No abstract

Southeast Asia is a region of conservation concern due to heavy losses of its native habitats. In this overview, we highlight the conservation importance of Southeast Asia by comparing its degree of species endemism and endangerment, and its rate of deforestation with other tropical regions (i.e., Meso-America, South America, and SubSaharan Africa). Southeast Asia contains the highest mean proportion of country-endemic bird (9%) and mammal species (11%). This region also has the highest proportion of threatened vascular plant, reptile, bird, and mammal species. Furthermore, not only is Southeast Asia's annual deforestation rate the highest in the tropics, but it has also increased between the periods 1990-2000 and 2000-2005. This could result in projected losses of 13-85% of biodiversity in the region by 2100. Secondary habitat restoration, at least in certain countries, would allow for some amelioration of biodiversity loss and thus potentially lower the currently predicted extinction rates. Nonetheless, urgent conservation actions are needed. Conservation initiatives should include public education, sustaining livelihoods, and ways to enhance the sustainability of agriculture and increase the capacity of conservation institutions. Furthermore, these actions should be country-specific and not ignore areas heavily populated by humans, as they can also harbour high numbers of threatened species. We urge that cooperative conservation initiatives be undertaken and support (e.g., capacity-building) be given by more developed countries in the region and beyond.

The use of model caterpillars to assess relative rates of predation has risen in popularity in recent years. Among the various benefits of the technique is its capacity to provide information on the identity of attackers through the impressions left in the modelling clay from which the model prey is constructed. However, there currently exists no detailed information on how to assign attack marks to particular predators. We aimed to address this gap by collating a comprehensive reference collection of the types of marks made by different predators to serve as a guide for researchers wanting to identify the predators responsible for attacks. To determine what level of resolution in identification may be considered reliable, we also tested the consistency of predator assignments made by different individuals. We found that predator identification at a coarse taxonomic level (i.e., bird, mammal, arthropod) was reasonably consistent. In contrast, when more fine‐scale identification was attempted, the level of consistency and therefore also confidence in the accuracy of an identification was dramatically reduced, reflecting the difficulty of distinguishing between attacks made not only by different arthropod groups but also by differently sized birds and mammals. We recommend that identifications be made at a coarse taxonomic level and, where possible, by multiple individuals. We also suggest that our collection of images of representative attack marks from each of the coarse predator categories, and descriptions of their defining characteristics, can serve as a guide to assist with identifications and this will be complemented by a good knowledge of the locally occurring and abundant predators.

No abstract

No abstract