Digital Knowledge Community:

Longitudinal dietary resilience of lion (Panthera leo) in a semi-arid fenced reserve of South Africa

2026-10-13T20:45:31Z

Title: Longitudinal dietary resilience of lion (Panthera leo) in a semi-arid fenced reserve of South Africa Authors: Le Brun, Robert Graeme; Naude, Vincent Norman; Tambling, Craig; Ferreira, Salamon; Lottring, Cairestine; Radloff, Frans Gustav Theodor Abstract: Understanding the dietary composition of large carnivores and how these relate to the availability of suitable habitat and prey is crucial to population management, especially in fenced reserves. This study aimed to determine the current diet of the lion (Panthera leo) in the Karoo National Park and to establish whether prey preference has changed over the 12 years post-introduction. Global positioning system-collar-based kill-site cluster investigations and scat analyses were used to determine contemporary lion diet, while multinomial logistic regressions were used to investigate longitudinal changes in prey preference by comparing a decade of historical kill and aerial census records. Lion (n = 8) collar fixes identified 358 (12%) ‘potential’ kill-site clusters across 2945 discernible clusters over 15 months (i.e. 2021/2022). The subsequent in-field investigation of 227 (63%) ‘potential’ kill sites yielded 144 (63%) and 103 (45%) independent lion kill and scat samples, respectively. While these two methods offered different sampling advantages, both provided sufficient data to show lion preference for greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), common eland (Tragelaphus oryx) and red hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus caama). Other prey species included gemsbok (Oryx gazella), springbuck (Antidorcas marsupialis), common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia) and mountain zebra (Equus zebra). Historical carcass records (n = 1035, 19499 = 89.6 ± 13.8 Standard Error [SE] per annum), since the reintroduction of lions in 2010, indicate no significant change in dietary composition over time (Χ2 = 1.98, df = 5, p = 0.85), when controlling for lion population size, despite post-introduction acclimation with substantial inter-annual variability in rainfall and prey availability. Conservation implications: Understanding dietary changes in response to systemic disturbances is crucial to ensuring that lions are ethically and sustainably managed for their ecological efficacy in fenced metapopulations. With no significant change in hunting behaviour, management concerns are unlikely to be driven by reduced prey suitability or availability.

A camera trap appraisal of large mammals' seasonal space use around permanent point water sources in Majete Wildlife Reserve, Malawi

2026-10-12T20:45:50Z

Title: A camera trap appraisal of large mammals' seasonal space use around permanent point water sources in Majete Wildlife Reserve, Malawi Authors: Overmeyer, Joshua T.; Amin, Rajan; Reece, Sally J.; Leslie, Alison J.; Tambling, Craig J.; Radloff, Frans Gustav Theodor Abstract: Human population expansion and infrastructural developments increasingly result in the confinement and isolation of large mammals to small, fenced reserves. This disrupts seasonal migration and behavioural patterns, necessitating management strategies, including using artificial point water sources to alleviate water shortages during dry seasons. Theory suggests that areas heavily used around dry season water sources (<4 km) will be abandoned for better forage as alternative water sources like pans and seasonal streams fill up during the wet season. Within Majete Wildlife Reserve (MWR), a small (691 km2) and fenced reserve in southern Malawi, an extensive dry season camera trap study indicated that the space use of some large mammals was affected by both water and grass availability. In this study we investigated potential relationships between large mammals and proximity to water by comparing estimated dry and wet season site abundances of the large herbivore species at 15 camera trap locations, within four kilometres of permanent point water sources over 40-day periods within MWR. We used a Bayesian Royle-Nichols occupancy model and found differences in space use between the wet and dry season for herbivores of different feeding guilds and digestive tract physiologies. Both hindgut fermenter species, two ruminant browsers, and a ruminant mixed-feeder species showed a significantly higher dry season abundance near point water sources. Ruminant grazers and the non-ruminant elephant (Loxodonta africana), however, showed no significant seasonal difference in estimated abundances around water sources. Understanding how permanent water sources affect large mammals' seasonal behaviour is crucial for management decisions relating to water provision.

Ethical arguments that support intentional animal killing

2026-10-12T20:45:37Z

Title: Ethical arguments that support intentional animal killing Authors: Allen, Benjamin; Abraham, Andrew; Arlinghaus, Robert; Belant, Jerrold, Jerry; Blumstein, Daniel; Bobier, Christopher; Bodenchuk, Michael; Clauss, Marcus; Dawson, Stuart; Derbyshire, Stuart; Ferreira, Salamon; Fleming, Peter; Forssman, Tim; Gorecki, Vanessa; Gortazar, Christian; Griffin, Andrea; Hampton, Jordan; Haswell, Peter; Kerley, Graham; Lean, Christopher; Leroy, Frédéric; Linnell, John D C; Lynch, Kate; Maré, Celesté; Melville, Haemish; Minnie, Liaan; Moodley, Yoshan; Nayeri, Danial; O'Riain, M. Justin; Parker, Daniel; Périquet-Pearce, Stéphanie; Proulx, Gilbert; Radloff, Frans Gustav Theodor; Schwab, Alexander; Selier, Jeanetta; Shephard, Samuel; Somers, Michael J.; Van Wart, T. Adam; VerCauteren, Kurt; von Essen, Erica Abstract: Killing animals is a ubiquitous human activity consistent with our predatory and competitive ecological roles within the global food web. However, this reality does not automatically justify the moral permissibility of the various ways and reasons why humans kill animals – additional ethical arguments are required. Multiple ethical theories or frameworks provide guidance on this subject, and here we explore the permissibility of intentional animal killing within (1) consequentialism, (2) natural law or deontology, (3) religious ethics or divine command theory, (4) virtue ethics, (5) care ethics, (6) contractarianism or social contract theory, (7) ethical particularism, and (8) environmental ethics. These frameworks are most often used to argue that intentional animal killing is morally impermissible, bad, incorrect, or wrong, yet here we show that these same ethical frameworks can be used to argue that many forms of intentional animal killing are morally permissible, good, correct, or right. Each of these ethical frameworks support constrained positions where intentional animal killing is morally permissible in a variety of common contexts, and we further address and dispel typical ethical objections to this view. Given the demonstrably widespread and consistent ways that intentional animal killing can be ethically supported across multiple frameworks, we show that it is incorrect to label such killing as categorically unethical. We encourage deeper consideration of the many ethical arguments that support intentional animal killing and the contexts in which they apply.

Editorial: Bridging knowledge gaps in marine biological invasions

2026-10-09T20:45:38Z

Title: Editorial: Bridging knowledge gaps in marine biological invasions Authors: Ferrario, Jasmine; Giachetti, Clara B.; Dafforn, Katherine A.; Peters, Koebraa