Trachystoma Petardi

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Trachystoma Petardi THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Minister decided that this species was not eligible for listing as threatened on 01/02/2018 Listing Advice Trachystoma petardi pinkeye mullet Taxonomy Conventionally accepted as Trachystoma petardi (Castelnau 1875). Synonym of Myxus petardi (Castelnau 1875). The species has been referred to as both Myxus petardi and Trachystoma petardi (Durand et al., 2012a, 2012b). Analysis of mitochondrial-DNA found that the species Trachystoma petardi (found only on the east coast of Australia) was clearly distinct from mullet in the genus Myxus (Durand et al., 2012a; 2012b). It is the only species in its genus (Durand et al, 2012a). Summary of assessment Conservation status Not eligible. The Committee judges that Trachystoma petardi is not eligible for listing as a threatened species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Species can be listed as threatened under state and territory legislation. For information on the listing status of this species under relevant state or territory legislation, see http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl Reason for conservation assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee This advice follows assessment of information provided by a nomination from the public. Public consultation Notice of the proposed amendment and a consultation document was made available for public comment for 35 business days between 16 June 2017 and 4 August 2017. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Committee as part of the assessment process. Species/sub-species information Description Pinkeye mullet are medium, stout, diadromous fish (migrate between fresh and salt water habitats) which are known to grow to a maximum length of 58.1 cm from NSW DPI Fisheries records of the species (NSW FSC, pers. comm. 2017), but another source reports the species to 80 cm (Thomson 1996). Pinkeye mullet differ from Mugil cephalus (sea mullet), which are common in the estuaries of eastern Australia, by having a smaller, more slender and pointed snout. The species is dark olive-green in colour on the back with a silvery belly (Thomson 1996; Allen et al., 2002). Fins are pale-yellow and the eye is gold to pinkish (Thomson 1996; Allen Trachystoma petardi (pinkeye mullet) Listing Advice Page 1 of 13 et al., 2002). The species exhibits sexual dimorphism in a number of physical characters such as the positioning of dorsal and anal fins along the main body axis (Grant et al., 1977). Distribution Pinkeye mullet inhabit the freshwater and estuarine reaches of eastern draining river systems from Water Park Creek (just north of the Fitzroy River mouth) in Queensland south to the Merimbula Lake catchment in southern New South Wales (Thomson 1996; Allen et al., 2002; Miles 2007; Donaldson et al., 2012; MV 2017; QM 2017; QWD 2017). While the northern limit of the pinkeye mullet distribution was thought to be the Burnett River in Queensland, a survey in 2011 detected the species in Water Park Creek, which is approximately 270 km north of the Burnett River mouth (Donaldson et al., 2012). The southern limit of the pinkeye mullet distribution was thought to be at the Clyde River at Batemans Bay, southern New South Wales (Thomson 1996; Allen et al., 2002). However, 21 individuals were collected in 1999 from Millingandi Creek, within the Merimbula Lake catchment further south in New South Wales (MV 2017). In 2006, an individual was collected by NSW Fisheries from the Brogo River which is part of the Bega River catchment to the north of Merimbula Lake but south of the Clyde River (AM 2017). It has been suggested that pinkeye mullet prefer the deep pools and gently flowing sections of rivers, often occurring in small shoals (Thomson 1996). Recent acoustic telemetry studies have suggested a catadromous life history (Miles et al., 2014; Qld DNRM 2016; NSW DPI pers. comm. 2017). The species is tolerant of water temperatures between 9 and 27°C (Allen et al., 2002). Cultural significance Mullet in the Mary River catchment are regarded as being culturally significant by Indigenous groups. One elder of the Kabi Kabi group has reported that the mullet is a totem of the area around Gympie (Bargo pers. comm., 2012). Relevant biology/ecology Pinkeye mullet have long been assumed to spawn during February (Thomson 1996; Allen et al., 2002). A recent study found that in southern Queensland, the species’ spawning season can extend into April (Qld DNRM 2016). A study on otolith chemistry proposed that the species may have an amphidromous life history (Miles et al., 2009), however recent acoustic telemetry studies indicate that pinkeye mullet migrate to the lower estuary, but remain there for only a short time before migrating back upstream, which is indicative more of a catadromous life history (Miles et al., 2014; Qld DNRM 2016; NSW DPI pers. comm. 2017). NSW DPI Fisheries acoustic telemetry data indicates that spawning occurs at the freshwater tidal limit and upper estuary (NSW FSC pers. comm. 2017). This is not inconsistent with a similar study in the Logan River catchment in southeast Queensland, which indicated a downstream spawning migration of pinkeye mullet occurred during large river flows between February and April (Qld DNRM 2016). Pinkeye mullet migrations stopped near the river mouth, where salinity conditions were relatively fresh (0–5 ppt), before quickly returning to upstream habitats (Qld DNRM 2016). It would appear further study needs to focus on the physical and water chemical requirements for spawning and spawning locations for the species within estuaries (Harding pers. comm. 2017). The species appears to reach maturity at four years with fecundity very high, with larger females producing between 1 000 000 – 3 000 000 eggs (Thomson 1996; Allen et al., 2002). Currently, Trachystoma petardi (pinkeye mullet) Listing Advice Page 2 of 13 the oldest known individual to be aged was 21 years at 39.4 cm long (G. Butler and C. Walsh unpub. data., cited in NSW FSC pers. comm. 2017) and given that the species has potential to grow considerably larger, to at least 58.1 cm, maximum life span may be somewhat higher than 21 years (NSW FSC pers. comm. 2017). In the absence of more data, using the known maximum age of 21 years generation length is estimated to be approximately 13.68 years. Pinkeye mullet feed on microscopic algae and other plant material, detritus and benthic invertebrates (Allen et al., 2002). Threats There has been little directed research into the threats impacting upon pinkeye mullet. There are indications that riparian vegetation degradation has “significantly” decreased abundances of the species (Growns et al., 1998). It is uncertain what level other threats are impacting on the species. Table 1 – Threats impacting the pinkeye mullet in approximate order of severity of risk, based on available evidence. Threat factor Threat Evidence base type and status Habitat loss, disturbance and modification Riparian known A study of fish assemblages in two reaches of the vegetation past, Hawkesbury-Nepean river system in New South Wales found degradation current that pinkeye mullet abundances were affected by riparian vegetation degradation (Growns et al., 1998). The mean suspected abundance of the species was higher near vegetated banks future than along degraded banks in both river reaches (Growns et al., 1998). Barriers to suspected Ensuring that pinkeye mullet have access to both freshwater movement past, and estuarine habitats is important (Anon 2014). While current, migration between river systems via nearshore oceanic future habitats is uncommon, there are some NSW DPI Fisheries data indicating that individuals do move between separated catchments via the sea (NSW FSC pers. comm. 2017). However, barriers to movement within river catchments are an important threatening process. An audit identified 3300 barriers to fish movement (weirs, dams, road crossings and floodgates) in coastal New South Wales catchments (Gordos et al., 2007). Following a fishway installation on Tallowa Dam on the Shoalhaven River in southern New South Wales, pinkeye mullet have been recorded in strong numbers below the dam wall indicating desire to migrate further upstream, but have not been detected above the dam wall (Walsh et al., 2014). A tagging study on the species which captured individuals downstream of Tallowa Dam and released them upstream of Trachystoma petardi (pinkeye mullet) Listing Advice Page 3 of 13 the dam, showed that 85% (17 of 20) tagged individuals successfully migrated downstream over the spillway with high rates of survivorship (Walsh et al., 2014). Only one individual made at least one return migration upstream through the fishway (Walsh et al., 2014), possibly indicating that downstream movement over the dam spillway is not adversely impacting the species here, but upstream movement may be inhibited and not adequately supported by the fishway. In the Burnett River in Queensland, the Ben Anderson Barrage is a 4 m high tidal barrier dividing fresh and estuarine waters. At the time of construction in 1974 it had a pool-and-weir fishway installed (SunWater 2010). In 1997, the fishway was upgraded to a “vertical-slot” style (SunWater 2010). However the species remains undetected in the Burnett River system, suggesting no recolonisation has occurred from populations further south (Anon 2014). In the Mary River catchment, anecdotal evidence suggests that pinkeye mullet are now locally extinct in Tinana Creek above the barrier created by Teddington Weir (Hutchison pers. comm. 2012). Anecdotal observations from the Logan River in southeast Queensland indicate that vertical slot fishways appear to be more effective for allowing passage for pinkeye mullet than lock style (fish lift) fishways (Harding pers. comm. 2017). This is consistent with results from a study in the Hawkesbury- Nepean catchment in New South Wales, whereby upstream distribution of pinkeye mullet, along with a range of other species, was dramatically improved following the retrofitting of ten weirs with vertical slot fishways (Duncan et al., 2016).
Recommended publications
  • Queensland Public Boat Ramps
    Queensland public boat ramps Ramp Location Ramp Location Atherton shire Brisbane city (cont.) Tinaroo (Church Street) Tinaroo Falls Dam Shorncliffe (Jetty Street) Cabbage Tree Creek Boat Harbour—north bank Balonne shire Shorncliffe (Sinbad Street) Cabbage Tree Creek Boat Harbour—north bank St George (Bowen Street) Jack Taylor Weir Shorncliffe (Yundah Street) Cabbage Tree Creek Boat Harbour—north bank Banana shire Wynnum (Glenora Street) Wynnum Creek—north bank Baralaba Weir Dawson River Broadsound shire Callide Dam Biloela—Calvale Road (lower ramp) Carmilla Beach (Carmilla Creek Road) Carmilla Creek—south bank, mouth of creek Callide Dam Biloela—Calvale Road (upper ramp) Clairview Beach (Colonial Drive) Clairview Beach Moura Dawson River—8 km west of Moura St Lawrence (Howards Road– Waverley Creek) Bund Creek—north bank Lake Victoria Callide Creek Bundaberg city Theodore Dawson River Bundaberg (Kirby’s Wall) Burnett River—south bank (5 km east of Bundaberg) Beaudesert shire Bundaberg (Queen Street) Burnett River—north bank (downstream) Logan River (Henderson Street– Henderson Reserve) Logan Reserve Bundaberg (Queen Street) Burnett River—north bank (upstream) Biggenden shire Burdekin shire Paradise Dam–Main Dam 500 m upstream from visitors centre Barramundi Creek (Morris Creek Road) via Hodel Road Boonah shire Cromarty Creek (Boat Ramp Road) via Giru (off the Haughton River) Groper Creek settlement Maroon Dam HG Slatter Park (Hinkson Esplanade) downstream from jetty Moogerah Dam AG Muller Park Groper Creek settlement Bowen shire (Hinkson
    [Show full text]
  • Christie Gallen, Kristie Thompson, Chris Paxman, Jochen Mueller
    2 0 1 4 - 2 0 1 5 Christie Gallen, Kristie Thompson, Chris Paxman, Jochen Mueller Project Team - Inshore Marine Water Quality Monitoring - Christie Gallen1, Chris Paxman1, Kristie Thompson1, Elissa O’Malley1, Natalia Montero Ruiz1, Jochen Mueller1 Project Team - Assessment of Terrestrial Run-off Entering the Reef: Christie Gallen1, Kristie Thompson1, Chris Paxman1, Jochen Mueller1, Eduardo Da Silva2, Dominique O’Brien2, Dieter Tracey2, Caroline Petus2, Michelle Devlin2 1The National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (Entox) The University of Queensland 39 Kessels Rd Coopers Plains Qld 4108 2 The Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), Catchment to Reef Processes Research Group, James Cook University Townsville, Qld 4811 © Copyright University of Queensland 2016 All rights are reserved and no part of this document may be reproduced, stored or copied in any form or by any means whatsoever except with the prior written permission of the University of Queensland. ISBN: 9781742721668 Report should be cited as: Gallen, C., Thompson, K., Paxman, C., Devlin, M., Mueller, J. (2016) Marine Monitoring Program. Annual Report for inshore pesticide monitoring: 2014 to 2015. Report for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The University of Queensland, The National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology (Entox), Brisbane. Front cover image: View south towards the Russell River National Park and the junction of the Russell and Mulgrave Rivers over flooded sugar fields © Dieter Tracey, 2015. DISCLAIMER While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this document are factually correct, Entox does not make any representation or give any warranty regarding the accuracy, completeness, currency or suitability for any particular purpose of the information or statements contained in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • Basin-Specific Ecologically Relevant Water Quality Targets for the Great Barrier Reef
    Development of basin-specific ecologically relevant water quality targets for the Great Barrier Reef Jon Brodie, Mark Baird, Jane Waterhouse, Mathieu Mongin, Jenny Skerratt, Cedric Robillot, Rachael Smith, Reinier Mann and Michael Warne TropWATER Report number 17/38 June 2017 Development of basin-specific ecologically relevant water quality targets for the Great Barrier Reef Report prepared by Jon Brodie1, Mark Baird2, Jane Waterhouse1, Mathieu Mongin2, Jenny Skerratt2, Cedric Robillot3, Rachael Smith4, Reinier Mann4 and Michael Warne4,5 2017 1James Cook University, 2CSIRO, 3eReefs, 4Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, 5Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom EHP16055 – Update and add to the existing 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement to incorporate the most recent science and to support the 2017 update of the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Input and review of the development of the targets provided by John Bennett, Catherine Collier, Peter Doherty, Miles Furnas, Carol Honchin, Frederieke Kroon, Roger Shaw, Carl Mitchell and Nyssa Henry throughout the project. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) James Cook University Townsville Phone: (07) 4781 4262 Email: [email protected] Web: www.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/ Citation: Brodie, J., Baird, M., Waterhouse, J., Mongin, M., Skerratt, J., Robillot, C., Smith, R., Mann, R., Warne, M., 2017. Development of basin-specific ecologically relevant water quality targets for the Great Barrier
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Ambient Network (Water Quality) 2020-21
    Surface Water Ambient Network (Water Quality) 2020-21 July 2020 This publication has been compiled by Natural Resources Divisional Support, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. © State of Queensland, 2020 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government 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. Summary This document lists the stream gauging stations which make up the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) surface water quality monitoring network. Data collected under this network are published on DNRME’s Water Monitoring Information Data Portal. The water quality data collected includes both logged time-series and manual water samples taken for later laboratory analysis. Other data types are also collected at stream gauging stations, including rainfall and stream height. Further information is available on the Water Monitoring Information Data Portal under each station listing.
    [Show full text]
  • Functioning and Changes in the Streamflow Generation of Catchments
    Ecohydrology in space and time: functioning and changes in the streamflow generation of catchments Ralph Trancoso Bachelor Forest Engineering Masters Tropical Forests Sciences Masters Applied Geosciences A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2016 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences Trancoso, R. (2016) PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland Abstract Surface freshwater yield is a service provided by catchments, which cycle water intake by partitioning precipitation into evapotranspiration and streamflow. Streamflow generation is experiencing changes globally due to climate- and human-induced changes currently taking place in catchments. However, the direct attribution of streamflow changes to specific catchment modification processes is challenging because catchment functioning results from multiple interactions among distinct drivers (i.e., climate, soils, topography and vegetation). These drivers have coevolved until ecohydrological equilibrium is achieved between the water and energy fluxes. Therefore, the coevolution of catchment drivers and their spatial heterogeneity makes their functioning and response to changes unique and poses a challenge to expanding our ecohydrological knowledge. Addressing these problems is crucial to enabling sustainable water resource management and water supply for society and ecosystems. This thesis explores an extensive dataset of catchments situated along a climatic gradient in eastern Australia to understand the spatial and temporal variation
    [Show full text]
  • Waterpark Creek Fishway Project James Donaldson, Matthew Moore & Tim Marsden
    Department of Employment, and Innovation Development Economic Department Waterpark Creek Fishway Project James Donaldson, Matthew Moore & Tim Marsden 1 © The State of Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, 2012. 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. For further information contact: Tim Marsden Fisheries Biologist Fisheries Queensland Ph: (07) 49670 724 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 and Fisheries, Queensland. Enquires should be addressed to: Deputy Director General (Fisheries) Fisheries Queensland GPO Box 46 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Cover Figure: Top: Waterpark Creek vertical slot fishway. Bottom left: Backpack electrofish sampling in Waterpark Ck. Bottom right: Bullrout, a diadromous species, sampled
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Network Review Final Report
    Surface Water Network Review Final Report 16 July 2018 This publication has been compiled by Operations Support - Water, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy. © State of Queensland, 2018 The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication. Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated. For more information on this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government 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. Interpreter statement: The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders from all culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. If you have difficulty in understanding this document, you can contact us within Australia on 13QGOV (13 74 68) and we will arrange an interpreter to effectively communicate the report to you. Surface
    [Show full text]
  • Burnett Basin) Plan 2000
    Queensland Water Act 2000 Water Resource (Burnett Basin) Plan 2000 Reprinted as in force on 18 December 2009 Reprint No. 2A This reprint is prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel Warning—This reprint is not an authorised copy Information about this reprint This plan is reprinted as at 18 December 2009. The reprint shows the law as amended by all amendments that commenced on or before that day (Reprints Act 1992 s 5(c)). The reprint includes a reference to the law by which each amendment was made—see list of legislation and list of annotations in endnotes. Also see list of legislation for any uncommenced amendments. This page is specific to this reprint. See previous reprints for information about earlier changes made under the Reprints Act 1992. A table of reprints is included in the endnotes. Also see endnotes for information about— • when provisions commenced • editorial changes made in earlier reprints. Spelling The spelling of certain words or phrases may be inconsistent in this reprint or with other reprints because of changes made in various editions of the Macquarie Dictionary (for example, in the dictionary, ‘lodgement’ has replaced ‘lodgment’). Variations of spelling will be updated in the next authorised reprint. Dates shown on reprints Reprints dated at last amendment All reprints produced on or after 1 July 2002, authorised (that is, hard copy) and unauthorised (that is, electronic), are dated as at the last date of amendment. Previously reprints were dated as at the date of publication. If an authorised reprint is dated earlier than an unauthorised version published before 1 July 2002, it means the legislation was not further amended and the reprint date is the commencement of the last amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from the SKM Website at Management/STEDI.Aspx
    Department of Environment and Resource Management Improved Assessment of the Impact of Stock and Domestic Farm Dams in Queensland STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT: REPORT 2 Hydrological assessment of stock and domestic farm dams in Queensland Final 28 March 2012 Department of Environment and Resource Management Improved Assessment of the Impact of Stock and Domestic Farm Dams in Queensland STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT: REPORT 2 Hydrological assessment of stock and domestic farm dams in Queensland Final 28 March 2012 This project was funded by the Australian Government through the National Water Commission’s Raising National Water Standards Program. Sinclair Knight Merz ABN 37 001 024 095 Cnr of Cordelia and Russell Street South Brisbane QLD 4101 Australia PO Box 3848 South Brisbane QLD 4101 Australia Tel: +61 7 3026 7100 Fax: +61 7 3026 7300 Web: www.globalskm.com COPYRIGHT: This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced by any process, nor may any other exclusive right be exercised, without the permission of the Department of Environment and Resource Management, 2012. LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party. The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • A) Marine Status
    Status of marine and coastal natural assets in the Fitzroy Basin September 2015 Prepared by Johanna Johnson, Jon Brodie and Nicole Flint for the Fitzroy Basin Association Incorporated Version 6: 01 November 2015 Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Coastal natural assets: status and trends ....................................................................................... 5 2.1. Estuaries .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Coastal wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. Islands and cays .................................................................................................................... 12 3. Marine assets: status and trends .................................................................................................. 14 3.1. Coral reefs ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.2. Seagrass meadows ................................................................................................................ 21 3.3. Species of conservation interest ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Commercial Dugong and Marine Turtle Fisheries, 1847–1969
    Australian Economic History Review, Vol. 48, No. 3 November 2008 ISSN 0004-8992 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8446.2008.00240.x EXPLOITING MARINE WILDLIFE IN QUEENSLAND: THE COMMERCIAL DUGONG AND MARINE TURTLE FISHERIES, 1847–1969 By Ben Daley,Peter Griggs and Helene Marsh James Cook University The historical exploitation of marine resources in Queensland has only been partially documented. In particular, the history of the commercial fishing of dugongs and marine turtles has received comparatively little scholarly attention. Since European settlement in Queensland, various human activities have exploited these resources. We present documentary and oral history evidence of the scale of those industries. Based on extensive archival and oral history research, we argue that diverse fishing practices occurred and that the sustained exploitation of dugongs, green turtles, and hawksbill turtles led to observable declines in the numbers of these animals – now species of conservation concern. JEL categories: N57, O13, Q22, Q29, Q57 Keywords: commercial fisheries, dugongs, Great Barrier Reef, marine turtles, Australia INTRODUCTION Europeans began settling what was to become the British colony of Queensland in northeast Australia from the 1820s onwards. Here they encountered a land that contained abundant resources that could be exploited: forests rich in red cedar; minerals, particularly gold, coal, tin and copper; and fertile soils that supported crops of sugar cane, maize, and wheat. Well-grassed land enabled a thriving pastoral industry to be established rapidly and dairying was flourishing in the better-watered parts of southern Queensland by 1900.1 The coastal waters were also resource-rich, containing pearl-shell, bêche-de-mer, marine turtles, dugongs, 1 For the best general account of the exploitation of Queensland’s resources until 1915, see Fitzgerald, From the Dreaming to 1915.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Nutrient Usage in Coastal Queensland River Catchments Adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
    RESEARCH PUBLICATION No. 40 Historical Nutrient Usage in Coastal Queensland River Catchments Adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park J. S. Pulsford March 1993 A REPORT TO THE GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY © Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 1996 ISSN 1037-1508 ISBN 0 642 23011 0 Published July 1996 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority The opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. National library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data: Pulsford, j. S. (jim 5.). Historical nutrient usage in coastal Queensland river catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Bibliography. ISBN 0 642 23011 O. 1. Water - Nitrogen content - Queensland - Great Barrier Reef. 2. Water - Queensland - Great Barrier Reef ­ Phosphorus content. 3. Fertilizers - Environmental aspects. I. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia). (Series: Research publication (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Australia)); no. 40). 333.916409943 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority PO Box 1379 Townsville Qld 4810 Telephone (077) 500 700 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. METHOD OF ALLOCATION OF NUTRIENTS TO BASINS 5 2.1 Queensland Data " 5 2.2 Statistical Divisions 5 2.3 Local Authority Areas 6 2.4 Using Australian Bureau of Statistics Data to Obtain Nutrient Usages 7 2.5 Fertilizer Indust,)' Data 8 2.6 Drainage Basins 9 2.7 Allocation of Nutrients to Basins 10 3. NUTRIENT USAGE IN SOME EASTERN QUEENSLAND BASINS 12 3. I Nitrogen Usage 12 3.2 PhosphoI1ls Usage 17 3.3 1990 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Usage Relative to Basin Areas 24 3.4 1990 Nitrogen and Phosphorus Usage Relative to Basin Run-off.
    [Show full text]