Do state‐and‐transition models derived from vegetation succession also represent avian succession in restored mine pits?

Abstract

Abstract. State-and-transition models are increasingly used as a tool to inform management of post-disturbance succession and effective conservation of biodiversity in production landscapes. However, if they are to do this effectively, they need to represent faunal, as well as vegetation, succession. We assessed the congruence between vegetation and avian succession by sampling avian communities in each state of a state-and-transition model used to inform management of post-mining restoration in a production landscape in southwestern Australia. While avian communities differed significantly among states classified as on a desirable successional pathway, they did not differ between desirable and deviated states of the same post-mining age. Overall, we concluded there was poor congruence between vegetation and avian succession in this state-and-transition model. We identified four factors that likely contributed to this lack of congruence, which were that long-term monitoring of succession in restored mine pits was not used to update and improve models, states were not defined based on ecological processes and thresholds, states were not defined by criteria that were important in structuring the avian community, and states were not based on criteria that related to values in the reference community. We believe that consideration of these four factors in the development of state-and-transition models should improve their ability to accurately represent faunal, as well as vegetation, succession. Developing state-and-transition models that better incorporate patterns of faunal succession should improve the ability to manage post-disturbance succession across a range of ecosystems for biodiversity conservation.

Habitat features act as unidirectional and dynamic filters to bat use of production landscapes

“…Our inability to identify a filter for V. regulus (ES) contrasts with research elsewhere in Australia and Europe where vegetation structure predicts ES bat activity (Adams et al, 2009;Blakey et al, 2016;Müller et al, 2013;Webala et al, 2011). The discrepancy between studies and the low support for individual features as filters to ES and CS use of restored forest indicates that filtering is complex and may relate to overall vegetation structure, rather than single features (e.g., Craig et al, 2015). We acknowledge that our pooling of Nyctophilus spp.…”

“…Alcoa has mined bauxite in the northern jarrah forest for > 40 years and, due to the spatial distribution of bauxite, the study area (~ 15,000 ha) is a mosaic of restored forest patches within an unmined forest matrix. Similar to restored forest elsewhere (e.g., Cristescu et al, 2012) faunal community composition within restored forest rarely converges on unmined forest communities (Craig et al, 2015;Craig et al, 2012). The jarrah forest supports nine bat species, all insectivorous (Webala et al, 2011).…”

The impact of abandoned/disused marble quarries on avifauna in the anticline of Estremoz, Portugal: does quarrying add to landscape biodiversity?

“…In a very recent study, Craig et al (2015) found that avian communities differed significantly among stages of a desirable succession pathway in a post-mining restoration plan. The poor congruence between vegetation and avian succession exhibited by the state-and-transition model used by those authors was attributed to four factors, that if considered should improve the model's ability to represent fauna succession (Craig et al, 2015). However, primary succession in abandoned quarries does not necessarily progress to a single end point-the climatic climax.…”

Can postmining revegetation create habitat for a threatened mammal?

“…Given this different vegetation structure in revegetated mine pits, there is the potential for mine pits to provide habitat for faunal species that do not naturally occur in mid‐slope jarrah forest, such as White‐breasted Robins ( Eopsaltria georgiana ) (Craig et al . ). There are previous examples of rock‐inhabiting mammals colonising artificial rock piles (Schulz et al .…”

“…This leads to these pits having dense over-and understories (Grant 2006) that, structurally, more resembles vegetation found along streams and around swamps than the open jarrah forest typical of upland mid-slopes and ridgetops (Havel 1975). Given this different vegetation structure in revegetated mine pits, there is the potential for mine pits to provide habitat for faunal species that do not naturally occur in mid-slope jarrah forest, such as White-breasted Robins (Eopsaltria georgiana) (Craig et al 2015). There are previous examples of rock-inhabiting mammals colonising artificial rock piles (Schulz et al 2012), but we are unaware of any examples of mammals colonising revegetation in areas where they do not occur naturally (but see Nichols & Nichols 2003).…”