Thermal Profiles of Chainsaw Hollows and Natural Hollows during Extreme Heat Events.

Loss of hollow-bearing trees threatens many hollow-dependent wildlife. To mitigate this process, artificial chainsaw-carved hollows (CHs) are often created in dead trees, yet little is known about their thermal profiles. We measured temperatures inside 13 natural hollows (8 live and 5 dead trees) and 45 CHs (5 live and 40 dead trees) in the central west of NSW, Australia, over the course of 2 summers. Maximum temperatures and daily temperature ranges within natural hollows and artificial hollows were similar in 2017-2018. Hollow temperatures were lower in thicker-walled hollows than in thinner-walled hollows. During the January 2019 heatwave, temperatures inside CHs in dead trees exceeded 4-35 °C higher than the upper limit of the thermal neutral zone of sugar gliders-for 6.2 consecutive days (range 0-9 days). CHs in dead trees provided little buffering from thermal extremes; when air temperatures peaked at 44.6 °C, CHs in dead trees were on average 2.4 °C cooler than ambient (range: 5.5 °C cooler to 1.0 °C hotter than ambient). These results show that CHs created in dead trees may not provide suitable thermal conditions for hollow-dependent marsupials during summer heatwaves. Retention of large live trees, coupled with revegetation, is crucial for conserving hollow-dependent fauna in agricultural landscapes.

Artificial refuges for wildlife conservation: what is the state of the science?

Artificial refuges are human-made structures that aim to create safe places for animals to breed, hibernate, or take shelter in lieu of natural refuges. Artificial refuges are used across the globe to mitigate the impacts of a variety of threats on wildlife, such as habitat loss and degradation. However, there is little understanding of the science underpinning artificial refuges, and what comprises best practice for artificial refuge design and implementation for wildlife conservation. We address this gap by undertaking a systematic review of the current state of artificial refuge research for the conservation of wildlife. We identified 224 studies of artificial refuges being implemented in the field to conserve wildlife species. The current literature on artificial refuges is dominated by studies of arboreal species, primarily birds and bats. Threatening processes addressed by artificial refuges were biological resource use (26%), invasive or problematic species (20%), and agriculture (15%), yet few studies examined artificial refuges specifically for threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) species (7%). Studies often reported the characteristics of artificial refuges (i.e. refuge size, construction materials; 87%) and surrounding vegetation (35%), but fewer studies measured the thermal properties of artificial refuges (18%), predator activity (17%), or food availability (3%). Almost all studies measured occupancy of the artificial refuges by target species (98%), and over half measured breeding activity (54%), whereas fewer included more detailed measures of fitness, such as breeding productivity (34%) or animal body condition (4%). Evaluating the benefits and impacts of artificial refuges requires sound experimental design, but only 39% of studies compared artificial refuges to experimental controls, and only 10% of studies used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design. As a consequence, few studies of artificial refuges can determine their overall effect on individuals or populations. We outline a series of key steps in the design, implementation, and monitoring of artificial refuges that are required to avoid perverse outcomes and maximise the chances of achieving conservation objectives. This review highlights a clear need for increased rigour in studies of artificial refuges if they are to play an important role in wildlife conservation.