104 research outputs found

    Threatened but not conserved: flying-fox roosting and foraging habitat in Australia

    Get PDF
    Conservation relies upon a primary understanding of changes in a species' population size, distribution, and habitat use. Bats represent about one in five mammal species in the world, but understanding for most species is poor. For flying-foxes, specifically the 66 Pteropus species globally, 31 are classified as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered) on the IUCN Red List. Flying-foxes typically aggregate in colonies of thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals at their roost sites, dispersing at sunset to forage on floral resources (pollen, nectar, and fruit) in nearby environments. However, understanding of flying-fox roosting habitat preferences is poor, hindering conservation efforts in many countries. In this study, we used a database of 654 known roost sites of the four flying-fox species that occur across mainland Australia to determine the land-use categories and vegetation types in which roost sites were found. In addition, we determined the land-use categories and vegetation types found within the surrounding 25 km radius of each roost, representing primary foraging habitat. Surprisingly, for the four species most roosts occurred in urban areas (42-59%, n = 4 species) followed by agricultural areas (21-31%). Critically, for the two nationally listed species, only 5.2% of grey-headed and 13.9% of spectacled flying-fox roosts occurred in habitat within protected areas. Roosts have previously been reported to predominantly occur in rainforest, mangrove, wetland, and dry sclerophyll vegetation types. However, we found that only 20-35% of roosts for each of the four species occurred in these habitats. This study shows that flying-fox roosts overwhelmingly occurred within human-modified landscapes across eastern Australia, and that conservation reserves inadequately protect essential habitat of roosting and foraging flying-foxes

    The Murray Darling Basin Plan is not delivering - there\u27s no more time to waste

    Get PDF
    More than five years after the Murray Darling Basin Plan was implemented, it\u27s clear that it is not delivering on its key objectives. The Basin Plan, at its core, is about reducing the amount of water that can be extracted from its streams, rivers and aquifers. It includes an environmental water strategy to improve the conditions of the wetlands and rivers of the basin. The Productivity Commission will conduct a five-yearly inquiry into the effectiveness of the Basin Plan in 2018. It is high time to explain what is really going on in the Basin and water recovery. For this reason we have all signed the Murray-Darling Basin Declaration to explain what has gone wrong, to call for a freeze on funding for new irrigation projects until the outcomes of water recovery has been fully and independently audited, and to call for the establishment of an independent, expert body to deliver on the key goals of the Water Act (2007)

    Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes

    Full text link
    Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific‐integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific‐integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence‐based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective‐bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations in the public interest

    Rapid literature mapping on the recent use of machine learning for wildlife imagery

    Get PDF
    Machine (especially deep) learning algorithms are changing the way wildlife imagery is processed. They dramatically speed up the time to detect, count, and classify animals and their behaviours. Yet, we currently have very few systematic literature surveys on its use in wildlife imagery. Through a literature survey (a ‘rapid’ review) and bibliometric mapping, we explored its use across: 1) species (vertebrates), 2) image types (e.g., camera traps, or drones), 3) study locations, 4) alternative machine learning algorithms, 5) outcomes (e.g., recognition, classification, or tracking), 6) reporting quality and openness, 7) author affiliation, and 8) publication journal types. We found that an increasing number of studies used convolutional neural networks (i.e., deep learning). Typically, studies have focused on large charismatic or iconic mammalian species. An increasing number of studies have been published in ecology-specific journals indicating the uptake of deep learning to transform the detection, classification and tracking of wildlife. Sharing of code was limited, with only 20% of studies providing links to analysis code. Much of the published research and focus on animals came from India, China, Australia, or the USA. There were relatively few collaborations across countries. Given the power of machine learning, we recommend increasing collaboration and sharing approaches to utilise increasing amounts of wildlife imagery more rapidly and transform and improve understanding of wildlife behaviour and conservation. Our survey, augmented with bibliometric analyses, provides valuable signposts for future studies to resolve and address shortcomings, gaps, and biases

    A function-based typology for Earth’s ecosystems

    Get PDF
    As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’(1,2). Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management(3). Ecosystems vary in their biota(4), service provision(5) and relative exposure to risks(6), yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth’s ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

    Crisis for Hawaiian Forest Birds or Time for Optimism?

    No full text
    corecore