Why do eastern curlews Numenius madagascariensis feed on prey that lowers intake rate before migration?

Eastern curlews Numenius madagascariensis spending the nonbreeding season in eastern Australia foraged on three intertidal decapods: soldier crab Mictyris longicarpus, sentinel crab Macrophthalmus crassipes and ghost-shrimp Trypaea australiensis. Due to their ecology, these crustaceans were spatially segregated (=distributed in 'patches') and the curlews intermittently consumed more than one prey type. It was predicted that if the curlews behaved as intake rate maximizers, the time spent foraging on a particular prey (patch) would reflect relative availabilities of the prey types and thus prey-specific intake rates would be equal. During the mid-nonbreeding period (November-December), Mictyris and Macrophthalmus were primarily consumed and prey-specific intake rates were statistically indistinguishable (8.8 versus 10.1 kJ x min(-1)). Prior to migration (February), Mictyris and Trypaea were hunted and the respective intake rates were significantly different (8.9 versus 2.3 kJ x min(-1)). Time allocation to Trypaea-hunting was independent of the availability of Mictyris. Thus, consumption of Trypaea depressed the overall intake rate. Six hypotheses for consuming Trypaea before migration were examined. Five hypotheses: the possible error by the predator, prey specialization, observer overestimation of time spent hunting Trypaea, supplementary prey and the choice of higher quality prey due to a digestive bottleneck, were deemed unsatisfactory. The explanation for consumption of a low intake-rate but high quality prey (Trypaea) deemed plausible was diet optimisation by the Curlews in response to the pre-migratory modulation (decrease in size/processing capacity) of their digestive system. With a seasonal decrease in the average intake rate, the estimated intake per low tide increased from 1233 to 1508 kJ between the mid-nonbreeding and pre-migratory periods by increasing the overall time spent on the sandflats and the proportion of time spent foraging.

Daily sunscreen application and betacarotene supplementation in prevention of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas of the skin: a randomised controlled trial

Background The use of sunscreens on the skin can prevent sunburn but whether long-term use can prevent skin cancer is not known. Also, there is evidence that oral betacarotene supplementation lowers skin-cancer rates in animals, but there is limited evidence of its effect in human beings. Methods In a community-based randomised trial with a 2 by 2 factorial design, individuals were assigned to four treatment groups: daily application of a sun protection factor 15-plus sunscreen to the head, neck, arms, and hands, and betacarotene supplementation (30 mg per day); sunscreen plus placebo tablets; betacarotene only; or placebo only. Participants were 1621 residents of Nambour in southeast Queensland, Australia. The endpoints after 4.5 years of follow-up were the incidence of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas both in terms of people treated for newly diagnosed disease and in terms of the numbers of tumours that occurred. Analysis of the effect of sunscreen was based only on skin cancers that developed on sites of daily application. All analyses were by intention to treat. Findings 1383 participants underwent full shin examination by a dermatologist in the follow-up period. 250 of them developed 758 new skin cancers during the follow-up period. There were no significant differences in the incidence of first new shin cancers between groups randomly assigned daily sunscreen and no daily sunscreen (basal-cell carcinoma 2588 vs 2509 per 100 000; rate ratio 1.03 [95% CI 0.73-1.46]; squamous-cell carcinoma 876 vs 996 per 100 000; rate ratio 0.88 [0.50-1.56]). Similarly, there was no significant difference between the betacarotene and placebo groups in incidence of either cancer (basal-cell carcinoma 3954 vs 3806 per 100 000; 1.04 [0.73-1.27]; squamous-cell carcinoma 1508 vs 1146 per 100 000; 1.35 [0.84-2.19]). In terms of the number of tumours, there was no effect on incidence of basal-cell carcinoma by sunscreen use or by betacarotene but the incidence of squamous-cell carcinoma was significantly lower in the sunscreen group than in the no daily sunscreen group (1115 vs 1832 per 100 000; 0.61 [0.46-0.81]). Interpretation There was no harmful effect of daily use of sunscreen in this medium-term study. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma, but not basal-cell carcinoma seems to be amenable to prevention through the routine use of sunscreen by adults for 4.5 years. There was no beneficial or harmful effect on the rates of either type of skin cancer, as a result of betacarotene supplementation.