Forest managers have neglected the vital role of fruit-eating and blossom-feeding vertebrates as pollinators and seed dispersers in forest tree reproduction. Grey-headed Flying Foxes are obligate frugivores and nectarivores of eastern Australian forests. This study demonstrates their importance as long-distance seed dispersers of rainforest species and as long-distance pollen vectors of Eucalyptus and other Myrtaceae and Proteaceae species. Grey-headed Flying Foxes travel hundreds of kilometres annually to locate fruit and blossom which are unpredictably available in space and time. This nomadic migratory habit presents difficulties in their conservation. The current system of reserves within the range of Grey-headed Flying Foxes does not ensure their conservation, and while a reserve system designed to conserve biodiversity on a regional scale might provide for them, such a system is unlikely to be established in the near future. In the absence of such a reserve system, and in view of the continued alteration of eastern Australian forests, there is an urgent need to modify management practices in publicly and privately owned forests in order to conserve Grey-headed Flying Foxes, and to maintain the vital role they play as pollinators and seed dispersers.

As a young man of 26, Charles Darwin visited Sydney in January 1836, on board H.M.S. Beagle , during her five-year circumnavigation of the globe. For most of the time the Beagle was in Sydney, Darwin was on an inland excursion to Bathurst. Consequently, he gave himself very little opportunity to explore the natural history of Sydney. However, his servant Syms Covington did go sweeping for insects in Sydney, and was presumably involved in collecting other specimens of Sydney fauna. In total, the Beagle's Sydney specimens comprise at least 110 species of animals, including a mouse not previously described (originally Mus gouldii ; later Pseudomys gouldii ; unfortunately now extinct), a crab, a snake, frogs, lizards, shells (including an oyster, a mudwhelk, air breathers, a sand snail, and a trochid or top shell) and 97 insects, 42 of which had not previously been described, and four of which were named after Darwin: a Leaf beetle Idiocephala darwini ; a Seed bug Ontiscus darwini ; a Gasteruptiid wasp Foenus darwinii ; and a Bee Halictus darwiniellus . The remaining novel insects comprise six Leaf beetles (Chrysomelidae), four Stink bugs (Pentatomidae), a Seed bug (Lygaeidae), an Assassin bug (Reduviidae), a Water boatman (Corixidae), a Leafhopper (Cicadellidae), a Cicada (Cicadidae), a Flatid planthopper (Flatidae), a Froghopper or Spittlebug (Cercopidae), three Parasitic wasps (Chalcididae), an Encyrtid wasp (Encyrtidae), five Eucaratids (Eucharitidae), a Eulophid (Eulophidae), four Seed chalcids (Eurytomidae), five Lamprotatidae, and one Torymid wasp (Torymidae).

Fruit-eating birds disperse many rainforest seeds, thereby influencing rainforest regeneration. The abundance of these birds may change following forest clearing, causing differences in seed dispersal between extensively-forested and fragmented areas. We assessed the responses of 26 frugivorous bird species to forest fragmentation by comparing their abundance among extensive tracts, remnants and regrowth patches of rainforest (16 replicate sites in each) in subtropical south-east Queensland, Australia. There were five species that were recorded in much lower numbers in remnants and/or regrowth than in extensive forest (“decreasers”), seven that showed higher abundance in remnants and/or regrowth than in extensive forest (“increasers”) and 14 whose abundance did not change substantially between the three habitat types (“tolerant” species). The decreasers included three fruit-specialist rainforest pigeons (the wompoo, rose-crowned and superb fruit-doves Ptilinopus magnificus, P. regina and P. superbus ). The increasers were largely bird species with mixed diets, many of which also use non-rainforest habitats. Two decreasers and two tolerant species were substantially more abundant during summer than winter whereas two increaser and two tolerant bird species were more abundant during winter. No effects of altitude on seasonal abundance were apparent. The results of this study show that fragmented remnant and regrowth patches of rainforest do not adequately conserve the full set of frugivorous avifauna. Furthermore, lower abundance of negativelyimpacted birds in fragmented remnant and regrowth sites may lead to reduced regeneration of certain rainforest plant species due to a lack of seed dispersal in these habitats.

Australia has at least 70 bat species and these constitute one-quarter of Australia’s mammals. In the tropics this ratio increases to one-third, and in southeastern coastal forests it is up to 40%. Some rainforest tree species appear to be dependent upon flying foxes to disperse their fruits and ensure their long-term survival. A “raiders versus residents” model of seed dispersal, shown in Spectacled Flying Foxes Pteropus conspicillatus , is important in increasing the success of seedling survival because the residents force the raiders to leave their territories which causes seeds to be dropped distant from the parent tree. However, colonies of Spectacled Flying Foxes appear to have declined in number and size over the last decade, probably due to their status as unprotected fauna in Queensland. There is evidence from tropical American forests for the concept of “pivotal” tree species, the conservation of which appears to be deterministic in the conservation of rainforest and fruit bats as a mutualistic system. Pivotal tree species in Australian rainforests must be identified urgently and preserved. Until the present data for bat distribution are centralized, then analysed to search for shortcomings and to target data-deficient areas for survey, insectivorous bats will always be neglected in forest conservation arguments. There is evidence that aged trees with roost hollows are a limiting resource for many species. Gould’s Long-eared bat Nyctophilus gouldi is an indicator of forest quality, since it only roosts in unlogged gullies and within them, only in trees of 80 cm diameter. Since hollows in eucalypt trees may take 100 years to form, a short logging rotation time of 20–40 years will have a detrimental effect upon many species of forest bats. From a forest bat conservation point of view it is vital to acknowledge the importance of retaining at least some mature forest trees during logging operations. There is an awareness of many conservation problems for forest bats but there is much difficulty in finding solutions. These difficulties are compounded by the size of Australia and a lack of scientific expertise in this area.

Sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) is used to kill pest species such as foxes in Australia and possums in New Zealand. In both countries it is an essential component of conservation programmes. The poisoned animals die in considerable pain. Striking a balance between its effectiveness as a conservation tool and the animal welfare issues involved has proved to be difficult. This review examines the arguments on either side. It also raises the question of how long selection for resistance will take to develop. The presence of resistant vertebrates in Western Australia is ascribed to the selective effect of poisoned plants whose seeds and flowers contain 1080. Western vertebrate subspecies have evolved resistance which is not present in estern subspecies and so resistance can evolve within the lifetime of a species.

Flying-fox species worldwide are under threat of extinction. Artificial insemination (AI) has the potential to play a primary role in the conservation of endangered flying-foxes, through the genetic and reproductive management of captive colonies. Semen from surviving wild populations, or from separate captive colonies, can be utilised to maintain genetic vigour, thus preventing in-breeding in potential seed populations that can then be returned to restored habitat. The development of AI technology in flying-foxes has been hampered by the atypical reproductive biology of female Megachiroptera. Pteropids have a duplex uterus, with separate cervices, and a well-defined ovarian vascular complex that provides a counter-current exchange system between the ovary and ipsilateral uterine horn. This arrangement reduces systemic circulation of steroid reproductive hormones and makes it difficult to accurately characterise the endocrinology of the oestrous cycle; it is also consistent with the apparent lack of overt behavioural oestrus in these species. Low concentrations of peripheral oestradiol also mean that vaginal cytology is not a strong correlate of reproductive status. If AI is to be utilised as a conservation strategy in flying-foxes, it is vital that an accurate method of oestrus detection or ovulation induction be established. The integrated examination of plasma hormones, behaviour and vaginal cytology, following direct hormonal stimulation of folliculogenesis in the ovaries, may improve the signal to noise ratio in this subtle physiological system. Such improved sensitivity may make it possible to develop an accurate method of oestrus detection. Combined with the continuing development of the remaining steps in AI, this will ensure the progress of establishing an AI protocol in flying-fox species. Pp. 128-135 in The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats, edited by Bradley Law, Peggy Eby, Daniel Lunney and Lindy Lumsden. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman, NSW, Australia. 2011.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox, Pteropus poliocephalus , is listed as a threatened species in NSW, Victoria and nationally. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a key species in maintaining forest ecosystems through the pollination of native trees and the dispersal of rainforest seeds. This threatened species is unique in that it is also recognised as a horticultural pest, predominantly in coastal orchards of south-eastern Australia. In times of native resource (pollen, nectar and rainforest fruits) shortage, flying-foxes are known to utilise commercial fruit crops. As such, the species is affected by control techniques employed by horticulturists to mitigate flying-fox damage, including shooting and netting. The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and the NSW Department of Primary Industries are working collaboratively to investigate flying-fox damage to commercial crops, quantify the levels of flying-fox damage (temporally and spatially), determine the factors contributing to trends in crop damage, and assess the effectiveness of mitigative measures employed by horticulturists to reduce flying-fox damage. The project is funded for two financial years through the Australian Government's Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve funding and State Government contributions (cash and in-kind), and addresses several recovery actions of the draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. The project proposal was also strongly supported by the NSW Flying-fox Consultative Committee. The project commenced in October 2006 and focuses on commercial crops in the western Sydney Basin. To date (May 2007), preliminary evaluations have been conducted, including total yield loss, damaged fruit (including that specifically attributable to flying-foxes and birds), flying-fox crop visitation indices and crop architecture. These parameters will be compared throughout the fruit season across different stone fruit and apple crop types and between netted and unnetted crops to examine spatial and temporal trends. The process of establishing and implementing the collaborative project is discussed, within the framework of flying-fox conservation and management in NSW.

Forest wildlife management in Australian eucalypt forests emphasizes the retention of tree hollows for fauna requiring hollows for nesting or denning. This overlooks the requirements of birds in eucalypt forests for a variety of resources for nesting and foraging other than tree hollows. Some birds nest only on vertical or horizontal dead branches, while others require shrubs or dense ground vegetation. There are significant differences between plant species in the foraging resources available to birds. For example, bark type and the associated arthropod fauna differ between tree species, as do the arthropods found in the canopy. This complex array of resources is not necessarily provided by management plans which emphasize the conservation of trees with hollows. Not all eucalypts readily form hollows and those that do differ in bark type, epiphytes, canopy arthropods and nectar production from those that do not. Comparable differences occur among types and species of shrubs and ground vegetation. Additionally, logs, coarse woody debris and litter, and their associated biota, are important components of forest ecosystems and provide essential resources for forest birds. If the full complement of forest birds is to be conserved, each of these resources must be managed across the entire forest estate and not just where logging is taking place. It is equally important to manage the impacts of fuel reduction burns. The availability of foliage, seeds, fruits, nectar, lerp, arthropods and vertebrates used by forest birds as food changes seasonally and from year to year within and between forest areas and the pattern of resource abundance, which is partly a consequence of fire history, must be part of all plans of management. If the goal is the conservation of forest birds in perpetuity, then site and industry specific management protocols are inadequate. Instead, management must be regional and involve all land tenures with close co-ordination of conservation programs between regions at a continental scale. Rehabilitation, conservation and tree planting programs in urban and agricultural areas must be integrated with the management of birds on state forests, conservation reserves and private lands.

The Mount Lofty Ranges and adjacent plains support an isolated woodland and open forest system that has been extensively cleared such that only 7% of the pre-European vegetation remains. The vegetation has been disproportionately cleared from the good quality agricultural land on lower elevations where only 2% remains. Within this region floral resources are more abundant during winter and spring when plants growing on poor quality soils flower. Honeyeaters recruit into these areas during winter and breed before departing as floral resources wane. Honeyeaters regularly move distances of 10-100 km in search of food within the Mt Lofty region. The habitats that provide floral nectar during late summer and autumn, the gum and box woodlands, however, have been disproportionately cleared and honeyeater populations decline during these times. As a consequence, honeyeaters are unable to recruit back in adequate numbers to service fully the pollination requirements of winter- and spring-flowering plants that suffer reduced seed production. These bird-plant systems operate at a regional scale, and restoration should focus on putting back native vegetation on good quality agricultural land, since components of this vegetation provide floral resources during late summer and autumn. Based on the amount of vegetation that remains, 35-50 predominantly woodland bird species will go regionally extinct in the Mt Lofty region. Consistent with these predictions, 10 species are already considered regionally extinct and another 60 species continue to decline in abundance and or distribution. The critical requirement is to put back substantial amounts of appropriate habitat. Current revegetation efforts, however, are inadequate. The vast majority of revegetation effort produces patches of new vegetation that are too small (often<1ha), linear in shape, on poorer soils, consist of a few plant species planted in rows and at very high densities, and are largely disconnected from other patches of vegetation. These revegetation efforts support small numbers of widespread bird species and are rarely used consistently by declining species. Many of the declining woodland birds, however, use the extensive Monarto plantations, suggesting that larger areas of reconstructed habitat are needed elsewhere in the region. Based on the habitat needed by pairs of some the declining species, minimum patch sizes of the order of 20-100 ha need to be re-established on good quality agricultural lands. Rather than continuing to retire small plots of land on individual properties a different approach is urgently needed. An alternative is to retire whole farms, perhaps one in ten, and concentrate restoration efforts in fewer larger blocks. This will provide large areas (>100 ha) of good quality land for restoration but will need broad community support. Rather than purchasing farms, owners should be paid to remain on the land and do the restoration work. This restoration program will take a 100 or more years to produce self-sustaining woodland habitats that the birds can use. In the interim the declining species will need to be managed wisely and intensively so that they will still be present in the landscape to colonize the new habitats. At present there is inadequate information about how to construct woodland habitats as opposed to just planting woodland species. There is also inadequate information on the ecology of the birds. Considerable research and adaptive management is needed to address the information gaps and to build the capacity to implement holistic recovery programs. There is an urgency to take action, since the longer we delay the fewer species that will be conserved. Future generations will not have the same opportunity.

Kings Park is a 400 ha reserve near the centre of the City of Perth, Western Australia. Two-hundred and sixtyseven hectares of the park remain as native vegetation and the park has a rich flora and fauna. Contributing importantly to the naturalness of Kings Park is its birdlife with more than 80 species having been recorded within the park's boundaries. Despite the large amount of native vegetation, Kings Park is not pristine and has been changed in many ways by human activities since the settlement of Perth by Europeans in 1829. These changes to the park, as well as changes to the urban matrix in which the park is found, coupled with regional changes outside the urban environment, have produced a dynamic and changing avifauna. Census data are available for a transect through Kings Park from 1928 to 2002. Between 1928 and 2002, 61 species of birds, excluding waterbirds, were recorded along the transect. Of these, 20 % increased in abundance and 40 % decreased with 10 species proceeding to local extinction. Since 1928, Kings Park and the urban landscape of Perth has been increasingly dominated by large nectar-feeding and seed-eating birds. Small insectivores, particularly ground and shrub foragers, have declined in abundance or become locally extinct. Despite the array of changes in the avifauna, the birds of Kings Park are as rich and probably as abundant as they were in 1928 when censuses commenced. The avifauna is just different. Keeping birds in Kings Park and the urban environment requires no special attention. However, if small birds and insectivores are desired, changes need to be made not only to the management of the park, but to the way vegetation in the urban matrix is managed. Foremost among the changes needed is the progressive replacement of exotic trees and shrubs along roads and in parks and gardens with indigenous species and the creation of complex foliage structures. This is necessary to foster an abundant arthropod fauna for insectivores to feed upon and to provide the kinds of habitats such birds require. Whether such changes are essential or even desirable depends on the reasons why people want birds about them in the city and suburbs. It may be that it is only important to have birds and not important as to which species are represented.

The management of flying-fox camps is pivotal to the overall conservation and management of flying-foxes. This paper employs an historical approach to assess the effectiveness of camp removal in the Brisbane area as a tool in the management of flying-foxes. Much of what has been learnt in the last 25 years has been thrust upon us by hasty and unplanned attempts to remove flying-fox camps. There have been many attempts, many failures and only a few claims of success in moving flying-fox camps. None of the claimed successes has ever been monitored in such a way that their effectiveness can be adequately assessed with any confidence. Long term observations suggest that, in moving a flying-fox camp, the problem is merely transferred to other areas, and the whole process starts all over again with a new lot of players. There is still more that we need to know to successfully address camp management. The microclimate of camps needs more research, as does the seeding of new areas with ground litter containing flying-fox droppings, and the location of orphan release cages set up in prospective new camp sites. Nevertheless, it is apparent that in the future it will make more sense to manage flying-fox camps where they are and use strategies to lessen the impact on people who object to their presence.