Introduction

This document summarises the Round 1 - Initial estimates of the ACT Urban Habitat and Connectivity Project expert elicitation for small to medium terrestrial mammals using the IDEA protocol (refer to Hemming et al. 2018 “A practical guide to structured expert elicitation using the IDEA protocol” and Burgman 2016 “Trusting Judgements: How to get the best out of experts”).

For each question asked in the expert elicitation, we have summarised the results. All responses from the expert elicitation remain anonymous, with visualised experts estimates being denoted by a number on the x- axis. Below each visualised estimate, the comments provided by experts are collated.

The intervals displayed are for a Three-Step Elicitation.

\(~\)

Shared resources

Please click the link provided to access the PDFs and documents provided by experts in the initial estimates round \(~\)

Small - medium terrestrial mammals - shared resources \(~\)

Structural habitat metrics

The next series of visualisations relate to structural habitat metrics.

Structural habitat metrics describe how the various elements of a species’ habitat are arranged in space. For example, some arboreal species may need tree canopies a certain distance apart to be able to successfully navigate from one to the next. Another species might require grass heights of a certain amount to escape predation, whilst another species might only be able to persist within a certain distance from a water body.

\(~\)

Preferred distance between tree canopies

This could be related to the amount of shade the taxon group prefers or is tolerant of in its preferred habitat, the distance an arboreal species can move from one tree to the next without going along the ground, or some other feature of the taxon groups’ general biology or life history. This metric considers the availability of both exotic and native tree species in the environment, as well as both young and mature trees (> 3m height). The answer to this question will give an equivalent score to something like “percentage canopy cover”, which might be a more familiar (but harder to map) version of this metric.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 2 1.0 10 This is really hard, as it really will vary a lot between gliding, arboreal and semi-arboreal mammals, so I went with something that arboreal mammals could probably cope with 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
40 10 5.0 20 As you point out - I am more familiar with thinking about % canopy cover or stem density in a defined area rather than preferred canopy distances. Rough estimates based on small ground dwelling species benefiting from higher cover (low) and gliders actually requiring some distance (high) 30 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
41 1 0.0 1 For arboreal species such as possums, to avoid predation will need to travel between trees without climbing down one tree and up the next. The canopies must be within 1m of each other for this to be possible. 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
42 50 0.0 200 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
43 10 5.0 100 CSIRO Studies in Brindabella Ranges indicate some native small mammals are reluctant to cross fire trails of 5m width, even in dense wet forest. This may be due to canopy gaps or more plausibly understory or ground cover gaps. 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
45 0 0.0 2 Ideally arboreal mammals would move tree to tree without having to jump as it can be risky and also leaves them exposed to predators. Similar risks for ground dwelling mammals being sighted by birds of prey or their rest spots being affected by extreme heat from exposure however still allowing filtered light 75 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
47 20 1.0 50 Cover and fallen debris/timber for species like Antechinus and suitable gliding distance for feathertail gliders 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
48 10 0.0 200 Common Wombat probably prefers greater tree spacing (hence more grass) than I indicated. Also I disregarded Eastern Quoll which lives far from trees in some cases. 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
49 3 1.0 23 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitat patches with 2-5 m between tree canopies. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Initial
Aggregated 12 1.4 67 NA 51 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal tree_canopy Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Percentage of trees which need to be native

This relates to the composition of the urban forest or remnant woodland in terms of native and exotic trees. What percentage of trees need to be native for an area to be suitable habitat for this species group? This will relate to things such as food availability or the year-round availability of canopy cover. For some species, only native trees will be beneficial whilst other species might happily utilise any tree species as part of core habitat structure.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 70 30 80 Again this will vary a lot depending on whether the species requires hollows (typically only in natives), natives to feed on (e.g. koalas), or not. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
40 66 50 80 Idea is that non-native trees can provide the needed structure (habitat, shelter, protection from predators) and potentially food resources but as a component of a native dominated ecosystem. My direct experience with this Q relates to exotic dominated understory facilitating higher small mammal abundance, but this was within the context of a groundlayer that still comprised native species, and an intact tree and canopy layer that was 100% native. So some but not too much maybe :) 30 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
41 80 50 100 For nutrition (leaves, nectar) and shelter (hollows), large and old native trees will provide for their needs better than non-native species. 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
42 85 50 100 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
43 50 25 75 Total guess 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
45 70 60 80 I think this really depends on the density of individuals and species in the area and depends on how much competition for resources in that area. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
47 50 30 100 Thinking about the provision of hollows, but this also depends greatly on the types of exotic trees present. If alellopathic species are present, these will greatly reduce understorey cover to the detriment of native small to medium mammals 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
48 100 0 100 Dasyurus viverrinus and Bettongia gaimardi live in pine plantations with almost 100% non-native trees. I have no way of knowing about the others. 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
49 90 50 98 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats dominant by native species in communities such as box-gum grassy woodlands. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Initial
Aggregated 73 38 90 NA 48 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_trees Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred distance between mature trees

This relates to the composition of the urban forest or remnant woodland in terms of native and exotic trees. What percentage of trees need to be native for an area to be suitable habitat for this species group? This will relate to things such as food availability or the year-round availability of canopy cover. For some species, only native trees will be beneficial whilst other species might happily utilise any tree species as part of core habitat structure.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 5 1 10 As before with other estimate re: canopy 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
40 10 5 20 Same sort of logic as Q1. Almost the same Q so for now I’ll just answer the same 30 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
41 30 10 100 Mature trees need to be close enough together to provide cover and debris, while not preventing growth of grasses for ground-dwelling mammals to forage in. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
42 100 10 200 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
43 30 20 100 I think I remember some glider species requiring large trees to be around 25m apart and no more than 100m 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
45 50 15 100 I am not confident in my estimate as it depends on may factors including competition. Urban densities would vary a lot compared with populations and people providing shelter either directly or indirectly 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
47 20 10 50 for provision of hollows, but especially for contribution to ground layer debris and cover 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
48 20 20 100 I really dont know 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
49 10 8 30 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with many mature trees (distance varies in different communities) with fallen timber on the ground. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 55 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Initial
Aggregated 31 11 79 NA 42 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mature_trees Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred distance between mid-storey canopies

This metric might reflect the overall amount of mid-storey cover (0.5 – 3m height) required by a taxon group, or how far they can move between shrubs. This metric considers the availability of both exotic and native mid-storey species in the environment. The answer to this question will give an equivalent score to something like “percentage mid-storey canopy cover”, which might be a more familiar (but harder to map) version of this metric.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 3.0 1.0 10 Again, will depend on whether species are obligate arboreal species or not 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
40 2.0 0.0 10 Slightly higher confidence as my own experience and knowledge of the literature here is that the more is always better more or less….. Will typically get way more small mammals where understory is dense and heterogenous 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
41 5.0 1.0 10 Ground-dwelling species like native rodents and antechinus (for example) need patches of mid-story to shelter in to avoid predation. Connectivity between these patches will be important for their dispersal and survival. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
42 10.0 0.0 100 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. Some species prefer more open (e.g. wombats), other prefer cover. Hard to generalise 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
43 10.0 5.0 50 See comment on question 1 - CSIRO study found Antechinus sp. reluctant to cross a 5m wide fire trail in Brindabella Ranges in the ACT 20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
45 20.0 5.0 50 This answer is based on shelter (especially for ground dwelling animals) and food availability 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
47 10.0 1.0 20 Based on a knowledge of ground-dwelling small mammals 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
48 10.0 0.0 30

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Thinking mainly of Antechinus 		5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
49 7.0 1.0 10 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with low shrub cover percentage. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Initial
Aggregated 8.6 1.6 32 NA 51 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal mid_canopy Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Percentage of native mid-storey vegetation

This metric might reflect the overall amount of mid-storey cover (0.5 – 3m height) required by a taxon group, or how far they can move between shrubs. This metric considers the availability of both exotic and native mid-storey species in the environment. The answer to this question will give an equivalent score to something like “percentage mid-storey canopy cover”, which might be a more familiar (but harder to map) version of this metric.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 50 10 90 I’m basing this mostly on structure and not a strong reliance as food plants 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
40 50 0 100 I’m being a little unhelpful with this Q as: Low estimate == small mammals can be cool with a completely exotic mid-storey, depending on context. High estimate == while some exotics may provide resources potentially required for persistence in a modified landscape, I’m unaware of research that has explicitly tested that (so beyond just an association). So conventional wisdom is that native mammals should not require any exotic resources to persist (100% native). Best == mid point of extremes that are potentially just as viable. 100 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
41 80 50 100 While non-native mid-story may provide similar structure to native mid-story, there are cases where non-native shrubs can provide inappropriate food resources, and drain more resources (e.g. moisture) from their patch to the detriment of other native species. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
42 85 50 100 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
43 25 10 50 Guess! But I would think the presence of at least SOME native shrubs would be important for native small mammals. 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
45 80 60 100 0 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
47 40 1 70 Structure is most important, so depends of the physical structure of the shrubs. Overall diversity is also important, if just one species of exotic shrub this estimate should be reduced for example 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
48 30 0 50

Assumed ‘native’ was unintentionally omitted from the question.

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

I suspect structure is much more important than floristic composition for these species 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
49 90 70 98 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with many native shrubs with fallen timber on the ground. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Initial
Aggregated 59 28 84 NA 49 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_mid Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred distance from ground layer vegetation

This metric enables mapping of the potential distribution for those species which are tied in some way to ground layer vegetation. This might be a small species which lives within the grass layer (e.g. invertebrates, reptiles) or a larger species which relies on grass as food (e.g. kangaroos). How far will this taxon group be found from ground-layer vegetation?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 5 3 10 There will be big differences between species and their willingness to move away from vegetation, e.g. a native rodent may not go as far as a wallaby. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
40 0 0 0

I’m assuming this Q relates to groundlayer vegetation / bare ground dynamics? Having not worked on mammals in grasslands I have not given any thought to this kind of small-scale veg-animal interaction. Perhaps the answer is actually just zero as in the preferred distance from ground layer veg is “I never want to be away from ground layer veg ever”. Maybe this could be recontextualised as like “minimum tolerable % cover”. Depends on whether I’ve missed the point of this metric.

Also I have not been considering kangaroos in my thinking at all – surely not a small-medium sized mammal :) 		100 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
41 95 90 100 With the remaining 5-10% being rocky outcrops, this taxon group requires well-connected ground-layer vegetation. 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
42 10 10 100 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
43 5 5 20 See previous comment on CSIRO study of small mammals in Brindabella Ranges. 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
45 20 3 50 the larger distance is based on larger animals 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
47 2 0 10 This depends on the amount of cover other than vegetation. Estimates are presuming bare earth around vegetation 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
48 0 0 0

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Ground layer vegetation is extremely important for nearly all of these and even crossing a fire road is probably a serious undertaking in some cases. I used zero here to indicate they prefer to be no distance from ground layer vegetation. 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
49 1 0 5 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with bare groun or ground covered by leaf litter with fallen timber on the ground. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 55 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Initial
Aggregated 15 12 33 NA 55 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ground_layer Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Percentage of native ground layer vegetation

This metric relates to the composition of the ground storey vegetation (grasses, rushes, forbs, sedges; < 0.5m height). What is the percentage of the ground layer vegetation which needs to be native to provide suitable habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 70 20 100 Species dependent 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
40 50 30 70 Not confident for reasons described in previous answer, so have sat on the fence. Logic being (1) I’m not experienced or well read in what small mammals are doing in woodlands with exotic dominated ground covers. (2) Its my impression that there those kinds of woodlands rarely have any native small mammals. (3) But that is probably due to other threats (surrounding land-use, invasive predators) (4) so like an exotic dominated midstory being completely fine in an otherwise native-dominated community, exotic ground cover could also be completely fine (providing necessary structure etc) so long as other things are good (plenty of CWD, native shrubs, etc,) Argh context 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
41 75 50 90 Structurally non-native ground-layer vegetation may provide connective habitat for dispersal, but is not likely to provide appropriate food for grass and seed-eaters. 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
42 90 50 100 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
43 25 10 50 Guess 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
45 75 40 100 lower estimate is based on some exotics being suitable for some species 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
47 75 50 100 Diversity is most important here 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
48 10 0 20

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Structure matters more than floristics 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
49 90 50 98 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats dominant by native ground layer vegetation. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Initial
Aggregated 62 33 81 NA 45 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal native_ground Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Minimum height of ground layer vegetation

This metric relates to the average height (excluding seed stalks or other reproductive structures) of grasses, sedges, rushes, forbs and other ground layer vegetation. It might affect things like the availability of food sources (e.g. grass seeds) or opportunities for small animals to escape from predators. What is the minimum height of ground layer vegetation that provides suitable habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 50 30.0 100 Most species will want a mix of tall and thick vegetation and open patches 75 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
40 10 8.0 15 None 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
41 20 10.0 30 Small mammals require enough cover to provide shelter and protection from predators, without having light filtered due to thick, high ground-layer vegetation (especially for nocturnal mammals). 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
42 30 2.0 50 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
43 25 5.0 50 Guess but needs to provide some cover for small mammals. Figures are in cm. 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
45 20 5.0 30 this lower height estimate is based on thing like potoroos being able to move safely through grass while still being sheltered 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
47 20 10.0 30 this estimate based on smaller ground dwelling mammals like antechinus 75 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
48 10 2.0 20 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
49 5 1.0 10 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with 5 cm grass height. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Initial
Aggregated 21 8.1 37 NA 53 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_height_ground Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum height of ground layer vegetation

As above, but this time please describe the maximum height of ground layer vegetation that provides suitable habitat for this taxon group? It might affect things like the ability of a species to effectively move through ground layer vegetation, or find suitable burrowing sites, or access to solar radiation.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 80 30 100 Similar to before 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
40 24 20 30 None 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
41 40 30 50 Small mammals require enough cover to provide shelter and protection from predators, without having light filtered due to thick, high ground-layer vegetation (especially for nocturnal mammals). 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
42 50 30 120 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
43 0 0 0 0 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
45 60 50 80 while grass gives shelter it can also make it hard to move freely if it too think and long however it needs to be long enough to build nests 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
47 40 30 50 Density is the most important aspect to reducing movement rather than height 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
48 50 20 100

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Bettongs avoid dense tall ground layer veg. Probably inhibits the two Dasyurus too. 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
49 30 20 50 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats with 30 cm small shrub height. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 55 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Initial
Aggregated 42 26 64 NA 47 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_ground Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Distance found from a permanent waterbody

This metric enables mapping of the potential distribution for those species which are tied in some way to a permanent waterbody. This might be a small species which is semi-aquatic (e.g. some frogs, turtles) or a larger species which relies on permanent water to drink (e.g. some birds and mammals). How far will this taxon group be found from permanent water?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 1000 50 5000 Many mammals don’t need water to drink, but some do (e.g. wallabies). I’m assuming rakali are not being considered here. Some mammals could move a long distance to and from water if needs be. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
40 0 0 0 Not a requirement I reckon. But that assessment is not based on really anything other than experience in the field (I couldn’t tell you were the closest water body was for sites I’ve monitored small mammals on) and knowledge of the literature (I dont recall seeing this metric considered in small mammal research) 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
41 100 20 300 For smaller mammals, they will be limited in the distance they can reasonably travel to access water. This is especially pertinent in our drought-prone landscape. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
42 1000 100 2000 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
43 0 0 0 0 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
45 300 25 1000 much smaller animals would need to be closer however larger species may be able to travel larger distances. this would change between summer and winter 30 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
47 0 0 0 Can’t think of any small to medium mammals necessarily tied to waterbodies 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
48 3000 1000 5000

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Thinking here of Wombat 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
49 0 0 0 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in habitats close to water body. But no direct connectivty hasnt been found by my research. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Initial
Aggregated 600 133 1478 NA 42 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal waterbody Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Non-structural habitat metrics

The next series of visualisations relate to non-structural habitat metrics.

This section asks questions regarding the non-structural elements which dictate habitat suitability for each taxon group. These includes things such as the amount of light which is tolerable at the time the species is active, or appropriate thermal conditions.

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum tolerable night-time light levels

This metric relates to the maximum tolerable light level which is associated with suitable habitat for this taxon group. It relates to the amount of artificial light provided at night in the urban environment (e.g from streetlights, or buildings). For some species, artificial light may disrupt foraging behaviours, mate finding behaviours, or circadian rhythm.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 5.0 0.1 10 So species dependent 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
40 1.0 0.1 5 No direct experience and have only seen research on the impacts of urban lighting on bats. From memory, even low levels of artificial light can majorly disrupt microbat movement and behaviour. Alterantively, large bats use road lighting to navigate and establish flyways over highways. I know we’re only interested in terrestrial mammals. But not really sure 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
41 2.0 0.1 5 For this taxon group which is dominated by nocturnal species, nighttime light will be a limiting factor in their ability to forage and hunt. Streetlights will prevent movement and increase the risk of predation. 90 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
42 0.1 0.0 1 Based on field observations for most species and surveys done for bandicoots. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
43 0.0 0.0 0 I have no idea, 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
45 7.0 5.0 15 This is based on some species benefiting from street lights while others do not 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
47 10.0 1.0 20 type of light (spectrum) important 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
48 10.0 5.0 100 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
49 0.0 0.0 0 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region. Usually we found native species in non-residential areas. So I assume low night-time light would be ideal. 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Initial
Aggregated 3.9 1.3 17 NA 39 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal night_light Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum tolerable ambient temperature

This metric relates to the maximum ambient temperature which is associated with suitable habitat for this taxon group. Ambient temperature is the temperature which a mercury thermometer would record if it was suspended in the air out of direct sunlight (e.g. in the shade). This metric is likely to be relevant to larger terrestrial species, such as kangaroos, as well as arboreal species such as birds and bats.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 40 39 50 Susceptibility to heat stress will vary widely amongst mammals 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
40 0 0 0 None 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
41 37 35 39 Above 40 degrees, thermoregulation becomes difficult for furred small mammals. For flying-foxes (not considered in my estimate), temperatures above 38 cause significant heat stress, and above 40 can cause heat stroke and death. 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
42 45 35 50 Not sure if this relates to a short spike in temp, or longer periods. Spp likely to mitigate against short term spikes by sheltering in cooler locations but longer periods could impact their ability to feed, move, breed. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
43 43 43 43 43 deg seems to be the threshold for some fruit bats. You may like to check with others regarding maximum overnight temperatures for Greater Gliders. From memory its up around 28 deg - over which they loose body mass due to energetic balance going to thermoregulation (cooling) and they can’t keep food up to support this. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
45 38 30 50 this is based on different thresholds and some animals ability to burrow 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
47 25 0 40 In antechinus temperature during development can influence metabolism, and this is probably really important for semelparous species 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
48 0 0 0 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
49 35 30 42 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region and weather in the past 4-5 years. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Initial
Aggregated 29 24 35 NA 46 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal ambient_temp Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Habitat patch size and typical dispersal distances

The next series of visualisations relate to habitat patch size and typical dispersal distances.

This section asks questions regarding habitat patch sizes and typical dispersal distances for your selected taxon group.

Habitat patch size is explored for both core habitat (where the species lives full time) and corridors (areas the species might move through when dispersing, or when moving between connected habitat patches). Dispersal capability covers how far a species will typically move within and between habitat patches (e.g. within a home range), as well as how far they typically will move during a major dispersal event, e.g. when migrating or dispersing to a new home range.

The answers to these questions will help us to understand how far apart different patches of habitat can be whilst still being connected for a taxon group, as well as what the aspirations should be in terms of the total extent of connected habitat at the landscape or regional scale to facilitate typical dispersal patterns for the species. Below, we ask you to provide your upper, lower and best estimates for a range of metrics related to patch size and movement behaviour.

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Minimum suitable core habitat patch width

This metric relates to the minimum dimensions of an area which could be considered suitable core habitat for the taxon group. By core habitat, this would mean the area was able to provide all resources required by the species, including food, shelter, mates, etc.

For example, for a small mammal, the edge effects associated with a narrow strip of suburban woodland nestled between two rows of residential blocks may prevent it being classified as suitable core habitat. For an aquatic species, a stream may need to be some minimum width to provide sufficient core habitat for the species to move around in. If a core habitat patch in this instance is considered to have a rectangular shape, what would be the minimum width of the shorter side, regardless of how long the longer side might be?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 100 30 250 Very hard to generalise 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
40 1000 500 2000 No direct experience with this one again. Thinking logically for the medium-sized macropods and that a patch would need to be a least 500m wide maybe. 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
41 300 100 500 Small mammals with small core ranges may survive in small 100m2 patches, but to sustain small mammal diversity would require larger patches. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
42 50 10 100 Maclagan et al 2019 - life in linear for SBB. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
43 100 50 200 Lost of native small mammals will require significant patch size/width to make habitat suitable 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
45 1000 1000 1000 not confident with this hence entering all the same numbers however I do think that 1000m is the lower 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
47 50 10 100 This will vary widely for the species, I’ve focused on small species like rodents 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
48 2000 1000 3000 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
49 600 300 800 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in core habitat with at least 300 m width. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Initial
Aggregated 578 333 883 NA 38 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_core Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Minimum suitable corridor habitat patch width

This metric relates to the minimum dimensions of an area which could be considered suitable habitat for the taxon group to move through, e.g. between different patches of ‘core’ habitat, or when dispersing (e.g. as a sub-adult looking for a new home range). Corridor habitat would need to provide all resources required by the species to effectively move through the urban space, e.g. suitable perch sites for birds, suitable protection from predation for mammals and reptiles.

For example, for a small mammal, the edge effects associated with a narrow strip of suburban woodland nestled between two rows of residential blocks may prevent it being classified as suitable core habitat, but it might be sufficient habitat to facilitate movement through the area. For an aquatic species, a stream may need to be some minimum width to provide sufficient core habitat for the species to move around in, however the same species may be able to navigate a narrow culvert if just being used as part of a movement corridor. If a movement corridor in this instance is considered to have a rectangular shape, what would be the minimum width of the shorter side, regardless of how long the longer side might be?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 50 10 100 Providing there is sufficient ground-level cover, a corridor could be quite narrow but still functional 75 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
40 100 80 150 None 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
41 3 2 5 While these estimates may allow a species to move through the landscape, they will be at increased predation pressure, especially in the urban landscape (i.e. from outdoor cats). 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
42 20 2 50 Maclagan et al 2019 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
43 25 10 50 A bit of a guess 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
45 50 1 200 based on the range of sizes. Not taking into account learnt predator behaviours in the corridor 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
47 200 50 1000 Here focused more on larger species and gliders that will rely on a decent corridor width 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
48 25 5 30 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
49 300 50 500 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in corridors with at least 50 m width (feral predators activities should be considered here for SMs). This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Initial
Aggregated 86 23 232 NA 44 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal min_width_corridor Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Typical dispersal distance when seeking new home range/territory

This metric describes how far dispersing individuals from this taxon group will travel, usually to find a new home range or territory. This metric assumes the availability of continuous habitat.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 500 50 5000 Again, highly variable 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
40 0 0 0

Zeros presented for now as (1) no specific expertise, and (2) I think this Q would benefit from further clarification. When thinking “typical” for the group, are we wanting to capture the likely range for the component with the greatest distance requirements, or capture the range of the whole group where “low estimate” = species that barely need to disperse, “high estimate” = species that disperse massive distances?

I assume the latter, but to answer this at all I would actually need to review the published literature 		0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
41 1000 100 4000 Some species (especially male individuals) require large dispersal distances to access new gene pools away from their kin. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
42 1500 100 15000 average of bandicoots, quolls and smaller spp 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
43 500 100 5000 I’ve radio tracked native and exotic small mammals and the sometimes (presumably when dispersing) disappear beyond telemetry range of small transmitters100-200m. Medium sized mammals, particularly predators can disperse 10’s of km’s 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
45 3000 200 5000 Dependant on the species 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
47 200 0 1000 depends on size of animal and density at natal site 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
48 500 200 800 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
49 500 10 1000 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region, where I observed that this taxon group were more commonly seen in connected habitats about 100 m apart from each other. Living trapping in the future may help to answer this question. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Initial
Aggregated 856 84 4089 NA 39 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal disperal_distance Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Typical movement distance within established home range/territory

This metric describes how far an individual typically moves within a suitable habitat patch. It could be considered as the distance between the centre and the edge of a home range or territory.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 500 50 1000 Highly variable 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
40 1000 100 10000 Small species can have small ranges, etc. 20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
41 1000 50 1500 For small mammals (excluding flying-foxes and other outliers) core ranges are usually a few kilometres. 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
42 600 100 5000 average of spp with larger HR (e.g. STQ) and those wtih smaller HR 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
43 200 100 1000 Guessing again 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
45 2000 100 5000 This would change depending on food and shelter availability 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
47 100 0 1000 Again depends on population density, also on trophic role of the animal. Carnivores will move further than herbivores. estimates have been based on small mammals like rodents and antechinus 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
48 200 100 2000 Antechinus agilis 20, Antechinus flavipes 20, Bettongia gaimardi 200, Dasyurus maculatus 2000, Dasyurus viverrinus 500, Perameles nasuta 200, Sminthopsus murina 20, Vombatus ursinus 3000 10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
49 100 10 200 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Initial
Aggregated 633 68 2967 NA 43 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal movement_within Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Typical capacity for movement outside of suitable habitat (in the absence of a physical barrier)

This metric aims to quantify how far this taxon group can or will typically move outside of areas mapped as suitable habitat. For example, a kangaroo might be able to cross a road, even though a road is not classified as suitable habitat, so long as there are no wildlife exclusion fences. A cockatoo might be able to move across a suburb between one suitable woodland habitat patch and another.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 100 50 500 It’s very contingent on how ‘hostile’ the matrix is and again what species you’re considering 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
40 100 5 500 Some small mammals will not tolerate more than a few metres (low), while medium-sized macropods would probably tolerate a few hundred (high). Maybe 20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
41 20 10 30 Some small mammals may be able to cross a road to enter another patch of habitat. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
42 10 5 500 Maclagan et al 2019 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
43 0 0 0 Highly variable between species 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
45 40 10 100 This would depend on predators in the area, the more comfortable the animals are the further they go 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
47 20 0 100 based on smaller mammal species 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
48 50 5 100 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
49 30 10 50 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Initial
Aggregated 41 11 209 NA 39 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal capacity_movement Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Barriers to movement

The next series of visualisations relate to barriers to movement.

This is the final section of this survey. This section asks questions regarding barriers to movement in the urban space, which might be represented by vertical barriers (fences, walls, buildings, gutters), water barriers (lakes, streams, rivers), substrate barriers (e.g. concrete or bitumen) or barriers relating to the use of an area by people (traffic, pedestrians). By quantifying these barriers we can use remote sensing data to identify their location in the urban environment and demonstrate functional habitat fragmentation.

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum crossable extent of paved surface (incl. concrete drains)

This metric aims to capture the distance this taxon group can move across a paved surface, e.g. concrete or bitumen. Examples might include bike or pedestrian paths, roads and driveways, concrete drainage channels, tennis courts, car parks, etc. For reptiles, for example, a taxon group may choose this substrate as a basking site but not be able to move a long distance due to the lack of suitable habitat cover to protect from predation. For fish, platypus or turtles, there may be some maximum distance a species can move through an artificial waterbody (e.g. a concrete drainage channel) between naturalised pools or streams.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 50 10 100 Most small and medium-sized mammals really don’t like crossing paved surfaces 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
40 50 40 100 NA 20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
41 20 10 30 Some small mammals may be able to cross a road to enter another patch of habitat. 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
42 5 2 30 Maclagan et al 2019 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
43 0 0 0 Highly variable between species 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
45 20 2 50 This answer is based on predation risk 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
47 10 0 50 Depends greatly on body size 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
48 10 4 30

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Thinking mainly of Antechinus and Sminthopsus 		5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
49 30 25 50 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. This work hasn’t been published yet. 55 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Initial
Aggregated 22 10 49 NA 42 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal paved_surface Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum crossable height of vertical structures

This metric aims to determine how much of a vertical structure will impede movement by this taxon group. For example, turtles may not be able to climb up a steep roadside curb, however for a gecko a vertical structure equivalent to a multi-storey building may not be prevent movement. Birds may be able to cross vertical barriers of any height, unless they are flightless.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 3.0 1.0 10.0 So species-dependent, some are excelllent climbers, others are not, it will also depend on the nature of barrier (is it solid or can it be easily climbed?) 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
40 0.6 0.5 0.7 Small mammal enclosures at Mulligans are approximately 1m tall. 80 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
41 5.0 2.0 30.0 Some small mammals will be very constrained by vertical barriers (e.g. ground dwellers like native rodents, dasyurids). 70 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
42 15.0 10.0 30.0 based on spp size (taking into account range of spp sizes) 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
43 0.0 0.0 0.0 I don’t know 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
45 2.0 0.5 10.0 this is based on some animals being arboreal and some ground dwelling. I believe the arboreal animals could get higher but based results on average 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
47 1.0 0.0 5.0 Echidna is the exception to this from the list of ACT mammals I can think of. I’d lower the values for that species 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
48 1.2 1.0 2.0

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

Bettongs and bandicoots are easily stopped by solid barriers 		10 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
49 0.5 0.0 0.7 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. They can climb up to 4-5 m but may not be able to move bewteen trees. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Initial
Aggregated 3.1 1.7 9.8 NA 48 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_height_building Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum crossable extent of water body

This metric aims to quantify the distance this taxon group can move across a permanent waterbody. In some instances, larger species such as kangaroos may be readily able to navigate a small stream by hopping from one side to the other, however the same might not be possible for a small grassland reptile.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 50 5.0 100 Again, species dependent 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
40 1 0.0 5 NA 20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
41 30 5.0 50 It is difficult to know how far some small mammals can swim, but given enough pressure, I would posit that most could swim across 30m of open water. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
42 20 15.0 50 based on range of spp abilities 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
43 0 0.0 0 No idea 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
45 7 1.0 20 For the smaller species I would have liked to go lower 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
47 2 0.0 10 tried to balance well across smaller and larger species of this group 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
48 2 1.0 10

Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus

thinking mainly Antechinus 		20 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
49 1 1.0 3 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021 with creeks and small rivers. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Initial
Aggregated 13 3.1 28 NA 39 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal max_waterbody Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Tolerable vehicle traffic flow (incl. boats) during active period (day/night)

This metric aims to quantify the level of vehicle traffic (including boats in an urban waterbody) which would represent a barrier to this taxon group. The number should be based on the amount of traffic occurring during the species’ active part of the day or night. For example, an echidna may be willing and able to cross a road at night when there is little traffic, however during the day an increased traffic volume may result in the road (or rather, the traffic on the road) becoming a barrier for this species. A similar approach can be applied to aquatic and riparian species in terms of boat traffic.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 12.0 10.0 30 Depends on type of road and habitat 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
40 0.0 0.0 0 Difficult to say, given driver behaviour and type of traffic (major roads, speed) would be critically important to any estimate. Maybe not important as a metric? 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
41 6.0 3.0 12 Small mammals will be deterred and endangered by constant vehicle traffic. Most species should be able to cross roads with one vehicle passing every 10 m. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
42 5.0 0.0 10 based on observations of animals next to road (e.g. wombats) 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
43 0.0 0.0 0 No idea 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
45 1.0 0.0 1 I have no confidence in my ability to answer this per hour 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
47 3.0 0.0 10 again tried to balance across the range of mammals 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
48 10.0 6.0 120 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
49 10.0 0.0 20 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021 in urban reserves. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Initial
Aggregated 5.2 2.1 23 NA 29 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal traffic_flow Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Tolerable pedestrian traffic flow (incl. swimming) during active periods (day/night)

This metric aims to quantify the level of pedestrian traffic (including swimmers in an urban waterbody) which would represent a barrier to this taxon group.The number should be based on the amount of pedestrians passing during the species’ active part of the day or night. A similar approach can be applied to aquatic and riparian species in terms of people swimming in a waterbody.

For example, a kangaroo may be willing and able to cross school playground at dusk in summer when there are few people about, however during winter an increased use of the school oval for organised sports in the evening may result in the grassy area becoming a barrier for this species.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
34 5 2.0 20 Depends on surrounding habitat, species and degree of habituation to people 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
40 0 0.0 0 Unaware of any research on this. Like the traffic, it would also be dependent on activity and other properties of the behaviour. Maybe. I dunno. :) 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
41 6 3.0 24 For nocturnal small mammals, pedestrians could provide a similar barrier to their movement as would vehicular traffic. Again, one pedestrian passing every 10m would be ideal. 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
42 30 10.0 100 based on general observaitons 60 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
43 0 0.0 0 No idea 0 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
45 20 10.0 100 This could be a lot of disturbance however depends on how the species can cope and how used to people they are. 25 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
47 10 0.0 20 I don’t think pedestrians will be a major issue for most mammals 50 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
48 10 6.0 120 Antechinus agilis, Antechinus flavipes, Bettongia gaimardi, Dasyurus maculatus, Dasyurus viverrinus, Perameles nasuta, Sminthopsus murina, Vombatus ursinus 5 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
49 10 10.0 20 My decision is based on working in the NSW and ACT region such as the live trapping in NSW in 2018 and camera trapping in 2021 in urban reserves. This estimate is predominantly based on working with Agile Antechinus, CommonDunnart, and Yellow-footed Antechinus within the taxon group. 40 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Initial
Aggregated 10 4.6 45 NA 32 Small_medium_terrestrial_mammal pedestrian_flow Aggregated