2023
DOI: 10.1111/aec.13376
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The risks and rewards of using artificial habitat structures for wildlife conservation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2D; Table 5). Supporting our finding, previous studies also showed that artificial structures, such as metal and riprap-covered structures, are widely utilized by lizard and snake species in urban habitats for basking and hiding (Herbert et al 2023;Watchorn et al 2023;Yu et al 2022). For example, the density of lagartixas (Tropidurus hispidus) is elevated in urbanized areas and the primary predictor of abundance was man-made structures which provide shelter (de Andrade 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…2D; Table 5). Supporting our finding, previous studies also showed that artificial structures, such as metal and riprap-covered structures, are widely utilized by lizard and snake species in urban habitats for basking and hiding (Herbert et al 2023;Watchorn et al 2023;Yu et al 2022). For example, the density of lagartixas (Tropidurus hispidus) is elevated in urbanized areas and the primary predictor of abundance was man-made structures which provide shelter (de Andrade 2020).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Funds must be directed toward actions that have clear evidence of population benefit (e.g., survival, reproductive success, time to recolonization), with priority given to threatened species that are at risk of long-term population loss due to altered fire regimes, or to regions where invasive predators threaten many species (Geary et al, 2021;Selwood et al, 2022). Further, artificial habitat structures can result in maladaptive or negative outcomes for target species, such as benefiting nonnative competitors (e.g., house mice) or predators, facilitating animal or plant disease spread, providing inappropriate thermal environments, or even acting as greenwashing mechanisms (Cowan et al, 2020;Firth et al, 2020;Roy et al, 2009;Watchorn et al, 2022;Watchorn et al, 2023). Whilst we found no evidence of negative outcomes in this study, further experiments that thoroughly assess these potential risks would be valuable.…”
Section: Management Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Humphrey et al 2017), active searches (Shine and Blomberg 2006), passive infrared camera traps (e.g. Molyneux et al 2017;Richardson et al 2017) and artificial refuges or substrates (Homan 2012;Michael et al 2012;Watchorn et al 2023). Artificial refuges, in particular, have been used successfully to detect other pygopodid species (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Artificial refuges, in particular, have been used successfully to detect other pygopodid species (e.g. Michael et al 2012), and are often used as a conservation tool (Lettink et al 2010;Watchorn et al 2023). Artificial refuges like roof tiles are a suitable monitoring and detection method for threatened pygopodids like the striped legless lizard (Delma impar) in grassland environments (Sadlier et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%