Consumer trophic positions respond variably to seasonally fluctuating environments.

The effects of environmental seasonality on food web structure have been notoriously understudied in empirical ecology. Here, we focus on seasonal changes in one key attribute of a food web, consumer trophic position. We ask whether fishes inhabiting tropical river-floodplain ecosystems behave as seasonal omnivores, by shifting their trophic positions in relation to the annual flood pulse, or whether they feed at the same trophic position all year, as much empirical work implicitly assumes. Using dietary data from the Tonle Sap Lake, Cambodia, and a literature review, we find evidence that some fishes, especially small piscivores, increased consumption of invertebrates and/or plant material during the wet season, as predicted. However, nitrogen stable isotope (δ15 N) data for 26 Tonle Sap fishes, spanning a broader range of functional groups, uncovered high variation in seasonal trophic position responses among species (0 to ±0.52 trophic positions). Based on these findings, species respond to the flood pulse differently. Diverse behavioral responses to seasonality, underpinned by spatiotemporal variation at multiple scales, could be central for rerouting matter and energy flow in these dynamic ecosystems. Seasonally flexible foraging behaviors warrant further study given their potential influence on food web dynamics in a range of fluctuating environments.

Identifying preservation and restoration priority areas for desert fishes in an increasingly invaded world.

A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin (150,730 km(2)), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed "preservation PAs" with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified "restoration PAs" with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The top 10 % of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation and restoration PAs overlapped by 42 %, indicating areas with high native fish richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6 % of the total ranges of two federally endangered species-Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone-despite adding only 5.8 % of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities benefiting native fishes.