U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Government Publication Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014961 v www.esajournals.org

Carcasses of invasive species are predominantly utilized by invasive scavengers in an island ecosystem

Erin F. Abernethy,1,2,6,† Kelsey L. Turner,2,3 James C. Beasley,2,3 Travis L. DeVault,4 William C. Pitt,5,7 and Olin E. Rhodes Jr.2

1Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA2Savannah River Ecology Lab, University of Georgia, Aiken, South Carolina 29802 USA

3Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 USA4USDA APHIS, National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, Ohio 44870 USA

5USDA APHIS, National Wildlife Research Center, Hilo, Hawai’i 96720 USA

Citation: Abernethy, E. F., K. L. Turner, J. C. Beasley, T. L. DeVault, W. C. Pitt, and O. E. Rhodes Jr. 2016. Carcasses of invasive species are predominantly utilized by invasive scavengers in an island ecosystem. Ecosphere 7(10):e01496. 10.1002/ecs2.1496

Abstract. Invasive species have significantly affected ecosystems, particularly islands, and species invasions continue with increasing globalization. Largely unstudied, the influence of invasive species on island ecosystem functions, especially scavenging and decomposition, could be substantive. Quantifying carcass utilization by different scavengers and shifts in community dynamics in the presence of invasive animals is of particular interest for understanding impacts on nutrient recycling. Invasive species could benefit greatly from carcass resources within highly invaded island ecosystems, through increased inva-sion success and population growth, subsequently exacerbating their impacts on native species. We quan-tified how experimentally placed invasive amphibian, reptile, small mammal, and bird carcasses were utilized by vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers on the Big Island of Hawai’i in three island habitats: a barren lava field, a vegetated lava field, and a rainforest. We used camera traps to record vertebrate scavengers removing carcasses and elapsed time until removal. We evaluated differences in scavenging between vertebrates and invertebrates and within the vertebrate community across different habitats and carcass types. Despite the small carcass sizes (<1 kg) used in this study, 55% of carcasses were removed by vertebrate scavengers, all invasive: mongoose, rodents, cats, pigs, and a common myna. Our data indicate that invasive vertebrate scavengers in this island ecosystem are highly efficient at assimilating a range of carrion resources across a variety of habitats. Carcasses of invasive animals could contribute substantially to energy budgets of other invasive vertebrate species. This may be a critical component contributing to successful invasions especially on islands and subsequent impacts on ecosystem function.

Key words: cane toads; cannibalism; carrion; ecosystem function; Hawai’i; invasive species; mongoose; scavenging.

Received 10 April 2016; revised 3 July 2016; accepted 13 July 2016. Corresponding Editor: Robert R. Parmenter. Copyright: © 2016 Abernethy et al. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.6 Present address: Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA.7 Present address: Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park, Front Royal, Virginia 22630 USA.† E-mail: efabernethy@gmail.com

IntroductIon

Invasive species have become prevalent worldwide and are considered one of the great-est threats to biodiversity, especially in island

ecosystems (Reaser et al. 2007). Moreover, inva-sive species drive significant ecological change on islands, causing greater harm compared to mainland ecosystems, particularly regarding eco-system function (D’Antonio and Dudley 1995).

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014962 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

The impact invasive species have on energy flow can be particularly destructive and have wide-spread ecosystem effects (Rodda and Savidge 2007, Mortensen and Dupont 2008, McNatty et al. 2009). Invasive species that utilize flexible feeding strategies, such as facultative scavengers, could have severe impacts on energy flow and an increased capability to invade (Chapple et al. 2012).

There is increasing recognition for the amount of necromass processed by scavengers and the prevalence of facultative scavenging across ver-tebrate species, particularly invasive species (Putnam 1983, DeVault et al. 2003, Wilmers et al. 2003, Brown et al. 2015, Mateo- Tomás et al. 2015, Huijbers et al. 2016). The redistribution of energy by vertebrate scavengers, as opposed to inverte-brates and decomposers, could be far more influ-ential in ecosystem- wide trophic interactions than is currently understood (DeVault et al. 2003, Wilson and Wolkovich 2011). Carcass utilization by vertebrates varies widely and depends on var-ious environmental factors (such as temperature, moisture, and season), habitat fragmentation, carcass size, predation risk, scavenger densities, and scavenger community composition, partic-ularly presence of invasive species (McKillup and McKillup 1994, DeVault et al. 2004, 2011, Selva et al. 2005, Beasley et al. 2012, Olson et al. 2012, Brown et al. 2015, Moleón et al. 2015). Determining how carcass resources are parti-tioned between native and invasive vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers throughout the landscape could reveal ecosystem- wide impacts of invasive species on energy flow.

Additionally, many invasive animals are able to achieve high densities and lack predators in island ecosystems, potentially leading to a large number of carcasses produced via mechanisms other than predation, for example, starvation, exposure, and disease (Schoener and Spiller 1995, Crooks and Soule 2001, Reaser et al. 2007, Beard et al. 2009, Borroto- Paez 2009). Given the functional importance and taxonomic breadth of vertebrate scavenging and the potential nec-romass of invasive species, research examining nutrient recycling by invasive animals in invaded island ecosystems could reveal possible synergis-tic impacts of invasive scavengers and carcasses. Studies evaluating either scavenging by invasive animals or of invasive animal carcasses suggest

that invasive species do alter nutrient recycling (Richards and Goff 1997, Howald et al. 1999, Read and Wilson 2004, Gangoso et al. 2006, Beckmann and Shine 2011, Wilson and Wolkovich 2011, Huijbers et al. 2013, 2016, Schlacher et al. 2013, Brown et al. 2015, Mateo- Tomás et al. 2015). However, previous studies usually only evaluate scavenging on one carcass type, and few studies have simultaneously examined both scavenging on and by vertebrate invasive species (Sebastián- González et al. 2013).

To elucidate the involvement of invasive ani-mals in nutrient recycling in an invaded island ecosystem, we investigated the utilization of invasive amphibian, reptile, small mammal, and bird carcasses by scavengers across three habitat types on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Hawai’i is cur-rently in an invasion crisis and leads the United States in number of federally endangered spe-cies and extinctions, with invasive species con-sidered the top threat to native species (Dodson et al. 1997, Cox 1999, Holt 1999). Therefore, understanding the impact of invasive species on nutrient recycling in Hawai’i is pertinent for conservation and management efforts. By plac-ing camera traps baited with these carcasses at three sites on Hawai’i, we sought to achieve four objectives. Objective (1) was to quantify the proportion of carcasses utilized by vertebrates vs. the proportion scavenged either wholly or primarily by invertebrates and the species com-position of the vertebrate scavenger community. We predicted that vertebrates would utilize more experimental carcasses than invertebrates given the efficient vertebrate scavengers known to be on the island, mongoose (Herpestes javanicus Geoffroy) and pigs (Sus scrofa Linnaeus). We pre-dicted that the vertebrate scavenger community would be composed predominantly of invasive species given the low population densities of native scavengers. Also, we sought to determine whether habitat and/or carcass type influenced the proportion of carcasses scavenged by (2) ver-tebrates and invertebrates and (3) species within the vertebrate scavenger community. In addition to predicting that habitat and carcass type would influence carcass removal, we predicted that rel-ative abundances of vertebrate scavengers would influence scavenging. Objective (4) was to deter-mine whether the elapsed time to find carcasses and remove carcasses by vertebrate scavengers

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014963 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

differed across habitats and carcass types. We predicted that in more open habitats carcasses would be found and removed more quickly, and we predicted that more massive carcass types would be found quicker, relative to smaller carcass types (DeVault et al. 2004, Ruzicka and Conover 2012, Moleón et al. 2015). This research provides novel information about the scaveng-ing ecology of a highly invaded island ecosystem and allows us to predict how invasive species both as scavengers and as carcasses influence island ecosystem function and the potential for nutrient recycling to contribute to invasions.

Methods

Study sitesWe chose three sites within Hawai’i Volcanoes

National Park and Pu’u Maka’ala Natural Area Reserve on the Big Island of Hawai’i with similar rainfall and air temperature, but that, due to dif-ferences in lava flow history and subsequent sub-strate and vegetation development, presented different habitats. One site, referred to through-out as “lava site,” was a coastal lava field, with relatively low elevation, intact, highly reflective lava, and sparse grasses with very few trees and shrubs (Fig. 1). Carcasses were placed approxi-mately 500 m to 2 km from coastal cliffs at this site. Our second site, “scrub site,” was further

inland, approximately 10 km, and had soil vary-ing from intact lava to small pebblelike substrate. The vegetation consisted of trees, shrubs, and grasses that were thick in some areas but short in height. Wide, deep cracks were interspersed throughout this site. Our third site, “rainforest site,” was also inland (16–25 km) and had moist soil that gave rise to thick vegetation, mostly shrubs and tall trees.

Study speciesWe used the following invasive species as

experimentally placed carcasses: herpetofauna—coqui frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui Thomas), geckos (various spp.), and cane toads (Rhinella marina Linnaeus); mammals—mice (Mus muscu-lus Linnaeus), rats (Rattus rattus Linnaeus and Rattus exulans Peale), and mongoose; and birds (various spp., see Appendix S1 for full species list, carcass mass, and introduction dates to Hawai’i). Across Hawai’i and at our study sites, rodents and mongoose have large, established populations (Baldwin et al. 1952, Atkinson 1977). Geckos and non- native birds are considered common islandwide, especially in urban areas, and can be found at all three sites but likely do not have large populations at these sites (Kraus 2005, Pyle and Pyle 2009). Cane toads and coqui frogs are common in some areas of Hawai’i (Lever 2003, Kraus 2005, Beard et al. 2009);

Fig. 1. Sites used for invasive species scavenging research on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Pictures show the lava site (a), an area characterized by lava fields with little vegetation; the scrub site (b), characterized by weathered lava fields and vegetation of short trees, shrubs, and grasses; and the rainforest site (c), a rainforest with lush, thick vegetation.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014964 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

however, while cane toads and coqui frogs are found occasionally near our rainforest site and threat of establishment by coqui frogs in Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park is considered high, they are not currently established at our sites (Kraus 2005).

Experimental designCamera trap trials, which consisted of one car-

cass placed in front of a camera (Reconyx HyperFire PC900, Holmen, Wisconsin, USA) recording photographs for 6 d, were run from June–August 2013 to July–September 2014. In 2013, over 90 carcasses (at least 30 of each herpe-tofauna taxa, Appendix S1) were placed at each site (n = 287). Animals were collected from the Big Island of Hawai’i and euthanized following an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocol approved through the University of Georgia (A2013 04- 007- y1- A0). In 2014, 120 car-casses (30 of each mammal/bird taxa, Appendix S1) were placed at each site (n = 360). Mammal and bird carcasses were salvaged from USDA, Wildlife Services in Hilo, HI. While the euthana-sia methods for species differed, all carcasses were in a predominantly intact state, and no chemicals (apart from carbon dioxide) were used.

During a trial, a single carcass was placed on a pressure- sensitive external triggering device approximately 0.3–1 m from a camera that was attached to a tree or rock a few centimeters to 0.5 m above the ground (DeVault et al. 2004). Cameras were programmed to record five (2013) and three (2014) photographs when triggered by motion or by the pressure- sensitive exter-nal trigger. In 2014, the number of photographs taken at one time was reduced to allow for addi-tional time- lapse photographs to be taken every 15 min, more accurately documenting inverte-brate scavenging and decay of larger carcasses. At each site, cameras were placed throughout the day, so as not to introduce systematic bias based on time of carcass placement. Cameras were placed at least 100 m from other baited camera traps along predetermined transects and at least 50 m from major roads (Michaud et al. 2012, Pitt et al. 2015). To confirm the independence of our carcasses, we conducted post hoc spatial cluster-ing analyses using Moran’s I statistic in R version 3.2.4 (Moran 1950, R Development Core Team 2015). No clustering of scavengers was detected

within study sites, and individual carcasses were considered independent throughout analyses. After 6 d, remaining carcass material was col-lected and described, and evidence of scaveng-ing was noted. Camera traps were then relocated 50–100 m away and reset with fresh carcasses. At least 30 successful trials were run for each carcass type (refers to taxa shown in Appendix S1) at each site. A trial was considered successful if the fate of the carcass could be determined through photographs or the carcass was present at the end of the trial.

To qualitatively confirm that carcasses removed from the view of the camera by vertebrate scav-engers were consumed, we outfitted a separate subset of carcasses with small (2 g; 1 × 1 × 1.5 cm transmitter with a 15 cm long antenna) internally secured radiotransmitters (Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, Minnesota, USA). Transmitters were placed in the esophagus with the antenna visible outside the carcass, and the mouth was safety pinned shut. Transmitters allowed us to locate carcasses that had been carried away from camera traps and record evidence of vertebrate scavenging. In August–September 2014, three cane toads were placed at each site (n = 9); car-casses of a single rat, bird, and mongoose were placed at the lava site, as well as at the scrub site (n = 6); and carcasses of a mouse and a bird were placed at the rainforest site (n = 2).

Data analysisAll photographs were examined for verte-

brates, and for each new visit to a carcass, the species, time of observation, and whether or not the carcass was scavenged (i.e., fully consumed or removed from the field of view) was recorded. A visit was considered new if it occurred ≥2 min from the previous visit by the same species. If not scavenged by a vertebrate, a carcass could be removed or consumed wholly or primarily by invertebrates. To address objective (1), we calcu-lated the percentage of carcasses across all sites that were scavenged by vertebrates vs. those that were either wholly or primarily scavenged by invertebrates and compiled a list of all vertebrate species observed scavenging carcasses.

For objectives (2) and (3), we analyzed herpe-tofauna carcasses separately from mammal/bird carcasses for ease of interpreting results, consid-ering the distinctly different carcass properties

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014965 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

of these groups. We used log- linear models to compare the count data of carcasses scavenged (2) by vertebrates vs. invertebrates and (3) among vertebrate scavenger species for different carcass types at each site. The dependent variable is the count data, that is, number of carcasses scav-enged by each scavenger, and carcass type, site, and scavenger are the independent variables. Initially, we evaluated the three- way interaction of site, carcass type, and scavenger; if significant, we further evaluated each of the pertinent two- way interactions with the data sorted by the third variable (e.g., site × scavenger sorted by carcass type and scavenger × carcass type sorted by site) to clarify the underlying cause of the three- way interaction. If the two- way interaction was non-significant at a particular site or for a particular carcass type, we evaluated the main effects for significance. If the initial three- way interaction of site, carcass type, and scavenger was nonsignifi-cant, we did not sort the data and evaluated two- way interactions and main effects (if two- way interactions were also nonsignificant). We con-ducted log- linear models using CATMOD pro-cedure in SAS, Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA).

To calculate relative abundance at carcasses of scavenger species at each site, we summed all new visits that a single vertebrate scavenger spe-cies made to all camera traps placed within one site and divided that by the total number of visits made by all vertebrate scavengers to camera traps that year. This provided relative abundance for each vertebrate scavenger at each site, with abun-dances calculated separately for different years. If a scavenger species was behaviorally driven to conduct multiple visits to a carcass before or while consuming it, this approach assumes that this behavior was similar for that species across sites.

To evaluate potential differences in the total time (dependent variable) since deployment, it took vertebrate scavengers to find and to then remove each carcass type at each site, objective (4), we used two 2- way factorial ANOVAs to analyze the combined herpetofauna, mammal, and bird data. Site and carcass type were incor-porated as fixed, independent variables, and the 2- way factorial ANOVA accounted for variation between and within both independent variables. If significant, we performed a Tukey’s HSD test.

results

Carcass removal and vertebrate species compositionOf our 647 experimental carcasses, 353 were

scavenged by vertebrates (55%), and 294 car-casses were consumed either wholly or primarily by invertebrates (45%; Fig. 2). See Appendices S2 and S3 for the number and percentage of car-casses of each type taken by each scavenger from each site. The following species, all invasive, composed the vertebrate scavenger community: mongoose, rodents, cats (Felis catus Linnaeus), pigs, and the common myna (Acridotheres tristis Linnaeus; Fig. 3). Mongoose and rats were the only vertebrates to consume cane toad carcasses, and mongoose and pigs were the only verte-brates to consume mongoose carcasses. Species- specific proportions of scavenging by the vertebrate scavenger community across sites loosely reflected observed relative abundance at carcasses (Table 1). Mongoose and rats had the highest relative abundances at carcasses and removed the most carcasses.

While invertebrates did not set off the motion sensor for our cameras, we used photographs recorded by time lapse and the external trigger device to document the following large inver-tebrates, many of which are non- native species, consuming large portions of carcasses at the lava and scrub sites: yellowjackets (non- native, Family: Vespidae), cockroaches (non- native, Order: Blat-todea), ants (Family: Formicidae), and fly larvae (Order: Diptera). Lone centipedes (non- native, Class: Chilopoda) and swarms of cockroaches at these sites also moved a number of carcasses outside the view of cameras (i.e., coqui frogs (5), geckos (6), mice (3), and a rat (1); Fig. 4). At the rainforest site, only fly larvae appeared to con-sume substantial necromass. For the majority of carcasses remaining at the end of trials at the lava and scrub sites, invertebrates had consumed all flesh, whereas at the rainforest site unconsumed flesh was still available.

Influence of site and carcass type on scavenging of vertebrates vs. invertebrates

For the analysis of herpetofauna and mammal/bird data, three- way interactions were significant for both data sets, justifying our examination of two- way interactions sorted by the remaining variable to clarify the nature of the three- way

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014966 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

interactions. When the herpetofauna data were sorted by site, there was a significant interaction between scavenger and carcass type only at the scrub site, indicating that vertebrates and inver-tebrates removed significantly different propor-tions of some carcass types at that site, but not at the lava or rainforest sites (Table 2). This result was driven by the large differences in propor-tional removal of frog (18% vs. 44%) and toad (56% vs. 13%) carcasses by vertebrates and inver-tebrates, respectively, at the scrub site (Appendix S2). In addition, there was a significant effect of scavenger at the lava field site, in the absence of an interaction between scavenger and carcass type at that site (Table 2). This main effect was driven by the much larger proportion of herpeto-fauna carcasses consumed by invertebrates (84%) vs. vertebrates (16%) at this site (Appendix S2).

When the mammal/bird data were sorted by site, there were significant interactions between scavenger and carcass type at the scrub and rainforest sites, but not at the lava site (Table 2). This result was driven largely by the large differ-ences in proportional removal of rat (29% vs. 5%) and mongoose (19% vs. 52%) carcasses by verte-brates and invertebrates, respectively, at the scrub site, as well as the ability of vertebrate scavengers

to remove higher percentages of mouse (34% ver-tebrate vs. 5% invertebrate), rat (32% vs. 12%), and bird (33% vs. 12%) carcasses and of invertebrates to scavenge more mongoose carcasses (71% inver-tebrate vs. 0% vertebrate) at the rainforest site (Appendix S3). No main effects were significant for the mammal/bird data from the lava site.

When the herpetofauna data were sorted by carcass type (frog, gecko, or toad), there were significant interactions between scavenger and site for each of the three carcass types (Table 2), indicating that the proportion of frog, gecko, or toad carcasses removed by vertebrates vs. inver-tebrates each varied as a function of site. This result is driven by the much larger proportions of frogs, geckos, and toads that went to inver-tebrates vs. vertebrates at the lava site vs. the scrub or rainforest sites (Appendix S2). When the mammal/bird data were sorted by carcass type (mouse, rat, bird, mongoose), there were significant interactions between scavenger and site for mouse, rat, and mongoose, but not for bird carcasses (Table 2). These results indicated that the proportion of mouse, rat, and mon-goose carcasses that were scavenged by verte-brates vs. invertebrates differed among sites, while bird carcasses were scavenged equally by

Fig. 2. Percentage of carcasses removed by individual scavengers is shown separately for seven carcass types at three sites (n = 647 carcasses). A single bubble represents 10% of the carcasses of one carcass type placed at one site, and a column of bubbles represents all the carcasses of one type placed at one site (~30 carcasses per column). Bubble fractions and colors represent the percentage of carcasses removed by a particular scavenger. Data used to calculate these percentages are shown in Appendices S2 and S3.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014967 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

vertebrates and invertebrates across the three sites (Appendix S3). In addition, there was a sig-nificant effect of scavenger for bird carcasses, in the absence of an interaction between scavenger and site for this carcass type (Table 2). This main effect was driven by the much larger overall pro-portion of bird carcasses removed by vertebrates (80%) than invertebrates (16%; Appendix S3).

Vertebrate scavenger community dynamicsDue to the small number of carcasses remo-

ved by most vertebrate species, the number of carcasses removed by mongoose was compared to the carcasses removed by all other vertebrate scavengers combined. For herpetofauna car-casses, there were insufficient data to analyze the

three- way interaction. Almost half of the counts for the 18 observational categories fell below the 5% threshold of the total counts (107), that is, less than five observations in each category. Given this limitation, we chose to examine the model for only the pertinent two- way interactions (scaven-ger × site and scavenger × carcass type) and main effects (in the absence of a significant two- way interaction) and detected a significant interaction between scavenger and carcass (Table 2). This analysis indicated that when the data were pooled across sites, the number of carcasses removed by mongoose vs. other vertebrates differed among herpetofauna carcass types, a result likely driven by the larger number of cane toads scavenged by mongoose vs. other vertebrates (Appendix S2).

Fig. 3. Invasive vertebrate scavengers on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Pictures show a mongoose, the most successful vertebrate scavenger, scavenging a cane toad at the rainforest site (a) and a mongoose carcass at the scrub site (b), a pig removing a mongoose at the scrub site (c), and a cat removing a mouse at the rainforest site (d).

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014968 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

For the analysis of the mammal/bird data, the three- way interaction was not significant, but interactions of both scavenger × carcass and scav-enger × site were significant in the full model (Table 2). The scavenger × carcass interaction was driven by the fact that mongoose removed more of all carcass types than other vertebrates, although only slightly more mouse carcasses (Appendix S3). The scavenger × site interaction was driven by the fact that mongoose removed vastly more car-casses than other vertebrates at the lava and scrub sites but not at the rainforest site (Appendix S3).

Elapsed time for vertebrates to find and remove carcasses

For comparison purposes, time data were only used from mongoose scavengers, as they were the only scavenger to take all carcass types from each site. For herpetofauna, mammal, and bird carcasses, there was no significant difference in the amount of time that elapsed before a mon-goose made an initial visit among the three sites, regardless of what ultimately scavenged the car-cass. However, there was a significant main effect of carcass type on elapsed time to carcass removal (P = 0.0009), which did not always occur on the initial visit. A Tukey’s HSD test revealed that sig-nificantly more time elapsed before the removal

of mongoose carcasses compared to gecko and mouse carcasses, regardless of site (P = 0.0033, 0.0135, respectively). Mongoose removed 74 of 91 herpetofauna carcasses they found (81%) and 172 of 225 mammal/bird carcasses they found (76%). See Appendix S4 for the average elapsed time until mongoose found and removed each carcass type, as well as the range of elapsed time until removal and average number of visits to carcasses by a mongoose.

Confirmation of carcass consumptionOf the 17 carcasses outfitted with radiotransmit-

ters, cameras revealed that 13 were removed and one was scavenged on camera by mongoose, one was removed by a rodent, and two were not moved or scavenged by vertebrates. Mongoose and the rodent carried carcasses 0.3–23 m away, and transmitters were recovered in the open (one carcass), heavy grass (one), under shrubs (seven), in a burrow (one), or in shallow lava caves/cracks (four). The following carcass material was found with transmitters: the head of a cane toad, the head and spine of one mongoose, and the feathers of two birds. The remaining transmitters were recov-ered without carcass material or were inaccessible (detected in burrows, caves, or cracks) and not recovered. This evidence suggests that when

Table 1. Number of carcasses removed by each vertebrate scavenger and relative abundance of each vertebrate scavenger at each site.

Scavenger

Lava site Scrub site Rainforest siteCarcasses removed

Scavenger RA

Carcasses removed

Scavenger RA

Carcasses removed

Scavenger RA

Herpetofauna data—2013Mongoose 13 0.047 33 0.131 28 0.098Rodent 0.036 6 0.052 20 0.602Cat 3 0.004 1 0.005 0.007Pig 2 0.012Myna 1 0.005Total† 16 85 43 200 48 688

Mammal/bird data—2014Mongoose 59 0.108 73 0.207 40 0.132Rodent 2 0.012 17 0.149 35 0.362Cat 8 0.007 2 0.003 3 0.004Pig 0.001 7 0.014MynaTotal† 69 338 99 985 78 1310

Notes: Relative abundance was calculated by summing all new visits (≥2 min apart) of a scavenger to camera traps in each site, regardless of whether carcasses had already been scavenged, divided by the total number of visits by all vertebrate scavengers to all sites that year. The last row of each data set shows the total number of carcasses removed and the visits by all scavengers.

† The totals are the number of carcasses removed and the total number of visits by all scavengers.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e014969 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

vertebrate scavengers did not fully consume car-casses in view of cameras, carcasses were moved a short distance away to a refuge where vertebrates then consumed the majority of the carcass.

dIscussIon

Influence of invasive species as scavengers and carcasses on ecosystem function

With the worldwide distribution of invasive facultative scavengers and the propensity for invasive species to reach high densities in areas

lacking predators, such as islands, carcasses of invasive species could represent important, sus-taining resources for invasive scavengers, result-ing in drastically altered nutrient recycling within these ecosystems. Our study reveals that invasive vertebrates extensively utilize the car-casses of invasive species widely available on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Invasive mammals (mon-goose, rats, cats, and pigs) removed 55% of car-casses before invertebrates were able to completely consume carcasses. As predicted, native Hawaiian vertebrate species capable of scavenging, such as the hawk (Buteo solitaries Peale) or owl (Asio flammeus sandwichensis Bloxam), were not observed in our study, and it is unlikely that these species significantly con-tribute to nutrient recycling, given their current low population densities (Klavitter et al. 2003, Pyle and Pyle 2009). Additionally while identify-ing invertebrates was outside the scope of this study, it was noted that many invertebrates con-suming carcasses were non- native. Quantifying carcass utilization by invertebrate species will be critical to fully understanding how carcass resources are partitioned between native and invasive scavengers. Our results show that inva-sive vertebrates and invertebrates are utilizing a majority of the carcass resources otherwise avail-able to native invertebrates and decomposers, redistributing resources more widely on the landscape than has historically occurred on Hawai’i and possibly contributing to positive feedback loops (Gurevitch 2006). A positive feed-back loop could occur if as invasive species invade, making more carcasses available (to be utilized by both vertebrate and invertebrate inva-sive species), more scavenging species are also able to invade. Theoretical scavenging ecology has already begun to expand the idea of positive feedback loops (Hobbs 1996, Wipfli et al. 1999, Towne 2000, Chaloner et al. 2002, Bump et al. 2009). These data also have the potential to extend other existing theories, such as the inva-sional meltdown theory (Simberloff and Holle 1999). Invasional meltdowns occur when the impacts of invasive species are magnified in the presence of other invasive species due to syner-gistic interactions. Expanding these theories would allow scavenging behaviors of invasive species to be better incorporated into invasion ecology.

Fig. 4. Trigger and time- lapse photographs of a centipede (Class: Chilopoda) removing a rat carcass at the lava site (a–d).

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149610 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

Our results and the successful invasions of many scavenging species suggest that invasion success could be tied to an ability and will-ingness to find and take advantage of carcass resources, even if they represent novel carcass types, such as coqui frog and cane toad carcasses in our experiment (Mateo- Tomás et al. 2015). Due to the extremely small carcass size of coqui frogs and geckos (only a few grams), it is sur-prising that some vertebrate species were able to find and scavenge them before invertebrates. Even though the percentages removed (22 and 39% of coqui and gecko carcasses, respectively, across all sites) were not as high as those for the

other carcass types, these taxa are able to reach incredibly high densities in some areas (>91,000 adult coqui frogs/ha on Hawai’i), and with few predators on invaded islands, even these small species could provide large amounts of necro-mass (Beard et al. 2009). For mouse, rat, and bird carcasses, we found that vertebrates scavenged a large percentage of the carcasses, between 76 and 80%, which was comparable to or higher than in previous research conducted in natural settings with similar carcasses (see DeVault et al. 2003 for a review). Considering the potential necromass and relatively high percentage of carcasses scav-enged by vertebrate invasive species, the amount

Table 2. Results of log- linear models used to analyze three- way interactions of herpetofauna or mammal/bird data and two- way interactions of these data sorted by site or by carcass type.

Interactions PMain effect

Scavenger Carcass Site

Scavenger—vertebrates vs. invertebratesHerpetofauna data

Scavenger/carcass/site <0.01Scavenger/carcass

Lava site NS <0.01 NS NSScrub site <0.01 † † †Rainforest site NS NS NS NS

Scavenger/siteFrog <0.01 † † †Gecko <0.01 † † †Toad <0.01 † † †

Mammal/bird dataScavenger/carcass/site <0.01Scavenger/carcass

Lava site NS NS NS NSScrub site <0.01 † † †Rainforest site <0.01 † † †

Scavenger/siteMouse <0.01 † † †Rat <0.01 † † †Bird NS <0.01 NS NSMongoose <0.01 † † †

Scavenger—mongoose vs. other vertebratesHerpetofauna data

Scavenger/carcass/site NA‡Scavenger/carcass <0.01 † † †Scavenger/site NS NS NS NS

Mammal/bird dataScavenger/carcass/site NSScavenger/carcass <0.01 † † †Scavenger/site <0.01 † † †

Note: The interactions and main effects of scavenger, site, and carcass that significantly influenced the scavenging efficiency of vertebrates compared to invertebrates or mongoose to other vertebrate scavenger species are shown.

† Invalid to test main effects in light of significant two- way interaction.‡ Insufficient data to test three- way interaction.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149611 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

of nutritive resources that carrion provides to the invasive species on Hawai’i must be substantial. Scavenging could enhance invasion success and sustain populations of invasive species, while also increasing competition for carcass resources among native invertebrate scavengers, ultimately impacting native species persistence and energy flow.

Influence of site, relative scavenger abundance, and carcass type

We determined that the proportion of carcasses scavenged by vertebrates vs. invertebrates and within the vertebrate community varied by site and carcass type on Hawai’i. These differences are likely due to factors including habitat charac-teristics, vertebrate and invertebrate densities, and carcass skin properties and size. We discuss these mechanisms to provide a better under-standing of how ecosystem function may be dif-ferentially affected by a variety of invasive animals.

The data indicate that the three- way interac-tion for herpetofauna is largely driven by the scavenger × carcass interaction at the scrub site but not at the lava or rainforest sites. In addition, the data indicate that the three- way interaction for mammals/birds is driven by scavenger × car-cass interactions at the scrub and rainforest sites but not at the lava site. Clearly, there are site dif-ferences influencing the proportion of carcasses scavenged by vertebrates vs. the proportion scavenged either wholly or primarily by inver-tebrates, as well as carcass characteristics. While determining the specific site characteristics causing this difference, for example, microhab-itat characteristics, available resources, relative abundance of scavengers, was outside the scope of this study, we do present the relative abun-dances of scavengers as recorded by our camera traps (Table 1). In both 2013 and 2014, the higher relative abundance of vertebrate scavengers doc-umented at the scrub and rainforest sites, as well as the decreased invertebrate carcass consump-tion observed at the rainforest site, could have contributed to the higher proportion of carcasses removed by vertebrates at the scrub and rainfor-est sites, compared to the lava site (DeVault et al. 2004, 2011).

Within each site our data indicate that carcass attributes, such as skin properties, also may have

influenced whether vertebrates or invertebrates removed a carcass. For example, the highly reflec-tive lava habitat at the lava site likely heated up quickly, causing swifter physical degradation of and bacterial activity on herpetofauna carcasses than at the scrub or rainforest sites, even though rainfall and air temperature were generally consis-tent across sites throughout the year (Shean et al. 1993, Archer 2004, Parmenter 2005, Sharanowski et al. 2008, Parmenter and MacMahon 2009). The skin of herpetofauna, compared to mammal/bird carcasses, has more rapid water loss and is more easily penetrated by invertebrates, result-ing in faster physical degradation, especially at the lava site given the habitat (Shean et al. 1993). Invertebrates at the lava site scavenged 84% of herpetofauna, compared to 43% of mammal/bird carcasses scavenged by invertebrates at this same site the following year. Thus under the conditions on the lava field, smaller carcasses would have been available for less time. Moreover, bird data only showed a main effect of scavenger, suggest-ing that (regardless of site) birds were removed in similar numbers by the vertebrate scavengers. Perhaps the unique skin properties and feathers of a bird allowed them to persist in an attractive form across all sites for a similar amount of time. Given that all carcass types were found by mon-goose in relatively the same amount of elapsed time at all three sites, persistence of carcasses, perhaps related to skin properties, across sites likely influenced the number and type of car-casses vertebrates were able to scavenge.

Furthermore, differences in the time to remove specific carcass types suggest that other factors, such as palatability, toxicity, and size, affected whether a vertebrate removed a carcass after it was found. The bufotoxin located in the paro-toid glands of the cane toad has been shown to negatively affect cats and pigs and can remain potent several days after death, but mongoose and rats readily consume cane toads (Nellis and Everard 1983, Shine 2010). We had photographic evidence of mongoose and rats eating cane toad carcasses at the camera trap, and our transmit-ter trials showed that when mongoose removed cane toads they likely consumed them, entirely or at least in large part, in a refuge away from the camera trap.

Although mongoose carcasses persisted the longest, making them available for vertebrate

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149612 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

scavenging over a greater time period, only two vertebrate species, mongoose and pigs, scav-enged mongoose carcasses and tended to remove fewer of this carcass type overall. Also, the aver-age number of visits that a mongoose made to a mongoose carcass prior to removal was greater than for any other carcass type (6.1 compared to 1.0–1.3, Appendix S4). This may reflect difficulty in handling a large carcass and/or low palatabil-ity of a mongoose carcass. At the rainforest site, the most complex habitat with presumably the most available resources, no mongoose carcasses were removed, although many were found by mongoose. This suggests that in resource- limited habitats (the lava and scrub sites) the nutritional benefits of partaking in cannibalism may out-weigh the costs to mongoose scavengers. In most species, the costs of cannibalism, such as patho-gen transmission, have made it a rare practice (Pfennig et al. 1998). To the knowledge of the authors, cannibalism has not previously been documented in small Indian mongoose.

conclusIons

Our study is the first to describe the vertebrate scavenger community of Hawai’i and quantify carcass removal by vertebrates and invertebrates in an island ecosystem. This study is also the first to quantify vertebrate scavenging on herpeto-fauna carcasses in a setting away from a road and cannibalism in small Indian mongoose. We show that the vertebrate scavenging community of Hawai’i is functionally composed of invasive species and that they can scavenge a majority of carcasses before invertebrates, many of which are likely non- native. Given the ability of some invasive animals to reach high densities in invaded island environments and a lack of pred-ators, carcasses may be widely available. Our results suggest that novel carcass resources could influence ecosystem function, invasive species community dynamics through positive feedback loops, and possibly contribute to the process of island invasion in a manner that may extend existing theoretical models (e.g., invasional melt-down). We suggest that further research seeks to determine available invasive and native species necromass, what portion of an invasive scaven-ger’s diet is carrion, and the population dynam-ics of new and established invasive animals as

species continue to invade. This research would advance predictability for which species will invade and how invasive scavenger populations will respond to carcass availability throughout an invasion. Ideally, this would help manage the negative impacts of invasive species on native species and ecosystems through a heightened awareness of the influence of carcass resources (human mediated or natural) on invasion success and invasive species persistence.

AcknowledgMents

We appreciate the field assistance of Shem Unger. We sincerely thank Kelton Kotake, Bob Sugihara, Dean Foster, Tom McAuliffe, and Aaron Shiels at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center Hilo Field Station for making this study possible. We thank Hawai’i Vol-canoes National Park and the Natural Area Reserve System of HI DLNR for giving us a location and per-mit to conduct our study. This work was supported through Cooperative Agreements among the University of Georgia Research Foundation, the USDA NWRC Hilo Field Station (No. 12- 7415- 0936- CA), and the US Department of Energy (No. DE- FC09- 07SR22506). This paper was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the US Government. Neither the US Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use-fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or pro-cess disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorse-ment, recommendation, or favoring by the US Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessar-ily state or reflect those of the US Government or any agency thereof.

lIterAture cIted

Archer, M. S. 2004. Rainfall and temperature effects on the decomposition rate of exposed neonatal remains. Science and Justice 44:35–41.

Atkinson, I. A. E. 1977. A reassessment of factors, par-ticularly Rattus rattus L., that influenced the decline of endemic forest birds in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science 31:109–133.

Baldwin, P. H., C. W. Schwartz, and E. R. Schwartz. 1952. Life history and economic status of the

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149613 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

mongoose in Hawaii. Journal of Mammalogy 33: 335–356.

Beard, K. H., W. C. Pitt, and E. A. Price. 2009. Biology and impacts of Pacific Island invasive species. 5. Eleutherodactylus coqui, the coqui frog (Anura: Lep-todactylidae). Pacific Science 63:297–316.

Beasley, J. C., Z. H. Olson, and T. L. DeVault. 2012. Carrion cycling in food webs: comparisons among terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Oikos 121: 1021–1026.

Beckmann, C., and R. Shine. 2011. Toad’s tongue for breakfast: exploitation of a novel prey type, the invasive cane toad, by scavenging raptors in tropical Australia. Biological Invasions 13: 1447–1455.

Borroto-Paez, R. 2009. Invasive mammals in Cuba: an overview. Biological Invasions 11:2279–2290.

Brown, M. B., T. A. Schlacher, D. S. Schoeman, M. A. Weston, C. M. Huijbers, A. D. Olds, and R. M. Connolly. 2015. Invasive carnivores alter ecologi-cal function and enhance complementarity in sca-venger assemblages on ocean beaches. Ecology 96:2715–2725.

Bump, J. K., R. O. Peterson, and J. A. Vucetich. 2009. Wolves modulate soil nutrient heterogeneity and foliar nitrogen by configuring the distribution of ungulate carcasses. Ecology 90:3159–3167.

Chaloner, D. T., K. M. Martin, M. S. Wipfli, P. H. Ostrom, and G. A. Lamberti. 2002. Marine carbon and nitrogen in southeastern Alaska stream food webs: evidence from artificial and natural streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:1257–1265.

Chapple, D. G., S. M. Simmonds, and B. B. M. Wong. 2012. Can behavioral and personality traits influence the success of unintentional species introductions? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:57–64.

Cox, G. W. 1999. Alien species in North America and Hawaii. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Crooks, J. A., and M. E. Soule. 2001. Lag times in population explosions of invasive species: causes and implication. Pages 103–125 in O. T. Sandlund, P. J. Schei, and A. Viken, editors. Invasive species and biodiversity management. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, Massachusetts, USA.

D’Antonio, C. M., and T. L. Dudley. 1995. Biological invasions as agents of change on islands versus mainlands. Ecological Studies 115:103–121.

DeVault, T. L., I. L. Brisbin, and O. E. Rhodes. 2004. Factors influencing the acquisition of rodent car-rion by vertebrate scavengers and decomposers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:502–509.

DeVault, T. L., Z. H. Olson, J. C. Beasley, and O. E. Rhodes. 2011. Mesopredators dominate

competition for carrion in an agricultural land-scape. Basic and Applied Ecology 12:268–274.

DeVault, T. L., O. E. Rhodes, and J. A. Shivik. 2003. Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos 102:225–234.

Dodson, A. P., J. P. Rodriguez, W. M. Roberts, and D. S. Wilcove. 1997. Geographic distribution of endan-gered species in the United States. Science 275: 550–553.

Gangoso, L., J. A. Donazar, S. Scholz, C. J. Palacios, and F. Hiraldo. 2006. Contradiction in conservation of island ecosystems: plants, introduced herbivores and avian scavengers in the Canary Islands. Biodi-versity and Conservation 15:2231–2248.

Gurevitch, J. 2006. Commentary on Simberloff (2006): meltdowns, snowballs, and positive feedbacks. Ecology Letters 9:919–921.

Hobbs, N. T. 1996. Modification of ecosystems by ung-ulates. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:695–713.

Holt, A. 1999. An alliance of biodiversity, agricul-ture, health, and business interests for improved alien species management in Hawaii. Pages 65–78 in O. T. Sandlund, P. J. Schei, and A. Viken, editors. Invasive species and biodiversity manage-ment. Kluwer Academic, Norwell, Massachusetts, USA.

Howald, G. R., P. Mineau, J. E. Elliott, and K. M. Cheng. 1999. Brodifacoum poisoning of avian scavengers during rat control on a seabird colony. Ecotoxicol-ogy 8:431–447.

Huijbers, C. M., T. A. Schlacher, R. R. McVeigh, D. S. Schoeman, A. D. Olds, M. B. Brown, K. B. Ekanayake, M. A. Weston, and R. M. Connolly. 2016. Functional replacement across species pools of vertebrate scavengers separated at a continental scale maintains an ecosystem function. Functional Ecology 30:998–1005.

Huijbers, C. M., T. A. Schlacher, D. S. Schoeman, M. A. Weston, and R. M. Connolly. 2013. Urbani-sation alters processing of marine carrion on sandy beaches. Landscape and Urban Planning 119:1–8.

Klavitter, J. L., J. M. Marzluff, and M. S. Vekasy. 2003. Abundance and demography of the Hawaiian Hawk: Is delisting warranted? Journal of Wildlife Management 67:165–176.

Kraus, F. 2005. Inventory of reptiles and amphibi-ans in Hawai’i Volcanoes, Haleakala, and Kalau-papa National Parks. Hawaii Biological Survey, Contribution No. 2005-013. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA.

Lever, C. 2003. Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149614 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

Mateo-Tomás, P., P. P. Olea, M. Moleón, J. Vicente, F. Botella, N. Selva, J. Vinuela, and J. A. Sanchez-Zapata. 2015. From regional to global patterns in vertebrate scavenger communities subsidized by big game hunting. Diversity and Distributions 21:913–924.

McKillup, S. C., and R. V. McKillup. 1994. The decision to feed by a scavenger in relation to the risks of pre-dation and starvation. Oecologia 97:41–48.

McNatty, A., K. L. Abbott, and P. J. Lester. 2009. Invasive ants compete with and modify the trophic ecology of hermit crabs on tropical islands. Oeco-logia 160:187–194.

Michaud, J. P., K. G. Schoenly, and G. Moreau. 2012. Sampling flies or sampling flaws? Experimental design and inference strength in forensic ento-mology. Journal of Medical Entomology 49: 1–10.

Moleón, M., J. A. Sánchez-Zapata, E. Sebastián- González, and N. Owen-Smith. 2015. Carcass size shapes the structure and functioning of an African scavenging assemblage. Oikos 124:1391–1403.

Moran, P. A. P. 1950. Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika 37:17–23.

Mortensen, H. S., and y. L. Dupont. 2008. A snake in paradise: disturbance of plant reproduction fol-lowing extirpation of bird flower- visitors on Guam. Biological Conservation 141:2146–2154.

Nellis, D. W., and C. O. R. Everard. 1983. The biology of the mongoose in the Caribbean. Studies of the Fauna of Curacao and Other Caribbean Islands 195:1–162.

Olson, Z. H., J. C. Beasley, T. L. DeVault, and O. E. Rhodes. 2012. Scavenger community response to the removal of a dominant scavenger. Oikos 121:77–84.

Parmenter, R. R. 2005. Patterns of decomposition and nutrient cycling across a volcanic disturbance gra-dient: a case study using rodent carcasses. Pages 233–242 in V. H. Dale, F. Swanson, and C. M. Crisafulli, editors. Ecological reposes to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. Springer, New york, New york, USA.

Parmenter, R. R., and J. A. MacMahon. 2009. Carrion decomposition and nutrient cycling in a semiarid shrub- steppe ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 79:637–661.

Pfennig, D. W., S. G. Ho, and E. A. Hoffman. 1998. Pathogen transmission as a selective force against cannibalism. Animal Behavior 55:1255–1261.

Pitt, W. C., R. T. Sugihara, and A. R. Berentsen. 2015. Effect of travel distance, home range, and bait on the management of small Indian mongooses, Herpestes auropunctatus. Biological Invasions 17: 1743–1759.

Putnam, R. J. 1983. Carrion and dung: the decompo-sition of animal wastes. Edward Arnold, London, UK.

Pyle, R. L., and P. Pyle. 2009. The birds of the Hawaiian Islands: occurrence, history, distribution, and sta-tus. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai’i, USA.

R Development Core Team. 2015. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org

Read, J. L., and D. Wilson. 2004. Scavengers and detri-tivores of kangaroo harvest offcuts in arid Austra-lia. Wildlife Research 31:51–56.

Reaser, J. K., et al. 2007. Ecological and socio economic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosys-tems. Environmental Conservation 34:1–14.

Richards, E. N., and M. L. Goff. 1997. Arthropod suc-cession on exposed carrion in three contrasting tropical habitats on Hawaii Island, Hawaii. Journal of Medical Entomology 34:328–339.

Rodda, G. H., and J. A. Savidge. 2007. Biology and impacts of Pacific island invasive species. 2. Boiga irregularis, the brown tree snake (Reptilia: Colubri-dae). Pacific Science 61:307–324.

Ruzicka, R. E., and M. R. Conover. 2012. Does weather or site characteristics influence the ability of scavengers to locate food? Ethology 118:187–196.

Schlacher, T. A., S. Strydom, and R. M. Connolly. 2013. Multiple scavengers respond rapidly to pulsed carrion resources at the land- ocean interface. Acta Oecologica 48:7–12.

Schoener, T. W., and D. A. Spiller. 1995. Effect of pred-ators and area on invasion: an experiment with island spiders. Science 267:1811–1813.

Sebastián-González, E., J. A. Sánchez-Zapata, J. A. Donázar, N. Selva, A. Cortés-Avizanda, F. Hiral-do, M. Blázquez, F. Botella, and M. Moleón. 2013. Interactive effects of obligate scavengers and scav-enger community richness on lagomorph carcass consumption patterns. International Journal of Avian Science 155:881–885.

Selva, N., B. Jedrzejewska, W. Jedrzejewski, and A. Wajrak. 2005. Factors affecting carcass use by a guild of scavengers in European temperate wood-land. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1590–1601.

Sharanowski, B. J., E. G. Walker, and G. S. Anderson. 2008. Insect succession and decomposition patterns on shaded and sunlit carrion in Saskatchewan in three different seasons. Forensic Science Interna-tional 179:219–240.

Shean, B. S., L. Messinger, and M. Papworth. 1993. Observations of differential decomposition on sun exposed v. shaded pig carrion in coastal Washin gton State. Journal of Forensic Science 38:58–68.

October 2016 v Volume 7(10) v Article e0149615 v www.esajournals.org

ABERNETHy ET AL.

Shine, R. 2010. The ecological impact of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) in Australia. Quarterly Review of Biology 85:253–291.

Simberloff, D., and B. V. Holle. 1999. Positive inter-actions of nonindigenous species: Invasional melt-down? Biological Invasions 1:21–32.

Towne, E. G. 2000. Prairie vegetation and soil nutri-ent responses to ungulate carcasses. Oecologia 122:232–239.

Wilmers, C. C., R. L. Crabtree, D. W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, and W. M. Getz. 2003. Trophic facilitation

by introduced top predators: grey wolf subsidies to scavengers in yellowstone National Park. Journal of Animal Ecology 72:909–916.

Wilson, E. E., and E. M. Wolkovich. 2011. Scavenging: How carnivores and carrion structure communities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26:129–135.

Wipfli, M. S., J. P. Hudson, D. T. Chaloner, and J. P. Caouette. 1999. Influence of salmon spawner den-sities on stream productivity in Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:1600–1611.

supportIng InforMAtIon

Additional Supporting Information may be found online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.1496/supinfo