Studies that focus on single predator–prey interactions can be inadequate for understanding antipredator responses in multi‐predator systems. Yet there is still a general lack of information about the strategies of prey to minimize predation risk from multiple predators at the landscape level. Here we examined the distribution of seven African ungulate species in the fenced Karongwe Game Reserve (KGR), South Africa, as a function of predation risk from all large carnivore species (lion, leopard, cheetah, African wild dog, and spotted hyena). Using observed kill data, we generated ungulate‐specific predictions of relative predation risk and of riskiness of habitats. To determine how ungulates minimize predation risk at the landscape level, we explicitly tested five hypotheses consisting of strategies that reduce the probability of encountering predators, and the probability of being killed. All ungulate species avoided risky habitats, and most selected safer habitats, thus reducing their probability of being killed. To reduce the probability of encountering predators, most of the smaller prey species (impala, warthog, waterbuck, kudu) avoided the space use of all predators, while the larger species (wildebeest, zebra, giraffe) only avoided areas where lion and leopard space use were high. The strength of avoidance for the space use of predators generally did not correspond to the relative predation threat from those predators. Instead, ungulates used a simpler behavioral rule of avoiding the activity areas of sit‐and‐pursue predators (lion and leopard), but not those of cursorial predators (cheetah and African wild dog). In general, selection and avoidance of habitats was stronger than avoidance of the predator activity areas. We expect similar decision rules to drive the distribution pattern of ungulates in other African savannas and in other multi‐predator systems, especially where predators differ in their hunting modes.

Substantial global attention is focused on how to reduce the risk of future pandemics. Reducing this risk requires investment in prevention, preparedness, and response. Although preparedness and response have received significant focus, prevention, especially the prevention of zoonotic spillover, remains largely absent from global conversations. This oversight is due in part to the lack of a clear definition of prevention and lack of guidance on how to achieve it. To address this gap, we elucidate the mechanisms linking environmental change and zoonotic spillover using spillover of viruses from bats as a case study. We identify ecological interventions that can disrupt these spillover mechanisms and propose policy frameworks for their implementation. Recognizing that pandemics originate in ecological systems, we advocate for integrating ecological approaches alongside biomedical approaches in a comprehensive and balanced pandemic prevention strategy.

Domestic dogs are increasingly being recognized as a conservation threat for native species. In many places, their impacts may be as severe as other invasive predators such as cats and rats. We conducted the first ever sub‐continent scale assessment of the impacts of dogs on native species in India using an online key informant survey and reports from national print media. Dogs reportedly attacked 80 species, of which 31 were IUCN Red list threatened species, including four Critically Endangered species. Larger bodied mammals such as ungulates and carnivores, were most commonly reported to be attacked, although this may be an observation bias. Approximately 68% of the attacks were carried out by dogs unaccompanied by humans. Most of the attacks were carried out by packs of dogs with 45% of these attacks leading to the death of the prey. Nearly 48% of the incidents were reported in and around wildlife protected areas, suggesting that dogs are an important large‐scale edge effect around protected areas in India. For Critically Endangered species that are already suffering from serious population declines due to other causes, the impact of dogs may seriously impede population recovery efforts. Mitigating the impacts of dogs on wildlife requires a multi‐pronged approach of responsible dog ownership, restriction in free‐ranging behaviour, and strong population control measures, especially around sensitive conservation areas.