lethally attack one another, often in order to consume their flesh. Does AR theory, when consistently applied; require us to intervene in the predatory-prey relationship (Callicott 1980, 320; Cohen and Regan 2001, 30)? Does it require turning nature into a massive zoo, i.e., a place where wolves are fenced off from deer, tigers are fed soy protein and given tethered balls to bat at, and breeding is tightly regulated? Though AR theorists can arguably handle the problem of predation without conceding that their position commits them to large-scale interventions in the wild, predation isn’t the only problem we face. A distinct and largely neglected problem is raised by wild animal 1 It should be noted that I use the term “animal rights theory” fairly broadly in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Organisms HO HerbivorePrimary Consumer NH Kinds, Roles and Inter- NO Carnivore (Secondary, Relationships Mineral Higher Level Consumer)
    2018/11/28 Light energy CO Plant + O Soil organisms HO Herbivoreprimary consumer NH Kinds, roles and inter- NO Carnivore (secondary, relationships mineral higher level consumer) Kiyoshi Tsutsuki Saprophytes (decomposer) http://timetraveler.html.xdomain.jp Soil animals, soil microbes Importance of saprophytic organisms Organisms in surface soil Biomass of soil organisms (some t / Plant roots ha) is almost equivalent to the yield of crops harvested annually Mammals from the land, or to the weight of Soil animals domestic animals bred on the land. Soil microbes Biomass of soil organisms /1 ha reaches several tons: 5/ ha, 0.5kg / m2 Role of soil to the crowd What soil owes to the crowd of soil organisms: of soil organisms: Moisture, Oxygen, Temperature, Decomposition of organic matter, Mineral nutrition, Supply of emission of carbon dioxide, liberation organic matter of mineral nutrients Creation of soil structure Supply of fertile plant growth environment 1 2018/11/28 Macrofauna Animals sized >2mm or 10mm Soil animals Earthworms, Enchytraeina, ants, Millipede, Centipede, etc. (soil fauna) Population of earthworms : 3000-250,000 /10a, 3-250 /m2 Function of earthworms Charles Darwin Amount of soil passing through “The Formation of the body of earthworm : Vegetable Mould through the Action of 4t / 10a annually Worms, with the Observation of their In 30-50 years, all the soil in the Habits” (1881) plowed layer passes through the Japanese translations: body of earthworms. S. Yata (1949), H. Watanabe 200 t / 4 t = 50 years (1994) Functions of soil animals: Clods of the feces of earthworms Eating and crushing plant remains and Baybay, Leyte, Philippines animal feces • Decomposability of plant remains increases after eaten and crushed by soil animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinds, Roles and Inter- Relationships Kiyoshi Tsutsuki
    Soil organisms Kinds, roles and inter- relationships Kiyoshi Tsutsuki http://timetraveler.html.xdomain.jp Light energy CO Plant + O HO Herbivoreprimary consumer NH NO Carnivore (secondary, mineral higher level consumer) Saprophytes (decomposer) Soil animals, soil microbes Importance of saprophytic organisms Organisms in surface soil Plant roots Mammals Soil animals Soil microbes Biomass of soil organisms /1 ha reaches several tons: 5/ ha, 0.5kg / m2 Biomass of soil organisms (some t / ha) is almost equivalent to the yield of crops harvested annually from the land, or to the weight of domestic animals bred on the land. Role of soil to the crowd of soil organisms: Moisture, Oxygen, Temperature, Mineral nutrition, Supply of organic matter What soil owes to the crowd of soil organisms: Decomposition of organic matter, emission of carbon dioxide, liberation of mineral nutrients Creation of soil structure Supply of fertile plant growth environment Soil animals (soil fauna) Macrofauna Animals sized >2mm or 10mm Earthworms, Enchytraeina, ants, Millipede, Centipede, etc. Population of earthworms : 3000-250,000 /10a, 3-250 /m2 Function of earthworms Amount of soil passing through the body of earthworm : 4t / 10a annually In 30-50 years, all the soil in the plowed layer passes through the body of earthworms. 200 t / 4 t = 50 years Charles Darwin “The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with the Observation of their Habits” (1881) Japanese translations: S. Yata (1949), H. Watanabe (1994) Clods of the feces of earthworms Baybay, Leyte, Philippines Functions of soil animals: Eating and crushing plant remains and animal feces • Decomposability of plant remains increases after eaten and crushed by soil animals.
    [Show full text]