Introduction

This document summarises the Round 1 - Initial estimates of the ACT Urban Habitat and Connectivity Project expert elicitation for insect pollinators 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

\(~\)Insect pollinators - 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
61 25 10.0 50 I was heavily swayed by the word preferred here - I think they can move large distances between trees/large shrubs and some would probably prefer to remain in sunlight. 20 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
62 20 1.0 300 There is very little known about the foraging distances of Australian native bees (but see Smith et al 2017 and Heard 2016). However, its understood that the foraging range of most native bees is around a maximum of 400 meters. Other insect pollinators are far more mobile, such as hoverflies (Finch et al 2020), flies (Cook et al 2020) however, all insect pollinators in general benefit from having floral resources relatively close together which allows them to maximise their floral resources to the cost of foraging. 80 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
68 0 0.0 0 Tree canopies, in terms of vegetation, are not essential on their own for insect pollinators, as they would be for arboreal mammals or birds. Context is important - what is the matrix? are their lower level flowering resources in between? Are these flowering tree resources? etc. For example, in a depauperate agricultural landscape of broadacre crops, distance between native trees might be the only resource available to pollinators, hence more important than distance between trees in an urban or natural heterogeneous environment. 100 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
71 200 1.0 1000 This is very difficult to give for ‘insect pollinators’ as a group. Some are more dependent on herbaceous flowers. It also depends on whether the trees are good nectar/pollen sources, and on whether the taxa nests in tree cavities (eg. stingless bees) 0 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
72 10 1.0 30 Butterflies in general prefer mostly sunny habitat but do require some shade particularly during hot and dry weather, and they do utilise edge habitat between open and closed canopies; forests are generally too shady for most species here. Some species specialise in open sunny native grasslands while others are forest specialists. 10 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
73 100 1.0 30000 This estimate is based on a medium sized generalist bee species. There is a wealth of knowledge on how bee size affects flight distance and mediates the effects of habitat fragmentation. Some of this shows that pollination function can be altered with habitat loss, or through the barriers created by roads. But mostly, I believe a typical generalist bee would be able to forage at canopy height reasonably well, although the energy costs associated with traveling further for food would be great. Note that most bees nest in the ground, and may seek food sources lower down (although Eucalypts are often a super abundant food source when in flower, and required by many specialist foragers). 85 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
75 50 20.0 100 answers reflect experience that diversity tends to be high in areas with quite a lot of open space (low tree density) but noting that there are some species that are adapted to forested environments 70 Insect_pollinators tree_canopy Initial
Aggregated 58 4.9 4497 NA 52 Insect_pollinators 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
61 25 10 40

Hundreds of bee, beetle, butterfly, moths, fly and wasp species have been recorded in Canberra gardens - our keenest recorders have reported in excess of 500 species in their gardens. A diversity of both or either native and exotic plants seems important, but all of the keen reporters have gardens with about 40-50% native species including planted eucalyptus (as street or front garden plantings). Those with high numbers of moths and beetles have set light traps in their gardens or recorded on their porches at night so not sure the diversity of these groups is related to plantings

This is a link to a sighting from a garden in Higgins https://canberra.naturemapr.org/sightings/4391933 Alison has report 1436 sightings fro 25m of this point (many duplicates)

This is a link to John’s recordings from his garden in Ainslie https://canberra.naturemapr.org/sightings/4398673 There are 1653 sightings within 25m of his porch. John is interested in moths, lacewings, beetles and parasitic wasps 		40 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
62 100 10 100 This really depends on whether the trees flower and provide a suitable floral resource for insect pollinators. The composition of native trees also really influences whether you have suitable floral resources and whether they are available year-round. Australia is climatically very mild, and as such insect pollinators can be active year-round and thus need floral resources year round. A diverse community of naturally occurring native trees will most likely provide all of the necessary food and nesting requirements but I can imagine there are scenarios where exotic trees can fill resource gaps and provide suitable habitat for pollinators. 80 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
68 50 30 100 Focus on trees not so relevant to insect pollinators - herbs, shrubs etc. all important flowering resources too. The native vs exotic issue also depends on the type of insect pollinator, but in general, many insect pollinators can be supported by exotic resources just as well as native resources. The important issue is diversity of flowering resources in space and time, not so much whether exotic or native. 60 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
71 60 0 100 Many native pollinators can use non-native trees. But this is very taxa dependent- some are highly dependent on native trees 10 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
72 70 50 100 Butterflies use trees to breed and feed in. For native breeding trees they require eucalypts (specifically those which host larval food plants of Muellerina eucalyptoides, Amyema miquelli, Amyema pendula), Kurrajongs, casuarinas which host Amyema cambagei, native cherry, and various acacias. For exotic trees they will use plants like citrus, plum, Persian silk tree. For feeding they are attracted to trees with flowers, such as eucalypts. 10 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
73 75 30 100 Many native pollinators prefer (or rely on) native trees, such as Eucalypts. These provide abundant nectar and food resources. However, they flower infrequently and can’t be relied on for year-round food or shelter. Many pollinators will happily go to non-native sources of food, and in fact, diversity of resources is preferred for bee health. From a nesting and food resource perspective though, I believe it would be preferrable to have a majority of native species, as this may attract the most diverse suit of pollinators and also limit an overabundance of non-native species, such as the European honey bee. 85 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
75 80 50 100 many bee species are relatively specialised and strongly prefer native species they have evolved with 100 Insect_pollinators native_trees Initial
Aggregated 66 26 91 NA 55 Insect_pollinators 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
61 100 50 500 Pollinators may have life stages that are reliant on mature trees for sheltering eggs, or on which larvae feed either directly or on other species. I don’t think mature trees are as important as flowering shrubs or younger flowering saplings, but it may be that we get fewer insect reports from mature trees because their size makes it hard to get close-up photos 20 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
62 20 5 200 This metric really depends on whether the trees are capable of flowering (See Qiu et al 2021) or supporting insect pollinators with habitat. Native pollinators such as bees generally have small foraging ranges and therefore would benefit if mature trees are somewhat close together. However, trees can limit the amount of light to the understorey and therefore may impact the diversity and abundance of understorey flowering, thus I have selected an ideal distance of 20 m to account for light filtering through the canopy to allow understorey plants to flower. 70 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
68 100 50 500 This metric is less relevant for insect pollinators. Only a small proportion of insect pollinators use mature trees for nesting sites or for non-floral resources 60 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
71 100 10 1000

Stingless be colonies reproduce via budding. The worker flight distance seems to be between 100-712 metres, so 1 km is probably the max we could expect new colonies to bud from parent colonies.

For other taxa (eg. hoverflies) distance between mature trees might not matter

Smith JP, Heard TA, Beekman M, Gloag R (2017) Flight range of the Australian stingless bee Tetragonula carbonaria (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Austral Entomol 56:50–53

Greenleaf S, Williams N, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596 		10 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
72 20 10 100 Mature trees are important for the micro-habitats they create around them - sheltered spaces for green grassy larval food plants for example - and the resources they provide - such as logs, mistletoe, flowers. 10 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
73 50 20 2000 Mature trees are used as nest sites for many pollinator groups, including around 30% of native bee species. They also provide host plants for some insect groups and abundant food resources periodically. Species reliant on them could be adversely affected through their removal by clearing or fire. Pollinator diversity increases with greater natural habitat, including the presence of mature trees. They are therefore very important to maintain across landscapes. 85 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
75 400 200 1000 for most pollinators mature trees are not required. The benefit they might sometimes provide is sites for species that nest in wood 60 Insect_pollinators mature_trees Initial
Aggregated 113 49 757 NA 45 Insect_pollinators 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
61 5 5.0 30 When trying to observe and photograph the rare small-ant blue butterfly, which is a hill topping species, they frustratingly travel quickly and at least tens of metres away from mid-story shrubs where I have first observed them. But i have taken this question as moving through rather than alighting on mid storey veg. 30 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
62 5 0.0 20 In my experience, pollinators generally like to be able to forage in the mid storey when plants are close to each other. A larger gap between plants may increase predation etc and therefore limit pollinator diversity or abundance (See Procter et al 2012) although this example is from Canada. 70 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
68 100 1.0 500 My answers are based on assumption that these are flowering shrubs, and pollinators are moving between for foraging purposes. 80 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
71 0 0.0 0 I’m unclear about how this metric would impact insect pollinators (I suspect it will vary massively between taxa) 0 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
72 50 10.0 100 This covers larval food plants important to Canberra butterflies and moths - acacias, peas like Daviesia and Indigofera, bursaria. 10 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
73 20 5.0 2000 As per the previous questions, the density of shrubs (or any flowering and potential nesting resources) will affect different pollinators in various ways. But increased density of these resources will improve species diversity, richness and abundance. 85 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
75 50 20.0 100 Most pollinators will care more about the actual plant species present rather than the details of structure of mid canopy. I put same numbers here as for the trees, reflecting the idea that you generally don’t want a closed structure that precludes ground layer plant species 50 Insect_pollinators mid_canopy Initial
Aggregated 33 5.9 393 NA 46 Insect_pollinators 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
61 25 10 30 I have been influenced by defining what is suitable habitat - I think a high diversity and cover of natives is preferred, but I think even a low level of native plantings can be suitable habitat 40 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
62 100 20 100 The higher the proportion of naturally occurring native species within the mid-storey the higher the likelihood that you are catering for all of the needs of the native pollinating insects within the community in terms of meeting their nutritional and habitat requirements. 70 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
68 50 30 100 See my previous comments for native tree percentage. 60 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
71 60 0 100 This will depend on the species- some greatly prefer native vegetation others do not. Also depends on whether the plants in question are flowering, and whether or not they provide a good source of pollen/nectar 1 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
72 85 60 100 Native mid-storey is important for breeding butterflies (acacias, bursaria, indigofera etc) and sometimes proximity to attendant ants will be important for lycaenids. 10 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
73 65 30 100 As per previous responses, native pollinators will require some specific plant species (usually natives) to meet specific nest and food requirements. It is therefore preferable to have a higher percentage of native species. However, floral diversity is important spatially and temporally to increase pollinator diversity, and many species will visit non-native species, particularly in urban gardens. 90 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
75 80 50 100 as per answer with trees. Many species adapted to feed on native spp 80 Insect_pollinators native_mid Initial
Aggregated 66 29 90 NA 50 Insect_pollinators 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
61 75 50 200 I have very little idea about this one 20 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
62 0 0 50 This really depends if you mean will insect pollinators be found to forage or live in ground cover, which is of course yes. However, insect pollinators can also forage and live in trees. This question needs some clarification. 70 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
68 50 0 200 Depends on the insect pollinator and if this is flowering ground layer veg. 70 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
71 1 0 100 Depends on species. Some butterflies (eg. Lycanidae) may be associated with grassy areas 0 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
72 80 50 200 This will be important for species that breed on grasses and lomandras, and for flowers that provide nectar (especially native daisies). 10 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
73 80 1 200 Many insect pollinators nest or forage close to the ground, providing there are adequate nest sites (in the soil or low vegetation) and food resources (flowers). Some species will prefer to forage on low-lying vegetation, or be constrained by size/flight ability, but most will forage at varying levels above the ground. 80 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
75 80 0 100 many species will never occur at distance from ground layer veg - but a few will 50 Insect_pollinators ground_layer Initial
Aggregated 52 14 150 NA 43 Insect_pollinators 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
61 10 5 20 Influenced by what I think is required by the majority of species - some native pollinators won’t need native species at all 30 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
62 80 0 100 Many insect pollinators need bare undisturbed soil in order to nest, however, many pollinators also forage for floral resources on flowering ground covers. Therefore a mix of both would be ideal. 70 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
68 50 30 100 see previous comments for percent native trees/shrubs. Also consider that many native bees and wasps dig nests in the ground, so patchy ground cover that includes bare patches of soil is better for supporting nesting sites for these pollinators 60 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
71 50 0 100 Depends on taxa and on the specific plant taxa and whether or not it provides resources 0 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
72 75 40 100 Common and widespread butterflies will breed on introduced as well as native grasses and forbs, but to accommodate for the general urban Canberra butterfly assemblage native groundcover is essential. 10 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
73 60 0 100 As per previous answers, floral diversity is an important driver and will likely increase pollinator diversity more than floral abundance. However, as some species rely solely on native plants, it is important to ensure these are more abundant across the landscape than non-native species. 80 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
75 80 50 100 Same logic as for other layers. Many species will only feed on certain native plants 80 Insect_pollinators native_ground Initial
Aggregated 58 18 89 NA 47 Insect_pollinators native_ground Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred distance between emergent vegetation

This metric relates to the spatial distribution of emergent vegetation in waterways, which may affect things like the availability of perch sites for dragonflies, or the availability of anchoring points for frog spawn. This metric considers the availability of both exotic and native vegetation in the environment. The answer to this question will give an equivalent score to something like “percentage vegetative cover”, which might be a more familiar (but harder to map) version of this metric.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
61 5.0 5.0 20 I think the distances next to and emergent in water wouldn’t be any different to that on land, and protection from wind may be an important factor in distance travelled 20 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
62 20.0 10.0 100 Emergent vegetation may be important for those insects that require water. I can imagine that emergent vegetation provides a safe point for the insects to gain access to water, however, I have no information about the frequency or distance requirements between emergent vegetation that insect pollinators require. 60 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
68 0.0 0.0 0 most insect species that use emergent vegetation in aquatic systems are not important pollinators 90 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
71 1.0 0.0 100 I have no idea about this one? Some syphids might need emergent vegetation, but I don’t know if the preferred distance 0 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
72 0.0 0.0 0 NA 0 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
73 0.0 0.0 0 I don’t believe any insect pollinators are strictly reliant on emerging vegetation for nesting, and they wont be flowering. 75 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
75 0.0 0.0 0 prob not relevant 0 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Initial
Aggregated 3.7 2.1 31 NA 35 Insect_pollinators emergent_veg Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Percentage of emergent vegetation which needs to be native

This metric relates to the composition of the emergency aquatic vegetation. What is the percentage of the emergent aquatic vegetation which needs to be native to provide suitable habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
61 5 0 10 I think most pollinators are moving across water, using emergent vegetation to do so, rather than pollinating emergent plants where there is a high level of wind pollinated species 30 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
62 100 0 100 I am not sure that the emergent vegetation needs to be native if its only helping the insects gain access to water but the best possible estimate would be that if it is native it may be providing the native insects with some other benefits such as floral resources, resin, nesting materials, nest sites etc. 60 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
68 0 0 0 not relevant to insect pollinators 0 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
71 0 0 0 This could influence some taxa, but I not aware of specific research 0 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
72 0 0 0 NA 0 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
73 0 0 0 As per previous answer, I don’t believe this is a critical component of insect pollinator habitat. 80 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
75 0 0 0 prob not importnat 0 Insect_pollinators native_emergent Initial
Aggregated 15 0 16 NA 24 Insect_pollinators native_emergent 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
61 0 0 0 I think pollinators are making use of ephermal water sources and obtain fluids from nectar and water droplets collecting on or oozing from plants 40 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
62 500 0 1000 Although many bees gain water solely from the nectar they eat there are other insects that require access to water. Stewart et al’s (2016) paper from agricultural areas in Sweden showed that the abundance of syrphids and bees was higher closer to ponds then in controlled habitats further away. Although this is just one study and really I can’t find much evidence about the ideal distance for pollinators to permanent water bodies. 60 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
68 0 0 0 again, not so relevant for most insect pollinators in this context. There are a few species of aquatic insects that may be terrestrial pollinators as adults, but very little knowledge on this and probably highly localised 0 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
71 500 0 1000 Depends on taxa. Many will not need access to a water body at all, but those with an aquatic lifestage (some syrphids) might (although even within syrphids, many would be able to reproduce in temporary water bodies ) 0 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
72 0 0 0 NA 0 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
73 50 20 2000 While insect pollinators require water, they do not necessarily need to have access to a large, permanent water source. They will more likely get their required water from nectar, leaves and other sources, but will sometimes visit water bodies for a drink. Having some available, clean water within the primary foraging range of pollinators is important. 75 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
75 600 500 1000 some will benefit from permanent water - many will be fine with nectar only and opportunistic feeding on temp water .dripping taps, etc 50 Insect_pollinators waterbody Initial
Aggregated 236 74 714 NA 32 Insect_pollinators 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
61 4000.0 50.0 5000.0 I am pretty clueless on this one 10 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
62 0.1 0.1 0.1 I couldn’t find any papers that said what the maximum tolerable lux would be. However, insect pollinators such as moths have been found to be undergoing significant declines ( Macgregor et al 2015) which has been in some ways to be linked to light pollution at night. 60 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
68 0.1 0.0 0.1 Moths are the main nocturnal insect pollinators. Growing evidence from overseas showing that night lighting affects moths and their pollination interactions 50 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
71 5.0 0.1 1000.0 Taxa dependent . Light can impact nocturnal and diurnal pollinators (see attached refs), but will likely be highly taxa dependent. 10 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
72 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA 0 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
73 0.1 0.1 10.0 Many insect pollinators are diurnal, however some (including moths) are nocturnal and provide important pollination services. Evidence suggests that artificial light at night (ALAN) has large effects on nocturnal pollinators and may play a role in insect declines. My best guess is that these species are sensitive to brighter lights at night and prefer natural (i.e. full moon) lux, but I am not on top of the literature. 50 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
75 50.0 20.0 100.0 Most pollinators are day active and will not care. This does matter to one group (moths) though. I know little about appropriate light levels 10 Insect_pollinators night_light Initial
Aggregated 579.3 10.0 872.9 NA 27 Insect_pollinators night_light Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum tolerable surface temperature

This metric relates to the maximum surface temperature which is associated with suitable habitat for this taxon group. Surface temperature is the temperature which a laser thermometer would record if it was pointed to the ground. This metric is likely to be relevant to small terrestrial species, such as reptiles.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
61 45 40 50 I think air temperature is a better measure for pollinator. Also pollinators are needing fresh flower resources which aren’t going to be produced during hot-dry conditions 10 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
62 27 27 34 There has been a fair amount of research on brood temperatures within the hive of Australian stingless bees (Halcroft et al 2013; Heard 2016) and more recently looking at the surface temperatures of managed stingless bee hives constructed from different materials (Cross pollinator article 2021). Although, I am not really sure if the surface temperature tolerance of insects would be different if they were exposed to the heat in their nest for instance or if they contacted the surface? 60 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
68 35 30 35 I’m not confident on exact temps, but insects are sensitive to temperature extremes hot or cold. Heatwaves have major impacts on insects 50 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
71 50 40 100 Taxa dependent; many would e able to avoid hot surface temperatures. Mostly an issue for ground nesting insects (which make up the majority of native bees). Even for ground nesters, the depth of the nest will also be important 0 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
72 29 21 34 Unsure of exact temperatures for surface temperature 75 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
73 0 0 0 While insects are certainly susceptible to temperature, I am unsure of whether there is a maximum tolerable thermal temperature of suitable habitat for them. My assumption is that they would choose nesting habitat within their thermally tolerant range. 50 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
75 0 0 0 don’t know how to handle this one - i think we know more about effect of low temps on activity. also, not sure how to separate surface temp from ambient 0 Insect_pollinators surface_temp Initial
Aggregated 27 23 36 NA 35 Insect_pollinators surface_temp 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
61 45 40 50 I think in Canberra once temperature exceeds 30 degrees there is a big drop in the flowering resource available 10 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
62 0 0 0 Insect pollinators can be exposed to "“normal”" ambient temperatures that the ACT encounters and as such I am not sure that this question really applies. 80 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
68 35 30 40 insects are highly sensitive to temp extremes and are known to be affected by heatwaves 60 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
71 45 40 50 Depends on taxa and duration. Some species will be able to take refuge during hot weather if it is not prolonged (eg. ground nesters, some cavity nesters). Others might not be able to move into refuges. 5 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
72 29 21 34 Some groups of butterflies are heat and dry sensitive and rely on cool/shady places to seek refuge at the height of summer, such as the jezebels and the browns; other species require hot sunny weather to fly well, such as Small Ant-blues and Moonlight Jewels. We only survey butterflies in weather between 21-34C as this is when the majority of the Canberra butterfly assemblage is active. Montane species are able to fly in cooler weather, but it must be sunny. 100 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
73 42 35 50 I am aware of the maximum thermal tolerance of certain bee species, which tends to be in the low 40s and a fig wasp which has a maximum of 39oC. But there will be vastly different responses by different taxa. There is a trend that thermal maixima can affect foraging activity, breeding and mortalilty in species. 60 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
75 50 45 60 just guessing really. I think this level of heat might start to fry the flowers, even of not the insects 20 Insect_pollinators ambient_temp Initial
Aggregated 35 30 41 NA 48 Insect_pollinators 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
61 5 1 10 Would depend on the amount of flowering resource within the habitat strip. I have assumed continuous cover of suitable plants 20 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
62 1000 500 1000 I am not sure having a highest plausible minimum make sense in regard to this question. This answer is really dependent on the type and quality of habitat as well. 70 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
68 200 200 500 Depends on the insect pollinator. Many small insects that are central place foragers (eg bees) have small home ranges ~1-200 metres, while larger insects need more room to move. 80 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
71 600 40 1000 Very taxa dependent! Stingless bees would likely require larger patches to meet their resource needs . Small solitary bees could likely manage in small patches, provided those patches contained sufficient resource densities. Also depends on density of flower resources 10 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
72 500 10 1000 Depends very much on the species for this one, and core habitat for many butterflies includes hilltopping habitat (courtship and mating habitat) as well as breeding and foraging habitat - these may be located in 3 separate areas plus dispersal areas. 10 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
73 50 10 5000 Habitat amount and diversity is important. But with insect pollinator being small, populations can potentially be sustained in smaller (or narrower) habitat patches. More important would be the connectivity between those patches to ensure movement for foraging, mating and dispersal. 75 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
75 5 1 10 anything with flowers can be feeding habitat - issue is prob more about nesting - in whihc case quality (soil? wood? etc) matters more than patch size 60 Insect_pollinators min_width_core Initial
Aggregated 337 109 1217 NA 46 Insect_pollinators 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
61 5000 1000 10000 Species of butterflies, bees and beetles have turned up in the Botanic Gardens when the nearest next known permanent population is over 100km away. Or where breeding habitat may not even exist elsewhere in the ACT. Not sure that distance between core habitat is such a big factor for pollinators 10 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
62 30 1 30 The minimum of 1 m was based upon Klatt et al 2020’s minimum flower strip size and from personal observations in the field. 60 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
68 0 0 0 Corridors are less relevant for insect pollinators, depends on the matrix and quality of resources across landscape. See previous comments & estimates on minimum patch width 0 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
71 2 1 10 Taxa dependent; majority can fly, so I don’t think corridor width is terribly important? 10 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
72 10 5 50 Butterflies can disperse large distances, particularly migrants moving through the landscape; I suspect it will depend on the species what is important for dispersal routes. 10 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
73 30 10 1000 Many insects follow narrow strips of vegetation for foraging and dispersal (e.g. crop rows, roadsides, floral strips). Provided these have diverse floral and nesting resources, there is no reason to suspect that pollinators could not use them. However, the smaller the patch, the more other threats are introduced (e.g. predation, road collision) 75 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
75 2 0 5 i am guessing that species will move sometimes without "“corridors”" and sometimes with quite minimal connection 50 Insect_pollinators min_width_corridor Initial
Aggregated 725 145 1585 NA 31 Insect_pollinators 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
61 5000 1000 10000 see comments on last question 30 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
62 5000 300 10000 This estimate is dependent on the matrix quality remaining high and consistent (Jauker et al 2009) whilst also incorporating the larger dispersal of flies and hoverflies as well as the smaller distance of small native bees. 60 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
68 100 1 500 There isn’t a great deal of info on this for most insect pollinators. Estimates based on foraging ranges for many insect pollinators, but not sure how this translates to dispersal 30 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
71 100 50 1000 Taxa dependent, but most flight ranges will likely be less than 1 km. 5 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
72 1000 20 5000 This is based on direct observations of butterflies moving through the landscape but am hesitant to confidently apply it to the broader assemblage. 10 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
73 100 1 2000

Dispersal distance will depend on many factors: * Size and flight ability * Availability and connectivity of resources * Suitable nest sites/strata * Mating opportunities

Again, the more connected and diverse the landscape, the better the chances of successful dispersal. Some species or groups will be more affected than others based on the above and the level of habitat loss/fragmentation. 		70 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
75 1000 500 2000 insect pollinators will make daily movements from the nest on a range of hundreds of meters. I am guessing that will move more when required (though un studied for most species) 50 Insect_pollinators disperal_distance Initial
Aggregated 1757 267 4357 NA 36 Insect_pollinators 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
61 100 50 1000 Again my answers are probably worth diddly squat 10 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
62 700 250 1500 This estimate is based upon both the foraging range of small native bees and flies, although the information is quite limited especially for Australian species. 70 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
68 100 1 300 Depends on the pollinator and the quality of resources surrounding the nest site 70 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
71 150 50 1000 based on predicted flight distanced of bees/flies. But this is also highly species dependent as flight rages vary enormously. Some species are also not central place foragers so its difficult to think of ‘home range’ 0 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
72 15 0 100 Based on butterfly observations 10 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
73 250 20 3000 As per previous answers and references, pollinator movement is tied to size and flight ability, as well as habitat connectivity. 85 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
75 400 20 1000 this is well studied for crop visiting species, see paper attached on previous page 90 Insect_pollinators movement_within Initial
Aggregated 245 56 1129 NA 48 Insect_pollinators 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
61 500 100 10000 Insect pollinators seem to move large distances across the city - but it is a bit unclear what is and isn’t suitable habitat, and presumably there are specialists within the urban nature reserves 40 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
62 20 5 200 This is very difficult to gauge as beetle movements have been shown to be affected by bike/pedestrian paths however, this isn’t necessarily a problem for flying insects. 60 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
68 0 0 0 Confused about this one, relevance unclear. An insect pollinator is probably unlikely to move outside the suitable habitat unless it knows there is suitable habitat to move to. But not a lot of research on this, so really not sure 0 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
71 250 100 1000 Some insects have longer flight distances and can fly over unsuitable habitat; others have more restricted flight ranges 5 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
72 500 0 1000 Hilltopping species need to cross unsuitable habitat so I’m making a guess as to the sort of distances they would be willing to travel and applying it here. 5 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
73 500 50 3000 Many insect pollinator have the potential to travel at least some distance on search of suitable habitat. Again, this will vary based on the physiological traits of species and the type of habitat, but flight ability does give more scope for this than more static organisms. 80 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
75 200 20 400 i doubt small widths of pavement matter much for most species - but the lack of foraging cues might prevent travel after a while 60 Insect_pollinators capacity_movement Initial
Aggregated 281 39 2229 NA 36 Insect_pollinators 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
61 75 40 100 No comments 20 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
62 2 1 200 Once again, the answer is vastly different fro crawling/alking insects versus highly mobile pollinators able to fly. 60 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
68 0 0 0 not sure - see previous comments. Some research has shown negative correlations between proportion of paved areas and insect pollinator abundance/richness. This is more related to fact that paved area = no floral resources. So crossable extent will depend on matrix and species flying distances 0 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
71 100 50 250 I expect most species will be able to fly over some paved surfaces. Not sure f some might avoid flying over paved surfaces? Or if paved surfaces could be perceived as water bodies by some (eg. happens in dragonflies- not sure about pollinating insects?) 5 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
72 150 1 200 Not sure about this one 0 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
73 60 20 200 Most pollinators would be able to fly above paved surfaces for some distance without being affected. 60 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
75 200 20 400 this is the scenario I pictured on the previous question 40 Insect_pollinators paved_surface Initial
Aggregated 84 19 193 NA 26 Insect_pollinators 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
61 0 0.0 0 Pollinators will fly over most barriers 70 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
62 0 0.0 0 NA 80 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
68 20 10.0 50 absolute guess here. Most insect pollinators would fly over a structure, but I suppose there would be a point where flying around instead of over vertically would be more economical 40 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
71 0 0.0 0 I expect most inset pollinators will be able to fly over vertical barriers. 10 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
72 5 2.0 50 Many butterflies seem to have no problems flying over structures, although they seem to prefer flying lower where possible. 0 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
73 60 2.0 80 Difficult to estimate how high a pollinator might fly above a vertical structure (that isn’t a food source), as this again will vary greatly. Those with good dispersal capabilities may have no problem flying high, while smaller more sedentary species may not wish or be able to fly above tree canopy height. 60 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
75 15 10.0 40 although insects have the potential to fly high, many are though to forage at the level they expect to find their flowers, and may therefore have no motivation to go over the top 30 Insect_pollinators max_height_building Initial
Aggregated 14 3.4 31 NA 41 Insect_pollinators 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
61 50 50 100 would be wind dependent 30 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
62 200 1 700 Again, this answer is highly dependent on the mobility of teh insect pollinator with small native bees foraging a maximum of 700m whilst hoverflies can make large dispersal events across water. 60 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
68 300 50 400 estimate based on general flying distances, but depends on species body size and energy requirements 70 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
71 500 100 1000 Migratory syrphids can travel 100’s of kilometers and might be able to cross water bodies. Evidence in Australia is weak (1 study that I am aware of ) 5 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
72 100 1 250 Based on observations of butterflies flying across lakes and wide river channels. 10 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
73 50 10 1000 I am not aware of any studies that have tested pollinating insect flight over water, but I believe it would be dependent on flight capacity and body size, as per other questions. I would assume a pollinator would prefer to fly around a waterway if there was suitable habitat, than over a large stretch. 50 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
75 400 100 1000 similar to other movement questions -water is just a flowerless expanse 50 Insect_pollinators max_waterbody Initial
Aggregated 229 45 636 NA 39 Insect_pollinators 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
61 3000 2000 3000 I think they would fly over vehicles in many cases but a near continuous flow may pose some barrier 25 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
62 0 0 0 na 80 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
68 0 0 0 not enough research on this. Unlikely it would have a major effect on insect pollinators 0 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
71 200 30 1000 Low confidence as I think road width/type also matters.My upper limits assumed multi-lane motorways. I’m also unsure of what level of vehicles/hour constitutes a busy road . Also depends on species size/mobility; larger insects with higher mobility would likely have an easier time flying over 5 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
72 6 1 12 Butterflies are vulnerable to moving traffic and are easily struck by land vehicles; they will avoid traffic (human or vehicle) were possible. 5 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
73 30 1 240 Roads can both enhance and impact pollinator communities. Suitable habitat adjoining roads can increase pollinator diversity, foraging range, movement and dispersal ability, but can also lead to vehicle collision and death, particularly on busier roads. 80 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
75 0 0 0 no knowledge in this area 0 Insect_pollinators traffic_flow Initial
Aggregated 462 290 607 NA 28 Insect_pollinators 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
61 0.0 0.00 0 I don’t think pedestrian activity would be a barrier for insect pollinators 60 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
62 0.0 0.00 0 NA 80 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
68 0.0 0.00 0 not enough research, unlikely to have a major effect on insect pollinators 0 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
71 10.0 0.00 60 Very species dependent. Some are very skittish and might be disturbed; others are less likely to be disturbed (unless the person gets very close). Also depends on type of pedestrian traffic. People walking by might be fine; people walking through a patch of flowers will likely be problematic. There’s some evidence that pedestrian paths do not impede movement , but research is limited. 5 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
72 12.0 1.00 20 Butterflies are disturbed by pedestrian traffic and will abandon high traffic areas. 10 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
73 10.0 1.00 30 I don’t believe pedestrian traffic would greatly impact insect pollinators, as they would be foraging alongside tracks and only crossing them to reach other areas, or using thermals for mating/displays. collision would be unlikely and there should be no detrimental behaviour change 70 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
75 0.0 0.00 0 no knowledge here, but I doubt pedestrians matter 0 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Initial
Aggregated 4.6 0.29 16 NA 32 Insect_pollinators pedestrian_flow Aggregated