14/08/2017

1

Fauna: passengers and drivers

in vegetation restoration

Carla Catterall

Environmental Futures Research Institute

I

Flora and fauna –

how are they viewed in restoration science

and practice?

“Restoration”– framework for this talk

+ subsequent aim – to reinstate a community with greater resemblance to the pre-clearing state

e.g., Restoration = “an activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem - with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability”

Society for Ecological Restoration (2004). International Primer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org

Restoration action Type 1

Restoration action Type 2

etc

Intact eg old-growth

forest

Degraded/ detroyed eg pasture

Starting reference

ecosystem

Target reference

ecosystem Stalled

Deflected

Time

On-target

= becoming more similar to target

Ecosystem attribute (chosen indicator)

Focus on terrestrial ecological communities with woody vegetation

Land part-cleared and used by people (transformed/degraded)

Sydney Uni Anon 2004 “BIOL2007 Introductory Entomology”

http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au/learning/resources/Entomology/importance/imagePages/pie_diversity.html

Global biodiversity – land & water

All animals: 80%

Insects: 50+% - of known spp

“Health, integrity, sustainability” = biological diversity?

current restoration focus relatively neglects animal diversity

+ greatest neglect of insects

BUT does this bean-counting miss the real point?

Scientific literature:

22 journals with >10 papers on terrestrial restoration 1990–2014

in Web of Science

McAlpine et al. 2016. Frontiers in Ecol. & Environment 14: 37–45.

“Health, integrity, sustainability”

- involves processes - interactions between animals & plants

BUT flora and fauna in restoration have largely been

independent fields of scientific enquiry

= a legacy of history?

1900 2000 1950

Training was as botanists (or foresters, ag. scientists) OR zoologists

Reforestation (& afforestation) owned by forestry profession - focus on economic timber production

Rise of environmental sciences

Fauna have two roles in vegetation restoration:

1. Passengers – responding to habitat

provided by plant regeneration

2. Drivers – determining plant regeneration through ecological interaction

Papers with animals, that included plants:

74% of 329

well recognised

in animal literature

Papers with plants, that included animals:

27% of 919

less frequently recognised

in plant literature

14/08/2017

2

II

Fauna as passengers

– animals respond to habitat provided by plant regeneration

Fauna as passengers:

Best condition

Worst condition

= animals respond to habitat

Martin, T.G, et al. 2012. Pp 453-479 in: Fuller, R.J. (ed.) Birds and Habitat: Relationships in Changing

Landscapes. Cambridge.

Assumption

of

ecological surrogacy

= plants can

represent

animals

= dominant like form +

physical structure +

spatial context.

Fauna as passengers - surrogacy assumption

Implicit fundamental management paradigm

Habitat mapping for conservation and restoration planning

Monitoring condition of remnant and regenerated vegetation

- broad flora + physical structure + spatial context fauna __ __ __

1997

2013

1989

= the “field of dreams” assumption implicit in big govt. initiatives

?

Fauna as passengers - surrogacy

Fauna as passengers – surrogacy assumption

Two underlying assumed ecological factors:

1. habitat is adequate

2. animals can disperse there

- food resources

- nest/retreat sites

- physical conditions

- behavioural cues

Often assessed indirectly as:

“vegetation structure” eg tree size, canopy cover,

woody debris, ground cover

“landscape context” eg isolation, matrix type

- source of colonisers

- intrinsic mobility

- crossable matrix

? becoming more similar

to target ?

TIME

Fauna as passengers – framework for case study

findings

Pasture Start

Target

Old-growth forest

Fauna attribute (chosen

indicator)

Forest restoration actions

Ecolog- ical

planting

Agro-forestry

plantation

1-sp timber

plantation

14/08/2017

3

Catterall et al. 2012. Biol. Cons.

146: 53–61

? becoming more similar

to target ?

TIME

Fauna as passengers – some example findings

Pasture Start

Target

Old-growth forest

Fauna attribute (chosen

indicator)

Forest restoration actions

Ecolog- ical

planting eg bird spp richness

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25

Site age (years)

No

of

b

ird

sp

ec

ies

Old-growth forest sites

Replanted sites

Ecol. restoration planting – Aust. tropical rainforest

apparently recover bird

diversity after first 5 years !

Grimbacher & Catterall. 2007. Biol. Cons.

135:107-18

? becoming more similar

to target ?

TIME

Fauna as passengers – some example findings

Pasture Start

Target

Old-growth forest

Vegetation structure indicator)

Forest restoration actions

Ecolog- ical

planting

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25

Ecol. restoration planting – Aust. tropical rainforest

& vegetation structure

develops fast within 5 years

(but remains more different

from old-growth)

Site age (years)

Old-growth forest sites

Replanted sites

Str

uc

tura

l s

imila

rity

to

fo

rest

0

5

0 5 10 15 20 25

Site age (years)

No

of

sp

ecie

s

mostly gone by 10 yr

Pasture sites

Old-growth forest sites

Replanted sites

Ecol. restoration planting – Aust. tropical rainforest

Fauna as passengers – beneficiaries vs losers – birds The results change if species grouped by habitat use in uncleared landscapes

Grassland wetland birds

21 spp

Open-forest birds

11 spp

Mixed-forest birds

(rainforest & open-forest)

36 spp

Rainforest birds

34 spp

0

4

0 5 10 15 20 25 Site age (years)

always > 100% of rainforest value

No

of

sp

p

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 Site age (years)

No

of

sp

p

more than 100% of rainforest value by 10 yr

about 60% after 20 yr

- most increase in first 10 yr & a lot of variation

0

5

10

15

20

0 5 10 15 20 25

Site Age (years)

No

of

sp

p

Catterall et al. 2012. Biol. Cons. 146: 53–61

Fauna as passengers – beneficiaries vs losers Similar results from flight-capable beetle species grouped by habitat use:

Flying beetles

associated with

old-growth forest

185 spp

Grimbacher & Catterall 2007. Biological Conservation 135:107-18

Flying beetles

not associated

with old-growth

forest 130 spp

always > 100% of rainforest value

Site age (years)

Old-growth forest sites

Replanted sites

No

of

sp

ecie

s

Ecol. restoration planting – Aust. tropical rainforest

Site age (years)

Replanted sites

No

of

sp

ecie

s

about 50% after 15 yr & most increase in first 10 yr

Fauna as passengers – comparing restoration actions

Catterall, et al. 2004. in: Lunney, D. (ed.) Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna; Kanowski et al. 2006. Restoration Ecology 14: 67-76; Grimbacher et al.

2007. Biodiversity & Conservation 16: 2167-2184; Piper et al. 2009. Austral Ecology 34: 422–434.

0

5

10

15

Rainforest-dependent

birds

Mixed-forest birds

(rainforest & open forest)

0

5

10

Open-forest birds

0

4

Grassland/ wetland birds

0

5

10

Nu

mb

ers

of

sp

ecie

s

0

5

10

15

20

All birds

No

. o

f sp

ecie

s

Emerging broader literature consensus on indicators of

animal community development during habitat restoration

spp richness in functional sub-groups that are diverse

and depend on target vegetation

BUT their relative importance and roles vary

AND only for sensibly-selected indicators

both moderately predict community development Vegetation structure

Site context

We need to learn a lot more about:

choice and assessment of animal community indicators especially invertebrates animal dispersal processes

*********************************************

– due to species turnover [n beneficiaries – n losers = no change]

species level identification of animals

total species richness/abundance in major taxa (eg order) X

Care with choice of indicators - will vary with target habitats

Ground-active taxa (eg from pitfall-traps) in moist forest

BUT could be useful for more open vegetation types X

14/08/2017

4

Fauna as passengers: what about plant species?

– because always confounded with structural differences in reveg. styles

& often neglect physical features and spatial context

e.g., tree-planting, weed control BUT botanically-based actions focus on plant species

Roles of plant species richness & composition are uncertain

No of plant spp. as % of forest reference value

No

. o

f ra

info

res

t b

ird

sp

p.

as %

of

fore

st

refe

ren

ce v

alu

e

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

pasture

timber plantation

agroforestry

restoration planting

Vegetation structure complexity as % of forest reference value

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Restoration plantings - more plant species

AND more veg. structure

- than forestry plantations

Kanowski, J. et al. 2005. Pp 183-205 in: Erskine, P.D. et al. (eds.) Reforestation in the Tropics and Subtropics of

Australia using Rainforest Tree Species. RIRDC.

Aust.Wet Tropics III

Fauna as drivers

– determining plant regeneration through ecological interaction

Fauna as drivers

Fruit

Flower MATURE PLANT

SEED

+ dry

fleshy

+

_

_ SEEDLING

– important roles of animals in flowering plant life cycles

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

Bird-mediated seed dispersal

- in six, 30-min visits per site

Birds recorded:

No. of species

Tropics Subtropics

56 spp 41 spp

% that disperse plants (eat fruit & do not grind seeds)

29% 29%

10 old-growth forest sites in each of tropics and subtropics; Catterall et al. unpub.

- 5 plots/site tot. 80 m2

Trees and shrubs recruiting (ground layer <2m high):

No. of species

% vertebrate-dispersed

(fleshy fruit/aril)

Tropics Subtropics

115 spp 97 spp

83% 87%

– importance in Aust. rainforest

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

+ 2. Effect of artificial bird perches, dead shrub clumps, & live trees

Elgar et al. 2014. Frontiers in Plant Science.

5/200. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00200

Na

tive

tre

e s

ee

dlin

g

re

cru

it d

en

sit

y /

10

0m

2

aft

er

20

mo

nth

s

Experimental restoration in slow-regenerating ex-pasture, Aust. tropics

1. pasture suppressed with herbicide

Bird perches

– importance of bird-mediated seed dispersal in rainforest regen. Recruitment of native trees & shrubs (>1m) into restored forest

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

TARGET ZONE

Replanted sites

Site age (years)

N

o. o

f la

rge

-seed

ed

sp

p

(> 1

cm

)

TARGET ZONE

Regrowth sites

Site age (years)

Large-seeded species (>1 cm)

- mostly dispersed by old-growth

forest specialists

Replanted sites

TARGET ZONE

Site age (years)

Recruits in replantings

- readily dispersed by birds common

in regeneration

Small-seeded species (<1 cm)

Regrowth

No

. o

f sm

all-s

eed

ed

sp

p

(< 1

cm

)

TARGET ZONE

Regrowth sites

Site age (years)

Aust. tropics

14/08/2017

5

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

Seed predation (post-dispersal)

– importance in Aust. tropical rainforest & pasture

using 12 tree species From experimental seed depots

Old-growth forest

Pasture

7 14 0 21 28

Days elapsed

100 80

60

40

20

0

% s

ee

ds r

em

ain

ing

more than 50% of seeds removed within 7 days

in old-growth forest

Osunkoya_et al. 1994

Aust. J. Ecol. 19: 52–64

- but only c. 30% in pasture

?

E. dicksoniae

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

– seed predation in subtropical rainforest (old-growth) wildlife cam at experimental seed depots using 20 tree species

Black rat feeding on Ehretia acuminata

seed Wonga pigeon

feeding on Acmena ingens seed

46% of seeds removed within 5 days

– by 5 mammal and 4 bird species

Brush-tailed possum feeding on Acmena ingens seed

Palmer, G.J. 2016. Interactions between rainforest trees and their vertebrate seed predators in

continuous and fragmented habitat. PhD Thesis, Griffith University.

Fauna as drivers – some example findings

Seedling predation

Swamp wallaby – 84% of observed browsing (wildlife cams)

– importance in eucalypt woodland

2 4 0 6 8

Weeks since planting

80

60

40

20

0

% s

ee

dlin

gs b

row

se

d

Stutz_et al. 2015

Oikos 124: 571–580

(near-coastal; Jervis Bay; E. pilularis seedlings)

- and 68% of leaf area lost

more than 50% of seedlings browsed within 8 weeks

in mature woodland

Fauna as drivers

complex context-dependent cascades which include large carnivores

Dexter et al. 2013

PLoS ONE 8: e69087

– eg eucalypt woodland, Jervis Bay

+ Bitou bush

+ Native tree regen

with carnivores

+ wallabies

+ bracken

without carnivores

Fauna as drivers – another complex context-dependent cascade

Dingo

Pasturegrass

Pademelon

_

_

Herb

_

_ _

Vine

_

_

_

Rainforest regrowth in ex-pasture, Australia.

Tree - adult

Tree – seedling

FOREST REGENERATION

_

(partly studied)

Fauna as drivers

AFTER WOLF

REINTRODUCTION

Elk avoid exposed riverside areas recovery of tree populations

Re-introduce top predator

to restore trophic cascade

enable plant regeneration

Ripple, W. J. et al. 2014.

Science 343, 1241484.

BEFORE WOLF

REINTRODUCTION

Abundant elk heavy browsing on young trees

Yellowstone Nat. Park, USA

– top-down management

14/08/2017

6

IV

Conclusions

- research & monitoring on plants+animals, at the same sites.

Future restoration efforts need more:

- project planning that considers plants+animals together;

Author’s note

Specific published information source are shown within relevant slides.

This is a slightly modified version of the presentation to the Restore, Regenerate, Revegetate Conference, Armidale, Feb 2017

In other cases, information herein should be used as a general guide to knowledge and ideas in this field; this presentation is not intended for use as a supporting reference in any written document.

Carla Catterall

Acknowledgements – to my research collaborators:

• Kylie Freebody

• Amanda Freeman,

• John Kanowski

• Luke Shoo

• Clive McAlpine

For various contributions:

& many landholders for access

& several government research and restoration funding agencies