2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2019.106350
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Not all rotten fish stink: Microbial changes in decaying carcasses increase cytotoxicity and potential risks to animal scavengers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These complex interactions among microbes and scavenging fauna, along with abiotic factors (e.g., precipitation and temperature), often impact the duration and occurrence of the previously described stages (Carter, Yellowlees & Tibbett, 2008;Carter, Yellowlees & Tibbett, 2010;Comstock et al, 2015;Galloway, Jones & Parks, 1989;Payne, 1965;Rozen, Engelmoer & Smiseth, 2008;Shukla et al, 2017). For example, some microbes that begin to metabolize the carrion soft tissue after an animal's death also produce toxins in order to hinder consumption from other organisms (Blandford et al, 2019;Burkepile et al, 2006;Janzen, 1977). In response, some scavengers, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), have developed an unusually high tolerance to decomposer-produced toxins (e.g., botulinum toxin), and the highly acidic conditions present in their hindgut reduce the likelihood of microbes surviving consumption and infecting the vulture itself (Beasley, Olson & DeVault, 2015;DeVault Jr, Rhodes & Shivik, 2003;Roggenbuck et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These complex interactions among microbes and scavenging fauna, along with abiotic factors (e.g., precipitation and temperature), often impact the duration and occurrence of the previously described stages (Carter, Yellowlees & Tibbett, 2008;Carter, Yellowlees & Tibbett, 2010;Comstock et al, 2015;Galloway, Jones & Parks, 1989;Payne, 1965;Rozen, Engelmoer & Smiseth, 2008;Shukla et al, 2017). For example, some microbes that begin to metabolize the carrion soft tissue after an animal's death also produce toxins in order to hinder consumption from other organisms (Blandford et al, 2019;Burkepile et al, 2006;Janzen, 1977). In response, some scavengers, such as the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), have developed an unusually high tolerance to decomposer-produced toxins (e.g., botulinum toxin), and the highly acidic conditions present in their hindgut reduce the likelihood of microbes surviving consumption and infecting the vulture itself (Beasley, Olson & DeVault, 2015;DeVault Jr, Rhodes & Shivik, 2003;Roggenbuck et al, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research into the interactions between animal scavengers and microbes have typically focused on scavenger avoidance of microbe-laden carrion (Blandford et al, 2019;Burkepile et al, 2006). It has long been suggested that scavengers may facilitate the spread of pathogens throughout an ecosystem (Houston & Cooper, 1975), but scavengers' involvement in disease ecology is complex and requires further study (Beasley, Olson & DeVault, 2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is likely that carcasses in our mesocosm setting broke down slower than carcasses in natural systems, as we observed few carcasses remaining between weekly surveys of post-spawn carcasses in regional streams (Dunkle et al 2020), which could be related to hydraulic conditions (e.g., greater velocity), different macroinvertebrate communities, and/or the presence of scavengers (e.g., raccoons or crayfish) in natural streams. Another possibility is bacteria and other microbes successfully colonized and defended carcasses in the mesocosms using secondary compounds, a phenomenon reported for marine mammal carrion (Dayton et al 2019) and coastal marine fish carcasses (Blandford et al 2019). Further research is needed to elucidate the role of carcass traits such as integument toughness, palatability, and epimicrobiomes in trophic resource processing in both controlled and natural settings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Yet tigers, as well as other large size felids, do not consume the gastrointestinal contents of their prey (e.g., Delibes et al, 2011; Labisky & Boulay, 1998; Schaller, 1967; Stahler et al, 2006; Sunquist, 1981; Vucetich et al, 2012). This part of the carcasses certainly contains toxic substances, and it is not well known whether predators would ‘behaviorally avoid the consumption of maggots or different parts of a carrion to the effects of toxins’ (Blandford et al, 2019, p. 6). However, Carnivora, which consume small‐sized prey (e.g., mice) as a whole therefore come into contact with toxins (e.g., plant material from gut and stomach), which justified their assignment to a ‘low’ score, instead of a total absence of toxin in their diet.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%