With progressively increasing anthropogenic habitat disturbances, restoration of impacted landscapes is becoming a critical element of biodiversity conservation. Evaluation of success in restoration ecology rarely includes faunal components, usually only encompassing abiotic and floral components of the ecosystems. Even when fauna is explicitly included, it is usually only species presence/absence criteria that are considered. If restoration is to have a positive outcome, however, populations in restored habitats should exhibit comparable survival and reproductive rates to populations found in undisturbed surroundings. If a species recolonises restored areas but later experiences decreased fitness, restored areas could become ecological sinks or traps. We investigated this possibility in a case study of koalas Phascolarctos cinereus occupying rehabilitated mining areas on North Stradbroke Island, Australia. Our holistic approach compared rehabilitated and undisturbed areas on the basis of their vegetation characteristics, of koalas' body condition, roosting trees, diet, as well as predator index. Koalas using rehabilitated areas appeared to be able to access an adequate supply of roosting and fodder trees, were in good condition and had high reproductive output. We did not find any significant differences in predator density between rehabilitated areas and undisturbed surroundings. The results presented in this study showed there was no evidence that the post-mining rehabilitated areas constitute ecological sinks or traps. However, to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether areas rehabilitated post-mining provide at least equivalent habitat to undisturbed locations, additional research could be undertaken to assess foliar nutrient/water/toxin differences and predation risk in rehabilitated areas compared with undisturbed areas. More generally, the evaluation of whether restoration successfully produces a functional ecological community should include criteria on the fitness of faunal populations reoccupying such sites, so as to ensure functioning ecosystems, rather than ecological sinks or traps, are the outcome.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2015.
All research outputs
#12,344,472
of 34,361,833 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#108,077
of 224,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,179
of 373,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,857
of 5,702 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,361,833 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,702 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
