|
|
Support |
Contradict |
Support |
Contradict |
Use of area: |
|
|
|
|
|
Some areas of permanent camps are more consistently occupied (’core
areas’) than others |
SEQ Catchments (2012); EcoLogical (2014) |
Welbergen (2005); Richards (2002); Nelson (1965b) |
|
Figure 2 |
|
‘Core areas’ are more densely occupied than ‘peripheral areas’ |
SEQ
Catchments (2012) |
Nelson (1965b); Welbergen (2005) |
|
Figure 3;
Figure 4; Appendix S2 |
|
Roost area fluctuates with total abundance |
SEQ Catchments (2012);
EcoLogical (2014) |
Welbergen (2005); Pallin (2000); Larsen et
al. (2002) |
|
Figure 5 |
|
Flying-foxes adjust the location of ‘core areas’ through time |
SEQ
Catchments (2012) |
Hall (2002) & Pallin (2000) |
Welbergen (2005) |
|
|
Areas outside of the ’core area’ are used by more transient animals |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
Welbergen (2005) |
|
|
|
Spatial segregation of species: |
|
|
|
|
|
Species share roosts sites, but segregate spatially within |
Commonwealth of Australia (2017a) |
Welbergen (2005); Ratcliffe (1932);
Parsons et al. (2010); Nelson (1965b); Klose et al. (2009) |
Parsons et al. (2010); Markus (2002) |
Figure 6; Appendix S3 |
|
Large influxes of species into roosts (especially little red
flying-foxes) can displace other species |
|
Birt and Markus (1999) |
|
Appendix S3 |
|
Species roost at different heights |
Geolink (2010) |
Welbergen (2005);
Roberts (2005) |
|
Figure 7 |
|
Indirect competition favours black flying-foxes over grey-headed
flying-foxes |
Commonwealth of Australia (2017a); EcoLogical (2014) |
Ratcliffe (1931) |
Markus (2002); Roberts (2005) |
|
|
Demographic/social structure: |
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of roost trees are occupied by mixed groups of adults, with
territories comprised of a single male and one or more females and their
dependent young |
SEQ Catchments (2012); State of Queensland Department
of Environment and Science (2020) |
Welbergen (2005); Puddicombe (1981);
Nelson (1965b); Nelson (1965a); Markus and Blackshaw (2002); Markus
(2002); Eby et al. (1999); McWilliam (1984); Connell (2003) |
Welbergen (2005); Nelson (1965b); Nelson (1965a) |
Figure 8 |
|
Dominant individuals (defined as reproducing males and females) occupy
the centre of roosts and subdominant individuals (defined as
non-reproducing males and females) the outer area |
State of Queensland
Department of Environment and Science (2020) |
Nelson (1965b); Welbergen
(2005) |
Puddicombe (1981); Markus and Blackshaw (2002) |
|
Figure 8;
Appendix S4 |
Individuals at the periphery of groups act as ‘guards’ |
State of
Queensland Department of Environment and Science (2020) |
Nelson
(1965b); Klose et al. (2009) |
|
|
|
Juveniles wean and leave their mothers from January and form groups on
the edge of their existing roost or at another site |
State of
Queensland Department of Environment and Science (2020) |
|
Welbergen
(2005); Nelson (1965b); Nelson (1965a); Markus and Blackshaw (2002); Eby
et al. (1999); Connell (2003) |
|
|
The roosting positions of individual males are highly consistent and
animals return to the same branch of a tree over many weeks or months |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
Welbergen (2005); Markus and Blackshaw (2002);
Markus (2002) |
Tidemann and Nelson (2004); Roberts et al.
(2012b); Parsons, Robson and Shilton (2011) |
|
|
Roost abundance/occupancy: |
|
|
|
|
|
Individual roosts have distinguishable seasonal patterns of abundance
and occupation.
|
Abundance:
Commonwealth of Australia (2017a);
Occupation:
State of Queensland Department of Environment and Science (2020)
|
Abundance
Westcott et al. (2018); Welbergen (2005); Tait et al.
(2014); Parry‐Jones and Augee (2001); Parry-Jones and Augee (1992);
Nelson (1965b); Nelson (1965a); Meade et al. (2019)
Occupation
Welbergen (2005); Vardon and Tidemann (1999); Parry-Jones and Augee
(1992); Parry-Jones (1985); Nelson (1965b) & Nelson (1965a); Nelson
(1965b) & Nelson (1965a); Klose et al. (2009); Puddicombe
(1981); Roberts (2005)
|
Abundance
Shilton et al. (2008); Richards (2002); Roberts (2005)
Occupation
Van der Ree et al. (2006); Richards (2002); Puddicombe (1981);
Shilton et al. (2008)
|
Figure 9
|
|
Intra- and inter-annual variations in abundance can be extreme |
Commonwealth of Australia (2017a) |
Westcott and McKeown (2004); Tait
et al. (2014); Welbergen (2008); Welbergen (2005); Vardon and
Tidemann (1999); Ratcliffe (1931); Ratcliffe (1932); Eby (1991); Eby and
Palmer (1991); Van der Ree et al. (2006); Eby and Lunney (2002a);
Roberts et al. (2012a); Richards (2002); Parry‐Jones and Augee
(2001); Parry-Jones and Augee (1992); Pallin (2000); Meade et al.
(2019); Loughland (1998); Giles et al. (2016); Forsyth, Scroggie
and McDonald-Madden (2006); Eby et al. (1999); Lunney and Moon
(1997) |
Roberts (2005) |
Figure 9 |
|
Roost abundance peaks in March |
State of Queensland Department of
Environment and Science (2020) |
Van der Ree et al. (2006); Tait
et al. (2014); Meade et al. (2019); Eby (1991); Eby and
Palmer (1991); Nelson (1965a) |
Westcott et al. (2018); Welbergen
(2005); Vardon and Tidemann (1999); Vardon et al. (2001); Roberts
et al. (2012a); Richards (2002);Parry‐Jones and Augee (2001);
Parry-Jones and Augee (1992); Pallin (2000) (citing personal
communication with M. Beck); Nelson (1965b); Nelson (1965a) |
|
Figure
9; Appendix S2 |
Consistent (inter-annual) patterns in abundance and use are more
commonly observed in roosts located in 1) extensive areas of rainforest,
and 2) urban areas
|
SEQ Catchments (2012); Commonwealth of Australia (2017a)
|
Extensive rainforest
Parry-Jones (1985)
Urban areas
Tait et al. (2014); Welbergen (2005); Van der Ree et al.
(2006); Richards (2002); Williams et al. (2006); Parry‐Jones and
Augee (2001); Parry-Jones and Augee (1992)
|
|
|
|
Habitat preferences: |
|
|
Stager and Hall (1983) |
|
|
The habitat patch must be at least 1ha in size but be large enough to
accommodate and sustain large numbers of flying-foxes. For a small roost
(10,000 bats) the area needed is approximately 3ha and for a large roost
(50,000) the area needed is 10ha |
SEQ Catchments (2012); State of NSW
and Department of Planning Industry and Environment (2019) as per State
of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage (2018); EcoLogical (2014) |
Pallin (2000); Roberts (2005) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer complex vegetation structure (upper, mid- and
understorey layers) |
SEQ Catchments (2012); State of NSW and Department
of Planning Industry and Environment (2019) as per State of NSW and
Office of Environment and Heritage (2018) |
Pallin (2000) (citing report
by Buchanan) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer dense vegetation |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
Roberts
(2005) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer a dense understory |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
Roberts
(2005) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer a closed canopy at least 3-5m high |
SEQ Catchments
(2012); State of NSW and Department of Planning Industry and Environment
(2019) as per State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage
(2018); EcoLogical (2014) |
Tidemann et al. (1999); Tidemann
(1999); Roberts (2005) |
Welbergen (2005) |
|
|
The structure of roost-wide vegetation is more important than the
characteristics of individual roost trees (e.g. species, canopy cover) |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
Palmer and Woinarski (1999); Pallin (2000);
Vardon et al. (2001); Tidemann et al. (1999); Vardon and
Tidemann (1999); Hall and Richards (2000); Roberts (2005) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer level topography (<5° incline) |
SEQ
Catchments (2012); State of NSW and Department of Planning Industry and
Environment (2019) as per State of NSW and Office of Environment and
Heritage (2018) |
Roberts (2005) |
|
|
|
Flying-foxes prefer to roost within 50 km of the coastline or at an
elevation <65 m above sea level |
SEQ Catchments (2012); State
of NSW and Department of Planning Industry and Environment (2019) as per
State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage (2018) |
Hall and
Richards (2000); Roberts (2005) |
Ratcliffe (1931); Ratcliffe (1932) |
|
|
Roost macroclimate: |
|
|
|
|
|
The mid-storey vegetation within roosts is critical for maintaining a
cool, humid and sheltered environment that is stable against the outside
environment |
SEQ Catchments (2012); State of NSW and Department of
Planning Industry and Environment (2019) as per State of NSW and Office
of Environment and Heritage (2018) |
Loughland (1998) |
Snoyman and
Brown (2010) |
|
|
Negative impacts from flying-foxes: |
|
|
|
|
|
Impacts sustained over several years of flying-fox occupancy can lead to
damage and/or death of individual roost trees |
SEQ Catchments (2012);
State of Queensland Department of Environment and Science (2020) |
Welbergen (2005); Richards (2002); Pallin (2000); McWilliam (1984); Hall
(2002) |
|
|
|
Some tree species are more resilient to damage by flying-fox roosting
than others |
SEQ Catchments (2012) |
|
|
|
|
In small remnant patches, the process of opening the canopy (from tree
damage by roosting) will increase the impact of invasive weeds |
SEQ
Catchments (2012); State of Queensland Department of Environment and
Science (2020) |
Pallin (2000); McWilliam (1984); Hall (2002) |
|
|
|
Where sufficient roosting space is available, flying-foxes shift their
roosting areas, which lessens their damage to vegetation over time |
SEQ
Catchments (2012); EcoLogical (2014) |
Pallin (2000); Hall (2002) |
|
|
|