DOCSLIB.ORG

Bingara Gorge Wilton, NSW Threatened Frog Survey and Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bingara Gorge Wilton, NSW Threatened Frog Survey and Assessment 2015 Bingara Gorge Wilton, NSW Threatened Frog Survey and Assessment Ross Wellington 5/5/2015 Bingara Gorge Wilton, NSW Threatened Frog Survey and Assessment Ross Wellington ‐ Herpetologist Introduction The subject land is located in the Bingara Gorge area of Wilton, NSW. The area is proposed for a mixed development including residential and expansion of the existing golf course facility. The subject land has been previously long used for agricultural purposes and existing part development of surrounding areas as low density residential development and part development as a golf course and associated tourism facilities. The new areas proposed for similar development consist of areas previously utilised for agriculture that are largely cleared along with adjoining areas retaining remnant native vegetation, areas that area regenerating and other areas adjoining that are largely undisturbed native vegetation. Approach A desk top assessment was undertaken to determine herpetofaunal (reptile and amphibian) records from the subject land and a buffer area of 5km surrounding the area. Based on a search of available database records and an assessment of the known habitat in the area, terrain, previous survey efforts and habitat preference of the species with potential to occur, a species prediction table was developed (see Table 1). On the basis of timing and budget constraints a site inspection and targeted survey was undertaken during the day and evening of the 5th May 2015. This survey, although undertaken during less than ideal seasonal conditions and activity periods of some species, was undertaken in an attempt to detect any species still active and identify the habitat potential and condition for certain threatened species with the highest potential to occur. Both parts of the subject Land’s components were inspected diurnally in the company of Steve House (ca 5 hours) and nocturnally in the company of Rodney Armistead (ca 2.5 hours). Prevailing Habitat and Condition The subject land is generally heavily disturbed with large areas of cleared agricultural land, areas with scattered paddock trees and small clumps of retained woodland remnants. Much of the site proposed for development is predominantly cleared, consisting of a largely grassy ground cover and with very little shrub/understorey layer across the majority of the plateau area and the potentially developable areas of the subject site. It was determined from this single diurnal inspection that very little high quality habitat for frogs was present generally (although some frog species are able to occupy and forage within grassland). The exceptions being around the immediate vicinity of constructed farm dams (now naturalised) and in the vicinity of the headwaters of first order drainage lines (upper parts ephemeral) and that drain as ‘laterals’ from the plateau tops into the deeper main stream line gorges. Some of these lateral drainage lines had current flow following the heavy recent (at time of survey) rain events. But most of these are suspected to reduce to ephemeral pools and non‐flow stream lines during dryer episodes. The deeper gorge areas are characterised by exposed/outcropping sandstone and it is these areas that are considered of varying but reasonable quality habitat for amphibians and have what appears to be somewhat typical sandstone benched geomorphology. These areas provide potential habitat for two threatened frog species – the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus (NSW and Commonwealth listed) and the Red‐crowned Toadlet Pseudophryne australis (NSW listed) among a number of other potential/likely non‐threatened frog species (see predictive Table). The diurnally inspected sites were then revisited at night for a period of approximately 2.5 hours and searched using spotlight/headlamp. All frogs observed or heard calling were recorded and compared against the predictive list of herpetofauna species considered likely in the locality on the basis of previous records within a 5 km radius, the habitat present and the known distribution and habitat preference of Sydney Basin herpetofauna species. A composite predicted and actual herpetofauna species list was produced from the desktop assessment, previous survey experience in the general area and observations made during the current diurnal and nocturnal surveys of the site (see Table 1). A map of the subject land depicts an area that includes the subject land and the prevailing landscapes. It also provides an indication of the areas traversed and assessed for the presence of amphibian habitat. Figure 1 Locality Map depicting area of survey and assessment. The diurnal and nocturnal site survey included inspection of a representative number of on‐site drainage lines (laterals) to ascertain and assess habitat suitability/condition as well as survey for the presence of herpetofauna species, particularly frogs and their larvae. Specifically, two threatened species were the focus of this survey and assessment, the Red‐crowned Toadlet Pseudophryne australis (RCT) and the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus (GBF). Both species are known to occupy similar habitat types and have a similar pattern of distribution, quite often occupying the same streamlines but usually with some micro separation; with RCT generally occupying the upper most and more ephemeral sections of the drainage line. A summary/profile of both these species ecology, distribution and environmental impact assessment can be found within several readily available publications (see references Recsei, 1997; Thumm and Mahony, 1997; Thumm and Mahony, 1999; NPWS 2001a; NPWS 2001b; DECC, 2010) Neither of these species were detected during the survey and given the heavy rain events immediately preceding the survey it would have been reasonably expected that RCTs would be detected if present in any significant numbers as this species generally displays an opportunistic pattern of breeding activity. Conditions were also suitable for detecting activity of the GBF although timing for breeding activity likelihood was more equivocal in May but the species can often been detected at this time of the year and even later, due to the frequent occurrence of over‐wintering tadpoles, even when adult activity is likely reduced or absent. Therefore, it is not possible to rule out presence of either species on the basis of an inability to detect them during such a brief survey. However, the detection of a pair of active Stony Creek Frogs Litoria lesueurii was indicative that conditions were warm enough for frog detection generally but the prevalence of calling Verreaux’s Frogs Litoria verreauxii, a known autumn/winter calling species was also indicative of the prevailing seasonal influence. In lieu of undertaking extended and regular interval, repeated surveys to confirm presence of either species or to be confident of actual absence from the site altogether, a preferred option is to assume presence and identify/categorise areas with highest likelihood of providing habitat for the species based on their known habitat preference. By so doing, the areas identified include all the ephemeral drainage lines flowing from the plateau top that still retain natural vegetation. (Description of the two drainage line features demarcating the two species microhabitat differentiation). By protecting and buffering these areas from the direct impacts of development by excluding them from the proposed developable areas would be a first step in the precautionary protection of this assumed potential habitat for both species. However, to further protect this habitat from the known potential indirect impacts of the development may well prove more problematic. Both species are highly sensitive to changes in hydrology and water quality and their disappearance from downstream areas of urbanised development has been well documented (see references). Urbanised impacts on flow regimes generally include such things as: rapid and high volume flow events from increased extent of hardstand surfaces; reduced infiltration that contributes to maintained or lengthened stream flows following rain events. Water quality is generally influenced by such factors as: bituminous road surfaces, particularly immediately following road surfacing; the use of ‘blue‐metal’ aggregate as road base and the runoff from fresh and curing concrete elevated nutrient levels from urban run‐off such as gardens, putting greens and fairways as well as the removal of ground covers during construction that can exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of streamlines. Consequently, innovative measures to reduce these potential impacts and include measures that ensure flow regimes are maintained, water quality of runoff is not altered or returned/filtered/treated to natural water quality measures, are essential to ensure any local populations of these two threatened species are maintained in an un‐impacted state. To achieve this outcome in an area adjacent to typical urbanisation is not simple and likely will require some new and creative measures to be developed and implemented. A map of the areas containing habitat for these species is depicted in Figure 2. The area covers the area of the terrain within the subject land that most reasonably approximates the area containing potential breeding areas for both Red‐crowned Toadlets (RCTs) and Giant Burrowing Frogs (GBFs). The defined area does not necessarily contain all possible habitat for either species as both are known to occupy areas away from their breeding sites
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 11:408–425. Submitted: 26 January 2016; Accepted: 2 September 2016; Published: 16 December 2016. Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland Joanne F. Ocock1,4, Richard T. Kingsford1, Trent D. Penman2, and Jodi J.L. Rowley1,3 1Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 2Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, Institute of Conservation Biology and Environmental Management, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia 3Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 6 College St, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia 4Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Amphibian abundance and occupancy are often reduced in regulated river systems near dams, but com- paratively little is known about how they are affected on floodplain wetlands downstream or the effects of actively managed flows. We assessed frog diversity in the Macquarie Marshes, a semi-arid floodplain wetland of conserva- tion significance, identifying environmental variables that might explain abundances and detection of species. We collected relative abundance data of 15 amphibian species at 30 sites over four months, coinciding with a large natural flood. We observed an average of 39.9 ± (SE) 4.3 (range, 0-246) individuals per site survey, over 47 survey nights. Three non-burrowing, ground-dwelling species were most abundant at temporarily flooded sites with low- growing aquatic vegetation (e.g., Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, Limnodynastes fletcheri, Crinia parinsignifera). Most arboreal species (e.g., Litoria caerulea) were more abundant in wooded habitat, regardless of water permanency.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Abatement Plan
    gus resulting in ch fun ytridio trid myc chy osis ith w s n ia ib h p m a f o n o i t THREAT ABATEMENTc PLAN e f n I THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN INFECTION OF AMPHIBIANS WITH CHYTRID FUNGUS RESULTING IN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSIS Department of the Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 ISBN 0 642 55029 8 Published 2006 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Assistant Secretary Natural Resource Management Policy Branch Department of the Environment and Heritage PO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 This publication is available on the Internet at: www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid/ For additional hard copies, please contact the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772. Front cover photo: Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) Sequential page photo: Taudactylus eungellensis (Eungella day frog) Banner photo on chapter pages: Close up of the skin of Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) ii Foreword ‘Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting Under the EPBC Act the Australian Government in chytridiomycosis’ was listed in July 2002 as a key implements the plan in Commonwealth areas and seeks threatening process under the Environment Protection the cooperation of the states and territories where the and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). disease impacts within their jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hollow-Bearing Trees As a Habitat Resource Along an Urbanisation Gradient
    Hollow-Bearing Trees as a Habitat Resource along an Urbanisation Gradient Author Treby, Donna Louise Published 2014 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School Griffith School of Environment DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1674 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/367782 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Hollow-bearing Trees as a Habitat Resource along an Urbanisation Gradient Donna Louise Treby MPhil (The University of Queensland) Environmental Futures Centre. Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast. A thesis submitted for the fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December 2013. “If we all did the things we are capable of doing. We would literally live outstanding lives. I think; if we all lived our lives this way, we would truly create an amazing world.” Thomas Edison. i Acknowledgements: It would be remiss of me if I did not begin by acknowledging my principal supervisor Dr Guy Castley, for the inception, development and assistance with the completion of this study. Your generosity, open door policy and smiling face made it a pleasure to work with you. I owe you so much, but all I can give you is my respect and heartfelt thanks. Along with my associate supervisor Prof. Jean-Marc Hero their joint efforts inspired me and opened my mind to the complexities and vagaries of ecological systems and processes on such a large scale. To my volunteers in the field, Katie Robertson who gave so much of her time and help in the early stages of my project, Agustina Barros, Ivan Gregorian, Sally Healy, Guy Castley, Katrin Lowe, Kieran Treby, Phil Treby, Erin Wallace, Nicole Glenane, Nick Clark, Mark Ballantyne, Chris Tuohy, Ryan Pearson and Nickolas Rakatopare all contributed to the collection of data for this study.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.07 Frogs and Wetlands
    Chapter 2.7 — Frogs and wetlands • 161 2.7 Frogs and wetlands Dr Arthur White Biosphere Environmental Consultants Pty Ltd Australia Abstract Australian frogs are remarkably diverse in their life styles and their use of wetlands. Our understanding of the ecological needs of frogs is incomplete but we do know some of the major requirements for survival, such as the need for clean water, the need for safe foraging areas, the need for shelter from predators and adverse weather conditions, the need for minimal habitat stress (as this increases the susceptibility of frogs to disease). The design of wetlands must take into account these over-riding requirements, plus the specific requirements that are unique to each frog species. In this paper, I refer to the management of the Green and Golden Bell Frog during the establishment of the Sydney Olympic site as an example of sorts of considerations that are required in managing frogs and wetlands. Chapter 2.7 — Frogs and wetlands • 162 Australian Frogs 2. Air pollution: massive amounts of Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen Dioxide (and There are about 250 described frog species in other gases) have been released into the Australia (Anstis 2013). This is a surprisingly high atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. number of frog species for such an arid continent. These gases combine with moisture in the Australian frogs have had to adapt of the vagaries air and create toxic substances that kill frogs, of Australia’s climate and can survive in areas where other animals and plants. In the northern you would not expect them to be.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Witness Report
    Expert Witness Report Report prepared on instructions of: Bleyer Lawyers, Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 Australia Prepared by: Graeme Gillespie B.Sc. Ph.D. 55 Union Street, Northcote, Vic 3070, Australia Curriculum Vitae Attached (Appendix I) I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to be bound by it. Graeme Gillespie 23 February 2010 Qualifications and Experience Please see my curriculum vitae (Appendix I) for my general qualifications and experience. My Ph.D. in zoology focussed specifically on the conservation biology and ecology of frog species in south-eastern Australia. I have 23 years of field and scientific experience studying amphibians and their conservation and management in south- eastern Australia. I have published 24 refereed scientific papers and 38 technical reports on amphibian ecology, conservation and management. I am recognised throughout Australia as an authority on the frog fauna of Victoria, specifically with respect to conservation issues, and I am regularly asked to provide advice on such matters to individuals, government conservation and land management agencies, and non-government organisations. With regard to the Giant Burrowing Frog, I encountered this species on several occasions between 1986 and 1992 while undertaking and supervising pre-logging biodiversity surveys in East Gippsland, Victoria. These records are documented in the Victorian Wildlife Atlas. During this period, I gained knowledge of the species’ habitat associations, breeding biology, some aspects of its behaviour and an appreciation of its conservation status in Victoria (see Opie et al. 1990; Westaway et al.1990; Lobert et al. 1991). Because of my research into amphibian conservation and management, I am highly familiar with the existing literature on the impact of various forest management activities on amphibians and the implications of these activities for amphibian conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibian Diversity and Community-Based Ecotourism in Ndumo Game Reserve, South Africa
    Amphibian diversity and Community-Based Ecotourism in Ndumo Game Reserve, South Africa FM Phaka orcid.org/0000-0003-1833-3156 Previous qualification (not compuLsory) Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters degree in Environmental Science at the North-West University Supervisor: Prof LH du Preez Co-supervisor: Dr DJD Kruger Assistant Supervisor: Mr EC Netherlands Graduation May 2018 25985469 Declaration I, Fortunate Mafeta Phaka, declare that this work is my own, that all sources used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references, and that this thesis was not previously submitted by me or any other person for degree purposes at this or any other university. Signature Date 18/11/2017 i i AcknowLedgements A great debt of gratitude is owed to my study supervisor L.H. Du Preez, co-supervisor D.J.D. Kruger, and assistant supervisor E.N. Netherlands for guidance and encouragement to focus on my strengths. To my mentors, D. Kotze and L. De Jager, and the Phaka clan, your faith in me has kept me going through all these years. Thank you to African Amphibian Conservation Research Group and Youth 4 African Wildlife for accepting me as part of your family. Members of the Zululand community are thanked for their enthusiasm and assistance towards this study. Fieldwork and running expenses for this research were funded by the South African National Biodiversity Institute’s (SANBI) Foundational Biodiversity Information Programme (Grant UID 98144). Financial assistance for studying towards this degree was provided by SANBI’s Foundational Biodiversity Information Programme (National Research Foundation Grant- Holder Linked Bursary for Grant UID 98144), and the North-West University (NWU Masters Progress Bursary, and NWU Masters Bursary).
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Ecology of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus Australiacus): Implications for Conservation Prescriptions
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health January 2008 Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Trent D. Penman University of Wollongong, [email protected] F Lemckert M J Mahony Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Penman, Trent D.; Lemckert, F; and Mahony, M J: Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions 2008, 179-186. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/724 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Abstract Management of threatened anurans requires an understanding of a species’ behaviour and habitat requirements in both the breeding and non-breeding environments. The giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) is a threatened species in south-eastern Australia. Little is known about its habitat requirements, creating difficulties in vde eloping management strategies for the species.Weradio-tracked 33 individual H. australiacus in order to determine their habitat use and behaviour. Data from 33 frogs followed for between 5 and 599 days show that individuals spend little time near (<15 >m) their breeding sites (mean 4.7 days for males and 6.3 days for females annually). Most time is spent in distinct non- breeding activity areas 20–250m from the breeding sites.
    [Show full text]
  • National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes Balbus
    National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie Prepared by David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Melbourne, October 2011. © State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. ISBN 978-1-74242-369-2 (online) This is a Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with the assistance of funding provided by the Australian Government. This Recovery Plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website www.environment.gov.au For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186 Citation: Hunter, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar Site: Ecological Character Description in Good Faith, Exercising All Due Care and Attention
    Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar site Ecological character description Disclaimer The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) has compiled the Towra Point Nature Reserve Ramsar site: Ecological character description in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. DECCW does not accept responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by third parties. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. Readers should seek appropriate advice about the suitability of the information to their needs. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or of the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts. Acknowledgements Phil Straw, Australasian Wader Studies Group; Bob Creese, Bruce Pease, Trudy Walford and Rob Williams, Department of Primary Industries (NSW); Simon Annabel and Rob Lea, NSW Maritime; Geoff Doret, Ian Drinnan and Brendan Graham, Sutherland Shire Council; John Dahlenburg, Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority. Symbols for conceptual diagrams are courtesy of the Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols), University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. This publication has been prepared with funding provided by the Australian Government to the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority through the Coastal Catchments Initiative Program. © State of NSW, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, and Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority DECCW and SMCMA are pleased to allow the reproduction of material from this publication on the condition that the source, publisher and authorship are appropriately acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The
    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (Myuchelys georgesi) December, 2016 1 Workshop participants. Back row (l to r): Ricky Spencer, Bruce Chessman, Kristen Petrov, Caroline Lees, Gerald Kuchling, Jane Hall, Gerry McGilvray, Shane Ruming, Karrie Rose, Larry Vogelnest, Arthur Georges; Front row (l to r) Michael McFadden, Adam Skidmore, Sam Gilchrist, Bruno Ferronato, Richard Jakob-Hoff © Copyright 2017 CBSG IUCN encourages meetings, workshops and other fora for the consideration and analysis of issues related to conservation, and believes that reports of these meetings are most useful when broadly disseminated. The opinions and views expressed by the authors may not necessarily reflect the formal policies of IUCN, its Commissions, its Secretariat or its members. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Jakob-Hoff, R. Lees C. M., McGilvray G, Ruming S, Chessman B, Gilchrist S, Rose K, Spencer R, Hall J (Eds) (2017). Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. Cover photo: Juvenile Bellinger River Snapping Turtle © 2016 Brett Vercoe This report can be downloaded from the CBSG website: www.cbsg.org. 2 Executive Summary The Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (BRST) (Myuchelys georgesi) is a freshwater turtle endemic to a 60 km stretch of the Bellinger River, and possibly a portion of the nearby Kalang River in coastal north eastern New South Wales (NSW).
    [Show full text]
  • North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide
    North Central Waterwatch Frogs Field Guide “This guide is an excellent publication. It strikes just the right balance, providing enough information in a format that is easy to use for identifying our locally occurring frogs, while still being attractive and interesting to read by people of all ages.” Rodney Orr, Bendigo Field Naturalists Club Inc. 1 The North Central CMA Region Swan Hill River Murray Kerang Cohuna Quambatook Loddon River Pyramid Hill Wycheproof Boort Loddon/Campaspe Echuca Watchem Irrigation Area Charlton Mitiamo Donald Rochester Avoca River Serpentine Avoca/Avon-Richardson Wedderburn Elmore Catchment Area Richardson River Bridgewater Campaspe River St Arnaud Marnoo Huntly Bendigo Avon River Bealiba Dunolly Loddon/Campaspe Dryland Area Heathcote Maryborough Castlemaine Avoca Loddon River Kyneton Lexton Clunes Daylesford Woodend Creswick Acknowledgement Of Country The North Central Catchment Management Authority (CMA) acknowledges Aboriginal Traditional Owners within the North Central CMA region, their rich culture and their spiritual connection to Country. We also recognise and acknowledge the contribution and interests of Aboriginal people and organisations in the management of land and natural resources. Acknowledgements North Central Waterwatch would like to acknowledge the contribution and support from the following organisations and individuals during the development of this publication: Britt Gregory from North Central CMA for her invaluable efforts in the production of this document, Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority for allowing use of their draft field guide, Lydia Fucsko, Adrian Martins, David Kleinert, Leigh Mitchell, Peter Robertson and Nick Layne for use of their wonderful photos and Mallee Catchment Management Authority for their design support and a special thanks to Ray Draper for his support and guidance in the development of the Frogs Field Guide 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
    1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published.
    [Show full text]