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