Abstract: Changes in populations of several ungulate species in the Serengeti-Mara region of East Africa over the past 30 years suggest several hypotheses for their regulation and coexistence. Recent censuses in the 1980s have allowed us to test the hypotheses that: (1) there was competition between wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus) and Thomson's gazelle (Gazella thomsoni). This predicted that gazelle numbers should have declined in the 1980s when wildebeest were food limited. Census figures show no change in gazelle numbers between 1978 and 1986, a result contrary to the interspecific competition hypothesis; (2) wildebeest and African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) populations were regulated by intraspecific competition for food. Since both populations reached food limitation in the 1970s, the hypothesis predicted that the populations should have been stable in the 1980s. The results confirm these predictions for wildebeest and the buffalo population in the Mara reserve. In the Serengeti the buffalo population declined 41% over the period 1976-1984. The decline was not evenly distributed over the park, some areas showing an 80-90% decline, others no change or an increase in numbers. The decline was associated with proximity to human habitation; (3) an outbreak of the viral disease, rinderpest, in 1982 may have been the cause of the drop in buffalo population. Blood serum samples to measure the prevalence of antibodies were collected from areas of decreasing, stable and increasing populations. If rinderpest was the cause of decrease there should be a negative relationship between the prevalence of rinderpest and the instantaneous rate of increase (r). The results showed no relationship. We conclude that rinderpest was not the major cause of the drop in buffalo numbers. Elephant (Loxodonta africana) numbers dropped 81% in Serengeti in the period 1977-1986. In the Mara there was little change. The evidence suggests that extensive poaching in northern and western Serengeti during 1979-1984 accounted for the drop in both elephant and buffalo numbers.

Abstract: The stability of grazing-induced spatial patterns of vegetation was analyzed at two spatial scales (25 m × 20 m areas and 1.6 m × 0.8 m grids) in pastures of contrasting productivity (maximum standing biomass: 130–800 gDM/m2). At both scales, the mosaic of grazed and ungrazed patches was modeled as a Boolean process, calculating cross-variograms to quantify the temporal stability of grazing patterns and its links with local floristic composition were tested. The scale at which stability of vegetation patterns took place in two successive years depended on pasture productivity. Inter-annual stability of large-scale patterns mainly occurred in extensively used fertile pastures grazed by cattle, and in pastures grazed by horses. Less-fertile grasslands were mainly characterized by a fine-scale stability of grazing patterns. Stable fine-scale patterns were often related to the local abundance of legumes and forbs. Stable large-scale patterns of grazing within lightly grazed productive grasslands could result in divergent local vegetation dynamics, which can be seen as an opportunity for restoring biodiversity in fertile grasslands.

Abstract: Ruminants are unevenly distributed across the range of body sizes observed in herbivorous mammals; among extant East African species they predominate, in numbers and species richness, in the medium body sizes (10-600 kg). The small and the large species are all hind-gut fermenters. Some medium-sized hind-gut fermenters, equid perissodactyls, coexist with the grazing ruminants, principally bovid artiodactyls, in grassland ecosystems. These patterns have been explained by two complementary models based on differences between the digestive physiology of ruminants and hind-gut fermenters. The Demment and Van Soest (1985) model accounts for the absence of ruminants among the small and large species, while the Bell/Janis/Foose model accounts both for the predominance of ruminants, and their co-existence with equids among the medium-sized species (Bell 1971; Janis 1976; Foose 1982). The latter model assumes that the rumen is competitively superior to the hind-gut system on medium quality forages, and that hind-gut fermenters persist because of their ability to eat more, and thus to extract more nutrients per day from high fibre, low quality forages. Data presented here demonstrate that compared to similarly sized grazing ruminants (bovids), hind-gut fermenters (equids) have higher rates of food intake which more than compensate for their lesser ability to digest plant material. As a consequence equids extract more nutrients per day than bovids not only from low quality foods, but from the whole range of forages eaten by animals of this size. Neither of the current nutritional models, nor refinements of them satisfactorily explain the preponderance of the bovids among medium-sized ungulates; alternative hypotheses are presented.

Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.