# Monitoring hunted species of cultural significance: Estimates of trends, population sizes and harvesting rates of flying-fox (Pteropus sp.) in New Caledonia

Malik Oedin, Fabrice Brescia, Mélanie Boissenin, Eric Vidal, Jean-Jérôme Cassan, Jean-Claude Hurlin, Alexandre Millon

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Malik Oedin, Fabrice Brescia, Mélanie Boissenin, Eric Vidal, Jean-Jérôme Cassan, et al.. Monitoring hunted species of cultural significance: Estimates of trends, population sizes and harvesting rates of flying-fox (Pteropus sp.) in New Caledonia. PLoS ONE, 2019, 14 (12), pp.e0224466. 10.1371/journal.pone.0224466. hal-02472291

HAL Id: hal-02472291

https://amu.hal.science/hal-02472291

Submitted on 10 Feb 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Monitoring hunted species of cultural significance: Estimates of trends, population sizes and harvesting rates of flying-fox (*Pteropus sp.*) in New Caledonia

Malik Oedin¹,², Fabrice Brescia¹*, Mélanie Boissenin¹, Eric Vidal²,³, Jean-Jérôme Cassan⁴, Jean-Claude Hurlin¹†, Alexandre Millon⁵

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

1 Institut Agronomique Néo-Calédonien (IAC), Equipe ARBOREAL (AgricultuRe BiOdiveRsité Et vALorisation) BP, Païta, Nouvelle-Calédonie, 2 Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie marine et continentale (IMBE), Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, Centre IRD Nouméa, Nouvelle-Calédonie, 3 UMR Entropie (IRD, Université de La Réunion, CNRS), Labex-Corail, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Nouvelle-Calédonie, 4 Province Nord, Direction du Développement Economique et de l'Environnement, Service impact environnemental et conservation (DDEE), Service impact environnemental & conservation, Koné, Nouvelle-Calédonie, 5 Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, IRD, Avignon Université, Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d'Ecologie marine et continentale (IMBE), Technopôle Arbois-Méditerranée, Aix-en-Provence, France

† Deceased.

* brescia@iac.nc

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Oedin M, Brescia F, Boissenin M, Vidal E, Cassan J-J, Hurlin J-C, et al. (2019) Monitoring hunted species of cultural significance: Estimates of trends, population sizes and harvesting rates of flying-fox (*Pteropus sp.*) in New Caledonia. PLoS ONE 14(12): e0224466. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224466

**Editor:** Mathew S. Crowther, University of Sydney, AUSTRALIA

**Received:** May 29, 2019

**Accepted:** October 14, 2019

**Published:** December 31, 2019

**Copyright:** © 2019 Oedin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** Time series of bat counts are provided as online supplementary material.

**Funding:** FB funded this study thanks to the support of the Northern Province of New Caledonia and Institut Agronomique Calédonien. MO received a PhD fellowship from the Southern Province of New Caledonia.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

## Abstract

Assessing population trends and their underlying factors is critical to propose efficient conservation actions. This assessment can be particularly challenging when dealing with highly mobile, shy and nocturnal animals such as flying-foxes. Here we investigated the dynamics of hunted populations of *Pteropus ornatus* and *P. tonganus* in the Northern Province of New Caledonia. First, an ethno-ecological survey involving 219 local experts identified 494 flying-fox roosts. Current status was assessed for 379 of them, among which 125 were no longer occupied, representing a loss of 33% over ca. 40 years. Second, species-specific counts conducted at 35 roosts, and a sample of animals killed by hunters, revealed that the endemic species, *P. ornatus*, was dominant (68.5%). Between 2010 and 2016, 30 roosts were counted annually during the pre-parturition period. Roosts size averaged 1,425 ± 2,151 individuals (N = 180 counts) and showed high among-year variations (roost-specific CV = 37–162%). If we recorded significant inter-annual variation, we did not detect a significant decline over the 7-yr period, although one roost went possibly extinct. Population size of the two species combined was estimated at 338,000–859,000 individuals distributed over ca. 400 roosts in the Northern Province. Flying-foxes are popular game species and constitute traditional food for all communities of New Caledonia. Annual bags derived from a food survey allowed us to estimate harvesting rates at 5–14%. Such a level of harvesting for species with a 'slow' demography, the occurrence of poaching and illegal trade, suggest the current species use might not be sustainable and further investigations are critically needed.
**Introduction**

In the current context of rapid loss of biodiversity [1], identifying wildlife populations at risk and implementing evidence-based conservation actions are priorities. Habitat loss and degradation, invasive species and overharvesting are the three main threats to biodiversity to date, with climate change possibly magnifying such effects [2–8]. When species are suffering from multiple threats simultaneously, it becomes urgent to transcend surveillance monitoring and implement adaptive management strategies [9].

Of the 65 taxa of flying-foxes (fruit bats of the genus *Pteropus*), those occurring on islands (53 species) are among those species facing multi-faceted threats [10–13]. The conservation of flying-foxes in tropical islands is of paramount importance as they are key species in the functioning of insular ecosystems [13,14], providing essential ecological services such as plant pollination and seed dispersal [15–17]. Most flying-fox species are hunted, legally or not, including species with vulnerable conservation status or worse (at least 49 species; [11,13]). Overexploitation and habitat loss have already led to the extinction of four species of flying-foxes and brought others to the verge of extinction, such as *Pteropus rodricensis*, *P. aruensis* or *P. pselaphon* [11]. Their habit of forming large camps for roosting during the day, gathering hundreds to thousands of individuals, makes flying-foxes particularly sensitive to hunting, with negative effects of disturbance of a large number of animals adding to mortality [10,12,18–20].

Over millennia, flying-foxes have co-existed with humans in South West Pacific islands and have, in many instances, become key elements to Melanesian cultures as totem animals, ceremonial food, and element of the manufacturing of sacred items (traditional currency or weapon) as well as medicine [21–24]. Yet, the spreading of firearms and the increase of recreational hunting by other communities currently challenge the concept of sustainable harvesting in many areas [11,13]. Ensuring the sustainability of such complex socio-ecological systems, involving species facing multi-faceted threats, is a major challenge ahead of conservation biologists [9,25,26]. However, very few perennial monitoring programs of flying-foxes dynamics are on-going (Australia, Madagascar and New Caledonia; [10,27,28], thereby preventing the assessment of population dynamics and the onset of effective conservation actions. This situation is partly due to the notorious difficulty of monitoring highly mobile, gregarious and nocturnal organisms such as flying-foxes [29]. Count data are then associated with high spatial and temporal variance, thus reducing the ability to detect significant population trends.

Bats are the only terrestrial native mammals of the New Caledonian archipelago (South Pacific, Melanesia), and this biodiversity hotspot is hosting four flying-fox species, three of them being endemic [30]. The two largest species, the endemic ornate flying-fox *Pteropus ornatus* (Gray, 1870) and the native Pacific flying-fox *Pteropus tonganus* (MacGillivray, 1960), are hunted for food by all communities inhabiting the island. Furthermore, flying-foxes play a central role in the culture of the Melanesian community (Kanak) [31,32] especially during the yam celebration, the main social event of the Kanak culture [33,34]. Flying-foxes have a relatively ‘slow’ demography (maximum one young per female per year) and their resilience to the current harvesting pressure in New Caledonia is unknown.

Here, in an attempt to provide first evidences about population dynamics and harvesting rates of flying-foxes in New Caledonia, we took advantage of expert interviews to gather local knowledge about location of diurnal roosts since the early 1970’s. This survey has led to a large-scale roost inventory in the largest region of New Caledonia, the Northern Province, to assess long-term persistence of flying-fox roosts as well as their specific composition. In addition, we analysed data from a sample of roosts that has been monitored annually in order to provide estimates for population size and trend (2010–2016). Combining such data to a recent household survey on food consumption, we derived harvesting rates for *Pteropus ornatus* and
*P. tonganus* combined. Finally, we discussed potential actions to be undertaken to ensure the long-term sustainability of flying-fox hunting in New Caledonia.

# Methods

## Model species

The ornate flying-fox *Pteropus ornatus* is one of the three species endemic to New Caledonia and considered as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2018). The Pacific flying-fox *P. tonganus* is widespread over South Pacific islands and considered as Least Concern [11]. Both species are large-bodied fruit bats with a wing-span of 100–110 cm and weight averaging 669 ± 69 g (N = 58) and 629 ± 73 g (N = 8) for adult *P. ornatus* and *P. tonganus*, respectively [27,35,36]. These two species occur over the whole New Caledonia and share ecological requirements to a large extent. Diurnal roosts typically gather the two species on the same trees.

*P. ornatus* and *P. tonganus* show similar reproductive schedules with mating occurring from March to May. The gestation period lasting about six months, most births are observed from mid-September to mid-November. Lactation spans until March/April, such that breeding females are involved in reproduction all year long (S1 Fig). Females can breed from the age of three years and raise one offspring per year (occurrence of twins being exceptionally recorded; [20,31,36]).

## Study area, expert interviews, roost inventory, count methods & annual bags

The surveys took place in the Northern Province of New Caledonia mainland (21.1° S, 164.9° E; 9583 km² i.e. 52% of the territory). It is composed of 203 Melanesian tribes (Kanak) in 17 municipalities and totalling 18.8% (50,487 people including 35.578 Kanaks) of the whole New Caledonian population [37]. A roost inventory was based on field records and interviews of local experts including hunters, naturalists, nature guides, wildlife rangers and land owners, from Kanak and other communities. The survey was completed between 2006 and 2009 and covered 87% of the Northern Province area. The experts were identified according to their local reputation regarding flying-fox knowledge. The interviews were conducted to collect expert knowledge about roost locations and their history (current status, disappearance or recent appearance). A total of 370 persons were interviewed among which 219 provided relevant information.

Following this survey, a sample of 35 roosts was selected in 2008, spread over the whole Northern Province and encompassing the whole range of roost size (35–4,000 bats) to estimate the relative proportion of the two species. Direct observations were made at large distance (>100m), with a 20×60 telescope to avoid disturbance. This study was approved by the environmental service of the Northern Province of New Caledonia. We got permission from all land owners in case roosts were located on private land. All detected individuals were identified as *P. ornatus* or *P. tonganus* based upon coat colour and the shape of the golden breast patch. The specific proportion obtained at each roost was then averaged across the 35 roosts and weighted by roost size (estimated with the same method as described below). To ascertain this specific proportion, we used an additional source of data based on a sample of animals killed by hunters. The mean proportion between these two independent datasets was used to derive the specific proportion and population size.

Between 2010 and 2016, thirty day roosts, for which the location allowed us to carry out proper counts, were chosen to conduct fly-out counts. This selection gathered roosts of all sizes (roost mean counts ranging from 21 ± 27 to 5328 ± 2893; see Fig 1 and Fig 2) as an
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Locations of the 30 surveyed roosts of ornate and Pacific flying-foxes in the Northern Province of New Caledonia. The size of the circles is proportional to the average number of flying-foxes counted at roosts over the 2010–2016 survey period (Geographic coordinate systems: RGNC 1991 / Lambert New Caledonia).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224466.g001

attempt to obtain a representative view of the roosts occurring in the Northern Province. However, so as to ensure repeated surveys could be carried out over the long-term given the involvement of local people, roosts were also selected for their relative accessibility. As a consequence, the roosts counted were closer to tribes than expected by chance (log-log model; $\beta = -0.24 \pm 0.06$, *P* < 0.001). We found no correlation between roost abundance (average across years) and distance to tribe (*r* = 0.004, *P* = 0.99), although we acknowledge this correlation is calculated on a truncated distribution of distance (S2 Fig).

Counts took place annually in September, at the start of the parturition period, characterized by important gathering for both species [36,38,39]. Of the 30 roosts surveyed, 16 have been counted the seven years of the study (average number of counts per roost: 5 ± 2, 180 counts in total). Flying-foxes were counted at dusk (from 1 hour before sunset until no bat was detected for a period of 15 minutes, usually corresponding to 45 minutes after sunset) when leaving the roost for foraging (see also [10,40–42]). The two species cannot be distinguished during fly-out and counts refer thus to total abundance. Fly-out counts realised from a vantage point were preferred over counts realised below the roost [38–42], despite this technique has sometimes been judged as less accurate [43–45]. However, we believe this method was the most appropriate for counting flying-foxes in New Caledonia as: i) roosts are located in dense tropical forests where the canopy often hides a large proportion of animals, ii) flying-foxes are highly sensitive to disturbance when roosting, possibly because of intensive hunting, and do
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Distribution of the 180 counts made on the sample of 30 flying-foxes roosts of ornate and Pacific flying-foxes in the Northern Province of New Caledonia between 2010 and 2016. Counts of 0 were made in 9 occasions on four different roosts. The inserted histogram further details the distribution of the first interval (0–499 individuals; grey bar).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224466.g002

not tolerate observers walking close to roosting trees (typically <300m) and iii) maximal roost size recorded in New Caledonia (19,000 individuals) did not exceed observers' counting capability [38,39]. Only one roost was counted during daytime from a vantage point because of the exceptional visibility of the animals within the trees. Counts were systematically made by a pair of observers located on the same vantage point, each of them being responsible for counting half of the skyline. A pilot study has been conducted in April 2010 on 21 roosts so as to train 27 observers and identify adequate vantage points in order to maximise count accuracy. To reduce possible bias due to strong daily variations (e.g. because of adverse weather), counts were repeated over three consecutive days and the maximum number was selected for the analyses. For counts performed for one or two days only (N = 16), we applied a correction based on the average percentage of flying-foxes missed estimated from counts over three days
(one count, N* = N + 28%; two counts, N* = Nmax + 18%). Data are available as online supplementary material (S1 Fig and S1 File).

The number of flying-foxes harvested over a year was estimated from a sociological survey conducted by Quid Novi for the New Caledonian Government, on household consumption, including natural resources, based on a sample of 200 households per month from all New Caledonian communities in each Province in 2016 and 2017 (Direction de l'Environnement Province Sud, pers. comm.).

## Data analyses

We tested for the occurrence of a linear trend in total flying-fox abundance over time using Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) using a negative binomial distribution of error. The negative binomial distribution was preferred over a Poisson distribution because of the large over-dispersion observed in counts. Successive annual counts at the same roost cannot be considered as fully independent statistical units. To account for this, we added roost identity as random factor and a first-order autoregressive correlation structure (AR1) to model residuals [46]. Spatial proximity among roosts can also affect the hypothesis of data independence so we assessed spatial autocorrelation in model residuals. No pattern was detected, as confirmed by the use of *testSpatialAutocorrelation* function, *blemco* package. The adequate random structure was selected according to a likelihood ratio test between umbrella models with and without random structure [46]. As a final step, we plotted the distribution of standardised residuals according to each covariate retained in the best model to verify homoscedasticity. We further investigated the potential inter-annual non-linear variation in flying-fox abundance using Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMM), with year as a smooth term and other model specifications as above.

We estimated the total population size of *P. ornatus* and *P. tonganus* in the Northern Province by randomly selecting 30 counts out of the 180 roost counts available using a bootstrap procedure with replacement (1,000,000 iterations). The median population size obtained was then multiplied by the number of roosts recorded in the Northern Province, assuming 1) the roosts left unchecked had a probability of persistence equal to the sample of roosts that have been checked and 2) the fraction of the study area not sampled (13%) host similar roost densities. This procedure assumes all roosts have been detected by local stakeholders in the sampled area and may therefore provide a conservative figure.

Analyses were carried out using R 3.4.0 [47]. Models were run using the function *glmer.nb* from the package *lme4* for GLMMs, the function *gamm* from the package *mgcv* for GAMMs and the function *lme* from the package *nlme* for LMMs. Residual dispersion was assessed using the package *DHARMa*.

## Results

### Roost persistence based on expert local knowledge

The information gathered from 219 experts allowed us to identify 494 flying-fox roosts across the Northern Province of New Caledonia. A total of 379 roosts were checked in the field (115 left unchecked due to budget limitation), among which 254 were still active and 125 were no longer found occupied despite intensive research. This represents a loss of 33%. The time scale of this loss was defined following experts' answers, between 30 and 40 years (prior to 2009). No expert notified the appearance of a roost over his/her lifetime.
## Roost specific composition, total population size and harvesting rate

Over the 35 roosts surveyed for estimating specific composition, species determination was possible for 19,997 individuals (mean number of individuals per roost: *N* = 767 ± 960). The proportion of the endemic *P. ornatus* averaged 60% ± 25 (range: 2–100%) and was not significantly correlated with roost size (*r* = −0.17, *P* = 0.33). The proportion of *P. ornatus* derived from animals killed by hunters was higher (77%, *N* = 155). The specific proportion between these two datasets averaged 68.5%.

Flying-foxes roost size averaged 1,425 ± 2,151 individuals (median = 559, range = 0–12,504; *N* = 180 counts on 30 roosts; Figs 1 & 2). Considering solely the 16 roosts surveyed over the 7 years of the study, counts averaged 1,625 ± 2,552 individuals (median = 554, *N* = 112 counts).

Assuming our roost sample was representative for the population occurring in the Northern Province, the median population size of two species combined was estimated at 563,000 flying-foxes (90% Confidence Interval: [338,000–859,000]) distributed across an estimated 399 roosts. Considering the estimated specific composition, population size was estimated at 232,000–588,000 and 106,000–271,000 for *P. ornatus* and *P. tonganus*, respectively. With an annual number of flying-foxes killed by hunters over the Northern Province estimated at 45,724, the median harvesting rate reached 9.4% [5.3–13.5] for both species combined.

## Temporal variation in flying-fox abundance

Among the 30 roosts monitored with annual fly-out counts, three roosts showed temporary disappearance (one year) over the seven years of the study, and another roost hosting 481 ± 374 individuals between 2010 and 2012, fell down to 5 individuals in 2013 and none over the last 3 years.

Roost counts showed a strong among-year variation with an average coefficient of variation of 85% (range among roosts: 37–162%, *N* = 30 roots; Fig 2, S3 Fig). Overall abundance of flying-foxes showed no significant temporal trend between 2010 and 2016 (GLMM, *β* = −0.075 ± 0.088 on log scale, *P* = 0.4). The GAMM analysis revealed a significant non-linear variation of the number of flying-foxes over time with a slight increase from 2010 to 2011, followed by a decline until 2014 and another slight increase until 2016 (estimated degree of freedom = 3.52, *F* = 2.83, *P* = 0.02; Fig 3).

## Discussion

A third of the 379 diurnal roosts of flying-foxes for which we collected a precise location from local knowledge in the Northern Province of New Caledonia seems to have disappeared over 30–40 years (1970’s-2000’s). Diurnal roosts typically hosted the two species, *Pteropus tonganus* and *P. ornatus*, with a higher proportion of the latter (60%), endemic to New Caledonia, and gathered an average of 1,425 ± 2,151 individuals. We estimated the total population size of these two species for the Northern Province at 338,000–859,000 flying-foxes distributed over ca. 400 roosts. The annual hunting bag by the different communities composing the Northern Province suggested an annual harvesting rate of 5.3–13.5%. A count survey realized between 2010 and 2016 on a sample of 30 roosts showed overall stability with slight inter-annual variations, although one roost went possibly extinct.

## Estimates of temporal trends from expert and count surveys

While the count survey revealed an apparent stability of flying-fox numbers between 2010 and 2016, evidence gathered from local experts seems to indicate an important loss of roosts over three to four decades. This apparent contradiction partly arose from the mismatch between
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Combined population trends of ornate and Pacific flying-foxes in the Northern Province of New Caledonia from a sample of 30 roosts counted between 2010 and 2016. Annual average and median values are depicted by diamond shapes and triangles respectively. The dotted line refers to the mean predicted value from the GAMM analysis. Note the log₁₀-transformed y-axis.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224466.g003

survey periods (2010–2016 vs. 1969–2009) and lengths (7 vs. 30–40 years). Nevertheless, these results could be reconciled if we consider that one of the 30 roosts included in the count survey possibly disappeared over the seven-year period. The disappearance of a third of the roosts over 40 years is equivalent to an annual loss of 0.75%. Reported to a sample of 30 roosts over 7 years, we can expect a loss of 1.6 roosts.

Expert interviews allowed us to collect information on roosts locations, subsequently checked in the field, to estimate flying-fox population dynamics on large spatial and temporal scales, with a relatively limited amount of resources. Such an approach, however, is not free of biases. First, imprecise localisations gathered from experts or failure to detect roosts in the field may have led to the wrong record of a roost loss. If a small roost may indeed remain unnoticed during the day, observations from vantage points at dusk when flying-foxes are leaving their roost ensured a high detection probability. Second, roosts may have moved from
one place to another over the long period of time considered here. Flying-foxes are well known for their high fidelity to roosting sites, even when subject to some level of disturbance [20,48–51]. However, we believe such data provide useful evidence for assessing the status of flying-foxes and, overall, it is unlikely the aforementioned biases can explain the observed loss. This provides an example of how much citizen science can be useful and informative when facing a knowledge gap with no historical record available [52–55].

Counts of animals typically suffer from high variance, especially when considering highly gregarious and mobile species such as flying-foxes [43–45]. The large variance observed here (CV of global average: 151%) certainly reduced the power to detect a significant trend over seven years. It is noteworthy, however, that a significant among-year variation was detected with the generalized additive modelling, suggesting our survey method might be adequate to monitor long-term trends of New Caledonian flying-foxes. In order to limit the impact of between-roost movements on estimates, we systematically conducted counts during the same, relatively restricted, period (September). Count accuracy can also be affected by meteorological conditions or directions used by flying-foxes when leaving the roost to join foraging areas. As an answer to this, we performed counts on three consecutive days in most instances. Movements among a set of connected roosts can also add noise to the data. These two factors, however, if they reduce the statistical power to detect a temporal trend, are unlikely to systematically bias our results. If our results suggest an apparent stability over the short-term, we have however to be cautious as important inter-annual variations may hide an actual decline.

## Estimates of population size and harvesting rate

Based upon our expert and roost count surveys, we estimated the flying-fox population size in Northern Province between 338,000 and 859,000 individuals distributed over ca. 400 roosts (*P. ornatus* and *tonganus* combined). Considering median estimates, population size reached 338,000 individuals for the endemic *P. ornatus* and 225,000 for *P. tonganus*.

We estimated harvesting rates by the different communities of the Northern Province of New Caledonia between 5.3 and 13.5%. Hunting of *P. ornatus* and *P. tonganus* is regulated by two globally similar provincial laws on mainland. The hunting period is restricted to 8–10 days in April (weekends only) with a daily quota of five animals per hunter. Hunting is strictly forbidden at <300m from roosting sites and after dusk. Such regulations, however, only slightly overlap with the schedule of traditional hunting by the Kanak community around Yam celebration (S1 Fig). The Yam celebration, the main social event of the Kanak community (105,000 persons in New Caledonia; [37]), includes in most tribes a traditional meal, typically including flying-foxes, and occurs each year between February and July (S1 Fig; [32,34,56]). This mismatch between regulation and main use is likely to encourage poaching activities, by all communities, especially given the relatively weak law enforcement.

In New Caledonia, flying-foxes are mostly hunted in flight with fire arms shortly after they leave diurnal roosts for foraging at dusk and at night. Crippling losses inherent to this hunting technique may significantly increase mortality rates due to hunting as 1) a proportion of bats are only wounded and die shortly after and 2) hunters recover only a fraction of the animals they killed, as finding a flying-fox in the dense tropical vegetation with low luminosity is difficult. In addition, gunshots used for hunting flying-foxes were regularly recorded during our count survey in September (1 ± 6 per count, range: 0–100; N = 441 roost counts), suggesting poaching actually occurs throughout the year. Poaching is indeed supported by an illegal trade with one flying-fox worth 1000–7000 XPF on black market (10–70 USD; IAC, unpub. data). Altogether, further data are needed to more precisely estimate harvesting rates and to investigate whether current hunting bags are sustainable [57]. The relatively ‘slow’ demography of
*Pteropus* species (delayed maturity of females at 3-yr-old, maximum of one offspring per year, maximum age in captivity up to 30 yr-old [58], mean age in the wild of 7–15 years [13,59,60]) suggests their populations can only sustain a low to moderate harvesting rate [10,12,18–20,61]. Current regulations are ill-adapted to the use of flying-foxes by most stakeholders, a context probably promoting poaching. An adaptive management strategy including open discussions between stakeholders about the period of hunting, the onset of a maximal quota, based on our results, and the systematic tagging of killed animals might improve the situation by reducing poaching, providing local specificities are appropriately accounted for.

Bushmeat trade has been widely recognized as having a strong impact on animal popula-
tions [62]. Regarding flying-foxes, hunting has been probably the main factor leading to the
extinction of *P. tokudae* on Guam [11,13,20,63,64]. Poaching can occur directly at roosts, lead-
ing to a large number of animals killed in addition to disturbance, the latter being identified as
one of the main factor causing roost desertion [20,51,65]. In Niue Island (South Pacific), fly-
ing-foxes abandoned their roost, following intense disturbance by hunting, and returned only
after 5–10 years [66]. MacKinnon et al. (2003) reported that 27 of 154 *P. rufus* roosts surveyed
in Madagascar were abandoned over 10 years, mainly as a result of hunting and destruction of
roost trees [67]. Flying-foxes typically show high roost fidelity. Nevertheless, high level of per-
turbation may force them to desert and cause major disruption to populations
[20,48,49,51,68]. The loss of flying-fox roosts we documented here may, at least partially, be
the consequence of direct but also indirect (disturbance) effects of hunting.

Pteropus species in New Caledonia face multiple threats

Current knowledge highlights a negative impact of various environmental factors on flying-fox populations worldwide: habitat destruction, hunting, extreme climatic events (cyclone, heat wave) and invasive species [19,20,28,65,69]. In New Caledonia, human activities, such as farming, mining (nickel extraction) and urbanisation [70,71] have reduced the extent, and increased the fragmentation, of wet primary forests by 70% [30]. Wet forests constitute the main habitat of *Pteropus* species for both roosting and foraging [20,72,73]. New Caledonia is also currently subject to an increase of fires leading to further forest loss [74–77]. Moreover, the archipelago is exposed to cyclones which may affect flying-foxes directly (injury, mortality) but also indirectly by damaging forests and temporarily depleting fruit and flower resources. Cyclones entail cascading effects by forcing them to feed near human settlements, sometimes directly on the ground exposing them to poaching and predation [28,78,79].

Culling programs have also been undertaken following perceived bat-human conflicts regarding fruit production and risk of disease transmissions to humans, notably in Australia and Mauritius [80–82]. New Caledonian flying foxes are also potentially exposed to this risk as highlighted by the killing of 39 flying-foxes in 2015 in the Southern province to estimate the prevalence of Nipah virus in the wild following detections in captive individuals (Direction des Affaires Vétérinaires, Alimentaires et Rurales de Nouvelle-Calédonie, *pers. comm.*).

Finally, a previously unsuspected threat has been recently identified with evidence of preda-
tion or competition for food resources by invasive species such as cats, dogs, rats or ants [83–
85]. In New Caledonia, flying-foxes are commonly found in cat scats all-year round, and in
most of forest habitats, but both the way predation is achieved and its impact on populations
remains to be assessed [86].

**Conclusions and recommendations**

Here we provided first estimates of population size and dynamics of two flying-fox species
over the largest province of the New Caledonian mainland. There, flying-foxes play a central
role in forest ecosystem functioning and are major game species for the different communities composing New Caledonia. Evidences for intensive hunting and poaching practices suggest annual bags are substantial and further data on flying-fox demography (anthropogenic mortality, fecundity but also movements) are critically needed to assess the long-term sustainability of the species use and, if necessary, to set new hunting regulations.

**Supporting information**

S1 Fig. Annual biological cycle of *Pteropus ornatus* and *P. tonganus* in New Caledonia and temporal extent of the legal hunting period and of the Yam celebration.
(TIF)

S2 Fig. Distance to (a) the nearest town and (b) the nearest tribe according to whether the flying-fox roosts were part of the set of roosts selected for fly-out counts (counted: yes/no). (c) Correlation between the average size of roost and distance to the nearest tribe (both variables are log-10 transformed; r = 0.004, P = 0.99).
(TIF)

S3 Fig. Time-series of flying-fox counts (*Pteropus ornatus* and *P. tonganus* combined) for each of the 30 roosts surveyed in the Northern Province of New Caledonia between 2010 and 2016. Counts were made in September during the pre-parturition period over one to three consecutive days (maximum counts used for analyses with correction if less than three counts were performed, see Methods). Red dots indicated counts of 0.
(TIF)

S1 File. Time-series of flying-fox counts (*Pteropus ornatus* and *P. tonganus* combined) for each of the 30 roosts surveyed in the Northern Province of New Caledonia between 2010 and 2016. Counts were made in September during the pre-parturition period over one to three consecutive days (count_repetition).
(XLSX)

**Acknowledgments**

We thank the IAC staff members for their support in the field and the population of the Northern Province for sharing their knowledge on flying-foxes. The Wildlife Ranger Brigade of the Northern Province, local NGOs (Association pour la Conservation des Chauves-Souris, Société Calédonienne d'Ornithologie and Dayu Biik) and people from Northern Province helped us in the field for observations and roost censuses. We also want to thank people from the customary areas of Hoot Ma Whaap, Paicî-Cèmuhi, Ajië Aro, Xârâcùù for allowing us to work on customary lands. We also thank the New Caledonian Government through two of its services, the DAVAR (Direction des Affaires Vétérinaires, Alimentaires et Rurales) and the Agence Rurale and Quid Novi for the provision of the data on household consumption. This study was funded by the Northern Province and IAC. MO received a PhD fellowship from the Southern Province of New Caledonia with additional support from IAC. Finally, we want to thank an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments.

**Author Contributions**

**Conceptualization:** Fabrice Brescia.

**Data curation:** Malik Oedin, Mélanie Boissenin, Jean-Claude Hurlin.

**Formal analysis:** Malik Oedin, Alexandre Millon.
**Funding acquisition:** Fabrice Brescia.

**Investigation:** Malik Oedin, Fabrice Brescia, Mélanie Boissenin, Alexandre Millon.

**Methodology:** Fabrice Brescia, Mélanie Boissenin.

**Project administration:** Fabrice Brescia.

**Resources:** Fabrice Brescia, Jean-Jérôme Cassan.

**Supervision:** Fabrice Brescia, Eric Vidal, Alexandre Millon.

**Validation:** Fabrice Brescia, Eric Vidal, Alexandre Millon.

**Writing – original draft:** Malik Oedin, Alexandre Millon.

**Writing – review & editing:** Malik Oedin, Fabrice Brescia, Mélanie Boissenin, Eric Vidal, Alexandre Millon.

## References

1. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704949114 PMID: 28696295

2. Clavero M, Garcia-Berthou E. Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005; 20: 110–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.003 PMID: 16701353

3. Fahrig L. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003; 34: 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419

4. Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JEM. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature. 2016; 536: 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/536143a PMID: 27510207

5. Millon A, Petty SJ, Little B, Gimenez O, Cornulier T, Lambin X. Dampening prey cycle overrides the impact of climate change on predator population dynamics: a long-term demographic study on tawny owls. Glob Chang Biol. 2014; 20: 1770–1781. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12546 PMID: 24634279

6. Primack RB, Sarrazin F, Lecomte J. Biologie de la conservation. Sciences-Sup, Dunod éditions, Paris.; 2012.

7. Rosser AM, Mainka SA. Overexploitation and Species Extinctions. Conserv Biol. 2002; 16: 584–586. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01635.x

8. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature. 2004; 427: 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02121 PMID: 14712274

9. Nichols JD, Williams BK. Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006; 21: 668–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.08.007 PMID: 16919361

10. Brook CE, Ranaivoson HC, Andriafidison D, Ralisata M, Razafimanahaka J, Héraud J-M, et al. Population trends for two Malagasy fruit bats. Biol Conserv. Elsevier; 2019; 234: 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.032

11. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2018.

12. Mickleburgh SP, Hutson AM, Racey PA. A review of the global conservation status of bats. Oryx. 2002; 36: 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605302000054

13. Vincenot CE, Florens FBV, Kingston T. Can we protect island flying foxes? Science (80-). 2017; 355: 1368–1370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam7582 PMID: 28360279

14. Cox PA, Elmqvist T, Pierson ED, Rainey WE. Flying Foxes as Strong Interactors in South Pacific Island Ecosystems: A Conservation Hypothesis. Conserv Biol. 1991; 5: 448–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00351.x

15. Aziz SA, Clements GR, McConkey KR, Sritongchuay T, Pathil S, Abu Yazid MNH, et al. Pollination by the locally endangered island flying fox (Pteropus hypomelanus) enhances fruit production of the economically important durian (Durio zibethinus). Ecol Evol. 2017; 7: 8670–8684. https://doi.org/10.1002/eece3.3213 PMID: 29152168

16. Fujita MS, Tuttle MD. Flying Foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae): Threatened Animals of Key Ecological and Economic Importance. Conserv Biol. 1991; 5: 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00352.x
17. Hansen DM, Galetti M. The Forgotten Megafauna. Science (80-). 2009; 324: 42-43. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172393 PMID: 19342573

18. McIlwee AP, Martin L. On the intrinsic capacity for increase of Australian flying-foxes (Pteropus spp., Megachiroptera). Aust Zool. 2002; 32: 76-100. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2002.008

19. Mildenstein T, Tanshi I, Racey PA. Exploitation of Bats for Bushmeat and Medicine. Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. pp. 325-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_12

20. Pierson ED, Rainey WE. The biology of flying-foxes of the genus Pteropus: a review. Pacific island flying foxes: Proceedings of an International Conference Conference (DE Wilson and GL Graham, editors) US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report (Vol 90). 1992. pp. 1-17.

21. Bani E. Fruit bats of Vanuatu. Pacific island flying foxes: Proceedings of an International Conference Conference (DE Wilson and GL Graham, editors) US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report (Vol 90). 1992. pp. 123-127.

22. Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A. Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx. 2002; 36: 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605302000261

23. Lavery TH, Fasi J. Buying through your teeth: traditional currency and conservation of flying foxes Pteropus spp. in Solomon Islands. Oryx. 2019; 53:505-512. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001004

24. Sinavaiana C, Enright J. The cultural significance of the flying fox in Samoa: a legendary view. Pacific island flying foxes: Proceedings of an International Conference Conference (DE Wilson and GL Graham, editors) US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report (Vol 90). 1992. pp. 36-38.

25. Crawford BA, Moore CT, Norton TM, Maerz JC. Integrated analysis for population estimation, management impact evaluation, and decision-making for a declining species. Biol Conserv. 2018; 222: 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.023

26. Nichols JD, Runge MC, Johnson FA, Williams BK. Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. J Ornithol. 2007; 148: 343-349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-007-0256-8

27. Boissenin M, Oedin M, Brescia F. Variations d'effectifs, déplacements et régime alimentaire des roussettes en province Nord de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpubl report http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2016;

28. Westcott DA, Caley P, Heersink DK, McKeown A. A state-space modelling approach to wildlife monitoring with application to flying-fox abundance. Sci Rep. Springer US; 2018; 8: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17765-5

29. Westcott DA, Fletcher CS, McKeown A, Murphy HT. Assessment of monitoring power for highly mobile vertebrates. Ecol Appl. 2012; 22: 374-383. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0132.1 PMID: 22471097

30. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000; 403: 853-858. https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501 PMID: 10706275

31. Boissenin M, Brescia F. Etude bioécologique des Mégachiroptères (roussettes) en province Nord de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2009.

32. Fossier C, Sabinot C, Bouard S, Boissenin M, Bako G, Pujapujane A, et al. Amélioration des connaissances sur les roussettes des Îles Loyauté. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2017.

33. Leblic I. Les clans pêcheurs en Nouvelle-Caledonie. Cah Sci Hum. 1989; 25: 109-123.

34. Ignames Leblic I., interdits et ancêtres en Nouvelle-Calédonie. J Soc Ocean. 2002; 115-127. https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.1439

35. Boissenin M, Brescia F. Variations d'effectifs, déplacements et régime alimentaire des roussettes en province Nord de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2015.

36. Brescia F. Amélioration des connaissances et recommandations pour la sauvegarde des populations de Mégachiroptères (Roussettes) en Province Sud de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2007.

37. ISEE. Recensement de la population 2014. Synthèse N°35. Institut de la statistique et des études économiques Nouvelle-Calédonie. Unpublished report. http://www.isee.nc/population/demographie. 2014.

38. Boissenin M. Suivi de gîtes pilotes de Mégachiroptères (roussettes) en province Nord de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2010.
39. Boissenin M. Proposition de projet pour la mise en place d'un programme de suivi à long terme des tendances évolutives des Mégachiroptères (roussettes) en province Nord de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Institut Agronomique Néo-calédonien (IAC), Unpublished report. http://www.iac.nc/ressources-publications/catalogue-en-ligne-gaiac. 2010.

40. Eby P, Richards G, Collins L, Parry-Jones K. The distribution, abundance and vulnerability to population reduction of a nomadic nectarivore, the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus in New South Wales, during a period of resource concentration. Aust Zool. 1999; 31: 240–253. https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.1999.024

41. Kunz TH, Betke M, Hristov NI, Vonhof MJ. Methods for assessing colony size, and relative abundance of bats. In: Kunz TH, Parsons S, editors. Ecological and behavioral methods for the study of bats. 2nd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland; 2009. pp. 133–157.

42. Utzurrum RCB, Wiles GJ, Brooke AP, Worthington DJ. Count Methods and Population Trends in Pacific Island Flying Foxes. In: O'Shea TJ, Bogan MA, editors. Monitoring Trends in Bat Populations in the United States and Territories: Problems and Prospects. US Geological Survey Information and Technology Report 2003–003, Washington, DC, USA; 2003. pp. 49–61.

43. Forsyth DM, Scroggie MP, McDonald-Madden E. Accuracy and precision of grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) flyout counts. Wildl Res. 2006; https://doi.org/10.1071/wr05029

44. Westcott D, McKeown A. Observer error in exit counts of flying-foxes (Pteropus spp.). Wildl Res. 2004; 31: 551. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR03091

45. Westcott DA, Heersink DK, McKeown A, Caley P. The status and trends of Australia's EPBC-listed flying-foxes. CSIRO, Australia 2015.

46. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6

47. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org/. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2017.

48. Hahn MB, Patz JA, Gurley ES, Epstein JH, Daszak P, Islam MS, et al. The role of landscape composition and configuration on Pteropus giganteus roosting ecology and Nipah virus spillover risk in Bangladesh. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014; 90: 247–255. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.13-0256 PMID: 24323516

49. Mildenstein TL, Stier SC, Nuevo-Diego CE, Mills LS. Habitat selection of endangered and endemic large flying-foxes in Subic Bay, Philippines. Biol Conserv. 2005; 126: 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.05.001

50. Parsons JG, Robson SKA, Shilton LA. Roost fidelity in spectacled flying-foxes Pteropus conspicillatus: Implications for conservation and management. In: Law B, Eby P, Lunney D, Lumsden L, editors. The biology and conservation of Australasian bats. I. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman; 2011. pp. 66–71.

51. Racey PA, Goodman SM, Jenkins RKB. The ecology and conservation of Malagasy bats. In: Fleming TH, a PA, editors. Island Bats: Evolution, Ecology, and Conservation. Chicago University Press, Chicago; 2009. pp. 369–404.

52. Brook RK, McLachlan SM. Trends and prospects for local knowledge in ecological and conservation research and monitoring. Biodivers Conserv. 2008; 17: 3501–3512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9445-x

53. Huntington HP. Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods and applications. Ecol Appl. 2000; 10: 1270–1274. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1270:UTEKIS]2.0.CO;2

54. Predavec M, Lunney D, Shannon I, Lemon J, Sonawane I, Crowther M. Using repeat citizen science surveys of koalas to assess their population trend in the north-west of New South Wales: scale matters. Aust Mammal. 2018; 40: 47. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM16059

55. Ziembicki MR, Woinarski JCZ, Mackey B. Evaluating the status of species using Indigenous knowledge: Novel evidence for major native mammal declines in northern Australia. Biol Conserv. 2013; 157: 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.004

56. Bourret D. Etude ethnobotanique des Dioscoréacées alimentaires: Ignames de Nouvelle Calédonie. http://www/documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:07262. 1973.

57. Milner-Gulland EJ, Akçakaya HR. Sustainability indices for exploited populations. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001; 16: 686–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02278-9

58. Fox S, Luly J, Mitchell C, MacLean J, Westcott DA. Demographic indications of decline in the spectacled flying fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) on the Atherton Tablelands of northern Queensland. Wildl Res. 2008; 35: 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR07127

59. Tidemann CR, Nelson JE. Life Expectancy, Causes of Death and Movements of the Grey-Headed Flying-Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) Inferred from Banding. Acta Chiropterologica. 2011; 13: 419–429. https://doi.org/10.3161/150811011X624901
60. Vardon MJ, Tidemann CR. The black flying-fox (Pteropus alecto) in north Australia: juvenile mortality and longevity. Aust J Zool. 2000; 48: 91. https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO99060

61. Niel C, Lebreton J-D. Using Demographic Invariants to Detect Overharvested Bird Populations from Incomplete Data. Conserv Biol. 2005; 19: 826–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00310.x

62. Ling S, Milner-Gulland EJ. Research Notes: Assessment of the Sustainability of Bushmeat Hunting Based on Dynamic Bioeconomic Models. Conserv Biol. 2006; 20: 1294–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00414.x PMID: 16922245

63. Sheherazade Tsang SM. Roost of gray flying foxes (Pteropus griseus) in Indonesia and records of a new hunting threat. Diversity. 2018;10. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10030102

64. Wiles GJ, Payne NH. The trade in fruit bats Pteropus spp. on Guam and other Pacific islands. Biol Conserv. 1986; 38: 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(86)90070-4

65. MacKinnon J, Hawkins C, Racey P. Pteropodidae, Fruit bats, Fanihy, Angavo. The Natural History of Madagascar. 2003. pp. 1299–1302.

66. Wodzicki K, Felten H. The Peka, or Fruit Bat (Pteropus tonganus tonganus) (Mammalia, Chiroptera), of Niue Island, South Pacific. Pacific Sci. 1975;

67. Rahaingodrahety V, Andriafidison D, Ratsimbazafy J, Racey P, Jenkins R. Three flying fox (Pteropodi-dae: Pteropus rufus) roosts, three conservation challenges in southeastern Madagascar. Madagascar Conserv Dev. 2009; 3: 17–21. https://doi.org/10.4314/mcd.v3i1.44131

68. Parsons JG, Wal J Van Der, Robson SKA, Shilton LA. The Implications of Sympathy in the Spectacled and Grey Headed Flying-Fox, Pteropus conspicillatus and P. poliocephalus (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Acta Chiropterologica. 2010; 12: 301–309. https://doi.org/10.3161/150811010X537882

69. Jenkins RKB, Andriafidison D, Razafimanahaka HJ, Rabearivelo A, Razafindrakoto N, Ratsimandresy Z, et al. Not rare, but threatened: The endemic Madagascar flying fox Pteropus rufus in a fragmented landscape. Oryx. 2007; 41: 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605307001883

70. Ibanez T, Birnbaum P, Gâteblé G, Hequet V, Isnard S, Munzinger J, et al. Twenty years after Jaffré et al. (1998), is the system of protected areas now adequate in New Caledonia? Biodivers Conserv. 2019; 28: 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-018-1659-y

71. Jaffré T, L'huillier L. La végétation des roches ultramafiques ou terrains miniers. Mines et environnement en Nouvelle-Calédonie: les milieux sur substrats ultramafiques et leur restauration IAC Ed, Noumea. 2010. pp. 45–103.

72. McConkey KR, Drake DR. Indirect Evidence that Flying Foxes Track Food Resources Among Islands in a Pacific Archipelago. Biotropica. 2007; 39: 436–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00269.x

73. Wiles GJ, Johnson NC. Population Size and Natural History of Mariana Fruit Bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodi-dae) on Sarigan, Mariana Islands. Pacific Sci. 2004; 58: 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1353/psc.2004.0044

74. Gomez C, Mangeas M, Curt T, Ibanez T, Munzinger J, Dumas P, et al. Wildfire risk for main vegetation units in a biodiversity hotspot: Modeling approach in New Caledonia, South Pacific. Ecol Evol. 2015; 5: 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1317 PMID: 25691965

75. Curt T, Borgniet L, Ibanez T, Moron V, Hély C. Understanding fire patterns and fire drivers for setting a sustainable management policy of the New-Caledonian biodiversity hotspot. For Ecol Manage. 2015; 337: 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.10.032

76. Dumas P, Toussaint M, Herrenschmidt J, Conte A, Mangeas M. Le risque de feux de brousse sur la Grande Terre de Nouvelle-Calédonie: l'Homme responsable mais pas coupable. Rev Géographique l'Est https://journals.openedition.org/rge/4598. 2013; 53.

77. OEIL. Géoportail Vulcain, Impact environnemental des incendies. In: Observatoire de l'Environnement en Nouvelle-Calédonie. 2019.

78. McConkey KR, Drake DR, Franklin J, Tonga F. Effects of Cyclone Waka on flying foxes (Pteropus tonganus) in the Vava'u Islands of Tonga. J Trop Ecol. 2004; 20: 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467404001804

79. Pierson ED, Elmqvist T, Rainey WE, Cox PA. Effects of tropical cyclonic storms on flying fox populations on the South Pacific Islands of Samoa. Conserv Biol. 1996; https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020438.x

80. Florens FBV, Baider C, Marday V, Martin GMN, Zmanay Z, Oleksy R, et al. Disproportionately large ecological role of a recently mass-culled flying fox in native forests of an oceanic island. J Nat Conserv. 2017; 40: 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.10.002

81. Florens FBV, Baider C. Mass-culling of a threatened island flying fox species failed to increase fruit growers' profits and revealed gaps to be addressed for effective conservation. J Nat Conserv. 2019; 47: 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.11.008
82. Olival KJ. To cull, or not to cull, bat is the question. Ecohealth. 2016; 13:6–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1075-7 PMID: 26631385

83. Dorrestein A, Todd CM, Westcott DA, Martin JM, Welbergen JA. Impacts of an invasive ant species on roosting behavior of an island endemic flying-fox. Biotropica. 2019; 51: 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12620

84. Welch JN, Leppanen C. The threat of invasive species to bats: a review. Mamm Rev. 2017; 47: 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12099

85. Vincenot CE, Collazo AM, Russo D. The Ryukyu flying fox (Pteropus dasymallus)—A review of conservation threats and call for reassessment. Mamm Biol. Elsevier GmbH; 2017; 83: 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mambio.2016.11.006

86. Palmas P, Jourdan H, Rigault F, Debar L, De Meringo H, Bourguet E, et al. Feral cats threaten the out-standing endemic fauna of the New Caledonia biodiversity hotspot. Biol Conserv. Elsevier; 2017; 214: 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.003