Causes of reintroduction failure of the brown treecreeper: Implications for ecosystem restoration

Abstract

Reintroductions are conducted to re-establish a self-sustaining population of a species and contribute to ecosystem restoration. The brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) reintroduction into two nature reserves in the Australian Capital Territory in south-eastern Australia failed to meet its predetermined criteria for success.This occurred despite prior habitat restoration within the reserves where reintroduction occurred. Low survival of reintroduced brown treecreepers, particularly due to predation by native predators, has previously been highlighted as a key factor in the failure of the programme. We compared bird behaviour and habitat characteristics between the reintroduction reserves and the sites where brown treecreepers were sourced (which support stable brown treecreeper populations). We did not identify an indication of significantly higher predation pressure in the reintroduction reserves in comparison with the source sites. However, our results revealed that reintroduced individuals may be more vulnerable to predation because of an increased flight time to reach a refuge area.This was a result of a significantly lower number of refuge areas in logs and trees and a higher number of shrubs (which may obstruct escape paths and hinder detection of predators) in the reintroduction reserves compared with the source sites.We identified a lower ground foraging habitat quality in the reintroduction reserves because of lower numbers of ant mounds and lower areas of forageable ground. However, brown treecreepers were able to disperse extensively throughout the reserves and settle in areas with generally higher-quality foraging habitat. Therefore, the negative effect of low ground foraging habitat quality would have been most pronounced immediately after release. This study emphasizes the inherent complexities of species reintroductions and ecosystem restoration. Despite experimental restoration activities within the reintroduction reserves, there were still deficiencies in habitat quality. We emphasize that further habitat restoration is required within these reserves to achieve more complete restoration.

Applying an animal‐centric approach to improve ecological restoration

“…Many restoration projects fail to restore wildlife even when the physical environment and vegetation are restored (Sheean et al ; Peipoch et al ), however, probably because restored areas lack structural complexity (Peipoch et al ). Lags between structural complexity and restoration are demonstrated in the failed reintroduction of the brown treecreeper ( Climacteris picumnus ) attributed to increased predation because of increased flight times with fewer trees (refuges) and more shrubs (impede flight) (Bennett et al ), and more rapid reptile restoration with addition of coarse woody debris to restored vegetation (Manning et al ).…”

Rapid recovery of invertebrate communities after ecological restoration of boreal mires

“…Importantly, biotic and abiotic aspects of the ecosystem should be restored before taking subsequent actions, e.g. the reintroduction of species (see Armstrong & Seddon 2007;Bennett et al 2013). Thus, the self-design restoration approach (see e.g.…”

Consequences of impediments to animal movements at different scales: A conceptual framework and review

“…Although we do not specifically include these in our framework, they are nonetheless relevant. One component of edge effects is the inability to source sufficient resources, such as sheltered protection from predators (Bennett et al, 2013). Habitat gaps between shelter sites and feeding locations could pose substantial risks.…”