Search

The status of species in freshwater systems shift over time due to natural and anthropogenic causes. Determining the magnitude and cause of these shifts requires a long‐term perspective. This process is complicated when there are also questions about the taxonomic validity of a species. Addressing these issues is important because both can undermine conservation and management efforts if incorrect. Pleurobema riddellii, Louisiana Pigtoe, is under review for protection under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, but its status in the Trinity River basin, where the taxon was described, remains in doubt due to questions about its taxonomy and occurrence within this basin. To address these questions, we compared shell morphometrics of P. riddellii dating to the late Holocene with modern P. riddellii, late Holocene Fusconaia sp., and modern Fusconaia sp. using multivariate analyses to test associations between the putative morphotypes. Based on these analyses, we demonstrate that P. riddellii was likely present in the Trinity during the late Holocene, which indicates questions about its taxonomic validity or presence in this basin are unfounded. Our study further highlights the role zooarchaeological studies can play in status assessments and their utility in better understanding biogeographic patterns for rare species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bergmann's rule, which proposes a heat-balance explanation for the observed latitudinal gradient of increasing animal body size with increasing latitude, has dominated the study of geographic patterns in animal size since it was first proposed in 1847. Several critical reviews have determined that as many as half of the species examined do not fit the predictions of Bergmann's rule. We have proposed an alternative hypothesis for geographic variation in body size based on food availability, as regulated by the net primary production (NPP) of plants, specifically NPP during the growing season, or eNPP (ecologically and evolutionarily relevant NPP). Our hypothesis, "the eNPP rule," is independent of latitude and predicts both spatial and temporal variation in body size, as well as in total population biomass, population growth rates, individual health, and life history traits of animals, including humans, wherever eNPP varies across appropriate scales of space or time. In the context of a revised interpretation of the global patterns of NPP and eNPP, we predict contrasting latitudinal correlations with body size in three distinct latitudinal zones. The eNPP rule explains bodysize patterns that are consistent with Bergmann's rule, as well as two distinct types of contradictions of Bergmann's rule: the lack of latitudinal patterns within the tropics, and the decline in body size above approximately 608 latitude. Both types of contradictions of Bergmann's rule are consistent with the eNPP rule, as are a wide range of other phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The distribution of the diversity and abundance of life on Earth is thought to be shaped by the patterns of plant growth (net primary production, NPP) in the oceans and on land. The well-known latitudinal gradient of species diversity reaches its maximum in tropical rain forests, which are considered to be the most productive ecosystems on the planet. However, this high tropical productivity on land is the opposite of the well-documented distribution of marine productivity, which is greatest in the high-latitude oceans around the poles. This paradox can be resolved by a reevaluation of the terrestrial productivity gradient. Compilations of direct measurements of forest NPP show that annual NPP in tropical forests is no different than annual NPP in temperate forests, contrary to recent syntheses and to the output of global vegetation models. Other properties of forest ecosystems, such as basal area of trees, wood density, and the ratio of wood to leaf production, as well as animal properties such as body size, population density, and reproductive rates, support the conclusion that ecologically relevant terrestrial productivity is actually highest in the temperate latitudes, reaching a maximum between 30° and 50° before declining toward the poles. This "reversal" of the latitudinal productivity gradient, if substantiated by a systematic global sampling effort, will necessitate a major reevaluation of ecological and evolutionary theory, as well as conservation strategies and international development policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical data provide valuable information on ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The number of big game killed by the Corps of Discovery in 1805–1806 and recorded by Lewis and Clark suggests that ungulates were abundant in central and eastern Montana and rare in western Montana, central Idaho, and southeastern Washington during the early nineteenth century. Paleoecologists Paul Martin and Chris Szuter conclude that this difference was a function of human predation. They support their conclusion that ungulates would have been abundant in southeastern Washington had humans not hunted them by arguing that the nineteenth-century livestock industry was successful without supplemental feeding. The livestock industry was, however, not consistently successful until artificial feeding was initiated. Archaeological data from eastern Washington indicate that ungulates have been taken by human hunters more frequently than small-mammal prey throughout the last 10,000 years and that ungulates decreased relative to small mammals coincident with changes in climate. Bison ( Bison bison ) and elk (Cervus canadensis ) were present in eastern Washington throughout the Holocene, but bison were abundant there only during a cooler and moister period; elk have been abundant only in the twentieth century, subsequent to transplants and the extermination of predators. Geographic variation in the abundance of bison across Montana, Idaho, and eastern Washington has been influenced by human predation but has also been influenced by biogeographic history, habitat differences, and climatic change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on human‐environment interactions that informs ecological practices and guides conservation and restoration has become increasingly interdisciplinary over the last few decades. Fueled in part by the debate over defining a start date for the Anthropocene, historical disciplines like archeology, paleontology, geology, and history are playing an important role in understanding long‐term anthropogenic impacts on the planet. Pleistocene overkill, the notion that humans overhunted megafauna near the end of the Pleistocene in the Americas, Australia, and beyond, is used as prime example of the impact that humans can have on the planet. However, the importance of the overkill model for explaining human–environment interactions and anthropogenic impacts appears to differ across disciplines. There is still considerable debate, particularly within archeology, about the extent to which people may have been the cause of these extinctions. To evaluate how different disciplines interpret and use the overkill model, we conducted a citation analysis of selected works of the main proponent of the overkill model, Paul Martin. We examined the ideas and arguments for which Martin's overkill publications were cited and how they differed between archeologists and ecologists. Archeologists cite overkill as one in a combination of causal mechanisms for the extinctions. In contrast, ecologists are more likely to accept that humans caused the extinctions. Aspects of the overkill argument are also treated as established ecological processes. For some ecologists, overkill provides an analog for modern‐day human impacts and supports the argument that humans have "always" been somewhat selfish overconsumers. The Pleistocene rewilding and de‐extinction movements are built upon these perspectives. The use of overkill in ecological publications suggests that despite increasing interdisciplinarity, communication with disciplines outside of ecology is not always reciprocal or even. The overkill model of Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions has had a significant influence on ideas about anthropogenic impacts on the environment. We conducted a citation analysis showing that archaeologists and ecologists differ significantly in how they interpret the model and its supporting data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]