Search

Foraging requirements and predation risk shape activity patterns and temporal behavior patterns widely across taxa. Although this has been extensively studied in small mammals, the influence of predation and prey acquisition on the activity and behavior of large carnivores has received little attention. The diurnal activity described as typical for cheetahs ( Acinonyx jubatus ) has been explained in terms of their avoidance of antagonistic interactions with other larger predators. However, a recent study revealed that cheetahs are frequently active at night, especially during periods of full moon. Being both predator and “prey” in an environment with comparatively high densities of larger and competitively dominant nocturnal predator species, we investigated whether cheetah nocturnal behavior could be explained by favorable conditions for 1) predator avoidance or 2) prey acquisition. We used a data set of continuously recorded behavior created using machine-learning techniques on behavioral data collected in the field to transform recorded 2D activity values from radio-collars into 3 distinct behavioral states (feeding, moving, and resting). We found that 32.5% of cheetah feeding behavior occurred at night and that, in the dry season, nocturnal feeding behavior was positively correlated with moonlight intensity. Our results suggest that nocturnal and circalunar behavior of cheetahs is driven by optimal hunting conditions, outweighing the risks of encountering other predators. Using novel methodology, the results provide new insights into the temporal distribution of behavior, contributing to our understanding of the importance of moonlight and season on the behavior patterns of diurnal species.

1. The impacts of agricultural intensification on farmland wildlife have been the subject of increasing concern, particularly over the last two decades. Population declines have occurred for a number of mammalian species, sometimes drastically so, and changes in farming practice are believed to be significant contributory factors. 2. The major policy instruments for delivering environmental benefits on farmland are agri-environment schemes. These encourage farmers to adopt more environmentally sensitive farming practices to promote farmland biodiversity. Additionally, compulsory set-aside, which reduces agricultural surplus, could also have positive impacts on wildlife. In this paper we consider some of the putative benefits of agri-environment schemes and set-aside for mammals. 3. We review how establishment and management options within agri-environment schemes and set-aside might affect habitat resources for mammals. For example, conservation headlands increase plant and invertebrate resources within the crop edge for mammals such as wood mice. Grassy field margins can support communities of smaller mammals, and hedgerows may act as important commuting and hunting routes. Their potential will depend on factors such as seed mixtures used, timing and severity of cutting, and length of time they have been in place. 4. At a farm level, habitat heterogeneity may be increased through organic agriculture, which is supported by some agri-environment schemes. Studies suggest significant benefits to mammals, including wood mice and bats. However, it is increasingly recognized that effective conservation of farmland mammals must seek solutions at the landscape scale, addressing such issues as habitat connectivity between farms. One approach may be the better targeting of scheme agreements. 5. We suggest that agri-environment schemes and set-aside can contribute to the conservation of mammals on farmland. Recent policy changes are likely to have further positive impacts on f

1. Evidence-based policy requires researchers to provide the answers to ecological questions that are of interest to policy makers. To find out what those questions are in the UK, representatives from 28 organizations involved in policy, together with scientists from 10 academic institutions, were asked to generate a list of questions from their organizations. 2. During a 2-day workshop the initial list of 1003 questions generated from consulting at least 654 policy makers and academics was used as a basis for generating a short list of 100 questions of significant policy relevance. Short-listing was decided on the basis of the preferences of the representatives from the policy-led organizations. 3. The areas covered included most major issues of environmental concern in the UK, including agriculture, marine fisheries, climate change, ecosystem function and land management. 4. The most striking outcome was the preference for general questions rather than narrow ones. The reason is that policy is driven by broad issues rather than specific ones. In contrast, scientists are frequently best equipped to answer specific questions. This means that it may be necessary to extract the underpinning specific question before researchers can proceed. 5. Synthesis and applications. Greater communication between policy makers and scientists is required in order to ensure that applied ecologists are dealing with issues in a way that can feed into policy. It is particularly important that applied ecologists emphasize the generic value of their work wherever possible.

Previous studies suggest widespread positive responses of biodiversity to organic farming. Many of these studies, however, have been small-scale. This project tested the generality of habitat and biodiversity differences between matched pairs of organic and non-organic farms containing cereal crops in lowland England on a large-scale across a range of taxa including plants, insects, birds and bats. The extent of both cropped and un-cropped habitats together with their composition and management on a range of scales were also compared. Organic farms was likely to favour higher levels of biodiversity and indeed organic farms tended to support higher numbers of species and overall abundance across most taxa. However, the magnitude of the response differed strikingly; plants showed stronger and more consistent responses than other taxa. Some, but not all, differences in biodiversity between systems appear to be a consequence of differences in habitat quantity.