Habitat suitability and island assessment for the potential translocation of Blue- tailed skinks (Cryptoblepharus egeriae) to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Results from field work conducted on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in January 2014

Internal Report

Christmas Island National Park 2015

1 DOCUMENT INFORMATION This report was prepared by the Christmas Island National Park, Natural Resource Management team.

PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS Report preparation: Survey development and preparation: CINP NRM team, CIRAP Field Work: GIS preparation: Data management: Data analysis:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to CIRAP members for providing advice and support for the project and to the Cocos staff who made the field work possible by providing survey resources, local knowledge and staff time for the survey. Thanks also to Peta and Christine who spent endless hours trawling through invertebrate samples.

VERSIONS The first draft version 1.0 of this report was produced on 23/03/2015 The final version of this report was produced on 4/06/2018 An updated version of this report was produced on 10/2/2020

CITATION This document can be cited as:

Director of National Parks (2014). Habitat suitability and island assessment for the potential translocation of Blue-tailed skinks (Cryptoblepharus egeriae) to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands . Christmas Island National Park Natural Resource Management Program: Report to the Department of the Environment. Commonwealth of Australia 2014©.

The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Director of National Parks, the Minister of the Environment or the Commonwealth Government.

Information contained in this document and the associated database may be copied or reproduced for study, research, informational or educational purposes, subject to inclusion of an acknowledgement of the source.

COVER IMAGE

GIS preparation for the survey displaying priority survey islands of Pulu Siput and Pulu Labu.

2 CONTENTS

Figures ...... 4

Tables ...... 4

Background ...... 5

Survey development ...... 5

initial assesments ...... 6

Methods ...... 6

Target species ...... 6

Waypoint surveys ...... 8

Transect survey ...... 8

Habitat assesment...... 8

Ink card survey ...... 9

Active/transit survey ...... 9

Static monitoring surveys ...... 9

Malise Traps ...... 9

Intercept Traps ...... 9

Dry and Wet Pitfall Traps ...... 10

Sweeps & beats ...... 10

Light traps ...... 10

Camera monitoring ...... 10

Results ...... 10

Suitable Island assessment ...... 10

Pulu Blan ...... 12

Pulu Labu ...... 13

Pulu Kembang ...... 14

Additional work done on Cocos ...... 14

Reccommendations ...... 15

Survey Constraints/Survey element success ...... 16

Appendix ...... 17

APPENDIX 1: Waypoint Datasheet ...... 17

3 APPENDIX 2: Ink Card Datasheet ...... 18

Appendix 3: Transit Datasheet ...... 19

Appendix 4: Static monitoring datasheet ...... 20

Appendix 5: Waypoint results ...... 21

Appendix 6: Static invertebrate results ...... 22

References ...... 30

FIGURES

Figure 1: Islands surveyed during the January 2014 Cocos feasibility study...... 11

Figure 2: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Blan ...... 12

Figure 3: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Labu ...... 13

Figure 4: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Kembang...... 14

TABLES

Table 1: Desktop assessment - minimum island requirements ...... 5

Table 2: Details of the nine islands selected on Cocos for survey...... 6

Table 3: Species targeted and species threat matrix during active survey efforts during the 2014 Cocos feasibility study ...... 6

Table 4: Survey effort summary ...... 10

Table 5: Summary of active survey detections...... 11

Table 6: Summary of passive survey detections ...... 11

Table 7: Gecko samples taken from West and Home Islands during the 2014 Cocos feasibility survey ...... 15

4 BACKGROUND

The endemic Christmas Island blue-tailed skink (BTS) is one of four native Island reptiles, 3 of which are endemic, two have recently disappeared from the wild. Fortunately, together with the Lister’s gecko (LG) a number of individuals were rescued from the wild before they disappeared and were incorporated into a successful captive breeding program on Christmas Island and Taronga Zoo. Translocation is one potential strategy for avoiding extinction of the species and fortunately for BTS Christmas’ nearest Island neighbour, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands may posses the characteristics that make it a suitable site for translocation including suitable habitat, lack of predators or high chances of predator removal, lack of native competing species, and the ability to contain and monitor a translocated population. Chances of successful translocation are further improved given BTS has been shown to be highly adaptable to various habitats including disturbed and degraded environments (Cogger, Sadlier et al. 1983) and (Cogger Pers Com, 2012). This report on the results of field work conducted in January 2014 aims to address objectives 1-4 from a scope of works document, ‘Christmas Island Reptile Feasibility Scope’ (Director of National Parks 2014) prepared for the Director is part of a number of actions which must occur to assess the feasibility of translocating BTS to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

A desktop assessment of all islands within the southern atoll has been conducted to determine the most suitable islands for possible reintroduction. This involved an assessment of island size, accessibility, and distance from neighboring islands, tenure, height above sea level and vegetation complexity analysis.

Table 1: Desktop assessment - minimum island requirements

Size 1-12ha

Accessibility Must be easily accessible by boat or foot for monitoring and introduced predator management

Distance from nearest land Minimum 25m, and have no land bridge at low tide

Tenure Must not contain permanently or semi-permanently inhabited dwellings, be frequently visited (e.g. Direction Island), have cultural significance or other local islander use (e.g. farming)

Height above sea level Minimum 1.5msal, with elevated land area viewed favorably

Vegetation complexity Visual assessment of canopy height model and foliage coverage model

As a result, a total of nine suitable islands, as is shown in Table 2 were selected for further analysis during the field component of the feasibility study.

5 Table 2: Details of the nine islands selected on Cocos for survey.

The survey ran for a period of nine days during the early wet season from the 12th to the 20th of January 2014, with a repeat survey planned during the dry season at a later date. The survey was structured so that field work could be completed within the given timeframes and consists of three core components – waypoint surveys, active/transit searches and invertebrate trapping. Access to most islands on Cocos is tide dependent adding a level of complexity to the survey and as such survey hours were highly variable and involved some camping.

INITIAL ASSESMENTS

Following the arrival of the field team ( ), an initial assessment on each of the nine islands was conducted. Three islands were prioritised for further field assessment during this visit including Pulu Blan, Pulu Labu and Pulu Kembang. These three islands met the criteria of the desktop assessment and appeared to be moderately to highly suitable as potential future release locations for C. egeriae.

Further assessment of the remaining six islands is required if they are to be considered as a potential destination island for C. egeriae release. Feasibilty of these islands will be assessed and reported separately.

This report includes results of field assessments for Pulu Blan, Pulu Labu and Pulu Kembang.

METHODS

TARGET SPECIES

During the active survey phase (Waypoint surveys and active/transit searches), species of significance – either potential predators, competitors or species present that potentially indicate a healthy ecosystem (e.g. nesting seabirds) were recorded. Evidence of deliberately lit fires was also recorded. Table 3 lists these species of interest and for potential threats a matrix has been developed for potential impacts and possibility of eradication.

Table 3: Species targeted and species threat matrix during active survey efforts during the 2014 Cocos feasibility study

Species Waypoint Transit Potential impact Possibility of eradication

Low - Re-colonisation by winged Low/Moderate - C. egeriae have females likely and non-target High density been shown to eat YCA and exist invertebrate food items likely YCA √ √ in YCA supercolonies affected High - Present in high densities on Feral chicken √ √ some Cocos islands High - Easy to remove

6 Moderate - Relatively unknown White- but a known predator of breasted invertebrates and other small waterhen √ √ animals Low - Highly mobile

Moderate - An opportunistic Nankeen predator with a wide dietary night heron √ √ range Nil - Native to Cocos

Moderate - Specialises in small Nankeen prey items including reptiles in Low - Highly mobile, although may kestrel √ √ open areas not be present on Cocos

Moderate - Relatively unknown but a known predator of Buff-banded invertebrates and other small rail √ √ animals Nil - Native to Cocos

Moderate - Possibility reduces on High - Present in very high larger islands and islands in close Black rat √ √ densities on most Cocos islands proximity to others High - A single cat on a small island is capable of significant High - Easy to remove on a small Feral cat √ √ impact island

Moderate - Possibility reduces on House High - Capable of consuming C. larger islands and islands in close mouse √ √ egeriae at all life stages proximity to others

Moderate - A potential predator, competitor and vector for disease Low - difficult to remove entirely, H. frenatus √ √ transmission but possible to reduce numbers L. lugubris √ √ Low - Similar to L. listeri Nil - Possibly native to Cocos

Moderate - A potential predator, competitor and vector for disease Low - difficult to remove entirely, Mute gecko √ √ transmission but possible to reduce numbers

Moderate - A potential predator, competitor and vector for disease Low - difficult to remove entirely, H. brookii √ √ transmission but possible to reduce numbers R. braminus √ √ Nil Nil Purple land crab √ NA NA Any hermit crab √ NA NA Giant High - A proven predator of Low - difficult to remove entirely, centipede √ √ C.egeriae but possible to reduce numbers Pandanus √ NA NA Siam weed √ NA NA Any nesting seabird √ √ NA NA High - Can possibly raise entire High - through community Fire √ √ islands consultation and awareness

7 WAYPOINT SURVEYS

A 90x90m (0.81ha) grid of centroid waypoints was superimposed over the selected islands and following the initial island assessment 12 waypoint surveys were conducted. This grid enabled each island of interest to be surveyed in at least two separate locations (Range 2-13), gave a total number of survey locations that can be surveyed within the survey timeframe and allowed surveyors to detect spatial changes in environmental conditions across the island. Each waypoint was tagged to ensure that the same location will be surveyed during any subsequent survey period. General observations made by the observer at the waypoint included information on weather, date & time and any species of interest detected at the waypoint during any of the monitoring activities performed at the waypoint. The methods applied during this survey closely resemble those used in The Christmas Island-wide Survey (Department of Environment and Heritage 2012). Appendix 1, waypoint datasheet, contains the areas of information collected at each waypoint.

At each waypoint the following monitoring activities were preformed;

TRANSECT SURVEY

At each waypoint a 10x2m transect was extended in an easterly direction from the waypoint, or in a westerly direction where an easterly bearing was impossible (running into the ocean, obstruction). Two different survey techniques were employed along the transect including ant counts and destructive searches.

1. Ant Counts;

Following protocols prescribed in the CINP NRM book 3 separate ant counts were conducted at 5m intervals along the transect. This observation will not give an accurate assessment of YCA supercolony presence but enabled a comparison of YCA abundance between waypoints and islands.

2. Destructive survey;

One meter each side of the transect any moveable object (logs, leaf litter, tree bark, rocks etc) were lifted/moved by the surveyor to check for the presence of any species of interest, specifically; reptiles, centipedes and rats. Any small invertebrate as part of the invertebrate survey was collected during this time either by hand or with the use of a pooter.

HABITAT ASSESMENT

Whilst at the waypoint surveyors made a subjective assessment on habitat quality, complexity and abundance of the surrounding area. These observations were conducted by CINP staff experienced in the assessment of highly suitable habitat for the endemic reptiles on Christmas Island and essentially drew comparisons of habitat suitability at the site with those in favorable habitat on Christmas Island. Observations were given as either;

 Nil – habitat type is absent,

 Low – habitat type is poorly represented or poor quality,

 Moderate – habitat type is represented and is moderately consistent with habitat on Christmas Island,

 High – Habitat type is well represented and highly consistent with habitat on Christmas Island.

An overall assessment was performed assessing the location as either not suitable, suitable or highly suitable.

8 INK CARD SURVEY

As per methods prescribed in the CINP NRM book groups of 10 ink Cards were deployed at each survey waypoint meaning a total of 120 ink cards were used during the survey. The ink cards were deployed during the active diurnal surveys and retrieved 13-16 later by Cocos staff. Ink cards were not baited with an attractant as previous experience on Cocos suggests that adding any attractant results in the ink card being destroyed by hermit crabs. The datasheet for ink card deployment is shown in Appendix 2.

ACTIVE/TRANSIT SURVEY

Active searches were conducted in transit between waypoints, both nocturnally and diurnally. This involved similar techniques employed during the Island-wide survey of Christmas Island with the methods stated in both the CI NRM book and 2013 IWS methods (Department of Environment and Heritage 2012). Surveyors recorded spatial information on any species of interest as is shown in Table 3. During this activity surveyors recorded all detections of each species as point data with the exception of high density YCA and fire where polyline or ‘area’ information could be collected. Surveyors also had the ‘track’ function on their GPS turned on to record search effort. Appendix 3 is the transit datasheet used in the survey.

STATIC MONITORING SURVEYS

Given the availability of equipment and the ability to complete the study in the given timeframe each island regardless of size was surveyed at two locations for a period of 3 to 4 days. Each of the two locations on the island of interest were chosen based on the feasibility of installing and retrieving the passive monitoring equipment but every attempt was made to ensure that the two sites were not in close proximity with each other and that they were in locations that represent the habitat types of the island.

It was determined that insect sampling should follow that of previous studies conducted in the IOT, i.e. the Biodiversity Monitoring Program on Christmas Island (James 2007) and an invertebrate survey undertaken by Monash University in 2005 on the Cocos islands (Neville, Yen et al. 2005). Both these studies employed the use of pitfall, malaise, intercept and light traps, as well as sweep and beat netting. In addition to these methods, the sampling also utilised sticky traps and camera deployment, mainly to indicate the presence of rats and other vertebrate species

MALISE TRAPS

One Malaise trap was deployed at each site on trees that were accessible to the surveyors. They were not deployed in the canopy of the vegetation but mostly suspended just above ground level for the duration of the catching period. The traps used were those deployed during the BMP between 2004/06 and many repairs had to be made to the nets. It is not clear if these repairs impaired the efficacy of the traps, in relation to the amount of insects caught, so if further assessment of insects is required, the purchase of new malaise traps could be considered.

INTERCEPT TRAPS

One Intercept trap (water trap) was deployed in an area that appeared a natural pathway for insects flying through vegetation. Again, these traps were utilised during the Biodiversity and Monitoring program Christmas Island (2004-2006) and due to the age of the plastic intercept screen it is thought that the opaque nature of the screen may have prevented more insects being trapped due to the screen being detected by flying insects.

9 DRY AND WET PITFALL TRAPS

Two lengths of drift line fencing of approximately 15m were deployed at each survey location and in total 5 dry and 5 wet pitfall traps were installed along this fencing. The wet pitfalls proved to be very attractive to the local land crab and as such, wet pitfall samples were badly affected, with most being pulled up by the land crab and samples not collected. The dry pitfalls did not suffer the same fate as the wet pitfalls but there was some removal by land crabs and many were filled with sand. Samples proved to be small as can be seen from the data collected.

SWEEPS & BEATS

Sweep netting was employed by both surveyors at each site by simply sweeping the survey area for 5 min, beating whatever vegetation was present with the net and disturbing coconut husk piles and dead coconut fronds and sweeping the net over the heap.

LIGHT TRAPS

One light trap was deployed at each site for the duration of the survey period. Light traps proved to be difficult to get samples, mainly due to equipment malfunction. Only a very small number of light trap samples were collected, as indicated in the results. As the BTS are diurnal feeders, it is most likely that insects caught this way would be, at best, opportunistic prey items or larval stages could be possibly available as prey to the BTS.

CAMERA MONITORING

A total of three ScoutGuardtm cameras were deployed at one of the static monitoring sites on each island. They were placed low to the ground (50-100cm) with the aim of detecting potential mammalian or avian predators.

The following Table (Table 4) depicts the total survey effort for the survey.

Table 4: Survey effort summary

RESULTS

SUITABLE ISLAND ASSESSMENT

Three islands were surveyed during the January survey being Pulu Blan, Pulu Labu and Pulu Kembang. All three islands met the criteria of the desktop assessment and appeared to be moderately to highly suitable as potential future release locations for C. egeriae. Each of the three islands surveyed offered significantly different habitat and each had their pro’s and con’s.

10

Figure 1: Islands surveyed during the January 2014 Cocos feasibility study

Table 5: Summary of active survey detections

Table 6: Summary of passive survey detections

11

PULU BLAN

This island was the smallest of the three surveyed (2.08ha) and may be at risk of flooding with only 0.1ha above 1.5masl, however this island is a long way (1.35km) from the atoll shelf. There was a single Pondok on the island, however it appeared disused. Two main habitats existed on the island dominated by Cocos nucifera and Pemphis acidula scrub. Invertebrates appeared particularly abundant in the Pemphis scrub and the island supports very high densities of H. frenatus, the highest that the surveyors had seen on either Cocos or Christmas Islands and occasional G. mutilata. Other potential risks include evidence of fire from Cocos locals burning off rubbish, presence of rats and a small colony of reef egrets breeding in the Pemphis scrub.

Figure 2: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Blan

12 PULU LABU

Pulu Labu had significantly varied and complex vegetation including a number of large Calophyllum inophyllum trees and other remnant vegetation including Termanalia catappa, Scaevola taccada, Pemphis acidula and Cordia subcordata in the dominant Cocos nucifera vegetation. Pulu Labu was the largest island surveyed (4.05ha) with a large area well above sea level (0.79ha above 1.5m ASL). There was a seemingly disused Pondok on this island and little evidence of visitation including no evidence of fire. Interestingly, densities of gecko species appeared relatively low with H. frenatus, G. mutilata and L. lugubris all found in relatively equal abundance, again invertebrate densities appeared high. Despite appearing as the most suitable island on Cocos, Pulu Labu is only 25m from South Island and a significant land bridge develops on even a modest low tide. Rats were also present, although only on ink cards. Pulu Labu is also very difficult to access, with a short window available for boat access only possible on high tides.

Figure 3: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Labu

13 PULU KEMBANG

Like Pulu Labu, Pulu Kembang had significantly varied vegetation, though not quite to the same extent. There were significant areas of unidentified vine thicket, Guettarda speciosa, Pemphis acidula and Scaevola taccada, Cordia subcordata and Argusia argentia. At 3.38ha and with 0.67ha above 1.5m ASL, risks of tidal flooding seem relatively low aside from a significant swampy area on the inner-Western side. The island is also relatively isolated with Pulu Wak Banka at 126m being the nearest island. There were two Pondok’s that may have some intermittent activity, and there were significant areas of fire damage and some resident chickens. Rats were abundant and a water hen was also present. Densities of G. mutilata were high while L. lugubris and H. frenatus were also present, no doubt making use of the seemingly abundant invertebrate community. Despite the presence of some perceived threats it is the opinion of the surveyors ( that this is the most suitable island of the three surveyed due to the absence of a land bridge, complex habitats, moderate size and easy access. Further work and a complete invertebrate assessment may help confirm this.

Figure 4: Survey locations, effort and species detections on Pulu Kembang

ADDITIONAL WORK DONE ON COCOS

Due to the identification and subsequent biosecurity alert for H. parvimaculatus all survey islands including West and Home islands were checked for the presence of this species. No H. parvimaculatus were identified by either Following the biosecurity alert being released on the 17th of February 2014 however, a number of likely H. parvimaculatus specimens have been presented to Cocos National Parks staff with samples taken for formal identification. Whilst surveying for geckos on Home Island, high densities of an unknown Hemidactylus species were noticed on the large Calophyllum inophyllum trees near the jetty. Two samples were taken and photos were sent to (WA museum) and (WA DPaW) for identification between the 12th and 17th of February 2014. By the 17th of February they had confirmed that the species was Hemidactylus platyurus. A biosectrity alert has been released for this species.

14 Additionally, gecko samples were taken from Home and West Islands for disease analysis. These samples were sent to at Taronga with the final assays and report due in the near future. Samples were not taken from the survey islands as formalin was only acquired after night work had been completed on the three islands of interest.

Table 7, below details the samples taken.

Table 7: Gecko samples taken from West and Home Islands during the 2014 Cocos feasibility survey

Reptile Feasability Study - January 2014 Southern Atoll - Cocos Keeling Island Species Location Date Sample Type Stored In L. Lugubris West Island 13.01.2014 Whole cadaver 70% ethanol H. Platyurus Home Island 16.01.2014 Whole cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Platyurus Home Island 16.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 17.01.2014 Whole cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 17.01.2014 Whole cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 17.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 17.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 17.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin G. Mutilata West Island, old jetty 19.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin G. Mutilata West Island, old jetty 19.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin H. Frenatus West Island 20.01.2014 Dissected cadaver 10% Buff Formalin

RECCOMMENDATIONS

It is the strong opinion of the two surveyors that the habitat complexity and available resources (food, shelter & water) found on the three islands surveyed are likely to be capable of supporting significant populations of C. egeriae. A number of prohibitive factors remain such as the presence of Pondoks (Cocos island community support), presence of predators and costs of their removal, risks of C. egeriae escaping to neighboring islands, presence of competing reptile species (gecko’s) and risks of flooding from storm surge events.

Due to the limited time and resources, failure of some survey elements (pitfall traps) and lack of repeat surveying we recommend that a second survey be conducted on the atoll. The original survey was conducted in January, during the ‘wet season’, if a repeat survey were to be conducted we suggest performing the survey during the ‘dry season’ (August – November) in an attempt to detect any seasonal changes in the environment.

Following assessment of the final report, should the advice from CIRAP be that we proceed with future Christmas Island reptile translocations on Cocos, we believe that the success of any translocations would be benefited by the following;

1. Threatening process removal Elimination or control of perceived threats such as rats, cats, waterhens, centipedes and/or competing reptile species should be considered if feasible. Costs and effort will have to be considered. Other threats such as deliberately lit fires and chickens will have to be eliminated through community consultation. 2. Habitat restoration

15 The islands surveyed already have significant areas of habitat suitable for C. egeriae but this could be enhanced through some weeding, limited Cocos nucifera removal and re-vegetation with locally native (and Christmas Island native) species such as Pisonia grandis, Guettarda speciosa, Pemphis acidula, Termanalia catappa, Cordia subcordata, Calophyllum inophyllum and Argusia argentia.

3. Careful consultation with the Cocos islands community will have to be implemented as each of the islands are used for various purposes by the local community including Pondoks (holiday shack owners), camping, fishing, chicken farming, forest burning and cultural reasons. It will be important to engage the relevant stakeholders at every stage of the process.

SURVEY CONSTRAINTS/SURVEY ELEMENT SUCCESS

Unfortunately some of the survey elements failed, specifically many of the pitfall traps as they appeared to be irresistible to the land and hermit crabs. At some sites most samples were lost in this way and any future pitfall work will have to be conducted in a manner where the land crabs are excluded from the traps. Time constraints and difficulties working around tidal movements meant that sampling periods for some survey elements such as the malaise, intercept and camera traps were limited.

16

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1: WAYPOINT DATASHEET

17 APPENDIX 2: INK CARD DATASHEET

18 APPENDIX 3: TRANSIT DATASHEET

19 APPENDIX 4: STATIC MONITORING DATASHEET

20 APPENDIX 5: WAYPOINT RESULTS

21 APPENDIX 6: STATIC INVERTEBRATE RESULTS

22 23 24 25

28

29 REFERENCES

Cogger, H., R. Sadlier and E. Cameron (1983). The terrestrial reptiles of Australia's island territories. Canberra, Australia, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Department of Environment and Heritage, E. A. (2012). Christmas Island National Park, Core Natural Resource Programs. Commonwealth of Australia 2012, Christmas Island National Park - Natural Resource Management Program: Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Director of National Parks (2014). Christmas Island Reptile Feasibility Scope. Canberra, Department of the Environment.

James, D. J. (2007). Christmas Island biodiversity monitoring programme: summary report, December 2003 to April 2006. P. A. North. Canberra.

Neville, P., A. Yen, D. O’Dowd, M. Archer and K. MacGregor (2005). Cocos (Keeling) Islands terrestrial invertebrate survey 2005. Perth, Western Australia, Monash University: 1-68.

30