Abstract: Prey species must adapt their behavior to avoid predation. As a key prey item for lions (Panthera leo), plains zebras (Equus burchelli) were expected to respond to immediate threats posed by lions in their area. In addition, zebras were predicted to exhibit behavior tuned to reduce the potential for encounters with lions, by modifying their movement patterns in the times of day and habitats of greatest lion danger. We studied a population of approximately 600 plains zebra living in Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Kenya. We found that zebra abundance on or near a grassland patch was lower if lions had also been observed on that patch during the same day. Predation danger was highest in grassland habitat during the night, when lions were more active. Zebra sightings and global positioning system radio collar data indicated that zebras also reduced their use of grassland at night, instead using more woodland habitat. Zebras moved faster and took sharper turns in grassland at night. It is hypothesized that these more erratic movements assist zebras in avoiding detection or capture by lions.

Abstract: 1. The role of lion Panthera leo predation in the dynamics of blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus and zebra Equus burchelli populations was investigated through simulation models. The data used in the models were from intensive observations over 4 years in the south-east of the Kruger National Park. 2. Population estimates of wildebeest and zebra were made from aerial surveys, sex and age ratios from ground counts. Lion numbers were determined from observations of marked and radio-collared animals. Predation was studied by following lions for continuous periods of up to 336 h. 3. Two models were constructed. Model 1 ascertained the number of killing lions (adult females) that could be supported by each prey population while remaining stable. A single model was constructed for the sedentary wildebeest population. A summer and winter model was constructed for the semi-migratory zebra population. The sensitivity of the parameters in the model was tested by changing their value by 10%. In model 2, the kill age structure for each species was changed to determine the number of killing lions the altered prey selection parameters could support. 4. There was no difference in the vulnerability of either species to predation. Zebra foals (<1 year) were killed more frequently than expected. No selection for sex or by season could be found for either species. 5. Model 1 predicted that the wildebeest population stabilizes with 7.7 killing lions, close to the number in the study area. The winter zebra population stabilizes with 6.8 killing lions and the summer zebra population with 19.4. Manipulation of kill rate followed by adult fecundity rate had the greatest effect on population size of both species. In model 2, wildebeest predation was made selective towards calves and zebra predation was made non-selective for sex and age. With these parameters the wildebeest population stabilizes with 10.7 killing lions and the zebra population with 5.4 in winter and 15.1 in summer. 6. The models suggest that lion predation affected wildebeest more severely than zebra during the study. This was through the way in which lions selected their prey, and because of the sedentary behaviour of the wildebeest, as opposed to the semi-migratory behaviour of the zebra.

Abstract: Summary Reliable assessment of animal populations is a long-standing challenge in wildlife ecology. Technological advances have led to widespread adoption of camera traps (CTs) to survey wildlife distribution, abundance and behaviour. As for any wildlife survey method, camera trapping must contend with sources of sampling error such as imperfect detection. Early applications focused on density estimation of naturally marked species, but there is growing interest in broad-scale CT surveys of unmarked populations and communities. Nevertheless, inferences based on detection indices are controversial, and the suitability of alternatives such as occupancy estimation is debatable. We reviewed 266 CT studies published between 2008 and 2013. We recorded study objectives and methodologies, evaluating the consistency of CT protocols and sampling designs, the extent to which CT surveys considered sampling error, and the linkages between analytical assumptions and species ecology. Nearly two-thirds of studies surveyed more than one species, and a majority used response variables that ignored imperfect detection (e.g. presence?absence, relative abundance). Many studies used opportunistic sampling and did not explicitly report details of sampling design and camera deployment that could affect conclusions. Most studies estimating density used capture?recapture methods on marked species, with spatially explicit methods becoming more prominent. Few studies estimated density for unmarked species, focusing instead on occupancy modelling or measures of relative abundance. While occupancy studies estimated detectability, most did not explicitly define key components of the modelling framework (e.g. a site) or discuss potential violations of model assumptions (e.g. site closure). Studies using relative abundance relied on assumptions of equal detectability, and most did not explicitly define expected relationships between measured responses and underlying ecological processes (e.g. animal abundance and movement). Synthesis and applications. The rapid adoption of camera traps represents an exciting transition in wildlife survey methodology. We remain optimistic about the technology's promise, but call for more explicit consideration of underlying processes of animal abundance, movement and detection by cameras, including more thorough reporting of methodological details and assumptions. Such transparency will facilitate efforts to evaluate and improve the reliability of camera trap surveys, ultimately leading to stronger inferences and helping to meet modern needs for effective ecological inquiry and biodiversity monitoring.

Abstract: In the literature on dominance hierarchies, “winner” and “loser” effects usually are denned as an increased probability of winning at time T, bated on victories at time T-l, T-2, etc, and an increased probability of losing at time T, based on losing at T-1, T-2, etc., respectively. Despite some early theoretical work on winner and loser effects, these factors and how they affect the structure of dominance hierarchies have not been examined in detail. I developed a computer simulation to examine winner and loser effects when such effects are independent of one another (as well as when they interact) and when combatants assess each other's resource-holding power. When winner effects alone were important, a hierarchy in which all individuals held an unambiguous rank was found. When only loser effects were important, a dear alpha individual always emerged, but the rank of others in the group was often unclear because of the scarcity of aggressive interactions. Increasing winner effects for a given value of the loser effect increase the number of individuals with unambiguous positions in a hierarchy and the converse is true for increasing the value of the loser effect for a given winner effect Although winner and loser effects have been documented in a number of species, no study has documented both winner and loser effects (using some controlled, pairwise testing system) and the detailed nature of behavioral interactions when individuals are in groups. I hope the results of this model will spur such studies in the future.

Abstract: We review the existence of teams in animal societies. Teams have previously been dismissed in all but a tiny minority of insect societies. “Team” is a term not generally used in studies of vertebrates. We propose a new rigorous definition of a team that may be applied to both vertebrate and invertebrate societies. We reconsider what it means to work as a team or group and suggest that there are many more teams in insect societies than previously thought. A team task requires different subtasks to be performed concurrently for successful completion. There is a division of labor within a team. Contrary to previous reviews of teams in social insects, we do not constrain teams to consist of members of different castes and argue that team members may be interchangeable. Consequently, we suggest that a team is simply the set of individuals that performs a team task. We contrast teams with groups and suggest that a group task requires the simultaneous performance and cooperation of two or more individuals for successful completion. In a group, there is no division of labor--each individual performs the same task. We also contrast vertebrate and invertebrate teams and find that vertebrate teams tend to be associated with hunting and are based on individual recognition. Invertebrate teams occur in societies characterized by a great deal of redundancy, and we predict that teams in insect societies are more likely to be found in large polymorphic (“complex”) societies than in small monomorphic (“simple”) societies.