Introduction

This document summarises the Round 1 - Initial estimates of the Fine Scale Metrics for ACT Urban Habitat and Connectivity Project expert elicitation for small - 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.

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Structural habitat metrics

The next series of visualisations relate to structural habitat metrics.

Structural habitat metrics describe the finer scale structural elements of a species’ habitat and how the various features are arranged in space. For example, some species may need access to bare ground for nesting to be able to successfully occupy a habitat patch. This would be a structural requirement.

\(~\)

Preferred % cover of rocks

Access to rocky substrate may relate to things such as habitat refugia, basking sites for reptiles, or food resources (for aquatic species). What percentage cover of rocky substrate is required for an area to be preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 20 0.0 40 Depends on what makes up the remaining % - if high proportion of bare ground I’d reduce the rock amount in favour of something else.. 80 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
11 10 5.0 20 Rocky outcrops can be a favoured denning and foraging habitat for insectivores like antechinus. 75 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
14 0 0.0 0 It would differ between small mammals (such as antechinus) and medium sized species. For example quolls love rocky sites, use them for latrine sites and shelter, but bandicoots generally avoid areas which are rocky. Thus the big estimate range. 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
15 15 0.0 50 Small mammals in particular benefit from the habitat and resource opportunities in a heterogeneous ground layer that may (but not necessarily) include rocks 25 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
25 1 0.0 20 The focal species are favoured by deep leaf litter and lots of structure (comprising logs and fallen branches, shrubs, tall grasses and forbs, and hollow trees). I’m not aware of outcropping surface rock being any help to this group. Significant areas of rock would reduce tree canopy (thus reduce litter) and reduce structure. If the group included woodland or forest reptiles, especially species that burrow or shelter under rocks, my responses would be higher. (Why are woodland reptiles not covered somewhere?) 30 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
32 40 20.0 60 based on past studying and working experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Initial
Aggregated 14 4.2 32 NA 45 Small_medium_mammal percent_rocks Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % cover of bare ground

Access to bare ground may relate to things such as nesting sites (for burrowing or fossorial species) or spaces to hunt. What percentage of ground needs to be bare ground for an area to be preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 10.0 0.00 30 This might again depend of vegetation, if there is high/dense cover provided by the vegetation that exists, areas of bare ground will present less of a problem (%could be higher) 70 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
11 10.0 5.00 20 Insectivores will benefit from bare ground in the form of ant hills and termite mounds (e.g., short-beaked echnidnas). 80 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
14 0.0 0.00 0 I feel bare ground is not important for this fauna group - cover is more important 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
15 15.0 0.00 50 Small mammals in particular benefit from the habitat and resource opportunities in a heterogeneous ground layer that may (but not necessarily) include bare ground 25 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
25 3.0 0.00 10 This year, the ground layer vegetation in the Naas Valley is regenerating from the 2020 fire, to the extent that there is little bare ground left (except plenty of bare rock on the hillsides, areas exposed by river action, the surface of the fire trail, and around termite mounds, ant nests, and wombat burrows). Cameras have shown a surge in Bush Rats, Black Rats, and Antechinus agilis. 30 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
32 20.0 0.00 40 habitat assessment conducted in 2018 65 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Initial
Aggregated 9.7 0.83 25 NA 45 Small_medium_mammal percent_ground Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % cover of grass thatch (dead, unattached grass)

Grass thatch is the layer of dead plant material that develops between the zone of green vegetation and the soil surface. We consider dead grass to be thatch once it is no longer attached to the parent plant. Grass thatch can be beneficial for some species (e.g. providing habitat for nesting) but detrimental for other species (e.g. obstructing movement). What percentage cover of grass thatch is consistent with an area being preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 20 10 50 This could be more important for dasyurids - thinking about the availability of food and thatch might have a greater influence on invertebrates for dasyurid species 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
11 50 30 60 Thatch is likely to benefit the smallest (<100 g) members of this taxon group, by facilitating safe passage through the habitat and providing nesting opportunities. 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
14 0 0 0 Again, thatch may provide shelter and perhaps food sources (inverts) but likely not an important habitatvariable for this fauna group. 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
15 15 0 50 Small mammals in particular benefit from the habitat and resource opportunities in a heterogeneous ground layer that may (but not necessarily) include thatch 25 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
25 20 0 40 Nesting material is needed, but the density of nest material in kg/ha is minute, so less than 0.5% thatch would be a vast amount in comparison. Thatch also provides cover from predators, and at high levels could inhibit movement of some species. 20 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
32 30 20 40 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Initial
Aggregated 22 10 40 NA 34 Small_medium_mammal percent_thatch Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred depth of grass thatch/leaf litter (cm)

The definition of grass thatch here is consistent with the previous question, however this question focuses on the depth of the grass thatch layer. What depth of grass thatch is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group? Consider the most appropriate depth of grass thatch in centimetres.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 10.0 2.0 20 Thinking about not just immediate habitat but the flow on effects of keeping soil moist, with nutrients available and bottom up health of ecosystem 60 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
11 8.0 5.0 20 Thatch above 20cm is likely to impede the movement of larger members of this taxon group. 50 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
14 0.0 0.0 0 Not an important variable 1 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
15 30.0 0.0 60 None 1 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
25 0.0 0.0 0 I am not at all sure about this 20 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
32 5.0 1.0 12 based on past working and research experience 65 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Initial
Aggregated 8.8 1.3 19 NA 33 Small_medium_mammal thatch_depth Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % cover of leaf litter

Some species require access to leaf litter for food resources (e.g. arthropods and other invertebrate living in the leaf litter) or may require leaf litter as habitat refugia (for burrowing or fossorial species). What percentage of cover of leaf litter is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 30 0 50 Leaf litter is really important both for habitat and refuge but also nutrient and moisture to for invert communities and plant productivity 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
11 15 10 30 This habitat type is likely to provide more foraging opportunities than nesting and shelter. 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
14 50 10 100 I imagine leaf litter is more important than thatch to provide foraging resources for most small and medium sized mammals. 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
15 15 0 50 Small mammals in particular benefit from the habitat and resource opportunities in a heterogeneous ground layer that may (but not necessarily) include leaf litter 15 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
25 90 30 100 depth of litter is important, as well as cover 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
32 40 30 60 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Initial
Aggregated 40 13 65 NA 48 Small_medium_mammal percent_litter Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % grass cover (all grasses)

The percentage cover of grass might be important for some species based on refugia sites or food resources. What percentage of grass cover is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 30 20 50 grass will have important interactions with the other factors we’re ranking - e.g. by capturing and holding leaf litter 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
11 60 30 90 Grass cover will facilitate thatch creation, shelter, and foraging opportunities. 65 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
14 40 0 90 Again varies between species. Some species happy in grass dominated ecosystems, others depend on tree hollows for nesting etc 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
15 50 30 100 Some minimum grass required for all species 20 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
25 10 0 30 I am thinking mainly of forest and woodland. Different answers for a grassland where grass tussocks are the only structural element. 40 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
32 25 10 40 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Initial
Aggregated 36 15 67 NA 48 Small_medium_mammal percent_grass Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % invasive grass cover (e.g. Wild oats, Chilean Needle Grass, Serrated Tussock, African Love Grass)

It is possible/likely that a component of total grass cover in the urban space will be comprised of highly invasive grass species. These species can monopolise grassy areas and impact on ground layer structure and function for many species. What is the percentage cover of invasive grasses which is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group? This metric might be used to trigger invasive plant management regimes, or identify priority areas for restoration, as some examples.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 10.0 0.00 50 Dominance of one exotic species is critical - i.e. african love grass alone covering 50% is worse than 5 exotics covering 50% 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
11 5.0 5.00 40 Uncertain how impactful nativeness of grass cover would be on habitat use. 40 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
14 20.0 0.00 50 More related to general habitat condition 20 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
15 0.0 0.00 75 Preference no invasive grasses but will tolerate high invasive cover potentially 10 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
25 10.0 0.00 70 The taxon group is mainly found in forest and woodland, and these species are mainly invading grassland. I dont have the knowledge to answer this. 5 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
32 10.0 0.00 40 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Initial
Aggregated 9.2 0.83 54 NA 31 Small_medium_mammal percent_invasive Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % native forb cover

Native forbs include any flowering ground-layer plant, that is not a grass, sedge or rush. They may provide habitat structure or food resources. What percentage cover of native forbs is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 30 0.0 50 Diversity will also be important here 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
11 30 10.0 50 Native forbs break up a matrix that is dominated by grasses, and offer alternative foraging options for herbivores. 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
14 0 0.0 0 would vary on ecosystem occupied but not important overall 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
15 15 0.0 50

Small mammals in particular benefit from the habitat and resource opportunities in a heterogeneous ground layer that may (but not necessarily) include forbs

Forbs not a critical resource for any mammal? 		1 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
25 50 0.0 70 Forbs provide structure for small mammals. 30 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
32 20 5.0 25 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Initial
Aggregated 24 2.5 41 NA 35 Small_medium_mammal percent_forb Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % exotic broad leaf cover (e.g. thistles)

Exotic broad leaf plant species (such as thistles or pigweed) make up the majority of the non-native ground layer plants which are not grasses, sedges or rushes. They may exclude native vegetation from growing in the ground layer or alter habitat structure. What percentage cover of exotic broad leaf plants is consistent with preferred habitat for this taxon group?

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 30.0 0 50 Again, the dominance of one weed is more detrimental than the number of weeds 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
11 5.0 0 10 These exotic species will not offer substantial foraging or sheltering opportunities. 75 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
14 0.0 0 30 about general habitat condition, more invasive species found in degraded habitats 20 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
15 0.0 0 75 Preference no exotics but will tolerate high exotics cover potentially? 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
25 20.0 0 60 Structure matters more than floristics so it depends what structural elements are increased and decreased when exotics replace natives. I guess the spines on thistles are less friendly to small and medium mammals than eg Dianella, Lomandra, native grasses and low native shrubs. 20 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
32 0.0 0 40 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Initial
Aggregated 9.2 0 44 NA 38 Small_medium_mammal percent_broad Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred total length of coarse woody debris (>10cm diameter incl. snags, stumps)

Coarse woody debris (CWD) refers to fallen dead trees and the remains of large branches on the ground in forests, grasslands and in aquatic ecosystems. Here we define CWD as being greater than 10 cm in diameter and including snags (aquatic) and tree stumps. CWD provides structure and refugia within a terrestrial habitat and changes physical and hydraulic properties in aquatic systems. CWD needs to be considered when managing forests for biodiversity but also for managing fire risk. What is the preferred total length of coarse woody debris required in an area to be preferred habitat for this taxon group? Consider the total length in metres in a one-hectare patch.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 20 10.0 30 this might vary taxonomically - echidnas might prefer higher abundance of logs along with dasyurids, and rodents may be less dependent 60 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
11 3 0.3 30 The larger CWD units are, the more opportunities for foraging and shelter which can be shared between multiple species. 75 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
14 300 20.0 1000 Very, very hard to assess. I think just “presence of” CWD as a reflection of woody cover is desirable - not sure the actual amount is really important (and Im finding it hard to calculate what that length looks like over a ha!) 30 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
15 100 10.0 5000 None 1 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
25 3000 100.0 5000 CWD is increasingly being appreciated as important. If you had asked the question 10 years ago, probably this estimate would be less, and it will probably be greater 10 years in the future. 40 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
32 3000 637.0 3185 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Initial
Aggregated 1070 129.6 2374 NA 44 Small_medium_mammal cwd_length Aggregated

Preferred number of hollow bearing trees

A hollow-bearing tree is a tree where the trunk or limbs contain hollows, holes or cavities. Hollows are particularly important for providing shelter and nesting sites for fauna, with some species being hollow dependant. What is the preferred number of hollow bearing trees required for the habitat to be suitable for this taxon group? Consider the minimum number of hollow bearing trees in a one-hectare patch.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 2 0.0 10 assumed these are standing hollow bearing trees which will be most important for phascogales and yellow-footed antechinus 70 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
11 2 1.0 10 Hollow-bearing trees will affect other taxa more than small mammals, but antechinus and other climbers may benefit. 50 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
14 10 3.0 25 Again hard to say exactly how many is good - too many might bring predators and competition? Not sure, thus not confident. 30 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
15 10 1.0 35 It would be good if all trees had a hollow but at least one for the hollow-dependents 1 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
25 36 10.0 80 Need a mosaic of areas with deep litter and ones with more structural diversity including low growing plants, so need diversity in tree density. 40 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
32 45 20.0 60 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Initial
Aggregated 18 5.8 37 NA 42 Small_medium_mammal no_hbtrees Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % cover of shrub layer (0.5-3m height)

The mid-storey or shrub layer provides structure for nesting, refugia from predators and food resources for many species. This could be related to the amount or complexity of structure the species group prefers or is tolerant of in its preferred habitat, or some other feature of the species groups’ general biology or life history. This metric considers the percentage cover across a one hectare patch.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 10 0.0 60 Important for contributing to leaf litter 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
11 45 20.0 60 Shrubs provide critical sources of shelter while ranging and nesting, but can imede movement if too dominant and homogenous. A matrix is ideal. 65 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
14 40 10.0 80 Important variable, % cover is easier to estimate. 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
15 50 0.0 100 na 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
25 60 10.0 90 all about habitat structure 30 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
32 20 10.0 30 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Initial
Aggregated 38 8.3 70 NA 44 Small_medium_mammal percent_shrub Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred % tree canopy cover (per ha)

The tree canopy provides structure (such as shade), habitat and resources for a range of species. Tree canopy cover may influence how a 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 accounts for the availability of canopy cover from exotic and native tree species in the environment, as well as both young and mature trees (> 3m height). Consider the percentage cover across one hectare patch.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 40 10 70 This will vary greatly according to vegetation community, here I’ve been thinking mostly about grassy woodlands and open forests 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
11 40 20 60 Canopy cover will contribute to the matrix of habitat types available, but if too dominant shrubs can be outcompeded, removing shelter opportunities. 50 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
14 50 10 100 Important variable, but values dependant on species 40 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
15 20 0 75 grassland and woodland species…….. grassland and woodland range in canopy cover ….. 1 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
25 65 10 90 open forest 30 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
32 40 30 60 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Initial
Aggregated 42 13 76 NA 40 Small_medium_mammal percent_canopy Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Habitat function and risk management

The next series of visualisations relate to habitat function and risk management.

This section asks questions regarding habitat function and risk management for your selected taxon group.

These metrics describe what sorts of risks need to be managed within habitat areas to retain habitat function. The responses to these questions will aid in the identification, design and restoration of habitat patches and connectivity corridors in the urban space, provide an evidence base for policy decision making, and set thresholds for management intervention.

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.

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Preferred noise levels (during active period)

Anthropomorphic noise may impact on habitat suitability for native fauna by creating disturbance or interrupting communication pathways. This metric seeks to determine the level of anthropomorphic noise preferred by the taxon group. Sources of noise might include commercial or residential areas, traffic, or other human based sources. This metric should be based on the long-term ambient noise level during the day, and exclude short-term sounds, such as cars backfiring in a parking lot. Noises such as school bells, concerts, or sirens would all contribute to the mean noise level.

Decibels: 0 threshold of human hearing, 20 quiet room, 60 busy street, 80 loud radio, 100 subway train, 110 industrial noise, 120 jet plane take-off, 130 gun shot. Remembering that decibels are described on a logarithmic scale.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 40 0.0 60 I think animals can become accustomed to this over time and with varying degrees of exposure, there will also be interactions with light that compound the effects 50 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
11 10 0.0 30 This taxon will beparticularly sensitive to noise because it will inhibit their ability to detect threats, so construction and other loud industrial or technical noise should be limited. 60 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
14 10 0.0 30 quieter the better, mammals generally sensitive to noise (although some species get accustomed in urban areas) 30 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
15 50 0.0 100 none 1 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
25 30 20.0 110 I have not read any papers on the effects of noise on wildlife that are relevant. 10 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
32 30 20.0 80 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Initial
Aggregated 28 6.7 68 NA 35 Small_medium_mammal noise_level Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Minimum tolerable fire interval

Fire can impact on habitat suitability either by influencing core habitat structural elements (such as ground and mid-storey complexity) or by causing direct mortality to individuals or populations. This metric seeks to determine the minimum tolerable fire interval (assuming low-moderate intensity burns on a patchy sub-hectare scale) before there is an impact on resident species. The assumption is that fire is applied during the active period for the species (e.g. during daylight hours on a warm day for grassland reptiles). We encourage you to leave additional notes around any additional considerations you feel are necessary to support your response.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 240 36 500 big variation with the type of vegetation community again 50 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
11 24 12 60 Most of our target species will benefit from low intensity burns to improve habitat heterogeneity. 40 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
14 20 2 100 This is SUPER difficult to generalise. Some species need fire, and are found using postfire landscapes regularly (bandicoots, antechinus, both love burnt patches 2-5 years postfire) BUT they at the same time need a mosaic with unburnt/long unburnt patches around them as refugia. This question really needs to be asked in context and is not a simple one to answer. 1 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
15 24 6 120 . 1 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
25 120 60 240 These animals, especially the small ones, are favoured by habitat that is classed by bush fire fuel managers and bush fire scientists as having extremely heavy fuel loads . Such habitats work for these species by providing food and most importantly by providing refuge from predators. To conserve native small mammals such as Rattus fuscipes and Antechinus flavipes/agilis in a peri-urban environment is extremely difficult because these areas have both (i) the need to reduce the risk of catastrophic damage (i.e. loss of human lives and dwellings) by reducing bush fire fuel; (ii) a high prevalence of cats, foxes and uncontrolled dogs; and (iii) heavy invasion of exotic pest species such as the Black Rat and House Mouse. There is evidently better scope for conserving the larger species in this group such as Echidna and bandicoots. 50 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
32 200 36 320 based on past working and research experience 30 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Initial
Aggregated 105 25 223 NA 29 Small_medium_mammal fire_interval Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Minimum tolerable mowing intervals

Mowing can impact on habitat suitability either by influencing core habitat structural elements (such as ground storey complexity) or by causing direct mortality to individuals or populations. This metric seeks to determine the minimum tolerable mowing interval (assuming mowing to 5cm height using a ride-on slasher) before there is an impact on resident species. The assumption is that mowing is undertaken during the active period for the species (e.g. during daylight hours on a warm day for grassland reptiles) and covers all accessible areas (i.e. leaves patches around fence posts and sign bases). It is also assumed that there are limited other ground-layer disturbance mechanisms (e.g. herbivore grazing) taking place in mown areas. We encourage you to leave additional notes around any additional considerations you feel are necessary to support your response.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 6 2 12 there is probably also big interactions with how much area is mowed, where is mowed (i.e. next to vegetation?) etc. 50 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
11 6 3 12 At 5cm height, the aftermath of this management action will still allow some safe movement through the landscape - and the grassy layer will rise up again sooner. 60 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
14 0 0 0 not relevant 1 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
15 12 6 120 . 1 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
25 100 60 120 never mow small mammal habitat 20 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
32 20 3 36 not quite sure on this one, based on past working and research experience 30 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Initial
Aggregated 24 12 50 NA 27 Small_medium_mammal mowing_interval Aggregated

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

\(~\)

Maximum tolerable presence of introduced predators (incl. fox, dog, cat)

Introduced predators such as cats and foxes are a major source of extinction for native Australian fauna. Domestic dogs are also known to impact on habitat suitability for native species. This metric seeks to determine the maximum number of individual foxes, cats or dogs which can persist in an ecosystem before an impact on habitat suitability is anticipated for other resident species. The metric considers the impacts of both domestic and feral animals combined and will assume ‘individuals’ are separate based on current best practice described in the literature if individual animals cannot be identified from markings alone.

Expert Best Lower Upper Comments Confidence Taxon Variable Group2
10 1 0.00 3.0 some species will be impacted worse than others, presence or absence of exotic prey is important and some individual cats or foxes can be worse than others (some are honed in on larger species or particular prey) 60 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
11 0 0.00 1.0 All it takes is one patrolling cat to kill tens of small animals per night - I would have put 0.25 (one sighting every 4 days) if it was allowed. 85 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
14 0 0.00 2.0 One fox can wipe out a sensitive mammal species even with solid habitat (usually medium sized). Some species can co-exist with a few feral predators hanging around, particularly the small species. I found this difficult to do, because an area of habitat wasn’t specified. I was trying to think of areas using a gridded system, but wasn’t sure this would equate. Again a very difficult thing to estimate. 10 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
15 10 1.00 20.0 No experience estimating impact ~ # of detections X habitat quality and then identifying the threshold in # of detections 1 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
25 1 0.00 1.0 I may not understand the question. I think the thing you have asked for the lowest and highest tolerable values of is THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PREDATORS DETECTED PER CAMERA PER NIGHT in some sort of camera survey that has covered the habitat patch at appropriate camera density. In my experience, that value is always less than one, which the program does not allow me to enter. Also, are the camera traps baited or set across trails, unbaited? 1 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
32 0 0.00 8.0 based on past working and research experience 60 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Initial
Aggregated 2 0.17 5.8 NA 36 Small_medium_mammal intro_predators Aggregated