Do native predators benefit from non‐native prey?

Despite knowledge on invasive species’ predatory effects, we know little of their influence as prey. Non‐native prey should have a neutral to positive effect on native predators by supplementing the prey base. However, if non‐native prey displace native prey, then an invader's net influence should depend on both its abundance and value relative to native prey. We conducted a meta‐analysis to quantify the effect of non‐native prey on native predator populations. Relative to native prey, non‐native prey similarly or negatively affect native predators, but only when studies employed a substitutive design that examined the effects of each prey species in isolation from other prey. When native predators had access to non‐native and native prey simultaneously, predator abundance increased significantly relative to pre‐invasion abundance. Although non‐native prey may have a lower per capita value than native prey, they seem to benefit native predators by serving as a supplemental prey resource.     

Biotic resistance to plant invasions? Native herbivores prefer non‐native plants

In contrast to expectations of the enemy release hypothesis, but consistent with the notion of biotic resistance, we found that native generalist crayfishes preferred exotic over native freshwater plants by a 3 : 1 ratio when plants were paired by taxonomic relatedness. Native crayfishes also preferred exotic over native plants when tested across 57 native and 15 exotic plants found growing sympatrically at 11 sites throughout the southeastern USA. Exotic grass carp that share little evolutionary history with most of these plants exhibited no preference for native vs. exotic species. Analyses of three terrestrial data sets showed similar patterns, with native herbivores generally preferring exotic plants, while exotic herbivores rarely exhibited a preference. Thus, exotic plants may escape their coevolved herbivores only to be preferentially consumed by the native generalist herbivores in their new ranges, suggesting that native herbivores may provide biotic resistance to plant invasions.     

Fear in the dark? Community‐level effects of non‐lethal predators change with light regime

The total effect of predators on prey is a combination of direct consumption, and non‐consumptive effects (NCEs), such as predator‐induced changes to prey morphology, behaviour and life history. Past research into NCEs has tended to focus on pair‐wise interactions between predators and prey, while in natural ecosystems, species exist in complex communities with several trophic levels made up of multiple autotrophic and heterotropic species. To address how predator NCEs alter the photosynthetic and heterotrophic components of communities, we exposed microbial microcosms to one of three predator treatments: live predators (full predator effect), freeze‐killed predators (NCEs only) or no predators (control), and incubated them under either 12 h:12 h light:dark conditions or continual darkness. Under 12 h:12 h light:dark conditions, NCEs‐only communities never differed from predator‐free communities, but differed from live predator communities. Under conditions of continual darkness, the structure of NCEs‐only communities differed from predator‐free controls, but not from live predator communities, suggesting NCEs can be strong enough to structure communities. Predation threat may cause certain prey to induce defences, such as reductions in movement, which make them less competitive in a community setting. This reduction in competitive ability could lead to these species being driven to extinction through interspecific competition, resulting in similar communities to those in which live predators are present. Heterotrophic species whose rates of resource acquisition depend on movement rates may be affected to a greater extent than autotrophs by predator‐induced reductions in movement, accounting for our observed differences in predator NCEs in ‘dark’ and ‘light’ communities. Our results suggest that the community‐level consequences of fear are greater in the dark. Synthesis Predators affect prey through consumptive and non‐consumptive effects (NCEs) such as alterations to prey behaviour, morphology, and life history. However, predators and prey do not exist in isolated pairs, but in complex communities where they interact with many other species. Using a long term study (>10 predator generations), we show that predator NCEs alone can alter community structure under conditions of darkness, but not in a 12h:12h light:dark cycle. Our results demonstrate for the first time that although the community‐level consequences of predator NCEs may be dramatic, they depend upon the abiotic conditions of the ecosystem.     

Do predators limit the abundance of alternative prey? Experiments with vole‐eating avian and mammalian predators

Predation has been invoked as a factor synchronizing the population oscillations of sympatric prey species, either because predators kill prey unselectively (the Shared Predation Hypothesis; hereafter SPH), or because predators switch to alternative prey after a density decline in their main prey (the Alternative Prey Hypothesis; APH). A basic assumption of the APH is that the impact of predators on alternative prey depends more on the density of main prey than on the predator/alternative prey ratio. Both SPH and APH assume that the impact of predators on alternative prey is at least periodically strong enough to depress prey populations. To examine these assumptions, we utilized data from replicated field experiments in large areas where we reduced the breeding densities of avian predators during three years and the numbers of least weasels (Mustela nivalis) in two years when vole populations declined. In addition, we reduced the breeding densities of avian predators in two years when vole populations were high. The reduction of least weasels increased the abundance of their alternative prey, small birds breeding on the ground, but did not affect the abundance of common shrews (Sorex araneus). In years when vole populations declined, the reduction of avian predators increased the abundance of their alternative prey, common shrews and small birds. Therefore, vole‐eating predators do at least periodically depress the abundance of their alternative prey. At high vole densities, the reduction of avian predators did not increase the abundance of common shrews, although the ratio of avian predators to alternative prey was similar to years when vole populations declined, which supported APH. In contrast, the abundance of small birds increased after the reduction of avian predators also at high vole densities, which supported SPH. The manipulations had no obvious effect on the number of game birds, which are only occasionally killed by these small‐sized predators. We conclude that in communities where most predators are small or specialize on a single prey type, the synchronizing impact of predation is restricted to a few similar‐sized species.     

Should ecologists prefer model‐ over distance‐based multivariate methods?

Ecological data sets often record the abundance of species, together with a set of explanatory variables. Multivariate statistical methods are optimal to analyze such data and are thus frequently used in ecology for exploration, visualization, and inference. Most approaches are based on pairwise distance matrices instead of the sites‐by‐species matrix, which stands in stark contrast to univariate statistics, where data models, assuming specific distributions, are the norm. However, through advances in statistical theory and computational power, models for multivariate data have gained traction. Systematic simulation‐based performance evaluations of these methods are important as guides for practitioners but still lacking. Here, we compare two model‐based methods, multivariate generalized linear models (MvGLMs) and constrained quadratic ordination (CQO), with two distance‐based methods, distance‐based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA). We studied the performance of the methods to discriminate between causal variables and noise variables for 190 simulated data sets covering different sample sizes and data distributions. MvGLM and dbRDA differentiated accurately between causal and noise variables. The former had the lowest false‐positive rate (0.008), while the latter had the lowest false‐negative rate (0.027). CQO and CCA had the highest false‐negative rate (0.291) and false‐positive rate (0.256), respectively, where these error rates were typically high for data sets with linear responses. Our study shows that both model‐ and distance‐based methods have their place in the ecologist's statistical toolbox. MvGLM and dbRDA are reliable for analyzing species–environment relations, whereas both CQO and CCA exhibited considerable flaws, especially with linear environmental gradients.     

Does Mother Nature really prefer rare species or are log‐left‐skewed SADs a sampling artefact?

Intensively sampled species abundance distributions (SADs) show left‐skew on a log scale. That is, there are too many rare species to fit a lognormal distribution. I propose that this log‐left‐skew might be a sampling artefact. Monte Carlo simulations show that taking progressively larger samples from a log‐unskewed distribution (such as the lognormal) causes log‐skew to decrease asymptotically (move towards ?∞) until it reaches the level of the underlying distribution (zero in this case). In contrast, accumulating certain types of repeated small samples results in a log‐skew that becomes progressively more log‐left‐skewed to a level well beyond the underlying distribution. These repeated samples correspond to samples from the same site over many years or from many sites in 1 year. Data from empirical datasets show that log‐skew generally goes from positive (right‐skewed) to negative (left‐skewed) as the number of temporally or spatially replicated samples increases. This suggests caution when interpreting log‐left‐skew as a pattern that needs biological interpretation.     

Unsaturated fatty acid‐induced non‐canonical autophagy: unusual? or unappreciated?

The breakdown of cellular components via autophagy is crucial for cellular homeostasis. In this issue of The EMBO Journal, Niso‐Santano et al ( 2015 ) report the important observation that feeding cells with saturated or unsaturated fatty acids triggers mechanistically distinct autophagic responses. Feeding cells saturated fatty acid induced the canonical, BECN1/PI3K‐dependent autophagy pathway. Conversely, the unsaturated fatty acid oleate triggered autophagic responses that were independent of the BECN1/PI3K complex, but that required a functional Golgi system.     

To be,or not to be,a non‐native freshwater fish?

We examine the evolving concept of what constitutes a non‐native (or alien) freshwater fish. In an attempt to distinguish between biogeographical and socio‐political perspectives, we review the patterns in the introduction and dispersal of non‐native fishes in Europe and North America, and especially the recent expansion of Ponto‐Caspian gobies in Europe. We assess patterns in the development of national policy and legislation in response to the perceived threat of non‐native fish introductions to native species and ecosystems. We review, and provide a glossary of, the terms and definitions associated with non‐native species. Finally, we discuss perspectives as regards the future treatment of naturalized species.     

Is non‐loglinear allometry a statistical artifact?

The allometric equation, y = ax^b, is commonly fitted to data indirectly by transforming predictor (x) and response (y) variables to logarithms, fitting a straight line to the transformations, and then back‐transforming (exponentiating) the resulting equation to the original arithmetic scale. Sometimes, however, transformation fails to linearize the observations, thereby giving rise to what has come to be known as non‐loglinear allometry. A smooth curve for observations displayed on a log–log plot is usually interpreted to mean that the scaling exponent in the allometric equation is a continuously changing function of body size, whereas a breakpoint between two (or more) linear segments on a log–log plot is typically taken to mean that the exponent changes abruptly, coincident with some important milestone in development. I applied simple graphical and statistical procedures in re‐analyses of three well‐known examples of non‐loglinear allometry, and showed in every instance that the relationship between predictor and response can be described in the original scale by simple functions with constant values for the exponent b. In no instance does the allometric exponent change during the course of development. Transformation of data to logarithms created new distributions that actually obscured the relationships between predictor and response variables in these investigations, and led to erroneous perceptions of growth. Such confounding effects of transformation are not limited to non‐loglinear allometry but are common to all applications of the allometric method. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, ?? , ??–??.     

Do trophic subsidies affect the outcome of introductions of a non‐native freshwater fish?

1. Understanding how environmental variables and human disturbances influence the outcomes of introductions of non‐native freshwater fish is integral to their risk management. This can be complex in freshwater ecosystems that receive subsidies that increase food availability, as these may influence the outcome of introductions through promoting the survival, reproduction and establishment of the introduced propagules through increasing their access to food resources.
2. We determined how natural and/or artificial trophic subsidies affected the reproduction and establishment of the introduced topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva) in replicated pond mesocosms. The mesocosms all started with eight mature fish and were run for 100 days during their reproductive season. The subsidies consisted of natural terrestrial prey and/or fishmeal pellets (a common trophic subsidy that can be significant in systems that are used as sport fisheries or for aquaculture).
3. After 100 days, fish in the natural subsidy ponds showed minimal growth and very low reproductive output. Analysis of δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N indicated that their progeny, 0+ fish produced in the ponds, exploited the terrestrial prey. By contrast, in ponds where pellets were added, mineral nutrient availability and primary production were significantly increased, and the mature fish fed mainly on the aquatic resources. The increased productivity of the ponds significantly increased fish growth and fitness, resulting in high numbers of 0+ individuals that did feed on the pellets.
4. Thus, subsidies that can increase both primary production and food resources (such as pelletised fishmeal) can significantly influence the ability of colonists to establish a population rapidly. Management efforts to minimise the risk of introductions should thus consider the role of these types of allochthonous subsidies.

     

Do non‐additive effects on decomposition in litter‐mix experiments result from differences in resource quality between litters?

Differences in resource quality between litter species have been postulated to explain why litter-mixtures may decompose at a different rate to that which would be predicted from single species litters (termed 'non-additive effects'). In particular, positive, non-additive effects of litter-mixing on decomposition have been explained by differences in initial nitrogen concentration between litter species. This interpretation is confounded because litter species that differ in nitrogen content also differ by a number of other resource quality attributes. Thus, to investigate whether initial nitrogen concentration does account for positive, non-additive effects of litter-mixing, we mixed grass litters that differed in initial nitrogen concentration but not species or structural plant part identity, and then followed mass loss from the litter-mixes over time. We used the litterbag technique and three grass species for which a gradient of four distinct initial nitrogen concentrations had been generated. We produced all no- to four-mix compositions of litter qualities for each species. Litter from different species was never mixed.
Contrary to what would be predicted, we found that when litters of the same species but with different initial nitrogen concentrations were mixed, that negative, non-additive effects on decomposition were generally observed. In addition, we found that once mixed, increasing litter quality richness from two to four mixtures had no significant, non-additive effect on decomposition. Litter quality composition explained little of the experimental variation when compared to litter quality richness, and different compositions generally behaved in the same manner. Our findings challenge the commonly held assumption that differences in nitrogen concentration between plant species are responsible for positive, non-additive effects of litter-mixing on decomposition.     

Is non‐host pollen suitable for generalist bumblebees?

Current evidence suggests that pollen is both chemically and structurally protected. Despite increasing interest in studying bee–flower networks, the constraints for bee development related to pollen nutritional content, toxicity and digestibility as well as their role in the shaping of bee–flower interactions have been poorly studied. In this study we combined bioassays of the generalist bee Bombus terrestris on pollen of Cirsium, Trifolium, Salix, and Cistus genera with an assessment of nutritional content, toxicity, and digestibility of pollen. Microcolonies showed significant differences in their development, non‐host pollen of Cirsium being the most unfavorable. This pollen was characterized by the presence of quite rare δ7‐sterols and a low digestibility. Cirsium consumption seemed increase syrup collection, which is probably related to a detoxification mixing behavior. These results strongly suggest that pollen traits may act as drivers of plant selection by bees and partly explain why Asteraceae pollen is rare in bee generalist diet.     

Do non‐native fish as prey favour the conservation of the threatened indigenous Eurasian otter?

1. Biological invasions are considered a major threat to biodiversity. Most research has focused on the distribution, biology and impacts of non‐native species on native fauna and flora. However, few studies have explored their role as prey for native predators of conservation concern. 2. To assess the incidence and intensity of predation by the Eurasian otter Lutra lutra on established non‐native fish species, data were collated from the published literature. To be selected, studies had to cover at least 1 year, analyse more than 100 spraints and report the study period and percentage relative frequency (%RF) of all prey fish species. 3. To permit reliable, time‐related comparisons with %RF of non‐native fishes in otter diet, we also reviewed available information about both the distribution of non‐native fishes and history of their introductions to European countries, revealing a decrease with longitude in the number of naturalised non‐native fishes taken (ranging between 5 and 34) and their percentage in each fish assemblage. 4. Our selective criteria were met by 30 dietary studies from 44 study areas in 15 European countries during 1970–2010. The extent to which otters rely on non‐native fishes was almost negligible (mean %RF = 4.8), with the number of non‐native fishes preyed upon by otters decreasing with both latitude and longitude. 5. The %RF of non‐native fish in the diet increased slightly with time, with otters preying significantly more on non‐native fish in study areas where alterations of the fish assemblage had been highlighted in the reference papers. No relationship was found between otter diet breadth and the occurrence of non‐native fishes in their diet. 6. The current role of non‐native species in otter diet suggests that effective otter conservation management plans should focus on the maintenance and/or enhancement of native fish assemblages.     

Do predators influence the behaviour of bats?

Many aspects of animal behaviour are affected by real‐time changes in the risk of predation. This conclusion holds for virtually all taxa and ecological systems studied, but does it hold for bats? Bats are poorly represented in the literature on anti‐predator behaviour, which may reflect a lack of nocturnal predators specialized on bats. If bats actually experience a world with minimal anti‐predator concerns, then they will provide a unique contrast within the realm of vertebrate ecology. Alternatively, such predator‐driven behaviour in bats may not yet be fully understood, given the difficulties in working with these highly mobile and nocturnal animals. We provide a wide‐ranging exploration of these issues in bat behaviour. We first cover the basic predator‐prey information available on bats, both on potential predators and the ways in which bats might perceive predators and respond to attacks. We then cover work relevant to key aspects of bat behaviour, such as choice of daytime roosts, the nature of sleep and torpor, evening roost departures, moonlight avoidance, landscape‐related movement patterns, and habitat selection. Overall, the evidence in favour of a strong influence of predators on bat behaviour is equivocal, with the picture clouded by contradictory results and a lack of information on potential predators and the perception of risk by bats. It seems clear that day‐active bats run a considerable risk of being killed by diurnal raptors, which are able to capture bats with relative ease. Thus, bats taking advantage of a pulse of insects just prior to sunset are likely taking risks to gain much‐needed energy. Further, the choice of daytime roosts by bats is probably strongly influenced by roost safety. Few studies, however, have directly addressed either of these topics. As a group, insectivorous temperate‐zone bats show no clear tendency to avoid apparently risky situations, such as activity on moonlit nights. However, some observations are consistent with the idea that predation risk affects choice of movement paths and feeding areas by temperate‐zone bats, as well as the timing of roost departures. The behaviour of tropical bats, on the other hand, seems more generally influenced by predators; this is especially true for tropical nectarivores and frugivores, but also for insectivorous bats. Presumably there are more serious predators on bats in the tropics (e.g. specialized raptors or carnivorous bats), but the identity of these predators is unclear. More information is needed to assess fully the influence of predators on bat behaviour. There is much need for work on the ways in which bats perceive predators via auditory, visual, and olfactory cues, and whether bats have some knowledge of the risks posed by different predators. Also needed is information on how predators attack bats and how bats react to attacking predators. Difficult to obtain, but of critical value, will be information on the nature of the predation risk experienced by bats while away from roosts and during the full darkness of night.     

Do predators prefer toxic animals? A case of chemical discrimination by an Asian snake that sequesters firefly toxins

Several Asian natricine snakes of the genus Rhabdophis feed on toads and sequester steroidal cardiac toxins known as bufadienolides (BDs) from them. A recent study revealed that species of the Rhabdophis nuchalis Group ingest lampyrine fireflies to sequester BDs. Although several species of fireflies are distributed in the habitat of the R. nuchalis Group, only lampyrine fireflies, which have BDs, are included in the diet of these snakes. Thus, we hypothesized that the R. nuchalis Group chemically distinguishes fireflies that have BDs from those that do not have BDs. We also predicted that the R. nuchalis Group detects BDs as the chemical cue of toxin source. To test these predictions, we conducted 3 behavioral experiments using Rhabdophis chiwen, which belongs to the R. nuchalis Group. In the first experiment, R. chiwen showed a moderate tongue flicking response to cinobufagin, a compound of BDs. On the other hand, the snake showed a higher response to the chemical stimuli of lampyrine fireflies (BD fireflies) than those of lucioline fireflies (non-BD fireflies). In the second experiment, in which we provided live BD and non-BD fireflies, the snake voluntarily consumed only the former. In the third, a Y-maze experiment, the snake tended to select the chemical trail of BD fireflies more frequently than that of non-BD fireflies. These results demonstrated that R. chiwen discriminates BD fireflies from non-BD fireflies, but the prediction that BDs are involved in this discrimination was not fully supported. To identify the proximate mechanisms of the recognition of novel toxic prey in the R. nuchalis Group, further investigation is necessary.     

Regulation of anti‐apoptotic BCL2‐proteins by non‐canonical interactions: The next step forward or two steps back?

All aspects of cellular biology affect the process of regulated cell death, or apoptosis, and disruption of this process is a causative event in many diseases. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of all pathways that regulate apoptosis would increase our knowledge of basic cellular functions, as well as the etiologies of many diseases. In turn, we may be able to use this knowledge to better treat patients with diseases, including cancer. Although the basic signaling pathway that regulates apoptosis has been known for over 10 years, we still have much to learn about the upstream signaling components that can directly regulate the core apoptosis machinery. The focus of this review will be to direct attention to non-canonical regulators of the BCL2-family of proteins, especially our void of understanding of such interactions, and the controversy that surrounds some such interactions.