No abstract

Central pattern generators (CPGs) are considered to underlie vocalizations in many vertebrate species, but the detailed mechanisms underlying their functions remain unclear. We addressed this question using an isolated brain preparation of African clawed frogs. We discovered that two vocal phases are mediated by anatomically distinct CPGs, that there are a pair of CPGs contained in the left and right half of the brain stem, and that mechanisms underlying initiation of the two vocal phases are distinct.

No abstract

Comment on “Agricultural pest control with CRISPR‐based gene drive: time for public debate” by Courtier‐Orgogozo et al.

The temperate grasslands of North America remain one of the most modified and threatened ecosystems on the planet. In the United States, the conservation of grassland‐dependent wildlife continues to be challenged by the widespread conversion of privately owned grasslands to cropland. Recent analyses indicate that land exiting the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the country's largest private lands conservation program, is a primary source of grassland conversion. In this mixed‐methods study, we employed focus groups and mail surveys to understand the decisions made by landowners in the southern Great Plains as their CRP contracts near expiration and up to 7 years following expiration. We explored both the post‐contract intentions of landowners with fields currently enrolled in CRP and the self‐reported, post‐contract decisions of landowners whose CRP contracts expired between 2011 and 2017. Interest in re‐enrolling in CRP upon contract expiration was high among landowners with current fields; however, over half of landowners with former CRP fields reported being unable to re‐enroll when they tried. We found higher rates of grassland persistence than have been previously reported, but also detected temporal patterns that suggest that cropland reversion is increasingly likely as the time since contract expiration increases. This study highlights the need for increased attention to the barriers that preclude transition into other conservation programs following CRP and more detailed understanding of what drives landowner decision‐making about re‐enrollment and post‐CRP land use. These insights will be critical for increasing the effectiveness of programs for enduring grassland conservation on private lands.

Conservation efforts are shaped by individual and collective human behaviors, cultural norms and values, economic pressures, and political and organizational structures. As such, the conservation social sciences—disciplines that draw on social science theories and approaches to improve conservation efforts—can play a vital role in advancing the science and practice of bird conservation. We connect the rich, ongoing discussion about the vital role of the conservation social sciences to the specific context of bird conservation and make an argument for the importance of proactive inclusion of these sciences in ornithological societies. First, we introduce the conservation social sciences and illustrate how they can improve the design and implementation of conservation programs and policies for birds. Drawing on discussions from a symposium we organized at the 2019 American Ornithological Society (AOS) annual meeting, we encourage the AOS to make institutional changes that could further support the inclusion of conservation social sciences. These changes ideally would include a working group, conference plenaries and themes, and high-quality social science publications, along with support and encouragement for ornithologists and bird conservationists to partake in trainings and collaborate with social scientists. Strategies for how to do so effectively can be adapted from other conservation societies that have paved the way for disciplinary inclusivity.

Wildlife recreationists' participation in conservation behaviors could provide key support to the conservation efforts of state fish and wildlife agencies. However, little is known about how identifying with multiple forms of wildlife recreation (i.e., hunters, anglers, birders, wildlife viewers) may influence participation in conservation behaviors, specifically for supporting state fish and wildlife agencies and their conservation goals. Using a mixed‐mode survey of Virginia wildlife recreationists, we explored the hypothesized relationship between individuals' participation in conservation behaviors and their identification with multiple forms of consumptive and nonconsumptive wildlife recreation. We found wildlife recreation identity is multidimensional, with many individuals identifying with consumptive and nonconsumptive identities simultaneously. Further, consumptive‐only recreationists (i.e., hunters and/or anglers) participated in conservation behaviors less often than nonconsumptive‐only recreationists (i.e., birders and/or wildlife viewers) and recreationists with both consumptive and nonconsumptive identities were less likely to support a state fish and wildlife agency in the future. Our findings underscore the importance of all types of wildlife recreationists, especially those with intersecting identities, as state fish and wildlife agencies work to advance conservation. Hence, developing multi‐faceted engagement strategies may enhance support for state fish and wildlife agencies among their growing wildlife recreation constituency.

North American fish and wildlife management has long been supported by the financial contributions of anglers and hunters to state fish and wildlife agencies; however, stagnation in angling participation and declines in hunting participation threaten the stability of this user‐pay support system. While engaging recreationists beyond those with consumptive interests may assist in addressing limitations of the current user‐pay benefit approach, anecdotal evidence suggests differences in recreationists' familiarity with agencies, and perceived benefits of financial contributions may dissuade certain wildlife recreationists from providing agency support. Using focus groups (n = 83) and a survey (n = 1,016) of Virginia residents, we explored how recreationists' familiarity with an agency differed among three categories of wildlife recreationists (i.e., recreation groups)—consumptive (anglers and hunters), nonconsumptive (birders and other wildlife viewers), and multi‐recreationists (those who participate in both consumptive and nonconsumptive activities)—relative to non‐wildlife recreationists (those who do not participate in fish and wildlife recreation). We further examined whether familiarity with an agency and recreation group influenced the future likelihood of financial contributions across voluntary (not required for access or use of natural resources) and user‐pay (required for access or use of natural resources) funding mechanisms. We found that consumptive recreationists and multi‐recreationists had greater familiarity with the agency than nonconsumptive recreationists. Approximately 40% of nonconsumptive recreationists were likely to support the agency through either user‐pay or voluntary mechanisms, while approximately 80% of consumptive recreationists preferred user‐pay mechanisms. Further, all recreationists expected tangible outcomes from their contributions and transparency about how their contributions would benefit their activities (e.g., newsletters detailing angling access funded by their support). We recommend that agencies build familiarity among wildlife recreationists, especially within their nonconsumptive constituency, and demonstrate how current funding mechanisms benefit and are derived from multiple recreation groups.