DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Mammals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Mammals Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Acknowledgements This report updates and expands on a draft report prepared in June 2004 by Cate McElroy. Sandy Ingleby and Jayne Tipping directed, proof-read and helped to write the 2004 report. Joanne Stokes and Shaun Barclay provided technical assistance in the preparation of the 2004 report. The 2004 report was reviewed by Martin Schulz and Robert Close and the individual species profiles were reviewed by Martin Schulz (small and arboreal mammals), Robert Close (medium-sized mammals and rock wallabies), Chris Belcher (quolls and wombats) and Sandy Ingleby (bridled nailtail and spectacled hare wallaby). Additional species profiles were prepared for the updated (2010) report by Martin Schulz and reviewed by Robert Close. Updates to the information contained in the 2004 report were prepared by Martin Schulz, Lisa McCaffrey, Mark Semeniuk, Dejan Stejanovic, Rachel Blakey and Glenn Muir. Glenn Muir co-ordinated the project team and reviewed the final report. In preparing these standards, a large number of experts have provided a wealth of experience, and in some cases unpublished results, so that all listed non-flying mammal species could be adequately considered. These include, in particular, Barbara Triggs for providing a list of EPBC Act listed species that can be distinguished from hair samples, Joe Benshemesh (NT DIPE, Alice Springs) for the marsupial mole species, Jody Gates (SA DEH, Kangaroo Island) for the Kangaroo Island dunnart, David Paull (UNE) for the Pilliga mouse, Chris Dickman (University of Sydney) for the mulgara and the ampurta, Peter Canty (SA DEH) for the kowari, Tony Friend (WA DEC, Albany) for the numbat, Peter Banks (UNSW) for an unpublished manuscript relating to the quokka, Shaun Barclay (UNSW) for the greater stick-nest rat, Jenny Nelson (Vic. DSE, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research) and Chris Belcher (Ecosystems Environmental Consultants), for the spotted-tailed quoll and Melinda Norton (NSW DECCW) for the brush- tailed rock wallaby and the yellow-footed rock wallaby. In addition to the above, the following people contributed information: Kylie Madden, Lloyd Wanderwalin and D Ashworth (NSW DECCW); John Woinarski (NT DIPE); Jeff Cole (NT DCNR); Peter Kendrick (WA CALM); Jennifer Bailey (Qld EPA); Geoffrey Smith and Melanie Venz (Qld SFSU); Sally Bryant (Tas. DPIWE); Peter Menkhorst (Vic. DSE); Graham Gillespie (Vic. DSE, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research); Mark Eldridge (Australian Museum); John Dell (WA EPA); Yolande Stone (NSW DUAP) and Stuart Little (PlanningNSW). The compilation of such an extensive document would not have been possible without the assistance, advice and support of the people mentioned above. Disclaimer The views and opinions contained in this document are not necessarily those of the Australian Government. The contents of this document have been compiled using a range of source materials and while reasonable care has been taken in its compilation, the Australian Government does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this document and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of or reliance on the contents of the document. © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 This work is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at www.ag.gov.au/cca. ii | | Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals CONTENTS HOW TO USE THESE GUIDELINES 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Objectives and Scope 3 1.3 Guidelines structure and use 4 2. PLANNING AND DESIGN OF SURVEYS 5 2.1 Conducting surveys in six steps 5 STEP 1: Identify taxa that may occur in the study area 5 STEP 2: Determine optimal timing for surveys of ‘target’ taxa 6 STEP 3: Determine optimal location of surveys 7 STEP 4: Establish sampling design and survey effort 8 STEP 5: Select appropriate personnel to conduct surveys 9 STEP 6: Document survey methods and results 10 2.2 Grouping mammals according to body size and survey methods 11 3. OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS AND EFFORT 17 3.1 Diurnal searches for potential habitat resources 17 3.1.1 Caves and rock boulders 18 3.1.2 Tree species and tree hollows 18 3.2 Indirect detection - diurnal searches for signs of mammal activity 18 3.2.1 Community consultation 19 3.2.2 Scats 19 3.2.3 Predator scat and owl pellet analysis 20 3.2.4 Tracks 20 3.2.5 Signs of foraging - diggings 21 3.2.6 Signs of foraging - arboreal species 22 3.2.7 Shelter sites - burrows 22 3.2.8 Shelter sites - nests or scrapes on the ground 23 3.2.9 Shelter sites - nests in trees 23 3.3 Direct detection survey methods 24 3.3.1 Diurnal or daytime searches for active fauna 24 3.3.2 Soil plots / sand trays / predator pads 25 3.3.3 Spotlighting 26 3.3.4 Stagwatching 28 3.3.5 Call detection and call playback surveys 30 3.3.6 Nest boxes and camera traps 31 iii 3.3.7 Hair sampling devices 34 3.3.8 Capture methods for small-sized species: pitfall traps 40 3.3.9 Capture methods for small-sized species: box traps (Elliott traps) 43 3.3.10 Capture methods for medium-sized species: cage traps 48 3.3.11 Review of survey techniques for rock wallabies 49 4. SURVEY GUIDELINES FOR NON-FLYING MAMMALS 52 4.1 Other legislation and animal care and ethics 52 4.2 Effort 53 4.3 Overview of methods for small sized ground-dwelling mammals 54 4.4 Overview of methods for arboreal mammals 56 4.5 Overview of methods for medium-sized ground-dwelling species 58 4.6 Overview of methods for large-sized ground-dwelling mammals 60 5. SPECIES SURVEY GUIDELINES 62 REFERENCES 260 APPENDIX A: STATE AND TERRITORY GUIDELINES AND OTHER SURVEY METHOD DOCUMENTS 268 iv | Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals HOW TO USE THESE GUIDELINES The purpose of this document is to provide proponents and assessors with a guideline for surveying Australia’s threatened non-flying mammals listed under theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). These guidelines will help you to determine the likelihood of a species’ presence or absence on your site. They have been prepared using a variety of expert sources, and should be read in conjunction with the Department of the Environment’s Significant impact guidelines 1.1 - Matters of national environmental significance. These guidelines are not mandatory. Proposals failing to meet these survey guidelines for reasons of efficiency, cost or validity will not necessarily default to a judgement that referral is required (that is, that a significant impact is likely), especially where the proponent issues an evidence-based rationale for an alternative survey approach. Alternatives to a dedicated survey may also be appropriate. For example, a desktop analysis of historic data may indicate that a significant impact is not likely. Similarly, a regional habitat analysis may be used to inform judgement of the likely importance of a site to the listed mammals. Proponents should also consider the proposal’s impact in the context of the species’ national, regional, district and site importance to establish the most effective survey technique(s). Failing to survey appropriately for threatened species that may be present at a site could result in the department applying the precautionary principle with regard to significant impact determinations. That is, if no supporting evidence (such as survey results) is presented to support the claim of species absence, then the department may assume that the species is in fact present. The department will not accept claimed species absence without effective validation such as through these survey guidelines, other survey techniques (for example, a state guideline or an accepted industry guideline), or relevant expertise. Where a claim of absence is made, proposals should provide a robust evaluation of species absence. Biological surveys are usually an essential component of significant impact assessment, and should be conducted on the site of the proposed action prior to referral. Surveys help to evaluate the impact on matters of national environmental significance by establishing the presence, or the likelihood of presence/absence, of a species. Before undertaking a survey, proponents may wish to contact the Australian Government Department of the Environment’s relevant assessment section to discuss their project and seek advice on the appropriate survey effort and design. Executing a survey to this standard and identifying listed species presence does not in itself predict a significant impact. The presence of a species is one of many factors that will increase the likelihood of a significant impact. Proponents should use the presence of a species as a consideration in establishing whether a significant impact is likely or certain. As part of the assessment process, sufficient information is usually required to determine if a species’ presence at a site constitutes a ‘population’ or ‘important population’ as defined in theSignificant impact guidelines 1.1 publication. Information on whether the occurrence constitutes a ‘population’ or ‘important population’ will not necessarily be generated by surveys conducted using these guidelines. 1 These guidelines help determine presence or the probability of presence. They do not establish or assess species abundance, as the effort in terms of cost and time required for an abundance survey is much greater than that determining presence/absence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reptile-Like Physiology in Early Jurassic Stem-Mammals
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/785360; this version posted October 10, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. Title: Reptile-like physiology in Early Jurassic stem-mammals Authors: Elis Newham1*, Pamela G. Gill2,3*, Philippa Brewer3, Michael J. Benton2, Vincent Fernandez4,5, Neil J. Gostling6, David Haberthür7, Jukka Jernvall8, Tuomas Kankanpää9, Aki 5 Kallonen10, Charles Navarro2, Alexandra Pacureanu5, Berit Zeller-Plumhoff11, Kelly Richards12, Kate Robson-Brown13, Philipp Schneider14, Heikki Suhonen10, Paul Tafforeau5, Katherine Williams14, & Ian J. Corfe8*. Affiliations: 10 1School of Physiology, Pharmacology & Neuroscience, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 2School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 3Earth Science Department, The Natural History Museum, London, UK. 4Core Research Laboratories, The Natural History Museum, London, UK. 5European Synchrotron Radiation Facility, Grenoble, France. 15 6School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. 7Institute of Anatomy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 8Institute of Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 9Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 10Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 20 11Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Zentrum für Material-und Küstenforschung GmbH Germany. 12Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, OX1 3PW, UK. 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/785360; this version posted October 10, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 13Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 14Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Ecology of the Tasmanian Spotted-Tailed Quoll
    Spatial Ecology of the Tasmanian Spotted-Tailed Quoll Shannon Nichole Troy Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science, Flinders University of South Australia Honours, Biological Science, Monash University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Biological Sciences University of Tasmania November 2014 Preface Author Declarations Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright. November 2014 Shannon Troy Date Authority of Access This thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. November 2014 Shannon Troy Date i Preface Author Declarations Statement of Ethical Conduct The research associated with this thesis abides by the international and Australian codes on human and animal experimentation, the guidelines by the Australian Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the rulings of the Safety, Ethics and Institutional Biosafety Committees of the University. November 2014 Shannon Troy Date ii Preface Acknowledgements Acknowledgements I am very fortunate to have been supervised by a group of outstanding ecologists and wonderful people. Thanks to my primary supervisor, Menna Jones, for the opportunity to undertake a PhD, allowing me to take it in my own direction, providing enthusiasm and support for my ideas, and lots of interesting discussions about predator ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Lindsay Masters
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPERIMENTALLY INDUCED AND SPONTANEOUSLY OCCURRING DISEASE WITHIN CAPTIVE BRED DASYURIDS Scott Andrew Lindsay A thesis submitted in fulfillment of requirements for the postgraduate degree of Masters of Veterinary Science Faculty of Veterinary Science University of Sydney March 2014 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY Apart from assistance acknowledged, this thesis represents the unaided work of the author. The text of this thesis contains no material previously published or written unless due reference to this material is made. This work has neither been presented nor is currently being presented for any other degree. Scott Lindsay 30 March 2014. i SUMMARY Neosporosis is a disease of worldwide distribution resulting from infection by the obligate intracellular apicomplexan protozoan parasite Neospora caninum, which is a major cause of infectious bovine abortion and a significant economic burden to the cattle industry. Definitive hosts are canid and an extensive range of identified susceptible intermediate hosts now includes native Australian species. Pilot experiments demonstrated the high disease susceptibility and the unexpected observation of rapid and prolific cyst formation in the fat-tailed dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) following inoculation with N. caninum. These findings contrast those in the immunocompetent rodent models and have enormous implications for the role of the dunnart as an animal model to study the molecular host-parasite interactions contributing to cyst formation. An immunohistochemical investigation of the dunnart host cellular response to inoculation with N. caninum was undertaken to determine if a detectable alteration contributes to cyst formation, compared with the eutherian models. Selective cell labelling was observed using novel antibodies developed against Tasmanian devil proteins (CD4, CD8, IgG and IgM) as well as appropriate labelling with additional antibodies targeting T cells (CD3), B cells (CD79b, PAX5), granulocytes, and the monocyte-macrophage family (MAC387).
    [Show full text]
  • Platypus Collins, L.R
    AUSTRALIAN MAMMALS BIOLOGY AND CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Stephen Jackson © CSIRO 2003 All rights reserved. Except under the conditions described in the Australian Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, duplicating or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Contact CSIRO PUBLISHING for all permission requests. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Jackson, Stephen M. Australian mammals: Biology and captive management Bibliography. ISBN 0 643 06635 7. 1. Mammals – Australia. 2. Captive mammals. I. Title. 599.0994 Available from CSIRO PUBLISHING 150 Oxford Street (PO Box 1139) Collingwood VIC 3066 Australia Telephone: +61 3 9662 7666 Local call: 1300 788 000 (Australia only) Fax: +61 3 9662 7555 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.publish.csiro.au Cover photos courtesy Stephen Jackson, Esther Beaton and Nick Alexander Set in Minion and Optima Cover and text design by James Kelly Typeset by Desktop Concepts Pty Ltd Printed in Australia by Ligare REFERENCES reserved. Chapter 1 – Platypus Collins, L.R. (1973) Monotremes and Marsupials: A Reference for Zoological Institutions. Smithsonian Institution Press, rights Austin, M.A. (1997) A Practical Guide to the Successful Washington. All Handrearing of Tasmanian Marsupials. Regal Publications, Collins, G.H., Whittington, R.J. & Canfield, P.J. (1986) Melbourne. Theileria ornithorhynchi Mackerras, 1959 in the platypus, 2003. Beaven, M. (1997) Hand rearing of a juvenile platypus. Ornithorhynchus anatinus (Shaw). Journal of Wildlife Proceedings of the ASZK/ARAZPA Conference. 16–20 March.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dated Phylogeny of Marsupials Using a Molecular Supermatrix and Multiple Fossil Constraints
    Journal of Mammalogy, 89(1):175–189, 2008 A DATED PHYLOGENY OF MARSUPIALS USING A MOLECULAR SUPERMATRIX AND MULTIPLE FOSSIL CONSTRAINTS ROBIN M. D. BECK* School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/89/1/175/1020874 by guest on 25 September 2021 Phylogenetic relationships within marsupials were investigated based on a 20.1-kilobase molecular supermatrix comprising 7 nuclear and 15 mitochondrial genes analyzed using both maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches and 3 different partitioning strategies. The study revealed that base composition bias in the 3rd codon positions of mitochondrial genes misled even the partitioned maximum-likelihood analyses, whereas Bayesian analyses were less affected. After correcting for base composition bias, monophyly of the currently recognized marsupial orders, of Australidelphia, and of a clade comprising Dasyuromorphia, Notoryctes,and Peramelemorphia, were supported strongly by both Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum-likelihood bootstrap values. Monophyly of the Australasian marsupials, of Notoryctes þ Dasyuromorphia, and of Caenolestes þ Australidelphia were less well supported. Within Diprotodontia, Burramyidae þ Phalangeridae received relatively strong support. Divergence dates calculated using a Bayesian relaxed molecular clock and multiple age constraints suggested at least 3 independent dispersals of marsupials from North to South America during the Late Cretaceous or early Paleocene. Within the Australasian clade, the macropodine radiation, the divergence of phascogaline and dasyurine dasyurids, and the divergence of perameline and peroryctine peramelemorphians all coincided with periods of significant environmental change during the Miocene. An analysis of ‘‘unrepresented basal branch lengths’’ suggests that the fossil record is particularly poor for didelphids and most groups within the Australasian radiation.
    [Show full text]
  • MORNINGTON PENINSULA BIODIVERSITY: SURVEY and RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS Design and Editing: Linda Bester, Universal Ecology Services
    MORNINGTON PENINSULA BIODIVERSITY: SURVEY AND RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS Design and editing: Linda Bester, Universal Ecology Services. General review: Sarah Caulton. Project manager: Garrique Pergl, Mornington Peninsula Shire. Photographs: Matthew Dell, Linda Bester, Malcolm Legg, Arthur Rylah Institute (ARI), Mornington Peninsula Shire, Russell Mawson, Bruce Fuhrer, Save Tootgarook Swamp, and Celine Yap. Maps: Mornington Peninsula Shire, Arthur Rylah Institute (ARI), and Practical Ecology. Further acknowledgements: This report was produced with the assistance and input of a number of ecological consultants, state agencies and Mornington Peninsula Shire community groups. The Shire is grateful to the many people that participated in the consultations and surveys informing this report. Acknowledgement of Country: The Mornington Peninsula Shire acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the first Australians and recognises that they have a unique relationship with the land and water. The Shire also recognises the Mornington Peninsula is home to the Boonwurrung / Bunurong, members of the Kulin Nation, who have lived here for thousands of years and who have traditional connections and responsibilities to the land on which Council meets. Data sources - This booklet summarises the results of various biodiversity reports conducted for the Mornington Peninsula Shire: • Costen, A. and South, M. (2014) Tootgarook Wetland Ecological Character Description. Mornington Peninsula Shire. • Cook, D. (2013) Flora Survey and Weed Mapping at Tootgarook Swamp Bushland Reserve. Mornington Peninsula Shire. • Dell, M.D. and Bester L.R. (2006) Management and status of Leafy Greenhood (Pterostylis cucullata) populations within Mornington Peninsula Shire. Universal Ecology Services, Victoria. • Legg, M. (2014) Vertebrate fauna assessments of seven Mornington Peninsula Shire reserves located within Tootgarook Wetland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mahogany Glider
    ISSUE #3 – WINTER 2019 THE MAHOGANY GLIDER The mahogany glider is one of Australia’s most threatened mammals and Queensland’s only listed endangered glider species. Named for its mahogany-brown belly, this graceful glider has two folds of skin, called a patagium, which stretch A mahogany glider, Petaurus gracilis, venturing out at the Hidden Vale Wildlife Centre. between the front and rear legs. These act as a ‘parachute’ enabling the animal to glide distances of and the Hidden Vale Wildlife Centre is manipulate their patagium in order to 30 metres in open woodland habitat. one of just a few locations authorised land safely. Their long tail is used for mid-air for breeding. Breeding is undertaken The Centre recently received funding stabilisation. as an insurance against extinction. to purchase additional structures The Centre regularly exchanges They look similar to sugar or squirrel including climbing ropes and nets, gliders with other authorised gliders, however mahogany gliders ladders and ‘unstable’ branches to locations to ensure genetic are much larger. They are nocturnal, simulate the movement of small trees. diversity in captive populations. elusive and silent, making research on We are also planning to introduce free-ranging animals very difficult. We encourage our mahogany gliders a range of glider-suitable feeding to develop and display their normal Mahogany gliders appear to be enrichment, such as whole fruits, range of behaviours. That is why we monogamous and will actively mark puzzle-feeders, or feed in a hanging have set up one half of their enclosure and defend their territory. They use log. We hope that our gliders will not with climbing structures in the form hollows in large eucalypt trees, lined only breed well, but will also become of ‘stable’ branches, while the right with a thick mat of leaves, as dens.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Conservation Plan a Plan for the Protection of the Perdido Key
    Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan Escambia County, Florida HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN A PLAN FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PERDIDO KEY BEACH MOUSE, SEA TURTLES, AND PIPING PLOVERS ON PERDIDO KEY, FLORIDA Prepared in Support of Incidental Take Permit No. for Incidental Take Related to Private Development and Escambia County Owned Land and Infrastructure Improvements on Perdido Key, Florida Prepared for: ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS P.O. BOX 1591 PENSACOLA, FL 32591 Prepared by: PBS&J 2401 EXECUTIVE PLAZA, SUITE 2 PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32504 Submitted to: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES & FISHERIES RESOURCES OFFICE 1601 BALBOA AVENUE PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA 32450 Final Draft January 2010 Draft Submitted December 2008 Draft Revised March 2009 Draft Revised May 2009 Draft Revised October 2009 ii Perdido Key Programmatic Habitat Conservation Plan Escambia County, Florida TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................. xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ xii 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background
    [Show full text]
  • A Species-Level Phylogenetic Supertree of Marsupials
    J. Zool., Lond. (2004) 264, 11–31 C 2004 The Zoological Society of London Printed in the United Kingdom DOI:10.1017/S0952836904005539 A species-level phylogenetic supertree of marsupials Marcel Cardillo1,2*, Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds3, Elizabeth Boakes1,2 and Andy Purvis1 1 Department of Biological Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY, U.K. 2 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, U.K. 3 Lehrstuhl fur¨ Tierzucht, Technical University of Munich, Alte Akademie 12, 85354 Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany (Accepted 26 January 2004) Abstract Comparative studies require information on phylogenetic relationships, but complete species-level phylogenetic trees of large clades are difficult to produce. One solution is to combine algorithmically many small trees into a single, larger supertree. Here we present a virtually complete, species-level phylogeny of the marsupials (Mammalia: Metatheria), built by combining 158 phylogenetic estimates published since 1980, using matrix representation with parsimony. The supertree is well resolved overall (73.7%), although resolution varies across the tree, indicating variation both in the amount of phylogenetic information available for different taxa, and the degree of conflict among phylogenetic estimates. In particular, the supertree shows poor resolution within the American marsupial taxa, reflecting a relative lack of systematic effort compared to the Australasian taxa. There are also important differences in supertrees based on source phylogenies published before 1995 and those published more recently. The supertree can be viewed as a meta-analysis of marsupial phylogenetic studies, and should be useful as a framework for phylogenetically explicit comparative studies of marsupial evolution and ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Parasitology in Australia: Past, Present and Future
    CSIRO PUBLISHING Australian Journal of Zoology, 2018, 66, 286–305 Review https://doi.org/10.1071/ZO19017 Wildlife parasitology in Australia: past, present and future David M. Spratt A,C and Ian Beveridge B AAustralian National Wildlife Collection, National Research Collections Australia, CSIRO, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. BVeterinary Clinical Centre, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Werribee, Vic. 3030, Australia. CCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Abstract. Wildlife parasitology is a highly diverse area of research encompassing many fields including taxonomy, ecology, pathology and epidemiology, and with participants from extremely disparate scientific fields. In addition, the organisms studied are highly dissimilar, ranging from platyhelminths, nematodes and acanthocephalans to insects, arachnids, crustaceans and protists. This review of the parasites of wildlife in Australia highlights the advances made to date, focussing on the work, interests and major findings of researchers over the years and identifies current significant gaps that exist in our understanding. The review is divided into three sections covering protist, helminth and arthropod parasites. The challenge to document the diversity of parasites in Australia continues at a traditional level but the advent of molecular methods has heightened the significance of this issue. Modern methods are providing an avenue for major advances in documenting and restructuring the phylogeny of protistan parasites in particular, while facilitating the recognition of species complexes in helminth taxa previously defined by traditional morphological methods. The life cycles, ecology and general biology of most parasites of wildlife in Australia are extremely poorly understood. While the phylogenetic origins of the Australian vertebrate fauna are complex, so too are the likely origins of their parasites, which do not necessarily mirror those of their hosts.
    [Show full text]
  • Ba3444 MAMMAL BOOKLET FINAL.Indd
    Intot Obliv i The disappearing native mammals of northern Australia Compiled by James Fitzsimons Sarah Legge Barry Traill John Woinarski Into Oblivion? The disappearing native mammals of northern Australia 1 SUMMARY Since European settlement, the deepest loss of Australian biodiversity has been the spate of extinctions of endemic mammals. Historically, these losses occurred mostly in inland and in temperate parts of the country, and largely between 1890 and 1950. A new wave of extinctions is now threatening Australian mammals, this time in northern Australia. Many mammal species are in sharp decline across the north, even in extensive natural areas managed primarily for conservation. The main evidence of this decline comes consistently from two contrasting sources: robust scientifi c monitoring programs and more broad-scale Indigenous knowledge. The main drivers of the mammal decline in northern Australia include inappropriate fi re regimes (too much fi re) and predation by feral cats. Cane Toads are also implicated, particularly to the recent catastrophic decline of the Northern Quoll. Furthermore, some impacts are due to vegetation changes associated with the pastoral industry. Disease could also be a factor, but to date there is little evidence for or against it. Based on current trends, many native mammals will become extinct in northern Australia in the next 10-20 years, and even the largest and most iconic national parks in northern Australia will lose native mammal species. This problem needs to be solved. The fi rst step towards a solution is to recognise the problem, and this publication seeks to alert the Australian community and decision makers to this urgent issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Christmas Island Biodiversity Monitoring Program: December 2003 to April 2007
    Christmas Island Biodiversity Monitoring Program: December 2003 to April 2007 Report to the Department of Finance and Deregulation, from the Director of National Parks September 2008 2 Christmas Island Biodiversity Monitoring Program Project Contributions Project coordination: D.J. James; Field survey: D.J. James, K. Retallick; Data management, GIS: D.J. James, K. Retallick; Analyses and reporting: D.J. James Citation This document can be cited as: Christmas Island Biodiversity Monitoring Program: December 2003 to April 2007. Report to the Department of Finance and Deregulation from the Director of National Parks © Director of National Parks 2008 Christmas Island Biodiversity Monitoring Program 3 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................7 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................9 1.1 Checklist of flora and fauna of Christmas Island.....................................................................9 1.2 Christmas Island biodiversity inventory database.................................................................10 2. CHRISTMAS ISLAND PIPISTRELLE ........................................................................................11 2.1 Summary of the results .........................................................................................................11 2.2 Research and monitoring methods .......................................................................................12
    [Show full text]