Wild

We present WM-Classroom v1.0, a pedagogical multi-species agent-based model (ABM) designed for educational purposes in predator–prey–harvest systems. The model embeds a predator, two prey breeds, and human harvesters on a homogeneous 50 × 50 grid with weekly time steps, implementing random movement, abstract energetics, prey consumption, reproduction, legal harvest with species-specific cut-offs and seasons, optional predator control, and a poaching switch. After basic technical checks (energetic calibration, prey composition, herbivore viability), we explore the consistency of the model under illustrative scenarios including no hunting, single-prey harvest, hunter-density and season-length gradients, predator removal, and poaching. In the no-hunting baseline (n = 100), mean end-of-run abundances were 22 deer, 159 boar, and 45 wolves, with limited extinction events. Deer-only harvest often drove deer to very low end-of-run counts (mean 1–16) with extinctions in 2–7/10 replicates across cut-offs, whereas boar-only harvest showed higher persistence (mean 11–74) and boar extinctions occurred only at the lowest cut-off (3/10). Increasing hunter numbers or season length depressed prey and could indirectly reduce wolves via prey depletion. Legal predator control reduced predators as designed, while poaching had little effect under the implemented rules. Because interaction and prey-choice rules are simplified for transparency, outcomes should be interpreted as conditional on model assumptions. WM-Classroom v1.0 provides a didactic sandbox for courses, professional training, and outreach, with extensions (habitat heterogeneity, age/sex structure, probabilistic diet/kill success, and calibration/validation) outlined for future versions.

Rewilding and ecosystem restoration approaches have focused strongly on the restoration of wildlife/biodiversity. However, the Convention on Biological Diversity defines an ecosystem as “a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”. It follows, therefore, that ecosystem restoration must involve the restoration of both the living and the non-living components of the environment, including their dynamic interactions. This paper defines other aspects of the environment, including nature and natural capital. These involve both biotic and abiotic components, so “nature” should not be used as a synonym for wildlife/biodiversity. After describing how geodiversity is important in ecosystem functioning, several examples are presented of how geomorphology is a crucial aspect of rewilding or landscape/ecosystem restoration. By pursuing this integrated approach to biotic and abiotic restoration, stronger, more-resilient ecosystems can be achieved.

Predation of sea turtles by jaguars (Panthera onca) in the Santa Rosa National Park (SRNP) has been well documented over the past decade. However, the factors that influence jaguar feeding behavior, including environmental factors or characteristics of the beaches and the adjacent forest, are poorly known. This study aimed to identify the relationship between vegetation density and human activity on the distribution of feeding sites of jaguar on sea turtles at nesting beaches in Santa Rosa National Park, Costa Rica. We sampled three beaches (Naranjo, Nancite, and Colorada), where we identified and registered sea turtle carcasses preyed on by jaguars between June and November 2019. Through systematic searches of the forest adjacent to the beach, we documented the species, geographic coordinates, carcass length and width, vegetation cover at the carcass site, and the average vegetation coverage corresponding to the date and beach of each sea turtle carcass. In total, we recorded 338 sea turtle carcasses preyed on by jaguars, 156 at Naranjo beach, 103 at Nancite beach, and 89 at Colorada beach. The beach with the highest average density of carcasses was Colorada (8.7 (SD = 5.42)/ha), followed by Nancite (6.06 (SD = 5.58)/ha) and Naranjo (2.64 (SD = 1.79)/ha). The dragging distance from the beach line to sea turtle carcasses was best explained by the interaction of nesting beach and canopy cover at the carcass. Our canopy cover results may reflect that jaguars select sites that better hide their prey, in the same way that green turtles (Chelonia mydas) usually prefer areas with good coverage to nest in, contrasting to the nesting behavior of olive ridleys (Lepidochelys olivacea). On beaches, higher concentrations were observed where there was less human presence and this may reflect both turtle nesting and jaguar predation activity.