Search

The application of ecological theory to urban planning is becoming more important as land managers focus on increasing urban biodiversity as a way to improve human welfare. City authorities must decide not only what types of biodiversity-focused infrastructure should be prioritized, but also where new resources should be positioned and existing resources protected or enhanced. Careful spatial planning can contribute to the successful return and conservation of urban nature by maximizing the contribution of green infrastructure to landscape connectivity. By using ecological connectivity theory as a planning tool, governments can quantify the effect of different interventions on the ease with which wildlife can move across the landscape. Here we outline an approach to a) quantify ecological connectivity for different urban wildlife species and b) use this to test different urban planning scenarios using QGIS. We demonstrate four extensions to the work by Deslaurier et al. (2018) and Spanowicz & Jaeger (2019) which improve the application of this method as a planning tool for local government:A step-by-step method for calculating effective mesh size using the open-source software QGIS.Conversion of the effective mesh size value (meff) to a “probability of connectedness” (Pc, for easier interpretation by local government and comparisons between planning scenarios).Guidance for measuring species-specific connectivity, including how to decide what spatial information should be included and which types of species might be most responsive to connectivity planning.Advice for using the method to measure the outcome of different urban planning scenarios on ecological connectivity.

Across all landscape types, environmental managers work with communities to conserve biodiversity. The effectiveness of conservation practice, however, relies on acknowledging differences in preferences and values of nature. Implementing urban conservation is challenging because cities have diverse social, cultural and ecological attributes, meaning there are no simple solutions for the management or co-management of biodiversity. There is little guidance for urban environmental managers on how to 1) engage local urban communities and 2), implement conservation actions specific to cities and their communities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 environmental managers from government and not-for-profit organizations across five Australian capital cities to 1) explore how environmental managers engaged local communities, and 2) understand the factors that enabled or constrained that engagement in conservation. Our aim was to understand the enablers and constraints of engagement with a view to share insights and patterns in the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework’s recognition of the diversity of values associated with nature’s contributions to people (NCP). We found that urban environmental managers facilitated NCP by working to improve people’s relationship with nature. Interviewees reported a range of enablers for community-based biodiversity conservation, including supportive organizational policies and strategies, community support, engaging Indigenous advisory groups, and deploying multi-use, integrative human-nature designs. Constraints and challenges included a lack of top-down commitment, reliance on individuals, and overly simplistic engagement strategies. Based on these findings, we identified opportunities for improved community engagement relevant to organizations responsible for urban environmental management.

Engaging school students in wildlife research through citizen science projects can be a win-win for scientists and educators. Not only does it provide a way for scientists to gather new data, but it can also contribute to science education and help younger generations become more environmentally aware. However, wildlife research can be challenging in the best of circumstances, and there are few guidelines available to help scientists create successful citizen science projects for school students. This paper explores the opportunities and challenges faced when developing school-based citizen science projects in wildlife research by synthesising two sources of information. First, we conducted a small, school-based citizen science project that investigated the effects of supplementary feeding on urban birds as a case study. Second, we reviewed the literature to develop a database of school-based citizen science projects that address questions in wildlife ecology and conservation. Based on these activities, we present five lessons for scientists considering a school-based citizen science project. Overall, we found that school-based citizen science projects must be carefully designed to ensure reliable data are collected, students remain engaged, and the project is achievable under the logistical constraints presented by conducting wildlife research in a school environment. Ultimately, we conclude that school-based citizen science projects can be a powerful way of collecting wildlife data while also contributing to the education and development of environmentally aware students.

Urban environments are arguably among the most suitable targets for conservation science, as they represent opportunities to preserve both species and habitats under threat while at the same time allowing people to engage with nature. We highlight the need for conservation within urban environments using species whose recovery is entirely dependent on effective action within cities and towns. We identified 39 urban-restricted species in Australia and reviewed the advice guiding their conservation to address the question, “What does conservation look like when cities are the last chance for saving species?” We argue that in such circumstances securing land for conservation purposes cannot be relied upon; instead, species must be protected on lands not originally intended for conservation and urban communities must be involved in recovery actions. Ultimately, to achieve such outcomes, decision makers need to recognize the importance of urban ecosystems in the recovery of imperiled species.

1. Arboreal camera trapping is a burgeoning method providing a novel and effective technique to answer research questions across a variety of ecosystems, and it has the capacity to improve our understanding of a wide range of taxa. However, while terrestrial camera trapping has received much attention, there is little guidance for dealing with the unique challenges of working in the arboreal realm. 2. Our review draws on the expertise of researchers from six continents and the broader literature to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of arboreal camera trapping, and challenges to consider when using this technology. We also include mini-guides with detailed information on the current arboreal camera trap literature, mounts used to install arboreal cameras, tree climbing pointers and safety tips, methods for deploying cameras without climbing, and tips for managing interference with camera function. 3. We find that arboreal camera traps have been most commonly used in the study of mammals in forests, however there is potential for this method to be applied to a broad range of habitats including urban areas, and taxa such as birds, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants. Methods in arboreal camera trapping could be improved by developing a greater understanding of the factors affecting detection of species. The most common challenges of arboreal camera trapping are camera placement and camera site access. These can be overcome by understanding correct camera orientation, managing potential sources of interference in front of cameras, utilizing appropriate cameras mounts, and training researchers properly. 4. Given the benefits and opportunities presented by arboreal camera trapping, it is likely to become an ever-more popular method of studying arboreal species and systems. The information synthesized in this review provides guidance for future studies to help direct more reliable and robust ecological inferences from arboreal camera trapping.

Despite repeated calls to action, proposals for urban conservation are often met with surprise or scepticism. There remains a pervasive narrative in policy, practice, and the public psyche that urban environments, although useful for engaging people with nature or providing ecosystem services, are of little conservation value. We argue that the tendency to overlook the conservation value of urban environments stems from misconceptions about the ability of native species to persist within cities and towns and that this, in turn, hinders effective conservation action. However, recent scientific evidence shows that these assumptions do not always hold. Although it is generally true that increasing the size, quality, and connectivity of habitat patches will improve the probability that a species can persist, the inverse is not that small, degraded, or fragmented habitats found in urban environments are worthless. In light of these findings we propose updated messages that guide and inspire researchers, practitioners, and decision makers to undertake conservation action in urban environments: consider small spaces, recognize unconventional habitats, test creative solutions, and use science to minimize the impacts of future urban development., Article impact statement: Conserving native biodiversity is both important and achievable in urban environments.

Millions of dollars are spent on wildlife crossing structures intended to reduce the barrier effects of roads on wildlife. However, we know little about the degree to which these structures facilitate dispersal and gene flow. Our study incorporates two elements that are rarely used in the evaluation of wildlife crossing structures: an experimental design including a before and after comparison, and the use of genetic techniques to demonstrate effects on gene flow at both population and individual levels. We evaluated the effect of wildlife crossing structures (canopy bridges and glider poles) on a gliding mammal, the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis). We genotyped 399 individuals at eight microsatellite markers to analyse population structure, first-generation migrants and parentage relationships. We found that the freeway was not a complete genetic barrier, with a strong effect evident at only one site. We hypothesise that the presence of corridors alongside the freeway and throughout the surrounding landscape facilitated circuitous detours for squirrel gliders. Installing a crossing structure at the location with a strong barrier effect restored gene flow within just 5 years of mitigation. Synthesis and applications. Our study highlights the importance of using genetic techniques not just to evaluate the success of road-crossing structures for wildlife, but also to guide their placement within the landscape. Managers wishing to reduce the effects of linear infrastructure on squirrel gliders and other arboreal mammals should aim to preserve and enhance vegetation along roadsides and within centre medians, as well as mitigate large gaps by implementing wildlife crossing structures.

Roads can form barriers to movement for many species, and may reduce the ability of individuals to access foraging and breeding habitat. The impacts of roads on terrestrial fauna has been well studied, however little is known of the impact of roads on insectivorous bats. Wildlife crossing structures (e.g. fauna underpasses) may reduce the barrier impacts of roads and improve connectivity across roads. Use of underpasses by wildlife likely varies among species depending on their movement behaviour. In this study, we investigated whether the flight patterns of insectivorous bats influenced their use of underpasses. We monitored bat activity under and above 6 open-span bridges, 6 box culverts and 6 unmitigated sites along a major highway in Australia. We used Poisson regression models within a Bayesian framework of inference to compare the activity of 12 bat species (grouped into three guilds based on their flight patterns: clutter-adapted, edge-adapted, and open-adapted species) under the structures, over the road above the structures, above unmitigated segments of the highway, and in the vegetation adjacent to the roads. Bats were less active above the road than they were in the surrounding vegetation or under bridges. Two of the three guilds (i.e. seven species) crossed the highway more under bridges than they did under culverts or by going over the road, which suggests that bridges may reduce barrier effects of the road better than culverts. Installing bridges instead of culverts may better reduce the impacts of roads on multiple insectivorous bats species with a single structure type.

In an attempt to improve cost-effectiveness, it has become increasingly popular to adapt wildlife crossing structures to enable people to also use them for safe passage across roads. However, the required needs of humans and wildlife may conflict, resulting in a structure that does not actually provide the perceived improvement in cost-effectiveness, but instead a reduction in conservation benefits. For example, lighting within crossing structures for human safety at night may reduce use of the structure by nocturnal wildlife, thus contributing to barrier and mortality effects of roads rather than mitigating them. In this study, we experimentally evaluated the impact of artificial light at night on the rate of use of wildlife crossing structures, specifically underpasses, by ten insectivorous bat species groups in south-eastern Australia. We monitored bat activity before, during and after artificially lighting the underpasses. We found that bats tended to avoided lit underpasses, and only one species consistently showed attraction to the light. Artificial light at night in underpasses hypothetically increases the vulnerability of bats to road-mortality or to the barrier effect of roads. The most likely outcomes of lighting underpasses were 1. an increase in crossing rate above the freeway and a decrease under the underpasses, or 2. a reduction in crossing rate both above freeways and under the underpasses, when structures were lit. Our results corroborate those of studies on terrestrial mammals, and thus we recommend that underpasses intended to facilitate the movement of wildlife across roads should not be lit.

The objectives of conservation science and dissemination of its research create a paradox: Conservation is about preserving the environment, yet scientists spread this message at conferences with heavy carbon footprints. Ecology and conservation science depend on global knowledge exchange-getting the best science to the places it is most needed. However, conference attendance from developed countries typically outweighs that from developing countries that are biodiversity and conservation hotspots. If any branch of science should be trying to maximize participation while minimizing carbon emissions, it is conservation. Virtual conferencing is common in other disciplines, such as education and humanities, but it is surprisingly underused in ecology and conservation. Adopting virtual conferencing entails a number of challenges, including logistics and unified acceptance, which we argue can be overcome through planning and technology. We examined 4 conference models: a pure-virtual model and 3 hybrid hub-and-node models, where hubs stream content to local nodes. These models collectively aim to mitigate the logistical and administrative challenges of global knowledge transfer. Embracing virtual conferencing addresses 2 essential prerequisites of modern conferences: lowering carbon emissions and increasing accessibility for remote, time- and resource-poor researchers, particularly those from developing countries.

Genetic approaches have proven useful for addressing various conservation problems, but genetics remains poorly integrated into conservation practice. Multidisciplinary conservation conferences present excellent opportunities for bridging the conservation-genetics gap and facilitating cross-disciplinary projects. We hypothesize that there is a tendency for presentations featuring genetic approaches to be siloed into approach specific sessions, creating an “echo chamber”; geneticists are left talking amongst themselves, hindering collaboration across disciplines. To test this, we reviewed abstracts from the past six Society for Conservation Biology conferences and assessed how presentations featuring genetics/genomics were distributed throughout the respective programs. We found that: the segregation of presentations featuring genetics varied widely between conferences (22–78 %); that no other method or approach was segregated to the same degree; and that the vast majority (99 %) of presentations featuring genetics had broader applications that made them appropriate for other sessions. We argue that segregating genetics at conservation conferences in this way is unhelpful and serves to strengthen the idea that genetics is not relevant to a wider conservation audience. We recommend that; (1) conference organisers endeavour to facilitate the integration of genetics into sessions based on the conservation questions addressed, rather than the methods used to address them; and (2) geneticists make the practical application of their work clear at abstract submission and during presentations. These recommendations are not novel, but our data illustrate a clear need for them to be implemented to better facilitate integration of genetic research that will benefit conservation outcomes.

Roads and traffic may be contributing to global declines of insect populations. The ecological effects of roads often extend far into the surrounding habitat, over a distance known as the road‐effect zone. The quality of habitat in the road‐effect zone is generally degraded (e.g., due to edge effects, noise, light, and chemical pollution) and can be reflected in species presence, abundance, or demographic parameters. Road‐effect zones have been quantified for some vertebrate species but are yet to be quantified for insects. Investigating the road‐effect zone for insects will provide a better understanding of how roads impact ecosystems, which is particularly important given the role insects play as pollinators, predators, and prey for other species. We quantified the road‐effect zone for nocturnal flying insects along three major freeways in agricultural landscapes in southeast Australia. We collected insects using light traps at six points along 2‐km transects perpendicular to each highway (n = 17). We sorted the samples into order, and dried and weighed each order to obtain a measure of dry biomass. Using regression models within a Bayesian framework of inference, we estimated the change in biomass of each order with distance from the road, while accounting for environmental variables such as temperature, moon phase, and vegetation structure. The biomass of nine of the ten orders sampled did not change with distance from the freeway. Orthoptera (i.e., grasshoppers and crickets) was the only order whose biomass increased with distance from the freeway. From our findings, we suggest that the impacts of roads on insects are unlikely extending into the surrounding landscape over a distance of 2 km. Therefore, if there are impacts of roads on insects, these are more likely to be concentrated at the road itself, or on finer taxonomic scales such as family or genus level.

An experimental approach to road mitigation that maximizes inferential power is essential to ensure that mitigation is both ecologically-effective and cost-effective. Here, we set out the need for and standards of using an experimental approach to road mitigation, in order to improve knowledge of the influence of mitigation measures on wildlife populations. We point out two key areas that need to be considered when conducting mitigation experiments. First, researchers need to get involved at the earliest stage of the road or mitigation project to ensure the necessary planning and funds are available for conducting a high quality experiment. Second, experimentation will generate new knowledge about the parameters that influence mitigation effectiveness, which ultimately allows better prediction for future road mitigation projects. We identify seven key questions about mitigation structures (i.e., wildlife crossing structures and fencing) that remain largely or entirely unanswered at the population-level: (1) Does a given crossing structure work? What type and size of crossing structures should we use? (2) How many crossing structures should we build? (3) Is it more effective to install a small number of large-sized crossing structures or a large number of small-sized crossing structures? (4) How much barrier fencing is needed for a given length of road? (5) Do we need funnel fencing to lead animals to crossing structures, and how long does such fencing have to be? (6) How should we manage/manipulate the environment in the area around the crossing structures and fencing? (7) Where should we place crossing structures and barrier fencing? We provide experimental approaches to answering each of them using example Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) study designs for two stages in the road/mitigation project where researchers may become involved: (1) at the beginning of a road/mitigation project, and (2) after the mitigation has been constructed; highlighting real case studies when available.

Wildlife crossing structures are commonly used to mitigate the barrier and mortality impacts of roads on wildlife. For arboreal mammals, canopy bridges, glider poles and vegetated medians are used to provide safe passage across roads. However, the effectiveness of these measures is unknown. We investigate the effect of canopy bridges, glider poles and vegetated medians on squirrel glider movement across a freeway in south-east Australia. We monitored structures directly using motion-triggered cameras and passive integrated transponder (PIT) scanners. Further, post-mitigation radio-tracking was compared to a pre-mitigation study. Squirrel gliders used all structure types to cross the freeway, while the unmitigated freeway remained a barrier to movement. However, movement was not restored to the levels observed at non-freeway sites. Nevertheless, based on the number and frequency of individuals crossing, mitigation is likely to provide some level of functional connectivity. The rate of crossing increased over several years as animals habituated to the structure. We also found that crossing rate can be a misleading indicator of effectiveness if the number of individuals crossing is not identified. Therefore, studies should employ long-term monitoring and identify individuals crossing if inferences about population connectivity are to be made from movement data alone.

The objectives of conservation science and dissemination of its research create a paradox: Conservation is about preserving the environment, yet scientists spread this message at conferences with heavy carbon footprints. Ecology and conservation science depend on global knowledge exchange-getting the best science to the places it is most needed. However, conference attendance from developed countries typically outweighs that from developing countries that are biodiversity and conservation hotspots. If any branch of science should be trying to maximize participation while minimizing carbon emissions, it is conservation. Virtual conferencing is common in other disciplines, such as education and humanities, but it is surprisingly underused in ecology and conservation. Adopting virtual conferencing entails a number of challenges, including logistics and unified acceptance, which we argue can be overcome through planning and technology. We examined 4 conference models: a pure-virtual model and 3 hybrid hub-and-node models, where hubs stream content to local nodes. These models collectively aim to mitigate the logistical and administrative challenges of global knowledge transfer. Embracing virtual conferencing addresses 2 essential prerequisites of modern conferences: lowering carbon emissions and increasing accessibility for remote, time- and resource-poor researchers, particularly those from developing countries.

Arboreal animals need trees for some or all of their shelter, food and movement. This diverse group of wildlife includes mammals, amphibians and reptiles that climb, crawl and glide in trees. Since trees are a critical resource, arboreal animals are directly affected by habitat loss from road construction. The susceptibility of arboreal animals to barrier effects and wildlife-vehicle collisions (WVC) will depend on their willingness, opportunity and ability to cross gaps. Methods to mitigate the impacts of roads and traffic are often unique and specific to this group of wildlife. 1 Always avoid clearing trees where possible. 2 Canopy connectivity is important for most arboreal animals. 3 Not all arboreal animals need arboreal crossing structures. 4 Further research on impacts and mitigation for arboreal species is needed. Recent studies have quantified the impacts of roads on some arboreal species, primarily mammals, and successful mitigation techniques are available. However, further research on the use and effectiveness of mitigation strategies for this group is urgently required, particularly for arboreal amphibians and reptiles.

Optimal wildlife survey techniques should maximise detectability or capture rates of target species and minimise potential harm to animals. We compared the effectiveness of Elliott and PVC pipe traps for the capture of small arboreal mammals in the Victorian Central Highlands and found that pipe traps were less effective at capturing small arboreal mammals than Elliott traps.

We review eight years of monitoring data to quantify the number of predation attempts on arboreal marsupials using canopy bridges and glider poles across a major road in south-east Australia. We recorded 13 488 detections of arboreal marsupials on the structures, yet only a single (and unsuccessful) predation attempt was recorded.

We designed nine polymorphic markers for the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis), an arboreal marsupial in eastern Australia. These markers will assist in the management of isolated populations and the evaluation of wildlife corridors.

Roadkill (the mortality of animals through wildlife–vehicle collisions) is one of the main impacts of roads on wildlife. Studies quantifying the location and rate of roadkill to identify ‘hot spots’ are often used to guide the location of mitigation efforts, such as fencing or wildlife crossing structures. However, sometimes quantifying rates of roadkill can be challenging, particularly for species that are small and difficult to detect. In our study, a squirrel glider that was trapped and radio-collared in north-east Victoria was found as roadkill more than 500 km away, suggesting that a vehicle struck the animal and carried the carcass away from the site of impact. Our observation is the first evidence that this occurs for squirrel gliders.

Context Wildlife crossing structures are installed to mitigate the impacts of roads on animal populations, yet little is known about some aspects of their success. Many studies have monitored the use of structures by wildlife, but studies that also incorporate individual identification methods can offer additional insights into their effectiveness. Aims We monitored the use of wildlife crossing structures by arboreal marsupials along the Hume Freeway in south-eastern Australia to (1) determine the species using these structures and their frequency of crossing, (2) determine the number and demographic characteristics of individuals crossing, and (3) use the rate of crossing by individuals to infer the types of movement that occurred. Methods We used motion-triggered cameras to monitor five canopy bridges and 15 glider pole arrays installed at 13 sites along the Hume Freeway. The five canopy bridges were also monitored with passive integrated transponder (PIT)-tag readers to identify the rate of use by individuals. Key results Five species of arboreal marsupial were detected using canopy bridges and glider poles at 11 sites. Our analysis suggested that increasing the number and the distance between poles in a glider pole array reduced the rate of use by squirrel gliders. The PIT tag and camera footage revealed that the structures were used by adult males, adult females and juveniles, suggesting that all demographic groups are capable of using canopy bridges and glider poles. At two canopy bridges, multiple squirrel gliders and common brushtail possums crossed more than once per night. Conclusions Given that previous studies have shown that the freeway is a barrier to movement, and that many of the species detected crossing are subject to road mortality, we conclude that canopy bridges and glider poles benefit arboreal marsupials by providing safe access to resources that would otherwise be inaccessible. Implications Although the factors influencing crossing rate require further study, our analysis suggests that glider pole arrays with fewer poles placed closer together are likely to be more successful for squirrel gliders. The individual identification methods applied here offer insights that are not possible from measuring the rate of use alone and should be adopted in future monitoring studies.