Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

L.S. Beesley, K.M. Howard, L. Joachim, and A.J. King

2010

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research

Technical Report Series No. 203

Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Series No. 203

Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Leah Beesley 1, Katie Howard 1, Lee Joachim 2 and Alison King 1

1Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084

April 2010

In partnership with:

2 The Living Murray, Indigenous Facilitator Department of Sustainability and Environment, Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Corporation cnr Schier and Maloney Streets, Barmah, Victoria 3639

Funded by:

The Murray–Darling Basin Authorities’ Living Murray Program

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment Heidelberg, Victoria

Report produced by: Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Department of Sustainability and Environment PO Box 137 Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 Phone (03) 9450 8600 Website: www.dse.vic.gov.au/ari © State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 , no part may be reproduced, copied, transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical or graphic) without the prior written permission of the State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. All requests and enquiries should be directed to the Customer Service Centre, 136 186 or email [email protected] Citation: Beesley, L., Howard, K., Joachim, L., and King, A. (2010) Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria

ISSN 1835-3827 (print) ISSN 1835-3835 (online) ISBN 978-1-74242-631-0 (print) ISBN 978-1-74242-632-7 (online) 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 which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Front cover photo: The Broad-shelled Turtle (photograph by Katie Howard). Authorised by: Victorian Government, Melbourne Printed by: NMIT Printroom, 77–91 St Georges Road, Preston 3072

Contents List of tables, figures and plates...... iv Acknowledgments ...... v Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 3 Section 1: Documenting the current health and status of turtle populations at Barmah– Millewa Forest ...... 7 1 Methods...... 7 1.1 Study areas...... 7 1.2 Collection and processing of live turtles...... 11 1.3 Surveys for dead turtles ...... 12 1.4 Analyses...... 15 2 Results...... 16 2.1 Live turtle survey ...... 16 2.2 Dead turtle survey...... 22 3 Discussion ...... 24 3.1 Conclusions and recommendations...... 27 Section 2: Knowledge sharing and community involvement...... 29 References...... 30 Appendix 1. Water quality measurements...... 33 Appendix 2. Live turtle data ...... 35 Appendix 3. Dead turtle data ...... 40 Appendix 4. Dead turtle survey flyer ...... 41 Appendix 5. Turtle identification flyer...... 45

iii

List of tables, figures and plates List of tables Table 1. Study sites, their descriptors, water permanence, and habitat grouping...... 10 Table 2. Effort (hours traps were set) for at each site, and the number of each species of turtles caught...... 17

List of figures Figure 1. Average daily discharge downstream of Yarrawonga on the Murray River (upstream of Barmah–Millewa)...... 4 Figure 2. Photos and corresponding distribution maps of (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, and (c) Common Long-necked Turtle...... 5 Figure 3. Sites surveyed for live turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest...... 13 Figure 4. Sites surveyed for dead turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest...... 14 Figure 5. Size frequency distributions of; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, and (c) Common Long-necked Turtle...... 18 Figure 6. Locations of turtle species captured during the live turtle survey...... 19 Figure 7. Average (± se) turtle abundance / trap / hour / site of the Broad-shelled, Murray River, and Common Long-necked Turtle...... 20 Figure 8. Average (± se) turtle abundance (per hour of trapping effort) for each site, grouped by water permanence; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, (c) Common Long- necked Turtle...... 20 Figure 9. Average (± se) body condition ( K) for turtles at each site, ordered by water permanence; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, (c) Common Long-necked Turtle...... 21 Figure 10. Average (± se) body condition of Common Long-necked Turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest through time in relation to watering events...... 22 Figure 11. Relative percent damage to the shells of live turtles in boat trafficked and non-boat trafficked sites...... 22 Figure 12: The number of dead turtle shells observed per kilometre of walking effort per person at each site...... 23

List of plates Plate 1. A selection of the habitat types included in the study: (a) river, showing netting habitat, (b) river, Yielima Bend, (c) permanent wetland, Millewa River Road, (d) large lake, Barmah Lake, (e) regulated creek, Edwards – Gulpa Junction, (f) ephemeral creek, Smiths Creek...... 9 Plate 2. The cathedral trap, (a) out of water, and (b) set in Tongalong Creek...... 10 Plate 3. Turtle tagging: (a) tag placed between the fourth and fifth digit of the hind foot, (b) notch made in a marginal scute, and (c) notch made in marginal scute F, giving the turtle the unique notch code ‘F’...... 12 Plate 4. (a) searching for dead turtles in Millewa River Road Wetland #2, (b) remains of a shell...12 Plate 5. Common Long-necked Turtles in poor condition in cracking clays of a recently dried wetland, Millewa River Road Wetland #2...... 23

iv

Acknowledgments We acknowledge the Yorta Yorta people as the traditional owners of Barmah–Millewa Forest, and thank the community for their invitation to take part in this project, and especially thank Denise Morgan-Bulled for her leadership. We thank Murray Rankin (Department of Sustainability and Environment) for assisting with project inception and Rebecca Curren (DSE) for project management. We also thank The Living Murray section of the Murray–Darling Basin Authority for their financial support, and the Barmah–Millewa Technical Advisory Group for their support of the project. We are grateful for being allowed to participate in the cultural weekend the Yorta Yorta community held on the 17th and 18th of October 2009 and especially thank Wade and Thorn (Yorta Yorta) for their enthusiasm and assistance in the dead turtle surveys that were part of that event. For assistance with the field surveys of live turtles we gratefully acknowledge and thank Andrew Atkinson and Simon Nicholson (Yorta Yorta), John Mahoney (Arthur Rylah Institute) and Danielle Stokeld (University of Melbourne). Kate Hodges (University of Canberra) and Duncan Limpus (EPA Queensland) kindly provided expert advice on turtle biology. Sampling in New South Wales waters was conducted under NSW Industry and Investment Fisheries Collection Permit P09/0096-1.0, Forests NSW Special Purposes Permit 48591, National Parks and Wildlife Services S13052. Sampling in Victorian waters was conducted under ARI fisheries permit RP827 and DSE Wildlife Permit 1005192. Animal Care and Ethics Approval was granted under ARI AEC09/19.

v

vi Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Summary This project was initiated to monitor the health and status of the three freshwater turtle species that inhabit Barmah–Millewa Forest. Concern for the turtles arose from reports that unusually high numbers of dead turtles were being found in the Forest. Turtles are long-lived animals with delayed maturation, low fecundity and low egg and hatchling survival rates — traits that mean they are particularly susceptible to rapid population decline and local extinction. The Yorta Yorta people are particularly concerned about the recent turtle mortalities because Bayadherra, the Broad-shelled Turtle, is an animal totem associated with their creation stories. This project will assist the Yorta Yorta community to better understand, manage and protect the turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. This project, led by Yorta Yorta Nation and funded by The Living Murray Program (Murray– Darling Basin Authority), had two aims: 1. Establish the current health and status of turtle populations in Barmah–Millewa Forest. This would provide a baseline assessment of the populations and establish a suitable monitoring program for longer-term monitoring of the turtles. 2. Provide information, and an opportunity for involvement in the monitoring program, to the Indigenous community on the health and status of turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. To address the first aim, scientific surveys were undertaken to provide baseline data on the turtle population, including distribution throughout the Forest, relative abundance, physical condition (body condition and shell damage), size structure of populations, and which species have suffered recent mortality. The survey for live turtles occurred in January and February of 2010 at 14 sites. The choice of locations for survey sites was limited by the presence of water but spanned a range of habitat types, including ephemeral creeks and lakes, regulated creeks, permanent wetlands and the main channel of the Murray River. The survey for dead turtles occurred concomitantly with the ‘live turtle’ survey, at nine sites spanning a similar range of habitat types as the ‘live turtle’ surveys but also including a recently dried wetland. The ‘live turtle’ survey caught 76 turtles, including all three species known to inhabit the area: the Broad-shelled Turtle, Murray River Turtle and Common Long-necked Turtle. The total abundance of turtles was similar at all the sampling sites, but the abundance of each species varied among sites. Broad-shelled Turtles were most abundant in the permanent wetland and, to a lesser extent, in the river sites. Murray River Turtles were most abundant in the permanent wetland site and some, but not all, river sites. Patterns for the Common Long-necked Turtle were difficult to assess, but the data suggest they are more abundant in the more permanent sites. There were no clear site- related patterns in body condition for any species. Data on turtles collected in Gulf Creek before and after deliveries of environmental water suggested that the body condition of the Common Long-necked Turtle improved after watering. Damage to turtle shells did not differ significantly between sites with and sites without boat traffic, but there was a trend towards more major shell damage in turtles collected from the river. Thirty-five kilometres were walked surveying for dead turtles. Twenty-nine turtle shells, or fragments of shells, were found, 90% of which were from Common Long-necked Turtles. More shells were found along the banks of ephemeral aquatic habitats than in more permanent habitats. This study could not directly assess if turtle abundance in Barmah–Millewa Forest has declined because of the drought, because no previous data were available. However, the greater number of Common Long-necked shells of dead turtles found along the banks of ephemeral aquatic habitats, when compared to more permanent habitats (and an opposing trend in abundance), indicates that this species, at least, has suffered recent mortality. Currently, turtles in the Forest are more

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 1 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest common in permanent and semi-permanent habitats, such as the Murray River and adjacent wetlands. These sites appear to be refuges, and we expect that turtles — in particular, the Common Long-necked Turtle — will increase their distribution throughout the Forest after large-scale flooding. The following recommendations are made: • Long-term research: This is needed to assess if turtle populations are stable, declining or increasing through time. On-going monitoring will also provide an insight into the effects of flood and drought on processes that affect turtle populations, i.e., turtle energetics, adult survival and the recruitment of young. • Environmental watering: Turtle populations in Barmah–Millewa Forest appear to be concentrated in refuge habitats, such as the river. The high likelihood of a substantial environmental water allocation in the near future provides a rare opportunity to investigate the importance of flow to the dispersal of turtles in the Forest. We recommend tagging and tracking a sub-set of turtles to document turtle movement during and in the wake of flooding. • Mapping of and protection of nesting sites: If turtle populations are found to be declining, locating and protecting nesting sites will help to increase the survival of eggs and hatchlings and maximise recruitment. Yorta Yorta participation and engagement in this project occurred on several levels. The community was involved in setting project aims, selecting sites and undertaking field work. Children were involved in a search for dead turtles in the Forest and participated in the measuring and identifying of turtles. The community is currently collecting data on turtle shells throughout the Forest. Community-gathered data on turtle shells belongs to Yorta Yorta nation and is not included in this report.

2 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

1 Introduction 1.1 Barmah–Millewa Forest and its hydrology Barmah–Millewa Forest is located on the floodplain of the Murray River (Dhungalla), upstream of Echuca. The Forest, which covers approximately 66 000 hectares, is dominated by River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis and is the largest red gum forest in Australia (MDBC 2008). It is internationally recognised as an important wetland under the Ramsar convention, and has received iconic status under the Murray–Darling Basin Commission’s ‘Living Murray Initiative’ (www.mdba.gov.au/programs/tlm). Flood waters run into the forest from the Murray River along a complex of anabranches and creek lines. When flooding is high, water flows over the river bank and inundates the floodplain proper. A significant proportion of the water that flows into the forest during periods of flood is returned to the Murray River as many of the creek lines in the forest connect to the River at both ends (Johnson 1984). Historically, Barmah–Millewa Forest experienced regular winter and spring floods (Young 2001). However, flow regulation by dams and weirs, together with water extraction for human consumption, has reduced the frequency, duration and area inundated by winter–spring floods in the Forest, and caused a slight increase in the frequency of small summer floods (Bren et al. 1987). The altered flow regime is considered to be a major threat to the environmental values of the Forest (Ward 2005) and the Murray River at large (Walker and Thoms 1993). 1.2 A forest weakened by drought South-eastern Australia has been experiencing below-average rainfall since 2001 (Bureau of Meteorology 2008). Reduced rain inflows and greater consumptive demand during the drought have further reduced the volume of water passing down the Murray River. As a consequence, Barmah–Millewa Forest has not received notable watering since the spring–summer of 2005, when an allocation of environmental water was used to increase the size and duration of a minor flood (King et al. 2009) (Figure 1). Since 2005 the Forest has experienced severe drought, and most of the creeks and wetlands throughout the Forest are now completely dry. Environmental monitoring in the Forest, part of The Living Murray icon site reporting, has revealed a decline in environmental values over time. River Red Gum trees, many of which are several hundred years old, are in poor health (MDBC 2007, Cunningham et al. 2009), and there is a general lack of understorey vegetation (MDBC 2008). A decline in the abundance and species richness of waterbirds from 2007 to 2008 is thought to be linked to a decline in wetland habitat in the Forest, although the migration of birds to flooded areas in central Australia is likely to have also contributed to this finding (Kingsford and Porter 2009). Fish populations in the Forest have become restricted to refuge pools, and the Southern Pygmy-perch, which was once locally abundant in some isolated wetland habitats in the Forest, has not been reported in any surveys since 2007 (Rourke and Tonkin 2009, Beesley unpublished data).

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 3 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 Yarrawonga(ML/day) 0 AverageDaily Discharge Downstream . of 1/01/96 1/01/97 1/01/98 1/01/99 1/01/00 1/01/01 1/01/02 1/01/03 1/01/04 1/01/05 1/01/06 1/01/07 1/01/08 1/01/09 1/01/10

Figure 1. Average daily discharge downstream of Yarrawonga on the Murray River (upstream of Barmah–Millewa). Flows above 10 000 ML/day (dashed blue line) represent floodplain inundation. Data courtesy of the Murray– Darling Basin Authority.

1.3 Turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest Three species of freshwater turtle live along the mid-Murray River: ‘Bayadherra’, the Broad- shelled Turtle Chelodina expansa (Gray 1857); ‘Djirrungana Wanurra Watjerrupna’, the Common Long-necked Turtle C. longicollis (Shaw 1794); and ‘Dhungalla Watjerrupna’, the Murray River Turtle Emydura macquarii , also known as the Macquarie River turtle (Gray 1830) (Wilson and Swan 2008). These species have wide-ranging distributions, occurring in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland (Wilson and Swan 2008) (Figure 2). The Common Long- necked Turtle is abundant. The Murray River Turtle and Broad-shelled Turtle are listed as threatened in Victoria (2007); the former is listed as ‘data deficient’ and the latter as ‘endangered’. Turtles are long-lived and slow to mature, and lay only a small number of eggs per year. Female Common Long-necked Turtles reach sexual maturity after 10 years (Parmenter 1985), and lay between six to 23 eggs per clutch (Kennett et al. 2009). Female Broad-shelled Turtles take 14 to 15 years to mature (Spencer 2002b), and lay between five and 30 eggs per clutch (Cann 1998). Female Murray River Turtles take nine to 11 years to mature (Spencer 2002b), and lay 15 to 25 eggs per clutch (Cann 1998). There are no data available for the longevity of these species in the wild, but a Common Long-necked Turtle has lived to 36 years in captivity (Goode 1967). Adult turtles typically have good survival rates, whereas their eggs and hatchlings suffer very high mortality (Parmenter 1985). Mark–recapture studies conducted in floodplain wetlands near Albury between 1996 and 1998 reported that annual adult survival ranges from 92% to 98% for the Broad- shelled Turtle and the Murray River Turtle (Spencer and Thompson 2006). A study conducted near Armadale (New South Wales) in 1974 estimated the annual adult survival of Common Long- necked Turtles to be 98% (Parmenter 1985). The average annual survival of hatchling turtles has not been measured for these species, but egg survival has been found to be less than 10% for the Common Long-necked Turtle (Thompson 1983a, Spencer 2002a). On the Murray River, the main predators of turtle nests are foxes (Thompson 1983b, Spencer and Thompson 2006), although

4 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest goannas, Water Rats Hydromys chrysogaster and birds have also been observed taking eggs and hatchlings (Thompson 1983b, Cann 1998). Delayed maturation, low fecundity, and low egg and hatchling survival mean that turtle populations grow at a slow rate (Musick 1999). Consequently, turtles cannot quickly re-establish their numbers if a significant number die, making them more susceptible to population decline and local extinction than most other species (Musick 1999). It is for this reason, in part, that concern has arisen over the recent reports of substantial numbers of dead adult turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. Preliminary research by ARI scientists at Gulf Creek in Barmah–Millewa Forest (in spring 2008) found that surviving turtles were overcrowded in shrinking waterholes, and were in poor physical condition (Beesley and Howard unpublished data). Turtles, like many of the other fauna in the Forest, appeared to be negatively affected by the ongoing drought. A lack of data made it impossible to gauge the severity of recent declines in turtle numbers. There was no information on which species have been affected, what size classes and proportion of turtle populations had died, and the current health of the surviving turtles. Without this information it was impossible to ascertain with any certainty the level of threat to the turtles, and what actions, if any, should be taken to try and assist the turtle populations to ensure their long-term persistence in Barmah–Millewa Forest.

a) b) c)

Figure 2. Photos and corresponding distribution maps of (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, and (c) Common Long-necked Turtle. Maps reproduced from Wilson and Swan (2008), with permission.

1.4 Turtles and the Yorta Yorta Yorta Yorta Nation is the collective given to the peoples with links to ancestral clans that spoke Yorta Yorta language. Yorta Yorta land surrounds the Murray River (Dhungalla), stretching from Cohuna in the west to Albury–Wodonga in the east, and from Shepparton in the south to just below Deniliquin in the north (YYNAC 2010). Traditionally, the Yorta Yorta clans were river-

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 5 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest based people, relying on the Murray River and its associated creeks and wetlands for food, shelter and spirituality (YYNAC 2010b). Today the Yorta Yorta Nation has a cooperative agreement with the Victorian Government to manage land and water issues on their traditional land, which includes Barmah–Millewa Forest. The decline in turtle abundance and health at Barmah–Millewa Forest is of particular concern for the Yorta Yorta people, because the Broad-shelled Turtle is an animal totem associated with creation stories. Indigenous knowledge suggests that a lack of flooding in the forest is responsible for the turtle’s current plight. Anecdotal evidence suggests that turtles are also suffering from human-induced habitat loss, damage and death associated with boat strikes and recreational fishing, and predation by foxes. 1.5 Project aims This project had two aims: 1. To establish the current health and status of turtle populations at Barmah–Millewa Forest. This will provide a baseline assessment of the populations and establish a suitable monitoring program for longer term monitoring of the turtles. 2. To provide information, and an opportunity for involvement in the monitoring program, to the indigenous community on the health and status of turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest. This report is separated into two sections to address these aims.

6 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Section 1: Documenting the current health and status of turtle populations in the Barmah–Millewa Forest

To document the current health and status of turtle populations in Barmah–Millewa Forest, we assessed the distribution, abundance, size-frequency and body condition of live turtles. On the assumption that stress associated with drought was likely to be responsible for turtle mortality and poor body condition, we categorised study sites according to habitat type, which was aligned with water permanence. Findings are presented and discussed in relation to habitat type / water permanence, but it was beyond the scope of this study to investigate the role of these factors with scientific rigour. As well as the main aim of the project, we were interested in investigating potential sources of turtle mortality. We undertook terrestrial surveys of turtle shells in sites with varying water permanence to investigate the link between recent mortality and water stress. We also documented shell damage to live turtles to assess whether human activities could be affecting turtles. In particular, serious damage to turtle shells should be higher in trafficked waterways than non- trafficked waterways if boat strike was a cause. Previous collections of Common Long-necked Turtles at Gulf Creek in Barmah–Millewa Forest in October 2008 and January and February of 2009 enabled a temporal investigation of turtles at this site. We compared turtle body condition to investigate whether there might be a relationship with watering history. Patterns in abundance could not be assessed because different gear types had been used to collect the turtles.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 7 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

2 Methods 2.1 Study areas Turtle sampling was undertaken over two separate one-week periods during late January and early February 2010. Sampling was stratified across six habitat types: river, large lake, permanent wetland, regulated creek, ephemeral creek, and ephemeral wetland. Habitat grouping reflected the permanence of the water-body and its flow and habitat type. A total of 14 sites were sampled; the number of sites sampled within each habitat group was limited by the extent of water in the Forest, the presence of the habitat type, and logistical constraints. Habitat groupings are described in detail below; a summary is provided in Table 1, and site locations are shown in Figure 3. River sites were in the main channel of the river. The locations of sites within the river were limited by gear constraints to areas with moderate to low flows and depths of less than 2 m. As a consequence we did not sample within the Barmah Choke, a narrow low-lying section of the river upstream of Barmah and Moira Lakes, because flows were too fast. Nets were set in low-velocity areas, which were typically adjacent to submerged logs, or among macrophyte beds along the river margins (Plate 1a). River sites always contain water but experience seasonal fluctuations in depth that reflect regulated flow patterns. Water levels are high during summer and low during late autumn and winter. This pattern is the inverse of natural conditions. Four sites were upstream of Barmah Choke at Pinchgut Bend, Yielima Bend (Plate 1b), Ladgroves Beach and Bullatale Creek. One site was downstream of Barmah Choke, near Pontoon Creek. Permanent wetlands are oxbow or deflation basin wetlands in the Forest, where water persists for extended periods (decades). These systems are typically deep and have low evaporative demands and large or frequent inputs of water from the river (either overbank or underbank). Only one wetland was surveyed along Millewa River Road. For the purpose of this study, we named this site ‘Millewa River Road Wetland’ (Plate 1c). Large lakes are deflation basin systems that exceed 100 ha in area. There are two large lakes in Barmah–Millewa Forest: Barmah Lake and Moira Lake. Moira Lake is disconnected from the main channel and is currently receiving water from environmental water allocations. Barmah Lake has an open connection to the river and experiences the regulated flow regimes of the main channel. Only Barmah Lake was surveyed, because Moira Lake was too shallow to be effectively sampled. At the time of sampling, emergent and submerged macrophytes covered approximately 90% of the surface of Barmah Lake (Plate 1d). Regulated creeks have either an open connection to the river channel or are connected by an irrigation-operated regulator. As a consequence they experience the regulated flow regimes of the main channel. Regulated creek sites were on Tongalong Creek, a small anabranch system that lies near Black Engine Swamp in Barmah, and two sites on Gulpa Creek in Millewa (Gulpa Creek and Edwards River – Gulpa Creek Junction) (Plate 1e). Gulpa Creek and Edwards River are two natural watercourses in which water is transported to meet irrigation demand. Water permanence at these last two sites is high; permanence is slightly lower at Tongalong Creek. Ephemeral creeks experience wet–dry regimes. Sites were on Gulf Creek, Smiths Creek (Plate 1f), Toupna Creek and Budgee Creek. Apart from Budgee Creek, these systems have regulators or block-banks that disconnect them from the river and prevent regulated summer flows from unnaturally wetting the system. These systems typically consist of a series of disconnected drying pools. They receive water during periods of flood, or via environmental water allocations. Small volumes of environmental water were delivered to Gulf Creek, Smiths Creek and Toupna Creek during late spring – early summer 2009–10. At the time of sampling, Gulf Creek (at Old Mill Track) and Toupna Creek (downstream of the Mary Ada regulator) still contained considerable

8 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest water, but Smiths Creek (at Newmans Track) had constricted to a shrinking pool. Budgee Creek is an anabranch system that receives water from the Murray River and Gulf Creek – Smiths Creek systems and discharges into Barmah Lake. These ephemeral creek sites have relatively low water permanence; Budgee Creek has slightly higher permanence than the rest. Ephemeral wetlands experience wet–dry regimes. No sites of this habitat type were sampled because of the lack of this habitat type in the Forest during the drought. Ephemeral wetlands should be included in future research and monitoring if conditions permit.

a) b)

c) d)

e) f)

Plate 1. A selection of the habitat types included in the study: (a) river, showing netting habitat, (b) river, Yielima Bend, (c) permanent wetland, Millewa River Road, (d) large lake, Barmah Lake, (e) regulated creek, Edwards – Gulpa Junction, (f) ephemeral creek, Smiths Creek.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 9 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

2.2 Water quality and habitat assessment At each site the water pH, conductivity ( µS), turbidity (NTU), temperature (ºC), and dissolved oxygen (ppm) were measured using a TPS meter. A visual assessment was used to rank flow from 1 to 5, with 1 being still and 5 being fast. Habitat descriptors such as average width (m), depth (m) and dominant habitat type were assessed.

Table 1. Study sites, their descriptors, water permanence, and habitat grouping. Water Average Average Perman- Depth Width Dominant Site ence (m) (m) Habitat Habitat Type Smiths Creek v. low 0.9 18 WD ephemeral creek Toupna Creek v. low 1.1 7 WD ephemeral creek low Gulf Creek 0.5 18 WD ephemeral creek Budgee Creek low 1.5 18 WD / EM ephemeral creek Barmah Lake moderate 0.6 - EM / V large lake Tongalong Creek moderate 1.5 32 WD / EM regulated creek Gulpa Creek high 1.5 15 WD / EM regulated creek Edwards – Gulpa Junction high 1.6 20 EM regulated creek Millewa River Road high 1.5 100 SM / EM permanent wetland Bullatale Creek v. high 2.0 90 WD / EM Murray River Ladgroves Beach v. high 2.0 95 WD / EM Murray River Yielima Bend v. high 2.0 90 EM Murray River Pinchgut Bend v. high 2.0 90 WD / EM Murray River Pontoon Creek v. high 2.0 70 WD Murray River Note: no ephemeral wetlands were sampled this season as they were dry. WD = woody debris, EM = emergent macrophytes, SM = submerged macrophytes.

a) b)

Plate 2. The cathedral trap, (a) out of water, and (b) set in Tongalong Creek.

10 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

2.3 Collection and processing of live turtles Turtle collections were made using traps specifically designed for turtles, called ‘cathedral traps’ (Plate 2a). These submerged, collapsible traps have a lower chamber for attracting the turtle with bait, and an upper compartment allowing the turtle access to air. The traps have a mesh diameter of 30 mm and a total height exceeding 2 m. Each trap was deployed with a float placed in the top compartment and then tied to overhanging branches and logs where possible, ensuring turtles had access to air (Plate 2b). A length of 8 mm chain was attached inside the bottom chamber to provide stability against any flow. Beef heart was placed in the lower chamber of the trap to attract the turtles. Ten cathedral traps were deployed at each site. In the January survey the traps were set for 6 hours during the morning. Because few turtles were caught in that survey, traps in the February survey were set in the late afternoon and retrieved in the early morning, 12–15 hours later. Traps were 50– 120 m apart and placed in still or slow-flowing areas. 2.4 Turtle measurements Turtles were identified to species and sex where possible. For each turtle captured, the following measurements (in cm) were taken using vernier callipers: straight carapace length (SCL), straight carapace width (SCW) and plastron length (PL). SCL was measured from the middle of the nuchal scute to the middle of rear marginal scutes. SCW was the widest section of the carapace measured perpendicular to the carapace midline. PL was taken from the middle of the anterior and posterior ends of the plastron. Body depth was measured as the widest section between the mid carapace and mid plastron. Turtles were weighed to the nearest gram using 6 or 11 kg balances. Turtle condition was assessed in two ways: body mass index ( K) and physical damage. Body mass index was determined from the following formula (Bjorndal et al. 2000): weight ×100 K = SCL 3

Physical damage included fractures to the carapace and plastron, shell rot, missing limbs, blindness, shell abnormalities and chipping to the marginal scutes. Any disfiguration in scute formation or changes to the normal number of scutes present was also recorded. Damage was classified into three categories reflecting the potential severity to the turtle’s carapace: no damage, minor damage, major damage. Minor damage referred to damage to the marginal scutes, and major damage referred to damage to the vertebral, costal and pectoral scutes, and the plastron. When both minor and major damage was present, the turtle was classified as having major damage. 2.5 Marking Two methods were used to mark turtles: tagging and notching. Each turtle with an SCL greater than 15 cm was tagged with an individually numbered, self-locking and piercing monel tag. These tags were originally designed as chicken wing bands (National Band and Tag Company, USA). The tag was placed between the webbing of the fourth and fifth toes on either hind foot (Plate a). Where possible, turtles were also uniquely notched in the marginal scutes (outside scales) of the carapace. A small, battery-powered grinding tool was used to create a notch to a depth one third the width of the scute (Plate b). Each marginal scute was given a letter in a clockwise formation starting from, but not including, the nuchal scute (a, b, c etc.). One notch was made into individual scutes to create a code for that turtle (i.e., a, b, c, ab, ac, ad etc.) (Plate c). A small slither of skin or tissue from the trailing flap on the outside of a hind foot was removed from each turtle with a scalpel and forceps, and preserved in ethanol for any future genetic studies. Once processed, turtles were released at their site of capture.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 11 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

a) b) c)

Plate 3. Turtle tagging: (a) tag placed between the fourth and fifth digit of the hind foot, (b) notch made in a marginal scute, and (c) notch made in marginal scute F, giving the turtle the unique notch code ‘F’.

2.6 Surveys for dead turtles When time permitted, a survey for turtle shells was attempted at each site trapped. For a period of 30 minutes to one hour, two, three or four observers walked side by side, 15 m apart, and scanned the ground near the waterway. Start and stop locations were recorded using GPS to calculate the total distance walked. Turtle shells, turtle egg fragments, predated nests and potential nesting sites were noted if found. Each turtle shell that was located was identified to species, and the SCL was measured if the shell was undamaged. One site, which we called ‘Millewa River Road Wetland #2’, was not sampled for live turtles was surveyed for dead turtles. This site, a small backwater wetland adjacent to the Murray River that had recently dried (Figure 3, Plate 4), was included in the survey to represent recently dried aquatic habitat, which until then had not been sampled.

a) b)

Plate 4. (a) searching for dead turtles in Millewa River Road Wetland #2, (b) remains of a shell.

12 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Figure 3. Sites surveyed for live turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. Red circles show study sites. Background colours show land classification.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 13 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Edwards/Gulpa Jn km

Wetland #2 Bullatale Millewa River Rd

Yielima Tongalong

Gulf Ck Smiths Ck

Budgee Ck

Dns Barmah Lake

Barmah Figure 4. Sites surveyed for dead turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest. Red circles show study sites. Background colours show land classification.

14 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

2.7 Analyses Abundance and condition Abundance data were converted to the number of individuals captured per hour of trapping effort to standardise for the different lengths of time the traps were set during trips one and two. Valid comparisons among sites are based on the assumption that turtle trapping rates were similar for morning and overnight trapping sets. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare abundance data among sites for each turtle species ( n = 10 replicates per site), and to compare abundance data among species at the Forest level ( n = 14 replicates per species, trap data averaged for each site). This non-parametric procedure was used because the data were not normally distributed (i.e. it was dominated by zero catches). Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 7.1 (StatSoft Inc.). The analysis of turtle body condition was restricted to comparisons within species, and were limited by the low numbers of turtles caught. Although the results were graphed, no formal analyses were undertaken because of the low statistical power. Temporal changes in the body condition of Common Long-necked Turtles at Gulf Creek were examined by comparing data collected from a drying Gulf Creek (October 2008), with a post-watered Gulf Creek (January– February 2009) and the data collected during this study (January–February 2010), using a one-way ANOVA. Because there were no clear differences between sites in the January–February 2010 study, the results were pooled to increase the sample size. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were checked prior to the analysis. Shell damage To assess if damage to turtle shells was greater in ‘trafficked’ versus ‘non-trafficked’ areas we used a chi-squared contingency analysis. We avoided using non-parametric versions of one-way tests because low sample sizes within sites had the potential to skew the proportion-transformed data. Data for the chi-squared analysis (untransformed) were pooled for all species to increase the sample size, and because species differences were not deemed a priori to be relevant. Within ‘trafficked’ and ‘non-trafficked’ groupings the data were pooled for site, because of limited replication within sites. The average expected values for the contingency table was > 6, hence no small-frequency bias was associated with the test (Zar 1999). Dead turtle survey To standardise for varying effort (distance walked, number of people), data were converted to number of turtle shells / km / person.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 15 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

3 Results 3.1 Live turtle survey Seventy-six turtles were collected from the 14 sites sampled: 22 Broad-shelled Turtles (C. expansa ), 14 Common Long-necked Turtles ( C. longicollis ), and 40 Murray River Turtles (E. macquarii ) (Table ). Size-frequency distributions were dominated by adult size classes for all species (Figure 5). Juvenile Murray River Turtles and the Common Long-necked Turtles were collected, but no juvenile Broad-shelled Turtles were recorded. The species captured and their locations are shown in Figure 6. Water chemistry parameters were within the normal range at all study sites (Appendix 1). Abundance and condition The average abundance of turtles collected per site was 0.053 turtles / trap / hour effort (range 0 to 0.261) (Table 2). Average abundance per site (abundance / trap / hour / site) did not differ significantly among species (Kruskal-Wallis H 2, 41 = 0.542, p = 0.762); however, the data revealed a trend towards fewer Common Long-necked Turtles (Figure 7). Turtle abundance (abundance / trap / hour) varied significantly among sites for each of the three species of turtle (Broad-shelled

Turtle – Kruskal-Wallis H 13,139 = 29.944, p = 0.005; Murray River Turtle – Kruskal-Wallis H 13,139 = 49.277, p < 0.001; Common Long-necked Turtle – Kruskal-Wallis H 13,139 = 23.685, p = 0.034). The non-parametric procedures did not allow significantly different sites to be identified; however, some trends were apparent. Broad-shelled Turtles were most abundant in the permanent wetland located adjacent to the river (Millewa River Road Wetland), followed to a much lesser extent by the river sites (Figure 8a). Only one Broad-shelled Turtle was caught in the eight other less permanent sites. Murray River Turtles were most abundant in the permanent wetland site and some, but not all river sites (Figure 8b). Only three individuals were caught in the eight other less permanent sites; one in Toupna Creek, and two in the regulated Tongalong Creek. Both of these sites are located close to the main channel of the Murray River (Figure ). Site-related patterns for the Common Long-necked Turtle were difficult to assess because so few ( n = 14) were caught. The data suggests that, like the other two species, it was more abundant in the more permanently watered sites, although they were also present in Smiths Creek, which was deemed the most ephemeral site sampled (Figure 8c). Graphical representation of body condition revealed no clear site-related patterns for any species (Figure 9). Temporal patterns in body condition were examined in relation to watering history for the Common Long-necked Turtle. Body condition did not alter significantly over time (ANOVA

F2, 61 = 1.54, p = 0.221) (Figure 10); however, the comparison was constrained by low turtle numbers in January – February 2009 and 2010. Trends in the data suggest that the body condition of long-neck turtles in Gulf Creek, an ephemeral habitat, was low following a period of drought- induced habitat contraction (October 2008), but increased following the watering of the system (Figure 10). Damage to the carapace of turtle shells did not differ significantly between trafficked and non- 2 trafficked habitats ( χ 2, 75 = 2.360, p > 0.50). However, there was a trend towards more major shell damage in the river (Figure 11).

16 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Table 2. Effort (hours traps were set) for at each site, and the number of each species of turtles caught. Number caught = number caught in all 10 traps. Number / trap / hr = number of turtles caught per trap per hour set, shown as mean and standard error (se).

Broad-shelled Turtle Murray River Turtle Common Long-necked all species Turtle Effort Number Number/ trap/hr Number Number/trap/hr Number Number/trap/hr Number/trap/hr Site (hours set) caught mean se caught mean se caught mean se mean Smith's Creek 06:45 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.030 0.020 0.030 Toupna Creek 05:40 1 0.018 0.018 1 0.018 0.018 0 0.000 0.000 0.035 Gulf Creek 07:15 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Budgee Creek 06:25 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Barmah Lake 15:15 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Tongalong Creek 06:30 0 0.000 0.000 2 0.031 0.021 0 0.000 0.000 0.031 Gulpa Creek 06:35 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 Edwards / Gulpa Junction 06:30 0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 1 0.015 0.015 0.015 Millewa River Rd Wetland 05:45 5 0.174 0.093 4 0.070 0.053 1 0.017 0.017 0.261 Bullatale Creek 16:05 4 0.025 0.014 16 0.099 0.032 1 0.006 0.006 0.131 Ladgroves Beach 16:07 3 0.019 0.009 2 0.012 0.008 0 0.000 0.000 0.031 Yielima Bend 15:05 6 0.040 0.020 10 0.066 0.022 1 0.007 0.007 0.113 Pinchgut Bend 15:40 2 0.013 0.009 5 0.032 0.022 4 0.026 0.010 0.070 Pontoon Creek 15:40 1 0.006 0.006 0 0.000 0.000 4 0.026 0.014 0.032 total 22 40 14 76

17 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

10 n=22 9 a) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 10 9 b) Straight Carapace Length (cm) n=40 8 7 6 5 4 3

Frequency 2 1 0 10 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032343638404244464850 9 c) Straight Carapace Length (cm) n=14 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032343638404244464850 Straight Carapace Length (cm)

Figure 5. Size frequency distributions of; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, and (c) Common Long-necked Turtle. Dashed lines indicate size at maturity (Parmenter 1985, Spencer 2002b).

18 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Figure 6. Locations of turtle species captured during the live turtle survey.

19 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

Abundance / net / hour / site / hour / net / Abundance 0.00 Broad-shelled Murray River Common Long- necked Figure 7. Average (± se) turtle abundance / trap / hour / site of the Broad-shelled, Murray River, and Common Long-necked Turtle. Number of sites = 14 for all species.

0.30 a)

0.20

0.10

0.00 0.15

b) Ck Gulf Jn GulpaCk Millewa R.Wetland BudgeeCk Smith's Ck Smith's Toupna Toupna Ck Pontoon Ck Pontoon Yielima Bnd BullataleCk Barmah Lake Pinchguy Bnd Pinchguy

0.10 Ck Tongalong LadgrovesBch Edwards/Gulpa

0.05

0.00

0.06

c) Ck Gulf Jn Abundance / trap / hour trapping effort GulpaCk Millewa R.Wetland BudgeeCk Smith's Ck Smith's Toupna Ck Pontoon Ck Pontoon YielimaBnd BullataleCk Barmah Lake 0.04 Bnd Pinchguy Tongalong Ck Tongalong Ladgroves Bch Edwards/Gulpa

0.02

0.00 Gulf Creek Gulpa Creek Junction Wetland Yielima Bend Barmah Lake Smith's Creek Smith's Budgee Creek Toupna Creek Toupna Pinchgut Bend Pinchgut Pontoon Creek Pontoon Bullatale Creek Edwards/ Gulpa Millewa RiverRd LadgrovesBeach Tongalong Creek Tongalong

v. low Permanence of aquatic habitat v. high

Figure 8. Average (± se) turtle abundance (per hour of trapping effort) for each site, grouped by water permanence; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, (c) Common Long-necked Turtle. n = 10 traps at all sites.

20 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

12.0 a) (5) 11.5 (2) 11.0 (6) (1) (1) (4) 10.5 (3)

10.0

9.5

9.0 12.0 b) Gulpa Creek Bend

11.5 Lake Creek Creek Bend Creek Creek Creek Yielima Smith's Budgee Toupna Beach Barmah Gulpa Millewa Pontoon (2) Creek Pinchgut RiverRd Bullatale Ladgrove Edwards/ Gulf Creek Gulf

11.0 Tongalong (2) 10.5 (10) (1) (16) (5) 10.0 (4) 9.5 Body condition (K) condition Body 9.0 8.5 8.0 12.0 c)

11.5 Gulpa Creek Bend Lake Creek Creek Bend Creek Creek Creek Yielima Budgee Smith's Toupna Beach Barmah Gulpa Millewa Pontoon Creek RiverRd Bullatale Pinchgut

11.0 Ladgrove Edwards/ Gulf Creek Gulf Tongalong 10.5 (1) (4) (1) 10.0 (3) 9.5 (1) 9.0 (1) (1) 8.5 8.0 Gulf Creek Gulf GulpaCreek Junction Wetland YielimaBend BarmahLake Smith's Creek Smith's BudgeeCreek Toupna Creek Toupna Pinchgut Bend Pinchgut Pontoon Creek Pontoon BullataleCreek LadgroveBeach Edwards/Gulpa MillewaRiver Rd Tongalong Creek Tongalong

v. low Permanence of aquatic habitat v. high

Figure 9. Average (± se) body condition ( K) for turtles at each site, ordered by water permanence; (a) Broad-shelled Turtle, (b) Murray River Turtle, (c) Common Long-necked Turtle. Sample sizes ( n) are shown in parentheses.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 21 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

10.0 (8) EWA VWR EWA

9.8 (12)

9.6 (44)

9.4

Body condition (K) Bodycondition 9.2

9.0 Jul-09 Jan-09 Oct-08 Jun-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-09 Nov-08 Dec-08 Feb-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Feb-10 Aug-09 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 May-09

Figure 2. Average (± se) body condition of Common Long-necked Turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest through time in relation to watering events; EWA = environmental water allocation, VWR = vandal water release. The first sampling (October 2008) was from a receding pool; the system had not received water since the spring of 2005. Data for the first two sampling events (shown with filled circles) are for Gulf Creek. The last sampling event (shown with an open circle) is data from this study, which has been pooled for all sites. Turtle numbers are shown in parentheses.

non-river

river

no damage minor major damage damage Shell Damage

Figure 11. Relative percent damage to the shells of live turtles in boat trafficked and non-boat trafficked sites.

3.2 Dead turtle survey Thirty-five kilometres were walked looking for evidence of turtles, an average of 1.4 km per site (range 1.8 to 6.3 km). Twenty-nine turtle shells or fragments of shells were observed. Ninety percent of the shells were identified to species level, and all of these were the Common Long- necked Turtle. Most turtle shells were found in the bed of a recently dried wetland (Millewa River Road Wetland #2) (Figure 12). Dead turtle shells were present, but less abundant, along the banks of the ephemeral creeks (Smiths and Gulf Creek), and along one of the three regulated creeks (Tongalong). No shells were found along the banks of the river sites (Figure 12). Two Common Long-necked Turtles in poor health were found several feet down in cracks within the clay at the recently dried Millewa River Road Wetland #2 (Plate 5). Turtles and turtle shells in this wetland were concentrated in the lowest point within the wetland, suggesting that turtles were following the water in the wetland as it shrunk.

22 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

1.6 unidentified species 1.4 Common Long-necked 1.2 Turtle 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Number of turtleNumber of shells / km / person Rd Creek Jn Lake Gulf Creek Tongalong of Barmah Wetland #2 Millewa River Yielima Bend Downstream Smith's Creek Budgee Creek Bullatale Creek Edwards/Gulpa

v. low Permanence of aquatic habitat v. high

Figure 12: The number of dead turtle shells observed per kilometre of walking effort per person at each site. Shells were identified to species level when possible.

Plate 5. Common Long-necked Turtles in poor condition in cracking clays of a recently dried wetland, Millewa River Road Wetland #2.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 23 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

4 Discussion 4.1 Abundance, distribution and population structure This study found that all three species of freshwater turtle were in similar abundances in Barmah– Millewa Forest. This suggests that the Broad-shelled Turtle may not be as uncommon in this region as thought (DSE 2008; Keith Ward, Goulburn–Broken CMA, pers. comm.). High numbers of Broad-shelled Turtles have been collected elsewhere along the Murray, and researchers have suggested that this species may occur in good numbers but seen less often than the other species because of its tendency to lie concealed among debris and tree roots at the bottom of the water column (Cann 1998; Kate Hodges, University of Canberra, pers. comm.). Although the three species of turtle in Barmah–Millewa Forest overlapped in their habitat use, some differences were apparent between the species. The Broad-shelled Turtle was most abundant in a permanent wetland adjacent to the Murray River, and in the Murray River main channel, than the other sites studied. Although one turtle was caught in Toupna Creek (an ephemeral system) it is important to note that sampling was conducted just downstream of the regulator, adjacent to the main channel of the river. This species’ preference for permanent water has been noted elsewhere in the Murray (Deborah Bower, University of Canberra, pers. comm.), and may explain why it is rarely, if ever, sighted in the predominantly ephemeral habitat of Barmah–Millewa Forest (Keith Ward, Goulburn–Broken CMA, pers. comm.). The Murray River Turtle was found to have broadly similar habitat preferences to the Broad-shelled Turtle, which supports the findings of studies conducted elsewhere along the Murray River (Chessman 1988; Kate Hodges, University of Canberra, pers. comm.). The habitat preferences of the Common Long-necked Turtle were difficult to assess during this study because few individuals were captured; however, they appeared to be more abundant in the permanent aquatic habitats. Other studies have reported that this species occupies both permanent and ephemeral waterways (Kennett and Georges 1990), or prefers ephemeral waterways (Chessman 1988, Kate Hodges, University of Canberra pers. comm.). Previous research at an ephemeral site (Gulf Creek) within Barmah–Millewa Forest found high densities of Common Long-necked Turtles (Beesley and Howard unpublished data). This result indicates that, while there may be few Common Long-necked Turtles in the ephemeral aquatic habitats of Barmah–Millewa Forest at present, they do utilise this habitat type and may be less abundant because of the current rarity of these habitats throughout the Forest. The ephemeral aquatic habitats of Barmah–Millewa Forest are likely to provide benefits to the Common Long-necked Turtles, such as increased food abundance and reduced competition from other turtle species and fish. For example, a study by Chessman (1984) found that Common Long- necked Turtles in ponds without fish had more food in their stomachs than those in ponds with fish. Similarly, a study by Kennett and Georges (1990) found that ephemeral swamps in coastal NSW supported larger standing stocks of invertebrates, and that Common Long-necked Turtles inhabiting these swamps grew faster and showed greater reproductive output than those inhabiting nearby permanent swamps. The Common Long-necked Turtle is well adapted to moving overland between ephemeral sites, and typically migrates at least twice each year (Roe and Georges 2007), covering distances of up to 13 km (Roe and Georges 2008). However, there are risks associated with occupying ephemeral waterways, including the energetic expense of migrating and the risk of desiccation during drought. In Barmah–Millewa Forest the risk of desiccation was directly observed during one dead turtle survey; two Common Long-necked Turtles were found in poor health after falling between the clay cracks of a recently dried wetland and being unable to escape. The vast majority of all turtles collected during this study were adults. Only a few juvenile Common Long-necked and Murray River Turtles were caught, and no juvenile Broad-shelled

24 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Turtles. It is common for turtle populations to consist predominantly of adults, with few young turtles, because hatchling and juvenile survival is typically very low (Parmenter 1985). 4.2 Condition and shell damage Body condition, which is an index of an animal’s size to mass ratio, provides an indication of its energetic state and overall body health (Hayes and Shonkwiler 2001). This type of morphometric index is unlikely to be as sensitive to change as macromolecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids) (Weber et al. 2003) or blood counts (Polo-Cavia 2009), but it can provide a simple and effective medium-term measure of fat and muscle reserves (Lambert and Dutil 1997). Individuals with better body condition have more energy to invest in reproduction (Kennett and Georges 1990), competition for food and mates (Mulvey and Aho 1993), and predator avoidance (Booth and Hixon 1999). They should also be less prone to starvation and disease, i.e. the survivorship should be greater (Dutil and Lambert 2000, Shine et al. 2001). Body condition indices have been used to investigate spatial and temporal patterns in food availability, and energetic trade-offs, in terrestrial, freshwater and marine Testudines. For example, studies on the terrestrial tortoises Gopherus agassizii found that body condition can alter with climate-mediated changes in food availability (Loehr 2007). Studies on the sea turtle Chelonia mydas found that body condition is related to the risks turtles are willing to take in their search for food (Heithaus et al. 2007), and studies on the freshwater turtle Clemmys guttata found that body condition is positively related to clutch mass and egg size (Litzgus et al. 2008). In Barmah–Millewa Forest, turtle body condition showed little variation among sites or habitat types for any of the three species. However, this study’s capacity to investigate patterns in body condition was limited by low turtle numbers. Low numbers also limited our capacity to investigate temporal changes for the one species for which previous data were available. Large numbers of Common Long-necked Turtle were caught in the shrinking pools of an ephemeral creek system (Gulf Creek) in October 2008. These turtles were weak and had relatively low body condition; the system that they occupied had not received notable watering for three years (spring 2005), and had dried down to a small number of refuge pools. Environmental water was delivered into the creek in November 2008 to improve the habitat for fish and turtles. The density of turtles at the study site declined markedly after watering (Beesley and Howard, unpublished data), presumably because turtles spread out along the system. We anticipated that in the several months following watering, food availability and water quality in the creek would improve, with a corresponding improvement in turtle body condition. The condition of turtles at the site showed a rising trend three months after the addition of water (late January – early February 2009); however, the statistical power to detect change was weakened by the low numbers of turtles caught. No turtles were caught at Gulf Creek during this study (January – February 2010), indicating that turtle abundance in this ephemeral site remains very low. Common Long-necked Turtles collected from all sites during this study had a similar body condition to turtles collected in Gulf Creek three months after the watering. Future studies at Barmah–Millewa need to collect a greater number of turtles so that the relationship between body condition, habitat types and watering can be adequately assessed. Studies conducted elsewhere on the Common Long-necked Turtle have found relationships between body condition and food availability. A study by Kennett and Georges (1990) in ephemeral and permanent swamps in coastal New South Wales found that turtle body condition, growth and reproductive output declined dramatically when turtles retreated from ephemeral to permanent wetlands during a protracted period of drought. Kennett and Georges (1990) proposed that low food availability caused by high turtle densities and low food production in the permanent

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 25 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest wetlands was responsible. Our preliminary data from Barmah–Millewa Forest suggests it is likely that the same ecological relationships occur in the Forest. Shell damage did not differ significantly between sites with and without boat traffic, but a trend existed towards increased major damage in the trafficked sites (river). Further investigation is required to ascertain if this trend is real. Any increased turtle damage in the river is likely to be due, in part, to boating activities. Boat strike is a well-known threat to both marine and freshwater turtles (Oros et al. 2005, Limpus et al. 2006, Sobin and Tucker 2008). As well as boat strike, other human activities such as fishing and the building of weirs can result in damage and death for turtles (Limpus et al. 2006, Hamann et al. 2007). Turtles can also be regarded as a nuisance by fisherman when caught on their lines. In an extreme example at Hume Weir that was recently publicised, four turtles were found dead, having been burnt, smashed and hung (MacDonald 2010). The illegal use of nets may also drown turtles (Limpus et al. 2006). Although the extent of these factors on turtle mortality is unknown, education of the public via signage and enforced speed limits along the Murray River, or sections of it, may improve awareness in the community and reduce turtle damage. 4.3 The drought This study could not directly assess if turtle abundance in Barmah–Millewa Forest has declined because of the drought, as no previous data on these species’ abundance in this area is available. However, the greater number of Common Long-necked Turtle shells found along the banks of ephemeral aquatic habitats, when compared to more permanent habitats, indicates that this species, at least, has suffered recent mortality. The Common Long-necked Turtle may not be as resistant to drought conditions as the other two turtle species, probably because it occupies ephemeral habitats, but further research should be conducted to explore this. Common Long-necked Turtles can travel many kilometres to find suitable habitat if conditions in their current location are deteriorating (Kennett and Georges 1990, Roe and Georges 2008). Alternatively, turtles may choose to remain where they are and aestivate (Chessman 1983). Aestivation may be the preferred option if they do not have adequate body condition to withstand overland migration, which also exposes them to greater predation risk. Aestivation on land has been reported in this species during the warmer months of the year (Chessman 1983), but may result in death if the turtle does not have sufficient fat storages or periodic access to water (Roe et al. 2008) to allow it to survive until conditions improve. The presence of many dead turtle shells in the ephemeral habitats of Barmah–Millewa Forest suggests that many turtles are suffering this fate. If, as it appears, the drought has caused a significant die-off of adult Common Long-necked Turtles it will take many years before enough hatchlings are recruited into the adult population to replace those that have died. Population recovery will be slowed even further, because there are fewer adult turtles breeding. Common Long-necked Turtles are not rare, so there may be little need to aid the population growth of this species. However, if numbers continue to decline then protection of nesting sites in the Forest may be necessary to increase hatchling survival. 4.4 Conclusions and recommendations The findings of this survey mark the first scientific approach to describing and detailing the turtle populations in Barmah–Millewa Forest. It is now conclusively known that the Broad-shelled Turtle, the Common Long-necked Turtle and the Murray River Turtle inhabit the Forest. The study found evidence of mortality of Common Long-necked Turtles in ephemeral habitats. The marked reduction in the amount of aquatic habitat in the Forest over the last decade and, in particular, over the last four years may be responsible. Currently, turtles in the Forest are found in greatest numbers in permanent and semi-permanent habitats, such as the Murray River and adjacent

26 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest wetlands. These sites appear to be acting as refuges, and we expect that turtles, in particular the Common Long-necked Turtle, will increase their distribution throughout the Forest after large- scale flooding. • Long-term monitoring and further research The baseline data presented in this report cannot provide conclusive information on the effect of the recent drought on the overall health of turtle populations. To do this, monitoring needs to take place over the long-term (i.e., years to decades), encompassing periods of drought and flood. Long-term studies of turtles are common in marine systems throughout the world (e.g. www.seaturtletracking.org, www.kateliosgroup.org, www.archelon.gr/eng), and are also underway on certain populations of freshwater turtles in northern Australia (Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Bundaberg). Long-term studies also enable data collection from a considerable numbers of marked turtles. This provides information on growth and survivorship, coarse information on turtle movements, and (most importantly) estimates of absolute turtle abundance using mark–recapture techniques. This is extremely valuable for assessing the overall health of turtle populations. Short-term studies have been, and are being, conducted on turtle populations in the Murray–Darling Basin (Thompson 1983a; Spencer 2002a; Deborah Bower, University of Canberra, pers. comm.; Kate Hodges, University of Canberra, pers. comm.), but we are unaware of any long-term studies. The Australian Freshwater Turtle Conservation and Research Association (www.aftcra.org.au) has recently commenced a study to protect the nests of Broad-shelled Turtles in Gunbower Forest (Graeme Stockfeld, AFTCRA, pers. comm.). • Environmental watering and turtle movement The findings of this preliminary study suggest that, of the three turtle species present in Barmah– Millewa Forest, the Common Long-necked Turtle has suffered most from the recent drought, and that this is probably because they occupy ephemeral aquatic habitats. Environmental water allocations appear to have improved the conditions for surviving Common Long-necked Turtles, but for many the water has come too late. Common Long-necked Turtles should be able to migrate overland to recolonise or boost local subpopulations that occupy ephemeral habitats, as studies elsewhere have noted that this species will recolonise previously dry sites in a matter of days (Kennett and Georges 1990). Rainfall or rising water levels appear to be cues for overland migration and recolonisation (Kennett and Georges 1990). These cues may be absent during environmental water allocations that do not coincide with or mimic natural rainfall events. We also do not know to what extent successful recolonisation of ephemeral habitats is important for overall population health. There is also little understanding of how turtles respond to periods of flood. For example, do turtles move from the Murray River main channel into Barmah–Millewa Forest during or after flooding? How far into the Forest do they travel? Do species other than the Common Long-necked Turtle utilise the Forest during periods of flood? Does turtle body condition improve after flooding? We also do not know if turtles utilise floods for other key life history processes; for example, does the boom in food production associated with flooding allow turtles to increase the size of their reproductive investment? Or does flooding increase the access of turtles to important nesting sites? Large-scale environmental water allocations provide an opportunity to closely study turtle movement and biology in relation to flooding, by fitting turtles with tracking devices prior to the flood. • Mapping and protection of nest sites If turtle populations in Barmah–Millewa Forest are found to be in serious decline, it will be important to increase the survival of eggs and hatchlings. Eggs and hatchlings suffer high mortality rates due to predation by goannas, foxes, water rats and cats (Thompson 1983a, Hamann et al.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 27 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

2007). Along the Murray River in South Australia, foxes can account for 93% of the predation on nests (Thompson 1983a). Fox predation on turtle eggs and hatchlings can be reduced by concentrating fox control measures (i.e. baiting) in the areas where turtles are nesting, or by fencing off nesting sites (Connell and Wedlock 2006). However, before these measures were enacted it would be essential to map nesting sites. Mapping nesting sites would also allow an assessment of whether high river flows during summer reduce nesting habitat and whether they might cause egg and hatchling mortality.

28 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Section 2: Knowledge sharing and community involvement The aim of this section of the project was to work with the Yorta Yorta people to share scientific and cultural information about turtles. It was also an opportunity to involve the Yorta Yorta people in the monitoring program. Bayadherra nitel (gathering) With the seeming decline of turtles, which are both a totem — Bayadherra (Broad-shelled Turtle) — and a food resource — the Djirrungana Wanurra Watjerrupna (Common Long-necked Turtle) and the Dhungalla Watjerrupna (Murray River Turtle) — the Yenbena (Yorta Yorta peoples) became concerned with the relationship these species have to our culture and the knowledge held within community. Our creation story holds much information about the significance that the Bayadherra has to our people as a provider, guide, and protector. It is important that we show respect to our woka (land) and walla (water), and most importantly to other creatures that live with Yenbena on Yorta Yorta woka. With the direction of winyarr (Yorta Yorta woman) Denise Morgan-Bulled, a weekend camp (on the 17th and 18th of October) was put together to teach and learn the cultural relevance of the Bayadherra and Watjerrupna species to Yenbena as a totem and a food resource. Leading up to the weekend, interviews were conducted to gain information from various Yenbena sources. During the weekend, the Yorta Yorta shared their traditional knowledge of the turtle. They spoke of the importance of the Broad-shelled Turtle as a totem species and its connection to their creation stories. As well as providing specific information on the Broad-shelled Turtle, ARI staff presented knowledge on the three turtle species in Barmah–Millewa Forest, such as how to identify each species, and their differing biology (see Appendix 4 and 5). The scientists also discussed the upcoming live turtle survey and showed the sampling methods they would be using to trap the turtles. Following the knowledge sharing, everyone participated in a search for turtle shells around Yielema and along Gulf Creek. The survey yielded both live and dead turtles and provided an opportunity, especially for the children, to identify and measure the turtles. Members of Yorta Yorta were trained in the use of the GPS units to log all the turtle shells found, and were given survey sheets for any future surveys they may undertake. A flyer summarising the weekend was produced by scientists from ARI (see Appendix 6). Members of the Yorta Yorta were invited and welcomed to participate in the live turtle survey of the Forest (January – February 2010). During the first week of sampling ARI scientists were accompanied by Andrew Atkinson (for two days) and Simon Nicholson (for one day) from Yorta Yorta nation. The scientists were extremely pleased to have their assistance and learn from their local knowledge.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 29 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

References Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B. and Chaloupka, M.Y. (2000) Green turtle somatic growth model: evidence for density dependence. Ecological Applications 10 : 269–282. Booth, D.J. and Hixon, M.A. (1999) Food ration and condition affects early survival of the coral reef damselfish ( Stegastes partitus ). Oecologia 121 : 364–368. Bren, L.J., O'Neil, I.C. and Gibbs, N.L. (1987) Flooding in the Barmah Forest and its relation to flow in the Murray–Edwards River system. Australian Forestry Research 17 : 127–144. Bureau of Meteorology 2008. Long-term rainfall deficiencies continue in southern Australia while wet conditions dominate the north. Special Climate Statement 16. Bureau of Meteorology: Melbourne (www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs16.pdf). Cann, J. (1998) Australian Freshwater Turtles , Beaumont Publishing, Singapore. Chessman, B.C. (1983) A note on aestivation in the snake-necked turtle, Chelodina longicollis (Shaw) (Testudines: Chelidae). Herpetofauna 14 : 96–97. Chessman, B.C. (1984) Food of the snake-necked turtle, Chelodina longicollis (Shaw) (Testudines: Chelidae) in the Murray Valley, Victoria and New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 11 : 573–578. Chessman, B.C. (1988) Habitat preferences of freshwater turtles in the Murray Valley, Victoria and New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 15 : 485–491. Connell, M. and Wedlock, B. (2006). Mary River turtle protection: Tiaro district of southeast Queensland, 2005–2006 nesting season, Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland. Cunningham, S.C., Mac Nally, R., Read, J., Baker, P.J., White, M., Thomson, J.R. and Griffioen, P. (2009) A robust technique for mapping vegetation condition across a major river system. Ecosystems 12 : 207–219. Dutil, J.-D. and Lambert, Y. (2000) Natural mortality from poor condition in Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57 : 826–836. Goode, J. (1967) Freshwater tortoises of Australia and New Guinea , Lansdowne Press Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Hamann, M., Schauble, C.S., Limpus, D.J., Emerick, S.P. and Limpus, C.J. (2007). Management plan for the conservation of Elseya sp. (Burnett River) in the Burnett River Catchment. Q. E. P. Agency. Hayes, J.P. and Shonkwiler, J.S. (2001) Morphometric indicators of condition: worthwhile or wishful thinking. In: J. R. Speakman (Ed.). Handbook of non-destructive methods . Cambridge University Press Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bedjder, L. (2007) State-dependent risk-taking by green sea turtels mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76 : 837–844. Johnson, D. (1984). An exciting proposal for the Murray forests. Parkwatch . 136: 30–34. Kennett, R.M. and Georges, A. (1990) Habitat utilization and its relationship to growth and reproduction of the eastern long-necked turtle, Chelodina longicollis (Testudinata: Chelidae), from Australia. Herpetologica 46 : 22–33.

30 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Kennett, R.M., Roe, J., Hodges, K. and Georges, A. (2009) Chelodina longicollis (Shaw 1794) – eastern long-necked turtle, common long-necked turtle, common snake-necked turtle. In: A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, J. B. Iverson & R. A. Mittermeier (Ed.). Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: a compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group . Chelonian Research Monographs King, A.J., Ward, K.A., O'Connor, P., Green, D., Tonkin, Z. and Mahoney, J. (2009) Adaptive management of an environmental watering event to enhance native fish spawning and recruitment. Freshwater Biology 55 : 17–31. Kingsford, R.T. and Porter, J.L. (2009). Annual survey of waterbird communities of the Living Murray icon sites – November 2008. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Report to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority. Lambert, Y. and Dutil, J.-D. (1997) Can simple condition indices be used to monitor and quantify seasonal changes in the energy reserves of Atlantic Cod ( Gadus morhua )? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54 (S1) : 104–112. Limpus, D.J., Hodge, W.J. and Limpus, C.J. (2006) Impacts of dams and weirs on freshwater turtles: Fairbairn Dam, March 2006. Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland. Litzgus, J.D., Bolton, F. and Schulte-Hostedde, A.I. (2008) Reproductive output depends on body condition in spotted turtles ( Clemmys guttata ). Copeia 2008 : 86–92. Loehr, V.J.T. (2007) Annual variation in the body condition of a small, arid-zone tortoise, Homopus signatus signatus . Journal of Arid Environments 71 : 337–349. MacDonald, V. (2010). Turtles burnt, hung from tree. Border Mail . Albury. MDBC (2007). The Living Murray icon site condition report October 2007. Canberra, Murray– Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, ACT. MDBC (2008). The Living Murray icon site condition report October 2008. Canberra, Murray– Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, ACT. Mulvey, M. and Aho, J.M. (1993) Parasitism and mate competition: liverflukes in white-tailed deer. Oikos 66 : 187–192. Musick, J.A. (1999) Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23 : 1–10. Oros, J., Torrent, A., Calabuig, P. and Deniz, S. (2005) Diseases and causes of mortality among sea turtles stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain (1998–2001). Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 63 : 13–24. Parmenter, C.J. (1985) Reproduction and survivorship of Chelodina longicollis (Testudinata: Chelidae). In: G. Grigg, R. Shine & H. Ehmann (Ed.). The biology of Australasian frogs and reptiles . Royal Zoological Society of NSW Polo-Cavia, N., Lopez, P., Martin, J (2009) Interspecific differences in heat exchange rates may affect competition between introduced and native freshwater turtles. Biological Invasions 11 : 1755–1765. Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2007) Heterogeneous wetland complexes, buffer zones, and travel corridors: Landscape management for freshwater reptiles. Biological Conservation 135 : 67–76.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 31 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Roe, J.H. and Georges, A. (2008) Terrestrial activity, movements and spatial ecology of an Australian freshwater turtle, Chelodina longicollis , in a temporally dynamic wetland system. Austral Ecology 33 : 1045–1056. Roe, J.H., Georges, A. and Green, B. (2008) Energy and water flux during terrestrial estivation and overland movement in a freshwater turtle. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 81 : 570–583. Rourke, M. and Tonkin, Z. (2009). Barmah–Millewa fish condition monitoring: 2007–2009 milestone report. NSW Department of Industry and Investment and Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Department of Sustainability and Environment. Heidelberg, Victoria., Unpublished report submitted to the Murray–Darling Basin Authority. Shine, R., LeMaster, M.P., Moore, I.T., Olsson, M.M. and Mason, R.T. (2001) Bumpus in the snake den: effects of sex, size and body condition on mortality of red-sided garter snakes. Evolution 55 : 598–604. Sobin, J.M. and Tucker, T.D. (2008) Diving behaviour of female loggerhead turtles ( Caretta caretta ) during their internesting interval and an evaluation of the risk of boat strikes. Oceans : 1–10. Spencer, R.-J. and Thompson, M.B. (2006) Experimental analysis of the impact of foxes on freshwater turtle populations. Conservation Biology 19 : 845–854. Spencer, R.J. (2002a) Experimentally testing nest site selection: Fitness trade-offs and predation risk in turtles. Ecology 83 : 2136–2144. Spencer, R.J. (2002b) Growth patterns of two widely distributed freshwater turtles and a comparison of common methods used to estimate age. Australian Journal of Zoology 50 : 477–490. Thompson, M.B. (1983a) Populations of the Murray River Tortoise, Emydura (Chelodina): the Effect of Egg Predation by the Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes . Australian Wildlife Research 10 : 363–371. Thompson, M.B. (1983b) Populations of the Murray River tortoise Emydura (Chelodina): the effect of egg predation by the red fox, Vulpes vulpes . Australian Wildlife Research 10 : 363–371. Walker, K.F. and Thoms, M.C. (1993) Environmental effects of flow regulation on the lower River Murray, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 8: 103–119. Ward, K.A. (2005) Water management in the changing Barmah–Millewa wetlands. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 117 : 77–84. Weber, L.P., Higgins, P.S., Carlson, R.I. and Janz, D.M. (2003) Development and validation of methods for measuring multiple biochemical indices of condition in juvenile fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 63 : 637–658. Wilson, S. and Swan, G. (2008) A complete guide to reptiles of Australia , second edition edition. New Holland Publishers, Sydney, Australia. Young, W.J., Ed. (2001) Rivers as ecological systems: the Murray–Darling Basin . Canberra, Murray–Darling Basin Commission. YYNAC (2010a) Traditotional boundary area map. Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (www.yynac.com.au/maps.php).

32 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

YYNAC (2010b) History of the Torta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation. Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (www.yynac.com.au/history.php). Zar, J.H. (1999) Biostatistical Analysis, fourth edition , 4th edition. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 33 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 1. Water quality measurements

Water quality measurements taken during January and February 2010 at each site surveyed for turtles in the Barmah–Millewa Forest.

Flow was measured using a relative rank score, from 1 = no flow to 5 = fast flow. Missing dissolved oxygen measurements are due to equipment failure.

Site pH Conductivity Turbidity Temperature Dissolved Flow (µS) (ntu) (ºC) Oxygen (ppm) Pinchgut Bend 7.51 38.9 26.3 26.3 4 Yielima Bend 7.51 38.9 26.3 26.3 4 Ladgroves Beach 7.11 40.4 71.6 27.0 4 Bullatale Creek 7.83 40.0 22.5 28.3 4 Pontoon Creek 7.06 42.6 41.4 26.1 4 Barmah Lake 6.64 45.0 52.5 24.3 1 Gulf Creek 8.05 43.5 86.8 22.2 3.16 1 Smiths Creek 6.74 129.8 44.3 24.9 3.29 1 Tongalong Creek 7.07 36.2 67.4 27.4 6.65 1 Budgee Creek 6.90 41.3 30.5 22.1 5.20 2 Edwards – Gulpa Junction 7.44 38.7 30.4 26.1 5.62 3 Gulpa Creek 7.02 40.6 20.9 25.7 5.90 3 Toupna Creek 7.49 39.2 20.5 24.3 7.11 3 Millewa River Road 6.79 126.5 28.6 26.9 1.26 1

34 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 2. Live turtle data Effort is the number of hours that cathedral traps (CT) were set, SCL = straight carapace (shell) length, SCW = straight carapace width, PL = plastron (stomach shell) length.

Effort (h) Trap Species Sex Tag Notch Weight SCL SCW PL Shell depth Body no. no. code (g) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) condition (K)

Gulf Creek (ephemeral creek) 7:15 nil Budgee Creek (ephemeral creek) 6:25 nil Gulpa Creek (regulated creek) 6:35 nil Millewa River Road (permanent wetland) 5:45 CT1 Broad-shelled M 144 W 3294 30.86 23.56 22.57 10.11 11.21 5:45 CT3 Broad-shelled M 136 AB 2848 30.77 23.33 22.19 9.00 9.78 5:45 CT3 Common Long-necked ? 148 CK 1544 24.76 18.93 19.63 10.17 5:45 CT6 Murray River F 149 AI 2002 27.22 20.79 20.50 9.27 9.93 5:45 CT8 Murray River Juv 133 AJ 608 18.71 16.09 14.59 9.28 5:45 CT8 Murray River F 132 AK 2225 28.39 22.66 21.51 9.91 9.72 5:45 CT8 Murray River Juv AL 332 15.31 13.30 11.63 4.75 9.25 5:45 CT6 Broad-shelled F 146 AC 5025 36.47 27.40 27.05 10.49 10.36 5:45 CT6 Broad-shelled M 134 AD 2439 26.67 22.81 21.29 8.35 12.86 5:45 CT6 Broad-shelled F 137 AE 4758 35.66 26.49 27.10 11.43 10.49 Toupna Creek (ephemeral creek) 5:40 CT5 Murray River F 135 AM 2375 28.91 23.19 22.18 8.94 9.83 5:40 CT5 Broad-shelled F 128 AF 3083 30.83 24.15 22.97 10.52 Smiths Creek (ephemeral creek) 6:45 CT1 Common Long-necked ? 142 CH 1416 24.42 18.54 19.00 9.72 6:45 CT8 Common Long-necked 143 CI 1092 22.43 17.40 17.30 9.68 (continued on next page)

35 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 2 (continued) Effort (h) Trap Species Sex Tag Notch Weight SCL SCW PL Shell depth Body no. no. code (g) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) condition (K)

Edwards–Gulpa Junction (regulated creek) 6:30 CT5 Common Long-necked M 147 CJ 466 17.48 13.25 13.89 4.80 8.72 Tongalong Creek (regulated creek) 6:30 CT4 Murray River F 151 AG 2931 29.84 23.42 24.28 10.4 11.03 6:30 CT8 Murray River M 141 AH 1657 26.09 19.63 20.13 8.35 9.33 Barmah Lake (ephemeral lake) 15:15 nil Pontoon Creek (river) 15:40 CT1 Murray River M 107 AN 1540 25.72 19.16 19.14 NA 9.05 15:40 CT1 Murray River F 103 AO 2282 27.69 22.33 21.9 9.35 10.75 15:40 CT1 Common Long-necked M 178 CN 1054 22.02 17.06 17.32 6.44 9.87 15:40 CT2 Common Long-necked F 169 CO 1546 25.04 18.75 19.89 7.80 9.85 15:40 CT2 Common Long-necked M? 1090 21.79 16.80 17.24 6.34 10.54 15:40 CT3 Common Long-necked ? 1238 23.64 17.30 18.40 6.88 9.37 15:40 CT1 Broad-shelled M 3258 31.36 23.66 22.50 6.80 10.56 Pinchgut Bend (river) 15:40 CT1 Broad-shelled M 116 2574 28.69 22.47 21.09 9.21 10.90 15:40 CT1 Common Long-necked M? 111 31.07 27.41 27.37 15:40 CT1 Murray River M 108 1823 26.68 19.69 20.54 8.72 9.60 15:40 CT7 Broad-shelled M 124 2196 28.06 21.58 20.48 8.03 9.94 15:40 CT10 Murray River F 117 2342 31.23 21.47 22.49 9.64 7.69 15:40 CT10 Murray River Juv AP 145 11.46 11.17 8.47 9.63 15:40 CT8 Common Long-necked M 118 434 16.44 13.60 13.08 4.63 9.77 15:40 CT7 Common Long-necked 490 17.52 13.95 13.85 4.65 9.11 15:40 CT5 Common Long-necked Juv? 300 635 19.18 14.87 14.98 9.00 (continued on next page)

36 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 2 (continued) Effort (h) Trap Species Sex Tag Notch Weight SCL SCW PL Shell depth Body no. no. code (g) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) condition (K)

Yielima Bend (river) 15:05 CT1 Broad-shelled F 120 AG 5792 38.29 28.55 28.60 11.19 10.32 15:05 CT2 Murray River F 104 2369 27.58 22.00 22.07 11.29 15:05 CT2 Murray River M 113 1092 22.89 6.85 9.11 15:05 CT2 Murray River M 112 1649 25.01 20.01 19.83 7.51 10.54 15:05 CT2 Broad-shelled M 109 2068 28.14 22.35 21.05 7.26 9.28 15:05 CT3 Broad-shelled M 119 3316 30.45 24.38 22.68 11.74 15:05 CT3 Broad-shelled M 115 2950 31.18 24.62 22.72 9.73 15:05 CT3 Broad-shelled M 102 2352 28.10 22.29 22.69 8.44 10.60 15:05 CT3 Murray River M 122 1445 25.32 19.50 19.65 7.60 8.90 15:05 CT3 Common Long-necked Juv CL 265 14.32 11.70 11.74 4.11 9.02 15:05 CT4 Murray River F 106 2943 29.91 24.18 23.41 9.55 11.00 15:05 CT4 Broad-shelled F 105 1459 24.34 19.59 18.38 7.54 10.12 15:05 CT4 Murray River F 121 3365 31.85 25.49 24.81 10.47 10.41 15:05 CT5 Murray River F 125 1986 26.93 21.68 20.79 8.32 10.17 15:05 CT6 Murray River M 114 1519 25.38 19.81 19.47 7.72 9.29 15:05 CT7 Murray River M 250 1400 24.09 18.84 18.79 7.67 10.01 15:05 CT7 Murray River Juv 123 717 20.07 17.26 15.38 5.83 8.87 Ladgroves Beach (river) 16:07 CT1 Broad-shelled M 177 AH 2796 29.88 23.17 22.85 9.27 10.48 16:07 CT2 Murray River M 176 AQ 1825 26.92 21.18 22.01 8.35 9.35 16:07 CT2 Broad-shelled M 174 AI 2457 29.62 23.69 21.53 8.5 9.45 16:07 CT4 Murray River M 175 AR 1489 24.28 19.38 19.72 7.6 10.40 16:07 CT3 Broad-shelled F 2505 30.09 23.29 22.6 7.57 9.19 (continued on next page)

37 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 2 (continued) Effort (h) Trap Species Sex Tag Notch Weight SCL SCW PL Shell depth Body no. no. code (g) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) condition (K)

Bullatale Creek (river) 16:05 CT1 Murray River F 152 AS 2560 28.28 22.1 22.08 11.45 11.32 16:05 CT1 Murray River M 173 AT 1644 25.32 19.86 19.65 8.05 10.13 16:05 CT1 Murray River F 153 AU 1814 26.77 20.98 21.22 8.68 9.46 16:05 CT1 Murray River F 172 AV 880 20.71 17.43 15.7 6.32 9.91 16:05 CT1 Murray River F 154 AW 2818 30.17 23.9 24.77 9.57 10.26 16:05 CT1 Broad-shelled M 171 AJ 2356 28.20 21.36 20.36 8.76 10.51 16:05 CT2 Murray River F 155 BD 3044 29.56 23.77 24.15 9.93 11.79 16:05 CT3 Murray River M 157 BE 1528 25.55 20.35 19.5 7.66 9.16 16:05 CT4 Common Long-necked M 156 CM 632 19.39 15.44 15.46 5.22 8.67 16:05 CT4 Murray River M 170 BF 1372 24.90 20.46 18.97 7.27 8.89 16:05 CT4 Broad-shelled F 166 AK 1678 26.66 20.2 20.02 7.26 8.86 16:05 CT4 Broad-shelled M 167 AL 3066 31.06 24.18 22.73 9.00 10.23 16:05 CT4 Murray River Juv 158 BG 578 19.01 17.14 14.02 5.34 8.41 16:05 CT4 Murray River M 159 944 21.87 17.93 16.69 6.40 9.02 16:05 CT6 Broad-shelled F 161 4360 34.78 26.49 26.28 10.86 10.36 16:05 CT5 Murray River M 162 1998 27.69 22.78 22.29 8.27 9.41 16:05 CT7 Murray River Juv 164 504 18.31 15.95 14.26 4.97 8.21 16:05 CT7 Murray River M 160 1254 23.26 19.67 17.82 7.12 9.96 16:05 CT8 Murray River M 163 1216 24.23 18.24 18.77 7.42 8.55 16:05 CT8 Murray River F 165 2456 27.95 22.05 22.75 10.14 11.25 16:05 CT8 Murray River Juv 580 18.82 15.95 13.89 5.05 8.70

38 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 3. Dead turtle data

Site Habitat type Group Time Observers Total Common Unidentified Total Turtle shells/ distance taken distance Long- turtle dead km/person walked (hr) checked necked turtles (km) (km) Turtle ( n) Smiths Creek ephemeral creek 0.90 0.5 Leah, Katie, Dani, Drew 3.6 7 0 7 0.486 Gulf Creek ephemeral creek 1.15 0.5 Leah, Katie, Dani, Drew 4.6 5 2 7 0.380 Budgee Creek ephemeral creek 1.95 0.75 Leah, Katie 3.9 0 0 0 0 Tongalong Creek regulated creek 1.20 0.5 Leah, Katie, Dani 3.6 4 1 5 0.463 Edwards – Gulpa regulated creek Leah, Katie, Dani Junction 2.10 0.5 6.3 0 0 0 0 Millewa River Road dry wetland Leah, Katie, Drew, Wetland #2 0.45 0.5 Simon 1.8 10 0 10 1.398 Downstream Barmah river Leah, Katie Lake 2.05 0.5 4.1 0 0 0 0 Bullatale Creek river 1.40 0.5 Leah, Katie 2.8 0 0 0 0 Yielima Bend river 1.40 0.5 Leah, Katie, John 4.2 0 0 0 0 Total 12.60 34.9 26 3 29

39 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 4. Dead turtle survey flyer

Background Species of Freshwater Turtle in the Forest The freshwater turtles in Barmah-Millewa Forest There are three species of turtle that occur in the could be dying because of the drought. The Forest: people of Yorta Yorta Nation want to conserve • the Broad-shelled Turtle, Chelodina expansa (totem and manage the turtle populations, especially for Yorta Yorta), which is threatened in Victoria the Long-necked Turtle, which is a totem for (Figure 2); their people. At the moment we don’t know how • the common Long-necked Turtle, Chelodina serious the problem is and we need to gather longicollis (Figure 3); some information. You can help us with the • the Murray River Turtle, Emydura macquarii conservation program! macquarii (Figure 4). Who is Dying? It is helpful to know which species and what size range of turtles are being affected by the drought. This can be achieved by walking through the forest and identifying which species of turtles are dead by looking at the shell underside, and measuring how big they are. How to measure shell length How to Help The turtle’s length is measured on the top side of the If you are able to help we need you to: shell (Figure 1): 1) Note the date and your name 1) Place the top of the caliper against the middle of 2) Give each turtle a unique number, which the scale which sits behind the turtles head; includes the location (i.e. “4 Mile Ck #1”) 2) Open the calipers so that the back of the calliper 3) Identify the turtle species (see Figures 2 to 4) sits between and against the end of the two scales at 4) Note the location where the turtle was the rear of the shell; collected (GPS, or general location) 3) The size of the turtle can then be read off the 5) Measure the length of the turtle’s shell (see calipers. Figure 1) 6) Take a photo of the turtle on the underside and also its upper shell (include the turtle’s number in the photo) 7) If you don’t have a GPS, mark the turtle with a texta so others know you have already measured it Field Gear You Will Need • Data sheets to record your findings • This fact sheet to help you identify the turtle • Calipers to measure the turtle’s shell • A GPS to record the location where you found the turtle • A camera to photograph the turtle’s shell from Figure 1 Measuring a turtle shell using calipers the top and the bottom

40 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 Cultural conservation of freshwater turtles in Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 4 continued

A A A

B B B

CC C

C

Please note the highlighted scutes below and their shape and position in identifying the shells

DDD

Figure 2. The Broad-shelled Turtle, Figure 3. The Long-necked Turtle, Figure 4. The Macquarie River Turtle, Chelodina expansa ; a) side view, Chelodina longicollis ; a) side view, Emydura macquarii macquarii ; a) b) top view of the shell, c) underside b) top view of the shell, c) underside side view, b) top view of the shell, view of the shell, d) drawing of the view of the shell, d) drawing of the c) underside view of the shell, d) shell underside (Cogger, 2000*) shell underside (modified from drawing of the shell underside Cogger, 2000*) (Cogger, 2000*)

For more Contact Leah Beesley (ARI) Contact Katie Howard (ARI) Information: (03) 9450 8634; 0422 625 882 (03) 9450 8635; 0428 359 095 [email protected] [email protected]

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research * Cogger, H.G (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia

Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 41 Cultural Conservation of Freshwater Turtles at Barmah–Millewa Forest

Appendix 5. Turtle identification flyer

Common Long-necked Turtle Chelodina longicollis • 5 vertebral scales • Anterior of plastron wider than posterior • Thick black lines along sutures Broad-shelled Turtle Chelodina expansa Threatened • 6 vertebral scales • Narrow, elongate plastron • White plastron with no markings Murray / Macquarie River Turtle Emydura macquarii • 5 vertebral scales • Intergular scale on plastron extends to the edge • Narrow, elongate plastron

Common Long-necked Turtle Broad-shelled Turtle Murray / Macquarie River Turtle Chelodina longicollis Chelodina expansa Emydura macquarii Threatened Distinguishing features: Distinguishing features: Thick black lines along the Distinguishing features: Short neck (!) sutures of the plastron. Hatchling will be predominantly Plastron is white with no Yellow stripe from jaw along black until this recedes black markings neck line 5 vertebral scales on the Generally has 6 vertebral ‘Beak’ shaped jaw carapace scales along the carapace – sometimes 7 Narrow, elongate plastron with Broad plastron shape with the the intergular scale extending anterior end of the plastron Large carapace that is dome to the plastron edge wider than the posterior shaped with wide flat marginal scales Carapace creates a winged shape at the rear and the side Narrow, elongate plastron marginal scales become thin with similarly sized anterior and curl up at the sides and posterior sections

42 Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203

ISSN 1835-3827 (print) ISSN 1835-3835 (online) ISBN 978-1-74242-631-043 Arthur(print) Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical Report Series No. 203 ISBN 978-1-74242-632-7 (online)