Threatened Species Nomination Form For amending the list of threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 2014/15AssessmentPeriod The purpose of this form is to provide a nomination to the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) for assessment of a non EPBC Act listed species/subspecies for inclusion on the list of threatened species or to nominate a species/subspecies for reassessment for consideration for listing in another category of threat.
For a non-EPBC Act listed species to be eligible for listing as a threatened species it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for listing. For a species already listed as threatened under the EPBC Act to be eligible for listing in a higher or lower category of threat it must be assessed as meeting at least one of the five criteria for a particular indicative threshold. For example, for a species listed as endangered to be found eligible for listing as critically endangered, it must meet the critically endangered indicative thresholds for at least one of the listing criteria.
If there is insufficient information to enable details to be provided because of a lack of scientific data or analysis please include any information that is available or provide a statement next to the relevant question identifying that the data or analysis is not available. Please provide references in your nomination to support information provided.
If you are nominating a species for removal from the list please complete the nomination form to delist a species.
The Committee recognises that completing a nomination form is demanding as a result of the information required by the Committee to undertake an assessment to determine the eligibility for listing. Nominators are encouraged to seek expert advice where appropriate to assist in the completion of the nomination form.
Important notes for completing this form Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing. Certain information in this nomination is required to be provided by Division 7.2 EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations can not be provided to the Committee for consideration. All required questions are included in this nominations form. If information to answer any of the questions in this form is NOT available please state this in your answer as this is sufficient to meet the requirements of the EPBC Regulations. Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including employment in a state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form. If the species is considered to be affected by climate change, please refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species (Attachment B; Part B2). Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. Note that the information in the nomination (but excluding any information specifically requested by you to remain confidential) will be made available to the public and experts for comment. However, your details as nominator will not be released, and will remain confidential. Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination). Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed. Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A. If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+ clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).
Details of Nominated Species or Subspecies
1. NAME OF NOMINATED SPECIES (OR SUBSPECIES) Scientific name: Aipysurus fuscus Common name(s): Dusky Sea Snake, Timor Reef Snake 2. CURRENT LISTING CATEGORY What category is the species currently listed in under the EPBC Act? (If you are nominating the species for removal from the list, please complete the nomination form for removal from the list). X Not Listed Extinct Extinct in the wild Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Conservation dependent 3. 2013–2014 CONSERVATION THEME Is the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ relevant to this nomination? If so, briefly explain how. NA
Transfer Information (for transferring of a species to another category) Note: If the nomination is to transfer a species between categories please complete questions 4-6. If the nomination is for a new listing please proceed to question 7. If the nomination is to remove a species from the list, please use the delisting form. 4. REASON FOR THE NOMINATION FOR CATEGORY CHANGE Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. What is the reason for the nomination:
Genuine change of status New Knowledge Mistake Other
Taxonomic change– ‘split’ newly described ‘lumped’ no longer valid
5. INITIAL LISTING Describe the reasons for the species’ initial listing and if available the criteria under which it was formerly considered eligible
6. CHANGES IN SITUATION With regard to the listing criteria, how have circumstances changed since the species was listed that now makes it eligible for listing in another category?
Species Information 7. TAXONOMY Provide any relevant detail on the species' taxonomy(e.g. authors of taxon or naming authority, year and reference; synonyms; Family and Order).
Author, year: Tschudi, 1837 Synonyms: Stephanohydrafusca, (Tschudi, 1837) Class: Reptilia Order: Squamata Family: Elapidae Subfamily: Hydrophiinae
8. CONVENTIONALLY ACCEPTED Is the species conventionally accepted? If the species' taxonomy is NOT conventionally accepted, then please provide the following information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000: a taxonomic description of the species in a form suitable for publication in conventional scientific literature; OR evidence that a scientific institution has a specimen of the species, and a written statement signed by a person who is a taxonomist and has relevant expertise (has worked with, or is a published author on, the class of species nominated), that the species is considered to be a new species. YES
9. DESCRIPTION Provide a description of the species including where relevant, distinguishing features, size and social structure How distinct is this species in its appearance from other species? How likely is it to be misidentified?
A. fuscus is brown, blackish-brown or purplish –brown in colour, more or less uniform, but often with obscure, faint paler cross-bands on the lower flanks. In some specimens the centre of each lateral scale is darer, resulting in faint, dark, longitudinal striations. Ventral surface is brown. A small, moderately build snake superficially resembling the larger, more heavily built Aipysurus laevis, but with darker colouration. Head shields, especially the parietals are partly fragmented, but the major shields are more or less regular. Body scales are smooth, imbricate, in 19 rows at mid-body. Ventrals 155-180, slightly notched behind. Anal divided. Subcaudals 24-37, all single. 0.6 – 0.78 metre (total adult length), tail 0.10 metre. (Cogger 2000; Smith 1926).
There is very little sexual dimorphism evident except in the subcaudal scales of a sample for Ashmore Reef in 2003 and 2004. The subcaudal count for males ranged from 25 to 35 (mean = 30 , SD = 2.01, n= 15). The subcaudal scale count for females ranged from 26 to 33 (mean = 28.5, SD = 2.0 n = 15) (Francis 2006). Tubercules formed on the anterior ventral scales and the posterior ventral scales of male dusky sea snakes during the mating season (May) at Ashmore Reef. Females lacked tubercules on the scales at any time of the year (XXXXXXX pers. comm.,XXXX).
Social structure The dusky sea snake is not known to form a recognisable social structure. Most sightings are of individuals or pairs. There is one report from Ashmore Reef of males protecting gravid females resting in coral heads nearing parturition; during this time the males display aggression towards divers (Guinea 2005). However, very little is known of the species’ social structure.
Distinct appearance from other species The Aipysurus sea snakes are distinct from other species of sea snakes by their enlarged body scales, the wide ventral scales. Colouration is variable within species and within populations. A combination of characters separate Aipysurus fuscus from other Aipysurus species; between 155-180 ventral scales without or with only a slight median notch on the posterior border. Head shields more or less broken up and some of the supralabials divided horizontally. Less than 21 scale rows around midbody.
Misidentification A. fuscus is most likely to be mistaken for its close relative A. laevis. Genetically pure individuals of these species can be distinguished by body size, number of mid-body scale rows and colour pattern, but they frequently hybridise and individuals of mixed ancestry most closely resemble A. laevis (Sanders et al. 2014).
10. DISTRIBUTION Provide a succinct overview of the species’ known or estimated current and past distribution, including international/national distribution. Provide a map if available.
Is the species protected within the reserve system (e.g. national parks, Indigenous Protected Areas, or other conservation estates, private land covenants, etc.)? If so, which populations? Which reserves are actively managed for this species? Give details. A.fuscus is a Timor Sea endemic species and in the past had an already restricted distribution, only occurring at Ashmore and nearby reef complexes, Hibernia and Scott Reefs, in northern WA (Fig.1) (Cogger 2000; Smith 1926). The type locality of A.fuscus is given as Sulawesi, Indonesia, based on the single type specimen. However this provenance is very doubtful and subsequent surveys in north and south Sulawesi have found no evidence of A.fuscus (xxx xxx, pers. comm. Xxxx xxxx pers. comm.; Cogger 1975).
Since 2008 A. fuscus is extinct at Ashmore Reef and its distribution is further restricted to Scott and Hibernia reefs. The total maximum range area is reduced to 262km2, and the Hibernia population is isolated from conspecifics at Scott Reef by 26km of unsuitable (>200m deep water) habitat (Cogger, 1975; Guinea 2012 a, b; Lukoschek et al., 2013; Sanders et al., 2014). The only pure breeding population remains at Scott Reef in very low numbers.
Fig 1. Indicative past distribution map (Department of Environment, 2014).
Protected areas The reefs in the Timor Sea are located on the Sahul Shelf and isolated by waters between 200m and 600m deep (AIMS 2008). Reefs are comprised of the Ashmore Reef complex, Scott and Seringapatam Reefs, Hibernia Reef and Cartier Island. Scott Reef is managed by the WA State Government, whereas Seringapatam and Ashmore Reefs and Cartier Island are Marine Reserves under Australian Commonwealth Government regulations with management plans according to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (DEH 2002). The nature reserve at Scott reef is restricted to Sandy Islet reef flat and sand cay with the majority of the reef habitat outside the reserve. Hibernia Reef is managed by the Indonesian and Australian Governments, where Indonesia controls the water column and Australia is responsible for the sea bed and the minerals within (DEWHA 2008).
In all of those areas, despite Ashmore Reef being a Marine Reserve, this species has never and is not currently actively managed.
11. BIOLOGY/ECOLOGY Provide a summary of biological and ecological information.
Include information required by the EPBC Regulations 2000 on: life cycle including age at sexual maturity, life expectancy, natural mortality rates specific biological characteristics habitat requirements for the species for Fauna: feeding behaviour and food preference and daily seasonal movement patterns for Flora: pollination and seed dispersal patterns
Although A. fuscus probably relies on photoperiodic and thermal cues to trigger reproductive events, it is unclear which specific environmental factors influence sea snake reproductive cycles and breeding patterns (Heatwole 1999). A. fuscus is viviparous with its young born underwater. Mating has been recorded in April and May at Ashmore Reef with birth occurring the following December and January. Reproductive males become spinous in the anterior ventral scales and body scales in general during the mating season. Females are entwined as they swim and mating occurs in the water column. No parental care is provided and juvenile sea snakes are independent of their mother (Heatwole 1999). Juveniles do not move far from their place of birth and hide in corals in their first year of life. As a reef associated species, A.fuscus is restricted in its ability to disperse and therefore has a low dispersal rate and consequently high geographic genetic structure (Lukoschek et al. 2007). Based on similar species, this species has a generation length of approximately five years, based on a longevity of approximately 10 years, and age of first maturity of 3-4 years
(Lukoschek et al., 2010).
Natural mortality rates are unknown, but out of 37 specimens investigated, 10.8 % had conspicuous tail injuries and 2.7 % had scars on body (Heatwole 1975).
A. fuscus is diurnally active and feeds at the bottom of the sea. A. fuscus is mostly found on the reef flat, hiding on cavities under dead coral debris at low tide, or in shallow waters along the outer reef edge. It can also be found in deeper water of up to 25m with moderate to heavy coral growth, and gullies and channels with sandy bottoms (Minton and Heatwole, 1975). The Dusky Seasnake has been observed at Ashmore Reef digging into sand in shallow water (< 1 m), apparently in search of prey (Guinea & Whiting 2005).
Habitat selection is associated with foraging behaviour and reflects the varied diet of reef fish from the families Labridae (wrasses), and Gobidae (gobies), eel, and fish eggs (Voris and Voris 1983). McCosker (1975) identified stomach contents as Eleotriodes longipinnis, Halichoeres trimaculatus and Cymolutes praetextatus. Voris (1972) also reported fish eggs from A. fuscus stomach contents. Head and tongue are used to locate prey in the substrate or in burrows, crevices and holes. Prey are possibly also detected by using inner ear and scale sensillae receptors to detect prey - generated water motion (Heatwole 1999; Westhoff et al. 2005). They rise to the sea surface to breathe. The sea surface is also the place where they rest, bask and drink freshwater during showers of rain.
12. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Is the species known to have cultural significance for Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available. A. fuscus is not known to have cultural significance for any Indigenous groups within Australia
Threats 13. KNOWN THREATS Identify any KNOWN threats to the species, and state clearly whether these are past, current or future threats and whether the threats are actual or potential. .
NB – CLIMATE CHANGE AS A THREAT. If climate change is an important threat to the nominated species it is important that you provide referenced information on exactly how climate change might significantly increase the nominated species’ vulnerability to extinction. For guidance refer to the Guidelines for assessing climate change as a threat to native species(Attachment B; Part B2).
Current actual threats:
Hybridisation with A. laevis At Scott and Hibernia reefs, A. fuscus, coexists with closely related and locally abundant A. laevis. Recent analysis of microsatellite markers for A. fuscus and A. laevis showed significant levels of gene flow following species divergence, and highest rates of introgression from the large A. laevis population into the much smaller A. fuscus population (Sanders et. al., 2014). Although high frequencies of hybrids were found on both reefs, individuals of pure A. fuscus ancestry were only found at Scott. Particularly concerning is that 95% of snakes sampled at Hibernia were hybrids that resembled A. laevis in phenotype, none had pure A. fuscus ancestry. This revealed a collapse of reproductive barriers (‘reverse speciation’) at this reef. These results have dire implications for the conservation status of A. fuscus: genetically pure A. fuscus might now only be found at Scott reef, where they are also at risk of future declines via introgression with A. laevis.
It is unclear what environmental or demographic factors might have increased hybridisation rates at Hibernia, and whether these have anthropogenic or natural causes. Given that Hibernia is situated only ~30km from Ashmore, it is tempting to link the dramatic extinction of all sea snakes from Ashmore to the failure of reproductive barriers between A. fuscus and A. laevis at Hibernia. Future studies are needed to better understand the demographic and environmental factors underlying hybridisation in these species.
Current potential threats Habitat loss
As a reef-associated sea snakes, A. fuscus typically shelters and forages under edges and within the reef matrix. Reduced habitat complexity has been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of reef fishes (Graham et al., 2007; Pratchett et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2009); thus, it is likely that reductions in coral cover, diversity and habitat complexity following bleaching events have contributed to the declines of reef-associated sea snake species at Ashmore Reef. The mass bleaching event of 2003 caused significant widespread coral mortality at Ashmore Reef (Rees et al., 2003) with average coral cover reduced to 10% (Kospartov et al., 2006). Sand encroachment has also been reported to have reduced coral cover in the inner region of Ashmore Reef, and may have impacted sea snakes (Guinea 2008).
Air gunning during seismic surveys for oil and gas exploration started in the Timor Sea during the 1990, coinciding with sea snake declines at Ashmore. Air gunning has well documented negative impacts on diverse marine taxa, but its impacts on sea snakes are presently unknown.
14. IMPACT OF THE THREATS Identify how the species is affected by the threats. Specific threats are unknown, but if they include habitat quality, prey availability, and/or water temperatures then these will likely have an increasing impact in the future.
15. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of recovery and threat abatement/mitigation actions that are underway and/or proposed. None underway or proposed
Eligibility against the criteria To be considered eligible for listing a species must be eligible for at least one of Criteria 1-5 (Q18-22). The species does not have to be found eligible for all Criteria and information is not required for all criteria if unavailable, however an answer to all questions must be provided, if data/information is unavailable a statement to this effect is required
16. CRITERION 1 Reduction in numbers (based on any of A1 – A4)
A1. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 90%, severe 70% substantial 50% size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased, based on (and specifying) any of the following: (a) direct observation (b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon (c) a decline in area of occupancy, extent of occurrence and/or quality of habitat (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation (e) the effects of introduced taxa, hybridization, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites.
A2. An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%size reduction over the last 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer, where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
A3. A population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%, projected or suspected to be met within the next 10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer (up to a maximum of 100 years), based on (and specifying) any of (b) to (e) under A1.
A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population size reduction very severe 80%, severe 50% substantial 30%over any 10 year or three generation period, whichever is longer (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future), where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the reduction or its causes may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on (and specifying) any of (a) to (e) under A1.
A2: An inferred substantial (30%) to severe (50%) population size reduction over the last 10 years. Consistent abundance data are not available for A. fuscus. However, the 50% decline in their area of occupancy (see Q17 below) following their complete extinction at Ashmore can be interpreted to infer a population size reduction of at least 30%.
Population data:
Dusky sea snakes were in very low numbers during manta board surveys of the Reefs on the Sahul Shelf in 2012 and 2013.
Table 1. Numbers of A. fuscus on the shelf edge reefs of the Sahul Shelf seen during manta board surveys in 2012(a) and 2013(b) (Guinea 2012, 2013).
Species Ashmore Cartier Hibernia Browse Seringa- Sandy North Common Name Reef Island Reef Island* patam Islet, Reef, Reef * Scott Reef Scott Reef * * Dusky Seasnake 0(a) 0(a) 0(a) 0(a) 1(a) 1(a) 1(a) 0(b) 0(b) 0(b) 0(b) 1(b) 4(b) 2(b) * indicates a control site. Dusky sea snakes were low in number given the intensity of the surveys and the densities of sea snakes on each reef.
Table 2. The density of various sea snake species on the five reefs where sea snakes were recorded are given for the 2012(a) and 2013(b) surveys with the 95% confidence limits of the estimate and coefficient of variation along with the area surveyed and the number of transects on each of the reefs.
Locality Density 95% Coefficient of Survey Area Number of (snakes/ confidence Variation (ha) transects hectare) levels Sandy Islet Scott 1.79(a) 1.13 - 2.83(a) 0.22(a) 26.6(a) 12(a) Reef* 6.21(b) 3.5 – 10.9(b) 0.27(b) 23.3(b) 17(b) North Reef Scott 1.44(a) 0.84 - 2.46(a) 0.27(a) 89.8(a) 15(a)
Reef* 3.6(b) 2.21 – 5.89(b) 0.25(b) 53.7(b) 21(b) Seringapatam 4.44(a) 2.89 - 6.80(a) 0.22(a) 44.0(a) 23(a) Reef* 1.89(b) 1.34 – 2.68(b) 0.22(b) 52.4(b) 21(b) Hibernia Reef 2.35(a) 1.36 - 4.06(a) 0.27(a) 59.5(a) 18(a) 2.69(b) 1.76 – 4.13(b) 0.21(b) 42.2(b) 16(b) Cartier Island 6.16(b) 4.00 – 9.46(b) 0.21(b) 37.3(b) 13(b) * indicates a control site
Surveys of Ashmore reef in 1998 recorded dusky sea snakes with a relative abundance of 3.6 % from observations on 83 individual sea snakes (XXXX XXXX unpublished). The dusky sea snake followed the continuing declining population trend of other sea snakes on Ashmore Reef.
No detailed information is available on the generation length of A. fuscus but based on similar species, this species has a generation length of approximately five years, based on a longevity of approximately 10 years, and age of first maturity of 3-4 years (Lukoschek et al., 2010).
(In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria and if available include information required by the EPBC Regulations2000 on : whether the population trend is increasing, decreasing or static estimated generation length and method used to estimate the generation length)
17. CRITERION 2: Geographic distribution (based on either of B1 or B2) B1. Extent of occurrence estimated to be very restricted <100 km2, restricted <5000 km2 or limited < 20 000 km2 B2. Area of occupancy estimated to be very restricted <10 km2, restricted <500 km2 or limited <2000 km2 AND Geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species, (based on at least two of a–c) a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location. b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following: (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat (iv) number of locations or subpopulations (v) number of mature individuals. c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following: (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy (iii) number of locations or subpopulations (iv) number of mature individuals
NOTE: The distribution of the species within Australia is assessed in two ways, the EXTENT OF OCCURRENCE and the AREA OF OCCUPANCY. The two concepts are closely related, and often confused. Therefore, before you answer this question, please see the definitions and explanatory material in Attachment A. Note that the area of occupancy or the extent of occurrence must be very restricted, restricted, or limited and its geographic distribution must be precarious for the survival of the species.
B2: The area of occupancy of A. fuscus is restricted < 500km2: Following their complete extinction at Ashmore (reef area 227km2), their area of occupancy has declined by approximately 50% to a maximum of ~261km2 (250 km2 reef area at Scott, plus 11km2 at Hibernia) (Sanders et al., 2014).
In addition to the species’ restricted area of occupancy, A. fuscus has a highly fragmented distribution that is precarious for its survival (Scott and Hibernia are separated by ~260km of unsuitable deep-water habitat) (Sanders et al., 2014).
(In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria and if available include information required by the EPBC Regulations2000 on : Whether there are smaller populations of the species within the total population and, if so, the degree of geographic separation between the smaller populations within the total population Any biological, geographic, human induced or other barriers enforcing separation)
18. CRITERION 3 The estimated total number of mature individuals is very low <250, low <2500 or limited<10 000;
And either of (A) or (B) is true A) evidence suggests that the number will continue to decline at a very high (25% in 3 years or 1 generation (up to 100 years), whichever is longer), high (20% in 5 years or 2 generations(up to 100 years), whichever is longer) or substantial (10% in 10 years or 3 generations years), whichever is longer(up to 100) rate; or
(B) the number is likely to continue to decline and its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival (based on at least two of a – c): a. Severely fragmented or known to exist at a limited location. b. Continuing decline, observed, inferred or projected, in any of the following: (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat (iv) number of locations or subpopulations (v) number of mature individuals. c. Extreme fluctuations in any of the following: (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy (iii) number of locations or subpopulations (iv) number of mature individuals
B a , b and c, however, given that the factors underlying the species’ recent population declines are unknown, it is not possible to estimate whether the number of individuals is likely to continue decline.
(In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria, including the estimated total number of mature individuals in known. Note: If the estimated total number of mature individuals is unknown but presumed to be likely to be >10 000 you are not required to provide an answer to either A or B as the species would be ineligible under this criteria.
If you are answering (B) as part of this criteria and have provided and answer to the second part of the criteria in Criterion 2 above you are not required to repeat the information provided in Criterion 2, just referred to it and add any additional information that may be relevant to this criterion.)
19. CRITERION 4: Estimated total number of mature individuals (a) Extremely low < 50 (b) Very low < 250 (c) Low < 1000
Based on the proportion of A. fuscus seen in the 2012 and 2013 surveys and the density of all species on the reefs examined times the area surveyed gives a very low number (less than 250) of individuals (Guinea 2012, 2013) (see tables section 16).
(In answering this question provide details on how the figure derived)
20. CRITERION 5: Probability of extinction in the wild based on quantitative analysis is at least (a) 50% in the immediate future, 10 years or three generations (whichever is longer); or (b) 20% in the near future, 20 year or five generations (whichever is longer); or (c) 10% in the medium-term future, within 100 years.
There are no quantitative data to estimate a probability of extinction within these timeframes.
(In answering this question include data and information on how the species meets the criteria)
21. NOMINATED CATEGORY Note: after completing questions 16-20 sufficient evidence should be available to determine the category for listing. Refer to the indicative threshold criteria at Attachment B. Endangered
22. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE SPECIES IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. X Criterion 1 A1 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e); AND/OR X A2 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) X c) d) e); AND/OR A3 (specify at least one of the following) b) c) d) e);AND/OR A4 (specify at least one of the following) a) b) c) d) e)
X Criterion 2 A1 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c); AND/OR XA2 (specify at least two of the following) X a) b) c)
Criterion 3 A1; AND/OR A2 (specify at least two of the following) a) b) c) Criterion 4
Criterion 5
For conservation dependent Criterion 1 (refer to Q23 below) nominations only: Criterion 2 (refer to Q 24below)
Conservation Dependent Considerations Note: Only complete this section if nominating for consideration under the conservation dependent category, or if nominating a fish (or harvested marine species) with a management plan. Answer either Q.23 OR Q.24, whichever is more appropriate. 23. CONSERVATION PROGRAM (if species is a fish or harvested marine species, see Q.24 first) a) Give details of the conservation program for which this species is a focus. b) Provide details of how the species would become vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered should the program cease.
24. FISH MANAGEMENT PLANS a) Give details of the plan of management that focuses on the fish. b) Provide details of how the plan provides for management actions necessary to stop the decline of and support the recovery of the species, so that its chances of long term survival in nature are maximised. c) Explain the effect on the fish if the plan of management ceased
25. MANAGEMENT PLAN’S LEGISLATIVE BASIS Is the plan of management (or some component/s of it) in force under Commonwealth or State/Territorylaw? If so, provide details. N/A
Reviewers and Further Information
26. REVIEWER(S) Has this nomination been peer-reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names, current professional positions and contact details.
27. FURTHER INFORMATION Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). Francis, E.J. (2006). The Morphology, Population and Distribution of the Dusky Sea Snake Aipysurus fuscus (Tschudi, 1837). Hons. Thesis. Darwin: School of Science and Primary Industries, Charles Darwin University.
Sanders, K., Rasmusson, A.R., Guinea, M.L., 2014. High rates of hybridisation reveal fragile reproductive barriers between endangered Australiansea snakes. Biol.Cons. 107, 200-208.
28. REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.
AIMS (2008) 'Scott Reef Status Report.' Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, QLD.
Cogger HG (1975) Sea Snakes of Australia and New Guinea. In 'The Biology of Sea Snakes'. (Ed. WA Dunson) pp. 59-139. (University Park Press: Baltimore London & Tokyo).
Cogger H (2000) Reptiles & Amphibians of Australia, Fifth edn. Reed Books Australia, Melbourne.
DEH (2002) 'Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve (Commonwealth Waters) Management Plans.' Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT.
DEWHA (2008) 'North-west Marine Bioregional Plan Bioregional Profile - A description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the North-west marine region.' Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
Department of the Environment (2014). Aipysurus fuscus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:18:15 +1100.
Francis, E.J. (2006). The Morphology, Population and Distribution of the Dusky Sea Snake Aipysurus fuscus (Tschudi, 1837). Hons. Thesis. Darwin: School of Science and Primary Industries, Charles Darwin University.
Graham, N., Wilson, S., Jennings, S., Polunin, N., Robinson, J., Bijoux, J., Daw, T., 2007. Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries, and ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21, 1291–1300.
Guinea ML (2005) 'Survey 2005: Sea Snakes of Ashmore Reef, Hibernia Reef and Cartier Island.' Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT.
Guinea ML (2008) 'An assessment of Sea Snake abundance at Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Territory, Stage Three.' Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT.
Guinea, M.L., 2012a. Dwindling sea snakes at Ashmore Reef, searching for the Elephant in the Room. Integr. Comp. Biol. 52 Suppl. 1., E255.
Guinea, M.L., 2012b. Surveys of the Sea Snakes and Sea Turtles on Reefs of the Sahul Shelf, Monitoring Program for the Montara Well Release Timor Sea. DEWHA Final Report Survey 2012.
Guinea ML (2013) 'Surveys of the Sea Snakes and Sea Turtles on Reefs of the Sahul Shelf. Monitoring Program for the
Montara Well Release Timor Sea.' Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT.
Guinea, M.L., Whiting, S.D. 2005. Insights into the distribution and abundance of sea snakes at Ashmore Reef. The Beagle Supplement 1, 199–205.
Heatwole, H. 1975. Sea snakes of the Gulf of Carpentaria. In W. A. Dunson (ed.), The biology of sea snakes: 145-149. Baltimor, London & Tokyo: University Park Press.
Heatwole H (1999) 'Sea Snakes.' (Krieger Publishing Company: Kensington, NSW)
Heatwole, H., Minton, S. A., Taylor, R. & Taylor, V. 1978. Underwater observations on sea snake behaviour. Records of the Australian Museum 31(18):737-761.
Kospartov, M., Beger, M., Ceccarelli, D., Richards, Z., 2006. An assessment of the distribution and abundance of sea cucumbers, trochus, giant clams, coral, fish and invasive marine species at Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve: 2005. A report for the Department of the Environment and Heritage. UniQuest Pty. Ltd., Brisbane, pp. 1–242.
Lukoschek, V., Guinea, M., Rasmussen, A. 2010.Aipysurus fuscus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.
Lemen CA, Voris HK (1981) A comparison of reproductive strategies among marine snakes. The Journal of Animal Ecology50, 89-101.
Lukoschek V, Heatwole H, Grech A, Burns G, Marsh H (2007) Distribution of two species of sea snakes, Aipysuruslaevis and Emydocephalusannulatus, in the southern Great Barrier Reef: metapopulation dynamics, marine protected areas and conservation. Coral Reefs26, 291-307.
Lukoschek, V., Beger, M., Ceccarelli, D., Richards, Z., Pratchett, M., 2013. Enigmatic declines of Australia’s sea snakes from a biodiversity hotspot. Biol. Cons. 166, 191-202.
McCosker, J.E. 1975. Feeding behavior of Indo-Australian Hydrophiidae. In: W.A. Dunson (ed.), Biology of Sea Snakes, pp. 217-232. University Park Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Minton, S.A. and Heatwole, H. 1975. Sea snakes from three reefs on the Sahul Shelf. In: W.A. Dunson (ed.), The Biology of Sea Snakes, pp. 141-144. University Park Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Pratchett, M. S., et al. (2008). "Effects of climate-induced coral bleaching on coral-reef fishes." Ecological and economic consequences. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 46: 251-296.
Rees, M., Colquhoun, J., Smith, L., Heyward, A.J., 2003. Surveys of Trochus, Holothuria, giant clams and the coral communities at Ashmore Reef, Cartier Reef and Mermaid Reef, Northwestern Australia: 2003. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Perth.
Sanders, K., Rasmusson, A.R., Guinea, M.L., 2014. High rates of hybridisation reveal fragile reproductive barriers between endangered Australian sea snakes. Biol.Cons. 107, 200-208.
Smith MA (1926) Monograph of the sea-snakes (Hydrophiidae). Taylor and Francis, London.
Voris, H. K. (1972). "The role of sea snakes (Hydrophiidae) in the trophic structure of coastal ocean communities." Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India 14(2): 429-442.
Voris HK, Voris HH (1983) Feeding strategies in marine snakes: An analysis of evolutionary, morphological, behavioral and ecological relationships. American Zoologist23, 411-425.
Westhoff G, Fry BG, Bleckmann H (2005) Sea snakes (Lapemiscurtus) are sensitive to low-amplitude water motions. Zoology 108, 195-200.
Wilson, S.K., Dolman, A.M., Cheal, A.J., Emslie, M.J., Pratchett, M.S., Sweatman, H.P.A., 2009. Maintenance of fish diversity on disturbed coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 3– 14.
29. IMAGES OF THE SPECIES Please include images of the species if available.
30. APPENDIX Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment.
Nominator's Details Note: Your details are subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. If there are multiple nominators please include details below for all nominators. 31. TITLE (e.g. Mr/Mrs/Dr/Professor/etc.) XXXX
32. FULL NAME XXXX XXXX 33. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE) XXXX 34. CONTACT DETAILS Email: XXXX Postal address: XXXX Phone: XXXX Fax XXXX
35. DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct.
Signed:
*If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature
Date:26/03/2014
Lodging your nomination How to lodge your nomination Completed nominations may be lodged either: 1. by email to: [email protected],or 2. by mail to: The Director Species Information and Policy Section Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601
* If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD.
Where did you find out about nominating species?
The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.
Please tick X DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper word of mouth Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one…………………………………………………………………. web search Other………………………………………………………………………………….. Comments: