Creating wildlife habitat using artificial structures: a review of their efficacy and potential use in solar farms

The biodiversity crisis is exacerbated by a growing human population modifying nearly three-quarters of the Earth's land surface area for anthropogenic uses. Habitat loss and modification represent the largest threat to biodiversity and finding ways to offset species decline has been a significant undertaking for conservation. Landscape planning and conservation strategies can enhance habitat suitability for biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Artificial habitat structures such as artificial reefs, nest boxes, chainsaw hollows, artificial burrows, and artificial hibernacula have all been successfully implemented to improve species survival in human-modified and fragmented landscapes. As the global shift towards renewable energy sources continues to rise, the development of photovoltaic systems is growing exponentially. Large-scale renewable projects, such as photovoltaic solar farms have large space requirements and thus have the potential to displace local wildlife. We discuss the feasibility of 'conservoltaic systems' - photovoltaic systems that incorporate elements tailored specifically to enhance wildlife habitat suitability and species conservation. Artificial habitat structures can potentially lessen the impacts of industrial development (e.g., photovoltaic solar farms) through strategic landscape planning and an understanding of local biodiversity requirements to facilitate recolonization.

Self-made home: how and where does the anuran Rhinella dorbignyi build its retreat sites

ABSTRACT In this study, we observed that burrows of Rhinella dorbignyi (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) are distributed in a non-random manner in the habitat, suggesting a microhabitat selection for digging. This conclusion was based on a characterization of 36 burrows and surrounding micro-habitat. We established a 1 m x 1 m quadrat with the burrow in its central point (n=36) to measure the percentage (density) and the average heights of grasses, herbs, and shrubs. All measurements were repeated in two unused quadrats (without burrows) to evaluate the available microhabitat (n=72). The burrows are built in specific areas of the habitat with a higher percentage of grass, taller herbs, lower density of shrubs and low shaded sites than the founded at control sites. Based on three-dimensional models of the interior of the burrow (n=15), we observed that all of them were constructed with an elliptical opening that opens into a narrow channel perpendicular to the ground. Channels had a mean maximum diameter of 38 mm and a mean minimum diameter of 18 mm. The mean length of the burrows is 182 mm, and the mean volume is 95 mL.

Artificial refuges for wildlife conservation: what is the state of the science?

Artificial refuges are human-made structures that aim to create safe places for animals to breed, hibernate, or take shelter in lieu of natural refuges. Artificial refuges are used across the globe to mitigate the impacts of a variety of threats on wildlife, such as habitat loss and degradation. However, there is little understanding of the science underpinning artificial refuges, and what comprises best practice for artificial refuge design and implementation for wildlife conservation. We address this gap by undertaking a systematic review of the current state of artificial refuge research for the conservation of wildlife. We identified 224 studies of artificial refuges being implemented in the field to conserve wildlife species. The current literature on artificial refuges is dominated by studies of arboreal species, primarily birds and bats. Threatening processes addressed by artificial refuges were biological resource use (26%), invasive or problematic species (20%), and agriculture (15%), yet few studies examined artificial refuges specifically for threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) species (7%). Studies often reported the characteristics of artificial refuges (i.e. refuge size, construction materials; 87%) and surrounding vegetation (35%), but fewer studies measured the thermal properties of artificial refuges (18%), predator activity (17%), or food availability (3%). Almost all studies measured occupancy of the artificial refuges by target species (98%), and over half measured breeding activity (54%), whereas fewer included more detailed measures of fitness, such as breeding productivity (34%) or animal body condition (4%). Evaluating the benefits and impacts of artificial refuges requires sound experimental design, but only 39% of studies compared artificial refuges to experimental controls, and only 10% of studies used a before-after-control-impact (BACI) design. As a consequence, few studies of artificial refuges can determine their overall effect on individuals or populations. We outline a series of key steps in the design, implementation, and monitoring of artificial refuges that are required to avoid perverse outcomes and maximise the chances of achieving conservation objectives. This review highlights a clear need for increased rigour in studies of artificial refuges if they are to play an important role in wildlife conservation.