DOCSLIB.ORG

Critical Habitat for Canterbury Freshwater Fish, Kōura/Kēkēwai and Kākahi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Critical Habitat for Canterbury Freshwater Fish, Kōura/Kēkēwai and Kākahi CRITICAL HABITAT FOR CANTERBURY FRESHWATER FISH, KŌURA/KĒKĒWAI AND KĀKAHI REPORT PREPARED FOR CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL BY RICHARD ALLIBONE WATERWAYS CONSULTING REPORT NUMBER: 55-2018 AND DUNCAN GRAY CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL DATE: DECEMBER 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aquatic habitat in Canterbury supports a range of native freshwater fish and the mega macroinvertebrates kōura/kēkēwai (crayfish) and kākahi (mussel). Loss of habitat, barriers to fish passage, water quality and water quantity issues present management challenges when we seek to protect this freshwater fauna while providing for human use. Water plans in Canterbury are intended to set rules for the use of water, the quality of water in aquatic systems and activities that occur within and adjacent to aquatic areas. To inform the planning and resource consent processes, information on the distribution of species and their critical habitat requirements can be used to provide for their protection. This report assesses the conservation status and distributions of indigenous freshwater fish, kēkēwai and kākahi in the Canterbury region. The report identifies the geographic distribution of these species and provides information on the critical habitat requirements of these species and/or populations. Water Ways Consulting Ltd Critical habitats for Canterbury aquatic fauna Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Classification of Canterbury Region Freshwater fish ........................................................................... 2 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 3.2 Canterbury Only Species ......................................................................................................... 2 3.3 Highly Threatened Species (not endemic to Canterbury) ....................................................... 3 3.4 Regionally Rare ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.5 Threatened and At Risk Species: Inland .................................................................................. 3 3.6 Threatened and At Risk Species: Coastal and Plains ............................................................... 4 3.7 Distinctive Populations ........................................................................................................... 4 3.8 Invertebrate Mega Fauna ....................................................................................................... 5 3.9 Not Threatened Species .......................................................................................................... 5 4 Species Distributions and Critical habitats ........................................................................................... 5 4.1 Canterbury Only Species ......................................................................................................... 5 4.1.1 Bignose galaxias .............................................................................................................. 5 4.1.2 Lowland longjaw galaxias ................................................................................................ 9 4.1.3 Upland longjaw galaxias ................................................................................................ 10 4.1.4 Upland longjaw galaxias ‘Waitaki’ ................................................................................ 11 4.1.5 Stokell’s smelt ............................................................................................................... 11 Highly Threatened Species ................................................................................................................ 13 4.1.6 Canterbury mudfish ...................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Regionally Rare ..................................................................................................................... 15 4.2.1 Giant kōkopu ................................................................................................................. 15 4.2.2 Shortjaw kōkopu ........................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Threatened and At Risk Species: Inland ................................................................................ 19 4.3.1 Kōaro ............................................................................................................................. 19 4.3.2 Longfin eel ..................................................................................................................... 19 4.3.3 Canterbury galaxias ....................................................................................................... 19 4.3.4 Alpine galaxias ............................................................................................................... 20 4.3.5 Northern flathead galaxias ............................................................................................ 21 4.3.6 Dwarf galaxias ............................................................................................................... 22 4.4 Threatened and At Risk Species: Coastal and Plains ............................................................. 22 4.4.1 Lamprey ........................................................................................................................ 22 i Water Ways Consulting Ltd Critical habitats for Canterbury aquatic fauna 4.4.2 Torrentfish..................................................................................................................... 24 4.4.3 Bluegill bully .................................................................................................................. 27 4.4.4 Inanga ............................................................................................................................ 29 4.5 Distinctive populations ......................................................................................................... 30 4.5.1 Inland lake kōaro ........................................................................................................... 30 4.6 Invertebrate mega fauna ...................................................................................................... 32 4.6.1 Freshwater Mussels/Kākahi .......................................................................................... 32 4.6.2 Freshwater Crayfish/Kēkēwai ....................................................................................... 37 5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 43 6 References ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix A Distribution Maps .............................................................................................................. 51 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of freshwater fish and mega macroinvertebrates, their threat status and distribution .. 44 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Mature bignose galaxias (~60mm long).. ........................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Spring source habitat and run habitat where pelagic juveniles can be observed . ........... 6 Figure 3: Brown trout found with a bignose galaxias inside its gut. ................................................. 7 Figure 4: Fork Stream NZFFD record locations with upland longjaw, bignose and alpine galaxiid locations (left) and brown trout and rainbow trout locations (right). ............................... 8 Figure 5: Electric fishing adult riffle habitat (left) and larval fish pool habitat. .............................. 10 Figure 6: Channelised Canterbury mudfish habitat and a culvert fish passage barrier along a mudfish stream ................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Examples of Canterbury mudfish habitat: spring-fed stream, wetland pool, farm drain and artificial pond............................................................................................................. 15 Figure 8: Giant kōkopu. ................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 9: Shortjaw kōkopu............................................................................................................... 18 Figure 10: Ripe female Canterbury galaxias. ..................................................................................... 19 Figure 11: Common size range of alpine galaxiids (left) and a large individual (right) from a Rakaia River tributary. ................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 12: Lamprey within a nest in Kinloch Stream. Larval fish present on the right of the image 23 Figure 13: Locations of lamprey spawning sites in the Kinloch Stream, Banks Peninsula.. .............. 24 Figure 14: Habitat preferences for torrentfish from Jowett & Richardson
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes
    diversity Article A Global Assessment of Parasite Diversity in Galaxiid Fishes Rachel A. Paterson 1,*, Gustavo P. Viozzi 2, Carlos A. Rauque 2, Verónica R. Flores 2 and Robert Poulin 3 1 The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685, Torgarden, 7485 Trondheim, Norway 2 Laboratorio de Parasitología, INIBIOMA, CONICET—Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Quintral 1250, San Carlos de Bariloche 8400, Argentina; [email protected] (G.P.V.); [email protected] (C.A.R.); veronicaroxanafl[email protected] (V.R.F.) 3 Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +47-481-37-867 Abstract: Free-living species often receive greater conservation attention than the parasites they support, with parasite conservation often being hindered by a lack of parasite biodiversity knowl- edge. This study aimed to determine the current state of knowledge regarding parasites of the Southern Hemisphere freshwater fish family Galaxiidae, in order to identify knowledge gaps to focus future research attention. Specifically, we assessed how galaxiid–parasite knowledge differs among geographic regions in relation to research effort (i.e., number of studies or fish individuals examined, extent of tissue examination, taxonomic resolution), in addition to ecological traits known to influ- ence parasite richness. To date, ~50% of galaxiid species have been examined for parasites, though the majority of studies have focused on single parasite taxa rather than assessing the full diversity of macro- and microparasites. The highest number of parasites were observed from Argentinean galaxiids, and studies in all geographic regions were biased towards the highly abundant and most widely distributed galaxiid species, Galaxias maculatus.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of Interactive Segregation Between Introduced Trout and Native Fishes in Northern Patagonian Rivers, Chile
    Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138:839–845, 2009 [Note] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2009 DOI: 10.1577/T08-134.1 Evidence of Interactive Segregation between Introduced Trout and Native Fishes in Northern Patagonian Rivers, Chile BROOKE E. PENALUNA* Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, 3200 Jefferson Way, Corvallis, Oregon 97331, USA IVAN ARISMENDI Nu´cleo Milenio FORECOS, and Escuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla #567, Valdivia, Chile DORIS SOTO Nu´cleo Milenio FORECOS, Universidad Austral de Chile, Casilla #567, Valdivia, Chile; and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Department, Inland Water Resources and Aquaculture Service, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Abstract.—Introduced rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss recreational fishing and early practices of aquaculture and brown trout Salmo trutta fario are the most abundant (Basulto 2003). It was thought that these areas in the fishes in the northern Chilean Patagonia, and their effect on Southern Hemisphere were suitable for and would benefit native fishes is not well known. We tested for interactive from the addition of trout (Campos 1970; Basulto 2003). segregation between trout and native fishes by using a before– Since their introduction, trout have formed naturalized after, control–impact design in which we deliberately reduced the density of trout and observed the response of the native populations and have become the most abundant fish fishes in their mesohabitat use (pool, run, riffle). Three native species, accounting for over 95% of the total biomass in fish species, Brachygalaxias bullocki, Galaxias maculatus rivers of the Chilean Patagonia (Soto et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Fish Spawning and Migration Periods
    Freshwater Fish Spawning and Migration Periods Prepared for Ministry for Primary Industries November 2014 Prepared by: Josh Smith For any information regarding this report please contact: Josh Smith Freshwater Fish Technician Freshwater & Estuaries Phone +64 07 8567026 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd Gate 10 Silverdale Road Hillcrest, Hamilton 3216 PO Box 11115, Hillcrest Hamilton 3251 New Zealand Phone +64 07 8567026 NIWA CLIENT REPORT No: HAM2014-101 Report date: November 2014 NIWA Project: MPI15202 ISBN 978-0-473-32827-6 © All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system. Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client. Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rediscovering the Species in Community-Wide Predictive Modeling
    Ecological Applications, 16(4), 2006, pp. 1449–1460 Ó 2006 by the the Ecological Society of America REDISCOVERING THE SPECIES IN COMMUNITY-WIDE PREDICTIVE MODELING 1,3 2 2 JULIAN D. OLDEN, MICHAEL K. JOY, AND RUSSELL G. DEATH 1Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 680 N. Park Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA 2Institute of Natural Resources–Ecology, Massey University, Private Bag 11 222, Palmerston North, New Zealand Abstract. Broadening the scope of conservation efforts to protect entire communities provides several advantages over the current species-specific focus, yet ecologists have been hampered by the fact that predictive modeling of multiple species is not directly amenable to traditional statistical approaches. Perhaps the greatest hurdle in community-wide modeling is that communities are composed of both co-occurring groups of species and species arranged independently along environmental gradients. Therefore, commonly used ‘‘short-cut’’ methods such as the modeling of so-called ‘‘assemblage types’’ are problematic. Our study demonstrates the utility of a multiresponse artificial neural network (MANN) to model entire community membership in an integrative yet species-specific manner. We compare MANN to two traditional approaches used to predict community composition: (1) a species-by-species approach using logistic regression analysis (LOG) and (2) a ‘‘classification-then-modeling’’ approach in which sites are classified into assemblage ‘‘types’’ (here we used two-way indicator species analysis and multiple discriminant analysis [MDA]). For freshwater fish assemblages of the North Island, New Zealand, we found that the MANN outperformed all other methods for predicting community composition based on multiscaled descriptors of the environment.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data to Measure The
    25 Using Community Group Monitoring Data To Measure The Effectiveness Of Restoration Actions For Australia's Woodland Birds Michelle Gibson1, Jessica Walsh1,2, Nicki Taws5, Martine Maron1 1Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, 4072, Queensland, Australia, 2School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, 3800, Victoria, Australia, 3Greening Australia, Aranda, Canberra, 2614 Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 4BirdLife Australia, Carlton, Melbourne, 3053, Victoria, Australia, 5Greening Australia, PO Box 538 Jamison Centre, Macquarie, Australian Capital Territory 2614, Australia Before conservation actions are implemented, they should be evaluated for their effectiveness to ensure the best possible outcomes. However, many conservation actions are not implemented under an experimental framework, making it difficult to measure their effectiveness. Ecological monitoring datasets provide useful opportunities for measuring the effect of conservation actions and a baseline upon which adaptive management can be built. We measure the effect of conservation actions on Australian woodland ecosystems using two community group-led bird monitoring datasets. Australia’s temperate woodlands have been largely cleared for agricultural production and their bird communities are in decline. To reverse these declines, a suite of conservation actions has been implemented by government and non- government agencies, and private landholders. We analysed the response of total woodland bird abundance, species richness, and community condition, to two widely-used actions — grazing exclusion and replanting. We recorded 139 species from 134 sites and 1,389 surveys over a 20-year period. Grazing exclusion and replanting combined had strong positive effects on all three bird community metrics over time relative to control sites, where no actions had occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • BEFORE the COMMISSIONERS on BEHALF of the OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Consent No. RM16.093.01 BETWEEN CRIFFEL WATER LIMITED Applic
    BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS ON BEHALF OF THE OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Consent No. RM16.093.01 BETWEEN CRIFFEL WATER LIMITED Applicant AND OTAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL Consent Authority EVIDENCE OF RICHARD MARK ALLIBONE ____________________________________________________________ GALLAWAY COOK ALLAN LAWYERS DUNEDIN Solicitor to contact: Bridget Irving P O Box 143, Dunedin 9054 Ph: (03) 477 7312 Fax: (03) 477 5564 Email: [email protected] BI-308132-1-352-V4 1 EVIDENCE OF RICHARD MARK ALLIBONE Introduction 1. My name is Richard Mark Allibone. 2. I am the Director and Principal Ecologist of Water Ways Consulting Limited. I hold the following tertiary qualifications; a BSc (Zoology and Geology), an MSc (Zoology) and PhD (Zoology), all from the University of Otago. My research has centred on New Zealand’s native fish with a focus on the New Zealand galaxiids, their taxonomy, life history and threats to these species. 3. I specialise in freshwater ecological research and management for native freshwater fish. I have been a researching native fish for over thirty years. Initially my research between 1990 and 2001 was conducted as a post-graduate student and then as a freshwater fisheries specialist for the Department of Conservation, a Post Doctoral Fellow and fisheries scientist at NIWA, and a Species Protection Officer in the Department of Conservation’s Biodiversity Recovery Unit. During 2002-2004 I was the National Services Manager at the QEII National Trust. Since 2004 I have worked as a consultant; firstly for Kingett Mitchell Limited, then Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd. In November 2014 I formed the company Water Ways Consulting Limited where I am a director and the principal ecologist.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Report [PDF]
    How to Assess Potential Biological Effects of Subaqueous Disposal of Mine Tailings – Literature Review and Recommended Tools and Methodologies MEND Report 2.19.1 This work was done on behalf of the Mine Environment Neutral Drainage (MEND) Program and sponsored by: The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and MEND November 2018 How to Assess Potential Biological Effects of Subaqueous Disposal of Mine Tailings – Literature Review and Recommended Tools and Methodologies Report prepared for: MEND Secretariat Natural Resources Canada 555 Booth Street Report prepared by: Peter G.C. Campbell, PGCC Environnement Inc., 2891 rue de la Providence, Quebec City, QC G1W 2C1 William A. Price, Natural Resources Canada, 3793 Alfred Avenue, Bag 5000, 1st Floor, Room: 5000, Smithers, BC V0J 2N0 Table of Contents Figures ............................................................................................................................................. vi Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vi Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. ix Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... x Sommaire
    [Show full text]
  • Memo Prioritisation of Native Aquatic Species Habitat for Protection Under the LWRP Omnibus Plan Change
    Memo Date 21.05.2019 To Andrea Richardson, Senior Planner CC Peter Constantine, ECan From Duncan Gray, ECan and Richard Allibone, Waterways Consulting Prioritisation of native aquatic species habitat for protection under the LWRP Omnibus plan change Introduction Aquatic habitat in Canterbury supports a range of native freshwater fish and the mega macroinvertebrates kēkēwai (crayfish) and kākahi (freshwater mussel). Loss of habitat, barriers to fish passage, water quality and water quantity issues present management challenges when we seek to protect this freshwater fauna while providing for human use. Resource management plans in Canterbury set rules for the use of water, standards for the quality of water in aquatic systems and regulate activities that occur within and adjacent to aquatic areas. As such the Land and Water Regional Plan (LWRP) for Canterbury is an appropriate framework through which to provide protection for the habitat of threatened species. Allibone & Gray (2019) review the biodiversity value and distributions of indigenous freshwater fish, kēkēwai and kākahi in the Canterbury region. The report identifies the geographic distribution of species and provides information on the critical habitat requirements of these species and/or populations. This memo details a prioritisation process undertaken on the information in Allibone & Gray (2019) to establish a list of taxa and their distribution appropriate for protection under the LWRP Omnibus plan change. Distribution data Allibone & Gray (2019 use distributional data for fish and macroinvertebrates derived from the New Zealand Freshwater Fish Database (NZFFD), online surveys conducted by the Canterbury Regional Council and other data provided by universities, Crown Research Institutes and consultancies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Glacial Sequences in the Rangitata and Ashburton Valleys, South Island, New Zealand
    ERRATA p. 10, 1.17 for tufts read tuffs p. 68, 1.12 insert the following: c) Meltwater Channel Deposit Member. This member has been mapped at a single locality along the western margin of the Mesopotamia basin. Remnants of seven one-sided meltwater channels are preserved " p. 80, 1.24 should read: "The exposure occurs beneath a small area of undulating ablation moraine." p. 84, 1.17-18 should rea.d: "In the valley of Boundary stream " p. 123, 1.3 insert the following: " landforms of successive ice fluctuations is not continuous over sufficiently large areas." p. 162, 1.6 for patter read pattern p. 166, 1.27 insert the following: " in chapter 11 (p. 95)." p. 175, 1.18 should read: "At 0.3 km to the north is abel t of ablation moraine " p. 194, 1.28 should read: " ... the Burnham Formation extends 2.5 km we(3twards II THE GLACIAL SEQUENCES IN THE RANGITATA AND ASHBURTON VALLEYS, SOUTH ISLAND, NEW ZEALAND A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography in the University of Canterbury by M.C.G. Mabin -7 University of Canterbury 1980 i Frontispiece: "YE HORRIBYLE GLACIERS" (Butler 1862) "THE CLYDE GLACIER: Main source Alexander Turnbull Library of the River Clyde (Rangitata)". wellington, N.Z. John Gully, watercolour 44x62 cm. Painted from an ink and water­ colour sketch by J. von Haast. This painting shows the Clyde Glacier in March 1861. It has reached an advanced position just inside the remnant of a slightly older latero-terminal moraine ridge that is visible to the left of the small figure in the middle ground.
    [Show full text]
  • New Zealand Mudfish (Neochanna Spp.) Recovery Plan 2003–13
    New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13 Northland, black, brown, Canterbury and Chatham Island mudfish THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN 51 New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13 Northland, black, brown, Canterbury and Chatham Island mudfish THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN 51 Published by: Department of Conservation PO Box 10-420 Wellington, New Zealand Prepared by Rhys Barrier for Biodiversity Recovery Unit, Department of Conservation, Wellington Cover: Above, left: Northland mudfish (Neochanna heleios). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Above, right: Black mudfish (N. diversus). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Below, left: Brown mudfish (N. apoda). Photo: Nicholas Ling. Below, right: Canterbury mudfish (N. burrowsius). Photo: Tony Eldon. This report may be cited as: Department of Conservation 2003: New Zealand mudfish (Neochanna spp.) recovery plan 2003–13. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 51. Wellington, 25 p. The final version was prepared for publication by DOC Science Publishing, Science & Research Unit. Publication was approved by the Manager, Biodiversity Recovery Unit, Science Technology and Information Services, Department of Conservation, Wellington. All DOC Science publications are listed in the catalogue which can be found on the departmental web site http://www.doc.govt.nz © Copyright December 2003, New Zealand Department of Conservation ISSN 1170–3806 ISBN 0–478–22457–5 In the interest of forest conservation, DOC Science Publishing supports paperless electronic publishing. When printing, recycled paper is used wherever possible. Contents Abstract 5 1. Introduction 6 2. Past/present distribution and population 7 Canterbury mudfish 7 Brown mudfish 8 Black mudfish 9 Northland mudfish 10 Chatham Island mudfish 10 3. Cause of decline and present-day threats 11 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Global Phylogeny of Freshwater Mussels
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 130 (2019) 45–59 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Towards a global phylogeny of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionida): Species delimitation of Chinese taxa, mitochondrial phylogenomics, and T diversification patterns Xiao-Chen Huanga,b,1, Jin-Hui Sua,1, Jie-Xiu Ouyangc, Shan Ouyanga, Chun-Hua Zhoua, ⁎ Xiao-Ping Wua, a School of Life Sciences, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China b Centre for Organismal Studies (COS) Heidelberg, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany c Medical Laboratory Education Center, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The Yangtze River Basin in China is one of the global hotspots of freshwater mussel (order Unionida) diversity DNA barcoding with 68 nominal species. Few studies have tested the validity of these nominal species. Some taxa from the Unionidae Yangtze unionid fauna have not been adequately examined using molecular data and well-positioned phylo- Yangtze River genetically with respect to the global Unionida. We evaluated species boundaries of Chinese freshwater mussels, DUI and disentangled their phylogenetic relationships within the context of the global freshwater mussels based on BAMM the multi-locus data and complete mitochondrial genomes. Moreover, we produced the time-calibrated phylo- Host-attraction geny of Unionida and explored patterns of diversification. COI barcode data suggested the existence of 41 phylogenetic distinct species from our sampled 40 nominal taxa inhabiting the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference analyses on three loci (COI, 16S, and 28S) and complete mitochondrial genomes showed that the subfamily Unioninae sensu stricto was paraphyletic, and the subfamily Anodontinae should be subsumed under Unioninae.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Impacts of Introduced Salmonids on Australian Native Fauna
    OVERVIEW OF THE IMPACTS OF INTRODUCED SALMONIDS ON AUSTRALIAN NATIVE FAUNA by P. L. Cadwallader prepared for the Australian Nature Conservation Agency 1996 ~~ AUSTRALIA,,) Overview of the Impacts of Introduced Salmonids on Australian Native Fauna by P L Cadwallader The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth Government, the Minister for the Environment or the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. ISBN 0 642 21380 1 Published May 1996 © Copyright The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Australian Nature Conservation Agency GPO Box 636 Canberra ACT 2601 Design and art production by BPD Graphic Associates, Canberra Cover illustration by Karina Hansen McInnes CONTENTS FOREWORD 1 SUMMARY 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. SPECIES OF SALMONIDAE IN AUSTRALIA 7 2.1 Brown trout 7 2.2 Rainbow trout 8 2.3 Brook trout 9 2.4 Atlantic salmon 9 2.5 Chinook salmon 10 2.6 Summary of present status of salmonids in Australia 11 3. REVIEW OF STUDIES ON THE IMPACTS OF SALMONIDS 13 3.1 Studies on or relating to distributions of salmonids and native fish 13 Grey (1929) Whitley (1935) Williams (1964) Fish (1966) Frankenberg (1966, 1969) Renowden (1968) Andrews (1976) Knott et at. (1976) Cadwallader (1979) Jackson and Williams (1980) Jackson and Davies (1983) Koehn (1986) Jones et al. (1990) Lintermans and Rutzou (1990) Minns (1990) Sanger and F ulton (1991) Sloane and French (1991) Shirley (1991) Townsend and Growl (1991) Hamr (1992) Ault and White (1994) McIntosh et al. (1994) Other Observations and Comments 3.2 Studies Undertaken During the Invasion of New Areas by Salmonids 21 Tilzey (1976) Raadik (1993) Gloss and Lake (in prep) 3.3 Experimental Introduction study 23 Fletcher (1978) 3.4 Feeding Studies, Including Analysis of Dietary Overlap and Competition, and Predation 25 Introductory Comments Morrissy (1967) Cadwallader (1975) Jackson (1978) Cadwallader and Eden (1981,_ 1982) Sagar and Eldon (1983) Glova (1990) Glova and Sagar (1991) Kusabs and Swales (1991) Crowl et at.
    [Show full text]