Harnessing knowledge of animal behavior to improve habitat restoration outcomes

Abstract

Restoring degraded habitat to increase biodiversity is a global challenge. While habitat restoration for animals should lead to self-sustaining breeding populations of target species, often this does not occur. Understanding the factors constraining progress toward this goal and how these constraints can be overcome is vital. We use a review to highlight how insights from animal behavior can help plan restoration projects, and identify and ameliorate some of the reasons why restoration may fail to meet biodiversity goals. We present a decision tree to highlight how behavioral knowledge can identify and address two ways in which restoration can fail when: (1) target animals do not colonize restored sites and (2) they colonize restored sites but experience conditions that do not match their habitat requirements. Investing in the collection of behavioral information may be difficult for management agencies when funding is limited. We highlight when behavioral information is likely to be most important, and some of the practical considerations for its application in restoration projects. We conclude by identifying key knowledge gaps and future directions that can improve restoration outcomes for biodiversity by incorporating behavioral knowledge. Restoration is needed to ameliorate the effects of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on fauna. Unfortunately, restoration does not always lead to the intended optimal outcomes for target animals. A greater consideration of animal behavior and its consequences can help during both the planning and evaluation of restoration projects. We hope to stimulate dialogue between restoration and behavioral ecologists to improve restoration outcomes for animals.

Ecological and life‐history traits may say little about birds’ vulnerability to high‐amplitude climatic fluctuations

“…Prediction–validation are both critical and challenging because the most telling data, demographic rates, are not well known for most taxa. Moreover, individual responses can vary enormously within populations, which are rarely accounted (Yen et al 2017; Yen et al 2018; Hale et al 2020). The magnitude of climate variation in our system is not globally abnormal (Knapp et al 2008), and the frequency and intensity of extreme events almost certainly will increase (IPCC 2013).…”

Age‐dependent effects of developmental experience on morphology, performance, dispersal and survival in a translocated, endangered species

“…In selecting which aspects of nature to mimic in ex situ programs, practitioners should develop hypotheses based on the species natural history and ecology. More broadly, practitioners managing translocation programs should be aware that NHPI may cause animals to select habitat with similarities to their source environment or may result in reduced performance in the release environment, compromising survival (Stamps & Swaisgood, 2007) or creating unintentional ecological traps at release sites (Grether et al, 2014; Hale et al, 2020). We also recommend that managers of conservation breeding programs consider the possibility of sensitive development periods (sensu Bateson, 1981) so that the timing of experiential learning and habitat imprinting can be planned for optimal effect.…”

A synthesis of 15 years of instream woody habitat management: Progress towards benchmarks and assessing fish responses

“…fish abundance). However, a range of constraints can mean that ecological outcomes might not occur even when management actions successfully change habitats (Bond & Lake, 2003; Hale et al, 2020; Hale & Swearer, 2017). Wider monitoring is needed of variables that quantify the mechanisms causing biotic responses (Figure 1), to elucidate why animals exhibit desired responses to interventions occur or not (Hale et al, 2020).…”

“…However, a range of constraints can mean that ecological outcomes might not occur even when management actions successfully change habitats (Bond & Lake, 2003; Hale et al, 2020; Hale & Swearer, 2017). Wider monitoring is needed of variables that quantify the mechanisms causing biotic responses (Figure 1), to elucidate why animals exhibit desired responses to interventions occur or not (Hale et al, 2020). Importantly, these different responses are likely to occur at different time frames following intervention, with physical drivers and processes responding over shorter time periods than ecological functions or population processes that underpin fish outcomes.…”