Artificial refuges are human-made structures that aim to create safe places for animals to breed, hibernate, or take shelter in lieu of natural refuges. Artificial refuges are used across the globe to mitigate the impacts of a variety of threats on wildlife, such as habitat loss and degradation. However, there is little understanding of the science underpinning artificial refuges, and what comprises best practice for artificial refuge design and implementation for wildlife conservation. We address this gap by undertaking a systematic review of the current state of artificial refuge research for the conservation of wildlife. We identified 224 studies of artificial refuges being implemented in the field to conserve wildlife species. The current literature on artificial refuges is dominated by studies of arboreal species, primarily birds and bats. Threatening processes addressed by artificial refuges were biological resource use (26%), invasive or problematic species (20%), and agriculture (15%), yet few studies examined artificial refuges specifically for threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) species (7%). Studies often reported the characteristics of artificial refuges (i.e. refuge size, construction materials; 87%) and surrounding vegetation (35%), but fewer studies measured the thermal properties of artificial refuges (18%), predator activity (17%), or food availability (3%). Almost all studies measured occupancy of the artificial refuges by target species (98%), and over half measured breeding activity (54%), whereas fewer included more detailed measures of fitness, such as breeding productivity (34%) or animal body condition (4%). Evaluating the benefits and impacts of artificial refuges requires sound experimental design, but only 39% of studies compared artificial refuges to experimental controls, and only 10% of studies used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design. As a consequence, few studies of artificial refuges can determine their overall effect on individuals or populations. We outline a series of key steps in the design, implementation, and monitoring of artificial refuges that are required to avoid perverse outcomes and maximise the chances of achieving conservation objectives. This review highlights a clear need for increased rigour in studies of artificial refuges if they are to play an important role in wildlife conservation.

The loss of hollow-bearing trees is a key threat for many hollow-dependent taxa. Nesting boxes have been widely used to offset tree hollow loss, but they have high rates of attrition, and, often, low rates of usage by target species. To counter these problems, chainsaw carved hollows (artificial cavities cut into trees) have become a popular alternative, yet little research has been published on their effectiveness. We examined the usage of 150 chainsaw carved hollows by cavity-dependent fauna in the central west of New South Wales using observations from traditional inspection methods and remote cameras. Between October 2017 and April 2019, we detected 21 species of vertebrates (two reptile, one amphibian, 10 bird, and eight mammal species) inside chainsaw carved hollows, but the number of species detected was dependent on the chosen monitoring method. We detected six species inside hollows during physical inspections, whereas remote cameras detected 21 species entering hollows. Cameras detected eight species using hollows as breeding sites, whereas physical inspections detected just four species. Cameras detected two threatened mammals (squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and greater glider (Petauroides volans)) raising young inside hollows, yet we failed to detect these species during physical inspections. For birds, the two methods yielded equivalent results for detection of breeding events. Overall, our study showed that few cavity-dependent species used chainsaw carved hollows as breeding sites. This highlights how artificial hollows are not a substitute for retaining naturally occurring hollows in large trees and revegetation programs.

Hollow‐dependent fauna are declining worldwide, due primarily to the widespread clearing of hollow‐bearing trees. Artificial cavities such as timber and plywood boxes are commonly used to increase hollow availability, yet there is increasing evidence that they are poor facsimiles of natural cavities, characterized by lower insulative properties and a shorter field life. We evaluated whether plastic materials could create a nest box with a stable thermal profile that more closely resembles the complex shapes and textures of natural tree hollows while containing fewer mechanical joins that represent potential failure points when installed. We developed three sets of prototype nest boxes comprising various combinations of plastic density (10%, 25% and 50%), insulation (single vs. double wall with or without sawdust between them), nesting chamber (with or without timber inserts) and bedding (with or without decomposed heartwood) and compared their thermal performance in a temperature‐controlled laboratory to compare internal temperature and relative humidity. We found double‐walled plastic nest box with an internal timber‐lined chamber was best able to buffer ambient temperature fluctuations, consistently recording internal temperatures of 6+°C below maximum ambient temperature, maintaining high levels of relative humidity (76%–92%) when furnished with decomposed timber heartwood. This design also performed better during a simulated hot day; internal temperatures exhibiting twice the lag time of single‐walled designs, noting that plastic density had little influence on internal conditions. While the recruitment and protection of hollow‐bearing trees must be a priority, this work shows significant potential in improving the design and functionality of artificial hollows that are critical to the conservation of hollow‐dependent species.

Loss of hollow-bearing trees threatens many hollow-dependent wildlife. To mitigate this process, artificial chainsaw-carved hollows (CHs) are often created in dead trees, yet little is known about their thermal profiles. We measured temperatures inside 13 natural hollows (8 live and 5 dead trees) and 45 CHs (5 live and 40 dead trees) in the central west of NSW, Australia, over the course of 2 summers. Maximum temperatures and daily temperature ranges within natural hollows and artificial hollows were similar in 2017–2018. Hollow temperatures were lower in thicker-walled hollows than in thinner-walled hollows. During the January 2019 heatwave, temperatures inside CHs in dead trees exceeded 35 °C—4 °C higher than the upper limit of the thermal neutral zone of sugar gliders—for 6.2 consecutive days (range 0–9 days). CHs in dead trees provided little buffering from thermal extremes; when air temperatures peaked at 44.6 °C, CHs in dead trees were on average 2.4 °C cooler than ambient (range: 5.5 °C cooler to 1.0 °C hotter than ambient). These results show that CHs created in dead trees may not provide suitable thermal conditions for hollow-dependent marsupials during summer heatwaves. Retention of large live trees, coupled with revegetation, is crucial for conserving hollow-dependent fauna in agricultural landscapes.

No abstract