Wildlife Management

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Australia’s landscapes are dotted with mature eucalypts that were standing well before Captain Cook sailed into Botany Bay. These old trees were once revered as an icon of the unique Australian landscape, but they’re <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099403" target="_blank">rapidly becoming collateral damage</a> from population growth. Mature eucalypts are routinely removed to make way for new suburbs.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224873/original/file-20180626-112604-f000n7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""> Good planning can ensure many more mature eucalypts are retained in urban developments. 
This has a considerable impact on our native fauna. Unless society is prepared to recognise the value of our pre-European eucalypts, urban growth will continue to irrevocably change our unique Australian landscape and the wildlife it supports. 
Why are old eucalypts worth saving?
In urban landscapes, many consider large and old eucalypts a dangerous nuisance that drop limbs, crack footpaths and occupy space that could be used for housing. But when we remove these trees they are effectively lost forever. It takes at least <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/3010/" target="_blank">100-200 years</a> before a eucalypt reaches ecological maturity.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224870/original/file-20180626-112604-1lg07d7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Birds use old eucalypts as places to perch or nest. 
As trees mature, their branches become large and begin to grow horizontally rather than vertically, which is more attractive to many birds as perches and platforms where they can construct a nest.
Wildlife also use cavities inside ageing eucalypts. These are formed as the heartwood – the dead wood in the centre – decays. When a limb breaks it exposes cavities where the heartwood once occurred.
This is such a ubiquitous process in our forests that around <a href="https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/3010/" target="_blank">300 of Australia’s vertebrate species</a>, such as possums, owls, ducks, parrots and bats, have evolved to use these cavities as exclusive places to roost or nest.
Mature trees also support high concentrations of food for animals that feed on nectar, such as honeyeaters, or seed, such as parrots.
<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00216.x" target="_blank">One study</a> found that the number of native birds in an urban park or open space declines by half with the loss of every five mature eucalypts. 
How can we keep old trees?
Decaying heartwood in older eucalypts leads to some large branches falling. This is when most eucalypts are removed from urban areas. So we remove trees at the exact point in time when they become more attractive to wildlife.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/224868/original/file-20180626-112634-j0si21.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Plantings around the base of a mature eucalypt discourage pedestrian traffic or parked cars. 
A well-trained arborist knows that old — or even dead — eucalypts don’t need to be removed to make them safe. A tree is only dangerous if it has what arborists call a target. Unless there is a path, road or structure under a tree, then the probability of something or someone being struck by a falling branch is often below the <a href="http://unri.org/ECO%20697U%20S14/quantified_tree_risk_assessment-_ellison.pdf" target="_blank">threshold of acceptable risk</a>.
Progressive arborists first focus on eliminating targets. For example, they might plant shrubs around the base of dead or rapidly ageing trees to minimise pedestrian traffic, rather than eliminating trees.
Where targets can’t be managed, trimming trees can remove branches that have a high risk of falling. Trees can also be structurally supported (braced) to remain stable. Such trees remain suitable as habitat for many native species.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225442/original/file-20180629-117371-k61l05.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/225442/original/file-20180629-117371-k61l05.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Developers can plan around old trees.
How to design around trees
The removal of mature eucalypts is, in part, due to urban developers not considering these trees early in the planning process.
I have worked with one <a href="https://ginninderry.com/not-just-tree-home/" target="_blank">developer</a> on the outskirts of Canberra to identify important trees. The developer then planned around, rather than in spite of, these trees.
The outcome has been <a href="https://ginninderry.com/not-just-tree-home/" target="_blank">around 80%</a> of mature trees have been retained. This is much greater than the proportion of mature trees retained in other new urban developments in Canberra.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98632/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Australia’s population is <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+features52012%20(base)%20to%202101" target="_blank">projected to double in 50 years</a>, so our suburbs will continue to infill and expand. This will result in the continued loss of our mature eucalypts unless our approach to planning changes.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/philip-gibbons-4587" target="_blank">Philip Gibbons</a>, Associate professor, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-city-planning-can-preserve-old-trees-and-the-wildlife-that-needs-them-98632">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Smart city planning can protect flora and fauna

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The fourth <a href="https://aussiebirdcount.org.au/" target="_blank">Aussie Backyard Bird Count</a> has just ended, with nearly 2 million birds from 635 species submitted to the BirdLife Australia app. The count, which is in its fourth year, has created a national database of birds found in our backyards.
We don’t know yet exactly how many people participated this year, but more than 60,000 people submitted checklists in 2016. Participants span the whole country, though participation is highest in our urban areas. By surveying our backyards (rather than “good” bird spots), these citizen scientists provide ecologists – like me – with information from urban areas we would not otherwise sample.
This includes data on a range of common bird species that are not frequently analysed because these species are believed to be secure. One of the most surprising results is a decline in the frequency of occurrence of the laughing kookaburra across southeast Australia.
Counting birds
Everyone has a bird story – and fortunately for ecologists, everyone is willing to share them. With 85% of Australia’s population living in cities and towns, birds are an important connection to our natural environment.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192541/original/file-20171031-18711-13owlfd.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192541/original/file-20171031-18711-13owlfd.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Source: BirdLife Australia
But birds are also <a href="https://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2326/osj.9.3?journalCode=jorn" target="_blank">good environmental indices</a>. They’re generally easy to measure, they respond quickly to environmental change and we know a reasonable amount about the ecology of most species.
Between 1998 and 2014, BirdLife Australia volunteers collected a significant amount of data. This was used to develop a terrestrial bird index in 2015 – a bird “Dow Jones” to track our biodiversity. It was here that the decline in kookaburras was first identified.
The data were drawn from BirdLife Australia’s ongoing atlas project, now called <a href="https://birdata.birdlife.org.au/" target="_blank">Birdata</a>. However, there are biases in this data set, as people obviously like to go birdwatching where they will see more birds. This may inflate the frequency of encountering some species and decrease the chances of encountering others – particularly rare and cryptic species.
For the last four years, we’ve asked volunteers to add to this data by counting birds around their home for a week in October, when many birds are highly active and visible. These counts complement the data already available in Birdata by allowing access to backyards across Australia, which are generally poorly represented in the larger data set.
While there are still limitations in the Backyard Bird Count data, such as the risk of mis-identification, for common species like the laughing kookaburra we can generally be confident that the identification is correct. Even if the same bird is counted multiple times, our models report only a species’ presence or absence, so inflated numbers don’t affect the trend.
Are kookaburras really declining?
The below figures show modelled trends for the kookaburra across metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney. These figures are derived from the volunteer-collected Birdata, much of which comes from green spaces and remnant vegetation in these landscapes.
I wondered whether these declines are true changes in the populations, or reflect a change in the way kookaburras are using the landscape, possibly moving into the matrix of urban backyards that just don’t get surveyed. Looking solely at the backyard count data, I found similar trends in the reporting rates of kookaburras as those in the models, supporting that this decline is at the population level. What started out in 2014 as a way of engaging the broader community with their birds is now collecting useful ecological data.
Further exploration of the ABBC data across other capital cities found some interesting things. In both Perth and Hobart, where the kookaburra is considered an introduced species, the birds are recorded more frequently than in Melbourne and across the ACT. In Perth, increases in 2016 compared to previous years suggest an increase in the species there.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192539/original/file-20171031-18700-ecicwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192539/original/file-20171031-18700-ecicwi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Modelled trends for Kookaburras from 1998-2014. Source: Unpublished models/K. Herman/BirdLife Australia, Author provided
The figure on the left is for Melbourne, and on the right is for Sydney. The reporting rate shows the percentage of surveys where kookaburras were recorded as present. The thick black line is the modelled trend (with confidence intervals in dashed line), the pink line shows the statistically significant linear trend, the thin black line shows the monthly calculated reporting rate, and the green spots show acceleration (or a favourable change) in the trend. Note that due to modelling method, the ends of figures tend to blow out as there is no data from which to predict trend.
While three years does not make a trend, Aussie Backyard Bird Count data from heavily urbanised areas suggest we are seeing a decline in this iconic species in the eastern capitals. Likely reasons for this are the loss of nesting hollows and possibly reductions in the availability of prey as we increasingly modify our urban landscapes. We don’t really know as this is not an area that has been researched.
We need citizen scientists
Collecting enough data (especially from the backyards of towns and cities) to detect these kinds of changes can be an overwhelming task. This is where citizen science programs like the Aussie Backyard Bird Count can help.
As well as helping ecologists track large-scale biodiversity trends, it also gives people the chance to connect with their natural environment and gain a greater appreciation of our unique fauna.
As with all citizen science projects, there are limitations in the data being collected. However, the Backyard Bird app has been designed to make counting as simple and standardised as possible, providing confidence in the tally of common and “iconic” species, and filling in the gaps found in other data sets.
The good old kookaburra is neither rare or cryptic. If anything, if people are seeking out “good” bird habitat to survey we would expect that kookaburras would be one of those species subject to inflated reporting. But this is not what we encountered.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86469/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">If we are starting to see declines in species that we have traditionally considered secure, what does this mean for those that are already at risk? Once all the data from the Aussie Backyard Bird Count have been collated and vetted we will continue to explore the developing trends in Australia’s urban birds. Increasing engagement and awareness in our communities can help ensure our backyard birds are still around to count next year.
Kerryn Herman is a research ecologist at Deakin University.
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/citizen-scientists-count-nearly-2-million-birds-and-reveal-a-possible-kookaburra-decline-86469" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Counting birds sheds new light on our cities: Kerryn Herman

<html><body>
Phillipa McCormack, University of Tasmania; Jan McDonald, University of Tasmania
Australia’s conservation laws presume that we can preserve everything in its natural state. But in a changing world, we'll have to be more flexible than that.
Australia recently gained an unenviable title: perhaps the first country to lose a mammal species to climate change. The Bramble Cay Melomys, a native rodent found on one tiny sand island in the remote northern regions of the Great Barrier Reef, reportedly became extinct after rising seas destroyed its habitat.
The melomys' likely extinction is a symptom of the massive changes taking place across the natural world. Faced with these changes, we cannot possibly save every species without increasing funding for conservation.
We should be trying to conserve everything we can, or at least minimising the number of plants, animals and ecosystems that are lost. The problem is that Australia’s conservation laws presume that we can preserve everything in its natural state. But in a changing world, we’ll have to be more flexible than that.
<h2>The new nature</h2>
Our conservation laws were drafted on the assumption that, if human intervention could be avoided or managed, plants and animals would survive in their natural, pristine environments.
We now know that that is not the case. Nature is dynamic. Humans have had a pervasive influence on the environment and recent research suggests that pristine environments no longer exist.
Climate change will rapidly accelerate environmental change. Shifting temperature and rainfall will shift the specific conditions that species depend on to survive. Everything will be on the move.
On top of these gradual climate shifts, more frequent and intense bushfires, storms and heatwaves will destroy some habitats and increase the threatened status of many species. In some cases, these extreme events may result in localised extinctions.
Climate change is creating new problems for biodiversity (such as new invasive species) and is making existing problems worse (such as by changing fire patterns).
<h2>What does conservation mean if we can’t save everything?</h2>
Far from making conservation law irrelevant, these challenges mean that conservation policy and laws are more important than ever.
Expanding land and marine reserves, restoring and connecting habitat with other areas, and reducing other threats such land clearing or feral animals are all important climate adaptation strategies.
But many Australian plants and animals will not be able to move fast enough to escape extreme events or to keep pace with their specific climate niches on their own. To conserve these species, we may need to engage in high‑intervention conservation strategies, such as assisted colonisation.
This involves moving an individual, population or species to a place where it has never been found before. This tactic is being investigated for the endangered Western Swamp Tortoise in Western Australia, as its wetland habitat begins to dry out.
Conservation laws in Australia were not designed to accommodate these kinds of dynamic and proactive approaches to conservation management.
<h2>Legal road blocks</h2>
Current conservation laws promote keeping or returning the environment to what it used to be, whether that is pristine or not.
In a recent paper, we looked at three ways laws may impede conservation in a changing world.
First, current laws emphasise maintaining the current status and location of ecosystems and their constituent parts, or returning them to an “undisturbed” state.
Second, they place high value on biodiversity that is rare, native and wild.
Finally, they emphasise reserves (especially on public land) as the sites for most conservation effort.
For example, national park laws typically require agencies to conserve national parks in their natural state. This is usually defined by the plants and animals that are already there or that have been found there in the past.
But some species might need to be moved into national parks, even if they have never been found there before, or out of national parks to somewhere more climatically suitable. Current laws do not let us do this.
Rather than an outdated idea of what is “natural”, we need new objectives that focus on diversity and ecosystem function and health. If introducing a plant or animal into a national park will increase its chance of surviving under climate change and will not undermine the health of the park’s ecosystems, the introduction should not be excluded just because the species is not “native” to that specific park. This approach would help species adapt through movement across boundaries.
<h2>Letting species go</h2>
Another example of a potential legal roadblock is the emphasis on individual threatened species in both legal protection and funding. For instance, the Coalition government has pledged AU$5 million for specific actions to protect some of the most endangered of Australia’s listed threatened species.
But this is an example of assuming that we can save everything. The contracting ranges and already precarious status of many listed speciesmake it unlikely that we will be able to conserve them all, and impossible to do so in their historic locations.
Choices based on what species we fund are rarely transparent and the public is rarely consulted about what we value the most. We need to have a conversation about how we value species and ecosystems in a changing world. If more people realised that we cannot save everything, perhaps more people would demand that appropriate funding is allocated to saving as much as possible.
While funding remains limited, we need objectives that reflect the certainty of some loss of species in the wild and that clearly define the criteria we are using for targeting some species for protection while letting others go.
Our conservation laws direct how we will act to save species and ecosystems under climate change, and whether we will succeed. But climate change makes our current objectives unachievable.
We must not give up on conserving as much as we can as the climate changes. Laws can be used to help us achieve this goal. But we urgently need a national conversation about what reform is needed to ensure the best possible conservation results for Australia’s precious wildlife, plants and ecosystems.
 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

We can't save all wildlife, so conservation laws need to change

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The conflict between urbanites and wildlife recently developed a new battleground: the small coastal New South Wales town of Batemans Bay, where the exceptional flowering of spotted gums has attracted a huge influx of grey-headed flying-foxes from across Australia’s southeast.
In response to intense and highly publicised community concern, federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt has announced he will seek an immediate National Interest Exemption to facilitate dispersal of these bats – a move that risks undermining legal protections afforded to this and other threatened species.
Similar conflicts are occurring elsewhere in NSW, such as the Hunter region, where some unscrupulous members of the public lit a fire in a flying-fox roost at Cessnock.
With the ongoing expansion of the human urban footprint, animals are increasingly confronted with urban environments. Human encroachment into natural habitats generally negatively affects biodiversity. However, urban landscapes can present wildlife with an irresistible lure of reliable food supplies and other resources. While urban wildlife can provide a range of benefits to health and wellbeing, it can also be cause for frustration and conflict.
Urban human-wildlife conflict is a growing area of management concern and scientific research. But the research suggests that the current strategies for addressing NSW’s conflicts between humans and flying-foxes might not have the intended results.
<h2>Ruling the urban roost</h2>
Australian flying-foxes are becoming more urbanised, and the noise, smell and droppings from their roosts can have huge impacts on local residents.
A fundamental problem underlying current approaches to urban roosts is a lack of understanding of the extraordinary mobility of flying-foxes. They are some of the most mobile animals in Australia, with movements that range from foraging trips of up to 120 km in a single night to long-distance nomadism covering thousands of kilometres in a single year.
While roosts can remain active for decades, they are more like backpacker hostels than stable households, housing a constantly changing clientele that comes to visit local attractions. Roosts are connected into large networks through which flying-foxes move in response to changes in local food resources.
This explains the sudden influx in places such as Batemans Bay where preferred food suddenly becomes abundant. But it also highlights the importance of a national approach to flying-fox management and conservation.
Intense local flowerings of Eucalypts, such as spotted gums, produce copious amounts of nectar and pollen, which attract large numbers of flying-foxes and other species for several weeks. When a relatively small local flying-fox population that is tolerated by its human neighbours suddenly increases tenfold, it can place severe pressure on the local community.
Despite their transient nature, these influxes are often wrongly interpreted as population explosions, leading to calls for culling. In comparison, more humane tactics – such as using loud noise or vegetation removal to disperse the flying-foxes – can seem like a more balanced response. But does dispersal actually work?
<h2>Shifting the problem elsewhere</h2>
There is now ample evidence to show that dispersals are extremely costly and can exacerbate the very human-wildlife conflict that they aim to resolve.
Most dispersals result in the flying-foxes returning the original roost as soon as the dispersal program ends, because naïve new individuals continue to arrive from elsewhere. Overcoming this can take months or years of repeated daily dispersal.
Other dispersals result in flying-foxes establishing new roosts a few hundred metres away, typically within the same urban environment in locations that we cannot control. This risks shifting the problem to previously unaffected members of a community and to other communities nearby. 
While flying-foxes are often portrayed as noisy pests, they serve our economic interest by providing irreplaceable pollination and seed-dispersal services for free. What’s more, those same bats that annoy people during the day work tirelessly at night to maintain the health of our fragmented forests and natural ecosystems.
So it is in our national interest to manage conflict at urban roosts, by using approaches that balance community concerns with environmental consideration.
To be considered “successful”, a dispersal should permanently reduce conflict to a level that is acceptable to the community without causing significant harm to the animals. However, dispersals are currently implemented at the local council level with little or no monitoring of the impacts in or outside the immediately affected area. This makes it hard to assess whether they have been successful.
For example, it is not uncommon for flowering to cease and flying-fox numbers to decline naturally during the period of active dispersal. This gives the community a false sense that a permanent solution has been achieved, when in fact the issues will recur the next time the trees blossom. There is thus an urgent need for urban roosts to be managed with properly defined and applied criteria for success.
<h2>Evidence-based management</h2>
Unfortunately, lack of research effort directed at “ugly” and “less popular” Australian animals means that very few evidence-based management tools are available to deal with contentious roosts.
Research targeting a few key areas would greatly help efforts to improve urban roost management. For instance, we do not know how flying-foxes choose their roost sites, which leaves us unable to design “carrot solutions” by creating more attractive roost sites elsewhere.
Intensive tree-flowering events are relatively infrequent and hard to predict. This means that it is difficult to prepare communities for a sudden influx of flying-foxes.
Furthermore, the acceptability of various flying-fox management options differs between sections of the community, so it is difficult to find optimal solutions. Social scientists are currently trying to help identify priority areas that promote long-term viability of flying-foxes while also easing conflict with humans.
Local, state and federal governments continue to allocate considerable funds for dispersal responses, even though such actions are high-risk activities for local communities and are unlikely to provide long-term solutions. We argue strongly that targeted research is needed to better inform land managers and affected communities of flying-fox ecology and provide them with low-cost, low-risk, evidence-based tools for dealing with urban roosts.
Flying-foxes don’t care about legislative borders, and state-based responsibility for wildlife management leads to discontinuity in approaches between jurisdictions. While flying-foxes are being monitored at the national scale, this initiative needs to be combined with a uniform federal approach for managing flying-foxes in our human landscapes. Otherwise, conflicts such as those faced by the residents of Batemans Bay will continue unabated.
Justin Welbergen is senior lecturer in Animal Ecology, Western Sydney University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-welbergen-19618" target="_blank">here</a>.
Peggy Eby is adjunct senior lecturer, Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peggy-eby-269776" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Wildlife Management

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Wildlife Management

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News