1. Fruit bats (Family: Pteropodidae) are animals of great ecological and economic importance, yet their populations are threatened by ongoing habitat loss and human persecution. A lack of ecological knowledge for the vast majority of Pteropodid bat species presents additional challenges for their conservation and management. 2. In Australia, populations of flying-fox species (Genus: Pteropus) are declining and management approaches are highly contentious. Australian flying-fox roosts are exposed to management regimes involving habitat modification, either through human-wildlife conflict management policies, or vegetation restoration programs. Details on the fine-scale roosting ecology of flying-foxes are not sufficiently known to provide evidence-based guidance for these regimes and the impact on flying-foxes of these habitat modifications is poorly understood. 3. We seek to identify and test commonly held understandings about the roosting ecology of Australian flying-foxes to inform practical recommendations and guide and refine management practices at flying-fox roosts. 4. We identify 31 statements relevant to understanding of flying-fox roosting structure, and synthesise these in the context of existing literature. We then contribute contemporary data on the fine-scale roosting structure of flying-fox species in south-eastern Queensland and north-eastern New South Wales, presenting a 13-month dataset from 2,522 spatially referenced roost trees across eight sites. 5. We show evidence of sympatry and indirect competition between species, including spatial segregation of black and grey-headed flying-foxes within roosts and seasonal displacement of both species by little red flying-foxes. We demonstrate roost-specific annual trends in occupancy and abundance and provide updated demographic information including the spatial and temporal distributions of males and females within roosts. 6. Insights from our systematic and quantitative study will be important to guide evidence-based recommendations on restoration and management and will be crucial for the implementation of priority recovery actions for the preservation of these species into the future.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Models of host–pathogen interactions help to explain infection dynamics in wildlife populations and to predict and mitigate the risk of zoonotic spillover. Insights from models inherently depend on the way contacts between hosts are modelled, and crucially, how transmission scales with animal density. Bats are important reservoirs of zoonotic disease and are among the most gregarious of all mammals. Their population structures can be highly heterogeneous, underpinned by ecological processes across different scales, complicating assumptions regarding the nature of contacts and transmission. Although models commonly parameterise transmission using metrics of total abundance, whether this is an ecologically representative approximation of host–pathogen interactions is not routinely evaluated. We collected a 13‐month dataset of tree‐roosting Pteropus spp. from 2,522 spatially referenced trees across eight roosts to empirically evaluate the relationship between total roost abundance and tree‐level measures of abundance and density—the scale most likely to be relevant for virus transmission. We also evaluate whether roost features at different scales (roost level, subplot level, tree level) are predictive of these local density dynamics. Roost‐level features were not representative of tree‐level abundance (bats per tree) or tree‐level density (bats per m2 or m3), with roost‐level models explaining minimal variation in tree‐level measures. Total roost abundance itself was either not a significant predictor (tree‐level 3D density) or only weakly predictive (tree‐level abundance). This indicates that basic measures, such as total abundance of bats in a roost, may not provide adequate approximations for population dynamics at scales relevant for transmission, and that alternative measures are needed to compare transmission potential between roosts. From the best candidate models, the strongest predictor of local population structure was tree density within roosts, where roosts with low tree density had a higher abundance but lower density of bats (more spacing between bats) per tree. Together, these data highlight unpredictable and counterintuitive relationships between total abundance and local density. More nuanced modelling of transmission, spread and spillover from bats likely requires alternative approaches to integrating contact structure in host–pathogen models, rather than simply modifying the transmission function.

1. Models of host-pathogen interactions help to explain infection dynamics in wildlife populations and to predict and mitigate the risk of zoonotic spillover. Insights from models inherently depend on the way contacts between hosts are modelled, and crucially, how transmission scales with animal density. 2. Bats are important reservoirs of zoonotic disease and are among the most gregarious of all mammals. Their population structures can be highly heterogenous, underpinned by ecological processes across different scales, complicating assumptions regarding the nature of density-transmission scaling. Although models commonly parameterise transmission using metrics of total abundance, whether this is an ecologically representative approximation of host-pathogen interactions is not routinely evaluated. 3. We collected a 13-month dataset of roosting Pteropus spp. from 2,522 spatially referenced trees across eight roosts to compare density estimates across scales (roost-level, subplot-level, tree-level). We then focus on tree-level measures of abundance and density, the scale most likely to be relevant for virus transmission between tree-roosting Pteropus , and evaluate whether roost features at different scales are predictive of local dynamics. 4. Our density estimates varied greatly by scale. Mean density ofPteropus at the roost level was 13-fold lower than at a subplot-level that accounted for heterogenous distributions of bats (0.38 bats/m 2 vs 5.13 bats/m 2 ). Additionally, roost-level measures (roost abundance and roost area) did not represent tree-level abundance or tree-level density, with models explaining minimal variation in tree-level measures. 5. This indicates that basic measures, such as roost-level population counts, may not provide adequate approximations for population dynamics at scales relevant for transmission, and that alternative measures are needed to compare transmission potential between roosts. From the best candidate models, the best predictor of local population structure was tree density within roosts, where roosts with low tree density had a higher abundance but lower density of bats (more spacing between bats) per tree. 6. Together, these data highlight unpredictable and counterintuitive relationships between abundance and density, and between measures at different scales. More nuanced modelling of transmission, spread and spillover from bats likely requires alternative approaches to integrating contact structure in host-pathogen models, rather than simply modifying the transmission function.

1. Fruit bats (Family: Pteropodidae) are animals of great ecological and economic importance, yet their populations are threatened by ongoing habitat loss and human persecution. A lack of ecological knowledge for the vast majority of Pteropodid bat species presents additional challenges for their conservation and management. 2. In Australia, populations of flying-fox species (Genus: Pteropus) are declining and management approaches are highly contentious. Australian flying-fox roosts are exposed to management regimes involving habitat modification, either through human-wildlife conflict management policies, or vegetation restoration programs. Details on the fine-scale roosting ecology of flying-foxes are not sufficiently known to provide evidence-based guidance for these regimes and the impact on flying-foxes of these habitat modifications is poorly understood. 3. We seek to identify and test commonly held understandings about the roosting ecology of Australian flying-foxes to inform practical recommendations and guide and refine management practices at flying-fox roosts. 4. We identify 31 statements relevant to understanding of flying-fox roosting structure, and synthesise these in the context of existing literature. We then contribute contemporary data on the fine-scale roosting structure of flying-fox species in south-eastern Queensland and north-eastern New South Wales, presenting a 13-month dataset from 2,522 spatially referenced roost trees across eight sites. 5. We show evidence of sympatry and indirect competition between species, including spatial segregation of black and grey-headed flying-foxes within roosts and seasonal displacement of both species by little red flying-foxes. We demonstrate roost-specific annual trends in occupancy and abundance and provide updated demographic information including the spatial and temporal distributions of males and females within roosts. 6. Insights from our systematic and quantitative study will be important to guide evidence-based recommendations on restoration and management and will be crucial for the implementation of priority recovery actions for the preservation of these species into the future.