Extreme mobility of the world's largest flying mammals creates key challenges for management and conservation.


Journal

BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 08 2020
Historique:
received: 20 01 2020
accepted: 13 07 2020
entrez: 22 8 2020
pubmed: 21 8 2020
medline: 10 4 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Effective conservation management of highly mobile species depends upon detailed knowledge of movements of individuals across their range; yet, data are rarely available at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. Flying-foxes (Pteropus spp.) are large bats that forage by night on floral resources and rest by day in arboreal roosts that may contain colonies of many thousands of individuals. They are the largest mammals capable of powered flight, and are highly mobile, which makes them key seed and pollen dispersers in forest ecosystems. However, their mobility also facilitates transmission of zoonotic diseases and brings them in conflict with humans, and so they require a precarious balancing of conservation and management concerns throughout their Old World range. Here, we analyze the Australia-wide movements of 201 satellite-tracked individuals, providing unprecedented detail on the inter-roost movements of three flying-fox species: Pteropus alecto, P. poliocephalus, and P. scapulatus across jurisdictions over up to 5 years. Individuals were estimated to travel long distances annually among a network of 755 roosts (P. alecto, 1427-1887 km; P. poliocephalus, 2268-2564 km; and P. scapulatus, 3782-6073 km), but with little uniformity among their directions of travel. This indicates that flying-fox populations are composed of extremely mobile individuals that move nomadically and at species-specific rates. Individuals of all three species exhibited very low fidelity to roosts locally, resulting in very high estimated daily colony turnover rates (P. alecto, 11.9 ± 1.3%; P. poliocephalus, 17.5 ± 1.3%; and P. scapulatus, 36.4 ± 6.5%). This indicates that flying-fox roosts form nodes in a vast continental network of highly dynamic "staging posts" through which extremely mobile individuals travel far and wide across their species ranges. The extreme inter-roost mobility reported here demonstrates the extent of the ecological linkages that nomadic flying-foxes provide across Australia's contemporary fragmented landscape, with profound implications for the ecosystem services and zoonotic dynamics of flying-fox populations. In addition, the extreme mobility means that impacts from local management actions can readily reverberate across jurisdictions throughout the species ranges; therefore, local management actions need to be assessed with reference to actions elsewhere and hence require national coordination. These findings underscore the need for sound understanding of animal movement dynamics to support evidence-based, transboundary conservation and management policy, tailored to the unique movement ecologies of species.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Effective conservation management of highly mobile species depends upon detailed knowledge of movements of individuals across their range; yet, data are rarely available at appropriate spatiotemporal scales. Flying-foxes (Pteropus spp.) are large bats that forage by night on floral resources and rest by day in arboreal roosts that may contain colonies of many thousands of individuals. They are the largest mammals capable of powered flight, and are highly mobile, which makes them key seed and pollen dispersers in forest ecosystems. However, their mobility also facilitates transmission of zoonotic diseases and brings them in conflict with humans, and so they require a precarious balancing of conservation and management concerns throughout their Old World range. Here, we analyze the Australia-wide movements of 201 satellite-tracked individuals, providing unprecedented detail on the inter-roost movements of three flying-fox species: Pteropus alecto, P. poliocephalus, and P. scapulatus across jurisdictions over up to 5 years.
RESULTS
Individuals were estimated to travel long distances annually among a network of 755 roosts (P. alecto, 1427-1887 km; P. poliocephalus, 2268-2564 km; and P. scapulatus, 3782-6073 km), but with little uniformity among their directions of travel. This indicates that flying-fox populations are composed of extremely mobile individuals that move nomadically and at species-specific rates. Individuals of all three species exhibited very low fidelity to roosts locally, resulting in very high estimated daily colony turnover rates (P. alecto, 11.9 ± 1.3%; P. poliocephalus, 17.5 ± 1.3%; and P. scapulatus, 36.4 ± 6.5%). This indicates that flying-fox roosts form nodes in a vast continental network of highly dynamic "staging posts" through which extremely mobile individuals travel far and wide across their species ranges.
CONCLUSIONS
The extreme inter-roost mobility reported here demonstrates the extent of the ecological linkages that nomadic flying-foxes provide across Australia's contemporary fragmented landscape, with profound implications for the ecosystem services and zoonotic dynamics of flying-fox populations. In addition, the extreme mobility means that impacts from local management actions can readily reverberate across jurisdictions throughout the species ranges; therefore, local management actions need to be assessed with reference to actions elsewhere and hence require national coordination. These findings underscore the need for sound understanding of animal movement dynamics to support evidence-based, transboundary conservation and management policy, tailored to the unique movement ecologies of species.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32819385
doi: 10.1186/s12915-020-00829-w
pii: 10.1186/s12915-020-00829-w
pmc: PMC7440933
doi:

Banques de données

figshare
['10.5061/dryad.mcvdncjz2']

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

101

Subventions

Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI110964
Pays : United States
Organisme : Australian Research Council (AU)
ID : DP170104272
Pays : International
Organisme : Australian Research Council (AU)
ID : DP110104186
Pays : International

Références

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2018 May 5;373(1745):
pubmed: 29531151
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 01;10(12):e0144055
pubmed: 26625128
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Apr 7;275(1636):861-9
pubmed: 18198149
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 17;9(6):e99965
pubmed: 24936789
Trends Ecol Evol. 2008 Nov;23(11):638-47
pubmed: 18823680
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 15;8(11):e80897
pubmed: 24260503
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 2;107(5):2078-81
pubmed: 20080662
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019 Sep 30;374(1782):20190224
pubmed: 31401958
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Feb 22;275(1633):419-25
pubmed: 18048286
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42532
pubmed: 22880021
Ecology. 2006 Feb;87(2):271-6
pubmed: 16637350
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0128835
pubmed: 26060997
Vet Rec. 2004 May 22;154(21):664
pubmed: 15198316
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 15;9(1):10222
pubmed: 31308411
Ecohealth. 2016 Mar;13(1):26-38
pubmed: 26403793
Emerg Infect Dis. 1996 Oct-Dec;2(4):327-31
pubmed: 8969249
Oecologia. 2011 Mar;165(3):629-37
pubmed: 21153744
Adv Genet. 2008;60:293-308
pubmed: 18358325
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 08;9(10):e109810
pubmed: 25295724
One Health. 2015 Aug 07;1:24-30
pubmed: 28616461
Ecol Lett. 2012 Feb;15(2):104-10
pubmed: 22093885
Ecol Appl. 2012 Jan;22(1):374-83
pubmed: 22471097
Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Jun 22;280(1761):20130325
pubmed: 23760637
Aust Vet J. 2008 Nov;86(11):449-54
pubmed: 18959537
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Dec 22;278(1725):3703-12
pubmed: 21561971
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 14;10(10):e0138985
pubmed: 26465139
Ecohealth. 2010 Jun;7(2):204-12
pubmed: 20645122
BMC Ecol. 2019 Aug 7;19(1):30
pubmed: 31391040
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e14696
pubmed: 21358823
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 15;10(10):e0140670
pubmed: 26469523
Epidemiol Infect. 2019 Jan;147:e240
pubmed: 31364577
Proc Biol Sci. 1996 Apr 22;263(1369):497-502
pubmed: 8637931
J Gen Virol. 2000 Aug;81(Pt 8):1927-1932
pubmed: 10900029
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 15;11(6):e0155252
pubmed: 27304985

Auteurs

Justin A Welbergen (JA)

Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, 2753, Australia. J.Welbergen@westernsydney.edu.au.

Jessica Meade (J)

Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, 2753, Australia.

Hume E Field (HE)

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Ecohealth Alliance, New York, NY, 10001, USA.
School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia.

Daniel Edson (D)

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.

Lee McMichael (L)

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.
School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia.

Luke P Shoo (LP)

School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.

Jenny Praszczalek (J)

Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.

Craig Smith (C)

Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, Brisbane, QLD, 4001, Australia.

John M Martin (JM)

Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Institute for Science and Learning, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Mosman, NSW, 2088, Australia.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH