DOCSLIB.ORG

Utilisation of Restored Wetlandsby Fish and Invertebrates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Utilisation of Restored Wetlandsby Fish and Invertebrates Utilisation of restored wetlands by fish and invertebrates Philip Gibbs, Tracey McVea and Brett Louden NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation P.O. Box 21, Cronulla, NSW, 2230 Australia (INSERT PICTURE HERE) FRDC Project No. 95/150 August 1999 NSW Fisheries Final Report Series No. 16 ISSN 1440-3544 Utilisation of Restored Wetlands by Fish and Invertebrates Philip Gibbs, Tracey McVea and Brett Louden NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation Locked Bag 9 Pyrmont NSW 2009 Australia Project No. 95/150 August 1999 NSW Fisheries Final Report Series No.16 ISSN 1440-3544 Contents i Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. NEED ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4. IMPACTS OF ACID WATER ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.5. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 5 2. PILOT STUDY....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2. METHODS ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.2.1. Determination of sampling method ........................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Determination of sample number .............................................................................................. 8 2.2.3. Spatial variability ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 10 2.3.1. Determination of sampling method ......................................................................................... 10 2.3.2. Determination of sample number ............................................................................................12 2.3.3. Spatial variability .................................................................................................................... 14 3. METHODS........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1. STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2. FIELD SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TECHNIQUES.............................................................................. 18 3.2.1. Fish and invertebrates............................................................................................................. 18 3.2.2. Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19 3.3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 19 3.3.1. Fish and invertebrate community structure (multivariate analysis)........................................ 20 3.3.2. Species richness, abundances and biomass of species (ANOVA)............................................ 21 3.4. POPULATION SIZE STRUCTURE (LENGTH FREQUENCY DATA) .............................................................. 25 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 27 4.1. GENERAL TRENDS .............................................................................................................................. 27 4.2. FISH AND INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY PATTERNS (MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS) .................................. 29 4.2.1. Spatial patterns........................................................................................................................ 31 4.2.2. Temporal patterns.................................................................................................................... 38 4.3. SPECIES RICHNESS, BIOMASS AND SPECIES ABUNDANCES................................................................... 40 4.3.1. Macleay River.......................................................................................................................... 40 4.3.2. Hunter River ............................................................................................................................ 54 4.3.3. Botany Bay .............................................................................................................................. 69 4.3.4. External Reference Estuaries .................................................................................................. 77 4.4. LENGTH FREQUENCY.......................................................................................................................... 84 4.5. WATER QUALITY................................................................................................................................88 4.5.1. Physico-chemical variables..................................................................................................... 88 4.5.2. Macleay River rainfall and data logger information............................................................... 90 5. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 95 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 103 7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................... 105 7.1. BENEFITS ......................................................................................................................................... 105 7.2. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ............................................................................................................... 106 7.3. FURTHER DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................. 106 7.4. STAFF............................................................................................................................................... 106 FRDC Project 95/150 Utilisation of Wetlands, (Gibbs, McVea, Louden) ii Contents 8. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................109 9. APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................................117 FRDC Project 95/150 Utilisation of Wetlands, (Gibbs, McVea, Louden) Contents iii List of Figures Figure 2.3.1. Small net and large net comparisons for the average number and standard error of (i) number of commercial, non-commercial and total taxa and (ii) number of commercial, non-commercial and total individuals. Figure 2.3.2. Species area curve for pilot study seine net samples. Figure 2.3.3. Non-metric multidimensional ordination plots using community abundance data for the sites sampled on the Macleay and Nambucca Rivers during the pilot study. Figure 3.1a. Map of the study area showing the three wetland estuaries (Botany Bay, Hunter River and Macleay River) and the three external reference estuaries (Wallamba River, Manning River and Nambucca River). Figure 3.1b. Schematic diagram of the sampling design. Figure 4.1. Average (+SE) number of commercial taxa, non-commercial taxa and total taxa collected from impacted wetlands and each of the external reference estuaries during the study period. Figure 4.2. Two dimensional plots of the results from non-metric multidimensional analyses using community abundance data for (i) December 1996 showing the Botany Bay near reference outlier samples and (ii) March 1997 to show the Macleay River site one outlier sample. Figure 4.2.1a. Two dimensional plots of the non-metric multidimensional analyses using community abundance data for each of the sampling periods. Figure 4.2.1b. Two dimensional non-metric multidimensional plot using community abundance data to show the spatial trends in the community. Figure 4.2.2. Two dimensional plot of the non-metric multidimensional analysis using community abundance data to show the temporal trends in the community. Figure 4.3.1a. Mean (+SE) number of taxa collected from the Macleay River and external
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marine Fish Conservation Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions
    Marine Fish Conservation Global evidence for the effects of selected interventions Natasha Taylor, Leo J. Clarke, Khatija Alliji, Chris Barrett, Rosslyn McIntyre, Rebecca0 K. Smith & William J. Sutherland CONSERVATION EVIDENCE SERIES SYNOPSES Marine Fish Conservation Global evidence for the effects of selected interventions Natasha Taylor, Leo J. Clarke, Khatija Alliji, Chris Barrett, Rosslyn McIntyre, Rebecca K. Smith and William J. Sutherland Conservation Evidence Series Synopses 1 Copyright © 2021 William J. Sutherland This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Taylor, N., Clarke, L.J., Alliji, K., Barrett, C., McIntyre, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine Fish Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Further details about CC BY licenses are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cover image: Circling fish in the waters of the Halmahera Sea (Pacific Ocean) off the Raja Ampat Islands, Indonesia, by Leslie Burkhalter. Digital material and resources associated with this synopsis are available at https://www.conservationevidence.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Information on Distribution of Round Goby
    Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Continuation of the project on Baltic-wide assessment of FISH-PRO II 4-2017 coastal fish communities in support of an ecosystem-based management Tallinn, Estonia, 13-15 February 2017 Document title Information on distribution of round goby Code 2-2 Category INF Agenda Item 2 – Information of relevance to FISH-PRO II Submission date 6.2.2017 Submitted by Estonia Reference Paragraph 3.13 of the Outcome of FISH-PRO II 3-2016 Background FISH-PRO II 3-2016 agreed that it would be valuable to compile information on the distribution and national monitoring of round goby. The attached document is a paper by Kotta et al.: “Shipping and natural environmental conditions determine the distribution of the invasive non-indigenous round goby Neogobius melanostomus in a regional sea.” Action requested The Meeting is invited to take note and make use of the information as appropriate. Page 1 of 1 Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 169 (2016) 15e24 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecss Shipping and natural environmental conditions determine the distribution of the invasive non-indigenous round goby Neogobius melanostomus in a regional sea * Jonne Kotta a, , Kristiina Nurkse a, Riikka Puntila b, c, Henn Ojaveer a a Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Maealuse€ 14, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia b Finnish Environment Institute, Marine Research Center, Erik Palmenin aukio 1, FI-00560 Helsinki, Finland c University of Helsinki, Department of Aquatic Sciences, P.O. Box 65, Biocenter 3, Viikinkaari 1, FI-00014, Finland article info abstract Article history: Introductions of non-indigenous species (NIS) are considered a major threat to aquatic ecosystems Received 5 March 2015 worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • East Gippsland, Victoria
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Status of Queensland's Fisheries Resources 2009–10
    Stock status of Queensland’s Fisheries Queensland fisheries resources 2009–10 Employment, Development Economic Innovation and Department of Tomorrow’s Queensland: strong, green, smart, healthy and fair Stock status of Queensland’s fisheries resources 2009–10 PR10–5184 © The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2010. Except as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of the work may in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any other means be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or be broadcast or transmitted without the prior written permission of the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. Enquiries about reproduction, including downloading or printing the web version, should be directed to [email protected] or telephone +61 7 3225 1398. Contents Acronyms 6 Fishery acronyms 6 Introduction 7 Stock status process 7 Stock status assessment 2009–10 8 Stocks with no assessment made 16 Stock background and status determination 17 Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) EC 18 Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) GOC 19 Bream–yellowfin (Acanthopagrus australis) EC 20 Bugs–Balmain (Ibacus chacei and I. brucei) EC 21 Bugs–Moreton Bay (Thenus australiensis & T. parindicus) EC 22 Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) EC 23 Coral trout (Plectropomus spp. and Variola spp.) EC 24 Crab–blue swimmer (Portunus pelagius) EC 25 Crab–mud (Scylla spp.) EC 26 Crab–mud (Scylla spp.) GOC 27 Crab–spanner (Ranina ranina) EC 28 Eel (Anguilla australis and A.
    [Show full text]
  • Laboratory Evaluation of the Predation Efficacy of Native Australian Fish on Culex Annulirostris (Diptera: Culicidae)
    Journal of the Americctn Mosquito Control Association, 20(3):2g6_291,2OO4 Copyright A 2OO4by the American Mosquib Control Association, Inc. LABORATORY EVALUATION OF THE PREDATION EFFICACY OF NATIVE AUSTRALIAN FISH ON CULEX ANNULIROSTRIS (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE) TIMOTHY P HURST, MICHAEL D. BRowNI eNo BRIAN H. KAY Australian Centre International for and Tropical Health and Nutrition at the eueensland Institute of Medical pO Research, Royal Brisbane H<tspital, eueensland 4029, Austalia ABSTRACT. The introduction and establishment of fish populations can provide long-term, cost-effective mosquito control in habitats such as constructed wetlands and ornamental lakes. The p.idution efficacy of 7 native Brisbane freshwater fish on I st and 4th instars of the freshwater arbovirus vector culex annulirostris was evaluated in a series of 24-h laboratory trials. The trials were conducted in 30-liter plastic carboys at 25 + l"C urder a light:dark cycle of l4:10 h. The predation eflcacy of native crimson-spotted rainbowfish Melanotaenia (Melanotaeniidae), cluboulayi Australian smelt Retropinna semoni (Retropinnadae), pacific blue-eye pseudomugil (Atherinidae), signfer fly-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus stercusmLtscarum (Atherinidae), hretail gudgeon Hypseleotris gttlii (Eleotridae), empire gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa (Eleotridae), and estuary percilet Am- bassis marianus (Ambassidae) was compared with the exotic eaitern mosquitofish Getmbusia iolbrooki (poe- ciliidae). This environmentally damaging exotic has been disseminated worldwide and has been declared noxrous in Queensland. Melanotaenia duboulayi was found to consume the greatest numbers of both lst and 4th instars of Cx. annuliro.t/ri.t. The predation efficacy of the remaining Australian native species was comparable with that of the exotic G. holbrooki. With the exception of A- marianu^s, the maximum predation rates of these native species were not statistically different whether tested individually or in a school of 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Article Seascape Context Modifies How Fish Respond to Restored Oyster Reef Structures
    ICES Journal of Marine Science (2019), 76(4), 1131–1139. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsz019 Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-abstract/76/4/1131/5333156 by Griffith University user on 02 September 2019 Original Article Seascape context modifies how fish respond to restored oyster reef structures Ben L. Gilby 1,2*, Andrew D. Olds1,2, Christopher J. Henderson1,2, Nicholas L. Ortodossi1, Rod M. Connolly3, and Thomas A. Schlacher1,2 1The Animal Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland 4558, Australia 2School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558, Australia 3Australian Rivers Institute—Coasts and Estuaries, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia *Corresponding author: tel: +61 7 5430 2891; e-mail: [email protected]. Gilby, B. L., Olds, A. D., Henderson, C. J., Ortodossi, N. L., Connolly, R. M., and Schlacher, T. A. Seascape context modifies how fish re- spond to restored oyster reef structures. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76: 1131–1139. Received 14 October 2018; revised 13 January 2019; accepted 24 January 2019; advance access publication 18 February 2019. The seascape context of coastal ecosystems plays a pivotal role in shaping patterns in fish recruitment, abundance, and diversity. It might also be a principal determinant in structuring the recruitment of fish assemblages to restored habitats, but the trajectories of these relationships require further testing. In this study, we surveyed fish assemblages from 14 restored oyster reefs and 14 control sites in the Noosa River, Queensland, Australia, that differed in the presence or absence of seagrass within 500 m, over four periods using baited cameras.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full Article 1.0MB .Pdf File
    Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 57( I): 143-165 ( 1998) 1 May 1998 https://doi.org/10.24199/j.mmv.1998.57.08 FISHES OF WILSONS PROMONTORY AND CORNER INLET, VICTORIA: COMPOSITION AND BIOGEOGRAPHIC AFFINITIES M. L. TURNER' AND M. D. NORMAN2 'Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379,Townsville, Qld 4810, Australia ([email protected]) 1Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3052, Australia (corresponding author: [email protected]) Abstract Turner, M.L. and Norman, M.D., 1998. Fishes of Wilsons Promontory and Comer Inlet. Victoria: composition and biogeographic affinities. Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria 57: 143-165. A diving survey of shallow-water marine fishes, primarily benthic reef fishes, was under­ taken around Wilsons Promontory and in Comer Inlet in 1987 and 1988. Shallow subtidal reefs in these regions are dominated by labrids, particularly Bluethroat Wrasse (Notolabrus tet­ ricus) and Saddled Wrasse (Notolabrus fucicola), the odacid Herring Cale (Odax cyanomelas), the serranid Barber Perch (Caesioperca rasor) and two scorpidid species, Sea Sweep (Scorpis aequipinnis) and Silver Sweep (Scorpis lineolata). Distributions and relative abundances (qualitative) are presented for 76 species at 26 sites in the region. The findings of this survey were supplemented with data from other surveys and sources to generate a checklist for fishes in the coastal waters of Wilsons Promontory and Comer Inlet. 23 I fishspecies of 92 families were identified to species level. An additional four species were only identified to higher taxonomic levels. These fishes were recorded from a range of habitat types, from freshwater streams to marine habitats (to 50 m deep).
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
    1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Summary: Port Phillip and Westernport, Victoria
    Biodiversity Summary for NRM Regions Species List What is the summary for and where does it come from? This list has been produced by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPC) for the Natural Resource Management Spatial Information System. The list was produced using the AustralianAustralian Natural Natural Heritage Heritage Assessment Assessment Tool Tool (ANHAT), which analyses data from a range of plant and animal surveys and collections from across Australia to automatically generate a report for each NRM region. Data sources (Appendix 2) include national and state herbaria, museums, state governments, CSIRO, Birds Australia and a range of surveys conducted by or for DEWHA. For each family of plant and animal covered by ANHAT (Appendix 1), this document gives the number of species in the country and how many of them are found in the region. It also identifies species listed as Vulnerable, Critically Endangered, Endangered or Conservation Dependent under the EPBC Act. A biodiversity summary for this region is also available. For more information please see: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/anhat/index.html Limitations • ANHAT currently contains information on the distribution of over 30,000 Australian taxa. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, 137 families of vascular plants (over 15,000 species) and a range of invertebrate groups. Groups notnot yet yet covered covered in inANHAT ANHAT are notnot included included in in the the list. list. • The data used come from authoritative sources, but they are not perfect. All species names have been confirmed as valid species names, but it is not possible to confirm all species locations.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Poteat, Monica Deshay
    ABSTRACT POTEAT, MONICA DESHAY. Comparative Trace Metal Physiology in Aquatic Insects. (Under the direction of Dr. David B. Buchwalter). Despite their dominance in freshwater systems and use in biomonitoring and bioassessment programs worldwide, little is known about the ion/metal physiology of aquatic insects. Even less is known about the variability of trace metal physiologies across aquatic insect species. Here, we measured dissolved metal bioaccumulation dynamics using radiotracers in order to 1) gain an understanding of the uptake and interactions of Ca, Cd and Zn at the apical surface of aquatic insects and 2) comparatively analyze metal bioaccumulation dynamics in closely-related aquatic insect species. Dissolved metal uptake and efflux rate constants were calculated for 19 species. We utilized species from families Hydropsychidae (order Trichoptera) and Ephemerellidae (order Ephemeroptera) because they are particularly species-rich and because they are differentially sensitive to metals in the field – Hydropsychidae are relatively tolerant and Ephemerellidae are relatively sensitive. In uptake experiments with Hydropsyche sparna (Hydropsychidae), we found evidence of two shared transport systems for Cd and Zn – a low capacity-high affinity transporter below 0.8 µM, and a second high capacity-low affinity transporter operating at higher concentrations. Cd outcompeted Zn at concentrations above 0.6 µM, suggesting a higher affinity of Cd for a shared transporter at those concentrations. While Cd and Zn uptake strongly co-varied across 12 species (r = 0.96, p < 0.0001), neither Cd nor Zn uptake significantly co-varied with Ca uptake in these species. Further, Ca only modestly inhibited Cd and Zn uptake, while neither Cd nor Zn inhibited Ca uptake at concentrations up to concentrations of 89 nM Cd and 1.53 µM Zn.
    [Show full text]
  • M 12001 Supplement
    The following supplement accompanies the article Biological mechanisms of marine invasions Katherine J. Papacostas, Elizabeth W. Rielly-Carroll, Samuel E. Georgian, Dustin J. Long, Sarah D. Princiotta, Andrea M. Quattrini, Kim E. Reuter, Amy L. Freestone* *Corresponding author: [email protected] Marine Ecology Progress Series 565: 251–268 (2017) Table S1: Search parameters used in ISI Web of Science. General search terms used for all mechanisms were (non-native* OR nonnative* OR invasi* OR introduc* OR non-indigenous OR nonindigenous OR alien OR exotic OR invade*) AND (estuar* OR marine OR coastal OR ocean* OR sea OR *tidal), followed by mechanism-specific terms outlined below. Search results were then refined using Web of Science tools to those pertaining only to Marine and Freshwater Biology, and all research areas that were clearly not relevant (e.g., not biological) were excluded. All remaining papers were then individually evaluated for relevance. Over 2500 papers were evaluated for negative interactions alone. Mechanism Search terms Negative Interactions AND (“biotic resistance” OR “invasion resistance” OR diversity OR “diversity invasibility” OR “empty niche*” OR “limiting similarity” OR “Darwin’s naturalization” OR pre-adaptation OR “enemy release” OR “enemy escape” OR “natural enem*” OR “native enem*” OR allelopath* OR “chemical defense*” OR “novel weapon*” OR “novel chemical*” OR predat* OR herbivor* OR parasit* OR compet* OR consum*) Positive Interactions AND (meltdown OR facilitat* OR mutual* OR “positive interact*”
    [Show full text]
  • Deficiencies in Our Understanding of the Hydro-Ecology of Several Native Australian Fish: a Rapid Evidence Synthesis
    Marine and Freshwater Research, 2018, 69, 1208–1221 © CSIRO 2018 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17241 Supplementary material Deficiencies in our understanding of the hydro-ecology of several native Australian fish: a rapid evidence synthesis Kimberly A. MillerA,D, Roser Casas-MuletB,A, Siobhan C. de LittleA, Michael J. StewardsonA, Wayne M. KosterC and J. Angus WebbA,E ADepartment of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia. BWater Research Institute, Cardiff University, The Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, UK. CArthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Heidelberg, Vic. 3084, Australia. DPresent address: Healesville Sanctuary, Badger Creek Road, Healesville, Vic. 3777, Australia. ECorresponding author. Email address: [email protected] Page 1 of 30 Marine and Freshwater Research © CSIRO 2018 https://doi.org/10.1071/MF17241 Table S1. All papers located by standardised searches and following citation trails for the two rapid evidence assessments All papers are marked as Relevant or Irrelevant based on a reading of the title and abstract. Those deemed relevant on the first screen are marked as Relevant or Irrelevant based on a full assessment of the reference.The table contains incomplete citation details for a number of irrelevant papers. The information provided is as returned from the different evidence databases. Given that these references were not relevant to our review, we have not sought out the full citation details. Source Reference Relevance Relevance (based on title (after reading and abstract) full text) Pygmy perch & carp gudgeons Search hit Anon (1998) Soy protein-based formulas: recommendations for use in infant feeding.
    [Show full text]