Habitat value of, and social attitudes towards, dead trees in Canberra’s urban forest

References

• Aakala T, Kuuluvainen T, Gauthier S, De Grandpré L. 2008. Standing dead trees and their decay-class dynamics in the northeastern boreal old-growth forests of Quebec. Forest Ecology and Management. 255:410–420. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.09.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Act Government Information Portal. 2014. Trees [Online]. Canberra (Australia): ACT Government Information Portal; [accessed 2017 Dec 5]. Available from: https://www.act.gov.au/browse/topics/environment/trees
   Google Scholar
• Altmann J. 1974. Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour. 49:227–267. doi:10.1163/156853974X00534.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amato KR, Van Belle S, Wilkinson B. 2013. A comparison of scan and focal sampling for the description of wild primate activity, diet and intragroup spatial relationships. Folia Primatologica. 84:87–101. doi:10.1159/000348305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arias-García J, Serrano-Montes JL, Gómez-Zotano J. 2016. Fauna in wetland landscapes: a perception approach. Landscape Research. 41:510–523. doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1081160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azorín JM, Cameron R. 2010. The application of mixed methods in organisational research: a literature review. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 8:95–105.
   Google Scholar
• Banks JC, Brack CL, James RN. 1999. Modelling changes in dimensions, health status and arboricultural implications for urban trees. Urban Ecosystems. 3:35–43. doi:10.1023/A:1009509519236.
   Google Scholar
• Banks JCG, Brack CL. 2003. Canberra’s urban forest: evolution and planning for future landscapes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 1:151–160. doi:10.1078/1618-8667-00015.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett T, Love J. 2012. Fine scale modelling of fauna habitat and connectivity values in the ACT Region. In: Conservation Planning and Research, Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate ACT Government, editor. Sydney (Australia): NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett AF, Ford LA. 1997. Land use, habitat change and the conservation of birds in fragmented rural environments: a landscape perspective from the Northern Plains, Victoria, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology. 3(3):244–261. doi:10.1071/PC970244.
   Google Scholar
• Blackstock TH, Burrows CR, Howe EA, Stevens DP, Stevens JP. 2007. Habitat inventory at a regional scale: a comparison of estimates of terrestrial broad habitat cover from stratified sample field survey and full census field survey for Wales, UK. Journal of Environmental Management. 85:224–231. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brack CL. 2002. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environmental Pollution. 116:S195–S200. doi:10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00251-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandeis TJ, Newton M, Filip GM, Cole EC. 2002. Cavity-nester habitat development in artificially made Douglas-fir snags. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:625–633. doi:10.2307/3803129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunner H, Amor RL, Stevens PL. 1976. The use of predator scat analysis in a mammal survey at Dartmouth in North-Eastern Victoria. Wildlife Research. 3:85–90. doi:10.1071/WR9760085.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers CL, Mast JN. 2005. Ponderosa pine snag dynamics and cavity excavation following wildfire in northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management. 216:227–240. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen B, Qi X, Qiu Z. 2018. Recreational use of urban forest parks: a case study in Fuzhou National Forest Park, China. Journal of Forest Research. 23:183–189. doi:10.1080/13416979.2018.1432304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cline SP, Berg AB, Wight HM. 1980. Snag characteristics and dynamics in douglas-fir forests, Western Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 44:773–786. doi:10.2307/3808305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cousins SJM, Battles JJ, Sanders JE, York RA. 2015. Decay patterns and carbon density of standing dead trees in California mixed conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 353:136–147. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Bitetti MS. 1997. Evidence for an important social role of allogrooming in a platyrrhine primate. Animal Behaviour. 54:199–211. doi:10.1006/anbe.1996.0416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doerr ED, Doerr VA, Davies MJ, McGinness HM. 2014. Does structural connectivity facilitate movement of native species in Australia’s fragmented landscapes?: a systematic review protocol. Environmental Evidence. 3:1–8. doi:10.1186/2047-2382-3-9.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer JF, Schroeder HW, Gobster PH. 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture. 17:276–284.
   Google Scholar
• Elix JA. 2016. New species of Gassicurtia and Stigmatochroma (Physciaceae, Ascomycota) from Queensland, Australia. Australasian Lichenology. 79:3–9.
   Google Scholar
• Eltz T, Brühl CA, Imiyabir Z, Linsenmair KE. 2003. Nesting and nest trees of stingless bees (Apidae: meliponini) in lowland dipterocarp forests in Sabah, Malaysia, with implications for forest management. Forest Ecology and Management. 172:301–313. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00792-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eyre TJ. 2005. Hollow-bearing trees in large glider habitat in south-east Queensland, Australia: abundance, spatial distribution and management. Pacific Conservation Biology. 11:23–37. doi:10.1071/PC050023.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson SH, Archibald DJ. 2002. The 3/4 power law in forest management: how to grow dead trees. Forest Ecology and Management. 169:283–292. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00766-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2002. The conservation value of paddock trees for birds in a variegated landscape in southern New South Wales. 2. Paddock trees as stepping stones. Biodiversity and Conservation. 11:833–849. doi:10.1023/A:1015318328007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foit J. 2015. Factors affecting the occurrence of bark- and wood-boring beetles on Scots pine logging residues from pre-commercial thinning. Entomologica Fennica. 26:74–87. doi:10.33338/ef.84634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franklin JF, Shugart HH, Harmon ME. 1987. Tree death as an ecological process. BioScience. 37:550–556. doi:10.2307/1310665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fröhlich A, Ciach M. 2020. Dead tree branches in urban forests and private gardens are key habitat components for woodpeckers in a city matrix. Landscape and Urban Planning. 202:103869. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garroway CJ. 2013. Emergent social structure and collective behaviour from individual decision-making in wild birds [PhD thesis]. Oxford (UK): University of Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons P, Lindenmayer DB, Barry SC, Tanton MT. 2002. Hollow selection by vertebrate fauna in forests of southeastern Australia and implications for forest management. Biological Conservation. 103:1–12. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00109-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldingay RL. 2009. Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian birds and bats. Wildlife Research. 36:394–409. doi:10.1071/WR08172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldingay RL. 2011. Characteristics of tree hollows used by Australian arboreal and scansorial mammals. Australian Journal of Zoology. 59:277–294. doi:10.1071/ZO11081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gompper ME, Kays RW, Ray JC, Lapoint SD, Bogan DA, Cryan JR. 2006. A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in Northeastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34:1142–1151. doi:10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1142:ACONTT]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Google Maps. 2016. Canberra, Australia. Available from: https://www.google.com.au/maps:Google
   Google Scholar
• Gundersen V, Helge Frivold L. 2011. Naturally dead and downed wood in Norwegian boreal forests: public preferences and the effect of information. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 26:110–119. doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.536567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen-Møller J, Oustrup L. 2004. Emotional, physical/functional and symbolic aspects of an urban forest in Denmark to nearby residents. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement. 19:56–64. doi:10.1080/14004080410034065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon. 1982. Decomposition of standing dead trees in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Oecologia. 52:214–215. doi:10.1007/BF00363839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper MJ, McCarthy MA, Van Der Ree R. 2005. The abundance of hollow-bearing trees in urban dry sclerophyll forest and the effect of wind on hollow development. Biological Conservation. 122:181–192. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.07.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattam C, Böhnke-Henrichs A, Börger T, Burdon D, Hadjimichael M, Delaney A, Atkins JP, Garrard S, Austen MC. 2015. Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: mixed methods or mixed messages? Ecological Economics. 120:126–138. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbert D, Roman L, Koeser A, Vogt J, Van Doorn N. 2019. Urban tree mortality: a literature review. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 45:167–200. doi:10.48044/jauf.2019.015.
   Google Scholar
• Irwin LL, Rock DF, Miller GP. 2000. Stand structures used by northern spotted owls in managed forests. Journal of Raptor Research. 34:175–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson R. 1947. Role of male yellow-bellied sapsucker in the care of the young. The Auk. 64:621–623. doi:10.2307/4080729.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher. 33:14–28. doi:10.3102/0013189X033007014.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Turner LA. 2007. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 1:112–133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay GM, Michael DR, Crane M, Okada S, MacGregor C, Florance D, Trengove D, McBurney L, Blair D, Lindenmayer DB. 2013. A list of reptiles and amphibians from Box Gum Grassy Woodlands in south-eastern Australia. Check List. 9:476–481. doi:10.15560/9.3.476.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick JB, Davison A, Harwood A. 2013. How tree professionals perceive trees and conflicts about trees in Australia’s urban forest. Landscape and Urban Planning. 119:124–130. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koeser AK, Hauer RJ, Miesbauer JW, Ward P. 2016. Municipal tree risk assessment in the United States: findings from a comprehensive survey of urban forest management. Arboricultural Journal. 38:218–229. doi:10.1080/03071375.2016.1221178.
   Google Scholar
• Köhler G, Diethert -H-H, Nussbaum RA, Raxworthy CJ. 2009. A revision of the fish scale geckos, genus Geckolepis grandidier (Squamata, Gekkonidae) from Madagascar and the Comoros. Herpetologica. 65:419–435. doi:10.1655/08-059.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronestedt T. 1994. A case of heterospecific mating in wolf spiders (Araneae, Lycosidae). The Journal of Arachnology. 22:84–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lancaster RK, Rees WE. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 57:2358–2368. doi:10.1139/z79-307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Roux DS, Ikin K, Lindenmayer DB, Blanchard W, Manning AD, Gibbons P. 2014. Reduced availability of habitat structures in urban landscapes: implications for policy and practice. Landscape and Urban Planning. 125:57–64. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Roux DS, Ikin K, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD, Gibbons P. 2014. The future of large old trees in urban landscapes. PLoS ONE. 9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard L, Albert M, Levinson W. 2008. Grounded theory, mixed methods, and action research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 337:a567–a567. doi:10.1136/bmj.39602.690162.47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr VI, Pearson-Mims CH, Tarnai J, Dillman DA. 2004. How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture. 30:28–35.
   Google Scholar
• Lorenzo AB, Blanche CA, Qi Y, Guidry MM. 2000. Assessing residents’ willingness to pay to preserve the community urban forest: a small-city case study. Journal of Arboriculture. 26:319–325.
   Google Scholar
• Loyn RH, Kennedy SJ. 2009. Designing old forest for the future: old trees as habitat for birds in forests of Mountain Ash Eucalyptus regnans. Forest Ecology and Management. 258:504–515. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning A, Wood J, Cunningham R, McIntyre S, Shorthouse D, Gordon I, Lindenmayer D. 2011. Integrating research and restoration: the establishment of a long-term woodland experiment in south-eastern Australia. Australian Zoologist. 35:633–648. doi:10.7882/AZ.2011.016.
   Google Scholar
• Martin P, Bateson P. 2007. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mawson PR, Long JL. 1994. Size and age parameters of nest trees used by four species of parrot and one species of cockatoo in South-West Australia. Emu. 94:149–155. doi:10.1071/MU9940149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McClelland BR, Frissell SS. 1975. Identifying forest snags useful for hole-nesting birds. Journal of Forestry. 73:414–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. 2005. Forest and woodland stand structural complexity: its definition and measurement. Forest Ecology and Management. 218:1–24. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.08.034.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McElhinny C, Gibbons P, Brack C, Bauhus J. 2006. Fauna-habitat relaionships: a basis for identifying key stand structural attributes in temperate Australian eucalypt forests and woodlands. Pacific Conservation Biology. 12:89–110. doi:10.1071/PC060089.
   Google Scholar
• McPherson G, Simpson JR, Peper PJ, Maco SE, Xiao Q. 2005. Municipal forest benefits and costs in five US cities. Journal of Forestry. 103:411–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nappi A, Drapeau P, Giroux JF, Savard JPL. 2003. Snag use by foraging black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) in a recently burned eastern boreal forest. Auk. 120:505–511. doi:10.1093/auk/120.2.505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notley H, Grimwood C, Raw G, Moon N. 2012. The UK national noise attitude survey 2012 – description of the survey methodology and questionnaire design. 41st International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering; Aug 19–22; New York, NY. INTER-NOISE 2021. Indianapolis (IN): Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE).
   Google Scholar
• Pelyukh O, Paletto A, Zahvoyska L. 2019. People’s attitudes towards deadwood in forest: evidence from the Ukrainian Carpathians. Journal of Forest Science. 65:171–182. doi:10.17221/144/2018-JFS.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Recher H, Holmes R, Schulz M, Shields J, Kavanagh R. 1985. Foraging patterns of breeding birds in eucalypt forest and woodland of southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 10:399–419. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1985.tb00902.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roman LA, Battles JJ, McBride JR. 2014. The balance of planting and mortality in a street tree population. Urban Ecosystems. 17:387–404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowell DM, Avilés L. 1995. Sociality in a bark-dwelling huntsman spider from Australia, Delena cancerides Walckenaer (Araneae: sparassidae). Insectes Sociaux. 42:287–302. doi:10.1007/BF01240423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satoh T, Yoshida T, Koyama S, Yamagami A, Takata M, Doi H, Kurachi T, Hayashi S, Hirobe T, Hata Y. 2016. Resource partitioning based on body size contributes to the species diversity of wood-boring beetles and arboreal nesting ants. Insect Conservation and Diversity. 9:4–12. doi:10.1111/icad.12136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders DA, Mawson PR, Dawson R. 2014. Use of tree hollows by Carnaby’s cockatoo and the fate of large hollow-bearing trees at Coomallo Creek, Western Australia 1969–2013. Biological Conservation. 177:185–193. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder H, Flannigan J, Coles R. 2006. Resident’s attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 32:236–246.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair R. 2004. Persistence of dead trees and fallen timber in the arid zone: 76 years of data from the T.G.B. Osborn Vegetation Reserve, Koonamore, South Australia. Rangeland Journal. 26:111–122. doi:10.1071/RJ04008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smyth A, Mac Nally R, Lamb D. 2002. Comparative influence of forest management and habitat structural factors on the abundances of hollow-nesting bird species in subtropical Australian eucalypt forest. Environmental Management. 30:547–559. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2678-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer R, Guenther H, Barker PA, Swenson JP. 1993. Comparison of four methods of street tree assessment. Journal of Arboriculture. 19:27–34.
   Google Scholar
• Stagoll K, Lindenmayer DB, Knight E, Fischer J, Manning AD. 2012. Large trees are keystone structures in urban parks. Conversation Letter. 2:115–122.
   Google Scholar
• Triggs B. 2004. Tracks, scats, and other traces: a field guide to Australian mammals. Melbourne (Australia): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyrväinen L. 2001. Economic valuation of urban forest benefits in Finland. Journal of Environmental Management. 62:75–92. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaillancourt MA, Drapeau P, Gauthier S, Robert M. 2008. Availability of standing trees for large cavity-nesting birds in the eastern boreal forest of Québec, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management. 255:2272–2285. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walter ST, Maguire CC. 2005. Snags, cavity-nesting birds, and silvicultural treatments in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69:1578–1591. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1578:SCBAST]2.0.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webala PW, Craig MD, Law BS, Wayne AF, Bradley JS. 2010. Roost site selection by southern forest bat Vespadelus regulus and Gould’s long-eared bat Nyctophilus gouldi in logged jarrah forests; south-western Australia. Forest Ecology and Management. 260:1780–1790. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2010.08.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wodonga City Council. 2018. Wodonga roadside vegetation management plan 2018 to 2021. Wodonga (Australia):Wodonga City Council.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf KL. 2003. Public response to the urban forest in inner-city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture. 29:117–126.
   Google Scholar