Identifying unidirectional and dynamic habitat filters to faunal recolonisation in restored mine-pits

  • Published source details Craig M.D., Hardy G.E.S.J., Fontaine J.B., Garkakalis M.J., Grigg A.H., Grant C.D., Fleming P.A. & Hobbs R.J. (2012) Identifying unidirectional and dynamic habitat filters to faunal recolonisation in restored mine-pits. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 919-928


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Restore former mining sites

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Restore former mining sites

    A replicated, site comparison study in 2005–2006 of two former mines in jarrah forests in Western Australia, Australia (Craig et al. 2012) found that in restored areas, overall mammal species richness was higher, native mammal species richness was similar, and differences in mammal abundances were mixed compared to unmined sites. Overall mammal species richness was higher in restored sites (2.4 species/site) than in unmined sites (0.4 species/site), but native species richness did not differ (data not reported). In three of four restoration age comparisons, there were more individuals in restored sites than in unmined sites for both house mice Mus musculus (1.7–4.0 vs 0 animals/grid) and western pygmy possum Cercartetus concinnus (0.9–1.0 vs 0.3 animals/grid). In three of four restoration age comparisons, there were fewer individuals in restoration sites than in unmined sites for common brushtailed possums Trichosurus vulpecula (0–0.8 vs 1 animals/grid) and yellow-footed antechinus Altechinus flavipes (0.8–1.8 grid vs 2 animals/grid). Small mammals were surveyed across two mine areas at sites where restoration commenced 4, 8, 12 and 17 years earlier (total six sites for each age class) and in six unmined forest sites. Mammals were trapped using grids with nine pitfall traps, four Elliott traps and Sheffield cage-traps, set along drift-fencing at each site. Traps were set for four nights/season, totalling 1,728 trap nights/treatment.

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust