Conservation cornerstones: Capitalising on the endeavours of long-term monitoring projects

Holland, Greg J.; Alexander, Jerry S.A.; Johnson, Peter; Arnold, Andrew; Halley, Merril; Bennett, Andrew F.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.016

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We tested these predictions in an area of degraded box-ironbark forest habitat in Victoria where nest boxes had been installed. Both the Phascogale and Sugar Glider occur broadly within this habitat type (Holland et al 2012;Mansfield et al 2017;Goldingay et al 2018). The forest had been subject to historic gold mining, forestry and community use, such that tree hollows are scarce (Soderquist 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) is an example of a treecavity-dependent species where further knowledge of habitat preference is required. This species has undergone a range-wide decline (Woinarski et al 2014), and some populations are still in decline (Holland et al 2012). The factors responsible for its decline include habitat loss, predation by feral predators and the loss of tree cavities (hollows).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

Goldingay¹,

Quin²,

Talamo³

et al. 2020

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is part of a broader investigation that uses nest boxes to understand the ecological requirements of hollow-dependent wildlife.Summary Habitat preferences need to be understood if species are to be adequately managed or conserved. Habitat preferences are presumed to reflect requirements for food, shelter and breeding, as well as interactions with predators and competitors. However, one or more of these requirements may dominate. Tree-cavity-dependent wildlife species are one example where shelter or breeding site requirements may dominate. We installed 120 nest boxes across 40 sites to target the vulnerable Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and the non-threatened Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps). The provision of shelter sites where few of quality are available may enable better resolution of habitat preferences. Over three years, we observed the Brush-tailed Phascogale at 17 sites, whereas the Sugar Glider was observed at 39 sites. We tested four broad hypotheses (H1-H4) relating to habitat that may influence occupancy by these species. There was no influence of hollow (cavity) abundance (H1) on either species suggesting our nest boxes had satisfied their shelter requirements. There was no influence of habitat structure (canopy and tree proximity) (H2) immediately around the nest box trees. We found no influence of distance to the forest edge (H3). Variables at and away from the nest box site that appear to reflect foraging substrates (H4) were influential on the Brush-tailed Phascogale. Sugar Glider occupancy was only influenced by a single variable at the nest box site. The lack of influence of any other variables is consistent with the very high occupancy observed, suggesting most of the forest habitat is suitable when shelter sites are available. We found no evidence that the Sugar Glider reduced site use by the Brush-tailed Phascogale.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

Goldingay¹,

Quin²,

Talamo³

et al. 2020

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long‐term monitoring of this species in Victoria suggests it is in decline (Holland et al . ). The Sugar Glider ( Petaurus breviceps ) was also present in the study landscape and was expected to use these nest boxes due to a similar nest box entrance size requirement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The Brushtailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa), listed as threatened in Victoria, was the main target of the nest box installations (see Soderquist et al 1996). Long-term monitoring of this species in Victoria suggests it is in decline (Holland et al 2012). The Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) was also present in the study landscape and was expected to use these nest boxes due to a similar nest box entrance size requirement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia

Goldingay¹,

Thomas²,

Shanty³

2018

Eco Management Restoration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Nest boxes are commonly installed to support hollow‐using species where the abundance of hollow‐bearing trees is deficient. Recent studies have provided equivocal evidence about the effectiveness of nest box projects and have highlighted significant management costs associated with some projects. We document the functionality of 303 nest boxes installed across five different community‐led projects in southern Australia for periods of 10–25 years. As expected, we found that nest boxes lost functionality over time. However, 60% remained functional to support the Brush‐tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa) and the Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) after almost 20 years. Years installed, method of nest box attachment and tree species influenced whether boxes remained functional. Nest box construction material changed over time so could not be assessed specifically. When inspected in a single year, the Brush‐tailed Phascogale occupied 9% of functional boxes and another 48% contained their nests. The Sugar Glider occupied 15% of functional boxes and another 22% contained their nests. These values suggest the nest box installations were highly effective for these species, although more detailed study is needed to understand what contribution these installations have made to support the local populations. Maintenance of most nest boxes occurred twice a year in the first five years after installation, but many received no maintenance for periods of three years, and some 10–15 years, before our census. Our findings suggest that infrequent maintenance by community groups can sustain nest box projects over periods of several decades. Research into employing nest boxes as a management tool in Australia is still in its infancy. Further studies are needed to resolve factors that limit their effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Resource monitoring has long been recognized as a cornerstone of biodiversity and conservation science [1] , [2] , [3] . In 2010, at the 10 th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 193 nations agreed to twenty “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”, and in doing so committed to updating their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and developing monitoring programs to assess progress [4] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing Challenges to Monitoring Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated Global Data

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recognizing the imperiled status of biodiversity and its benefit to human well-being, the world's governments committed in 2010 to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss through the Convention on Biological Diversity's “Aichi Targets”. These targets, and many conservation programs, require monitoring to assess progress toward specific goals. However, comprehensive and easily understood information on biodiversity trends at appropriate spatial scales is often not available to the policy makers, managers, and scientists who require it. We surveyed conservation stakeholders in three geographically diverse regions of critical biodiversity concern (the Tropical Andes, the African Great Lakes, and the Greater Mekong) and found high demand for biodiversity indicator information but uneven availability. To begin to address this need, we present a biodiversity “dashboard” – a visualization of biodiversity indicators designed to enable tracking of biodiversity and conservation performance data in a clear, user-friendly format. This builds on previous, more conceptual, indicator work to create an operationalized online interface communicating multiple indicators at multiple spatial scales. We structured this dashboard around the Pressure-State-Response-Benefit framework, selecting four indicators to measure pressure on biodiversity (deforestation rate), state of species (Red List Index), conservation response (protection of key biodiversity areas), and benefits to human populations (freshwater provision). Disaggregating global data, we present dashboard maps and graphics for the three regions surveyed and their component countries. These visualizations provide charts showing regional and national trends and lay the foundation for a web-enabled, interactive biodiversity indicators dashboard. This new tool can help track progress toward the Aichi Targets, support national monitoring and reporting, and inform outcome-based policy-making for the protection of natural resources.

show abstract

Conservation cornerstones: Capitalising on the endeavours of long-term monitoring projects

Cited by 19 publications

References 25 publications

Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

Nest box revealed habitat preferences of arboreal mammals in box‐ironbark forest

Outcomes of decades long installation of nest boxes for arboreal mammals in southern Australia

A Biodiversity Indicators Dashboard: Addressing Challenges to Monitoring Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets Using Disaggregated Global Data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About