DOCSLIB.ORG

A Survey of the Bat Fauna

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Survey of the Bat Fauna __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. Microbat Monitoring of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during 2015 A report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited G.A. Hoye & M.M. Hoye Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd ABN 48 068 562 005 PO Box 271 BELMONT NSW 2280 Tel 4947 7794 Fax 4947 7537 January 2016 January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 1 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. 1 INTRODUCTION This report details the results of microbat monitoring undertaken during 2015 in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (ULN SD PLN 0026). The Project Area comprises a total of 13,435 hectares and includes areas referred to in the Environmental Assessment (Umwelt 2009) and the subsequent BMP. This area consists of the Ulan West and No. 3 underground areas, as well as the open cut. They include; Open Cut Extension – the extent of the recently approved open cut operations, being approximately 239 hectares; Previous Open Cut Mining Areas – covers approximately 475 hectares of previously open cut mining areas that have been rehabilitated and final voids that remain to support future mining activities (i.e. water storage, tailings disposal, underground access etc.); Surface Infrastructure Area – the 169 hectare disturbance area required for construction of underground service infrastructure; Residual Project Area – the remainder of the Project Area that is not subject to the current project. This includes large areas that have been previously undermined, agricultural grazing land, irrigation pivots and large areas of remnant native vegetation; Biodiversity Offset and Management Areas – land that has been approved for Biodiversity Offset and Management Areas for the Project, being: 1. Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area including Bobadeen Corridor (1116 hectares); 2. Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area (232 hectares); 3. Brokenback Conservation Area (58 hectares); and 4. Spring Gully Cliff Line Management Area (211 hectares). The BMP was prepared (in part) to document the existing ecological and rehabilitation monitoring commitments for the Project Area, considering current and approved operations. The aims of the ecological and rehabilitation monitoring program are to: demonstrate compliance in regards to the relevant federal and state approvals that apply to the project area; January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 2 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. provide the scientific basis for defining rehabilitation objectives and for developing closure criteria and a rehabilitation program that will facilitate lease relinquishment following closure; assess the long-term stability and functioning of re-established ecosystems within post-mining rehabilitation areas, as well as revegetated areas within the Biodiversity Offset and Management. Microbats were surveyed at nineteen general fauna monitoring sites across many of the above areas as well as targeted sites along clifflines for subsidence impact monitoring. Subsidence impact monitoring will focus on the identification of roosting/breeding habitat of threatened bat species and any observable impacts to these species. Bat species at each site were surveyed through captures in harp traps and through recording and subsequent analysis of echolocation calls. In accordance with the Ulan West Subsidence Monitoring Program (ULN SD ANN 0064) pre- mining monitoring for microbats along clifflines was undertaken prior to longwall mining of Ulan West Longwalls 1-3 in September 2013. Sites with potential roosting/breeding habitat or a high level of activity were selected from those found during the pre-mining survey for ongoing annual monitoring until 2 years post mining. Pre-mining survey for Ulan West Longwall 4 was conducted in January 2015 and selected sites were monitored in the annual monitoring conducted in December 2015. In accordance with the Underground No.3. (UG3) Subsidence Monitoring Program (ULN SD PLN 0061) pre-mining monitoring for microbats along clifflines was undertaken prior to longwall mining of Underground No.3. Longwalls West 3 & 4 in December 2014. Sites with potential roosting/breeding habitat or a high level of activity were selected from those found during the pre-mining survey for ongoing annual monitoring until 2 years post mining. January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 3 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. 2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY a General Fauna Sites Nineteen sites were sampled for bats through captures using collapsible harp traps (Tidemann & Woodside, 1978) as well as recording and subsequent analysis of echolocation calls via Anabat II detectors. Each site was sampled for three consecutive nights with harp traps and had echolocation call recording undertaken for a minimum of two complete nights. Echolocation calls were recorded for subsequent analysis. Bats captured in harp traps were identified, measured and fitted with an identification band. Survey for bats in forest above existing and planned underground workings was undertaken from 24th April to 4th May and 1st to 9th December 2015. Ten of the sites were sampled during April and May 2015 and the remaining nine sites were sampled during December. The location of the nineteen general fauna monitoring sites are as follows; Bobadeen Corridor 1 (BC1) 761520E 6436115N Durridgere 8833-1-S Bobadeen Offset 1 (BO1) 757171E 6435205N Narragamba 8833-4-S Bobadeen Offset 2 (BO2) 760452E 6435200N Durridgere 8833-1-S Bobadeen Offset 3 (BO3) 757453E 6436742N Narragamba 8833-4-S Bobadeen Offset 4 (BO4) 759186E 6436912N Narragamba 8833-4-S Bobadeen East 1 (BE1) 762922E 6436183N Durridgere 8833-1-S Bobadeen East 2 (BE2) 763374E 6438349N Durridgere 8833-1-S Spring Gully 1 (CR) 760096E 6433625N Durridgere 8833-1-S Infrastructure 1 (INF1) 754636E 6431861N Narragamba 8833-4-S Infrastructure 2 (INF2) 755148E 6437151N Narragamba 8833-4-S Infrastructure 3 (INF3) 755352E 6438919N Narragamba 8833-4-S Infrastructure 4 (INF4) 758717E 6439744N Durridgere 8833-1-S Residual 1 (RES1) 758719E 6432538N Narragamba 8833-4-S Residual 2 (RES2) 756620E 6433058N Narragamba 8833-4-S Residual 3 (RES3) 752509E 6434120N Narragamba 8833-4-S Residual 4 (RES4) 759263E 6439041N Durridgere 8833-1-S Residual 5 (RES5) 755562E 6442346N Narragamba 8833-4-S Open Cut 1 (OC1) 759955E 6426893N Narragamba 8833-4-S Open Cut 3 (OC3) 758345E 6428917N Narragamba 8833-4-S January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 4 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. Figure 1 General fauna sites sampled for microbats during 2015. January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 5 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. B Targeted Microbat Sites Nineteen sites were sampled for microbats through captures using collapsible harp traps (Tidemann & Woodside, 1978) and/or the recording and subsequent analysis of echolocation calls via Anabat II detectors. Due to unsuitability of the sites or their remoteness no harp trapping was undertaken at sites BD9, UTN1, SG5, UG9, VW3, VW4, UW4 & UW8. Each site had echolocation call recording undertaken for two complete nights. Echolocation calls were recorded onto storage zcaims for subsequent analysis. Bats were captured in harp traps which were left in place for two nights. Bats captured in harp traps were identified, measured and fitted with an identification band. Survey for microbats at the targeted cliffline sites was undertaken from 24th April to 4th May and 1st to 9th December 2015. Eight control targeted microbat cliffline sites which will not be undermined were sampled; BD6 753428E 6436595N Narragamba 8833-4-S H,E BD7 753052E 6436594N Narragamba 8833-4-S H,E BD8 752671E 6436618N Narragamba 8833-4-S H,E BD9 751864E 6436925N Narragamba 8833-4-S E SG5 761877E 6432689N Durridgere 8833-1-S E SG7 761427E 6432729N Durridgere 8833-1-S H,E SG8 761438E 6432916N Durridgere 8833-1-S H,E UG1 756847E 6431191N Durridgere 8833-1-S H,E Site E which is a temporary control site above Ulan West Longwall 7. This site was added to the monitoring program due to the continued presence of the Large–eared Pied Bat at this site over a considerable period E 754050E 6435900N Narragamba 8833-4-S H,E Sites recently or currently located above underground mining; UTN1 UW LW1 756586E 6433823N Narragamba 8833-4-S E VW3 UW LW2 756229E 6434374N Narragamba 8833-4-S E January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 6 __________________________________________________________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bat Conservation 2021
    Bat Conservation Global evidence for the effects of interventions 2021 Edition Anna Berthinussen, Olivia C. Richardson & John D. Altringham Conservation Evidence Series Synopses 2 © 2021 William J. Sutherland This document should be cited as: Berthinussen, A., Richardson O.C. and Altringham J.D. (2021) Bat Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Cover image: Leucistic lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros hibernating in a former water mill, Wales, UK. Credit: Thomas Kitching Digital material and resources associated with this synopsis are available at https://www.conservationevidence.com/ 3 Contents Advisory Board.................................................................................... 11 About the authors ............................................................................... 12 Acknowledgements ............................................................................. 13 1. About this book ........................................................... 14 1.1 The Conservation Evidence project ................................................................................. 14 1.2 The purpose of Conservation Evidence synopses ............................................................ 14 1.3 Who this synopsis is for ................................................................................................... 15 1.4 Background .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Statement on the Coverage of Bats by the Current Pesticide Risk
    STATEMENT ADOPTED: 20 June 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5758 Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR), Antonio Hernandez-Jerez, Paulien Adriaanse, Annette Aldrich, Philippe Berny, Tamara Coja, Sabine Duquesne, Anne Louise Gimsing, Marinovich Marina, Maurice Millet, Olavi Pelkonen, Silvia Pieper, Aaldrik Tiktak, Ioanna Tzoulaki, Anneli Widenfalk, Gerrit Wolterink, Danilo Russo, Franz Streissl and Christopher Topping Abstract Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test-species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat-specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Bat Hair Morphology Exceptional?
    Vespertilio 17: 171–183, 2014 ISSN 1213-6123 Is bat hair morphology exceptional? Britten D. SESSIONS1, Chanell E. Nielson2, John M. SOWA3, Wilford M. HESS4, Wesley “Skip” Skidmore5 & Bradley A. Carmack6 1 Patent Attorney, Zilka-Kotab, 1155 N. First Street Ste. 105, San Jose, CA 95112, U.S.A.; [email protected] 2 Department of English, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A. 3 Department of Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A. 4 Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A. 5 Life Sciences Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, U.S.A. 6 HR Professional, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, U.S.A. Abstract. Surface hair scale patterns from 19 bat species (families Vespertilionidae and Molossidae) from Utah were studied using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Hair width, scale length, pattern, and position in relation to the long axis were used to characterize morphology within species, and fa- milies within the order Chiroptera. Previous studies indicate variations within families. Hair morphology results make it evident that large variations and similarities within the families can be seen visually and codified for the order. In the family Vespertilionidae, variations in hair morphology necessitated better terminology, including two new terms for morphology patterns. In the family Molossidae, distinctions between species, and possibly within the family, may be evident using SEM imaging to characterize morphology characteristics, although only two species were studied in this family. More precise morpho- logical measurements than used for this study may be necessary to construct useful keys for species within at least some families of bat.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008
    The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008 The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter Number 39 November 2012 ABS Website: http://abs.ausbats.org.au ABS Discussion list - email: [email protected] ISSN 1448-5877 © Copyright The Australasian Bat Society, Inc. (2012) The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008 The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 39, November 2012 – Instructions for Contributors – The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter will accept contributions under one of the following two sections: Research Papers, and all other articles or notes. There are two deadlines each year: 10th March for the April issue, and 10th October for the November issue. The Editor reserves the right to hold over contributions for subsequent issues of the Newsletter, and meeting the deadline is not a guarantee of immediate publication. Opinions expressed in contributions to the Newsletter are the responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australasian Bat Society, its Executive or members. For consistency, the following guidelines should be followed: Emailed electronic copy of manuscripts or articles, sent as an attachment, is the preferred method of submission. Faxed and hard copy manuscripts will be accepted but reluctantly! Please send all submissions to the Newsletter Editor at the email or postal address below. Electronic copy should be in 11 point Arial font, left and right justified with 16 mm left and right margins. Please use Microsoft Word; any version is acceptable. Manuscripts should be submitted in clear, concise English and free from typographical and spelling errors. Please leave two spaces after each sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Utilization by Foraging Eastern Red Bats (Lasiurus Borealis) in the Ozark Region of Missouri
    The Journal of Wildlife Management 78(3):483–493; 2014; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.685 Habitat Relations Resource Utilization by Foraging Eastern Red Bats (Lasiurus borealis) in the Ozark Region of Missouri SYBILL K. AMELON,1 Northern Research Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 202 Natural Resource Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA FRANK R. THOMPSON III, Northern Research Station, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 202 Natural Resource Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA JOSHUA J. MILLSPAUGH, University of Missouri, 302 Natural Resource Building, Columbia, MO 65211, USA ABSTRACT Resource selection by animals influences ecological processes such as dispersal, reproduction, foraging, and migration. Little information exists regarding foraging resource selection by bats during the maternity season. We evaluated support for effects of landcover type, landform, and landscape pattern on resource selection by individual foraging female eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis) during the maternity period and compared resource utilization for all individuals pooled (population level), individuals grouped by geographic location, and individuals grouped by stage of lactation (early, mid, and late). We used a resource utilization function (RUF) to relate landcover and landscape attributes to the utilization distributions of individual bats estimated by the fixed-kernel method. We radio-tracked 64 lactating red bats and estimated utilization distributions for 52 individuals. Mean home range size ranged from 1,041 to 1,588 ha from late to mid lactation. The global RUF model was significantly better than the null RUF model for 36 (70%) individuals and the magnitude and direction of coefficients varied among individuals. Resource utilization at the population level was, on average, positively related to ridges and upland drainage landforms, water landcover, and road density; and negatively related to urban and nonforest landcover and distance to edge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cause and Effect of Bat Wing Tears in Common Pipistrelle Bats (Pipistrellus Pipistrellus)
    The Cause and Effect of Bat Wing Tears in Common Pipistrelle Bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) R O Khayat PhD 2019 The Cause and Effect of Bat Wing Tears in Common Pipistrelle Bats (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) Rana Osama S Khayat A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Natural Sciences Manchester Metropolitan University 2019 i Abstract Bats represent a quarter of all mammalian species and play vital roles in many ecosystems. They are also are the only mammals capable of powered flight and have large, light, thin wings to enable flight. However, bats face many threats, including collisions with man-made structures, fungal infections and predator attacks, all of which can cause severe wing injuries. Hundreds of bats are admitted annually for care to treat torn and injured wings. This thesis aims to investigate the causes and effects of bat wing tears. In a series of studies, this thesis will: i) characterise wing tears in P. pipistrellus and other bat species in the UK; ii) explore the anatomy of the wing in P. pipistrellus, and see if knowledge of the anatomy is sufficient to understand wing tear placement and healing rates; iii) present a novel method for analysing flight from high-speed video data to assess the effect of tears on flight; and iv) develop a systematic forensic method to identify the presence of cat DNA on wing tears. Results from Chapter 2 indicate that most tears occurred in the Plagiopatagium wing section (section P), which is closest to the body.
    [Show full text]
  • Flora and Fauna Report
    Flora and Fauna Report Heathcote Hall Residential Development Prepared for Fuzortinn Pty Ltd 7 December 2017 Heathcote Hall Residential Development - Flora and Fauna Assessment DOCUMENT TRACKING Item Detail Project Name Heathcote Hall Residential Development, Flora and Fauna Report Project Number 3199 Karen Spicer Project Manager 8536 8633 Suite 2, Level 3, 668-672 Old Princes Highway, Sutherland NSW 2232 Prepared by Karen Spicer Reviewed by Meredith Henderson and Brian Towle Approved by Beth Medway Status Final Version Number V2 Last saved on 7 December 2017 Cover photo Photos within the study area, K. Spicer 2015 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2017. Heathcote Hall Flora and Fauna Report. Prepared for Fuzortinn Pty Ltd.’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from John Innes of Fuzortinn Pty Ltd and Gustavo Thiermann from Ink Architects. Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Fuzortinn PL. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Fuzortinn PL by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Epbc Protected Matters
    EPBC Act Protected Matters Report This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected. Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report. Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details. Report created: 08/07/15 18:21:20 Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010 Coordinates Buffer: 10.0Km Summary Matters of National Environmental Significance This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance. World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: 2 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 6 Listed Threatened Species: 40 Listed Migratory Species: 13 Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Megabats Flying Primates? Contrary Evidence from a Mitochondrial DNA Sequence
    Aust. J. Bioi. Sci., 1988, 41, 327-32 Are Megabats Flying Primates? Contrary Evidence from a Mitochondrial DNA Sequence S. Bennett,A L. J. Alexander,A R. H. CrozierB,c and A. G. MackinlayA,c A School of Biochemistry, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, N.S.W. 2033. B School of Biological Science, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington, N.S.W. 2033. C To whom reprint requests should be addressed. Abstract Bats (Chiroptera) are divided into the suborders Megachiroptera (fruit bats, 'megabats') and Micro­ chiroptera (predominantly insectivores, 'microbats'). It had been found that megabats and primates share a connection system between the retina and the midbrain not seen in microbats or other eutherian mammals, and challenging but plausible hypotheses were made that (a) bats are diphyletic and (b) megabats are flying primates. We obtained two DNA sequences from the mitochondrion of the fruit bat Pteropus poliocephalus, and performed phylogenetic analyses using the bat sequences in conjunction with homologous Drosophila, mouse, cow and human sequences. Two trees stand out as significantly more likely than any other; neither of these links the bat and human as the closest sequences. These results cast considerable doubt on the hypothesis that megabats are particularly close to primates. Introduction Various phylogenetic schemes based on morphology have linked bats and primates, such as in McKenna's (1975) grandorder Archonta, which also includes the Dermoptera (flying lemurs) and Scandentia (tree shrews). Molecular systematists, using immunological comparisons and amino acid sequences, have found that bats are not placed particularly close to primates, and that they are not diphyletic (Cronin and Sarich 1980; Dene et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Boxes: Creating Homes for Urban Wildlife
    Nest Boxes: Creating homes for urban wildlife Importance of Hollows Australia is home to over 350 species of land animals that depend on the hollows that form in old growth eucalyptus trees for shelter or reproduction. Hollows are formed through loss of limb, insect activity (like termites), decay and weathering. Suitable hollows taken a minimum of 80- 100 years and for larger animals it could be 150-250 years for a suitable hollow to form. Some of the many animals in Australia that rely on tree hollows include parrots, owls, kingfishers, ducks, possums, gliders, micro bats and even many reptiles, frogs and invertebrates. Within urban areas hollow bearing trees are found on public land (national parks, water ways, beach foreshore and streets) and on private land (front and back yards). Many hollow dependent species are in decline due to the widespread loss of hollow bearing trees. In urban areas hollows are removed for urban development (new houses, roads and factories) and for public safety reasons. Even if these trees are replanted, up to 100 years or more may pass before they begin to form hollows suitable for use by wildlife. If hollow dependent species are to continue to survive in urban and rural areas, urgent action is required to protect hollow bearing trees wherever possible. Nest boxes are needed in areas where hollows have already been lost. What are Nest Boxes? Nest boxes act as an artificial hollow that provide opportunities for hollow dependent fauna to survive in areas where their natural breeding habitat has been destroyed. Nest boxes are most useful in areas where hollows are lacking and other aspects of habitat are sufficient, such as food and water supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Brigalow Belt Bioregion – a Biodiversity Jewel
    Brigalow Belt bioregion – a biodiversity jewel Brigalow habitat © Craig Eddie What is brigalow? including eucalypt and cypress pine forests and The term ‘brigalow’ is used simultaneously to refer to; woodlands, grasslands and other Acacia dominated the tree Acacia harpophylla; an ecological community ecosystems. dominated by this tree and often found in conjunction with other species such as belah, wilga and false Along the eastern boundary of the Brigalow Belt are sandalwood; and a broader region where this species scattered patches of semi-evergreen vine thickets with and ecological community are present. bright green canopy species that are highly visible among the more silvery brigalow communities. These The Brigalow Belt bioregion patches are a dry adapted form of rainforest, relics of a much wetter past. The Brigalow Belt bioregion is a large and complex area covering 36,400 000ha. The region is thus recognised What are the issues? by the Australian Government as a biodiversity hotspot. Nature conservation in the region has received increasing attention because of the rapid and extensive This hotspot contains some of the most threatened loss of habitat that has occurred. Since World War wildlife in the world, including populations of the II the Brigalow Belt bioregion has become a major endangered bridled nail-tail wallaby and the only agricultural and pastoral area. Broad-scale clearing for remaining wild population of the endangered northern agriculture and unsustainable grazing has fragmented hairy-nosed wombat. The area contains important the original vegetation in the past, particularly on habitat for rare and threatened species including the, lowland areas. glossy black-cockatoo, bulloak jewel butterfl y, brigalow scaly-foot, red goshawk, little pied bat, golden-tailed geckos and threatened community of semi evergreen Biodiversity hotspots are areas that support vine thickets.
    [Show full text]