What makes wild chimpanzees wake up at night?

I examined the possible cause of night awakening among wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in Mahale Mountains National Park, Tanzania. Chimpanzee vocalizations and activity-related sounds (CVSs) were used to indicate awakening because I was unable to visually observe them. Over a 5-night observation period, CVSs (n = 128) were heard every night, and most (n = 91) were observed within 5 min of previous CVSs. Chimpanzees use CVSs as social communication to maintain spatial contact with other chimpanzees who occasionally travel at night. The first sound in a sequence of CVSs (CVS bout) was heard immediately following the vocalization or sound of another animal (n = 11), defecation or urination by a chimpanzee (n = 7), or unknown (n = 19). CVS bouts were longer when preceded by defecation or urination than when preceded by the vocalization or sound of other animals or an unknown factor. This suggests that the degree of wakefulness varies according to the possible cause of the disturbance. CVSs at night may be provoked by various factors, and awakening during the night is probably common among diurnal primates.     

Why grow up? A perspective on insect strategies to avoid metamorphosis

1. Insects with complete metamorphosis (holometaboly) are extremely successful, constituting over 60% of all described animal species. Complete metamorphosis confers significant advantages because it enables organisms to optimise life‐history components through temporal partitioning, and thereby to exploit multiple ecological niches. Yet holometaboly can also impose costs, and several lineages have evolved life cycle modifications to avoid complete metamorphosis. 2. In this review, we discuss different strategies that have evolved that result in the loss of complete metamorphosis (type I and type II paedomorphosis). In addition, the ecological pressures and developmental modifications that facilitate this avoidance are considered, as well as the importance of life cycle complexity in life‐history evolution. 3. Interestingly, only female holometabolous insects have entirely avoided complete metamorphosis, and it is always the ancestrally juvenile morphology that is retained. These findings point to a strong sex‐biased trade‐off between investment in reproduction and development. While the loss of complete metamorphosis in females has occurred independently on several occasions across holometabolous insects, only a small number of species possessing this ability have been described. 4. Thus, complete metamorphosis, which originated only once in insects, appears to have been almost fully retained. This indicates that significant modifications to the holometabolan metamorphic ground plan are highly constrained, and suggests that the transition to complete metamorphosis is evolutionarily irreversible.     

When is breeding for drought tolerance optimal if drought is random?

* Increasing climatic unpredictability associated with characteristics of some species makes plant drought-tolerance an important drought-adaptation strategy. Using norm-of-reaction functions, or empirically determined functions that enable us to predict the state of a trait given the state of an environmental variable, allows modelling of plant performance when water availability varies randomly. * A mathematical model is proposed to evaluate drought-tolerance and growth strategies given a set of environmental parameters: the frequency of rainy days, the soil water-storage capacity, plant water use and plant growth rates. This model compares the performance of genotypes that differ in drought tolerance expressed as the ability to grow in drier soils, and assumes a general trade-off function between drought tolerance and maximum plant growth rate. * It is worth selecting plants with a greater degree of drought tolerance, expressed by the ability to grow in drier soils whenever the frequency of rains is smaller than the rate of soil water depletion. Otherwise, maximizing growth rate at the expense of drought tolerance is the best strategy. The nature of the trade-off between drought tolerance and plant growth rate also constrains the selection for optimal drought-adapted genotypes. * Breeders will have to consider these aspects of plant-environment interactions before establishing selection programs for drought adaptation.     

When is it optimal to exhaust a resource in a finite time?

Exhaustion of a natural resource stock may be a rational choice for an individual and/or a community, even if a sustainable use for the resource is feasible and the resource users are farsighted and well informed on the ecosystem. We identify conditions under which it is optimal not to sustain resource use. These conditions concern the discounting of future benefits, instability of a social system or ecosystem, nonconvexity of natural growth function, socio-psychological value of employment, and strategic interaction among resource users. The identification of these conditions can help design policies to prevent unsustainable patterns of resource use.      

When to approach novel prey cues? Social learning strategies in frog-eating bats

Animals can use different sources of information when making decisions. Foraging animals often have access to both self-acquired and socially acquired information about prey. The fringe-lipped bat, Trachops cirrhosus, hunts frogs by approaching the calls that frogs produce to attract mates. We examined how the reliability of self-acquired prey cues affects social learning of novel prey cues. We trained bats to associate an artificial acoustic cue (mobile phone ringtone) with food rewards. Bats were assigned to treatments in which the trained cue was either an unreliable indicator of reward (rewarded 50% of the presentations) or a reliable indicator (rewarded 100% of the presentations), and they were exposed to a conspecific tutor foraging on a reliable (rewarded 100%) novel cue or to the novel cue with no tutor. Bats whose trained cue was unreliable and who had a tutor were significantly more likely to preferentially approach the novel cue when compared with bats whose trained cue was reliable, and to bats that had no tutor. Reliability of self-acquired prey cues therefore affects social learning of novel prey cues by frog-eating bats. Examining when animals use social information to learn about novel prey is key to understanding the social transmission of foraging innovations.     

The hepatitis C virus persistence: how to evade the immune system?

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an emerging virus of medical importance. A majority of HCV infections become chronic and lead to chronic hepatitis, liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. HCV usually induces robust immune responses, but it frequently escapes the immune defense to establish persistent infection. The fact that HCV exists as an evolving quasispecies plays an important role in the selection of escape mutants. Furthermore, several viral proteins interfere with cellular functions, in particular, those involved in the immune response of the host. Several HCV proteins also modulate cell signalling through interaction with different effectors involved in cell proliferation and apoptosis, or in the interferon-signalling pathway. In addition, HCV infects immune cells such as B and T cells, and thus affects their normal functions. These various strategies used by HCV to counter the immune response of the host are reviewed here. A better understanding of these mechanisms would help design new therapeutic targets.     

Cyst and encystment in protozoan parasites: optimal targets for new life-cycle interrupting strategies?

Certain protozoan parasites use survival strategies to reside outside the host such as the formation of cysts. This dormant and resistant stage results from the complex process of encystment that involves diverse molecular and cellular modifications. The stimuli and changes associated with cyst biogenesis are a matter of ongoing studies in human and animal protozoan parasites such as amoeba and Giardia species because blocking every step in the encystment pathway should, in theory, interrupt their life cycles. The present review thoroughly examines this essential process in those protozoan parasites and discusses the possibility of using that information to develop new kinds of anti-parasite specific and life cycle-interrupting drugs, aimed at holding back the dissemination of these infections.     

Periodic Active Case Finding for TB: When to Look?

Objective

To investigate the factors influencing the performance and cost-efficacy of periodic rounds of active case finding (ACF) for TB.

Methods

A mathematical model of TB dynamics and periodic ACF (PACF) in the HIV era, simplified by assuming constant prevalence of latent TB infection, is analyzed for features that control intervention outcome, measured as cases averted and cases found. Explanatory variables include baseline TB incidence, interval between PACF rounds, and different routine and PACF case-detection rates among HIV-infected and uninfected TB cases.

Findings

PACF can be cost-saving over a 10 year time frame if the cost-per-round is lower than a threshold proportional to initial incidence and cost-per-case-treated. More cases are averted at higher baseline incidence rates, when more potent PACF strategies are used, intervals between PACF rounds are shorter, and when the ratio of HIV-negative to positive TB cases detected is higher. More costly approaches, e.g. radiographic screening, can be as cost-effective as less costly alternatives if PACF case-detection is higher and/or implementation less frequent.

Conclusion

Periodic ACF can both improve control and save medium-term health care costs in high TB burden settings. Greater costs of highly effective PACF at frequent (e.g. yearly) intervals may be offset by higher numbers of cases averted in populations with high baseline TB incidence, higher prevalence of HIV-uninfected cases, higher costs per-case-treated, and more effective routine case-detection. Less intensive approaches may still be cost-neutral or cost-saving in populations lacking one or more of these key determinants.     

When to parasitize? A dynamic optimization model of reproductive strategies in a cooperative breeder

We consider a cooperatively breeding group and find the optimal pattern of reproductive parasitism by a subordinate helper as a function of its body size, and hence the share of reproduction obtained by the subordinate. We develop the model for the social system of the cooperatively breeding cichlid fish Neolamprologus pulcher but the general framework is also applicable to other cooperative systems. In addition to behaving cooperatively by sharing tasks, sexually mature male cichlid helpers may directly parasitize the reproduction of dominant breeders in the group. We investigate the relative influence of life history and behavioural variables including growth, parasitism capacity, future reproductive fitness benefits and costs, relatedness and expulsion risk on the optimal reproductive strategy of subordinates. In a detailed analysis of the parameter space we show that a male helper should base its decision to parasitize primarily on an increase in expulsion risk resulting from reproductive parasitism (punishment), intra-group relatedness and the parasitism capacity. If expulsion risk is high then helpers should not parasitize reproduction at medium body size but should parasitize either when small or large.     

When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence

To select their future breeding site, individuals usually have to assess local quality by using environmental cues. One optimal cue may be ‘public information’, the local reproductive success of conspecifics in a breeding patch (patch reproductive success) because it integrates the effect of all environmental factors on breeding success. However, the quality of information conveyed by patch reproductive success is likely to depend on (1) environmental predictability and (2) interactions between individuals. We investigated how these two factors, ignored by previous models, affect the performance of individuals using patch reproductive success for breeding habitat selection compared with other information. We built a two-patch, game-theoretical model to compare the success of a strategy of breeding habitat selection based on patch reproductive success relative to four other strategies: (1) random patch choice; (2) philopatry; (3) choice based on the presence of conspecifics the previous year (conspecific attraction); and (4) choice based on intrinsic patch quality the previous year. The results illustrate how the efficiency of strategies in tracking variations in patch quality depend on environmental predictability and costs linked to density dependence, themselves linked to the dynamics of spatial aggregation of individuals. In particular, strategies based on measures of patch reproductive success perform the best for intermediate and high temporal predictability of patch quality, whereas philopatry and conspecific attraction then perform poorly. The ‘conspecific attraction’ strategy always coexists with other strategies by efficiently parasitizing the information they use. We discuss the implications of a better understanding of breeding habitat selection behaviours for evolutionary and conservation biology. Copyright 2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.      

Will we wake up to biodiversity?: The International Year of Biodiversity has failed to raise awareness or halt decline as economic crises and political interests have sidelined the environment

Looking back on the International Year of Biodiversity, some conservationists hope that it has raised awareness, if nothing else. Even so, many scientists remain pessimistic about our efforts to halt biodiversity decline.The United Nations'' (UN) International Year of Biodiversity in 2010 was supposed to see the adoption of measures that would slow global environmental decline and the continuing loss of endangered species and habitats. Even before, in 2002, most UN members had committed to halting the decline in biodiversity, which is a measure of the health of ecosystems. But the results of these international efforts have been funereal. Moreover, the current global economic crisis, coupled with growing anti-science attitudes in the USA, are adding to the concern of scientists about whether there is the political will to address the loss of biodiversity and whether habitat loss and extinction rates are reaching a point of no return.“There is not a single report received last year that claimed to have stopped or reduced the loss of biodiversity”Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity under the UN Environment Programme based in Montreal, Canada, said that of the 175 national reports submitted as part of the International Year of Biodiversity to his agency last year, none reported any progress. “There is not a single report received last year that claimed to have stopped or reduced the loss of biodiversity,” he said. “These reports confirm that the rate of loss of biodiversity today is unprecedented and the rate is 1,000 higher than the rate of natural extinction on species, and [his agency''s Global Biodiversity Outlook 2010; UN, 2010a] predicts that if business is allowed to continue then major ecosystems, the ocean, the fish, the forests, will reach the tipping point, meaning that there will be irreversible and irreparable damage done to the ecosystems.”The UN campaign traces its roots to the European Union (EU) commitment in 2001 to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The 2010 goal was incorporated into the UN Millennium Development Goals because of the severe impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being. However, the EU last year conceded in a report that it missed its 2010 target, too. The EU''s Biodiversity Action Plan, launched in 2006, shows that Europe''s biodiversity “remains under severe threat from the excessive demands we are making on our environment, such as changes in land use, pollution, invasive species and climate change.” Yet, EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik has seen some positive signs: “We have learned some very important lessons and managed to raise biodiversity to the top of the political agenda. But we need everyone on board and not just in Europe. The threat around the world is even greater than in the EU,” he wrote last year (EC, 2010).Despite the initiative''s poor report card, Djoghlaf was upbeat about the International Year of Biodiversity. “It was a success because it was celebrated everywhere,” he said. “In Switzerland, they conducted a survey before and after the International Year of Biodiversity and they concluded that at the end of the year, 67% of all the Swiss people are now aware of biodiversity. When the year started it was 40%. People are more and more aware. In addition, biodiversity has entered the top of the political agenda.”In October 2010, delegates from 193 countries attended the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, and adopted 20 strategic goals to be achieved by 2020 (UN, 2010b). The so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets include increased public awareness of the values of biodiversity and the steps that individuals can take to conserve and act sustainably; the halving or halting of the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests; and the conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas through effective and equitable management, resulting in ecologically representative and well-connected systems. By contrast, 13% of land areas and 1% of marine areas were protected in 2010.However, the Convention on Biological Diversity is not enforceable. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Director of DIVERSITAS (Paris, France), which promotes research on biodiversity science, said that it is up to the individual countries to adopt enforceable legislation. “In principle, countries have committed. Now it depends on what individual countries are going to do with the agreement,” she said. “I would say that things are generally going in the right direction and it''s too early to tell whether or not it''s going to have an impact in terms of responding and in terms of the biodiversity itself.”Researchers, however, have been disappointed by The International Year of Biodiversity. Conservation biologist Stuart Butchart, of Birdlife International in Cambridge, UK—a partnership of non-governmental environmental organizations and colleagues from other environmental groups—compiled a list of 31 indicators to measure progress towards the 2010 goal of the International Year of Biodiversity. He and his collaborators reported in Science (Butchart et al, 2010) that these indicators, including species population trends, extinction risks and habitat conditions, showed declines with no significant rate reductions. At the same time, indicators of pressure on biodiversity, such as resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, over-exploitation and climate change impacts showed increases. “Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing,” the researchers wrote.​wrote.Open in a separate window© Thomas Kitchin & Victoria Hurst/Wave/CorbisButchart pointed out that even if the International Year of Biodiversity had an impact on raising awareness and reducing biodiversity loss, detecting the change would take time. He said that the International Year of Biodiversity fell short of increasing awareness in parts of government not dealing with the environment, including ministries of transport, tourism, treasury and finance. It also seems probable that the campaign had little impact on the business sector, which affects development projects with a direct impact on biodiversity. “People can''t even seem to get together on global climate change, which is a whole lot more obvious and right there,” Peter Raven, president emeritus of the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St Louis, USA, explained. “Biodiversity always seems to be a sort of mysterious background thing that isn''t quite there.”“People can''t even seem to get together on global climate change, which is a whole lot more obvious and right there…”Illka Hanski, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said that studies such as Butchart''s “indicate that nothing really happened in 2010. Biodiversity decline continued and has been declining over the past 10 years.”Other researchers are more positive, although with reservations. Conservation biologist Thomas Eugene Lovejoy III, Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair and former president of the Center in Washington, DC, USA—a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to advancing sound environmental policy—said that economic trends affect biodiversity and that biodiversity efforts might actually be benefiting from the current global economic crisis. For example, the decline in the housing markets in the USA and Europe has reduced the demand on lumber for new construction and has led to a reduction in deforestation. “Generally speaking, when there is an economic downturn, some of the things that are pressuring biodiversity actually abate somewhat. That''s the good news. The bad news is that the ability to marshal resources to do some things proactively gets harder,” he said.Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of York in the UK, who studies ecosystems and species in the context of climate change, said that economic depressions do slow the rate of damage to the environment. “But it also takes eyes off the ball of environmental issues. It''s not clear whether these downturns, when you look over a period of a decade, make much difference or not.” Hanski agreed: “[B]ecause there is less economic activity, there may be less use of resources and such. But I don''t think this is a way to solve our problems. It won''t lead to any stable situation. It just leads to a situation where economic policies become more and more dependent on measures that try actually just to increase the growth as soon as possible.”…biodiversity efforts might actually be benefiting from the current global economic crisisRaven said that in bad times, major interests such as those involved in raising cattle, growing soybeans and clearing habitat for oil palms have reduced political clout because there is less money available for investment. But he said economic downturns do not slow poor people scrounging for sustenance in natural habitats.To overcome this attitude of neglect, Lovejoy thinks there ought to be a new type of ‘economics'' that demonstrates the benefits of biodiversity and brings the “natural world into the normal calculus.” Researchers are already making progress in this direction. Thomas said that the valuation of nature is one of the most active areas of research. “People have very different opinions as to how much of it can be truly valued. But it is a rapidly developing field,” he said. “Once you''ve decided how much something is worth, then you''ve got to ask what are the financial or other mechanisms by which the true value of this resource can be appreciated.”Hanski said that the main problem is the short-term view of economic forecasts. “Rapid use of natural resources because of short-term calculation may actually lead to a sort of exploitation rather than conservation or preservation.” He added that the emphasis on economic growth in rich societies in North America and Europe is frustrating. “We have become much richer than in 1970 when there actually was talk of zero growth in serious terms. So now we are richer and we are becoming more and more dependent on continued growth, the opposite of what we should be aiming at. It''s a problem with our society and economics clearly, but I can''t be very optimistic about the biodiversity or other environmental issues in this kind of situation.” He added that biodiversity is still taking a backseat to economics: “There is a very long way to go right now with the economic situation in Europe, it''s clear that these sorts of [biodiversity] issues are not the ones which are currently being debated by the heads of states.”The economic downturn, which has led to reduced government and private funding and declines in endowments, has also hurt organizations dedicated to preserving biodiversity. Butchart said that some of the main US conservation organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Federation, have experienced staff cuts up to 30%. “Organizations have had to tighten their belts and reign in programmes just to stay afloat, so it''s definitely impacted the degree to which we could work effectively,” he said. “Most of the big international conservation organizations have had to lay off large numbers of staff.”…a new type of ‘economics'' that demonstrates the benefits of biodiversity and brings the “natural world into the normal calculus”Cary Fowler, Executive Director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust in Rome, Italy, a public–private partnership to fund key crop collections for food security, also feels the extra challenges of the global economic crisis. “We invest our money conservatively like a foundation would in order to generate income that can reliably pay the bills in these seed banks year after year. So I''m always nervous and I have the computer on at the moment looking at what''s happening with the sovereign debt crisis here in Europe. It''s not good,” he said. “Governments are not being very generous with contributions to this area. Donors will rarely give a reason [for cutting funding].”The political situation in the USA, the world''s largest economy, is also not boding well for conservation of and research into biodiversity. The political extremism of the Republican Party during the run up to the 2012 presidential election has worried many involved in biodiversity issues. Republican contender Texas Governor Rick Perry has been described as ‘anti-science'' for his denial of man-made climate change, a switch from the position of 2008 Republican candidate John McCain. Perry was also reported to describe evolution as a “theory that''s out there, and it''s got some gaps in it” at a campaign event in New Hampshire earlier in the year.“Most of the big international conservation organizations have had to lay off large numbers of staff”Raven said this attitude is putting the USA at a disadvantage. “It drives us to an anti-intellectualism and a lack of real verification for anything which is really serious in terms of our general level of scientific education and our ability to act intelligently,” he said.Still, Larigauderie said that although the USA has not signed the conventions on biodiversity, she has seen US observers attend the meetings, especially under the Obama administration. “They just can''t speak,” she said. Meanwhile, Lovejoy said that biodiversity could get lost in the “unbelievable polarisation affecting US politics. I have worked out of Washington for 36 years now—I''ve never seen anything like this: an unwillingness to actually listen to the other side.”Raven said it is vital for the USA to commit to preserving biodiversity nationally and internationally. “It''s extremely important because our progress towards sustainability for the future will depend on our ability to handle biodiversity in large part. We''re already using about half of all the total photosynthetic productivity on land worldwide and that in turn means we''re cutting our options back badly. The US is syphoning money by selling debt and of course promoting instability all over the world,” he explained. “It''s clear that there is no solution to it other than a level population, more moderate consumption levels and new technologies altogether.”The EU and the UN have also changed the time horizon for halting the decline in biodiversity. As part of the Nagoya meeting, the UN announced the UN Decade for Biodiversity. The strategic objectives include a supporting framework for the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, as well as guidance to regional and international organizations, and more public awareness of biodiversity issues.But Butchart remains sceptical. “I suspect ‘decades of whatever'' have even less impact than years,” he said. “2008 was the International Year of the Potato. I don''t know how much impact that had on your life and awareness. I think there is greater awareness and greater potential to make significant progress in addressing biodiversity loss now than there was 10 years ago, but the scale of the challenge is still immense.”“…our progress towards sustainability for the future will depend on our ability to handle biodiversity in large part”Hanski has similar doubts. “I believe it''s inevitable that a very large fraction of the species on Earth will go extinct in the next hundred years. I can''t see any change to that.” But he is optimistic that some positive change can be made. “Being pessimistic doesn''t help. The nations still can make a difference.” He said he has observed ecotourism playing a role in saving some species in Madagascar, where he does some of his research.“We''re not going to fundamentally be able to wipe life off the planet,” Thomas said. “We will wipe ourselves off the planet virtually certainly before we wipe life out on Earth. However, from the point of view of humanity as a culture, and in terms of the resources we might be able to get from biodiversity indirectly or directly, if we start losing things then it takes things millions of years to ‘re-evolve'' something that does an equivalent job. From a human perspective, when we wipe lots of things out, they''re effectively permanently lost. Of course it would be fascinating and I would love to be able to come back to the planet in 10 million years and see what it looks like, assuming humans are not here and other stuff will be.”Djoghlaf, by contrast, is more optimistic about our chances: “I believe in the human survival aspect. When humankind realises that the current pattern of production and consumption and the current way that it is dealing with nature is unsustainable, we will wake up.”     

Proliferation/Quiescence: When to start? Where to stop? What to stock?

ABSTRACT: The cell cycle is a tightly controlled series of events that ultimately lead to cell division. The literature deciphering the molecular processes involved in regulating the consecutive cell cycle steps is colossal. By contrast, much less is known about non-dividing cellular states, even if they concern the vast majority of cells, from prokaryotes to multi-cellular organisms. Indeed, cells decide to enter the division cycle only if conditions are favourable. Otherwise they may enter quiescence, a reversible non-dividing cellular state. Recent studies in yeast have shed new light on the transition between proliferation and quiescence, re-questioning the notion of cell cycle commitment. They also indicate a predominant role for cellular metabolic status as a major regulator of quiescence establishment and exit. Additionally, a growing body of evidence indicates that environmental conditions, and notably the availability of various nutrients, by impinging on specific metabolic routes, directly regulate specific cellular re-organization that occurs upon proliferation/quiescence transitions.