Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41876632›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

The Bat Ripple case study shows ecological and economic contributions of grey headed flying foxes in Australia.

A Ortega González, H Possingham, D Biggs, N Anderson, A R Braczkowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A Ortega GonzálezFaculty of Science, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
H PossinghamCentre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The School of the Environment, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
D BiggsCentre for Adaptable Western Landscapes & School of Earth and Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
N AndersonDept Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
A R BraczkowskiVolcanoes Safaris Partnership Trust, Kyambura Lion Project, Kampala, Uganda. alexander.braczkowski@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Old World fruit bats (Pteropodidae) are globally important pollinators and seed dispersers. While their ecological services have been valued in parts of West Africa and Southeast Asia, no such estimates exist for Australia. Here, we introduce the Bat Ripple, quantifying the spatial extent and potential ecological and economic impact of flying foxes across continental Australia. Using data from the CSIRO National Flying-Fox Monitoring Program (2012-2022) and species-specific foraging distances (3-50 km), we first map the potential foraging influence of 1209 roosts of the four mainland flying fox species, estimating that these bats influence 11.6-41.4 million hectares, including forests, plantations, and restoration areas. We then focus on a scenario-based valuation using 465 selected grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) roosts, which alone are estimated to facilitate a median of ~ 91.6 million new trees annually across their maximum foraging range. We show that pollination services could potentially contribute between AUD $ 271 million and 955 million per year to the eucalypt timber industry. Our findings highlight the potential role of flying foxes in sustaining both ecosystem function and economic productivity in Australia.

Indexed as

ChiropteraPollinationAnimalsAustraliaConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystem

Identifiers

PMID41876632
PMCPMC13013778

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.