Revegetation plantings have been established throughout the world to mitigate the effects of clearing, including loss of faunal habitat. Revegetation plantings can differ substantially in structural complexity and plant diversity, with potentially differing habitat qualities for fauna. We studied bird occurrence in revegetation of different complexity and floristics in southern Australia. We assessed bird species richness and composition in remnant forest and cleared agricultural land as reference points, and in two types of plantings differing in structure and floristics-(1) "woodlot plantings" composed of native trees only and (2) "ecological plantings" composed of many species of local trees, shrubs and understorey. By approximately 20 years of age, both types of plantings had a similar bird species richness to that in remnants. Bird species richness was greater in ecological plantings than woodlot plantings. Species composition also differed. Ecological plantings contained a shrub-associated bird assemblage, whereas woodlot plantings were dominated by generalist bird species. Remnants contained a unique bird assemblage, which were not found in either of the two types of plantings, suggesting that plantings are not a viable replacement of remnant vegetation over this time period. Bird species richness responded positively to structural complexity, but not to floristic richness. Bird species richness was greater in plantings that were older, in riparian locations, and where weed cover was lower. We conclude that plantings in general can provide habitat for many species of birds, and that structurally complex ecological plantings in particular will provide unique and valuable additional habitat for birds.

No abstract

The research was undertaken in response to a need for collated and reviewed information on how fauna respond to revegetation and how we can best revegetate to maximize use by fauna.Summary We reviewed the literature on fauna in revegetation in Australian agricultural areas. Of 27 studies, 22 examined birds, with few studies focusing on other faunal groups (four to six studies for each remaining group) and nine examined multiple groups. Existing evidence suggests that revegetation provides habitat for many species of bird and some arboreal marsupials. Species richness of birds was greater in revegetated areas that were large, wide, structurally complex, old and near remnant vegetation. Bats, small terrestrial mammals, reptiles and amphibians did not appear to benefit significantly from revegetation in the short term. Evidence to date suggests that revegetation is not a good replacement of remnant vegetation for many species. Key information gaps exist in the faunal response to (i) revegetation as it ages; (ii) different structural complexities of revegetation; (iii) revegetation that is composed of indigenous vs. non-indigenous plant species; and (iv) revegetation that is in riparian vs. non-riparian locations. In addition, little is known on the value of revegetation for declining or threatened fauna, or of the composition of fauna in revegetation. There is a need to better understand the balance between quantity of revegetation in the landscape, and the quality or complexity of revegetation at the patch scale. Based on current evidence, we recommend revegetation be conducted in patches that are large, wide and structurally complex to maximize the benefits to fauna.

Revegetation plantings have been established to ameliorate the negative effects of clearing remnant vegetation and to provide new habitat for fauna. We assessed the vegetation development of revegetation established on agricultural land in Gippsland, southeastern Australia. We compared (1) woodlot plantings (overstory eucalypts only) and (2) ecological plantings (many species of local trees, shrubs, and understory) with remnants and paddocks for development of vegetation structural complexity and colonizing plant species. We also assessed structural complexity and plant species composition in response to several site parameters. Structural complexity increased with age of planting, toward that of remnants, even when very few species were planted at establishment. Richness of all plants and native plants, however, did not increase with age. Native ground cover plants were not included at establishment in either planting type, and their richness also did not increase with age of planting. This indicated that colonization did not occur through time, which does not support the "foster ecosystem hypothesis." Weed species richness was unrelated to native plant richness, which does not support the "diversity-resistance hypothesis". Weed cover increased with age of planting in woodlot plantings but decreased with age in ecological plantings. Richness of all plants and native plants in plantings did not increase with planting size or with the presence of old remnant trees and was greater in gullies and where vegetation cover in the landscape was greater. Structural complexity was unaffected by planting size but was positively correlated with floristic richness. Ecological plantings had higher condition scores, greater shrub cover, more plant life-forms and fewer weeds than woodlot plantings indicating a possible greater benefit as habitat for wildlife. We conclude that ecological plantings can achieve similar overall structural complexity as remnant vegetation within 30-40 years but will not gain a native ground layer and will not necessarily contain some important structural features by this age. Ecological plantings may provide habitat for the conservation of fauna (through the development of structural complexity), but they may not provide for the conservation of non-planted flora (given the absence of re-colonizing smaller life-forms).

Dispersal knowledge is essential for conservation management, and demand is growing. But are we accumulating dispersal knowledge at a pace that can meet the demand? To answer this question we tested for changes in dispersal data collection and use over time. Our systematic review of 655 conservation-related publications compared five topics: climate change, habitat restoration, population viability analysis, land planning (systematic conservation planning) and invasive species. We analysed temporal changes in the: (i) questions asked by dispersal-related research; (ii) methods used to study dispersal; (iii) the quality of dispersal data; (iv) extent that dispersal knowledge is lacking, and; (v) likely consequences of limited dispersal knowledge. Research questions have changed little over time; the same problems examined in the 1990s are still being addressed. The most common methods used to study dispersal were occupancy data, expert opinion and modelling, which often provided indirect, low quality information about dispersal. Although use of genetics for estimating dispersal has increased, new ecological and genetic methods for measuring dispersal are not yet widely adopted. Almost half of the papers identified knowledge gaps related to dispersal. Limited dispersal knowledge often made it impossible to discover ecological processes or compromised conservation outcomes. The quality of dispersal data used in climate change research has increased since the 1990s. In comparison, restoration ecology inadequately addresses large-scale process, whilst the gap between knowledge accumulation and growth in applications may be increasing in land planning. To overcome apparent stagnation in collection and use of dispersal knowledge, researchers need to: (i) improve the quality of available data using new approaches; (ii) understand the complementarities of different methods and; (iii) define the value of different kinds of dispersal information for supporting management decisions. Ambitious, multi-disciplinary research programs studying many species are critical for advancing dispersal research.

Felton, A., Fischer, J., Lindenmayer, D. B., Montague-Drake, R., Lowe, A. R., Saunders, D., Felton, A. M., Steffen. W., Munro, N. T., Youngentob, K., Gillen, J., Gibbons, P., Bruzgul, J. E., Fazey, I., Bond, S. J., Elliott, C. P., Macdonald, B. C. T., Porfirio, L. L., Westgate, M., Worthy, M. (2009). Climate change, conservation and management: an assessment of the peer-reviewed scientific journal literature. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18, (8), 2243-2253. IMPF: 02.07 RONO: 00 Sponsorship: Australian Greenhouse OfficeRecent reviews of the conservation literature indicate that significant biases exist in the published literature regarding the regions, ecosystems and species that have been examined by researchers. Despite the global threat of climatic change, similar biases may be occurring within the sub-discipline of climate-change ecology. Here we hope to foster critical thought and discussion by considering the directions taken by conservation researchers when addressing climate change. To form a quantitative basis for our perspective, we assessed 248 papers from the climate change literature that considered the conservation management of biodiversity and ecosystems. We found that roughly half of the studies considered climate change in isolation from other threatening processes. We also found that the majority of surveyed scientific publications were conducted in the temperate forests of Europe and North America. Regions such as Latin America that are rich in biodiversity but may have low adaptive capacity to climate change were not well represented. We caution that such biases in research effort may be distracting our attention away from vulnerable regions, ecosystems and species. Specifically we suggest that the under-representation of research from regions low in adaptive capacity and rich in biodiversity requires international collaboration by those experienced in climate-change research, with researchers from less wealthy nations who are familiar with local issues, ecosystems and species. Furthermore, we caution that the propensity of ecologists to work in essentially unmodified ecosystems may fundamentally hamper our ability to make useful recommendations in a world that is experiencing significant global change.Peer reviewe

No abstract

The home range, activity and habitat use of wild European rabbits in northern South Australia were compared during winter and summer, and results used to suggest improvements to control techniques. Average home range was significantly smaller in summer (2.1 ha) than winter (4.2 ha) and there was no significant difference between the sexes. Rabbits used both dune and swale habitat but most warrens and more surface fixes were recorded in dune habitat in both seasons. Proportionally more surface fixes were found in swale habitat at night than during the day. The proportion of diurnal fixes on the surface was not significantly influenced by season, averaging 47% in winter and 62% in summer. Only 30% of radio-collared rabbits flushed by humans retreated to warrens. Comparable levels of diurnal surface activity in both winter and summer suggest that the death rate from fumigation or warren destruction may be similar in both seasons. High levels of diurnal surface activity suggest that warren fumigation may be ineffective unless rabbits can first be flushed to their warrens. The use of dogs to flush rabbits before fumigation or ripping should increase the efficacy of control. Activity data suggest that fumigation or ripping should be conducted between 0900 and 1600 hours in winter and 1100 and 1800 hours in summer when radio-collared rabbits were most likely to be down their warrens. Home-range data suggest that the effectiveness of poison baiting may be increased by placing bait lines closer together in summer and, although bait lines should be concentrated in dune habitat, some poison should also be placed in swale feeding areas remote from warrens. The most successful control method for radio-collared rabbits was fumigation with phosphine gas tablets, with 10 of 11 rabbits successfully killed. Pressure fumigation with chloropicrin was also successful but 1080 poisoning and warren destruction using shovels were all relatively unsuccessful.