The knowledge of floral nectar sugar characteristics, such as concentration, ratio and mass, is essential to understand the complex nature of nectar production and pollination systems. Although nectar is commonly stored in ecology, storage reliability and effectiveness have rarely been quantified. Inappropriate nectar storage between sampling and analysis can alter nectar chemistry as a result of enzyme or microbial action. Our review of the literature indicates that measures to preserve nectar sugars before analysis include refrigeration, freezing, the addition of an antimicrobial agent, spotting and drying on filter paper, the addition of a desiccant or a combination of these storage treatments. Nectar stored on filter paper is removed by washing with a solvent before analysis. Elution methods are often complex, not standardised and poorly reported in published work. Existing storage methods have generally been used without an evaluation of their impact on results, but evidence suggests a potentially large impact on result accuracy. Future studies should report storage treatments and elution methods to legitimise comparison among independent studies and provide unbiased evaluation of the results. In view of the wide range of storage methods used and lack of verification of their appropriateness, is imperative that standardised and effective methods be developed to ensure that results are reliable. We recommend the prompt analysis of nectar, detailed description of methods, including size of filter paper and method of elution, and use of sterile techniques.

The ability of some ant species (including Camponotus spp.) to forage on vertebrate urine to extract urea may extend their niche in competitive and strongly nitrogen‐limited environments. We examined the preference of Camponotus terebrans, a sand‐dwelling ant widespread in southern Australia, for baits including urine, and the duration of their foraging on those baits. We baited ants with liquid stains of urine (human and kangaroo), urea in water (2.5%. 3.5%, 7.0%, 10.0%) and sucrose in water (20% and 40%) poured directly on the ground, as well as hard baits in plots drawn on sandy soil (Kangaroo Island, South Australia). We counted individuals of this mostly nocturnal species to determine their attraction to different baits for one month. We checked plant growth on the plots after nine and 13 months. Ants collected insects and meat; they foraged for at least 29 days on stains. Ants were most numerous on 10% urea, followed by 7% urea, 3.5% urea, urine (which contains ~2.5% urea) and 2.5% urea, 40% sucrose and 20% sucrose; sucrose was less attractive to them than equimolar urea bait. Ants were attracted to human, kangaroo, and unidentified urines, and they collected bird guano. Baits and ant foraging did not affect plant recruitment in plots. We observed incidentally Camponotus consobrinus foraging on urine, which may be a common resource for this genus at the site. The remarkable ability of C. terebrans to extract nitrogen from dry sand over weeks explains partly its success on sandy soils. Foraging on urine may be an important strategy to address nitrogen limitation on sandy soils and exploit commensally niches in which hosts are kangaroos, wallabies and other vertebrates. The understanding of plant–vertebrate interactions must factor in the role of ants as commensal organisms. Such ants could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions from urine.

Nectar analysis has been used to understand pollination systems, but nectar storage methods have rarely been considered as potential sources of inaccuracy in the recovery of data. Prompt nectar sugar analysis is not always possible and storage methods can affect results. We aimed to develop an effective method to store nectar on filter paper. Nectars from two subspecies of Eremophila maculata (Scrophulariaceae) and Strelitzia reginae (Strelitziaceae) were spotted on filter papers. Nectars were redissolved and assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography to determine the masses of sugars recovered from the papers from Day 0 to Day 30. We evaluated the effects of the method of elution, paper type and size, and storage treatments on sugar recovery. Liquid nectars were also stored in the refrigerator. Sugars were best eluted from filter papers in 15mL of water and agitated for 1min. Nectar sugars stored on small papers tended to be recovered more successfully than those stored on larger papers (significantly for glucose). Paper performed better than nylon for glucose. Desiccant had a marginal positive effect on nectar sugar recovery, and filter paper performed better than did refrigeration of liquid nectar for storage. If highly accurate measurements are needed, nectars should be eluted with large volumes of water from small filter papers stored with desiccant within a few days of collection.

With agriculture the primary driver of biodiversity loss, farmers are increasingly expected to produce environmental outcomes and protect biodiversity. However, lack of attention to the way farmers perceive native vegetation has resulted in conservation targets not being met. The Yorke Peninsula (YP), South Australia, is an agricultural landscape where < 5% of vegetation remains on private properties and roadsides. To identify YP farmers’ barriers to vegetation conservation on the roadside and private properties, we interviewed 35 farmers representing 56,980 ha of farms (11% of the YP area) and three agronomists. We identified five barriers to conservation: (1) negative perceptions of roadside vegetation and (2) management bodies; (3) absence of effective conservation programs making use of farmers’ motivations; (4) > 50% farmers perceived that long-term planning was for ≤ 30 years, not enough time to promote ecosystem conservation; (5) a lack of natural resource management information for farmers—as a result, farmers relied on their own experience to manage vegetation. Furthermore, most farmers depended on agronomists, who generally had no stake in biodiversity conservation. We recommend that (1) the Local Council restore social capital by liaising with farmers to promote roadside vegetation (2) long-term farmer-led conservation action be established and supported by Government and industry acting as facilitators rather than project managers; (3) a change in policy and training promote the involvement of agronomists in conservation and its management on private properties; (4) all levels of Government develop schemes to demonstrate the tangible benefits of native vegetation as habitat for wildlife; (5) on-farm conservation be celebrated as successful farming.