Mammal

1We provide an updated distribution and dispersal rate of the introduced European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus in Argentina.2According to our results this invasive species is currently colonizing parts of Mendoza and Neuquén Provinces, where rivers are very important in the spread of the rabbits, especially in unfavourable areas. The maximun rate of dispersal registered in this study was 9 km/year.3Some information was obtained to indicate that the presence of this exotic species threatens agriculture, livestock, forestry, and natural ecosystems of the Patagonia region.We provide an updated distribution and dispersal rate of the introduced European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus in Argentina.According to our results this invasive species is currently colonizing parts of Mendoza and Neuquén Provinces, where rivers are very important in the spread of the rabbits, especially in unfavourable areas. The maximun rate of dispersal registered in this study was 9 km/year.Some information was obtained to indicate that the presence of this exotic species threatens agriculture, livestock, forestry, and natural ecosystems of the Patagonia region.

1Since the last thorough review of the effects of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans in 1995, a substantial number of research reports has been published and our ability to document response(s), or the lack thereof, has improved. While rigorous measurement of responses remains important, there is an increased need to interpret observed actions in the context of population-level consequences and acceptable exposure levels. There has been little change in the sources of noise, with the notable addition of noise from wind farms and novel acoustic deterrent and harassment devices (ADDs/AHDs). Overall, the noise sources of primary concern are ships, seismic exploration, sonars of all types and some AHDs.2Responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioural, acoustic and physiological. We reviewed reports of the first two exhaustively, reviewing all peer-reviewed literature since 1995 with exceptions only for emerging subjects. Furthermore, we fully review only those studies for which received sound characteristics (amplitude and frequency) are reported, because interpreting what elicits responses or lack of responses is impossible without this exposure information. Behavioural responses include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns. Acoustic responses include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source. For physiological responses we address the issues of auditory threshold shifts and ‘stress’, albeit in a more limited capacity; a thorough review of physiological consequences is beyond the scope of this paper.3Overall, we found significant progress in the documentation of responses of cetaceans to various noise sources. However, we are concerned about the lack of investigation into the potential effects of prevalent noise sources such as commercial sonars, depth finders and fisheries acoustics gear. Furthermore, we were surprised at the number of experiments that failed to report any information about the sound exposure experienced by their experimental subjects. Conducting experiments with cetaceans is challenging and opportunities are limited, so use of the latter should be maximized and include rigorous measurements and or modelling of exposure.Since the last thorough review of the effects of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans in 1995, a substantial number of research reports has been published and our ability to document response(s), or the lack thereof, has improved. While rigorous measurement of responses remains important, there is an increased need to interpret observed actions in the context of population-level consequences and acceptable exposure levels. There has been little change in the sources of noise, with the notable addition of noise from wind farms and novel acoustic deterrent and harassment devices (ADDs/AHDs). Overall, the noise sources of primary concern are ships, seismic exploration, sonars of all types and some AHDs.Responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioural, acoustic and physiological. We reviewed reports of the first two exhaustively, reviewing all peer-reviewed literature since 1995 with exceptions only for emerging subjects. Furthermore, we fully review only those studies for which received sound characteristics (amplitude and frequency) are reported, because interpreting what elicits responses or lack of responses is impossible without this exposure information. Behavioural responses include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns. Acoustic responses include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source. For physiological responses we address the issues of auditory threshold shifts and ‘stress’, albeit in a more limited capacity; a thorough review of physiological consequences is beyond the scope of this paper.Overall, we found significant progress in the documentation of responses of cetaceans to various noise sources. However, we are concerned about the lack of investigation into the potential effects of prevalent noise sources such as commercial sonars, depth finders and fisheries acoustics gear. Furthermore, we were surprised at the number of experiments that failed to report any information about the sound exposure experienced by their experimental subjects. Conducting experiments with cetaceans is challenging and opportunities are limited, so use of the latter should be maximized and include rigorous measurements and or modelling of exposure.

Archaeological studies of Native American societies in the Chesapeake have recently incorporated a broader range of interpretive frames, including those that emphasize historical contingency and social interaction rather than cultural ecology and cultural materialism. New evidence of Woodland-period population movements, persistent places, and cycles of social ranking has prompted historically oriented interpretations that foreground particular configurations of ideology, tradition, ritual, and agency. Contact-period studies have demonstrated that native strategies of the colonial period were rooted in precontact social landscapes. Contemporary American Indians are also reclaiming their pasts in ways that challenge archaeological practices and further broaden perspectives on the Chesapeake past.

The subfamily Anancínae includes all South American mastodonts, characterized by brachicephal skull and brevirostrine mandible, with trilophodont upper and lower M2. We recognize only two genera: Cuvieronius with only one species, Cuvieronius hyodon; and Stegomastodon with two species, Stegomastodon waringi and Stegomastodon platensis.
Cuvieronius arrived in South America from North America after the Great American Biotic Interchange. Thís genus has been recorded in South America from Upper Pliocene to the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. Cuvieronius hyodon is geographically restricted to the Andean Region ín Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Northwest Argentina. Stegomastodon waringi, on the other hand, have a large geographical distribution (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) through the Middle-Upper Pleistocene. Stegomastodon platensis is restricted to Middle-Upper Pleistocene in the Pampean Region and Uruguay and possibly ín Paraguay.
In general, Cuvieronius habitat could be high grassland with cold to temperate climatic conditions. In contrast, Stegomastodon would seem to be adapted to more open grassland with warm to temperate conditions.

Failure to address many of the difficulties inherent in the analysis of carnivore faeces has hitherto limited the value of this technique in comparing carnivore diets or quantifying carnivore food consumption. In this review, major problems are discussed, and improved procedures designed to overcome them are recommended.The principal improvements recommended for laboratory procedures address the microscopic fraction of faeces, which cannot be analysed visually. This fraction may be derived from a variety of sources, leading to bias in previous techniques, particularly with regard to the importance of earthworms and birds. Attention to the microscopic fraction is necessary for correct comparison or quantitative determination of diet.Particular attention is given to statistical procedures which quantify the errors that arise in collection of samples, or during analysis. Clear statement of such errors will lead to greater comparability between studies. The procedures recommended here define the limits to accuracy in relation to sample size, total faecal production, and laboratory methods. In conjunction with adequate pilot studies, these techniques will allow more effective design of ecological studies relating to carnivore diet and food consumption.

Abstract Failure to address many of the difficulties inherent in the analysis of carnivore faeces has hitherto limited the value of this technique in comparing carnivore diets or quantifying carnivore food consumption. In this review, major problems are discussed, and improved procedures designed to overcome them are recommended.

... enhance their survival (predator avoidance, shelter, thermoregulation), canals to extend feeding areas, food ... sediment volume and accumulation pattern of sediment have a great role in shaping ... Beaver ponds function as sediment traps, and they also accumulate organic matter ...

1The ecological effects and distribution of 13 invasive non-native mammal species on the Canary Islands are reviewed.2Six species, representing six different taxonomic orders, are widely distributed and live on all seven main islands of the Canarian Archipelago: Felis catus, Capra hircus, Rattus rattus, Rattus norvegicus, Mus domesticus and Oryctolagus cuniculus. Atelerix algirus is found on four islands while six further species are present on only one island: Crocidura russula, Suncus etruscus, Rousettus egyptiacus, Ovis gmelini, Ammotragus lervia and Atlantoxerus getulus.3Five species have an omnivorous diet, four are herbivorous, two insectivorous, one frugivorous and one carnivorous. The ecological effects and damage caused by these species in the natural habitats of the Canaries are similar to those in other insular regions. To our knowledge, the effects of two species, A. lervia (herbivorous) and A. getulus (omnivorous), are as yet unreported for other insular environments.4Two of the most pernicious effects caused by invasive non-native mammal species in the Canaries consist of predation by feral cats of the three giant lizard species present in the western islands, but especially Gallotia gomerana, which is now on the verge of extinction; and the damage that the four species of herbivores cause to the endemic flora of the archipelago.The ecological effects and distribution of 13 invasive non-native mammal species on the Canary Islands are reviewed.Six species, representing six different taxonomic orders, are widely distributed and live on all seven main islands of the Canarian Archipelago: Felis catus, Capra hircus, Rattus rattus, Rattus norvegicus, Mus domesticus and Oryctolagus cuniculus. Atelerix algirus is found on four islands while six further species are present on only one island: Crocidura russula, Suncus etruscus, Rousettus egyptiacus, Ovis gmelini, Ammotragus lervia and Atlantoxerus getulus.Five species have an omnivorous diet, four are herbivorous, two insectivorous, one frugivorous and one carnivorous. The ecological effects and damage caused by these species in the natural habitats of the Canaries are similar to those in other insular regions. To our knowledge, the effects of two species, A. lervia (herbivorous) and A. getulus (omnivorous), are as yet unreported for other insular environments.Two of the most pernicious effects caused by invasive non-native mammal species in the Canaries consist of predation by feral cats of the three giant lizard species present in the western islands, but especially Gallotia gomerana, which is now on the verge of extinction; and the damage that the four species of herbivores cause to the endemic flora of the archipelago.

1The importance of taxonomy to the determination of conservation priorities and actions is widely accepted. It should be not surprising therefore that the taxonomic treatment of mammal species that have been subject to human actions in antiquity may well influence the contemporary assessment of conservation priorities at various levels.2As a result of early extinctions caused by humans and protohistoric and historic introductions, we suggest that the Mediterranean Basin and its islands are particularly prone to misdirection of efforts towards biodiversity conservation.3The two main risks associated with the failure to use an evolutionary and palaeoecological approach to conservation efforts are (i) an underestimation of the conservation importance of distinctive continental taxa vs. the apparent endemicity of island taxa; and (ii) a serious risk for native and endemic island species when anthropochorous mammals, especially ungulates, misguidedly become the focus of conservation actions, particularly inside protected areas.4Urgent measures, including refinement of mammal taxonomy, the exclusion of known anthropochorous taxa from conservation lists and implementation of protective legislation, are necessary to maintain the uniqueness and richness of the Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot.The importance of taxonomy to the determination of conservation priorities and actions is widely accepted. It should be not surprising therefore that the taxonomic treatment of mammal species that have been subject to human actions in antiquity may well influence the contemporary assessment of conservation priorities at various levels.As a result of early extinctions caused by humans and protohistoric and historic introductions, we suggest that the Mediterranean Basin and its islands are particularly prone to misdirection of efforts towards biodiversity conservation.The two main risks associated with the failure to use an evolutionary and palaeoecological approach to conservation efforts are (i) an underestimation of the conservation importance of distinctive continental taxa vs. the apparent endemicity of island taxa; and (ii) a serious risk for native and endemic island species when anthropochorous mammals, especially ungulates, misguidedly become the focus of conservation actions, particularly inside protected areas.Urgent measures, including refinement of mammal taxonomy, the exclusion of known anthropochorous taxa from conservation lists and implementation of protective legislation, are necessary to maintain the uniqueness and richness of the Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot.