Regrowth woodlands are valuable habitat for reptile communities

Abstract

Protection of passive regrowth, or secondary vegetation, offers the potential to cost-effectively alleviate biodiversity declines caused by deforestation. This potential often goes unrealised because the habitat value of regrowth is generally considered marginal. However, the habitat value of regrowth varies among taxa. Disturbed subtropical woodland landscapes provide large-scale passive restoration opportunities. Subtropical woodlands are also rich in reptile diversity. We addressed the question: 'What is the habitat value of subtropical regrowth woodlands for reptile communities?' We identified five commonly-observed models of regrowth habitat value and then surveyed reptile communities in 43 cleared, regrowth and remnant Acaciaand Eucalyptus-dominated woodland sites in subtropical Queensland, Australia. Reptile species richness, diversity, dominance and community composition followed the "regrowth = remnant" model of high regrowth value, where the habitat values of regrowth and remnant woodlands were similar, and higher than that of cleared land. Unexpectedly, the proportion of juveniles was highest in cleared sites and lower in both regrowth and remnant sites. Our findings challenge the view that the habitat value of regrowth is limited. Consistency in findings between contrasting woodland types suggest that our results may apply in other similarly disturbed woodlands. We conclude that although remnant woodlands are irreplaceable, regrowth woodlands provide valuable habitat for reptile communities and the protection of such regrowth should be a high priority in disturbed subtropical woodland systems.

Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions

“…(Rozendaal et al 2019). Natural regeneration in Australian subtropical woodlands provides valuable habitat for reptile and bird communities (Bowen et al 2009, Bruton et al 2013. In tropical regions, recovery of biodiversity and forest structure can be 34%-56% and 19%-56% higher, respectively, in naturally regenerating forests than in actively restored forests (Crouzeilles et al 2017).…”

Carbon farming via assisted natural regeneration as a cost-effective mechanism for restoring biodiversity in agricultural landscapes

“…Second, natural regeneration can result in high species diversity including trees, shrubs, forbs and grasses, whereas under environmental planting, generally only tree species are planted. Third, ANR often provides superior habitat for local fauna as a result of the increased plant and structural diversity (Bloomfield and Pearson, 2000;Bowen et al, 2009;Bruton et al, 2013;Fensham and Guymer, 2009). Finally, under the right conditions, the cost of establishing vegetation through ANR is much lower than active planting (Sampaio et al, 2007;Schirmer and Field, 2000;Smith, 2002).…”

The importance of underground shelter resources for reptiles in dryland landscapes: A woma python case study

“…Accad et al 2008;Hoyos et al 2012). Clearing of woody vegetation results in the loss of structural heterogeneity, and cleared areas support fewer reptile species than adjacent, intact habitats (Driscoll 2004;Schutz & Driscoll 2008;Pelegrin & Bucher 2012;Bruton et al 2013). Reptiles are efficient energy converters and provide a key trophic link between invertebrates and predators in dryland ecosystems (Pough 1983;Blench 2004;Ayal 2007).…”