Paws without claws? Ecological effects of large carnivores in anthropogenic landscapes.

Large carnivores are frequently presented as saviours of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning through their creation of trophic cascades, an idea largely based on studies coming primarily out of relatively natural landscapes. However, in large parts of the world, particularly in Europe, large carnivores live in and are returning to strongly human-modified ecosystems. At present, we lack a coherent framework to predict the effects of large carnivores in these anthropogenic landscapes. We review how human actions influence the ecological roles of large carnivores by affecting their density or behaviour or those of mesopredators or prey species. We argue that the potential for density-mediated trophic cascades in anthropogenic landscapes is limited to unproductive areas where even low carnivore numbers may impact prey densities or to the limited parts of the landscape where carnivores are allowed to reach ecologically functional densities. The potential for behaviourally mediated trophic cascades may be larger and more widespread, because even low carnivore densities affect prey behaviour. We conclude that predator-prey interactions in anthropogenic landscapes will be highly context-dependent and human actions will often attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores. We highlight the knowledge gaps and outline a new research avenue to study the role of carnivores in anthropogenic landscapes.

Top predators, mesopredators and their prey: interference ecosystems along bioclimatic productivity gradients.

1. The Mesopredator Release Hypothesis (MRH) suggests that top predator suppression of mesopredators is a key ecosystem function with cascading impacts on herbivore prey, but it remains to be shown that this top-down cascade impacts the large-scale structure of ecosystems. 2. The Exploitation Ecosystems Hypothesis (EEH) predicts that regional ecosystem structures are determined by top-down exploitation and bottom-up productivity. In contrast to MRH, EEH assumes that interference among predators has a negligible impact on the structure of ecosystems with three trophic levels. 3. We use the recolonization of a top predator in a three-level boreal ecosystem as a natural experiment to test if large-scale biomass distributions and population trends support MRH. Inspired by EEH, we also test if top-down interference and bottom-up productivity impact regional ecosystem structures. 4. We use data from the Finnish Wildlife Triangle Scheme which has monitored top predator (lynx, Lynx lynx), mesopredator (red fox, Vulpes vulpes) and prey (mountain hare, Lepus timidus) abundance for 17 years in a 200 000 km(2) study area which covers a distinct productivity gradient. 5. Fox biomass was lower than expected from productivity where lynx biomass was high, whilst hare biomass was lower than expected from productivity where fox biomass was high. Hence, where interference controlled fox abundance, lynx had an indirect positive impact on hare abundance as predicted by MRH. The rates of change indicated that lynx expansion gradually suppressed fox biomass. 6. Lynx status caused shifts between ecosystem structures. In the 'interference ecosystem', lynx and hare biomass increased with productivity whilst fox biomass did not. In the 'mesopredator release ecosystem', fox biomass increased with productivity but hare biomass did not. Thus, biomass controlled top-down did not respond to changes in productivity. This fulfils a critical prediction of EEH. 7. We conclude that the cascade involving top predators, mesopredators and their prey can determine large-scale biomass distribution patterns and regional ecosystem structures. Hence, interference within trophic levels has to be taken into account to understand how terrestrial ecosystem structures are shaped.

Population structure in a critically endangered arctic fox population: does genetics matter?

The arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) in Scandinavia is classified as critically endangered after having gone through a severe decline in population size in the beginning of the 20th century, from which it has failed to recover despite more than 65 years of protection. Arctic foxes have a high dispersal rate and often disperse over long distances, suggesting that there was probably little population differentiation within Scandinavia prior to the bottleneck. It is, however, possible that the recent decline in population size has led to a decrease in dispersal and an increase in population fragmentation. To examine this, we used 10 microsatellite loci to analyse genetic variation in 150 arctic foxes from Scandinavia and Russia. The results showed that the arctic fox in Scandinavia presently is subdivided into four populations, and that the Kola Peninsula and northwest Russia together form a large fifth population. Current dispersal between the populations seemed to be very low, but genetic variation within them was relatively high. This and the relative F(ST) values among the populations are consistent with a model of recent fragmentation within Scandinavia. Since the amount of genetic variation is high within the populations, but the populations are small and isolated, demographic stochasticity seems to pose a higher threat to the populations' persistence than inbreeding depression and low genetic variation.