DOCSLIB.ORG

Contents Koalas - a Grim Future? 2 Editorial & Contacts Ustralia Has a Diverse Range of Wildlife Abut None Perhaps Quite As Unique As Fauna the Koala

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Contents Koalas - a Grim Future? 2 Editorial & Contacts Ustralia Has a Diverse Range of Wildlife Abut None Perhaps Quite As Unique As Fauna the Koala South East Queensland JULY 2009 Volume 3 Number 3 Newsletter of the Land for Wildlife Program South East Queensland ISSN 1835-3851 South East Queensland Contents Koalas - a grim future? 2 Editorial & Contacts ustralia has a diverse range of wildlife Abut none perhaps quite as unique as Fauna the Koala. 1 SEQ Koalas - a grim future? Koalas climb down from their trees in 3 Fauna Vignettes - Lace Monitor search of a mate during spring and summer and to search for feed trees. Dispersing 4 Richmond Birdwing Butterflies young also venture in search of a new Breeding in Brisbane home range. In today’s environment in 8 Giant Golden Orb-weaver SEQ this daily cycle is incredibly risky. Feed trees are fewer and far between, roads It has been shown that bushland sites Flora isolate habitats and patches of bushland rely on immigration of urban Koalas to are fragmented. Cars are plentiful and dog maintain viable populations. As urban 3 In Praise of Macaranga attacks are more frequent. These effects on Koala populations decline, flow-on effects 10-11 Some ecological and habitat Koalas can lead to disease or mortality. are now being recorded in protected areas restoration values of Acacias such as Venman Bushland National Park Once common along eastern Australia, the 15 Precious Chlorophyll decline of Koalas has long been recognised. and Daisy Hill Conservation Park. Perhaps most evident is the decline within The future of Koalas within SEQ is SEQ where Koalas once had a stronghold. a responsibility that we all share. Weeds SEQ continues to be the fastest growing Governments must act to protect Koalas; 6 -7 Creeping Lantana region of Australia, with clearing for however, landholders and the community 12 Water Mimosa development into Koala habitat continuing can contribute too. Simple actions can to threaten the survival of Koalas. make a difference. In 2004, Koalas were listed as Vulnerable • Plant food and habitat trees for Koalas. Practicalities in the SEQ Bioregion under the Nature • Drive slowly at night and keep to speed 5 Pardalote Housing Conservation Act 1992. However, a recent limits. Koalas, like most native marsupials, report, Decline of the Koala Coast Koala are nocturnal. Property Profile Population: Population Status in 2008 • Ensure that property fencing is wildlife 9 My Little Corner released by the Dept. of Environment and friendly. Resource Management, shows that Koala 14 Cornubia Forest Park Expansion numbers continue to decline at an alarming • Take precautions and ensure your dog is 13 Book Reviews rate. Since 2005-2006 the Koala Coast restricted from Koala habitat at night. population (Brisbane, Logan and Redlands) • Report or record Koala sightings to local 16 National Koala Strategy has declined by 51% in less than 3 years. wildlife networks, Local Government and Fire and Biodiversity Fact Sheets In less than 10 years this same population the Daisy Hill Koala Centre. has declined by 64%. A study on Koalas in • Report sick, injured or dead Koalas to the the former Pine Rivers Shire found a 45% Daisy Hill Koala Centre. decrease in numbers since 2001. Article by Melanie Harrison Published with Modelling predicts that, if the current rate Land for Wildlife Extension Officer the assistance of of decline continues, there will be less than Redland City Council the Australian 500 Koalas remaining on the Koala Coast See backpage for information on how Government. by 2010. you can contribute to the National Koala Conservation Strategy. editorial orking in the environment sector Another motivator could be summarised Land for Wildlife Wwe can come across a fair bit of in the 80’s flavoured catch-phrase bad news. Which is why, when I was Think Global, Act Local. The fact Extension Officers asked recently to speak at the Sunshine that the majority of SEQ is in private South East Queensland Coast Conservation Forum, I chose to ownership means that if we are serious Brisbane City Council speak about motivation. What keeps us about protecting threatened species All enquiries, 3403 6777 motivated to pull out weeds, look after and ecosystems, then we must assist Fflur Collier our threatened species and plant trees? landholders to manage them. Long Jenny Staples lists of birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, I think the first motivator is at a property Greg Siepen plants, mammals and invertebrates scale. I have met Land for Wildlife Scott Sumner form State and National threatened members who have transformed Susan Finlay species legislation. Many occur on Land weed-choked creeks into clear flowing Gold Coast City Council for Wildlife properties. Knowing that waterways and those who have remarked Darryl Larsen, 5582 8896 your activities on your property directly at the return of birds or butterflies as a Lexie Webster, 5582 8344 contribute to the survival of a rare plant or result of their tree planting efforts. These animal can be an excellent motivator. Ipswich City Council benefits are enjoyed close to home. Peter Copping, 3810 6608 So I wish to thank all Land for Wildlife On another scale, motivation may be Mark Bell, 3810 6666 members who stay motivated, for drawn from neighbouring landholders Andrew Bailey, 3810 6666 whatever reason, to manage and protect working together for similar conservation our ecological assets. Lockyer Valley Regional Council goals. There are examples of this Martin Bennett, 5462 0376 happening in SEQ whereby Land for You may notice that contacts for the Wildlife members get together to remove Burnett Mary Region have been added Logan City Council weeds and plant trees on each others’ on this page. This newsletter is now being Rachel Booth, 3412 5321 Nicole Lechner, 3412 4859 properties. These occasions foster social distributed across the Burnett Mary and I Lyndall Rosevear, 3412 4860 and shared-ecological benefits and can welcome all readers from this region. be a great motivator. Land for Wildlife Moreton Bay Regional Council I hope you find this edition interesting, Extension Officers have played a key role Amanda Sargeant, 3283 0291 and perhaps even motivating. Thanks to all in supporting these local projects through Stuart Mutzig, 3283 0296 contributors, and as always, I welcome any the provision of grants and equipment. Ed Surman, 3283 1235 stories or images that you wish to share. As Land for Wildlife in SEQ continues Redland City Council to grow, I believe that we will see more Deborah Metters Melanie Harrison, 3820 1106 collective working bees working on a sub- Land for Wildlife Gavin Hammermeister, 3820 1102 catchment scale. Regional Coordinator Scenic Rim Regional Council SEQ Catchments Keith McCosh, 5540 5436 Somerset Regional Council Landholder Registrations, Land for Wildlife SEQ - 01/06/2009 Martin Bennett, 0428 198 353 Michelle Ledwith, 5422 0516 Registered Working Towards Total Area under Sunshine Coast Regional Council Total Area Retained Properties Registration Restoration Dave Burrows, 5449 5202 Josh Birse, 5441 8002 2535 550 45,992 ha 2,744 ha Stephanie Reif, 5441 8672 Nick Clancy, 5439 6433 Alan Wynn, 5439 6477 Forward all Letters to the Editor, Land for Wildlife South East Queensland is Toowoomba Regional Council Fauna Vignettes and My Little Corner a quarterly publication distributed free of All enquiries, 4688 6611 contributions to: charge to members of the Land for Wildlife program in South East Queensland. The Editor Print run - 4200 Burnett Mary Region Land for Wildlife Newsletter SEQ Catchments Backcopies from 2007 - 2009 Gympie Region PO Box 13204 available for download from Marc Russell, 5482 4766 George Street QLD 4003 www.seqcatchments.com.au/LFW.html Backcopies from 1998 - 2006 Fraser Coast Region 07 3211 4404 available upon request to the Editor. Roger Currie, 4129 0762 [email protected] ISSN 1835-3851 North & South Burnett Region Land for Wildlife is a voluntary program Louise Newman, 4165 3551 that encourages and assists landholders Bundaberg Region to provide habitat for wildlife on their Kate Lyons, 4181 2999 properties. Baffle Creek Region www.seqcatchments.com.au/LFW.html Derani Sullivan, 4181 2999 2 Land for Wildlife South East Queensland July 2009 Fauna Vignettes is a new feature designed for you - Land for Wildlife members - to send in images of wildlife fauna vignettes from your property. In 2009, all contributors to Fauna Vignettes will receive a free Suburban and Environmental Weeds of South-East Lace Monitors and Chook Pens Queensland DVD valued at $64.90. Send good quality images and he resident pictured makes regular visits explanations to the Editor Tto our chook house leaving with a skin full (see pg 2). of egg yolks. It is not interested in swallowing shells. Also is not interested in being afraid of humans. An excellent tree climber, it prefers the shady side while waiting for a chance to visits its favourite restaurant. In Praise of Macaranga This Lace Monitor lizard is only the second one to be seen on our property at Chambers Flat in or 25 years, I have been developing a native rainforest the 15 years we have been here. We first noticed Fgarden that now extends over 7 acres and has recently been empty egg shells in the chicken house and registered with Land for Wildlife. Not a year goes past but I eventually saw the culprit leaving the shed one sing the praises of Macaranga - in my opinion the outstanding day. In appreciation of its presence, the lizard is pioneer rainforest plant in the South East Queensland corner. allowed to take some eggs on each visit. Requiring no special attention, it grows fast and tall in the forest (bushy in the field) allowing a regular influx of filtered light Lorna Tolleson and Keith Sayers that favours understorey species. In lightly-forested or drought Land for Wildlife members situations, it sheds its leaves that provide heavy mulch for when Chambers Flat conditions improve and things return to normal.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network Newsletter
    Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network Newsletter No 23, February 2012 THE RICHMOND BIRDWING CONSERVATION NETWORK As a Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network (RBCN) operates under the umbrella of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (WPSQ), RBCN promotes conservation of the Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia , its food plants, Pararistolochia spp. and butterfly habitats. Subscription to RBCN is open to anyone interested in the Richmond birdwing butterfly or insects of conservation concern. RBCN encourages liaison between community members, Catchment and Landcare groups and relevant government authorities. RBCN holds occasional General Meetings, Workshops and Field Days. The RBCN Committee is elected each year to manage day to day activities of the Network. Corridor Coordinators are elected as RBCN contacts for local members and other community groups. RBCN NETWORK COMMITTEE Dr Chris Hosking (Chair) [email protected] Hugh Krenske (RBCN Website) Greg Siepen (Grants) [email protected] [email protected] Ray Seddon (Committee) Richard Bull (Committee) [email protected] [email protected] Dr Ian Gynther Dr Don Sands (Editor Publications) [email protected] [email protected] Corridor Cordinators Dale Borgelt (Brisbane Region) Keth McCosh (Scenic Rim) [email protected] [email protected] Ray Seddon (Sunshine Coast) Richard Bull (Gold Coast-Tamborine) [email protected] [email protected] www.richmondbirdwing.org.au Annual Subscription $15 per annum payable
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Answers to Questions on Notice Environment Portfolio
    Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Answers to questions on notice Environment portfolio Question No: 3 Hearing: Additional Estimates Outcome: Outcome 1 Programme: Biodiversity Conservation Division (BCD) Topic: Threatened Species Commissioner Hansard Page: N/A Question Date: 24 February 2016 Question Type: Written Senator Waters asked: The department has noted that more than $131 million has been committed to projects in support of threatened species – identifying 273 Green Army Projects, 88 20 Million Trees projects, 92 Landcare Grants (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/3be28db4-0b66-4aef-9991- 2a2f83d4ab22/files/tsc-report-dec2015.pdf) 1. Can the department provide an itemised list of these projects, including title, location, description and amount funded? Answer: Please refer to below table for itemised lists of projects addressing threatened species outcomes, including title, location, description and amount funded. INFORMATION ON PROJECTS WITH THREATENED SPECIES OUTCOMES The following projects were identified by the funding applicant as having threatened species outcomes and were assessed against the criteria for the respective programme round. Funding is for a broad range of activities, not only threatened species conservation activities. Figures provided for the Green Army are approximate and are calculated on the 2015-16 indexed figure of $176,732. Some of the funding is provided in partnership with State & Territory Governments. Additional projects may be approved under the Natinoal Environmental Science programme and the Nest to Ocean turtle Protection Programme up to the value of the programme allocation These project lists reflect projects and funding originally approved. Not all projects will proceed to completion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology of Casmara Subagronoma (Lepidoptera
    insects Article The Biology of Casmara subagronoma (Lepidoptera: Oecophoridae), a Stem-Boring Moth of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa (Myrtaceae): Descriptions of the Previously Unknown Adult Female and Immature Stages, and Its Potential as a Biological Control Candidate Susan A. Wineriter-Wright 1, Melissa C. Smith 1,* , Mark A. Metz 2 , Jeffrey R. Makinson 3 , Bradley T. Brown 3, Matthew F. Purcell 3, Kane L. Barr 4 and Paul D. Pratt 5 1 USDA-ARS Invasive Plant Research Laboratory, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA; [email protected] 2 USDA-ARS Systematic Entomology Lab, Beltsville, MD 20013-7012, USA; [email protected] 3 USDA-ARS Australian Biological Control Laboratory, CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Dutton Park QLD 4102, Australia; jeff[email protected] (J.R.M.); [email protected] (B.T.B.); [email protected] (M.F.P.) 4 USDA-ARS Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA; [email protected] 5 USDA-ARS, Western Regional Research Center, Invasive Species and Pollinator Health Research Unit, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, CA 94710, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-954-475-6549 Received: 27 August 2020; Accepted: 16 September 2020; Published: 23 September 2020 Simple Summary: Rhodomyrtus tomentosa is a perennial woody shrub throughout Southeast Asia. Due to its prolific flower and fruit production, it was introduced into subtropical areas such as Florida and Hawai’i, where it is now naturalized and invasive. In an effort to find sustainable means to control R. tomentosa, a large-scale survey was mounted for biological control organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Controlling Invasion of the Exotic Shrub (Mimosa Pigra) in Tropical Australian Wetlands
    Controlling invasion of the exotic shrub (Mimosa pigra) in tropical Australian wetlands Michelle Marko Introduction to exotics in Australia Exotics have been introduced to Australia since the time of European settlement, beginning in the 1800s. Whether deliberately or accidentally introduced, some species such as feral cats (Felis catus), the cane toad (Bufo marinus), athel trees (Tamarix aphyllabitou) and the bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera), have wrought devastation. The majority of exotics have little impact on the natural ecosystem, but those that do (between 2-40 %) are aggressive invaders that can successfully compete for niches previously occupied by native species. Many exotics not currently problematic have the potential to cause serious damage in the future (Hobbs and Humphries 1995). These exotics negatively modify the richness and abundance of other species and therefore alter the function of the natural ecosystems (Storrs and Lonsdale 1995). In Australia, about 15% of the overall vascular flora are naturalized alien species, which is estimated to be 15,000-20,000 species (Environment Australia 1998). The Northern Territory, with around 4-5 % weeds, has the lowest percentage of any state or territory in Australia. However, in the Northern Territory, Sida sp., salvinia (Salvinia molesta), Hyptis suaveolens, water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), and giant sensitive plant (Mimosa pigra) are considered major threats (CSIRO 1997). Mimosa pigra, in particular, is considered one of Australia's worst weeds of conservation. In this paper, I will discuss methods to control Mimosa pigra and some areas of future research. Invasiveness of Mimosa pigra Mimosa pigra L. (Mimosaceae) poses a tremendous threat to agriculture, the conservation of wetlands and land use practices of the Aboriginal people of Australia (Braithwaite et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Mimosa (Neptunia Oleracea)
    Invasive plant risk assessment Biosecurity Queensland Agriculture Fisheries and Department of Water mimosa NeNeptunia oleracea Dead and awake Neptunia plena Steve Csurhes First published 2008 Updated 2016 PR08–3686 © State of Queensland, 2016. The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0/au/deed.en" http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en Contents Identity and taxonomy 2 Neptunia oleracea Lour. 2 Neptunia plena (L.) Benth. 2 Taxonomy and genetics 2 Descriptions (from Windler 1966) 3 Neptunia oleracea 3 Neptunia plena 4 Reproduction and dispersal 5 Seed longevity 5 Origin 5 History of introduction 5 Worldwide distribution 6 Neptunia oleracea 6 Neptunia plena 7 Distribution in Australia 8 Preferred habitat and climate 9 History as a weed overseas and interstate 9 Impact 10 N2 fixation 10 Effect on water resources 10 Economic benefits 10 Ponded pasture 10 Horticultural crop 11 Herbal medicine 11 Pest potential in Queensland 12 Biological control 12 References 13 Invasive plant risk assessment: Water mimosa Neptunia oleracea Dead and awake Neptunia plena 1 Identity and taxonomy Neptunia oleracea Lour. Synonyms: Acacia lacustris Desf., Desmanthus lacustris Willd., D. natans Willd., D. stolonifer DC, Mimosa aquatica Pers., M.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Risk to Neptunia Oleracea Lour. by the Moth, Neurostrota Gunniella (Busck), a Biological Control Agent for Mimosa Pigra L
    Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 449 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA Neal R. Spencer [ed.]. pp. 449-457 (2000) Assessing the Risk to Neptunia oleracea Lour. by the Moth, Neurostrota gunniella (Busck), a Biological Control Agent for Mimosa pigra L. I. W. FORNO1, J. FICHERA1, and S. PRIOR2 1CSIRO Entomology, PMB 3, Indooroopilly Q4069, Australia 2Present Address: Department of Natural Resources, Magazine Street, Sherwood Q4075, Australia Abstract Mimosa pigra L. is native to tropical America and is an aggressive, invasive weed on the flood plains of the Northern Territory of Australia and in several countries in Southeast Asia. Neurostrota gunniella (Busck) (Gracillariidae) was introduced into Australia from Mexico in 1986 for biological control of mimosa. It was released in 1989 following com- pletion of extensive host range studies which determined that the moth bred readily on M. pigra and to a much lesser extent on Neptunia dimorphantha Domin, N. gracilis Benth., N. major (Benth.) Windler, N. monosperma F. Muell. and M. pudica L. Damage to these non-target species was assessed as insignificant. Subsequently, this moth was introduced to Thailand where quarantine studies showed substantial attack on an important vegetable, N. oleracea Lour., which is a perennial, aquatic herb which either grows prostrate near the water’s edge or floats by forming spongy aerenchyma around the stems. N. gunniella was not released in Southeast Asia. Further studies showed that N. gunniella oviposits and breeds similarly on potted M. pigra and the terrestrial form of N. oleracea but fewer eggs are laid and larval mortality is much greater on N.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network Newsletter
    Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network Newsletter No 21, June 2011 RICHMOND BIRDWING CONSERVATION NETWORK The Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network (RBCN) is a community- based Group, under the umbrella of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (WPSQ). RBCN promotes conservation of the Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia , its food plants, Pararistolochia spp. and habitats for the butterfly. Subscription to the Network is open to anyone interested in the Richmond birdwing or other insects of conservation concern. RBCN encourages liaison between community members, Catchment and Landcare groups, and relevant local and state government authorities. RBCN hosts General Meetings, Workshops and Field Days. This Newsletter is published by the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland. The RBCN Network Committee thanks Lois Hughes for permission to reproduce the delightful illustrations on covers of this series. RBCN OFFICE BEARERS Network Committee Chairman (Acting ) Retiring Chair (2010-11) Hugh Krenske (National Data Base) Greg Siepen (Projects/Grants) [email protected] [email protected] Ray Seddon (Corridor Convenor) Joan Heavey [email protected] [email protected] Chris Hosking (Assist. Editor) Susan Rielly [email protected] [email protected] Dr Ian Gynther (DERM collaboration) Don Sands (Newsletter Editor) [email protected] [email protected] www.richmondbirdwing.org.au Subscriptions ($15 per annum payable to RBCN-WPSQ) and all correspondence to be sent to: The
    [Show full text]
  • Modelling Integrated Weed Management of an Invasive 41, 547–560 Shrub in Tropical Australia
    Journal of Applied Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Ecology 2004 Modelling integrated weed management of an invasive 41, 547–560 shrub in tropical Australia YVONNE M. BUCKLEY*, MARK REES*†, QUENTIN PAYNTER‡ and MARK LONSDALE§ *NERC Centre for Population Biology and †Department of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK; ‡CSIRO, Division of Entomology, Tropical Ecosystems Research Centre, PMB 44 Winnellie, NT 0822, Australia; and §CSIRO, Division of Entomology, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia Summary 1. Where biocontrol programmes for invasive plants are in place, only one-third are fully successful. Integrated weed management (IWM) emphasizes the use of several complementary control measures. 2. We used models of increasing complexity to determine which parameters affect site occupancy of an invasive shrub, Mimosa pigra, in tropical Australia. Two introduced biocontrol agents have spatial effects on both plant fecundity and the probability of recolonization after senescence. We incorporated biocontrol effects into IWM models with small-scale disturbance, such as grazing and pig-rooting, and large-scale disturbance, such as mechanical control, herbicide and fire. The models were parameterized from experimental and field data. 3. The models indicated that reduction in fecundity is not the most important impact of biocontrol; rather it is defoliation at the edges of stands, allowing grasses to out-compete M. pigra seedlings. We demonstrated that biocontrol alone is only successful at low levels of small-scale disturbance and seedling survival and, even then, current biocontrol agents would take decades to reduce a stand to < 5% site occupancy. 4. Our model predicts the most successful IWM strategy to be an application of herbicide in year 1, mechanical control + fire in year 2 and herbicide in year 3, with reduction of small-scale disturbance where possible.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Exotic Species in the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve
    AN ASSESSMENT OF EXOTIC SPECIES IN THE TONLE SAP BIOSPHERE RESERVE AND ASSOCIATED THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY A RESOURCE DOCUMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES December 2006 Robert van Zalinge (compiler) This publication is a technical output of the UNDP/GEF-funded Tonle Sap Conservation Project Executive Summary Introduction This report is mainly a literature review. It attempts to put together all the available information from recent biological surveys, and environmental and resource use studies in the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve (TSBR) in order to assess the status of exotic species and report any information on their abundance, distribution and impact. For those exotic species found in the TSBR, it is examined whether they can be termed as being an invasive alien species (IAS). IAS are exotic species that pose a threat to native ecosystems, economies and/or human health. It is widely believed that IAS are the second most significant threat to biodiversity worldwide, following habitat destruction. In recognition of the threat posed by IAS the Convention on Biological Diversity puts forward the following strategy to all parties in Article 8h: “each contracting party shall as far as possible and as appropriate: prevent the introduction of, control, or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species”. The National Assembly of Cambodia ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1995. After reviewing the status of exotic species in the Tonle Sap from the literature, as well as the results from a survey based on questionnaires distributed among local communities, the main issues are discussed, possible strategies to combat the spread of alien species that are potentially invasive are examined, and recommendations are made to facilitate the implementation of a strategy towards reducing the impact of these species on the TSBR ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • QFC Fauna Report
    Fauna Habitat Assessment and EVR Investigations Proposed Alignment for Northern Pipeline Interconnector Stage 2 Palmwoods to Yandina Report Prepared for Southern Regional Water Pipeline Alliance Fauna Habitat Assessment and EVR Species Investigations Proposed Alignment for Northern Pipeline Interconnector Stage 2 Palmwoods to Yandina 21/03/2008 Date 21/03/08 Title Fauna Habitat Assessment and EVR Investigation. Proposed Alignment for Northern Pipeline Interconnector Stage 2 Palmwoods to Yandina. Author/s Bryan Robinson Status Final Report Filed as Northern Pipeline Interconnector EVR Fauna and Habitat Assessment Stage 2 Report 0801 The contents of this report and its appendices may not be used in any form by any party other than the Client. The reproduction, adaptation, use or communication of the information contained within this report may not be used without the written permission of Queensland Fauna Consultancy Pty Ltd. Neither the author/s nor the company (QFC Pty Ltd) accepts any liability or responsibility for the unauthorised use of any part of this document. Queensland Fauna Consultancy Pty Ltd. Page ii Report number 0801 Final Report Fauna Habitat Assessment and EVR Species Investigations Proposed Alignment for Northern Pipeline Interconnector Stage 2 Palmwoods to Yandina 21/03/2008 CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 3
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Birdwing Recovery Network Inc
    Newsletter of the Richmond Birdwing Recovery Network Inc. Number 8, April 2007 $4.00 ISSN 1833-86 Richmond Birdwing Recovery Network Newsletter No. 8 April 2007 1 Our cover illustration of a female Richmond birdwing feeding on bottlebrush nectar is from an original painting by Lois Hughes. Prints beautifully reproduced on quality watercolour paper (295 x 210 cm) are available from Lois Hughes (ph. (07) 3206 6229) for $20 per print + postage. The RICHMOND BIRDWING RECOVERY NETWORK INC. since it was launched in 2005, has promoted conservation of the Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia , its habitats and food plants. Membership of the Network is open to anyone interested in conserving the Richmond birdwing and other insects of conservation concern. The Network promotes liaison between interested community members, catchment groups and relevant local and state government authorities. The Network holds quarterly General Meetings, occasional Regional or Special Meetings and publishes quarterly, a Newsletter distributed to the members. OFFICE BEARERS 2006/07 President Secretary Don Sands, Dawn Muir c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, Kenmore, Qld 4069 Kenmore, Qld 4069 [email protected] [email protected] Vice President Treasurer Greg Siepen Alan Scott c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, Kenmore, Qld 4069 Kenmore, Qld 4069 [email protected] Councillors Chris Hosking Jan Crossland c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, Kenmore, Qld 4069 Kenmore, Qld 4069 [email protected] [email protected] Hugh Krenske c/- RBRN, PO Box 855, Kenmore, Qld 4069 [email protected] This newsletter is distributed to members of the Richmond Birding Recovery Network Inc .
    [Show full text]
  • Project Report
    Project Report Host vines for use in the captive breeding and release program to overcome inbreeding depression in wild populations of the Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia Matt Cecil* On behalf of the Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network 16 October 2019 *Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Level 1, 30 Gladstone Road, Highgate Hill Queensland 4101, Australia. Introduction The Richmond birdwing butterfly Ornithoptera richmondia, the largest butterfly in subtropical eastern Australia, is restricted to south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales, where it favours lowland rainforest supporting the sole, low-elevation larval food plant, the birdwing butterfly vine Pararistolochia praevenosa. In Queensland, the Richmond birdwing is listed as vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, although it is not listed under equivalent conservation legislation in New South Wales. Loss and fragmentation of habitat in the region since European settlement has resulted in a reduction in the butterfly’s range of approximately 60%. More insidiously, forest fragmentation has isolated certain birdwing subpopulations, which over time have become inbred. This has resulted in localised extinction events, causing a further contraction in the butterfly’s distribution. In an attempt to counteract these threats to the species, a captive-breeding and release program is being conducted by the Department of Environment and Science (DES) in Queensland, with the support of the Richmond Birdwing Conservation Network (RBCN) and other collaborators. The program, which commenced in 2010, entails selectively mating adult butterflies from different geographic sources to yield progeny with increased genetic diversity for release to the wild at target localities in south-east Queensland where inbreeding is known or suspected to be exerting a negative impact.
    [Show full text]