Olfaction is a key sense, enabling animals to locate forage, select mates, navigate their environment, and avoid predation. Wind is an important abiotic factor that modulates the strength of olfactory information detected by animals. In theory, when airflow is unidirectional, an animal can increase odour detection probability and maximise the amount of olfactory information gained by moving crosswind. Given energetic costs inherent to activity and locomotion, behavioural search strategies that optimize the benefit-cost ratio should be advantageous. We tested whether African lions (Panthera leo) modify their movement directionality and distance according to wind speed and direction during hours of darkness when they are most active. We tracked 29 lions in southern Zimbabwe using GPS collars and deployed a weather station to collect detailed abiotic data. We found that when wind speeds increased lions were more likely to move crosswind. We also found that female lions, which tend to hunt more often than males, travelled farther when wind speeds were stronger. The results of our analysis suggest that lions adjust their movement behaviour according to wind speed and direction. We inferred that this was a behavioural decision to maximise the amount of olfactory information gained per unit of energy spent. Our findings not only offer one of the first detailed insights on large carnivore anemotaxis (movement direction relative to wind) but also make an important contribution towards understanding the influence of wind on predator ecology in general which remains understudied to date.

Few topics in wildlife conservation are as controversial, emotive, or command as much public and political attention, as trophy hunting. International discourses regarding trophy hunting are characterised by radically contradictory assertions, ranging from claims that trophy hunting is a humane and socially acceptable wildlife management tool which benefits more animals than it kills, to claims that it is cruel, socially unacceptable, and drives species to extinction. So, which is it? We argue that using a single, blanket term “trophy hunting” obscures substantial and important variation in how and why people pay to hunt and keep trophies. Consequently, polarised disagreements over whether “trophy hunting” is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, beneficial or harmful, conflate arguments about fundamentally different activities. We urge conservation scientists and practitioners, politicians, journalists, and advocates on all sides to communicate more clearly and carefully about which specific hunting activities they believe are right or wrong, beneficial, or harmful, acceptable or unacceptable, to whom, and for what reasons.