Dispersal knowledge is essential for conservation management, and demand is growing. But are we accumulating dispersal knowledge at a pace that can meet the demand? To answer this question we tested for changes in dispersal data collection and use over time. Our systematic review of 655 conservation-related publications compared five topics: climate change, habitat restoration, population viability analysis, land planning (systematic conservation planning) and invasive species. We analysed temporal changes in the: (i) questions asked by dispersal-related research; (ii) methods used to study dispersal; (iii) the quality of dispersal data; (iv) extent that dispersal knowledge is lacking, and; (v) likely consequences of limited dispersal knowledge. Research questions have changed little over time; the same problems examined in the 1990s are still being addressed. The most common methods used to study dispersal were occupancy data, expert opinion and modelling, which often provided indirect, low quality information about dispersal. Although use of genetics for estimating dispersal has increased, new ecological and genetic methods for measuring dispersal are not yet widely adopted. Almost half of the papers identified knowledge gaps related to dispersal. Limited dispersal knowledge often made it impossible to discover ecological processes or compromised conservation outcomes. The quality of dispersal data used in climate change research has increased since the 1990s. In comparison, restoration ecology inadequately addresses large-scale process, whilst the gap between knowledge accumulation and growth in applications may be increasing in land planning. To overcome apparent stagnation in collection and use of dispersal knowledge, researchers need to: (i) improve the quality of available data using new approaches; (ii) understand the complementarities of different methods and; (iii) define the value of different kinds of dispersal information for supporting management decisions. Ambitious, multi-disciplinary research programs studying many species are critical for advancing dispersal research.

With accelerating rates of urbanization worldwide, a better understanding of ecological processes at the wildland-urban interface is critical to conserve biodiversity. We explored the effects of high and low-density housing developments on forest-dwelling mammals. Based on habitat characteristics, we expected a gradual decline in species abundance across forest-urban edges and an increased decline rate in higher contrast edges. We surveyed arboreal mammals in sites of high and low housing density along 600 m transects that spanned urban areas and areas turn on adjacent native forest. We also surveyed forest controls to test whether edge effects extended beyond our edge transects. We fitted models describing richness, total abundance and individual species abundance. Low-density housing developments provided suitable habitat for most arboreal mammals. In contrast, high-density housing developments had lower species richness, total abundance and individual species abundance, but supported the highest abundances of an urban adapter (Trichosurus vulpecula). We did not find the predicted gradual decline in species abundance. Of four species analysed, three exhibited no response to the proximity of urban boundaries, but spilled over into adjacent urban habitat to differing extents. One species (Petaurus australis) had an extended negative response to urban boundaries, suggesting that urban development has impacts beyond 300 m into adjacent forest. Our empirical work demonstrates that high-density housing developments have negative effects on both community and species level responses, except for one urban adapter. We developed a new predictive model of edge effects based on our results and the literature. To predict animal responses across edges, our framework integrates for first time: (1) habitat quality/preference, (2) species response with the proximity to the adjacent habitat, and (3) spillover extent/sensitivity to adjacent habitat boundaries. This framework will allow scientists, managers and planners better understand and predict both species responses across edges and impacts of development in mosaic landscapes.

Summary Australia's urban landscapes offer opportunities to marry socio‐economic and biodiversity conservation objectives. Yet, information is needed on what urban landscape and habitat features are important for wildlife. In this article, we draw together our research from southeastern Australia to describe key lessons for biodiversity‐sensitive cities and towns. Lesson 1: The effects of urbanization on wildlife extend into adjacent habitats. We recommend retaining large, undisturbed areas of habitat away from development, avoiding intensive development adjacent to important conservation areas, prioritizing areas of ecological and social significance, screening light and noise pollution at the urban fringe and around large nature reserves, and planting appropriately provenanced locally native species for public streetscapes, parks and gardens. Lesson 2: Strategic enhancement of urban greenspace offers biodiversity gains. We recommend increasing the total amount of greenspace cover, maintaining ecological structures as habitat islands, using landscaping techniques to minimize risks to human safety, and gardening with low‐flowering native shrubs. Lesson 3: Large old trees need to be managed for long‐term sustainability. We recommend retaining large old trees in new developments, increasing the maximum standing life of urban trees, protecting regenerating areas and planting more seedlings, supplementing habitat features associated with large trees, and ensuring that young trees have space to grow through time. Lesson 4: Education and engagement connects residents with nature and raises awareness. We recommend education programs to enhance opportunities for residents to experience and learn about biodiversity, engaging residents in the establishment and maintenance of wildlife habitat, providing ‘cues to care’, facilitating access to garden plants that benefit wildlife, and encouraging cat containment. These lessons provide an evidence‐base for implementing conservation and management actions to improve the capacity of our cities and towns to support a diverse and abundant biota.