Karen McComb

Semantic communication in vervet monkeys and other animals

Research on acoustic communication has often focused on signalling between territorial individuals or static neighbouring groups. Under these circumstances, receivers have the opportunity to learn to recognize the signals only of the limited number of conspecifics with which they are in auditory contact. In some mammals, however, social units move freely with respect to one another and range widely, providing individuals with opportunities to learn to recognize the signals of a wide range of conspecifics in addition to those of their immediate neighbours. We conducted playback experiments on African elephants,Loxodonta africana , in Amboseli National Park, Kenya, to determine the extent to which adult female elephants, which have a highly fluid social system, can recognize others in the population through infrasonic contact calls. Female elephants could distinguish the calls of female family and bond group members from those of females outside of these categories; moreover, they could also discriminate between the calls of family units further removed than bond group members, on the basis of how frequently they encountered them. We estimated that subjects would have to be familiar with the contact calls of a mean of 14 families in the population (containing around 100 adult females in total), in order to perform these discriminations. Female elephants thus appear to have unusually extensive networks of vocal recognition, which may prove to be typical of long-lived species that have both fluid social systems and the means for long-distance vocal communication.

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a widespread and persistent challenge to conservation. However, relatively few studies have thus far examined long-term monitoring data to quantify how the type, and severity of HWC varies across species, seasons, years and ecosystems. Here, we examine human-wildlife conflicts in Tsavo and Maasai Mara, two premier wildlife conservation areas in Kenya. Using Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) data (2001-2016), we show that both the type and severity of conflicts vary among species such that the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), is the leading conflict species in both the Tsavo (64.3%, n= 30664) and Mara (47.0%, n=12487) ecosystems. The next four most notorious conflict animals, in decreasing order, are nonhuman primates (Tsavo 11.4%, n=3502; Mara 11.8%, n=1473), African buffalo (Syncerus caffer, Tsavo 5.5%, n=1676; Mara 11.3%, n=1410), lion (Panthera leo,Tsavo 3.6%, n=1107; Mara 3.3%, n=416) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta, Tsavo 2.4%, n=744; Mara 5.8%, n=729). We group the observed conflict incidences (n= 43,151) into four major conflict types, including crop raiding, the most common conflict type, followed by human and livestock attacks and property damage. The severity of conflicts also varies markedly seasonally and inter-annually. Crop raiding peaks in May-July, during and at the end of the wet season when crops are maturing but is lowest in November during the late dry season and beginning of the early rains. Attacks on humans and livestock increased more than other conflict types in both Tsavo (from 2001) and Mara (from 2013). Relatively fewer people in Mara (7.2%, n=901) than in Tsavo (38.2%, n = 11714) felt threatened by wildlife, suggesting that the Maasai people are more tolerant of wildlife. Minimizing HWC is tightly linked to successfully resolving the broader conservation challenges, including enhancing ecosystem connectivity, community engagement and conservation benefits to communities.

Fecal hormone analysis has become a powerful noninvasive tool for the study of animal endocrine status and stress physiology (Graham and Brown 1997; Wasser et al. 1997a; Whitten et al. 1998; Goymann et al. 1999; Mostl et al. 1999; Foley et al. 2001; Creel et al. 2002; Lynch et al. 2002; Morrow et al. 2002). Variation in field and storage conditions makes it essential to know whether fecal steroid concentrations change with the method and duration of sample storage. Lyophilization (freeze-drying) with subsequent storage at or below 20 C is generally regarded as the most reliable method of long-term fecal hormone preservation (e.g., Wasser et al. 1988; Terio et al. 2002). However, lyophilizers are not widely available, and therefore investigators have turned to a variety of other fecal storage methods, including freezing at 20 C, preservation in ethanol, and/or drying the feces with silica, ovens, solar radiation, fires, or other drying methods (Wasser et al. 1988; Whitten et al. 1998; Foley et al. 2001; Tecot 2001). Yet, some of these preservation methods may result in significant changes in immunoreactive hormone concentrations, varying with the preservation method, species, and hormone. In this article, we report effects of several commonly used fecal preservation methods on immunoreactive glucocorticoid concentrations in feces of two species, African elephant (Loxodonta africana) and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), over a 2-yr period. Five different preservation methods were chosen for comparison: no preservative, oven-drying at 45 C, silicadrying, 90% ethanol, and lyophilization, each with subsequent storage either at room temperature or in a 20 C freezer. Con-

During the mating season, Iberian red deer males (Cervus elaphus hispanicus) present a large visible dark ventral area in their abdomen. This characteristic dark-haired area is formed by the impregnation of the hair with sprayed urine and gland secretions and contains volatile compounds that can be used in intraspecific communication. Here, we used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to describe the lipophilic chemicals from the dark ventral patch of males from different populations with different levels of intrasexual competition. Amongst all the compounds found, m-cresol, benzoic acid, cholesterol and 4-hydroxy-benzenopropanoic acid were the most abundant. The proportions of these compounds varied with age as well as with the level of intra-sexual competition, independently of age. In particular, red deer males experiencing higher intra-sexual competition had lower proportions of aromatic compounds (especially m-cresol) but higher proportions of carboxylic acids on their dark bellies. Males in a high male-male competition situation, invest in volatile compounds that can reveal their age, dominance status and condition, and that, in addition, enhance this signal. On the contrary, males from low intra-sexual competition populations have chemical profiles more characteristic of young individuals. This research shows a first glance of how secretion of volatile compounds of male deer can be modulated due to the intensity of male-male competition in the population.

To examine the occurrence and genotype distribution of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in cervids, 615 fecal samples were collected from red deer (Cervus elaphus) and sika deer (Cervus nippon) on 10 different farms in Henan and Jilin Province. Enterocytozoon bieneusi was identified and genotyped with a nested PCR analysis of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of the rRNA genes, showing an average infection rate of 35.9% (221/615). In this study, 25 ITS genotypes were identified including seven known genotypes (BEB6, EbpC, EbpA, D, HLJDI, HLJD-IV, and COS-I) and 18 novel genotypes (designated JLD-I to JLD-XIV, HND-I to HND-IV). Among these, BEB6 (131/221, 59.3%) was the predominant genotype (P < 0.01), followed by HLJDI (18/221, 8.1%) and JLD-VIII (16/221, 7.2%). BEB6 has recently been detected in humans and nonhuman primates in China. The phylogenetic analysis showed that BEB6, HLJDI, HLJD-IV, COS-I, and 10 novel genotypes (JLD-VII to JLD-XIV, HND-III to HND-IV) clustered in group 2. Genotype D, EbpC, and EbpA, known to cause human microsporidiosis worldwide, clustered in group 1, the members of which have zoonotic potential, together with eight novel genotypes (JLD-I to JLD-VI, HND-I to HND-II). Therefore, deer may play a role in the transmission of E. bieneusi to humans.

Though retaliatory lion (Panthera leo) killing as a result of livestock predation in the Maasai group ranches between the Tsavo NPs and Amboseli is remarkably high, other wildlife species are known to kill livestock. Surprisingly, lions suffer the most from retaliatory killing by the Maasai community for killing livestock. The extent of livestock predation by lions in comparison to other species is unknown. This study was carried out in the Olgulului group ranch (OGR) located adjacent to Amboseli National Park in June 2009. The cost of livestock killed by each of these species including lion, hyena (Crocuta crocuta), cheetah (Acynonyx jubatus), leopard (Panthera pardus), olive baboon (Papio cynocephalus), black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas), and African elephant (Loxodonta africana) was analyzed. Questionnaires, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews with officials from OGR, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), and compensation scheme organizations were the methods used to collect information. Cluster and systematic sampling techniques were used to select a sample of 199 respondents from OGR. Lions were blamed for 40.5% (US$ 374,603) of the value of livestock lost to wildlife. The costs of livestock lost to hyenas and lions were not significantly different (q = 0.24, p = 0.968). Although hyenas killed more livestock compared to lions, the economic damage between the two was not significantly different because lions attacked cattle which had high economic value. Conservation of lions will be increasingly difficult if the current levels of predation are not reduced to economically and socially acceptable levels.

It is generally assumed that population size of all wild animal species is regulated through density-dependent mechanisms, but the mechanisms responsible have been difficult to identify for elephants and large whales. We have used information on physiological reproductive mechanisms in humans in a stochastic computer simulation study to explore how known density-dependent fertility mechanisms in humans could regulate population size in a hypothetical large mammal species, assuming no deliberate interference with sexual or reproductive processes. Two physiological reproductive mechanisms in women are dependent on nutrition in utero or early life: age at menarche and post-partum amenorrhea during lactation and were included in the model. If large female mammals in general have physiological reproductive mechanisms similar to human females, strong density-dependence mechanisms will be the result, but with a substantial delay, 20 to 50years. The model results are discussed in relation to what is known about populations of the Eastern North Pacific gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus), Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and elephants (Loxodonta africana) in Amboseli National Park, Kenya.

South Africa's wildlife sustainable management requires cohesive, evidence-based policy development that balances conservation goals with socio-economic needs. This study employed the Policy Delphi methodology, based on subsequent questionnaire rounds, to gather expert insights on critical priorities for wildlife-related policy, focusing on four species: lions (Panthera leo), elephants (Loxodonta africana), rhinos (Diceros bicornis and Ceratotherium simum), and leopards (Panthera pardus pardus). Experts were divided into panels based on species and areas of expertise: hunting, management, translocation, research, and animal welfare. Through three rounds, which took place from March to July 2024, the study sought to pinpoint South African policy issues needing amendment, addition, or removal, gathering expert opinions to achieve 70% consensus and suggestions for integrating these into policies. A total of 60 experts accepted to participate, 14 compiled all three Delphi questionnaires, while 40 of them contributed to at least one round. In Round 1, 34 experts suggested 523 pertinent issues meeting the study criteria: 260 amendments, 233 additions, and 30 removals. In Round 2, 28 participants considered 363 issues relevant, of which 254 obtained final agreement in Round 3 by 19 experts, divided into 19 thematic categories. Moreover, in Round 3, 617 suggestions for integration into policies were collected. Overall, the analysis underscores that the experts preferred modifying existing policies rather than removing measures, emphasizing the adequacy of the policies with adjustments. The final list of issues confirmed at the end of Round 3 and their categories represent experts' priorities for the four focus species management reforms in South Africa. Moreover, the insights highlight gaps in South African wildlife legislation, including improved definitions, consideration of local communities, and addressing data deficiencies for evidence-based management and conservation. By identifying key areas for legislative improvement, this study provides a framework for actionable strategies to enhance wildlife policy in South Africa, following the broader aim of protecting wildlife, and with the potential of having an impact beyond national boundaries.

digitalData = {"site":{"ip":"196.51.211.141","environment":"LIVE","website":"onlinelibrary.wiley.com","websiteCode":"pericles","serverDate":"2022-09-28"},"identities":[{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b238ab85-6bb4-49e4-84ca-a0d9f3ee5a35"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"eabce89b-65c2-4a09-ab7c-bd2b3fea2f10"},{"type":"RegionUser","uuid":"3c5060a1-6620-438f-862b-902a4d4cd4ac"},{"type":"BasicGroup","uuid":"e623deab-c83b-41e3-84a2-d9f1d46c5f17"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a86d27d2-6bcd-4b94-bca5-fe16f4882855"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"da88d808-3f7b-4bde-9210-10862b6d121b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"8c72a733-117a-4bc9-a682-13475f13e6a3"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"756fc162-8722-461f-a077-ebffec4f4fae"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"cf9c85b9-7f3b-4309-aeaa-c41669cabe3b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"db8b8d10-1aed-4809-b3ee-70938c569014"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"cdce41c2-a8de-4a64-a4d9-a85caaaa2314"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"7a2a316d-5a37-4ccd-afdb-737bfb863a48"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"39f911ce-44b6-4dba-9978-8b2e947a8eb0"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"97587ffd-dcb4-4cb5-9986-a8ce611532bd"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a46a154d-979f-41ba-b459-fd34df5c071f"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b7acda8c-ce18-451b-a68d-e14b72f9b5b8"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"055a2bdd-861f-4fa7-bd49-9773db7e0e3e"},{"type":"InstitutionUser","uuid":"1e38fbd4-113a-46cd-87fa-4155721046f6","customerRecords":[{"customerDomain":"ALM-CU","customerNumber":"CORE00000117448"}]},{"type":"BasicGroup","uuid":"197fe835-5b5f-4f4e-b8e9-a74d68491a84"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"b2dbfe27-ecae-4bb6-bb0d-d75e5caa3762"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"1a6297fb-6679-4882-a4c2-fdd124624edf"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"8032f17e-5050-4fb4-9c40-e1f6875d5c2b"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"ab743440-628f-4964-9216-9983ad3beadf"},{"type":"SmartGroupUser","uuid":"a4187e00-f28e-4754-9a0f-1eb306fb0679"},{"type":"RegionUser","uuid":"bba2c3f6-9ab6-4436-ab12-515eeb5dc999"}],"publication":{"item":{"title":"Hunting behaviour of lions (<i>Panthera leo</i>) on elephants (<i>Loxodonta africana</i>) in the Chobe National Park, Botswana","doi":"10.1111/j.1365-2028.2006.00626.x","access":"no","earliestDate":"2006-05-22","formats":["Cited by","First page image","Full text","PDF","References"],"topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"LIFE SCIENCES","topicUri":"ls"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Macroecology","topicUri":"ls2e"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Applied Ecology","topicUri":"ls2h"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Animal Science & Zoology","topicUri":"ls80"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Conservation Science","topicUri":"ls2k"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geography","topicUri":"ge27"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Geology & Geophysics","topicUri":"es10"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"GEOGRAPHY","topicUri":"ge"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geoscience","topicUri":"es1b"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"EARTH SCIENCE","topicUri":"es"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Ecology & Organismal Biology","topicUri":"ls20"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Human Geography","topicUri":"ge20"}]},"group":{"title":"","doi":"10.1111/aje.2006.44.issue-2","access":"no","volume":"44","issue":"2","coverDate":"2006-06-01","topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"LIFE SCIENCES","topicUri":"ls"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Macroecology","topicUri":"ls2e"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Applied Ecology","topicUri":"ls2h"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Animal Science & Zoology","topicUri":"ls80"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Conservation Science","topicUri":"ls2k"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geography","topicUri":"ge27"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Geology & Geophysics","topicUri":"es10"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"GEOGRAPHY","topicUri":"ge"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geoscience","topicUri":"es1b"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"EARTH SCIENCE","topicUri":"es"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Ecology & Organismal Biology","topicUri":"ls20"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Human Geography","topicUri":"ge20"}]},"series":{"title":"African Journal of Ecology","doi":"10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2028","access":"no","code":"13652028","issn":"0141-6707","eissn":"1365-2028","topics":[{"taxonomyUri":"gpt-sitename","topicLabel":"wly.ecology_000046","topicUri":"wly.ecology_000046"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geography","topicUri":"ge27"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Environmental Geoscience","topicUri":"es1b"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"EARTH SCIENCE","topicUri":"es"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Human Geography","topicUri":"ge20"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"LIFE SCIENCES","topicUri":"ls"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Macroecology","topicUri":"ls2e"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Applied Ecology","topicUri":"ls2h"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Animal Science & Zoology","topicUri":"ls80"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Conservation Science","topicUri":"ls2k"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Geology & Geophysics","topicUri":"es10"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"GEOGRAPHY","topicUri":"ge"},{"taxonomyUri":"global-subject-codes","topicLabel":"Ecology & Organismal Biology","topicUri":"ls20"},{"taxonomyUri":"gpt-zonename","topicLabel":"african-j-eco_AJE","topicUri":"african-j-eco_aje"}]}},"page":{"subPage":"Abstract","page":"Article/Chapter View","pageGroup":"Publication Pages","title":"title","errorCode":200}}

Seroprevalence of Toxoplasma gondii in farm-reared ostriches and wild game species from Zimbabwe

Twelve species of free-living African mammals from Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia were tested for antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii using the indirect hemagglutination test. Of 157 animals sampled, 20 (13%) were seropositive. T. gondii antibodies were detected in Burchell's zebra, (Equus burchelli), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), African elephant (Loxodonta africana), defassa waterbuck (Kobus defassa), lion (Panthera leo), and rock hyrax (Procavia capensis), The highest titers were found in elephants, two having titers of 1:4096 and one of 1:8192. These results are discussed in relation to the maintenance of T. gondii among African wildlife.

First fossil record of cave lion (Panthera (Leo) spelaea intermedia) from alluvial deposits of the Po River in northern Italy

New Titles

Evolving pragmatics