ABSTRACT Food is central to our existence. We are keen to know about it as we are vulnerable to its lack. Biodiversity is directly affected by the human need for food. Foley, in a lead paper in National Geographic, identifies that agriculture accelerates the loss of biodiversity and that agriculture is a major driver of wildlife extinction. In the increasing concern for the animals raised and slaughtered for human food on an industrial scale, the question of the number of species, rather than the number of individuals, hardly ever enters the debate. Yet this is a point of considerable zoological interest. The lack of diversity of food options strikes a zoologist as basis for concern about how we can manage the future of our food supplies. Zooarchaeologist Juliet Clutton-Brock adds a new dimension to the debate by looking at the arrival of animals as domesticates. In Europe, she says, the driving force of domesticating animals for agriculture may have been the increasing human population. The grim story of famine in Ethiopia will repeat across the globe as the human population rises, and food crises will become the ethical flashpoint of a larger problem of too many people for the earth to sustain. We need to face the converse of the food shortage more squarely, and that is the issue of the overabundance of people. An underlying concern for zoologists is that the subject areas of zoology, such as species survival, ecosystem management and conserving biodiversity, are poorly covered, or not even mentioned, in so many writings on food, food ethics, agriculture and economic growth, yet zoology needs to be on the table at every discussion. The zoologist has been a missing voice and now must be heard.

ABSTRACT Anthropocentrism, where humans are central, is a natural human viewpoint, but a threat to objective ecological study. Human population, resource use and resource expectations are expanding, turning our ecological footprint into a deep rut. We believe that, while many studies deal with the consequences of human effects on ecosystems, the outcomes are viewed as if humans were observers rather than participants in ecosystems. Humans are the apex animal, manipulating most ecosystems with forestry, mining, agriculture, manufacturing and urbanisation: we engineer the landscape, the air, the water and even the climate. In many situations, humans are also the top predator, killing both our competitive mesopredators and their herbivorous prey. Leaving the top predator out of models reduces the alternative hypotheses and imposes directional bias on the responses of subordinate trophic levels. Our objective here is to discuss the roles of the human in the room and the consequences of ignoring them when designing experiments, proposing explanatory models and interpreting studies.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus has an expansive range. However, the species actually occupies a relatively restricted and continuously changing habitat area, which is primarily defined by irregular patterns of nectar availability. A synchronous count of Greyheaded Flying-foxes in New South Wales taken in July 1988 described the distribution and abundance of the species during a time of general food scarcity, but when abundant floral resources were available in restricted patches of coastal vegetation. The population was highly concentrated into small habitat areas associated with this flowering. The species occupied 11 camps which were located at irregular intervals along the coast, north from the Sydney region. Over 99% of the New South Wales population occurred in nine camps. The total abundance of animals in the state was estimated at 85 400. These results vary substantially from recent estimations which placed the size of the New South Wales population at one million animals. Black Flying-foxes occupied seven camps at the time of the count and their abundance was estimated at 72 500. Periods of concentration are periods of vulnerability for migratory species and present appropriate circumstances in which to examine their conservation status. Critical winter habitat used by Grey-headed Flying-foxes at the time of this study is poorly reserved, primarily occurs on privately-owned land and is located in areas targeted for urban and rural residential development to cater for an ongoing, rapid increase in human population. The conclusion drawn from this study was that Grey-headed Flying-foxes are vulnerable to population decline from the ongoing clearing of their critical over-wintering habitat in lowland coastal vegetation in north-east New South Wales and south-east Oueensland. These results support their listing as VulneraMe in the 1999 Action Plan for Australian Bats.

ABSTRACT This paper a) gives an historical view of national parks and other protected areas since the 19th century, b) gives a history of national parks and nature reserves in NSW, c) shows how recent has been the recognition that fauna conservation depends upon protected areas, d) reflects how much has been achieved in the last 50 years, and e) considers what must be done to stop an ever–increasing list of our fauna becoming extinct, including identifying the crucial role of scientific study in this endeavour. The evolving debate of what burden protected areas should carry in conserving the nation's fauna is a central theme of this paper. The First World Congress on National Parks in 1962 produced ideals that are inspiring, connected and ecological. What was not apparent in 1962 was the scale of the problem of conserving the flora and fauna of the world. I present the case that the principles of protecting areas, fauna conservation and scientific research for nature conservation have been slow to take hold and uneasy in their political relationships as a land use option, but are now beginning to be seen as a key element in conserving a nation's wildlife. Protected areas, whether for wildlife, game, plants, ecosystems or scenery for public enjoyment, are a late competitor for large tracts of land. The historical account shows how distinct African, American, British and Australian protected area development has been, with common threads being how the ideal of protected areas is contested territory, and the linking over time of the concepts of fauna conservation and protected areas. The British story differs markedly from that in the USA and Africa. In 1943, a Nature Reserves Committee was appointed to draw up a rationale and list of National Habitat Reserves and Scientific Areas. Its report led directly to the appointment of the Nature Conservancy in 1949 charged with the establishment of National Nature Reserves, disseminating advice on nature conservation generally, and carrying out the research relevant to those responsibilities. These are crucial dates for the origin of nature reserves in Britain, the important role of research, and the central position of an ecological outlook on nature conservation, rather than the more limited label of preservation. Protected areas in Australia are often under–estimated, both for wildlife research and as havens for fauna populations, and for the research value of protected areas to conserve biodiversity in NSW. The published articulation of these values, and specifically the value of National Parks and Nature Reserves for research, is hard to find except in the recent literature. A review of the last four decades of published papers shows how much has changed in this short time. Given the long history of resistance to establishing protected areas, Australia's fauna is at an ever–increasing risk of extinction as natural habitats are relentlessly lost to economic growth and a rising human population. The problem, as I read the historical record, is that although we are learning fast, the loss of species, landscapes and ecosystems is happening even faster. From the First World Parks Congress in 1962 to today, the interpretation of the value of the national parks for fauna conservation remains contested, but the weight of historical and scientific opinion is ever stronger on the need for protected areas for conserving fauna.

ABSTRACT We review the linkages between food security, nutrition and wildlife conservation in the early 21st century. Declines in wildlife populations and habitats have occurred in parallel with increasing human population and the global emergence of the double burden of under- and over-nutrition. Nutrition-sensitive landscapes and nutrition- and gender-sensitive value chains are key to delivering optimal food and nutrition security and environmental outcomes. Neglected or underutilized crops and sustainable harvest of wild food have the potential to play a number of roles in the improvement of food security that include being: (a) a way to reduce the risk of over-reliance on very limited numbers of major crops and animals; (b) a way to increase sustainability of agriculture through a reduction in the carbon footprint of agriculture and maintenance of biodiversity; (c) a contribution to food quality; and (d) a way to preserve and celebrate cultural and dietary diversity. Dietary diversity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of animal-source food produced can be promoted through the consumption of all edible parts of the carcass, including highly nutritious offal. We argue that adopting a nutrition-sensitive landscape approach would improve consumer understanding of food systems, nutrient cycles, ecosystems services and potentially linkages between dietary diversity and biodiversity.

ABSTRACT Urbanisation is altering local flora and fauna, but urban greenspaces can provide refugia for a variety of taxa. However, we often lack basic biodiversity information (e.g., species richness) for these urban greenspaces. Citizen science projects are continuously improving our understanding of ecology at broad temporal and spatial scales. But, many conservation-relevant decisions are idiosyncratic and made at small management scales (e.g., local government). Given a general bias of citizen science data towards areas with large human populations, citizen scientists are best placed to contribute to improving our understanding of the biodiversity within cities and urban greenspaces. We introduce the Greenspace Bird Calculator: a web-app aimed at enhancing our collective knowledge of bird diversity in urban greenspaces. Users of the web-app could be land managers seeking to understand the bird diversity in the greenspaces they manage. It is built in a reproducible workflow, allowing anyone to delineate a greenspace and submit it to the web-app administrator, receiving an output comprising the greenspace’s total bird diversity. The Greenspace Bird Calculator web-app provides an automated tool to utilise existing eBird citizen science data to calculate species richness for urban greenspaces globally. Critically, the GBC web-app statistically assesses available data that otherwise would be unlikely to be considered by decision-makers. This web-app is an example of the evolution of citizen science, whereby the data collected has been analysed to allow accessible interpretation and inclusion into urban greenspace management and planning.

Social-ecological system (SES) frameworks offer a way of diagnosing the economic, environmental, and social issues driving human-canid conflict, and can assist in the development and testing of management interventions. SES-based approaches to carnivore management in the context of conflicts with humans are limited and highlight a growing need to develop new initiatives involving a broad spectrum of interested parties. To help identify management opportunities provided by using a SES applied to human-canid conflict, we apply the principles of Elinor Ostrom’s multi-tiered framework and develop a SES relating to dingo management in the Australian rangelands. This SES posits variables influencing management practices for dingoes and identifies key management opportunities. We use the framework to categorise first-tier sub-components of the SES, propose second-tier variables specific to the SES (referring to past history or experiences of relevant actors and government resource policies), and identify pathways or interactions for testing (e.g., the influence of scientific evidence on policy, development of educational packages, uptake of new knowledge, and impact of socio-economic status). The proposed SES demonstrates the potential for such approaches to help resolve human-dingo conflict, highlights variables that may influence dingo management practices, and presents opportunities for testing these variables empirically.