https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Index ${session.getAttribute("locale")} 5 https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35505 Tue 25 Jul 2023 09:29:43 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:39160 Tue 09 Aug 2022 14:05:30 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:1348 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:32:41 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:1431 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:28:02 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:12362 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:18:32 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:17479 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:04:10 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:20082 Sat 24 Mar 2018 08:00:08 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:26282 Litoria aurea) has a number of behavioural traits which suggest conspecific attraction occurs via a vocal mechanism, including a loud conspicuous call and large chorusing aggregations. To date, attempts to repopulate restored and created habitat through natural immigration and active translocation of tadpoles and juveniles have been met with limited success for this species. We used L. aurea to determine if distribution could be manipulated via conspecific attraction using artificial communication cues. We placed speaker systems in uninhabited areas of five inhabited ponds across two locations and broadcast calls of L. aurea to see if we could manipulate distribution into previously unoccupied pond areas. Surveys undertaken before and after broadcast indicate that we successfully manipulated L. aurea distribution for adults increasing both occupancy and calling around the speaker locations. This occurred in four of five replicate ponds over three months of experimental treatment, but controls remained low in abundance. We suggest that manipulation of distribution via conspecific attraction mechanisms could be a useful conservation tool for endangered amphibian habitat restoration and creation programmes, resulting in increased occupancy and programme success.]]> Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:40:12 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:26808 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:36:28 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:26627 Sat 24 Mar 2018 07:26:50 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:51249 Mon 28 Aug 2023 12:29:36 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:33359 n = 427 kraal months) where lions (Panthera leo) frequently kill cattle. Monthly kraal use was 60% and was significantly influenced by kraal type, age, and shape. When used and maintained, kraals stopped livestock depredation. Due to poor maintenance, however, kraal age had a significant, negative influence on kraal use and effectiveness, compromising sustainability and cost-effectiveness. Fortified kraals built by a non-governmental organisation cost US$1322.36 per unit (n = 20) and mitigated a mean annual loss of $187.32. This suggests cost-recuperation after 7.0 years, or 2.3 times longer than observed kraal lifetime. Conversely, owner-built replicates cost $579.90 per unit (n = 4), recuperating investment after 3.1 years. Owner satisfaction was significantly higher for fortified kraals when compared with traditional kraals. However, owners of fortified kraals did not kraal their cattle more frequently than owners of traditional kraals. Regionally, the mean annual kraaling rate for 29 GPS-monitored cattle herds (n = 3360 nights) was 40%, leaving cattle vulnerable to depredation, and highlighting the importance of promoting vigilant herding together with kraaling to prevent losses. This combination could reduce regional livestock losses by 80%, or >$38,000 annually, however, kraal fortification alone does not provide a blanket solution to carnivore conflicts in Africa's agro-pastoral landscapes.]]> Mon 22 Feb 2021 16:11:52 AEDT ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:35267 Mon 08 Jul 2019 10:13:22 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:41219 Fri 29 Jul 2022 09:46:33 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:40451 Angophora, Corymbia, Eucalyptus) within Australia were assessed using IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Overall, 193 (23%) eucalypts qualified as threatened and 36 were considered Data Deficient. One hundred and thirty-four threatened species qualified under criterion A2, representing a past and irreversible population decline of >30%. The remainder were narrow-range species with ongoing threats (mostly mining or urbanisation), or naturally rare. Habitat conversion to crops and pastures was the cause of decline for most threatened eucalypts. Threatened species were concentrated where deforestation and high eucalypt richness coincide, especially south-western Western Australia. Corymbia or Angophora species, and relatively few tropical eucalypts are threatened. Fire, timber harvesting and disease were rarely sufficient threats to eucalypts to warrant a threatened status. Sheep grazing limits regeneration in temperate woodlands, but requires further quantification for individual species. Prior to this study, 89 eucalypts were listed as threatened under Australian environmental law. This assessment recommends that 32 of these species be downgraded to Near Threatened or Least Concern. A further 11 species were identified as Data Deficient, while an additional 147 species were proposed for listing as threatened. This systematic assessment of Australian eucalypts emphasises the importance of decline rather than rarity when compared with previous listings, with broad implications for listing long-lived plants in deforested landscapes.]]> Fri 22 Jul 2022 14:58:21 AEST ]]> https://ogma.newcastle.edu.au/vital/access/ /manager/Repository/uon:47350 Fri 13 Jan 2023 13:12:36 AEDT ]]>