DOCSLIB.ORG

Mary River Threatened (Aquatic) Species Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mary River Threatened (Aquatic) Species Recovery Plan Mary River Threatened (Aquatic) Species Recovery Plan Author MRCCC logo Other logo/s This plan should be cited as follows: Author/s. 2013. Mary River Threatened (Aquatic) Species Recovery Plan. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC), Canberra. © Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. The Australian Government facilitates the publication of Recovery Plans to detail the actions needed for the conservation of threatened native wildlife. This plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, and may also be constrained by the need to address other conservation priorities. Recovery actions may be subject to modification due to changes in knowledge and changes in conservation status. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication ISBN: XXXXX XXXX XXXX An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities website: www.environment.gov.au Cover photograph/s: top left to bottom left – Mary River turtle (Steve Wilson), Mary River cod (Gunther Schmida), Australian lungfish (Gunther Schmida), freshwater mullet (Gunther Schmida), giant barred frog (Eva Ford). CONTENTS 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The ecological significance of the Mary River Ecosystem ................................. 2 1.3 Vision for the recovery plan ............................................................................... 5 1.4 Scope of Plan .................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Benefits/impacts to biodiversity ......................................................................... 7 1.6 Social and economic impacts/benefits ............................................................... 7 1.7 Interaction with legislation, planning and management processes..................... 8 1.8 International agreements ................................................................................. 10 1.9 Plan preparation and consultation ................................................................... 10 2 MARY RIVER CATCHMENT AND ITS PEOPLE ................................................ 10 2.1 Mary River catchment indigenous culture ........................................................ 11 2.2 Mary River since European settlement ............................................................ 11 2.3 Mary River catchment today ............................................................................ 12 2.3.1 Population ................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Landuse ...................................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 Water resource use ..................................................................................... 15 2.4 Catchment Description .................................................................................... 15 2.5 Stream flow ..................................................................................................... 16 3 ECOLOGY OF THE MARY RIVER CATCHMENT .............................................. 17 3.1 Species: fauna and flora .................................................................................. 17 3.2 Ecological communities/regional ecosystems .................................................. 21 3.3 Priority Species ............................................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Mary River cod (Maccullochella mariensis) .................................................. 22 3.3.2 Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) ............................................................. 24 3.3.3 Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) .................................................. 25 3.3.4 Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus) ........................................................ 26 3.3.5 Freshwater mullet (Trachystoma petardi) .................................................... 27 3.4 Habitat critical to survival ................................................................................. 28 4 Threats ............................................................................................................... 32 4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 32 4.2 System wide threats ........................................................................................ 32 iii 4.2.1 Poor integrity of riparian zone ...................................................................... 32 4.2.2 Poor water quality ........................................................................................ 34 4.2.3 Modification of geomorphology .................................................................... 35 4.2.4 Fishing and recreation ................................................................................. 36 4.2.5 Invasive aquatic species .............................................................................. 37 4.2.6 Terrestrial weeds ......................................................................................... 37 4.2.7 Barriers including dams, weirs, road crossings, culverts, instream "farm dams",reaches with poor water quality ..................................................................... 38 4.2.8 Altered hydrology ........................................................................................ 39 4.2.9 Altered catchment runoff regime / changed pattern of water flow ................ 39 4.3 Species level threats ....................................................................................... 40 4.3.1 Terrestrial predators, trampling of eggs and habitat ..................................... 40 4.3.2 Chytrid fungus ............................................................................................. 40 4.3.3 Misidentification with cane toads ................................................................. 40 4.3.4 Illegal aquarium collection ........................................................................... 41 4.3.5 Low gene pool variability ............................................................................. 41 4.4 Universal threats ............................................................................................. 41 4.4.1 Climate change ........................................................................................... 41 4.5 Potential threats .............................................................................................. 42 4.5.1 Mining for coal and coal seam gas .............................................................. 42 4.5.2 Increased demand for water extraction ........................................................ 43 4.6 Impediments to Recovery ................................................................................ 43 4.6.1 Lack of riverine habitat managed for conservation ....................................... 45 4.6.2 Lack of knowledge ....................................................................................... 45 5 BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ..................................................... 45 5.1 Guiding principles ............................................................................................ 45 5.2 Recovery goal ................................................................................................. 47 5.3 Strategy for recovery ....................................................................................... 47 5.4 Previous and current conservation activities .................................................... 48 5.4.1 Existing management and conservation action ............................................ 48 5.4.2 Indigenous involvement in the river recovery ............................................... 51 5.5 Recovery objectives and performance criteria ................................................. 52 5.6 Actions ............................................................................................................ 54 5.7 Implementation Schedule and Costs ............................................................... 65 6 MONITORING, EVALUATION, Reporting and Improvement ........................... 68 6.1 Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 68 iv 6.1.1 Logic behind proposed monitoring program ................................................. 68 6.1.2 Current Monitoring Programs .....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives Basin No
    ATTACHMENT 4 Attachment 4, Item 3, Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, 2 February 2016 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 Mary River environmental values and water quality objectives Basin No. 138, including all tributaries of the Mary River July 2010 Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 Prepared by: Water Quality & Ecosystem Health Policy Unit Department of Environment and Resource Management © State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Resource Management) 2010 This publication is available in alternative formats (including large print and audiotape) on request. Contact (07) 322 48412 or email <[email protected]> July 2010 Document Ref Number Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 Main parts of this document and what they contain • Scope of waters covered Introduction • Key terms / how to use document (section 1) • Links to WQ plan (map) • Mapping / water type information • Further contact details • Amendment provisions • Source of EVs for this document Environmental Values • Table of EVs by waterway (EVs - section 2) - aquatic ecosystem - human use • Any applicable management goals to support EVs • How to establish WQOs to protect Water Quality Objectives all selected EVs (WQOs - section 3) • WQOs in this document, for - aquatic ecosystem EV - human use EVs • List of plans, reports etc containing Ways to improve management actions relevant to the water quality waterways in this area (section 4) • Definitions of key terms including an Dictionary explanation table of all (section 5) environmental values • An accompanying map that shows Accompanying WQ Plan water types, levels of protection and (map) other information contained in this document iii Document Set ID: 20002123 Version: 1, Version Date: 21/12/2015 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mary River Environmental Values and Water Quality Objectives (Plan)
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M A R Y R I V E R , I N C L U D I N G A L L T R I B U T A R I E S O F T H E R I V E! R ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Basin 138 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 152°E 152°20'E ! 152°40'E 153°E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! H E R V E Y B AY ! ! ! B ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Grego R ! ! ry i ! ! v u er ! ! ! ! ! ! ! r ! ! ! ! CORDALBA ! n ! ! ! ! ! WALKERS ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e ! ! ! POINT ! Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! t t ! ! ! o ! ! Users must refer to plans WQ1372 k c ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! k ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! e ! y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! R ! r e a and WQ1402 for information on South-east Queensland Map Series ! r ! i d ! ! C v BURRUM
    [Show full text]
  • Land Cover Change in the South East Queensland Catchments Natural Resource Management Region 2010–11
    Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts Land cover change in the South East Queensland Catchments Natural Resource Management region 2010–11 Summary The woody vegetation clearing rate for the SEQ region for 10 2010–11 dropped to 3193 hectares per year (ha/yr). This 9 8 represented a 14 per cent decline from the previous era. ha/year) 7 Clearing rates of remnant woody vegetation decreased in 6 5 2010-11 to 758 ha/yr, 33 per cent lower than the previous era. 4 The replacement land cover class of forestry increased by 3 2 a further 5 per cent over the previous era and represented 1 Clearing Rate (,000 26 per cent of the total woody vegetation 0 clearing rate in the region. Pasture 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 remained the dominant replacement All Woody Clearing Woody Remnant Clearing land cover class at 34 per cent of total clearing. Figure 1. Woody vegetation clearing rates in the South East Queensland Catchments NRM region. Figure 2. Woody vegetation clearing for each change period. Great state. Great opportunity. Woody vegetation clearing by Woody vegetation clearing by remnant status tenure Table 1. Remnant and non-remnant woody vegetation clearing Table 2. Woody vegetation clearing rates in the South East rates in the South East Queensland Catchments NRM region. Queensland Catchments NRM region by tenure. Woody vegetation clearing rate (,000 ha/yr) of Woody vegetation clearing rate (,000 ha/yr) on Non-remnant Remnant
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings
    Fish Habitat Guideline FHG 001 FISH PASSAGE IN STREAMS Fisheries guidelines for design of stream crossings Elizabeth Cotterell August 1998 Fisheries Group DPI ISSN 1441-1652 Agdex 486/042 FHG 001 First published August 1998 Information contained in this publication is provided as general advice only. For application to specific circumstances, professional advice should be sought. The Queensland Department of Primary Industries has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the information contained in this publication is accurate at the time of publication. Readers should ensure that they make appropriate enquiries to determine whether new information is available on the particular subject matter. © The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries 1998 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Department of Primary Industries, Queensland. Enquiries should be addressed to: Manager Publishing Services Queensland Department of Primary Industries GPO Box 46 Brisbane QLD 4001 Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings BACKGROUND Introduction Fish move widely in rivers and creeks throughout Queensland and Australia. Fish movement is usually associated with reproduction, feeding, escaping predators or dispersing to new habitats. This occurs between marine and freshwater habitats, and wholly within freshwater. Obstacles to this movement, such as stream crossings, can severely deplete fish populations, including recreational and commercial species such as barramundi, mullet, Mary River cod, silver perch, golden perch, sooty grunter and Australian bass. Many Queensland streams are ephemeral (they may flow only during the wet season), and therefore crossings must be designed for both flood and drought conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion Paper on Brackish Urban Lake Water Quality in South East Queensland Catalano, C.L
    Discussion Paper on Brackish Urban Lake Water Quality in South East Queensland Catalano, C.L. 1, Dennis, R.B. 2, Howard, A.F.3 Cardno Lawson Treloar12, Cardno3 Abstract Cardno has been involved in the design and monitoring of a number of urban lakes and canal systems within south east Queensland for over 30 years. There are now many urban lakes in South East Queensland and the majority have been designed on the turnover or lake flushing concept, whereby it is considered that, if the lake is flushed within a nominal timeframe, then there is a reasonable expectation that the lake will be of good health. The designs have predominately been based on a turnover or residence time of around 20-30 days and some of the lakes reviewed are now almost 30 years old. This paper reviews this methodology against collected water quality data to provide comment on the effectiveness of this method of design for brackish urban lakes in South East Queensland and also to indicate where computational modelling should be used instead of, or to assist with, this methodology. 1. Introduction Lakeside developments are very popular in South-East Queensland. The lake is generally artificial, created out of a modification of an existing watercourse or lowland area for a source of fill for the surrounding residential construction. They are used to provide visual and recreational amenity, sometimes including boat navigation and mooring areas, and can also serve as detention basins and water quality polishing devices. As with anypermanent water feature, they inevitability also become an aquatic habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on the Impacts of Flooding
    Workshop on the Impacts of Flooding Proceed/rigs of a Workshop held in Rockhamptori, Australia, 27 Septeinber 1991. , Edited by G.T. Byron Queensland Department of. ti Environment tand Heritage ’ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority ‘, , ,’ @ Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority ISSN 0156-5842 ISBN 0 624 12044 7 Published by GBRMPA April 1992 The opinions expressed in th.is document are not necessarily those of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority or the Queensland Department of Env/ionment an!d Heritage. Great Barrier Reef Environment and P.O. Box 155 P.O. Box1379 North Quay , Townsville Queens’land 4002 Queensland 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS : PREFACE iv 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V PART A: FORUM PAPERS Jim Pearce MLA Opening Address 1 Peter Baddiley Fitzroy River Basin 3 Rainfalls and The 1991 Flood Event Mike Keane Assessment of the 1991 16 Fitzroy River Flood How much water? J.P. O’Neill, G.T.Byron and Some Physical Characteristics 36 S.C.Wright and Movement of 1991 Fitzroy River flood plume PART B: WORKSHOP PAPERS GROUP A - WATER RELATED’ISSUES Jon E. Brodie and Nutrient Composition of 56 Alan Mitchell the January 1991 Fitzroy River Plume Myriam Preker The Effects of the 1991 75 Central Queensland Floodwaters around Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef i > d.T.Byron and J.P.O’Neill Flood Induced Coral Mortality 76 on Fringing Reefs in Keppel Bay J.S. Giazebrook and Effects of low salinity on 90 R. Van Woesik the tissues of hard corals Acropora spp., Pocillopora sp and Seriatopra sp from the Great Keppel region M.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS)
    Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Categories approved by Recommendation 4.7 (1990), as amended by Resolution VIII.13 of the 8th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2002) and Resolutions IX.1 Annex B, IX.6, IX.21 and IX. 22 of the 9th Conference of the Contracting Parties (2005). This Ramsar Information Sheet has been converted to meet the 2009 – 2012 format, but the RIS content has not been updated in this conversion. The new format seeks some additional information which could not yet be included. This information will be added when future updates of this Ramsar Information Sheet are completed. Until then, notes on any changes in the ecological character of the Ramsar site may be obtained from the Ecological Character Description (if completed) and other relevant sources. 1. Name and address of the compiler of this form: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY. Department of Environment and Heritage DD MM YY PO Box 155 BRISBANE ALBERT STREET QLD 4002. 2. Date this sheet was completed/updated: Designation date Site Reference Number May 1999 3. Country: Australia 4. Name of the Ramsar site: The precise name of the designated site in one of the three official languages (English, French or Spanish) of the Convention. Alternative names, including in local language(s), should be given in parentheses after the precise name. Great Sandy Strait (including Great Sandy Strait, Tin Can Bay and Tin Can Inlet). 5. Designation of new Ramsar site or update of existing site: Great Sandy Strait was designated on 14 June 1999 This RIS is for (tick one box only): a) Designation of a new Ramsar site ; or b) Updated information on an existing Ramsar site 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Rivers and Redcliffe Creeks
    ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P I N E R I V E R S A N D R E D C L I F F E C R E E K S , I N C L U D I N G : H A Y S I N L E T ; A L L T R I B U T A R I E S ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! O F T H E N O R T H P I N E A N D S O U T H P I N E R I V E R S ! ! ! ! ! Part of Basin 142 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 152°40'E 152°50'E 153°E ! ! ! ! ! ! ! P ! u ! ! m ! ! i ! ! c ! ! e BRIBIE ! ! s ! ISLAND ! ! t WAMURAN TOORBUL o ! ! ! BASIN n ! ! ! N e ing ! ! i ! ! ! ! WAMURAN C P ! ! ! MOODLU r k ! ! ! ! e e ! a ! ! ! ! ! s ! ! ! s a ! ! ! g ! ! ! e ! ! ! MOUNT NINGI CABOOLTURE ! ! ! MEE ! ! ! ! ! ! CAMPBELLS SANDSTONE ! ! ! POCKET POINT ! ! BELLMERE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! GODWIN ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! BEACH ! ! ! ! ! ! MORETON BAY ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! REGIONAL COUNCIL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! UPPER ! ! ! CABOOLTURE OCEAN ! PR1 VIEW ROCKSBERG ! ! C ! BEACHMERE ! MORAYFIELD a ! b ! o ! ! o ! ! ! l t ! ! ! u PR1 r ! ! e R ! ! ! ive r ! ! ! ! ! ! Users must refer to Table 1 ! ! ! of the scheduling document ! ! SOMERSET ! ! ! Laceys Creek
    [Show full text]
  • Great Sandy Strait — a Wetland of International Significance Great Sandy Strait (Which Includes Tin Can Bay) Is a Wetland of International Significance
    Great Sandy Strait — A Wetland of International Significance Great Sandy Strait (which includes Tin Can Bay) is a Wetland of International Significance. It was inscribed as Ramsar site 992 in 1999. Its 93,160 ha includes marine, estuarine and intertidal wetlands and salt pans. The intertidal wetland habitats consist of: 15,500 ha of mangrove forests, 12,300 ha of intertidal and subtidal seagrass beds, 2,800 ha of saltmarshes, unvegetated mud, sand and salt flats, and estuarine and channel waters of varying depth and width. The main freshwater wetland types are Melaleuca swamp forest and other palustrine wetlands. It is a very special place deserving the highest level of protection. The Draft Great Sandy Marine Park Zoning offered it little extra protection. Located between the mainland and Fraser Island, Great leatherback turtles. The Great Sandy Strait is an important Sandy Strait is a complex landscape with shifting patterns feeding ground for juvenile turtles. of mangroves, sandbanks, intertidal sand, mud islands, salt Rare Butterflies: Old stands of grey mangrove support marshes, extensive sea grass beds and patterned fens. It is populations of the endangered Illidge's ant-blue butterfly. important habitat for breeding fish, crustaceans, dugongs, dolphins, marine turtles and migratory waders. It lies Marine Mammals: Great Sandy Strait contains some between the rapidly growing population centres of Hervey recognized “hot spots” for the endangered dugong with Bay and Tin Can Bay. high densities of these marine mammals dependent on the sea grass there. Three species of dolphins, the common Great Sandy Strait is a double-ended sand passage estuary.
    [Show full text]
  • Deciphering the Evolutionary History of Arowana Fishes (Teleostei, Osteoglossiformes, Osteoglossidae): Insight from Comparative Cytogenomics
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Article Deciphering the Evolutionary History of Arowana Fishes (Teleostei, Osteoglossiformes, Osteoglossidae): Insight from Comparative Cytogenomics Marcelo de Bello Cioffi 1, Petr Ráb 2, Tariq Ezaz 3 , Luiz Antonio Carlos Bertollo 1, Sebastien Lavoué 4, Ezequiel Aguiar de Oliveira 1,5 , Alexandr Sember 2, Wagner Franco Molina 6, Fernando Henrique Santos de Souza 1 , Zuzana Majtánová 2 , Thomas Liehr 7,*, Ahmed Basheer Hamid Al-Rikabi 7, Cassia Fernanda Yano 1, Patrik Viana 8 , Eliana Feldberg 8, Peter Unmack 3 , Terumi Hatanaka 1, Alongklod Tanomtong 9 and Manolo Fernandez Perez 1 1 Departamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSCar), São Carlos, SP 13565-090, Brazil 2 Laboratory of Fish Genetics, Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics, Czech Academy of Sciences, 27721 Libˇechov, Czech Republic 3 Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia 4 School of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia 5 Secretaria de Estado de Educação de Mato Grosso – SEDUC-MT, Cuiabá, MT 78049-909, Brazil 6 Departamento de Biologia Celular e Genética, Centro de Biociências, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN 59078-970, Brazil 7 Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Jena, 07747 Jena, Germany 8 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia, Coordenação de Biodiversidade, Laboratório de Genética Animal, Petrópolis, Manaus, AM 69077-000, Brazil 9 Toxic Substances in Livestock and Aquatic Animals Research Group, KhonKaen University, Muang, KhonKaen 40002, Thailand * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 13 August 2019; Accepted: 30 August 2019; Published: 2 September 2019 Abstract: Arowanas (Osteoglossinae) are charismatic freshwater fishes with six species and two genera (Osteoglossum and Scleropages) distributed in South America, Asia, and Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Petrie's Reminiscences
    I TOM PETRIE'S REMINISCENCES OF EARLY QUEENSLAND (Dating from 1837.) RECORDED BY HIS DAUGHTER. BRISBANE: WATSON , FERGUSON & CO.. 1904. [COPYRIGHT.] This is a blank page To MY FATHER, TOM PETRIE, WHOSE FAITHFUL MEMORY HAS SUPPLIED THE MATERIAL FOR THIS BOOK. PRINTED BY WATSON, FERGUSON &' CO. QUEEN ST., BRISBANE. This is a blank page This is a blank page NOTE. THE greater portion of the contents of this book first ap- peard in the " Queenslander " in the form of articles, and when those referring to the aborigines were pubished, Dr. Roth, author of " Ethnological Studies," etc., wrote the following letter to that paper :- TOM PETRIE' S REMINISCENCES (By C.C.P.) TO THE EDITOR. SIR,-lt is with extreme interest that I have perused the remarkable series of articles appearing in the Queenslander under the above heading, and sincerely trust that they will he subsequently reprinted. The aborigines of Australia are fast dying out, and with them one of the most interesting phases in the history and development of man. Articles such as these, referring to the old Brisbane blacks, of whom I believe but one old warrior still remains, are well worth permanently recording in convenient book form-they are, all of them, clear, straight-forward statements of facts- many of which by analogy, and from early records, I have been able to confirm and verify-they show an intimate and profound knowledge of the aboriginals with whom they deal, and if only to show with what diligence they have been written, the native names are correctly, i.e., rationally spelt.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepted Manuscript
    Accepted Manuscript Plastid and nuclear DNA markers reveal intricate relationships at subfamilial and tribal levels in the soapberry family (Sapindaceae) Sven Buerki, Félix Forest, Pedro Acevedo-Rodríguez, Martin W. Callmander, Johan A.A. Nylander, Mark Harrington, Isabel Sanmartín, Philippe Küpfer, Nadir Alvarez PII: S1055-7903(09)00017-7 DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.01.012 Reference: YMPEV 3130 To appear in: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Received Date: 21 May 2008 Revised Date: 27 November 2008 Accepted Date: 23 January 2009 Please cite this article as: Buerki, S., Forest, F., Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., Callmander, M.W., Nylander, J.A.A., Harrington, M., Sanmartín, I., Küpfer, P., Alvarez, N., Plastid and nuclear DNA markers reveal intricate relationships at subfamilial and tribal levels in the soapberry family (Sapindaceae), Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2009.01.012 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Buerki et al. 1 1 Plastid and nuclear DNA markers reveal intricate relationships at subfamilial and tribal 2 levels in the soapberry family (Sapindaceae) 3 4 Sven Buerki a,*, Félix Forest b, Pedro Acevedo-Rodríguez c, Martin W. Callmander d,e, 5 Johan A.
    [Show full text]