Mallee Emu-Wren Report

Home , Dusky grasswren, Grasswren, Malurus, Striated grasswren, Wren

Preliminary feasibility study of establishing a captive bred Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee ex-situ insurance population

Prepared by Liberty Olds and BirdLife Australia for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia October 2014

Report produced by BirdLife Australia Suite 2-05 60 Leicester Street Carlton VIC 3053 T (03) 9347 0757 W www.birdlife.org.au

© BirdLife Australia. This report is copyright. Apart from any fair dealings for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission. Enquiries to BirdLife Australia.

Notwithstanding the above, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia and Zoos SA have permission to use this report for any reasonable use associated with the purpose for which the report was commissioned.

This report is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en).

Recommended citation Olds, LGM (2014). Preliminary feasibility study of establishing a captive bred Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee ex-situ insurance population. Report for Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia. Birdlife Australia, Melbourne.

Disclaimers Every effort has been undertaken to ensure that the information presented within this publication is accurate. BirdLife Australia does not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from relying on any information in this publication.

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of BirdLife Australia and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.

While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, BirdLife Australia does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

Acknowledgments Jenny Lau, Golo Maurer and Phil Ainsley provided editorial comments. Sarah Brown, Chris Hedger, David Schultz, Ian Smith, Bruce Pascoe, Carolyn Hogg, Marcus Pickett, Gayl Males, Charlie Romer and Vicki-Jo Russell for their contribution and discussions on the conservation and captive requirements of the Mallee Emu-wren. Thanks to the many scientists, staff, students, volunteers and the many unnamed parties whom have made contributions to the knowledge and conservation of Mallee Emu-wrens. Thanks to all those who attended the Emergency Summit for Threatened Mallee Birds. Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ...... 2 1.1 Scope of report ...... 2 1.2 General assessment ...... 2 1.3 Captive breeding ...... 3 1.4 Overall assessment ...... 3 2. Introduction ...... 3 2.1 Scope and Intent ...... 4 3. Mallee Emu-wren ...... 4 3.1 Taxonomy ...... 4 3.2 Distribution ...... 5 3.3 Biology and Ecology ...... 6 3.4 Threats ...... 10 3.5 Conservation Status ...... 11 4. Captive breeding in avian conservation ...... 11 4.1 Ex situ Maluridae ...... 12 4.2 Ex situ captive breeding ...... 13 4.3 In situ captive breeding ...... 14 4.4 Mallee Emu-wrens recommendations ...... 15 5. Captive breeding guidelines ...... 17 5.1 Approval guidelines ...... 19 6. Collection from the Wild ...... 21 6.1 Source populations ...... 21 6.2 Founding population ...... 22 6.3 Wild to captive translocation ...... 22 7. Captive breeding facilities ...... 24 7.1 Ex-situ captive breeding ...... 24 7.2 In-situ assisted breeding ...... 27 8. Release Considerations ...... 28 9. Stakeholders ...... 29 10. Timeline ...... 29 11. Budget ...... 31 11.1 Summary budget estimate ...... 31 11.2 Potential Funding Sources ...... 37 12. References ...... 37 13. Appendix 1 Husbandry Guidelines ...... 42

1. Executive Summary

Wildfires during the 2013-14 summer have raised serious concerns about the welfare and status of the threatened avian fauna in the Murray Mallee region. In May 2014, an ‘Emergency Summit for Threatened Mallee Birds’ was held, bringing together a range of experts and stakeholders, to develop a plan for recovery of threatened mallee bird species. The Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee) was identified as a key species in need of urgent consideration as they are at high risk of global extinction.

The feasibility of undertaking both a translocation program and a captive breeding program for Mallee Emu-wren recovery were considered to be priorities to enable effective decision making towards their recovery. This captive breeding feasibility study has been aligned with the translocation feasibility study to ensure the necessary considerations are synergistic.

2. Scope of report

The purpose, potential outcomes, and key considerations for captive breeding of the Mallee Emu- wren and its potential contribution towards the species’ conservation are considered in this report. Specific aspects of this report include:

• Mallee Emu-wren biology, ecology and life history relevant to their captive requirements; • Summary of the possible source populations (a comprehensive discussion is presented in the translocation proposal) and considerations for collecting them from the wild; • Guidelines and legislative requirements for collecting from the wild, holding in captivity and releasing to the wild; • Considerations of facilities and husbandry requirements of both ex situ and in situ captive populations; • Suggested time table and budget estimation.

2.1 General assessment

The Mallee Emu-wren appears to only persist in two national parks in Victoria (Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne) with no currently known extant populations remaining in South Australia. This small passerine is at real risk of further decline under current fire management regimes.

Lack of knowledge is a major challenge for undertaking Mallee Emu-wren recovery, and it hinders the ability to assess the feasibility of employing a captive program as a conservation tool. A holistic approach towards Mallee Emu-wren recovery would best enable adaptive management of recovery efforts. Given the vulnerability of the remaining known populations to stochastic events, such as wildfire, this adaptive approach would also assist should emergency decision making be required.

Mallee Emu-wrens have a low to moderate level of genetic diversity and a weak global genetic structure. Homogeneity across their range means that long-term genetic connectivity has been maintained and that the global population can be considered as a single genetic unit. Surveys would need to be undertaken to locate captive founders and given their social relationships and limited dispersal, a number of source groups should be considered to avoid inbreeding depression and maintain integrity. Nevertheless, establishing a captive population is unlikely to put the current wild population at risk.

Only the congeneric Southern Emu-wrens (S. malachurus) have previously been housed in captivity, with limited success. Thus the feasibility of successfully being able to house Mallee Emu-

wrens is difficult to accurately assess. A greater understanding of the intricacies and capabilities to captive breed Mallee Emu-wrens is necessary for making informed decisions. The development of a husbandry manual is therefore recommended to increase knowledge of this species and thus better gauge both methods for, and the usefulness of, captive breeding as an effective conservation tool.

2.2 Captive breeding

Mallee Emu-wrens pose a unique challenge with their diminutive size and habitat requirements. The methods for preventing escape would need considerable thought and careful design prior to construction and/or retrofitting of housing facilities.

The housing requirements of a small number of breeding pairs is inevitably different to that required for an in situ – ex situ metapopulation or an insurance population. The recommendation for captive Mallee Emu-wrens is to firstly consider successfully housing and breeding a small number of pairs to gain an understanding of their captive requirements, and prospective population fulfilments and limitations, before embarking on any larger programs. A similar process was undertaken in the recovery of the Regent Honeyeater, whereby the knowledge gained through the development of husbandry protocols valuably supported the development of the recovery program.

A small founding population of breeding pairs nevertheless needs to consider population growth. The potential maximum number of animals and the minimum requirements to accommodate these within a program need to be accounted for, which requires considerable forward planning. Housing could potentially reach capacity quickly and an exit (or release) strategy, along with additional facilities, should be in place to accommodate this.

The development of a comprehensive husbandry protocol and an adequate understanding of the ability to manage the population and breeding efforts will require a significant commitment and willingness to be innovative, flexible and progressive. This should be driven by a team with expertise (Recovery Team, the organisation housing the wrens and the keeping staff) that are willing to take some risks, to learn and to challenge the Mallee Emu-wrens’ capabilities.

The development of an in situ captive program will depend on an understanding of the ability to use conservation tools and techniques (such as double-clutching). Given the paucity of knowledge of Mallee Emu-wrens, particularly life history and husbandry requirements, forecasting the suitability of these methods for Mallee Emu-wren conservation would be conjecture at this stage. However, consideration of in situ captive populations should not be excluded from recovery planning.

2.3 Overall assessment

Ex situ captive breeding would assist in the preservation of the Mallee Emu-wren, particularly in the development of husbandry techniques. A captive program should be initiated whilst wild source populations are accessible and before there has been further decline. The establishment of a captive population of Mallee Emu-wrens would support the species’ long-term persistence.

3. Introduction

The Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee) is a tiny passerine endemic to the southern Murray Mallee region of Victoria and South Australia. Landscape changes such as past broad-scale vegetation clearance, introduced species and inappropriate fires regimes, have caused the decline of many mallee species. Wildfires during the 2013-14 summer raised serious concerns about the welfare and status of threatened avian fauna in this region. These fires were particularly devastating for the

Mallee Emu-wren. The most recent field searches suggest that it is highly likely this species is close to extinction in South Australia. It is currently only known to persist in two protected conservation reserves in northern Victoria.

In May 2014, an ‘Emergency Summit for Threatened Mallee Birds’ was held bringing together a range of experts and stakeholders, to develop a plan for recovery of these mallee bird species. Three of these species do not currently have endorsed Recovery Plans and a lack of funding has restricted capacity to undertake recovery actions. The Mallee Emu-wren was identified as a key species in need of urgent consideration of both short-term and long-term priorities for recovery as they are at high risk of global extinction.

The feasibility of undertaking both a translocation program and a captive breeding program for Mallee Emu-wren recovery were considered necessary to aid decision making towards the recovery of this species. This captive breeding feasibility study has been aligned with a translocation feasibility study in order to develop the considerations synergistically.

Captive breeding has played an important role in the conservation of many avian species. However, captive breeding programs should not draw attention from the need to mitigate the threats attributed to species’ decline, and a holistic approach should be applied to the recovery of the Mallee Emu-wren. The recommendations in this study consider the purpose, potential outcomes and key considerations for captive breeding of the Mallee Emu-wren and its possible contribution towards conservation of this species.

3.1 Scope and Intent

The aim of this report is to consider the feasibility of establishing an ex situ or in situ captive breeding population of Mallee Emu-wrens and the factors that need to be taken into consideration in doing so. Embarking upon a captive breeding program is a significant undertaking and requires extensive decision making that is beyond the scope of this report. This report will, nevertheless, serve as a guide to the practical implementation of establishing a captive population. This report presents:

• A summary of key biological considerations and wild behaviours; • Possible objectives of holding and breeding captive Mallee Emu-wrens; • Identification of knowledge gaps; • Captive holding facility and husbandry considerations; • Source populations and strategies; • Ethical and legal requirements; • Potential stakeholders; and • Estimated budget and timeline.

4. Mallee Emu-wren

4.1 Taxonomy

The Mallee Emu-wren is part of the Maluridae family which is comprised of three genera (Grass wrens Amytornis, fairy-wrens Malurus and emu-wrens Stipiturus) (Christidis and Boles 2008). Three species of Emu-wren are recognized and these live in distinctive habitats: Mallee Emu-wren (S. mallee) inhabits the understorey of the southern Murray Mallee, the Rufous-crowned Emu-wren (S.

ruficeps) inhabits spinifex in central deserts and the Southern Emu-wren (S. malachurus) inhabits marshes and heathland in southern Australia (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Schodde 1982).

4.2 Distribution

Mallee Emu-wrens occur in the mallee regions of the northwest of Victoria and east of South Australia (Figure 1). Their historical distribution extended from the northern Sunset Country (Murray-Sunset National Park) in north-west Victoria, to south of the Big Desert National Park (to the township of Yanac). Their eastern range limit was the Annuello, Wathe, and Bronzewing Flora and Fauna Reserves in Victoria, whilst to the west they extended to Carcuma Conservation Park (west of Ngarkat Conservation Park) and Billiatt Conservation Park in South Australia (Garnett, Szabo et al. 2011). The Mallee Emu-wren’s extent of occurrence has been estimated at 3856 km² (Mustoe 2006) and their area of occupancy has been estimated to be less than 1000 km² (Brown, Clarke et al. 2009; Mustoe 2006). However, it is likely that their area of occupancy has declined substantially since these estimates were made.

Nine major protected reserves have been known to support Mallee Emu-wren. However, it is likely that they are no longer present in seven of these. Two north-western Victorian reserves, Murray- Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks, support the remaining known global population (Figure 1). Mallee Emu-wren has not been recorded in Bronzewing and Wathe Flora and Fauna Reserves since the 1960’s and 1970’s (Brown, Clarke et al. 2009; Silveira 1993). Surveys of Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve in 2009 did not record Mallee Emu-wren, with the most recent observations being made in 1998 prior to much of the reserve being burnt. There have only been three records of Mallee Emu-wren in Wyperfeld National Park since 1999 (Brown, Clarke et al. 2009), which, along with Billiatt Wilderness Protection Area, Ngarkat Conservation Park and Big Desert Wilderness Park, have been significantly impacted by large wildfires between 1989 and 2014 (Clarke 2004; Gates 2003; Paton and Rogers 2007). Recent surveys of Billiatt and Ngarkat Conservation Parks failed to record any Mallee Emu-wrens (Allan and Hedger 2014). There are a number of smaller conservation reserves within their extent of occurrence, however, the status of the Mallee Emu- wrens within these is unknown.

Figure 1: Distribution of Mallee Emu-wren. Dark grey indicates reserves where Mallee Emu-wren is known to persist (Murray-Sunset National Park and Hattah-Kulkyne National Park), light grey indicates reserves where Mallee Emu-wren is likely to be extinct (Big Desert Wilderness Park / Wyperfield National Park, Bronzewing Flora and Fauna Reserve, Wathe Flora and Fauna Reserve, Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve, Ngarkat Conservation Park and Billiatt Conservation Park). The dotted area indicates historical extent of occurrence. Adapted from Brown (2011).

4.3 Biology and Ecology

4.3.1 Description

The Mallee Emu-wren is one of Australia’s smallest birds. Adult Mallee Emu-wren weigh only 4-6.5g and are 10-15cm in length (Rowley and Russell 1997). The male Mallee Emu-wren is predominantly olive-brown with orange-buff below that merges to a white belly. They have a rufous crown and forehead and possess a prominent sky-blue face, throat and breast. They have six long filamentous, emu-like tail feathers which are just over 1.5 times greater than their body length (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). The Mallee Emu-wren is sexually dimorphic with females lacking the sky-blue colouring, rufous only on the forehead and being duller in comparison to the males. Juveniles are similarly plainer with no blue or rufous colouring about the head, and duller below with a whitish throat and breast (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Rowley and Russell 1997; Schodde 1982).

Mallee Emu-wren have short-rounded wings, with a span of approximately 11.5cm (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). As such, they are poor flyers and rarely seen in flight. Instead, they move nimbly through dense undergrowth and run or flutter at low heights across open ground (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Rowley and Russell 1997; Schodde 1982). They tend to avoid open areas.

Mallee Emu-wrens are shy and secretive and can be difficult to visually detect, with sighting best guided by their high-frequency trilling call (Brown 2011; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). They are gregarious and usually seen in pairs or small groups (Brown 2011). Mallee Emu-wren will

investigate intruders by climbing to the tops of bushes or protruding stems, but hurriedly scurry into cover when disturbed (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001).

4.3.2 Life History

Mallee Emu-wren are thought to be monogamous, with breeding pairs being observed to establish and form territories in late July (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). Their breeding season extends from August to December or January (Brown 2011; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Howe 1933). Whilst breeding pairs have a territory size of approximately 5 hectares (Brown 2011), they (and their fledglings) tend to only travel about 0.3 hectares (n=24) (Brown 2014).

Dome nests are usually built by females in the centre of clumps of spinifex, but they have also been seen to nest in dense shrubs and clumps of dead spinifex (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Howe 1910; Schodde 1982). The mean height of nests is 0.26m above the ground, within spinifex of mean height 0.35m (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). Nests are made of grass, bark strips and leaves of spinifex woven together with other fine materials including spider-web, feathers and fur (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001).

Females lay a clutch of two or more, usually three, eggs that are white with reddish-brown spots and blotches. The female is said to incubate the eggs although the incubation period has not been recorded (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Rowley and Russell 1997). The Southern Emu-wren incubation period is around 19 days (Maguire and Mulder 2004) and the Mallee Emu-wren is assumed to be of a similar length. Similarly based upon Southern Emu-wren observations, the nestling period is likely to be about 14 - 15 days with the period of dependence most likely 50 days in length (Maguire and Mulder 2004).

It is likely that environmental conditions and resource availability affect Mallee Emu-wren breeding and that they will exploit favourable conditions (Brown 2011). Other Maluridae are able to raise multiple broods, usually two, if conditions are favourable and similar may possible of the Mallee Emu-wren, although this is unknown (Brown 2011; Rowley and Russell 1997; Schodde 1982). Conversely, Mallee Emu-wren have been observed to refrain from breeding under drought conditions (S Brown pers. obs.). Low breeding success for other Maluridae species has been associated with environmental conditions, predation and parasitism although this is variable across and within species (Rowley and Russell 1997). Similarly, in the absence of Mallee Emu-wren observations, it is estimated that their fledgling success rates are similar to those of the congeneric Southern Emu-Wren, which produce an average of 1.8 fledglings per clutch of eggs (Maguire and Mulder 2004).

The Southern Emu-wren is capable of breeding at less than one year of age (Maguire and Mulder 2004) which again suggests this may also be the case for the Mallee Emu-wren, but there is no specific information available on their age of sexual maturity. Similarly, life expectancy is unknown, although other Maluridae have reached ages of more than 10 years (Rowley and Russell 1997).

Southern Emu-wrens exhibit biparental care of offspring, with provisioning rates at nests attended by solitary females observed to be lower than those attended by two parents (Maguire and Mulder 2008). Mallee Emu-wren young are probably similarly provisioned by both parents (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Schodde 1982). However, other monogamous passerine females are capable of raising offspring unassisted (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001).

Mallee Emu-wrens have not been observed to cooperatively breed (Brown 2011; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Rowley and Russell 1997) although other Malurids, including Southern Emu-wrens (Maguire and Mulder 2004), have shown evidence of this behaviour particularly in situations of high-quality territory and high resource abundance which supports larger groups and benefits

juveniles delaying breeding (Emlen 1982; Maguire and Mulder 2008). Mallee Emu-wren fledged young have been observed to remain with their natal groups after reaching independence (Rowley and Russell 1997).

Mallee Emu-wrens are probably territorial during the breeding season. They have shown some social cohesion whereby aggressive behaviour was not displayed when breeding pairs originating from the same winter group encountered one another, but other pairs (of unknown relationships) were observed to be aggressive (Brown 2014). Territories are probably dispelled after breeding season and family groups congregate and forage together during autumn and winter (Brown 2014; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001).

The density of Mallee Emu-wrens has been estimated in Murray-Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks for both groups (0.013 ha-1) and individuals (0.028 ha-1) (Brown 2009). Higher densities were observed in fire age-class of 16-29 years (0.026 groups and 0.056 individuals ha-1) than for >29 years (0.006 groups and 0.012 individuals ha-1). Higher densities were observed in Woorinen Sands Mallee (0.019 groups and 0.040 individuals ha-1) and Loamy Sands Mallee (0.010 groups and 0.028 individuals ha-1) where the mallee shrubland has a hummock and shrub understorey, than in Woorinen Mallee (0.005 groups and 0.011 individuals ha-1) with a taller woodland and an open chenopod understorey (Brown 2009).

4.3.3 Diet and feeding behaviours

Little known about the dietary requirements and preferences of Mallee Emu-wren, although invertebrates are thought to form the majority of their diet (Brown 2011; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). Schrodde (1982) suggests foraging is undertaken mid-morning and late afternoon, however, Brown (2011) observed foraging activities throughout the day, which correlates with their likely high energetic requirements. Small passerines have a high mass-specific rate of energy expenditure and a limited capacity to store energy (Brodin 2007; Dawson, Marsh et al. 1983). This means they need to forage intensively to meet daily metabolic requirements. Energetic requirements of several species of Maluridae show that they consume about their own body weight of invertebrates daily (Tidemann, Green et al. 1989). The Mallee Emu-wren is probably consistent with this; observation has shown that an individual non-breeding Mallee Emu-wren may consume up to 69% of its body weight in just 1.5 hours (Brown 2014).

Mallee Emu-wrens have been observed to forage by hop-searching and collect invertebrates from twigs of small shrubs (up to 50cm), the stems of spinifex tussocks (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001; Rowley and Russell 1997; Wilson 1912) and on the ground in leaf litter beneath shrubs and tussocks. Invertebrates will only be collected from open areas between clumps of vegetation during calm weather (Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). Brown (2011) compared a selection of Triodia hummocks to find mature growth-phase hummocks with a large volume, particularly those with a high proportion of green shoots, are preferred for Mallee Emu-wrens foraging. These probably offer a number of benefits, including a micro-climate of higher humidity and subsequently greater invertebrate abundance, as well as protection from predators.

Mallee Emu-wren prey has been extrapolated from invertebrates collected within Triodia hummocks and includes Hemiptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, Lepidoptera and larvae (Brown 2011). This correlates with the prey favoured by the Southern Emu-wren, which have been shown to preferentially feed their offspring with Lepidoptera, Diptera and larvae (Maguire 2006), although Brown (2011) has observed Mallee Emu-wren to avoid ants and termites, which the Southern Emu-wren consumes. The size of most invertebrates collected from Triodia by Brown (2011) were small (2mm or less) which infers a preference for minute prey. The invertebrate diet consumed also provides Mallee

Emu-wren with their water requirements, which is particularly important for a species that inhabits a semi-arid environment (Fisher, Lindgren et al. 1972).

The variety and quantity of food consumed by other Malurid species changes across seasons (Rowley and Russell 1997), and logically so would the Mallee Emu-wren. For instance, lower temperatures impose higher energetic requirements to maintain warmth. It is also likely that the Mallee Emu-wren, as with other small passerines, significantly increase their consumption and change dietary preference during breeding.

4.3.4 Population genetics and dispersal

The sole genetic study of Mallee Emu-wren was conducted by Brown (2013) on 72 individuals from six locations across their distribution. Mallee Emu-wren was found to exhibit a low to moderate level of genetic diversity and a weak global genetic structure. This homogeneity across its range means that long-term genetic connectivity has been maintained and that the global population can be considered as a single genetic unit. Brown (2013) also found evidence of genetic drift and population bottlenecks, likely due to the extirpation of local populations caused by fire, drought and subsequent recolonisation.

It is likely that Mallee Emu-wren also have local kin associations with individuals separated by less than 2km. Genetic analysis has also shown females are more likely to disperse than males (Brown 2011). Female dispersal is known from other Maluridae, with males remaining within their natal territories. Mallee Emu-wren are resident or sedentary (Emison, Bennett et al. 1987; Higgins, Peter et al. 2001). Their short and rounded wings, and subsequent poor ability to undertake long- distance flights, restrict their dispersal as well as their ability to recolonise suitable unoccupied areas (Brown 2011).

4.3.5 Habitat

In the north of its distribution, the Mallee Emu-wren inhabits the Woorinen Formation of open Eucalyptus mallee on dune fields, with a sclerophyllous shrub and hummock grass (Triodia spp.) dominated understorey (Brown 2011; Clarke 2005b). In the south, Mallee Emu-wren inhabits mallee heathland and tall open heathland, typically lacking a eucalypt overstorey and dominated by a dense sclerophyllous shrub layer and scattered Triodia (Menkhorst and Bennett 1990; Mercer 1998).

Fire is a major factor affecting the density and growth of the mallee understorey in these systems, and time since fire has previously been considered an important aspect of Mallee Emu-wren habitat. However, the suitability of the understorey is more likely important than is fire age, with the regeneration of understorey varying with environmental conditions (e.g. soil type) (Brown 2011). Across their distribution, Mallee Emu-wren has consistently shown preference for habitat where there is dense undergrowth, particularly where vegetation has a high structural density at less than 1m (Brown 2011; Mercer 1998; Smith 2004). They have been found to prefer sites with dense Triodia, particularly when it is in growth phase, within Hattah-Kulkyne National Park (Brown 2011), Murray Sunset National Park, Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve (Watson 2011), Billiatt Wilderness Protection Area (Pellegrino 2011) and Ngarkat Conservation Park (Mercer 1998; Smith 2004). However, in Ngarkat, Mallee Emu-wrens have also been found in Xanthorrhoea and Allocasuarina dominated heath without Triodia (Allan and Hedger).

4.4 Threats

Throughout the mallee region, broad-scale clearing has caused habitat loss, degradation and the fragmentation of more than half of the Mallee Emu-wren’s former range (Garnett and Crowley 2000). Habitat degradation has also been caused by introduced species including grazing stock and feral animals. Although agricultural clearing has for the most part ceased, areas where Mallee Emu- wren persists are fragmented and continue to be effected by inappropriate fire regimes, which in turn, perturbs and isolates populations (Brown 2011).

Although fire is an integral component of the mallee landscape, inappropriate fire regimes have been, and continue to be, devastating for Mallee Emu-wren habitat. Large fires can decimate populations by directly killing birds and increasing population isolation. The Mallee Emu-wrens poor flying ability restricts their capacity to both find refuge in unburnt habitat during fires and to recolonise burnt areas once they have recovered (Baker-Gabb 2011; Garnett and Crowley 2000; Schodde 1982). The pervasiveness of fires has already been seen in Ngarkat, Billiatt and the Big Desert/Wyperfield complex, where devastating fires have destroyed vast areas of Mallee Emu-wren habitat; approximately 287,400ha burnt in fires across 1998, 2002/2003 and 2005 (Brown 2011). In Ngarkat, only 100 birds were thought to persist. However, despite extensive searches, Mallee Emu-wren were not recorded in Ngarkat after the extensive 2014 fires (Allan and Hedger 2014).

Fires also reduces the amount of habitat available to Mallee Emu-wren and subsequently their ability to recover. Suitable fire ages for Mallee Emu-wren habitat have been found to differ across their distribution. Despite their preference for Woorinen Sands mallee aged 20-30 years (Watson 2011), they have been recorded in the northern areas within three to six years (Clarke 2005a), five years, and eight to 15 years post-fire (Brouwer and Garnett 1990). Similarly, in heath they have been observed in both early (Silveira 1993) and 10-29 years (Clarke 2005a) post-fire. Nevertheless, frequent burning of the landscape both reduces vegetation age and eliminates a shifting mosaic of ages, on which many mallee fauna rely; estimates have shown some areas went unburnt for over 100 years (Haslem, Kelly et al. 2011). The burning regimes have a multi-scale effect, from fine-scale Triodia and understorey age and density, to landscape and patch-scale connectivity. The full extent of the effect of fire regimes on Mallee Emu-wrens is not known, however, population isolation and lack of suitable habitats threaten their persistence.

Climate change is expected to increase the aridity of south-eastern Australia, with less rain, declining relative humidity and increasing evapotranspiration (Smyth, Hilbert et al. 2012). The Mallee Emu-wren has been recognised as having both high exposure and high sensitivity to these predicted changes (Garnett and Franklin 2014) and is likely to experience loss of climate space and reduction in climatic suitability (Garnett, Franklin et al. 2013). Climatic change will also impact Mallee Emu-wren through increasing fire frequency and intensity, and the reduction of resources. The impact of drought and fire has already been experienced with Mallee Emu-wren population declines in Ngarkat Conservation Park (Paton, Rogers et al. 2009).

Isolation caused by fire, habitat fragmentation and degradation has implications for Mallee Emu- wren genetics, particularly with local extinction and recolonization events (Brown, Harrisson et al. 2013). There is already evidence of genetic drift, homozygosity and bottlenecks within the global population (Brown, Harrisson et al. 2013). Small and isolated populations of Mallee Emu-wren are at risk of genetic issues, such as inbreeding depression and skewed sex ratios, and both individual fitness and population viability are likely to be compromised. Small and isolated populations are also less likely to recover from and are vulnerable to extinction caused by demographic and environmental events.

The Mallee Emu-wren’s tendency to forage on or close to the ground means they are also susceptible to feral predators, cats (Felis catus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes), such as in other ground- welling species (Garnett 2011). Feral cats are more likely to have an adverse impact than foxes due to cats’ stalk and ambush hunting tactics (Dickman 1996). However, the impact of predation on Mallee Emu-wrens by introduced species is poorly understood.

4.5 Conservation Status

The global population of Mallee Emu-wren was estimated to be approximately 17,000 individuals, with an estimated range from approximately 8,600 to 39,000 individuals (Brown 2014). However, more recent modelling has suggested that these figures are likely to be overestimated (Brown 2014; Watson 2011). Additionally, reduction in the amount of habitat available since these estimates were made suggests that the global population would be closer to the lower value. The translocation study (Brown 2014) has utilised the figures based on the above range estimation (Brown, Clarke et al. 2009), and for consistency in the current report, these have also been used here, with caution as suggested by Brown (2014).

4.5.1 Listing

The Mallee Emu-wren has been defined as Threatened or Endangered at State, Federal and international levels. Given that recent surveys of Billiatt and Ngarkat Conservation Parks failed to record any Mallee Emu-wren (Allan and Hedger 2014) it is likely that remaining populations in South Australia are very limited and more critical than their current status indicates.

Statutory Listing Status

Federal: Listed as Endangered (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth of Australia), 2008 South Australia: Listed as Endangered (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia), June 2011 VIC: Listed as Threatened (Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria), February 2014 Non-statutory Listing Status IUCN: Listed as Endangered (Global Status: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2013.1 list) VIC: Listed as Endangered (Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria: 2013 list) Non-government: Listed as Endangered (The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010)

5. Captive breeding in avian conservation

Captive breeding programs can be valuable conservation tools to aid species’ recovery and can serve a range of functions. Captive breeding programs should be well conceived, appropriately managed and meaningfully reviewed for the success of the program itself and to advance the capacity of other programs (Hogg 2013). The captive breeding methods employed and the outcomes desired for captive programs should be specific to the needs of the species of concern (ARAZPA 1998).

Captive breeding is not a stand-alone solution for recovery and should not be independent of other recovery activities (Hogg 2013); holding and/or breeding a captive population does not mean that the species is perpetually secure (Snyder, Derrickson et al. 1996). Species recovery should integrate in situ and ex situ methods to achieve greater outcomes for common conservation or recovery goals and to support long-term population viability (Mallinson 2003; Maunder and Byers 2005). The IUCN’s Conservation Breeding Specialist Group support a ‘One Plan Approach’ which

encourages collective planning, bringing together all populations of species, all management conditions, all responsible parties and stakeholders, and all funding/resources, towards greater collective outcomes (Byers, Lees et al. 2013).

For Mallee Emu-wren, a captive breeding program should be considered in the context of a broader recovery program and undertaken with an adaptive management approach. As previously mentioned, translocation is another conservation tool that is being considered for the Mallee Emu- wren concurrently with this study (Brown 2014). Wild to wild translocation has been used an effective management strategy for increasing avian species’ range, strengthening population numbers and reintroducing or establishing new populations. Brown (2014) provides a review of translocation in avian conservation, and such will not be repeated here, however translocation is also a potentially viable option for Mallee Emu-wren recovery.

The methods employed for Mallee Emu-wren recovery need to match the outcomes desired and the longer-term goals of captive breeding needs to consider the species recovery holistically (Lees and Wilcken 2009; Pritchard, Fa et al. 2012). For example, captive breeding with the intention of release requires suitable habitat to be available when the birds are ready. The purpose and efficacy of population management, albeit wild or captive, will change over time and priorities and methods should reflect not only changes in the population and habitat but also knowledge that has been gained (Hogg 2013; Pritchard, Fa et al. 2012). Similarly, multiple methods may be employed at the same time and need to be co-informative and planned synergistically for the most beneficial outcomes (Maunder and Byers 2005). Although not exhaustive, Figure 2 indicates how an integrated program for the Mallee Emu-wren could inform and feedback into an adaptive approach to maximise the conservation outcomes.

Figure 2: Adaptive management approach for informed decision making on the role and function of captive populations.

5.1 Ex situ Maluridae

There are no records or known occasions of Mallee Emu-wren being held in captivity. The congeneric Southern Emu-wren has been held successfully but bred with only limited success. Hutton (1991) details an ex situ pair of Southern Emu-wren, including successful breeding although the chicks were attacked by black ants and did not survive past four days. Rufous -crowned Emu-

wren have not been held either, but Alice Springs Desert Park is aiming to bring them into captivity in late 2014 (Bruce Pascoe pers. comm.).

Ex situ populations of many of the other Malurids have been housed and bred in captivity. Fairy- wrens have been held and bred in a number of zoological institutions within Australian and internationally as well as by specialist private breeders. The more commonly held species include the Superb Fairy-wren (Malurus cyaneus), Variegated Fairy-wren (Malurus lamberti), and the Splendid Fairy-wren (Malurus splendens). The Dusky Grasswren (Amytornis purnelli) and Striated Grasswren (Amytornis striatus) have been held and bred in captivity at Alice Springs Desert Park (Bruce Pascoe pers. comm.). Striated Grasswrens have also been held in by private aviculturists.

5.2 Ex situ captive breeding

Captive breeding can provide support for species’ recovery and persistence through a range of purposes and intents, and ex situ techniques are being continuously improved (Snyder, Derrickson et al. 1996). Ex situ captive breeding can be a very valuable tool in the conservation of species (Drake and Temple 2012; WAZA 2005). Some of the possible reasons for housing an ex situ captive population and the recovery benefits are briefly discussed below.

Final conservation effort (Population management)

Captive breeding can provide a final effort for breeding species where wild extinction cannot be prevented with in situ efforts (Drake and Temple 2012). In such a case, the remaining population is removed from the wild into captivity to instigate captive breeding and to ultimately protect the species from global extinction. The Mauritius Kestrel (Falco punctatus) is an example of such an effort whereby the population is in recovery after a captive breeding program was undertaken with the four remaining wild birds in 1974 (Jones, Heck et al. 1995). Removal of surviving Mallee Emu- wren might be necessary should there be a significant stochastic event, such as large-scale wildfire or drought, causes the known population to crash.

Temporary holding measure (Population management)

Captive populations can provide an extension of time for corrective actions to take place, such as habitat restoration or invasive species eradication, when a species’ habitat is temporarily unsuitable or the species or individuals are displaced (Drake and Temple 2012). The Guam Rail (Gallirallus owstoni) is an example where remaining individuals were held and bred in captivity until their threat, introduced brown tree snakes, were eradicated from the island (Derrickson 1987). Holding a transient Mallee Emu-wren population would be necessary if there was a significant stochastic event, such as large-scale wildfire, and there was no suitable habitat left. Given the habitat requirements of Mallee Emu-wren, this is possible future scenario.

Metapopulation (Population management)

Captive breeding can provide an opportunity to genetically and demographically manipulate the population, albeit global or local, to retain or improve genetic diversity (Maunder and Byers 2005). Captive individuals can be used to supplement or stock the wild population, for reinforcement, restoration, assisted colonisation and reintroduction (Pritchard, Fa et al. 2012). An in situ - ex situ metapopulation is created and used to increase the wild population, but not to preserve it indefinitely (Lees and Wilcken 2009). The metapopulation approach also brings with it the capacity to augment the captive population for maintaining captive genetic diversity. Given the current fire regimes in the Mallee Emu-wren’s habitat and their limited ability to disperse, there is a real likelihood that Mallee Emu-wren will need this population support in the near future. Mallee Emu-

wren would likely benefit from genetically augmenting or supplementing isolated populations and/or reintroducing small populations where they have and/or will become locally extinct. An in situ - ex situ metapopulation could complement translocation if it was also part of the recovery effort.

Insurance population

Captive breeding can also be used to establish a self-sustaining insurance population that is functionally closed and does not require wild genetic supplementation (Drake and Temple 2012). True insurance populations are capable of providing a source population for releases should wild populations decline or become extinct. Establishing an insurance population is a large endeavour and would require sufficient space across multiple institutions. For example, housing the Regent Honeyeater population involved up to 11 zoological institutions with 53 dedicated spaces (Liu, Gillespie et al. 2014). The establishment of an insurance population of Mallee Emu-wren would potentially require at least 400 – 500 individuals (C. Hogg pers. comm.) and needs much greater consideration of maintaining genetic diversity (at ideally 95% heterozygosity), generation time, population size, genetic quality and demographic integrity, most of which cannot be estimated based on current knowledge. As such, the viability of an insurance Mallee Emu-wren population is not purported here, as the reproduction, survivorship and captive requirements at such a scale cannot be determined.

Other ex situ captive roles

Ex situ populations provide the opportunity to undertake critical research into species ex situ management needs and to develop management protocols and guidelines. These are most beneficial when gained early and prior to species becoming threatened (IUCN 2002). Subsequently, the appropriate role for ex situ management can be determined with less ambiguity, outcomes and conservation benefits can be estimated, and the likely success of captive programs is increased (IUCN 2002; IUCN 2011; Maunder and Byers 2005). The Mallee Emu-wren has passed this stage of threat already with no established guidelines, indicating the urgency of establishing ex situ protocols prior to further decline.

In additional to captive techniques, ex situ settings can also provide valuable insight into species biology through research. There is a great breadth of research that can be undertaken into pure and applied sciences, from mating systems, reproductive behaviours and life histories to genetics, nutrition and wildlife medicine (ARAZPA 1998; Ryder and Feistner 1995; Saint Jalme 2002; WAZA 2005). Ex situ populations also provide an opportunity for researching methods before they are applied to in situ populations, such as using radiotelemetry transmitters or disease controls. Given the paucity of basic knowledge of Mallee Emu-wren biology, ecology and behaviour, much could be gained from a captive population.

Ex situ populations can also be used for education purposes by engaging the general public in conservation messaging and outcomes (Tribe and Booth 2003; WAZA 2005). This includes static displays, keeper presentations as well as directed learning opportunities with school and community groups. Community engagement and public awareness can also aid in fundraising activities. The plight of the Mallee Emu-wren could be delivered in both formal and informal education roles, although the suitability of Mallee Emu-wrens for housing/display is unknown, particularly given their elusive behaviours.

5.3 In situ captive breeding

In situ captive breeding methods involve the manipulation of the reproductive potential of wild pairs, including captive propagation and reintroduction or supplementation. Avian breeding success

has been improved by greater knowledge of factors that trigger reproduction and stimulate replacement clutches, as well as by improvements in artificial incubation and husbandry methods. Population persistence can also be supported with in situ techniques such as supplemental feeding (Owen, Wilkinson et al. 2014). The development of an in situ captive program needs a species- specific understanding of the usefulness and capacity of employing such conservation tools and techniques, as well as the practicality and the purpose of doing so (Drake and Temple 2012).

Some of these techniques are discussed below but the suitability of using these for Mallee Emu- wren conservation would be conjecture at this stage. Nevertheless, greater understanding of the feasibility of using in situ conservation methods would be gained from an ex situ captive population, and in situ methods should not be excluded from recovery planning.

Some of the more commonly used techniques include:

• Artificial incubation of eggs: Eggs are removed from the nest and artificially incubated, allowing the parent birds to lay a replacement clutch. Artificial incubation methods for Mallee Emu-wren are not known, nor is their capacity to produce multiple clutches during a breeding season. • Hand-rearing of fledglings: Fledglings are removed from the nest and hand-reared, allowing the parent birds to lay a replacement clutch. Hand-rearing can also be used to support individuals to reach adulthood or reproductive age if there is vulnerability in fledgling survival. Hand-rearing methods for Mallee Emu-wren are not known. • Fostering or cross-fostering: Eggs or fledglings are taken from their nest and placed in the nest of a similar species who raise the young. A benefit over hand-rearing is that same or related species may provide information to the young about feeding techniques, food choice and habitat utilisation although there is still a risk of imprinting (Saint Jalme 2002). The Rufous-crowned Emu-wren and other Malurids may serve as suitable surrogates. However, there is insufficient knowledge of the of the Mallee Emu-wren life history, methods suitable for Mallee Emu -wren are not known and congeneric species have not been sufficiently housed in captivity to date. • Supplementary feeding: Supplementing food for insectivorous ground-foraging birds has been successfully undertaken utilising some creative solutions, such as artificial feed stations where live food is frequently replenished or decaying fruit stations are used to attract insects. There are challenges in encouraging the uptake of supplemented invertebrate food, keeping food alive for long enough and preventing escape from feeding stations into the environment (Podolsky, Simons et al. 2004). Potential negative impacts include the spread of disease, dietary deficiencies, increasing abundance of non- target consumers, and behavioural changes (Boutin 1990; Deis 1982). Resource availability may be a limiting mechanism during drought periods for Mallee Emu-wren (Brown 2011), but the suitability, methods and consequences of supplementing food for Mallee Emu-wren would require specific investigation.

5.4 Mallee Emu-wren recommendations

The Mallee Emu-wren has never been held in captivity and the likelihood of successfully of housing a captive population is unknown. Beyond this, there is also a paucity of knowledge of natural behaviours and life history traits in the wild population. A greater level of understanding of Mallee Emu-wren and their captive management is necessary for developing an effective captive breeding program to support their long-term persistence.

Given the crucial gaps in knowledge, the recommendation for establishing ex situ captive Mallee Emu-wrens is to firstly consider successfully housing and breeding a small number of pairs. These

birds should be used to gain an understanding of their captive requirements, and prospective population fulfilments and limitations, before deciding to embark on larger programs. As previously mentioned, vast life history and habitual information can be gained from ex situ animals (ARAZPA 1998; Saint Jalme 2002), pertinent for ex situ and in situ management of the Mallee Emu-wren.

Six, eight or ten breeding pairs are suggested for an initial ex situ husbandry program for a number of reasons including:

• A manageable number to maintain and house without precedence;

• A sufficient number of pairs to observe and learn from;

• A sufficient number of individuals and pairs should there be any losses;

• An even number for experimentation to allow conditions to be duplicated (although not statistically);

• Collection should not deleteriously effect the currently known wild population; and

• Genetically suitable individuals could be used as the founding population of captive breeding programs.

A similar process was undertaken with the Regent Honeyeater, where the approach was to establish a captive program for gaining sufficient knowledge of the species prior to employing more significant captive breeding propagation methods. This successful method of developing a strong foundation in husbandry protocols supported the program’s planning, improvement and ongoing development as valuable knowledge was gained. The basic array of knowledge which could be ascertained in developing a husbandry manual for Mallee Emu-wren is summarised in Appendix 1.

The establishment of a captive population of Mallee Emu-wren would greatly improve the chances of this species’ survival. Clear quantifiable benchmarks and strategic research would ensure that a captive program is relevant, informative, and will ultimately aid their recovery. For the Regent Honeyeater, a period of three years was necessary to establish the husbandry protocol (Liu, Gillespie et al. 2014) and a similar time frame is suggested here. The Mallee Emu-wren ideally needs at least three years investment to improve knowledge for captive breeding.

The development of a comprehensive husbandry protocol and an understanding of the ability to manage the population and breeding efforts, will require a significant commitment and willingness to be innovative, flexible and progressive. This should be driven by a team with expertise (Recovery Team, the organisation housing the wrens and the keeping staff) that are willing to take some risks, to learn and to challenge the Mallee Emu-wrens’ capabilities.

An ex situ captive Mallee Emu-wren population provides the opportunity to gain knowledge through trial releases of birds. Trial releases would support recovery efforts to maximise supplementation, reintroduction and/or translocation success. These would be of benefit to the broader recovery efforts and approach, and research towards an effective release program should be undertaken as soon as possible. Excess captive birds, where suitable, could be used for trial releases, which would also aid management of the captive population.

Currently, the opportunity exists to learn from the Rufous-crowned Emu-wren which is being brought into captivity at the Alice Springs Desert Park in late 2014 (Bruce Pascoe pers. comm.). When there is little or no prior experience with species in captivity, utilising a surrogate species can assist with perfecting husbandry techniques. However, each species has its own unique

requirements (Snyder, Derrickson et al. 1996) and the Mallee Emu-wren is likely to have distinctive particularities.

An ex situ husbandry program to improve understanding of the Mallee Emu-wren should be established as soon as possible, before the population has further declined and it is simply too late. Australia has recently experienced this situation with the Christmas Island Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus murrayi), where hesitation meant it was the eleventh-hour when funding for a captive program was allocated, but rescue attempts were too late, and the species is now extinct (Martin, Nally et al. 2012). The opportunity exists to promptly undertake measures to help circumvent a similar situation for the Mallee Emu-wren. Improving the understanding of the Mallee Emu-wren will support better preparedness should there be further disastrous situations, such as wildfire, and to aid decisive and rapid action in such an emergency. Given the stochasticity of the mallee and the current 5% burning target for public land (390,000 hectares) in Victoria, there is a real possibility of this occurring for the Mallee Emu-wren.

It is also important not to exclude any methods or conservation tools at this stage. Substantial intervention may be required should further and/or sudden decline occur. In such a case, the guidelines provided here can be extrapolated and used to consider suitable processes, planning and facilities for the establishment of captive populations.

6. Captive breeding guidelines

Developing an effective captive breeding program exacts a level of understanding of the life history, behaviour and captive management of the species concerned. As previously mentioned, the Mallee Emu-wren has never been held in captivity and the requirements for successfully housing and breeding a captive population are not known. Captive breeding programs can be intensive to manage, require extensive infrastructure and operate over long periods of time (Snyder, Derrickson et al. 1996). Even a small captive breeding program requires significant planning. For instance, the potential maximum number of animals and the minimum requirements to accommodate these within a program need to be accounted for, housing could potentially reach capacity quickly and an exit (or release) strategy or additional facilities should be in place to accommodate this. Any captive efforts should also be aligned with set milestones in a greater recovery effort.

The overall approach and guidelines for the progression of activities for captively aiding Mallee Emu- wren recovery are summarised in a number of phases below. These have been adapted from a number of other programs such as the Southern Emu-wren translocation (Pickett 2007b) and species recovery literature (ARAZPA 1998; Drake and Temple 2012; Frankham, Briscoe et al. 2002; Hogg 2013; Short 2009).

Greater detail is provided within the Phases suggested for the establishment of a small captive population for an ex situ husbandry program (Table 1) as recommended in this study. Less detail is provided for the additional steps and considerations that would be required should a more extensive captive breeding program be embarked upon, as these will depend on the program goals and scale (Table 2).

It is important to note, the program Phases are not mutually exclusive and may operate simultaneously. For instance, the Transfer Phase and Husbandry Phase would be concurrent if additional birds are brought into an existing captive population.

There is a chance that emergency recovery situations may preclude comprehensive planning. In such a case, the necessary approvals, facility suitability and animal welfare should be prioritised. An

expedited process could also foresee emergency retrofitting of existing facilities until more ideal facilities can be secured if necessary.

Table 1. Guidelines phases for establishing an ex situ husbandry program for Mallee Emu- wrens.

Planning Phase

Recovery Team establishment: Engagement of expert stakeholders, scientists and other relevant parties to form a Recovery Team Recovery Plan approval. Stakeholder engagement: Undertaking a captive program will require a diversity of stakeholders, see Section 9 for a preliminary list. In an emergency situation stakeholder engagement may not be comprehensive. Identification of potential source Surveys and scientific evaluation to assess global and specific source populations: populations, see Sections 6.1 and 6.2. This could be specific for captive breeding but would ideally include multipurpose overarching recovery actions, including translocation feasibility. Salvage populations would be ideal provided they are genetically suitable. Secure funding and resources: Undertaking a captive program will require investment and ongoing funding to maintain the program. An exit strategy in the case of insufficient funding should be considered. Partnership agreements: Stakeholders may require agreements to be established to forthrightly state their involvement. Approvals, permits & Necessary approvals as outlined in Section 5.1. endorsements: Capture and translocation Considerable planning will be required to coordinate capture and methods: translocation efforts. Methods should be established within the program planning. Accessing equipment, personnel, facilities and other requirements for translocation efforts will also need to be carefully organized in the lead up to any capture/translocation trip (see detailed translocation planning below). Enclosure design: Considerable planning will need to go into either new build or retrofitting, see Section 7.1. Facility Establishment

Facility construction: Ample time needs to be given for facility construction and/or retrofitting. This could be advanced if necessary, but hastening building invites mistakes and omissions, which cannot put the birds at risk or be financially afforded. Emergency retrofitting or construction may be necessary in a crisis situation. Landscaping and plant Ample time needs to be given if plantings are to establish and grow in the establishment: ground. Time will also be required for sourcing and accessing suitable species. More advanced plantings or alternative species may be utilised in a crisis situation. Transfer Phase

Detailed translocation planning: Translocation will require significant planning in order to be well prepared. This includes finalisation of staffing, timing, equipment etc. Catch: Collection of Mallee Emu-wren from the wild and translocation into captive facilities, see Section 6.3. Quarantine: Thirty days quarantine is required, see Section 6.3.

Monitoring and observation: Time should be given for the birds to settle in and acclimatize. Their behaviour and feeding should be closely monitored. Wild monitoring: Individuals and source populations are monitored. See Brown (2014)

Husbandry Phase

Husbandry Manual: Development of ex situ husbandry protocols. See Appendix 1 for potential content. Trial releases: Trial releases should be undertaken, if appropriate, with breeding success.

Table 2. Guideline phases for a captive breeding Mallee Emu-wren program.

Planning

Genetic assessment: Wild population is recognised as declining. Genetic consequences are understood. Program length and level of wild gene diversity to be retained are proposed. Identification of potential source Surveys and scientific evaluation to assess global and specific source populations: populations, see Section 6. Approvals, permits & Necessary approvals as outlined in Section 5.1. endorsements: Capture and translocation Coordination of capture and translocation efforts. methods: Institutions and population Setup of studbook holder, institutional agreements, species coordinator management (ASMP). Facility building and/or Ensuring facilities are suitable. retrofitting: Transfer phase

Catch and transfer: Captive population is founded; several transfers may be required initially and throughout the program.

Quarantine: Thirty days quarantine is required.

Monitoring and observation: Time should be given for the birds to settle in and acclimatize. Their behaviour and feeding should be closely monitored. Growth phase

Population growth: Population is grown as quickly as possible. Rare alleles are maintained.

Population maintained: Population is maintained at a size where individuals can be removed for reintroduction without affecting the captive source population.

Release phase

Release sites: Habitat suitability modelling and release site identification. This should be shortly before release to take into account stochastic events. Release planning: Coordination of release efforts including staffing, transport etc. Post-release monitoring should also be considered. Release: Transport and release of individuals. Acclimatisation may be required, potentially including pre-feeding in temporary release tents. Monitoring Phase

Short-term: Individuals and populations are monitored for survival.

Long-term: Monitoring of population trends, abundance and breeding success. Measures of success should be identified.

6.1 Approval guidelines

Permits and approvals need to be sought in the relevant localities and adhere to both State and Federal Legislation. Individual institutions, such as research facilities or zoological institutions, may require additional applications and approvals to be sought. Table 3 includes a list of key permits,

legislation and guidelines which may need to be fulfilled if undertaking Mallee Emu-wren captive breeding program.

Table 3. Permits, legislation and relevant guidelines.

Permits South Australia · DEWNR Research Permit · DEWNR Import Permit · DEWNR Scientific Permit · DEWNR Take from the Wild Permit Victoria · DEPI Translocation Approval (including Translocation Plan) · DEPI Export Permit · DEPI Scientific Permit (collect/capture/release) · DEPI Scientific Permit (National Parks) Animal Ethics South Australia · Wildlife Ethics Committee · Note: Research institutes may have additional requirements Relevant Legislation South Australia · National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 · Native Vegetation Act 1991 · Animal Welfare Act 1985 · Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Act 1985 Victoria · Wildlife Act 1975 · Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 · Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 Federal · Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 · Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (2013) Guidelines · DEWNR Draft Policy Translocation · Victorian Government Guidelines and Template for Translocation · Procedure statement for translocation of Threatened native vertebrate fauna in Victoria · IUCN/SSC (2013). Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp. · IUCN (1987) The IUCN Position Statement on Translocation of Living Organisms. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. · World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) & International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2014), Guidelines for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis. OIE Paris, 24 pp. Published in association with the IUCN Species Survival Commission. · Jakob-Hoff RM, MacDiarmid SC, Lees C, Miller PS, Travis D and Kock R (2014) Manual of procedures for wildlife disease risk analysis. World Organisation for Animal Health, Paris, 160pp. · Zoos SA Avian Quarantine Protocols

7. Collection from the Wild

7.1 Source populations

Murray Sunset and Hattah-Kulkyne National Parks are the only reserves with known potential source populations. Murray-Sunset has been estimated to contain most of the population (7,939- 35,702) as well as a small population in Hattah-Kulkyne (238-1776) (Brown, Clarke et al. 2009). These population estimates have a high level of uncertainty and need to be refined for a more accurate estimation of the existing population (Brown 2014). However, establishing a captive population is unlikely to put the current known global wild population at risk.

The identification of specific source populations requires further investigation beyond the scope of this report. There is insufficient data on extant global, meta- and local population densities and sizes. Methods for modelling suitable habitat at multiple scales for Mallee Emu-wren have been summarised and discussed by Brown (2014) and will not be repeated here.

Standard survey methods employ observational transects and utilise call playback to encourage Mallee Emu-wren response (Allan and Hedger 2014; Brown 2011). Detailed methods for estimating local population densities have been summarised by Brown (2014) along with suggested protocol guidelines. The viability of source populations should be analysed, were possible, prior to the collection of any individuals. Population viability analysis can be used to assess source populations’ vulnerability however its predictive power will be limited by the lack of Mallee Emu-wren knowledge. Nevertheless, the collection of Mallee Emu-wrens should not jeopardise the source populations through overharvesting or by leaving dysfunctional social groups.

Given the Mallee Emu-wrens’ social relationships and limited dispersal ability (Brown 2011), source populations should be selected from across their extant distribution to maximise the likelihood of collecting demographically and genetically unrelated individuals. At a minimum, sourcing from a number of patches would maximize the likelihood of selecting genetically unrelated birds. This is important to avoid inbreeding depression and to maximise genetic integrity (Frankham, Briscoe et al. 2002).

The distance travelled during transportation of the animals from the wild into captivity is also an important consideration, at least in the initial stages to assist in refining transportation methods and minimizing stress. Brown (2014) identified a number of populations that are close to the South Australia/Victoria border: in the west of the Murray-Sunset National Park, Sections of the Millewa South Bore and Pheenys Tracks support relatively good numbers of Mallee Emu-wren and North- South Settlement Road and the northern Section of the Millewa South Bore Track also support smaller populations. The removal of a few individuals from these populations is unlikely to put them at risk. However, these populations should be surveyed for their current status prior to removing any individuals.

The founders for a small captive breeding population, intended for an ex situ husbandry program, could be sourced by salvaging populations. Salvage populations would target individuals where habitat is anticipated to be lost due to planned burning or other activities (Brown 2014). These populations would be effectively obsolete in the wild and could instead be retrieved. Given that population estimates were made prior to significant fires and population losses, particularly in Billiatt and Ngarkat Conservation Parks, and the species is at serious risk of extinction, any remaining populations are an asset. Localities known to contain by Mallee Emu-wrens should not be subjected to planned burning prior to the removal of birds. Populations that could be salvaged need to be identified during fire management planning to enable their removal. The genetic

suitability of these individuals would need to be further considered if they were to become the founding population of a larger breeding program.

7.2 Founding population

The Mallee Emu-wren is thought to be monogamous, so a founding population of 1:1 sex ratio would be desired and established pairs should be targeted for transfer. Targeting established pairs will assist in collecting unrelated individuals, as male/female adult pairs can be assumed unrelated given their breeding behaviours. This will also reduce separation stress being imposed on the birds.

It is important to get maximum benefit from founder animals. If the initial captive population were to be part of the founding population for a larger captive breeding program, it is important that these individuals provide a representative sample of the wild gene diversity. A standard estimation expected to represent 97.5% of wild gene diversity is 20 founders (Frankham, Briscoe et al. 2002; Lees and Wilcken 2009). The fewer the founding numbers the more difficult it is to maintain genetic diversity. It should be noted that a collected individual is not a founder until it has been successful in breeding and contributing the genetic stock (Lacy 1995; Rudnick and Lacy 2008). Hence, the exact number of collected individuals that actually serve as founders will depend upon on their reproductive success. Establishing husbandry techniques will greatly improve chances of breeding success (Saint Jalme 2002). Maintaining genetic diversity can also be greatly improved if wild genetics can be added to supplement the captive population during the course of the program.

For a captive breeding for release program or for the establishment of an insurance population, the longer term goals should preferably be established prior to founding the population (Drake and Temple 2012). The population will need to be large enough to produce the number of animals desired for release in the anticipated time frame, and depends upon fecundity and breeding success which cannot be estimated at this stage. The need for surplus birds must also be considered, as not all birds will reproduce successfully or they may be of undesirable genetics.

7.3 Wild to captive translocation

The translocation of individuals from the wild into captivity requires careful planning and for all parties directly involved to be well-prepared and to work cohesively. The considerations below are not exhaustive nor fully detailed and should be used as a summary guide only.

7.3.1 Personnel

The personnel required for the transfer of Mallee Emu-wren individuals depends upon the number of birds being collected. If only a few breeding pairs within close vicinity of each other are being collected and transferred directly into captivity, at least a Capture Team and Zoo Team would be required, with the Capture Team also serving as the Transfer Team. If a larger number of birds are being collected over a longer period (i.e. two or three days) additional Transfer Teams will be required. In this case, the Capture Team would remain in the field collecting additional wild birds on the following day(s). One Transfer Team would take any collected birds to the receiving institution in the first day of collection. A second team would transfer any birds on the second day of collection, during which time, the first Transfer Team can return to the field if a third transfer is required, and so forth. The suggested requirements for each team are:

• Capture Team: Experienced personnel who search for and capture wild birds. Personnel must be able to reliably hear and locate the Mallee Emu-wrens’ high-frequency call (Brown 2014). Capture Teams must have at least two people.

• Transfer Teams: Transport the captured Mallee Emu-wrens from the field to the receiving institution. Transfer will require access to remote locations and travelling a considerable distance, hence, two people would be required. At least one person should be capable of monitoring the birds and ideally should be trained in animal husbandry. • Zoo/institution Team: The receiving team should include at least one, ideally two, keeping staff to assist in the initial releases, monitoring and health checking of the birds, as well as a vet nurse and veterinarian.

7.3.2 Capture, handling and transport

Animal welfare is a priority for the capture, handling and transport of Mallee Emu-wrens. Vigilant planning for the capture and transport of the birds is essential to be well-prepared, to ensure minimal handling and transfer time and for the smoothest possible transfer of birds. Southern Emu- wrens have been transported for translocation and similar transport methods and precautionary considerations are reflected here.

• Timing: May/June is suggested as this is prior to breeding season but cohesive pairs are likely to have formed. This would allow at least two months of assimilation (including 30 days quarantine) prior to the onset of breeding season. • Breeding pairs: Capturing breeding pairs would require field observation to detect cohesive groups prior to capture. Pairs are likely to become distressed when separated and issue alarm calls, as observed in the Southern Emu-wren, which can facilitate trapping the other members of a pairing and may be used to confirm pair loyalties. Known paired individuals should ideally be transported in the same transfer box. • Capture methods: A protocol for catching Mallee Emu-wrens in Triodia has been developed including step-by-step detail and will not be repeated here (Brown 2011; Brown 2014). The method involves netting over Triodia clumps into which the birds have retreated, and coaxing them into loose netting pockets. Conventional mist-netting can otherwise be employed with experienced and fast-acting observers/catchers; hand-netting may assist in preventing escape from mist-nets. • Individual identification: As per Brown (2014), it is not recommended that captured individuals are colour banded. Metal bands just fit their minute legs, but colour bands are larger and injury could more easily occur if they became caught. See the Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme (ABBBS) for metal banding guidelines. Mallee Emu-wrens are sexually dimorphic with males and females easily distinguishable within pairings. Clear labelling should be employed during capture and transfer. Labelling methods should be decided upon during the planning phase and prior to any captures, to ensure individuals are consistently marked and not confused across sites or throughout the program. • Genetic samples: It is recommended that a genetic sample be obtained from captured individuals. This will be informative for both captive and wild population genetics. • Rough terrain: Mallee Emu-wrens inhabit notoriously difficult terrain to traverse. Birds could be temporarily transported in calico bags which can be hung and counterbalance intensive four-wheel driving until bitumen is reached. Precaution would need to be taken if transferring birds into transfer boxes once away from the collection site. Where possible, less remote sites could preferentially be chosen. • Transfer boxes: Boxes need to ensure animal welfare and avoid harm to the individuals. Transport boxes were constructed for the Southern Emu-wrens and similar boxes are likely to be suitable for Mallee Emu-wren, whereby the roof was covered with foam to protect their heads, nylon flywire on the inside of the box protected beak damage and rubber covered holes prevented escape, see Pickett (2007a) for full description. Boxes need to be carefully marked to ensure birds are correctly identified. Transfer boxes could potentially be tested using Rufous-crowned Emu-wren.

• Holding time: Holding time for individual birds should be minimized and it is preferable that they should not be held overnight. Some mortality was experienced when Southern Emu- wren were held overnight. • Mallee Emu-wren energetics (food): Shortfalls in food would place the birds at imminent risk of death from starvation or dehydration. Potential solutions are the provision of invertebrates in transfer boxes or hand feeding (which has been successful with captured individuals in the wild). • Mallee Emu-wren energetics (temperature): Captured Mallee Emu-wren do not tolerate cold conditions very well (Brown 2014) as they may undergo torpor to conserve energy during cold nights. During capture and transfer it is likely that they will need to maintain high energy and food intake to cope with stress and be kept warm to enable them to do so.

8. Captive breeding facilities

Captive breeding facilities need to accommodate the specific intentions of the breeding program. The housing requirements of a small number of breeding pairs is inevitably different to that required of an in situ – ex situ metapopulation or an insurance population. Nevertheless, there are a number of aspects that would be expected of both ex situ and in situ housing. Deliberations of the appropriateness of available facilities or the construction of new facilities should at least consider:

• Appropriate climatic conditions and/or acclimatisation methods • Visualisation of the birds for health checking and the capacity to monitor behaviours • Ability to maintain the facilities appropriately • Animal welfare standards • Security of the birds

8.1 Ex-situ captive breeding

As Mallee Emu-wren have not previously been housed in captivity , there is some uncertainty regarding the requirements for providing suitable care and considerable thought should be given to the construction of housing facilities. The challenge of housing Mallee Emu-wren is increased by the paucity of knowledge of their natural requirements. Additionally, the habits they may adopt in the confines of an aviary will not necessarily be consistent with those displayed in the wild (Hutton 1991).

The establishment of ex situ captive breeding facilities should allow for flexibility within the program and the ability to both control the conditions and to manipulate the animals as necessary. As previously mentioned, the development of a comprehensive husbandry protocol and a greater understanding of the ability to manage the population and breeding efforts, will require a significant commitment and willingness to be innovative, flexible and progressive. Facilities should be designed (or retrofitted) to best enable the necessary investigations whilst maintaining animal and staff welfare.

For the purpose of an ex situ husbandry program it is considered that housing should accommodate an initial founding population of six to ten breeding pairs (12 - 20 animals). However, the potential maximum number of animals and the minimum requirements to accommodate these within a 2-5 year program need to be accounted for. Forward planning thus needs to consider where any F1 or subsequent progeny would be housed. Housing could potentially reach capacity quickly and an exit (or release) strategy or additional facilities should be in place to accommodate this. For instance,

six breeding pairs may have the potential to produce 12-18 fledglings (2-3 fledglings per clutch, assuming a single clutch).

Should a purpose built facility be constructed, one possibility to consider is having six to ten enclosures banked together. This would need to be duplicated to accommodate F1 progeny, and thereafter, any increase of these numbers would require more extensive consideration.

Some considerations for the housing and husbandry of a small, intensively managed, ex situ population of Mallee Emu-wrens are described below. It is anticipated they would be housed in breeding pairs or small groups (if found to be possible). The considerations provided below are also aligned with Appendix 1 (the potential content for a husbandry manual) and include aspects that are likely to affect budget estimations.

8.1.1 Facility & enclosure design

Mallee Emu-wrens pose a unique challenge with their diminutive size and habitat requirements. Keeping Southern Emu-wrens in captivity has been hindered by the animals’ ability to escape through very small gaps and holes (Hutton 1991). The methods for preventing escape would need considerable thought and careful design prior to construction and/or renovation. Although not exhaustive, some specific aspects for consideration in Mallee Emu-wren enclosure design are:

⋅ Enclosure Size: Mallee Emu-wrens are poor flyers and do not require long-flight enclosures, instead an enclosure would require sufficient depth for adequate plantings. An ideal minimum size for a breeding pair would be 5m x 5m. Increasing the size of the enclosure would enable more vegetation and potentially a greater diversity of plant species, which would benefit the Mallee Emu-wren in a greater plant choice for nest building, encourage a greater natural diversity of insects and potentially greater behavioural enrichment. Smaller enclosures could be used; Southern Emu-wren have been housed in 5m x 1.5m enclosures (Hutton 1991).

⋅ Mesh size: The size of the wire mesh would need to be very small as Mallee Emu-wrens would likely escape from standard aviary ½ inch mesh and Southern Emu-wrens have escaped from hexagonal bird wire (10mmx12mm) (Hutton 1991). A finer mesh and/or double mesh laced together would likely be suitable. The density of the mesh may also change the amount of available light.

⋅ Mesh type: The use of a weld mesh would be more appropriate than a woven mesh. Woven mesh is less rigid and prone to changing shape and bending, with distortion allowing for gaps where Mallee Emu-wrens might escape.

⋅ Door jambs: Tight door jambs or protection over door jambs would be essential to prevent Mallee Emu-wrens escaping through any gaps. This could potentially be an external mesh overlay covering jambs or gaps.

⋅ Airlock: To prevent the escape of Mallee Emu-wrens the inclusion of a vestibule or double- door airlock system would be recommended. With this system any birds that escape from the individual enclosures are secured within the larger enclosed area, rather than escaping into the wild.

⋅ Plantings/vegetation: To mimic the natural habitat of Mallee Emu-wrens, low and dense plantings would best meet their behavioural requirements. Triodia has low survival when transplanted and is unlikely to be suitable for establishment in an enclosure, although the use of dead Triodia should be considered. Other plantings might include Xanthorrhoea spp., Acacia spp. and other dense heath species. Plantings would also need to be relatively hardy, easy to maintain and have low water requirements.

⋅ Enclosure Separation: The temperament and behaviour of Mallee Emu-wrens in captivity is unknown, however, enclosures need to cater for potential aggressive behaviour. An ideal set-up would allow for breeding pairs to be separated by a physical barrier that is more significant than wire, as aggressive birds could fight through the wire of adjoining enclosures. Partial enclosure separation would prevent birds physically accessing each other but their behaviour may still drive them to fly up and down the enclosure attempting to access each other which would put the birds at risk of both exhaustion and beak and wing damage. However, adjoining enclosures have the advantage of easily increasing space by opening doors or removing dividers, which would possibly be an advantage for allowing Mallee Emu-wrens to remain in family groups until breeding season. For preventing aggressive behaviour a purpose built facility might even consider corridors between enclosures that become accessible enclosure space during the off-season and keeper- accessible space separators during breeding.

⋅ Substrate and flooring: The most practical substrate would be loose sand which reflects their natural habitat and would allow for plant growth and establishment. Flooring would need to accommodate adequate drainage. An open floor would be suitable (rather than solidly concreted) with concrete edging for containment and securing the facility’s framework. Open flooring should consider underground wire to prevent unwanted animals digging in (pest or native). Similarly, if the facility was to be used in the future for other species this would also prevent digging out.

⋅ Pest management: Enclosures would need to be vermin proof from both rodents and reptiles. Although fine mesh would prevent above ground incursion, the potential for unwanted digging into the facility needs to be considered and monitored. Ants also pose a potential risk if there is substantial uneaten food, as well as to nested chicks.

⋅ Quarantine: All birds require a minimum 30-day quarantine period to prevent diseases being introduced to the housing institution from the wild. Where permanent housing is independent, with no other species adjacent, these facilities would be suitable for quarantine housing and the birds would not need to be temporarily housed in specific quarantine facilities. Additional quarantine measures would need to be provided if the birds are to be housed in the vicinity of other species.

⋅ Additional facilities: Staff housing and the capability to easily maintain the birds would need to be adequately catered for. This should include desk or workstation facilities, food preparation space and sufficient storage. The enclosures also need to meet Work Health & Safety requirements.

8.1.2 Husbandry requirements

The day-to-day maintenance and care for any Mallee Emu-wrens in captivity needs to consider a broad range of elements. Although not exhaustive, some specific aspects for consideration in Mallee Emu-wren enclosure design are:

⋅ Dedicated keeper: Whilst learning about the husbandry requirements it would be ideal to have staff dedicated to caring for the Mallee Emu-wrens. This would need to accommodate a seven-day roster, which would ideally be shared across two dedicated staff. The maintenance and feeding of a small number of Mallee Emu-wrens is unlikely to solely consume keeping time, however, additional time would be used for collecting observations and developing the husbandry manual. Ideally this would be a 1.0 Full-time Equivalent (FTE), however, a minimum of 0.6 FTE is suggested.

⋅ Diet: Mallee Emu-wren diet would likely need to change with season, in particular breeding season. The food uptake and availability would need to be carefully monitored initially and

during breeding. Insects need to be alive and moving as they are predominantly hunters and not scavengers. There is potential to wean them onto an insectivore mix, however, again this would need trial and observation. The success and appropriateness of installation of insect attractants through plantings, UV lights and insect collection (i.e. termites) would also need to be considered.

⋅ Feeding: It is anticipated that feeding would need to occur at least twice daily to provide enough live food to the birds. Shortfall in food would place Mallee Emu-wrens at imminent risk of death from starvation or dehydration given their likely energetic requirements.

⋅ Nesting: Suitable nesting materials need to be provided beyond those available in the furnishings. Southern Emu-wrens utilised thistledown, sheep’s wool, dog hair and an unravelled woollen blanket strands (Hutton 1991). Other materials might include emu feathers, fine grasses and coconut lining.

⋅ Record keeping: Significant efforts will be required to develop a comprehensive husbandry manual. Record keeping requirements will need careful thought and should be tailored to gather extensive knowledge, including investigations driven by the Recovery Team. Additionally, a studbook should be established and managed.

⋅ Health requirements: Given the size and potential fragility of the birds, regular physical examination would not be recommended. Instead health monitoring would include behavioural observation and visual checking of the birds. An annual subset of the birds may be more closely examined. Post-mortems should be conducted with any mortality. Planning for health checking and monitoring requirements should be guided by veterinary expertise.

8.1.3 Potential locations

Institutions that would be appropriate for housing Mallee Emu-wren include Zoological Institutions and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The intricacies of undertaking an intensive captive program, particularly towards the development of husbandry protocols, will require a significant commitment to the maintenance and upkeep of both the birds and the facilities. Husbandry protocols should be able to guide facility requirements and enable institutions to consider participating in a more extensive captive breeding program should it be deemed necessary.

Monarto Zoo in South Australia is a large open range zoo situated within mallee with climatic conditions similar to those of the Mallee Emu-wrens’ range. The large acreage of the zoo provides the opportunity for purpose build facilities to be constructed should funding be available. Construction of new facilities could be multifunctional and potentially service a range of threatened mallee species. Vacant aviaries within the native keeping area would require significant retrofitting to be suitable for Mallee Emu wrens, however, in an emergency situation, with funding provided, this could potentially be expedited.

Additional institutions that may be willing to support a captive breeding program include Zoos Victoria and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy which has two sanctuaries within the mallee region (Yookamurra and Scotia). In a large-scale program private aviculturists should also be considered.

8.2 In-situ assisted breeding

In situ housing facilities would need to meet the same facility requirements as those suggested for ex situ captive breeding if population manipulation methods are intended. The specific requirements of such facilities will depend upon the conservation tools and techniques being employed (i.e. artificial incubation, hand rearing, or fostering). Any facilities would need to ensure the welfare and

the security of the birds, as well as staffing, storage and basic facilities and utilities being accommodated for.

The feasibility of housing a large in situ Mallee Emu-wren population cannot be thoroughly assessed at this stage. The scale of a suitable facility would depend upon a number of unknowns, including the space required to accommodate home range sizes (where aggressive behaviours are avoided), the number of birds or breeding pairs intended to be housed/contained, and the purpose of the enclosure. However, a protected facility or area where Mallee Emu-wrens and their habitat are managed could be beneficial for emergency translocations or establishing a locally held in suit-ex situ metapopulation.

A large managed enclosure or fenced area is unlikely to benefit the Mallee Emu-wrens through the protection from introduced predators as they are savvy and agile enough to generally escape cat or fox capture and are protected within Triodia hummocks or dense shrubs (Brown 2011). However, a large fenced area would need to be managed for fire, which could be beneficial for providing greater protection of some areas from burning over a longer period of time and securing some habitat. Improving fire management planning would be more efficient and cost effective than building and maintaining fencing for large protected areas in the longer term.

9. Release Considerations

The release of captive Mallee Emu-wrens could serve to assist the population in recovery but the intricacies of establishing such a release program are beyond the scope of this report. Nevertheless, the release of Mallee Emu-wrens from captivity to the wild could be used to supplement or reinforce the wild population or to reintroduce populations where they have gone extinct. As such, the impact of released birds on the wild population needs to consider the risk of endangering the wild population and the long-term survival and success of released individuals (Drake and Temple 2012). Some of the considerations for a captive to wild release of Mallee Emu-wrens include:

• Released individuals would need to be genetically healthy and suitable;

• Released individuals need to be physically healthy and the risk of disease minimized;

• Released individuals need to be behaviourally suitable (i.e. song integrity been maintained in captivity);

• Social functionality of released individuals and/or groups;

• Ecologically suitable habitat with a quality understorey;

• Suitable habitat should also support sufficient invertebrate productivity;

• Suitable habitat should allow for population growth;

• The causes of decline have been resolved, eliminated and/or compensated for;

• Population viability is supported through planning, in particular fire management;

• And the project’s longevity and security, including long-term monitoring.

10. Stakeholders

Stakeholder Relevance Department of Environment, Water and Natural State Government responsible for the management of national Resources (DEWNR, South Australia) parks and fire, and Mallee Emu-wren protection in South Australia. Department of Environment and Primary Industries Joint responsibility with Parks Victoria for Mallee Emu-wren (DEPI, Victoria) protection in Victoria. Department of Environment (Commonwealth) Federal Government responsible for the national protection of the Mallee Emu-wren. Parks Victoria Agency (statutory authority) that manages the system of national parks and marine sanctuaries. Joint responsibility with DEPI for Mallee Emu-wren protection in Victoria. BirdLife Australia Not-for-profit organisation concerned with conservation of native birdlife. Zoos South Australia Not-for-profit conservation organisation and zoological society, operating Adelaide and Monarto Zoos. Other Zoological Institutions Institutions that may be willing to partner projects and/or Mallee Emu-wrens. Desert Springs Wildlife Park Ex situ animal husbandry of Stipiturus ruficeps Zoo and Aquarium Association Non-government peak-body for the Australasian zoo and aquarium community, including expertise in captive populations and studbook management. World Association of Zoos and Aquaria Peak-body for the world zoo and aquarium community. Mallee Catchment Management Authority Statutory regional authority responsible for the management of natural resources in the Mallee Catchment region (Victoria). Murray-Darling Basin NRM Board Statutory regional authority responsible for management of natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin region (South Australia). South East NRM Board Statutory regional authority responsible for management of natural resources in the southeast region (South Australia). Universities, research institutions and experts Research institutions and persons with interest in mallee (including La Trobe, Deakin, Adelaide and Monash) conservation, including research scientists with collaborative interests or those currently working in the region. Local Government Local authorities responsible for land management planning at a regional scale, including native vegetation in Victoria. Landcare and Landcare Groups Not-for-profit organisation that is responsible for raising awareness and funding to support Landcare Groups. Landcare Groups are voluntary working groups that undertake projects to protect and restore local environments in their communities. Private landholders and leaseholders Local parties that may have suitable mallee vegetation or become involved with mallee restoration and/or management. Funding bodies Potential partners or funding bodies willing to provide financial and/or in-kind project support.

11. Timeline

The activities outlined for establishing an ex situ husbandry program (see Section 5) are summarised in an approximate program timeline below (Table 4). Captive breeding activities should be aligned to ongoing wild population and habitat monitoring and evaluation, as well as any other necessary actions identified by a Recovery Team. There is also a level of unpredictability working

with wildlife, bringing them into captivity and housing them, and as such, any program would need to allow for adaptability.

Considerable planning is required in anticipation of housing captive animals and undertaking a recovery effort. Some of these key activities are in ‘Year 0’, an undefined period of time, as they could take a few months but should not be allowed to take more than two years. A captive breeding program would need to allow for the renovation of existing enclosures or the full build of new facilities. This in itself requires extensive planning and execution given the intricacies of Mallee Emu-wrens. Additional time may be required for identifying potential source populations or other similar feasibility research which would need to be accounted for in the Planning Phase and the timeframe extended accordingly.

In addition to captive activities, it is presumed that ongoing monitoring deems the global population at the same level as the current risk. The timeline for activities under these conditions are summarised in Table 4 for an ‘ex situ husbandry program’. Should a significant event occur, such as wildfire, a revised timeline and plan would need to be determined to account for this and the timeframe for activities could be condensed as summarised in Table 4 as an ‘emergency situation’. Descriptions of the key activities considered within the timeline are outlined in Sections 5, 6.3 and 7.

Table 4. Timeline recommended for Mallee Emu-wren captive program. * denotes breeding season.

Year Phase Month Ex situ husbandry program Emergency situation

Year 0 Recovery Team establishment Source/crisis population(s) Stakeholder engagement Approvals and permits

Identification of potential source Capture and translocation populations methods Secure funding and resources Enclosure design Partnership agreements Planning Phase Approvals and permits Capture and translocation methods Enclosure design Jan Year 1 Feb Facility construction Facility retrofitting or construction Mar Apr May Catch Jun Landscape & planting establishment Jul Quarantine Aug* Sep* Monitoring & observation Oct* FacilityEstablishment Nov* Dec* Jan Year 2 Enclosure finalisation As per years 3-5 and 6-20 of Feb husbandry program

Mar Capture and translocation methods Additional population Apr management and planning May Jun Catch Jul Quarantine

TransferPhase Aug* Sep* Monitoring & observation Oct* Nov*

Dec*

Year 3-5 Husbandry Manual development Decision making based on learnings to date

Adaptive management Potential trial releases if breeding success Forward planning, including engagement of other facilities if program is extending HusbandryPhase

Year 6-20 Exit or Release program Planning / Transfer / Growth / Release / Monitoring Phases

12. Budget

The estimated budget is based on key activities that would be required for the establishment of an ex situ husbandry program for the Mallee Emu-wren. The estimates in this budget are intended as a guide only. Where possible, these have been grouped in the same Phases as the guidelines and timeframes in this report, and the costs have been aligned with the translocation feasibility study (Brown 2014) for consistency.

Captive populations require a long term commitment to the animals’ welfare and care. The longer- term housing of Mallee Emu-wrens in captivity should consider the individuals, the population, the staffing and the housing facilities. Budgeting for longer-term costs is dependent upon the size and desired outcomes of a captive breeding program, for instance, the costs associated with six pairs is very different to a self-sustaining population of 500 birds. As such, it is too early to put a sensible figure on the size and thus the cost of a large and/or a long-term ex situ captive population.

This budget assumes that costs are outright but there would likely be many opportunities for savings. These may include in kind support with equipment, vehicles and staff time, collaboration with partners including universities, and the inclusion of students and volunteers. Such savings are not estimated here as they should be considered with precaution. For instance the availability, functionality and standard of in-kind equipment cannot be predicted here, nor can access to suitable volunteers capable of hearing Mallee Emu-wrens calling. Additionally, savings may be made with the renovation of existing facilities, however significant changes are likely to be required of any facility in order to cater for the Mallee Emu-wren.

This budget assumes that the Recovery Team will provide advice from the broader recovery efforts as to the status of the current population and potential source populations. The costing for undertaking these investigations, such as habitat modelling and spatial analysis, are not included here. Brown (2014) has provided an estimate of these in relation to source and release populations for wild translocations.

12.1 Summary budget estimate

The total estimated budget is summarised in Table 5 with the actions listed further itemised and described in Tables 6 - 9.

The major expenses in Year 0 are for program establishment and planning. This includes salary for a Program Coordinator, whom could provide support to the Recovery Team as well as to the planning and research aspects of an ex situ husbandry program. Once established, this role would likely be reduced part-time, whereby the incumbent’s role could transition or adapt. The major expenditure in Year 1 anticipates the construction of housing facilities. An increase in budget in Year 2 is due to the acquisition of Mallee Emu-wrens and costs associated with collection, as well as construction of a secondary facility preparation of housing progeny. Ongoing annual costs include animal husbandry, keeper staffing, veterinary care and facility maintenance, as well as program coordination.

If an ex situ husbandry program were to be expedited in an ‘emergency situation’ as per Table 4, permits and enclosure planning costs for Program Management in Year 0 would instead be incurred in Year 1 but the program coordinator salary would be saved. The Year 2 costs for Catch and Translocation would also instead be incurred in Year 1.

Table 5. Summary of overall budget and total yearly estimates for an ex situ husbandry program

Action Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3- Year 6-20 5 Program Management Program Coordinator/Manager $100,000 $105,000 $110,250 $182,470 $67,000 +5% p.a. Permits & proposal $17,000 Enclosure planning $21,000 Facilities Facility construction $100,000 $100,000 Landscaping and planting establishment $15,000 $15,000 Ongoing maintenance and upkeep $5,000 $30,000 $10,000p.a. Catch and Translocation Capture Team $11,960 Transfer Teams $10,420 Zoo Team $12,440 Husbandry Keeping Staff $43,800 $14,500 $53,250 +5% p.a. Husbandry $46,500 $119,500 $46,500 p.a. Veterinary Care $5,600 $20,200 $7,400p.a. Total $138,000 $220,000 $360,970 $366,670

Table 6. Itemised budget and descriptions for Program Management

Action Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3-5 Year 6- Unit Calculation 20 Cost Program Manager Program coordinator/manager The manager would be responsible for program oversight, which is anticipated to be at its greatest need in the first two years. This is synergistic with the translocation proposal whereby this would be considered as one role to perform core activities as part of a larger program. Ideally the manager would have a sufficient range of skills to complete research design, analysis and on-ground work. Years 0-2 would be more intensive and thereafter management would likely require only 0.5 FTE in Years 3-5 and 6-20. Manager / scientist $100,000 $105,00 $110,25 $182,470 $67,000 $100,00 $100,000 p.a. 1.0 FTE (incl 0 0 (at 0.5 +5% p.a. 0 overheads) with 5% annual FTE) +5% increase. p.a. Permits & proposal Staff Staff time/contractor/personnel specifically for the completion of permits, approvals and formal captive breeding plan/proposal. Liaison with the Recovery Team to identify source populations in proposal. This may be undertaken by a Program Coordinator, but would be required for project establishment in an emergency situation. Staff for permits $16,000 $16,000 8 weeks x 40 hours per week x $50 per hour Disposables Costs such as printing and postage, permit costs and other disposable items Disposables $1000 $1000 $1000 standard estimate Enclosure planning Staff Staff time/contractor/personnel for overseeing the design and build of the Mallee Emu-wren facilities. Planning is calculated based on two months’ work. Staff for enclosure planning $16,000 $16,000 8 weeks x 40 hours per week x $50 per hour Site visits Site visits will allow intra- and interstate travel for staff to attend meetings and visit zoological institutions to investigate other similar facilities. Site visits $5000 Estimate

Table 7. Itemised budget and descriptions for Facilities

Action Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3- Year 6-20 Unit Calculation 6 Cost Facility Construction Staff Staffing for the oversight of construction is based upon 480 hours. This is estimated at two days per week for seven months (30 weeks) for an extended construction. In an emergency this would equate to 3months FTE. Timing of hours would vary around construction milestones, and includes liaison with contractors, relevant staff and so forth. Staff for oversight of construction $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 30 weeks x 16 hours x $50 per hour or 3 months at 40 hours per week Facility The construction of a new facility is estimated for one housing unit per breeding pair, extrapolated for up to ten pairs. Each is considered as a freestanding individual unit, and costs would reduce should multiple units be constructed together. Savings could be made with the renovation of existing facilities as well as in-kind contributions of materials, labour and maintenance costs by the holding institution. Before embarking on a captive program more accurate quotes should be ascertained. This estimate presumes a tender process with materials and labour included. Ten units are assumed for the ex situ husbandry program; additional units housing will be required with presumed breeding success. Cost saving opportunities and efficiencies may be identified in the initial build and reduced the build cost of the secondary facilities in Year 2. Construction of primary facilities $100,000 $100,000 $10,000 per aviary unit Construction of secondary facilities $100,000 $100,000 $10,000 per aviary unit Landscaping and plantings Landscaping Site of new facilities may need landscape modification supported by horticulture staff. Plants need to be sourced. Purchase of established plants could be costly, will depend on the facilities’ construction and urgency. Estimate includes staffing time, plant purchases and planting. Landscape planning, purchasing & $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Estimate installation Ongoing maintenance and upkeep Maintenance The ongoing cost of housing Mallee Emu-wren as facilities deteriorate and need repairs and maintenance. Their housing would require higher upkeep than standard aviaries due to their tiny size. The cost of maintenance will increase temporally as the facilities age. One week of general repairs is estimated in Year 2, increasing to two weeks thereafter. This would occur on an as needs basis (not necessarily in week blocks). Materials $3,400 $20,400 $6,800p.a. $3,400 Estimate Labour $1,600 $9,600 $3,200p.a. $1,600 1 weeks x 40hours per week x $40 per hour

Table 8. Itemised budget and descriptions for Catch and Translocation

Action Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3-5 Year 6- Unit Calculation 20 Cost Capture Team Capture Based upon two people required for a capture team. Three days based on average of 10 birds caught per day (BROWN 2014). Food/accommodation costs based upon $150 per person per day. Capture Team Staff $4,800 $4,800 2 people x 30 hours x $80p.h. Transportation (1 x 4WD) $960 $960 1200 km x $0.80/km Personal safety $2,000 $2,000 GPS, EPIRB, satellite phone, misc Equipment $3,300 $3,300 Mist nets, hand nets, miscellaneous Food, accommodation and $900 $900 2 people x 3days x $150 per day disposables Transfer Team Transfer Based upon two transfer teams, therefore two 4WD vehicles. Transportation based upon 300km per one-way trip, with two return trips required (one per transfer group). Three day estimate (24 paid hours) for return trip. Transfer Team Staff $3,840 $3,840 2 people x 2 team x 24hours x $40p.h. Transportation (2 x 4WD) $1,280 $1,280 400km x 2 trip x 2 team x $0.80/km Personal safety $2,000 $2,000 GPS, EPIRB, satellite phone, misc Equipment (boxes, food, insect traps) $1,500 $1,500 $500 boxes, $100 live food, $250 Malaise Food and disposables $1,800 $1,800 4 people x 3 days x $150 per day Zoo Team Zoo Team Zoo husbandry team ready for the arrival of the birds. Ten days includes some preparation time. Staff would be required on standby as capture/arrival time unpredictable. Zoo Team $6,400 $6,400 10 days x 2 people x 8 hours x $40p.h. Vet nurse $640 $640 2 day x 8 hours x $40p.h. Veterinarian $2,400 $2,400 2 day x 8 hours x $150p.h. Health assessment Samples and health assessments to be taken upon capture and/or upon arrival. Exact fees will depend on specific analysis being undertaken and whether general anaesthetic is required. Genetic assessment $2,000 $100 $100 per bird Health assessment $1,000 $100 $100 per bird (10 bird subset); general anaesthetic, sample collection & analysis.

Table 9. Itemised budget and descriptions for Husbandry

Action Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3-5 Year 6-20 Unit Cost Calculation Keeping Staff Keeping staff Two dedicated staff that role-share across a roster. Dedicated staffing may not be required once husbandry requirements are established. Keeping staff would likely have additional responsibilities towards the husbandry manual development. Salary estimate based on a $75,000 FTE with a 5% annual increase (CPI). Keeping staff $43,800 $145,000 $53,250 $43,800 0.6 FTE of $73,000 (including on +5% p.a. costs) with 5% annual increase Husbandry Live food Estimated at approximately $5 per bird per day to purchase insects. Alternatively, this cost could be invested in expertise to establish and breed in-house insect colonies. Live food $36,500 $109,500 $36,500.p.a $5 per bird per day x 20 birds x 365 days (Year 2) or investment in breeding; Utilities Estimate of utilities costs including electricity and water. Utilities $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000p.a. Estimate Veterinary Care Veterinary assessment $1800 $600p.a. $600 Estimate annually (6 bird subset); general anaesthetic, sample collection & analysis. Vet nurse Based up the possible extra care required for sick birds with a health care facility, as well as assisting veterinarians during health checks or procedures. Ten days is an estimation. Vet nurse $3,200 $10,500 $3,800 $3,200 10day x 8 hours x $40p.h. with 5% +5% p.a. annual increase Veterinarian Based up the possible time required for health checking procedures and veterinary advice for staff. Veterinarian $2,400 $7,900 $2,900 $2,400 2day x 8 hours x $150p.h. with 5% +5% p.a. annual increase

12.2 Potential Funding Sources

Government Authorities

• Mallee Catchment Management Authority • Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources, South Australia • Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria • Parks Victoria • Commonwealth of Australia • Murray Darling Basin NRM Board

Research

• Fire CRC • Grants • Student research (including field work) • University collaborations and partnerships

Zoos South Australia (not-for-profit)

• Inkind expertise (husbandry, veterinary, research, field assistance) • Fundraising opportunities • Community education and engagement

Other zoological institutions

• In-kind expertise (husbandry, research, field assistance)

Philanthropic organisations

• Ian Potter Foundation • Myer Foundation • ANZ Foundation (Winifred Violet Scott Foundation)

Corporate Sponsorship

• Mining companies (especially local such as Iluka) • Local and national businesses

Community partnerships

13. References

Allan J, Hedger C (2014) Billiatt & Ngarkat Mallee Emu-wren survey report 2014. Unpublished report for Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia, Adelaide.

ARAZPA (1998) Directing Zoo Resources to the Species Recovery Process: A guide for zoo representatives. Australasian Regional Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria.

Baker-Gabb D (2011) Draft Recovery Plan for the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee, Red-lored Whistler Pachycephala rufogularis, Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis leucogaster and other Threatened Mallee Birds. Department of Environment, Canberra.

Boutin S (1990) Food supplementation experiments with terrestrial vertebrates: patterns, problems, and the future. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68(2), 203-220.

Brodin A (2007) Theoretical models of adaptive energy management in small wintering birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1486), 1857-1871.

Brouwer J, Garnett ST (1990) Threatened birds of Australia. Royal Australian Ornithologist Union and the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Brown S (2011) Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee): multi-scale habitat requirements and population structure. Deakin University, Melbourne

Brown S (2014) Preliminary feasibility and risk assessment study for the introduction of the Malle Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee. Report for Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia. Birdlife Australia, Melbourne.

Brown S, Clarke M, Clarke R (2009) Fire is a key element in the landscape-scale habitat requirements and global population status of a threatened bird: The Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee). Biological Conservation 142(2), 432-445.

Brown SM, Harrisson KA, Clarke RH, Bennett AF, Sunnucks P (2013) Limited Population Structure, Genetic Drift and Bottlenecks Characterise an Endangered Bird Species in a Dynamic, Fire-Prone Ecosystem. PLoS ONE 8(4), e59732.

Byers O, Lees CM, Wilcken J, Schwitzer C (2013) The One Plan Approach: The The Philosophy and Implementation of CBSG’s Approach to Integrated Species Conservation Planning. In 'WAZA Magazine. Vol. 14'. (World Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Switzerland)

Christidis L, Boles W (2008) 'Systematics and taxonomy of Australian birds.' (CSIRO Publishing)

Clarke R (2004) Threatened bird species recorded within the Billiatt and Ngarkat Conservation Park complexes, South Australia, spring 2003. Unpublished report to the Department of Environment and Heritage, Adeliade.

Clarke R (2005a) Ecological requirements of birds specialising in mallee habitats. Unpublished La Trobe University report to Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Clarke R (2005b) Recovery plan for the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee, Striated Grasswren Amytornis striatus, Red-lored whistler Pachycephala rufogularis and western whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis leucogaster, South Australian Murray Darling Basin. Department of Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Dawson WR, Marsh RL, Yacoe ME (1983) 'Metabolic adjustments of small passerine birds for migration and cold.' R755-R767

Deis R (1982) Is bird feeding a no-no. Defenders 57, 17-18.

Derrickson S Current Status and Captive Propagation of the Endangered Guam Rail. In 'Proceedings of the Jean Delacour/IFCB Symposium on Breeding Birds in Captivity, AC Rawer, editor N. Hollywood CA, International Foundation for the Conservation of Birds', 1987, pp. 187-195

Dickman, C. R. (1996). Overview of the Impact of Feral Cats on Australian Native Fauna. Report to Australian Nature Conservation Agency

Drake D, Temple S (2012) Captive Propogation and Translocation. In 'The Wildlife Techniques Manual: Volume 2 Management.' Ed. NJ Silvy). (The John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore)

Emison W, Bennett S, Ornithologists' Union RA (1987) 'Atlas of Victorian birds.' (Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands and the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union)

Emlen ST (1982) The Evolution of Helping. I. An Ecological Constraints Model. The American Naturalist 119(1), 29-39.

Fisher CD, Lindgren E, Dawson WR (1972) Drinking Patterns and Behavior of Australian Desert Birds in Relation to Their Ecology and Abundance. The Condor 74(2), 111-136.

Frankham R, Briscoe DA, Ballou JD (2002) 'Introduction to conservation genetics.' (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)

Garnett ST, Crowley GM (2000) 'The action plan for Australian birds 2000.' (Environment Australia: Canberra)

Garnett ST, Szabo J, Dutson G (2011) 'The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010.' (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood)

Garnett S, Franklin D (Eds) (2014) 'Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Australian Birds.' (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood)

Garnett S, Franklin D, et al. (2013) 'Climate change adaptation strategies for Australian birds.' (National Climate Change Adaption Research Facility: Gold Coast)

Gates JA (2003) Ecology of threatened mallee birds in Billiatt Conservation Park: baseline distribution and abundance surveys, 2003. Unpublished report to the Wildlife Conservation Fund, Adelaide.

Haslem A, Kelly LT, et al. (2011) Habitat or fuel? Implications of long-term, post-fire dynamics for the development of key resources for fauna and fire. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(1), 247-256.

Higgins PJ, Peter JM, Steele WK (Eds) (2001) 'Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antartic Birds.' Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats (Oxford University Press: Melbourne, Victoria)

Hogg CJ (2013) Preserving Australian native fauna: zoo-based breeding programs as part of a more unified strategic approach1. Australian Journal of Zoology 61(1), 101-108.

Howe F (1933) The Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee). Emu 32, 266-269.

Howe FE (1910) Notes on the mallee emu-wren. Emu 10(5), 336-337.

Hutton R (1991) 'Australian Softbill Management: Aviary Studies of Wrens, Robins, Chats and Dotterels.' (Singil Press: Austral)

IUCN (2002) IUCN Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation. IUCN, Switzerland.

IUCN (2011) Working Group Report: Review and Reconsideration of the IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation: Why, when (and how) to establish an ex situ population. IUCN Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Switzerland.

Jackson SM (2003) Standardizing captive-management manuals: guidelines for terrestrial vertebrates. International Zoo Yearbook 38(1), 229-243.

Jones CG, Heck W, Lewis RE, Mungroo Y, Slade G, Cade TOM (1995) The restoration of the Mauritius Kestrel Falco punctatus population. Ibis 137, S173-S180.

Lacy RC (1995) Clarification of genetic terms and their use in the management of captive populations. Zoo Biology 14(6), 565-577.

Lees CM, Wilcken J (2009) Sustaining the Ark: the challenges faced by zoos in maintaining viable populations. International Zoo Yearbook 43(1), 6-18.

Liu SC, Gillespie J, Atchison N, Andrew P (2014) The recovery programme for the Regent honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia: an example of conservation collaboration in Australia. International Zoo Yearbook 48(1), 83-91.

Maguire GS (2006) Territory quality, survival and reproductive success in southern emu-wrens Stipiturus malachurus. Journal of Avian Biology 37(6), 579-593.

Maguire GS, Mulder RA (2004) Breeding biology and demography of the southern emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus). Australian Journal of Zoology 52(6), 583-604.

Maguire GS, Mulder RA (2008) Low levels of extra-pair paternity in southern emu-wrens (Aves : Maluridae). Australian Journal of Zoology 56(2), 79-84.

Mallinson JJC (2003) A Sustainable Future for Zoos and Their Role in Wildlife Conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(1), 59-63.

Martin TG, Nally S, et al. (2012) Acting fast helps avoid extinction. Conservation Letters 5(4), 274-280.

Maunder M, Byers O (2005) The IUCN Technical Guidelines on the Management of Ex Situ Populations for Conservation: reflecting major changes in the application of ex situ conservation. Oryx 39(01), 95-98.

Menkhorst PW, Bennett AF (1990) Vertebrate fauna of Mallee vegetation in Southern Australia. In 'The Mallee Lands: A Conservation Perspective '. (Eds JC Noble, PJ Joss and GK Jones) pp. 39-53. (CSIRO: Melbourne)

Mercer K (1998) Habitat selection of the Mallee Emu-wren. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Mustoe S (2006) Assessment of the Conservation Status of Mallee Emu-wren, Stipiturus mallee , A.J. Campbell, 1908, Family Maluridae. Unpublished report to Save the Food Bowl Alliance.

Owen A, Wilkinson R, Sözer R (2014) In situ conservation breeding and the role of zoological institutions and private breeders in the recovery of highly endangered Indonesian passerine birds. International Zoo Yearbook 48(1), 199-211.

Paton DC, Rogers D (2007) Status of Mallee Emu-wrens (Stipiturus mallee) in the Ngarkat Complex of Parks. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.

Paton DC, Rogers DL, Cale P, Willoughby N, Gates JA (2009) Birds. In 'Natural history of the Riverland and Murraylands.' Ed. JT Jennings). (Royal Society of South Australia Inc: Adelaide)

Pellegrino B (2011) Habitat modelling for the endangered Mallee Emu-wren using ultra-high spatial resolution aerial photography: potential for a translocation program in Billiatt Conservation Park. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Pickett M (2007a) Reintroduction of the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren Stipiturus malachurus intermedius to Cox Scrub Conservation Park, South Australia. Unpublished report to Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide.

Pickett M (2007b) Review of the potential role of translocation in Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren recovery. Unpublished report to Conservation Council of South Australia, Adelaide.

Podolsky AL, Simons TR, Collazo JA (2004) A method of food supplementation for ground-foraging insectivorous songbirds. Journal of Field Ornithology 75(3), 296-302.

Pritchard DJ, Fa JE, Oldfield S, Harrop SR (2012) Bring the captive closer to the wild: redefining the role of ex situ conservation. Oryx 46(01), 18-23.

Rowley I, Russell E (1997) 'Fairy-wrens and Grasswrens.' (Oxford University Press: Melbourne)

Rudnick J, Lacy R (2008) The impact of assumptions about founder relationships on the effectiveness of captive breeding strategies. Conservation Genetics 9(6), 1439-1450. [In English]

Ryder O, Feistner AC (1995) Research in zoos: a growth area in conservation. Biodiversity & Conservation 4(6), 671-677. [In English]

Saint Jalme M (2002) Endangered Avian Species Captive Propagation: An Overview of Functions and Techniques. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 13(3), 187-202.

Schodde R (1982) 'The Fairy-wrens. A Monograph of the Maluridae.' (Landsdowne Editions: Melbourne)

Short J (2009) The characteristics and success of vertebrate translocations within Australia: a progress report to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Wildlife Research and Management Pty Ltd.

Silveira CE (1993) The recovery plan for Australia's threatened mallee birds - addressing fire as a threatening process: research phase. Report to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Royal Australasian Ornithologist Union, Melbourne.

Smith G (2004) Distribution and habitat requirements of Mallee Emu-wren (Stipiturus mallee) within the 1990 fire scar of Ngarkat Conservation Park: towards a habitat suitability model. University of Adelaide, Adelaide

Smyth A, Hilbert DW, Ferrier S, Dunlop M, Harwood T, Williams KJ, Fletcher CS, Gobbett D (2012) The implications of climate change for biodiversity conservation adn the National Reserve System: hummock grasslands biome. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working Paper No. 13D.

Snyder NFR, Derrickson SR, Beissinger SR, Wiley JW, Smith TB, Toone WD, Miller B (1996) Limitations of Captive Breeding in Endangered Species Recovery. Conservation Biology 10(2), 338-348.

Tidemann S, Green B, Newgrain K (1989) Water Turnover and Estimated Food-Consumption in 3 Species of Fairy-Wren (Malurus Spp). Wildlife Research 16(2), 187-194.

Tribe A, Booth R (2003) Assessing the Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8(1), 65-74.

Watson JEM (2011) Research survey of Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee at Murray Sunset National Park and Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve for the Mallee Catchment Management Authority. Deakin University.

WAZA (2005) Building a Future for Wildlife - The World Zoo and Aquarium Conservation Strategy. WAZA, Switzerland.

Wilson FE (1912) Oologists in the Mallee. Emu 12(1), 30-39.

14. Appendix 1 Husbandry Guidelines

Husbandry manuals describe the natural history, keeping requirements and captive management of animals. Husbandry guidelines are compilations of published research, unpublished research and anecdotal observations to describe the effective housing and management of a captive species (Jackson 2003). There is limited current information that would contribute to the content headings below for Mallee Emu-wrens. This highlights the significant lack of knowledge of this species, and the reciprocal benefits of greater understanding of both ex situ and in situ Mallee Emu-wrens.

Natural history Taxonomy Description & morphometrics Distribution Habitat Movement patterns Natural diet and feeding behaviour Life history Breeding Longevity

Population information Conservation status Recovery team Population management Other documentation Housing requirements Configuration and design Spatial requirements Containment barriers / airlock Position Weather protection Materials Gates and doors Substrates Furnishings Landscaping Plantings & species Shelters Pest control Climatic conditions Temperature & humidity Misting Monitoring Observation, capture and handling systems Remote camera systems Interspecific compatibility Intraspecific compatibility

Record keeping Daily records to be kept Identification methods Routine data collection Handling Timing Catching bags Capture techniques Restraint techniques Weighing and examination Release Handling durations

Transport Short transport periods Long transport periods Box design Furnishings Water and food Animals per box Timing of transportation Release from box Health requirements General

Routine treatments Heating requirements Hygiene and cleaning requirements Known health problems Intensive Care management for sick or flighty birds Preventative medicine Fecal parasite screening Schedule for routine screening Endocrinology Neonate examination Routine quarantine treatments Vet procedures Physiologic norms Temperature, heart rate and respiration rate Appetite Monitoring weight Normal weight and daily weight changes Post mortem protocol

Behaviour Social Organisation Communication Territory development and pair formation Sexual behaviours Behavioural interaction Effects of removing members of grouping Social spacing

Introductions of new pairs Nesting Behavioral development Sexual maturity Dispersal age Stress indicators Behavioral enrichment Feeding requirements General Captive diet Breeding diet Food presentation Acquiring additional sources of insects Attractants using cultures of fruit, decomposed vegetation, and rotting flesh Attracting insects using landscaping Attracting insects using Pheromones Attracting insects using UV night lights Collecting insects using traps and sweep nets Specifications Piece size specifications and restrictions Food used for behavioural enrichment Seasonal diet changes Feeding behaviours Typical feeding behaviours Aberrant feeding behaviour Changing birds to captive or new diet Hand rearing /weaning Nutrient analysis of current diet Nutritional requirements & toxicities Known problems Breeding Courtship Fecundity Age at first breeding and last breeding Timing of breeding Nest building Incubation period Clutch size Multiple clutches Hatching weight Chick development and growth characteristics Parental care Provisioning patterns Supplemental feeding

Artificial methods Guidelines for intervention Incubator Requirements Type Conditions (temperature, humidity) Pip to hatch Hatching units Brooder types Diet, feeding schedules & formula protocol Physical exams and assessments Identification methods Hygiene and special precautions Hatching problems Behavioural considerations Fostering Foster species Foster methods Weaning Rehabilitation procedures Imprinting