Native Animals

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78087/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s no secret that human development frequently comes at a cost to other creatures.
As our urban footprint expands, native habitat contracts. To compensate for this, most Australian governments require developers to invest in biodiversity offsetting, where habitat is created or protected elsewhere to counterbalance the impact of construction. 
Although biodiversity offsetting is frequently used in Australia – and is becoming increasingly popular around the world – we rarely know whether offsets are actually effective. 
That’s why we spent four years monitoring the program designed to offset the environmental losses caused by widening the Hume Highway between Holbrook and Coolac, New South Wales. Our research has found it was completely ineffective. 
Trading trees for boxes
The roadworks required the removal of large, old, hollow-bearing trees, which are critical nesting sites for many animals, including several threatened species. To compensate for these losses, the developer was required to install one nest box for every hollow that was lost – roughly 600 nest boxes were installed.
Many of the boxes were specifically designed for three threatened species: the squirrel glider, the superb parrot and the brown treecreeper. We monitored the offset for four years to see whether local wildlife used the nest boxes.
We found that the nest boxes were rarely used, with just seven records of the squirrel glider, two of the brown treecreeper, and none of the superb parrot. We often saw all three species in large old tree hollows in the area around the boxes we monitored.
Even more worryingly, almost 10% of the boxes collapsed, were stolen or otherwise rendered ineffective just four years after being installed. Perversely, we found that invasive species such as feral bees and black rats frequently occupied the nest boxes.
The offset clearly failed to deliver the environmental outcomes that were promised. Indeed, researchers have been concerned for some time nowthat offsetting can be misused and abused. 
What can be done?
It’s worth noting that research supports using nest boxes as a habitat replacement. However, they may never be effective for species such as the superb parrot. It’s not quite clear why some animals use nest boxes and others don’t, but earlier monitoring projects in the same area found superb parrots consistently avoid them.
Still, concrete steps can – and should – be taken to improve similar offset programs.
First, the one-to-one ratio of nest boxes to tree hollows was inadequate; far more nest boxes needed to be installed to replace the natural hollows that were lost.
There also was no requirement to regularly replace nest boxes as they degrade. It can take a hundred years or more for trees to develop natural hollows suitable for nesting wildlife. To truly offset their removal, thousands of boxes may be required over many decades.
Second, nest boxes clearly cannot compensate for the many other key ecological values of large old trees (such as carbon storage, flowering pulses or foraging habitat). This suggests that more effort is needed at the beginning of a development proposal to avoid damaging environmental assets that are extremely difficult to replace – such as large old trees.
Third, where it is simply impossible to protect key features of the environment during infrastructure development, more holistic strategies should be considered. For example, in the case of the woodlands around the Hume Highway, encouraging natural regeneration can help replace old trees.
Tree planting on farms can also make a significant contribution to biodiversity – and some of these may eventually become hollow-bearing trees. A combination of planting new trees and maintaining adequate artificial hollows while those trees mature might be a better approach.
Being accountable for failure
When an offset program fails, it’s unlikely anyone will be asked to rectify the situation. This is because developers are only required to initiate an offset, and are not responsible for their long-term outcomes.
In the case of the Hume Highway development, the conditions of approval specified that nest boxes were to be installed, but not that they be effective.
Despite the ecological failure of the offset (and over A$200,000 invested), the developer has met these legal obligations.
This distinction between offset compliance and offset effectiveness is a real problem. The Australian government has produced a draft policy of outcomes-based conditions, but using these conditions isn’t mandatory.
The poor results of the Hume Highway offset program are sobering. However, organisations like Roads and Maritime Services are to be commended for ensuring that monitoring was completed and for making the data available for public scrutiny – many agencies do not even do that. 
Indeed, through monitoring and evaluation we can often learn more from failures than successes. There are salutary lessons here, critical to ensuring mistakes are not repeated.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-lindenmayer-4848" target="_blank">David Lindenmayer</a> is professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/martine-maron-4087" target="_blank">Martine Maron</a> is ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/megan-c-evans-4271" rel="author">Megan C Evans</a> is postdoctoral Research Fellow, Environmental Policy, The University of Queensland.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-gibbons-4587" target="_blank">Philip Gibbons</a> is senior lecturer, Australian National University.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The plan to protect wildlife displaced by the Hume Highway has failed

<html><body>
Young southern brown bandicoots (Isoodon obesulus obesulus), an endangered marsupial species living in outer Melbourne.
There are more and more of us on Earth, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-urban-population-is-growing-so-how-can-cities-plan-for-migrants-49931" target="_blank">increasingly</a> we’re choosing to live in cities. This is a problem for wildlife: urbanisation is one of the greatest <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1780/20133330" target="_blank">threats to biodiversity</a>. Sprawling construction to accommodate people completely removes or modifies the homes of many other species.
But although we need to do all we can to mitigate these effects and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0504-8?code=389cb14c-d4b6-4c87-8bec-225e586635f6&amp;error=cookies_not_supported" target="_blank">their causes</a>, cities are far from biodiversity wastelands. In fact, cities are home to large numbers of species, many of which are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/geb.12404" target="_blank">threatened</a>.
One such example is the iconic but endangered southern brown bandicoot. <a href="https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1Wyjo1R%7Ee75Gk" target="_blank">New research</a> has found these shy animals thriving in peri-urban areas (the interface between cities and more rural areas) on the outskirts of Melbourne.
<h2>Novel ecosystems</h2>
Through our effects on the environment, humans are increasingly creating “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x" target="_blank">novel ecosystems</a>”: areas composed of new combinations of species and/or new and modified environmental conditions. In these areas there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/biodiversity-can-flourish-on-an-urban-planet-18723" target="_blank">winners and losers</a>. How we perceive and manage such ecosystems could have a big influence on conserving species more broadly, and helping to address <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089" target="_blank">Earth’s extinction crisis</a>.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320717321262" target="_blank">We studied</a> these issues by examining the ecology of the endangered <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=68050" target="_blank">southern brown bandicoot</a> in southeast Melbourne. Specifically, we compared bandicoot abundance and body condition between novel sites, made up of peri-urban areas, and more natural remnant sites at the <a href="https://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/visit-cranbourne" target="_blank">Royal Botanic Gardens at Cranbourne</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quail_Island_(Victoria)" target="_blank">Quail Island Nature Conservation Reserve</a>, which more closely resemble original bandicoot habitat.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216741/original/file-20180429-135848-8f9i5r.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Peri-urban habitat of the southern brown bandicoot. 
Our goal was to see whether novel sites could support resident bandicoots. Crucially, could peri-urban areas allow bandicoots to breed, recruit (attract new migrating individuals) and survive well enough for populations to persist?
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216739/original/file-20180429-135803-edhxm8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The endangered southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus) Hayley Davis
<h2>Don’t judge habitats by their appearance</h2>
Contrary to what the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00936.x" target="_blank">Human Threat Hypothesis</a> (and logic) might predict, we found more bandicoots at novel sites (66 individuals recorded over 1722 trap-nights) than remnant sites (26 individuals recorded over 1384 trap-nights). And bandicoots were most abundant at the novel site with the most urbanised surroundings. The condition of females was similar between novel and remnant sites.
Most bandicoots at novel sites were resident (meaning they were observed at the same location multiple times thoughout the study). At these same sites we recorded successful breeding, recruitment of young adults, and survival of mature adults.
Our results challenge conventional conservation thinking. Where bandicoots did best is also where known predators such as foxes and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIVirQ8Iyw" target="_blank">feral cats</a> are present and abundant, as opposed to the nature reserves from which they are largely absent. Remnant areas also have more intact native vegetation, whereas bandicoots in urban areas nested in roadsides full of invasive blackberry, a weed often targeted for removal.
Bandicoots like thick vegetation, but they appear not to care which plant species they use – as long as cover is sufficient. Blackberry bushes may protect bandicoots from predators, and also be a source of food through the insects they attract.
On the topic of food and just how adaptable bandicoots are, locals within our study region reported them dining on pet and domestic animal food from backyards.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216738/original/file-20180429-135851-16ncoy9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
How we choose to live alongside native wildlife in our cities, such as this bandicoot, could have a big effect on biodiversity conservation globally. Sarah Maclagan
<h2>Conservation opportunities in cities</h2>
A growing body of evidence suggests that even heavily modified environments can support viable populations of native plants and animals, and we should endeavour to manage these areas more sympathetically for the benefit of more species. This does not mean that all species will thrive in cities and heavily modified environments – there will always be a need for <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs" target="_blank">conservation reserves</a> – but it throws the wilderness-versus-city dichotomy into question.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95423/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">We need greater awareness of the nature we already <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-threatened-species-in-our-urban-jungle" target="_blank">share our cities</a> with. Deliberate encouragement such as greener building and urban design that <a href="https://ensia.com/features/nature-cities/" target="_blank">encourages wildlife to return and flourish</a> would substantially benefit humans and other species alike. We are a part of and dependent upon nature, and as such should celebrate and seek to re-establish these vital connections.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/euan-ritchie-735" target="_blank">Euan Ritchie</a>, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life &amp; Environmental Sciences, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757" target="_blank">Deakin University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-maclagan-292267" target="_blank">Sarah Maclagan</a>, PhD candidate, Centre for Integrative Ecology, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757" target="_blank">Deakin University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rockin-the-suburbs-bandicoots-live-among-us-in-melbourne-95423" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Bandicoots live among us in Melbourne

<html><body>
GUSET OBSERVATION
Glossy Black-Cockatoos used to be common on South Australia’s Kangaroo Island until possums started eating their eggs and chicks. After volunteers helped protect nest hollows and erect safe nest boxes, the population more than doubled.
But how do you measure such success? How do you compare cockatoo nest protection with any other investment in conservation?
Unfortunately, we have few ways to compare and track the different efforts many people may be making to help conserve our natural treasures.
That’s why a group of us from a dozen Australian universities along with scientists and private researchers around the world have created <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13220">metrics of progress</a> for both our understanding of how to manage threats of different intensity, and how well that management has been implemented. We also provide guidance on what still needs doing before a threat no longer needs active management.
For the first time, we looked at every threatened bird in Australia to see how well – or not – they are managed. Hopefully, we can use this to avoid compounding our disastrous <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/13/a-national-disgrace-australias-extinction-crisis-is-unfolding-in-plain-sight">recent track record</a> of extinctions in Australia.
The state of Australian birds
What we did differently was collect the same data across different species, which meant we could compare conservation efforts across all bids.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246799/original/file-20181122-182062-zfg4ry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246799/original/file-20181122-182062-zfg4ry.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The mallee emu-wren is unique to Australia and endangered due to habitat loss. <a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/128578170@N06/24288853338/in/photolist-D1jHTq-4b9JJc" target="_blank">Nik Borrow/Flickr</a>
When we applied these metrics to Australia’s 238 threatened bird species, the results were both encouraging and daunting. The good news is that we understand how to reduce the impact of about 52% of the threats – although of course that means we know little about how to deal with the other 48%.
But the situation is decidedly worse when we consider how effectively we are putting that research into practice. Only 43% of threats are being managed in any way at all – and just a third of the worst threats – and we are achieving good outcomes for just 20%.
But at least we now know where we are. We can celebrate what we have accomplished, appreciate how much needs doing, and direct our efforts where they will have the greatest benefit.
The threats to our birds
Introduced mammals, particularly <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320717302719" target="_blank">cats</a>, have been (and continue to be) a significant threat to Australian birds. Although we have successfully eradicated feral animals on many islands, saving many species, they remain a grave threat on the mainland.
The effect of climate change is becoming the top priority threat for the future. About half of all threatened birds are likely to be affected by increases in drought, fire, heat or sea level. Given the policy prevarication at a global level, targeted research is essential if birds are to be helped to cope.
By looking at multiple species, we can also identify what helps successful conservation. <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emr.12335" target="_blank">Monitoring</a>, for instance, has a big impact on threat alleviation – better monitored species receive more attention.
There is also – unsurprisingly – a strong connection between knowledge of how to manage a threat and successful application of that knowledge. Often policy people want instant action, but our work suggests that action before knowledge will squander money.
Where to from here?
So what can we use this analysis for? One use is helping species <a href="http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/news/no-surprises-no-regrets-identifying-australias-most-imperilled-animal-species" target="_blank">close to extinction</a>.
Using the same approach for multiple species groups, it is apparent that, while birds and mammals are in a parlous state, the most threatened fish are far worse off. We can also identify some clear priorities for action.
Finally, we must acknowledge this work emerged not from a government research grant, but from a non-government organisation (NGO). BirdLife Australia needed an overview of the country’s performance with threatened birds and was able to draw on the volunteered skills of biologists and mathematicians from around the country, and then the world.
Indeed, one of the future projects will be using the new assessment tool to see just how much of the conservation action around the country is being driven by volunteers, from the many people who contributed their knowledge and skills to this paper through to those keeping glossy black-cockatoo chicks safe on Kangaroo Island.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107432/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University
Alienor Chauvenet, Lecturer, Griffith University
April Reside, Researcher, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland
Brendan Wintle, Professor Conservation Ecology, University of Melbourne
David Lindenmayer, Professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University
David M Watson, Professor in Ecology, Charles Sturt University
Elisa Bayraktarov, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland
Hayley Geyle, Research Assistant, Charles Darwin University; Hugh Possingham, Professor, The University of Queensland
Ian Leiper, Geospatial Scientist, Charles Darwin University
James Watson, Professor, The University of Queensland
Jim Radford, Principal Research Fellow, Research Centre for Future Landscapes, La Trobe University
John Woinarski, Professor (conservation biology), Charles Darwin University
Les Christidis, Professor, Southern Cross University
Martine Maron, ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland
Molly K Grace, Postdoctoral Fellow in Zoology, University of Oxford
Paul McDonald, Associate professor, University of New England
Sarah Legge, Associate Professor, Australian National University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-the-first-time-weve-looked-at-every-threatened-bird-in-australia-side-by-side-107432" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

For the first time we’ve looked at every threatened bird in Australia side-by-side

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The phrase “urban jungle” gets thrown around a lot, but we don’t usually think of cities as places where rare or threatened species live.
Our research, published today in <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2032" target="_blank">Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</a>, shows some of Australia’s most endangered plants and animals live entirely within cities and towns.
Stuck in the city with you
Australia is home to 39 urban-restricted threatened species, from giant gum trees, to ornate orchids, wonderful wattles, and even a tortoise. Many of these species are critically endangered, right on the brink of extinction. And cities are our last chance to preserve them within their natural range.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267002/original/file-20190402-177190-74ng2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267002/original/file-20190402-177190-74ng2d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Credit: Elia Purtle
Urban environments offer a golden opportunity to preserve species under threat and engage people with nature. But that means we might need to think a little differently about how and where we do conservation, embrace the weird and wonderful spaces that these species call home, and involve urban communities in the process.
Roads to the left of them, houses to the right
When you picture city animals you might think of pigeons, sparrows or rats that like to hang out with humans, or the flying foxes and parrots that are attracted to our flowering gardens.
But that’s not the case here. The threatened species identified in our research didn’t choose the city life, the city life chose them. They’re living where they’ve always lived. As urban areas expand, it just so happens that we now live there too.
The first hurdle that springs to mind when it comes to keeping nature in cities is space: there’s not a lot of it, and it’s quickly disappearing. For example, the magnificent Caley’s Grevillea has lost more than 85% of its habitat in Sydney to urban growth, and many of its remaining haunts are earmarked for future development. Around half of the urban-restricted species on our list are in the same predicament.
It’s especially tough to protect land for conservation in urban environments, where development potential means high competition for valuable land. So when protected land is a luxury that few species can afford, we need to work out other ways to look after species in the city.
Not living where you’d expect
Precious endangered species aren’t all tucked away in national parks and conservation reserves. These little battlers are more often found hiding in plain sight, amid the urban hustle and bustle.
Our research found them living along railway lines and roadsides, sewerage treatment plants and cemeteries, schools, airports, and even a hospital garden. While these aren’t the typical places you’d expect to find threatened species, they’re fantastic opportunities for conservation.
The spiked rice flower is a great example. Its largest population is on a golf course in New South Wales, where local managers work to enhance its habitat between the greens, and raise awareness among residents and local golfers. These kinds of good partnerships between local landowners and conservation can find “win-win” situations that benefit people and nature.
A series of unfortunate events
It’s no secret that living in the ‘burbs can be risky: a fact best illustrated in the cautionary tale of a roadside population of the endangered Angus’s onion orchid. Construction workers once unwittingly dumped ten tonnes of sand over the patch in the late 1980s, then quickly attempted to fix the problem using a bulldozer and a high-pressure hose. Later, a portaloo was plonked on top of it.
Examples like this show just how important it is for policy makers, land managers and the community to know that these species are there in the first place, and are aware that even scrappy-looking habitats can be important to their survival. Otherwise, species are just one stroke of bad luck away from extinction.
People power
It’s common to think if you want to conserve nature, you need to get as far away from people as you can. After all, we can be a dangerous lot (just ask Angus’s onion orchid). But we also have extraordinary potential to create positive change – and it’s much easier for us to do this if we only have to travel as far as our backyard or a local park.
Many urban-restricted species get support by their local communities. Examples from our research showed communities across Melbourne raising <a href="http://www.starweekly.com.au/news/save-the-sexy-scented-orchid/" target="_blank">thousands of dollars in conservation crowdfunding</a>, dedicating countless volunteer hours to caring for local habitats, and even setting up neighbourhood watches to combat vandals. This shows a huge opportunity for urban residents to be on the conservation frontline.
Our research focused on 39 species that are restricted to Australian cities and towns today. But that’s not where the opportunity for urban conservation ends.
There are about another <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-ten-mps-represent-more-than-600-threatened-species-in-their-electorates-83500" target="_blank">370 threatened species</a> that share their range with urban areas across Australia, as well as countless “common” native species that call cities home. And as cities continue to expand, many other threatened species stand to become urban dwellers. It’s clear that if we only focus conservation efforts in areas far from humans, species like these will be lost forever.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114741/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Kylie Soanes, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Melbourne
Pia Lentini, Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-39-endangered-species-in-melbourne-sydney-adelaide-and-other-australian-cities-114741" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Main photo: Caley’s grevillea has lost 85% of its habitat as Sydney has expanded. Isaac Mammott
</body></html>

Native Animals

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Native Animals

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News