DOCSLIB.ORG

Review-Of-Wildlife-Monitoring-Priorities.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Review of Wildlife Monitoring Priorities Review of Review Wildlife Monitoring Wildlife Priorities CONTACT DETAILS Michael Driessen and Gregory Hocking Resource Management & Conservation Division GPO Box 44 Hobart TAS 7001 Nature Conservation Report 08/02 Department of Primary Industries and Water Review of Wildlife Monitoring Priorities for the Department of Primary Industries and Water Michael Driessen and Gregory Hocking Nature Conservation Report 08/02 Review of Wildlife Monitoring Priorities Michael M Driessen and Gregory J Hocking Resource Management and Conservation Division Department of Primary Industries and Water Nature Conservation Report 08/02 ISSN 1441-0680 Copyright is assigned to the Crown. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any means without written permission. Published by: Biodiversity Conservation Branch Resource Management and Conservation Division Department of Primary Industries and Water PO Box 44 Hobart, Tasmania, 7001 Australia June 2008 Cover Design: Brett Littleton Cover images: Top - Melissa Giese, bottom (L to R) - Drew Lee, Michael Driessen, Chris Green, Steve Johnson Suggested citation: Driessen, M. M. and Hocking, G. J. (2008). Review of Wildlife Monitoring Priorities. Nature Conservation Report 08/02. Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania SUMMARY The Department of Primary Industries and Water’s wildlife monitoring priorities were reviewed to develop strategies to improve the way the agency conducts its wildlife monitoring. We developed a decision key that sets monitoring priorities for the following groups of species: (1) species that are listed as threatened, (2) species subject to a potential threat, (3) species that are harvested/culled, and (4) introduced animal species. We compared priorities for wildlife monitoring as determined by the decision key with what is currently monitored by the department. Currently, staff within the Resource Management and Conservation Division monitors over 40 species of wildlife. Most of these species are either harvested species or threatened species. All harvested/culled species ranked as highest priority for monitoring, Priority 1 (seven species), and second highest priority for monitoring, Priority 2 (seven species), are subject to some level of monitoring. For species subject to a potential threat, over half of the Priority 1 species (four species out of seven) and only one out of six Priority 2 species are currently subject to some level of monitoring; however, monitoring programs are currently being developed for most of the remaining species. For introduced animal species, virtually all Priority 1 (five species out of six) and over half of Priority 2 (six out of ten) species are subject to some level of monitoring. Only 40% (18 species out of 49) of Priority 1 and 22% (6 species out of 27) of Priority 2 threatened species are currently subject to some level of monitoring. Factors contributing to the low proportion of threatened species that are monitored include; the large number of threatened species, practical difficulties associated with monitoring some species threatened species (eg invertebrates), limited resources and a reliance on external funding. A small number of threatened species are monitored by other organisations. We made a number of recommendations in this review to ensure that priority species of wildlife are being monitored using appropriate scientific methods and that the information gathered is appropriately stored, managed and disseminated. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This review was funded by the Tasmanian Government. We thank all staff in the Resource Management and Conservation Division of the Department of Primary Industries and Water who provided information on monitoring programs for which they are responsible. We also thank the following for comments and suggestions on draft versions of this review; Stewart Blackhall, Gary Davies, Rosemary Gales, Graham Hall, Michael Pemberton and John Whittington. ii CONTENTS SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... II 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Goal................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Requirement for the Review and Governance................................................................ 2 1.3 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Types of Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 3 2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING WILDLIFE MONITORING PROGRAMS ..................................... 3 2.1 Species that are listed as Threatened ............................................................................ 4 2.2 Species Subject to a Potential Threat............................................................................. 5 2.3 Species that are Harvested/Culled ................................................................................. 5 2.4 Introduced Animal Species ............................................................................................. 6 2.5 Species Monitored for Other Reasons............................................................................ 6 3.0 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PRIORITIES FOR WILDLIFE MONITORING ............... 7 3.1 Legal Requirement.......................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Extent of Occurrence and Abundance............................................................................ 7 3.3 Conservation Status........................................................................................................ 7 3.4 Occasional Visitors ......................................................................................................... 7 3.5 Level of Harvesting/Culling ............................................................................................. 8 3.6 Potential Threats............................................................................................................. 8 3.7 Negative Environmental Impact...................................................................................... 9 3.8 Other Criteria................................................................................................................... 9 4.0 DECISION KEY FOR DETERMINING PRIORITIES FOR MONITORING....................... 11 5.0 APPLICATION OF CRITERIA.......................................................................................... 14 5.1 Species that are Listed as Threatened ......................................................................... 14 5.2 Species Subject to a Potential Threat........................................................................... 15 5.3 Species that are Harvested/Culled ............................................................................... 15 5.4 Introduced Animal Species ........................................................................................... 16 6.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT MONITORING AND PRIORITIES FOR MONITORING................................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Species that are Listed as Threatened ......................................................................... 16 6.2 Species Subject to a Potential Threat........................................................................... 16 6.3 Species that are Harvested/Culled ............................................................................... 16 6.4 Introduced Animal Species ........................................................................................... 16 7.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 30 8.0 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 31 9.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX I CURRENT AND HISTORICAL WILDLIFE MONITORING PROGRAMS ............ 35 iii iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION Wildlife monitoring is an integral part of a wildlife management and conservation program that informs managers of the success or otherwise of their programs. According to Caughley and Sinclair (1994) there are only four ways a wildlife population may be managed: make it increase, make it decrease, harvest it for a continuing yield, and leave it alone but ‘keep an eye on it’. A recent assessment of conservation monitoring in Australia (Field et al . 2007) revealed a pervasive lack of rigour in analysing, reporting and responding to the results of data collected, and millions of dollars are currently being wasted on monitoring programs that have no realistic chance of detecting changes in the variables of interest. This assessment recognised three fundamental problems that have contributed to this situation: • Funding – in particular commitment needs to be sufficiently long-term to allow a change
Recommended publications
  • Phrantela Iredale, 1943

    Phrantela Iredale, 1943

    Phrantela Iredale, 1943 Diagnostic features Shell pupiform to conic to trochiform, small to medium size for family (between about 1.7 and 7.0 mm in maximum dimension). Periostracum thin to well developed, colourless to dark brown. Teleoconch sculpture usually of faint, prosocline growth lines, weak spiral threads sometimes present; periphery of last whorl usually evenly rounded, sometimes subangled, rarely sharply angled. Aperture ovate, inner lip thin and narrow, columellar swelling typically absent (weakly developed in one taxon). Outer lip thin, slightly opisthocline to prosocline. Umbilicus wide to small, or closed and represented by chink. Operculum oval, thin, transparent pale yellow, simple, with eccentric nucleus. Bursa copulatrix in the female genital system reaches to the posterior pallial wall [or (rarely) almost reaches it or extends into the pallial roof] and has the duct emerging from the ventro-posterior comer. This is one of the main anatomical features that distinguishes this taxon from Beddomeia. The pallial genital ducts in both males and females are thinner in section than in Beddomeia and the female genital opening is typically slit-like, rather than a short, pore-like opening. Generally a posterior pallial tentacle is present. Classification Class Gastropoda Infraclass Caenogastropoda Order Littorinida Suborder Rissoidina Superfamily Truncatelloidea Family Tateidae Genus Phrantela redale, 1943 Type species: Potamopyrgus (?) marginata Petterd, 1889 by original designation. Original reference: redale, T. (1943). A basic list of the fresh water Mollusca of Australia. The Australian Zoologist 10: 188ĕ230. Type locality: A small trickling stream near Heazlewood River, Tasmania Biology and ecology n rivers, streams and seeps, and under small waterfalls.
  • DI 136Of2002.Rtf

    DI 136Of2002.Rtf

    Australian Capital Territory Nature Conservation Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna 2002 (No. 1) Disallowable instrument DI2002— 136 made under the Nature Conservation Act 1980, s 17 (Declaration of Protected and Exempt Flora and Fauna) I revoke all previous determinations under section 17 of the Nature Conservation Act 1980. I declare the species listed in schedule 1 to be protected fish and protected invertebrates. I declare the species listed in schedule 2 to be exempt animals. I declare the species listed in schedule 3 to be protected native plants. I declare the species listed in schedule 4 to be protected native animals. Dr Maxine Cooper Conservator of Flora and Fauna 28 June 2002 SCHEDULE 1 PROTECTED FISH AND INVERTEBRATES Common Name Scientific Name Clarence River Cod Maccullochella ikei Clarence Galaxias Galaxias johnstoni Swan Galaxias Galaxias fontanus Cairns Birdwing Butterfly Ornithoptera priamnus Mountain Blue Butterfly Papilio ulysses Trout Cod Macullochella maquariensis Murray River Crayfish Eustacus armatus Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Perunga Grasshopper Perunga ochracea Two-spined Blackfish Gadopsis bisinosus Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica Canberra Raspy Cricket Cooraboorama canberrae Spiny Freshwater Cray Euastacus crassus Spiny Freshwater Cray Euastacus rieki Spotted Handfish Brachionichthys hirsutus Barred Galaxias Galaxias fuscus Pedder Galaxias Galaxias pedderensis Elizabeth Springs Goby Chlamydogobius micropterus Mary River Cod Maccullochella peelii mariensis Lake Eacham Rainbow Fish Melanotaenia eachamensis Oxleyan Pygmy Perch Nannoperca oxleyana Red-finned Blue-eye Scaturiginichthys vermei1ipinnis Great White Shark Carcharodon carchanias Grey Nurse Shark Carcharias taurus Edgbaston Goby Chiamydogobius squamigenus Murray Hardyhead Craterocephalus fluviatilis Saddled Galaxias Galaxias tanycephalus Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla Blind Gudgeon Milyeringa veritas Flinders Ranges Gudgeon Mogurnda n.
  • Governor Island MARINE RESERVE

    Governor Island MARINE RESERVE

    VISITING RESERVES Governor Island MARINE RESERVE Governor Island Marine Reserve, with its spectacular underwater scenery, is recognised as one of the best temperate diving locations in Australia. The marine reserve includes Governor Island and all waters and other islands within a 400m diameter semi-circle from the eastern shoreline of Governor Island (refer map). The entire marine reserve is a fully protected ‘no-take’ area. Fishing and other extractive activities are prohibited. Yellow zoanthids adorn granite boulder walls in the marine reserve. These flower-like animals use their tentacles to catch tiny food particles drifting past in the current. Getting there Photo: Karen Gowlett-Holmes Governor Island lies just off Bicheno – a small fishing and resort town on Tasmania’s east coast. It is located Things to do about two and a half hours drive from either Hobart or The reserve is a popular diving location with Launceston. over 35 recognised dive sites, including: Governor Island is separated from the mainland by a The Hairy Wall – a granite cliff-face plunging to 35m, narrow stretch of water, approximately 50m wide, known with masses of sea whips as Waubs Gulch. For your safety please do not swim, The Castle – two massive granite boulders, sandwiched snorkel or dive in Waubs Gulch. It is subject to frequent together, with a swim-through lined with sea whips and boating traffic and strong currents and swells. The marine yellow zoanthids, and packed with schools of bullseyes, cardinalfish, banded morwong and rock lobster reserve is best accessed via commercial operators or LEGEND Golden Bommies – two 10m high pinnacles glowing with private boat.
  • Habitat Associations and Natural History of the Tasmanian "Snow Skinks" (Niveoscincus Spp.)

    Habitat Associations and Natural History of the Tasmanian "Snow Skinks" (Niveoscincus Spp.)

    Papers and Proceedings ofthe Royal Society ofTasmania, Volume 133(1), 1999 57 HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS AND NATURAL HISTORY OF THE TASMANIAN "SNOW SKINKS" (NIVEOSCINCUS SPP.) by Jane Melville and Roy Swain (with two tables and four text-figures) MELVILLE, J. & SWAIN, R., 1999 (31 :x): Habitat associations and natural history ofthe Tasmanian "snow skinks" (Niveoscincus spp.). Pap. Proc. R. Soc. Tasm. 133(1): 57-64. ISSN 0080-4703. Formerly School ofZoology, University ofTasmania, now Department of Biology, Washington University, Campus Box 1137, St Louis, MO 63130, USA OM); School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, GPO Box 252-5, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001 (RS). Niveoscincus "snow skink" is the largest genus oflizards in Tasmania, but little literature is available on the ecology ofthe seven species discussed here. They were examined by studying the vegetation associations and natural history of all Niveoscincus species except N palfreymani. Most were found to be primarily either ground-dwelling, saxicolous or arboreal, although a few species, such as N microlepidotus, showed a combination ofthese habits. Saxicolous and heath/rock-dwelling species were restricted to more open habitats. Ground-dwelling species, on the other hand, were widespread and found in many different habitats but not in open rocky areas. Arboreal species were found in a wide range offorest habitats from sea-level to the treeline. The species studied were found to have significantly different, although partially overlapping habitat preferences. Key Words: alpine, habitat, lizard, Niveoscincus, Tasmania. INTRODUCTION Brief descriptions of the habitat and distributions of these alpine species are available in Hutchinson et al. (1988, General 1989), Hutchinson & Schwaner (1991) and Hutchinson & Hudson (1998).
  • Beddomeia Trochiformis Ponder & Clark, 1993

    Beddomeia Trochiformis Ponder & Clark, 1993

    Beddomeia trochiformis Ponder & Clark, 1993 Diagnostic features Species in the B. tasmanica group have small shells (length 1.2-2.8 mm) with a depressed spire and open umbilicus. The penis is simple. Beddomeia trochiformis (adult size 2.2-2.7 mm) Distribution of Beddomeia trochiformis. This species differs from other members of the group in possessing a radula with a moderately indented dorsal edge of the central teeth, the latter also with teeth steeper outer edges (40°, compared with 45°) and ratio of lateral teeth cutting edge to shaft 0.5 (~0.43 in other taxa); mantle cavity with fewer ctenidial filaments (15-19); female genital system with initial U-bend of coiled oviduct orientated obliquely backwards (not dorso-ventral). Classification Beddomeia trochiformis Ponder & Clark, 1993 Class Gastropoda I nfraclass Caenogastropoda Order Littorinida Suborder Rissoidina Superfamily Truncatelloidea Family Tateidae Genus Beddomeia Petterd, 1889 Original name: Beddomeia trochiformis Ponder & Clark, 1993 in Ponder, W.F., Clark, G.A., Miller, A.C. & Toluzzi, A. (1993). On a major radiation of freshwater snails in Tasmania and eastern Victoria: a preliminary overview of the Beddomeia group (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae). I nvertebrate Taxonomy 7: 501-750. Type locality: Bowry Creek, tributary of Savage River, side road off Corinna Road, Tasmania. Biology and ecology Under stones in streams. The white egg capsules are laid on the undersides of stones and are like those of other species of Beddomeia - dome-shaped, with broad attachment base, covered with minute, mainly white sand grains and other fragments and containing a single egg. Development direct. Distribution This species and B.
  • Molecular Phylogeny and Biogeography of Spring-Associated Hydrobiid Snails of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia

    Molecular Phylogeny and Biogeography of Spring-Associated Hydrobiid Snails of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia

    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34 (2005) 545–556 www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of spring-associated hydrobiid snails of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia Kathryn E. Pereza,¤, Winston F. Ponderb, Donald J. Colganb, Stephanie A. Clarkc,1, Charles Lydearda a Department of Biological Sciences, Biodiversity and Systematics, University of Alabama, Box 870345, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345, USA b Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW 2010, Australia c Centre for Biostructural and Biomolecular Research, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury Campus, Locked Bag 1797 Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia Received 6 July 2004; revised 15 November 2004 Available online 6 January 2005 Abstract The Great Artesian Basin (GAB) of Australia underlies some of the driest parts of South Australia and Queensland and feeds numerous freshwater springs. Prominent and endangered components of the GAB spring community are snails of the family Hydro- biidae. This paper examines the evolutionary relationships of the entire hydrobiid fauna associated with the GAB, and includes appropriate non-GAB species to place the GAB fauna in a broader phylogenetic context. The Queensland genus Jardinella is a focus of this paper, providing a Wne scale examination of relationships between spring supergroups in the northeastern regions of the GAB. Maximum parsimony and Bayesian analyses performed on 16S, CO1, and combined sequence data from 40 hydrobiid taxa found four major clades of Australian taxa. The analysis revealed that at least three separate colonization events of the GAB spring fauna have occurred. Two of these are represented by considerable radiations, (1) Jardinella to the north and east and (2) Caldicochlea, Fonscochlea, and possibly Trochidrobia in South Australia.
  • Bibliography and Scientific Name Index to Amphibians

    Bibliography and Scientific Name Index to Amphibians

    lb BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SCIENTIFIC NAME INDEX TO AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON BULLETIN 1-8, 1918-1988 AND PROCEEDINGS 1-100, 1882-1987 fi pp ERNEST A. LINER Houma, Louisiana SMITHSONIAN HERPETOLOGICAL INFORMATION SERVICE NO. 92 1992 SMITHSONIAN HERPETOLOGICAL INFORMATION SERVICE The SHIS series publishes and distributes translations, bibliographies, indices, and similar items judged useful to individuals interested in the biology of amphibians and reptiles, but unlikely to be published in the normal technical journals. Single copies are distributed free to interested individuals. Libraries, herpetological associations, and research laboratories are invited to exchange their publications with the Division of Amphibians and Reptiles. We wish to encourage individuals to share their bibliographies, translations, etc. with other herpetologists through the SHIS series. If you have such items please contact George Zug for instructions on preparation and submission. Contributors receive 50 free copies. Please address all requests for copies and inquiries to George Zug, Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560 USA. Please include a self-addressed mailing label with requests. INTRODUCTION The present alphabetical listing by author (s) covers all papers bearing on herpetology that have appeared in Volume 1-100, 1882-1987, of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington and the four numbers of the Bulletin series concerning reference to amphibians and reptiles. From Volume 1 through 82 (in part) , the articles were issued as separates with only the volume number, page numbers and year printed on each. Articles in Volume 82 (in part) through 89 were issued with volume number, article number, page numbers and year.
  • Alonnah-Sheepwash Track (Bruny Island) Weed Action Plan 2020 - 2030

    Alonnah-Sheepwash Track (Bruny Island) Weed Action Plan 2020 - 2030

    Alonnah-Sheepwash Track (Bruny Island) Weed Action Plan 2020 - 2030 A funding initiative of the Bruny Island Destination Action Plan Leadership Group Locally supported by Acknowledgements 3 Abbreviations 3 1.0: Introduction 4 1.1: Plan Goal 4 1.2: Study Area 4 1.3: Priority Weeds 6 1.4: Relevant Plans and Legislation 9 1.5: Weed Action Principles 10 1.6: Weed Control Methods 10 1.7: Responsibility 10 1.8: Hygiene 11 1.9: Living Appendix 11 2.0: Site Maps 12 2.1: Zone 1 12 2.2: Zone 2 13 2.3: Zone 3 14 2.4: Zone 4 15 2.5: Zone 5 16 2.6: Zone 6 17 2.7: Zone 7 18 2.8: Zone 8 19 3.0: Weed Actions 20 3.1: Action Plan 20 4.0: Photo Point Monitoring Pro Forma 27 References 28 Appendix 1 – Stakeholders 29 Key Stakeholders 29 Other Stakeholders 30 Appendix 2 – Priority Weeds; Spread and Control 31 Appendix 3 – Native Plant List 34 Alonnah-Sheepwash Track Weed Action Plan 2020-2030 – DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION 2 Acknowledgements The Alonnah-Sheepwash Weed Action Plan is jointly funded by Pennicott Wilderness Tours, Kingborough Council and the Tasmanian Government, as an initiative of the Bruny Island Destination Action Plan (DAP). The DAP Leadership Group is coordinated by Destination Southern Tasmania. The funding for the plan is being locally auspiced by the Bruny Island Boat Club. Communications and networking associated with the plan is being undertaken by members of the Bruny Island Residents and Ratepayers Network (‘Bruny Network’). Cassandra Strain is the principal author of this strategy.
  • Proposed Development Information to Accompany

    Proposed Development Information to Accompany

    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TO ACCOMPANY DRAFT AMENDMENT NO.6 TO D’ENTRECASTEAUX CHANNEL MARINE FARMING DEVELOPMENT PLAN FEBRUARY 2002 PROPONENT: TASSAL OPERATIONS PTY LTD Glossary ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler AGD Amoebic Gill Disease ASC Aquaculture Stewardship Council BAP Best Aquaculture Practices BEMP Broadscale Environmental Monitoring Program CAMBA China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement CEO Chief Executive Officer COBP Code of Best Practice CSER corporate, social and environmental responsibility CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DAFF Depart of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry dBA A-weighted decibels DMB Dry matter basis DO dissolved oxygen DPIW Department of Primary Industries and Water DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and the Environment EDO Environmental Defenders Office ENGOs environmental non-governmental organisations EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMS Environmental Management System EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPBCA Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FCR Feed Conversion Ratio FHMP Fish Health Management Plan FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand g gram GAA Global Aquaculture Alliance ha hectare HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HOG head on gutted HVN Huon Valley News IALA International Association of Lighthouse Authorities IMAS Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies i JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement kg kilogram km kilometre L litre LED light-emitting diode m metre mm millimetre MAST Marine and Safety
  • Map 17A − Simplified Geology

    Map 17A − Simplified Geology

    MINERAL RESOURCES TASMANIA MUNICIPAL PLANNING INFORMATION SERIES TASMANIAN GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP 17A − SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGY AND AREAS OF HIGHEST MINERAL RESOURCES TASMANIA Tasmania MINERAL EXPLORATION AND MINING POTENTIAL ENERGY and RESOURCES DEPARTMENT of INFRASTRUCTURE SNOW River HILL Cape Lodi BADA JOS psley A MEETUS FALLS Swan Llandaff FOREST RESERVE FREYCINET Courland NATIONAL PARK Bay MOULTING LAGOON LAKE GAME RESERVE TIER Butlers Pt APSLEY LEA MARSHES KE RAMSAR SITE ROAD HWAY HIG LAKE LEAKE Cranbrook WYE LEA KE RIVER LAKE STATE RESERVE TASMAN MOULTING LAGOON MOULTING LAGOON FRIENDLY RAMSAR SITE BEACHES PRIVATE BI SANCTUARY G ROAD LOST FALLS WILDBIRD FOREST RESERVE PRIVATE SANCTUARY BLUE Friendly Pt WINGYS PARRAMORES Macquarie T IER FREYCINET NATIONAL PARK TIER DEAD DOG HILL NATURE RESERVE TIER DRY CREEK EAST R iver NATURE RESERVE Swansea Hepburn Pt Coles Bay CAPE TOURVILLE DRY CREEK WEST NATURE RESERVE Coles Bay THE QUOIN S S RD HAZA THE PRINGBAY THOUIN S Webber Pt RNMIDLAND GREAT Wineglass BAY Macq Bay u arie NORTHE Refuge Is. GLAMORGAN/ CAPE FORESTIER River To o m OYSTER PROMISE s BAY FREYCINET River PENINSULA Shelly Pt MT TOOMS BAY MT GRAHAM DI MT FREYCINET AMOND Gates Bluff S Y NORTH TOOM ERN MIDLA NDS LAKE Weatherhead Pt SOUTHERN MIDLANDS HIGHWA TI ER Mayfield TIER Bay Buxton Pt BROOKERANA FOREST RESERVE Slaughterhouse Bay CAPE DEGERANDO ROCKA RIVULET Boags Pt NATURE RESERVE SCHOUTEN PASSAGE MAN TAS BUTLERS RIDGE NATURE RESERVE Little Seaford Pt SCHOUTEN R ISLAND Swanp TIE FREYCINET ort Little Swanport NATIONAL PARK CAPE BAUDIN
  • Phrantela Marginata (Petterd, 1889)

    Phrantela Marginata (Petterd, 1889)

    Phrantela marginata (Petterd, 1889) Diagnostic features The shell of P. marginata is narrower than nearly all other species and has a relativelysmaller last whorl than any other species.This species is generally similar to P. annamurrayae and P. conica [1] [2] which all have a long, narrow penis with a narrow base and an undulating penial duct. Phrantela marginata (adult size 3.2-4 mm) Distribution of Phrantela marginata. Classification Phrantela marginata (Petterd, 1889) Class Gastropoda I nfraclass Caenogastropoda Order Littorinida Suborder Rissoidina Superfamily Truncatelloidea Family Tateidae Genus Phrantela redale, 1943 Original name: Potamopyrgus (?) marginata Petterd, 1889. Petterd, W. F. (1889). Contributions for a systematic catalogue of the aquatic shells of Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1888, 60-83. Type locality: A small stream near Heazlewood River, Tasmania. Biology and ecology This species lives mainly amongst aquatic vegetation, it is also found in root mats in the bed of a small trickle. Egg capsules unknown but probably like those of another species of Phrantela; small, with single embryo, and covered in coarse sand grains. Development direct. Distribution This species is known from a few localities in a small area along Thirteen Mile Creek, a tributary of the Heazlewood River, northwest Tasmania. Notes This species is on the Tasmanian Threatened species list of nvertebrate Animals as Rare (small population at risk). Further reading Petterd, W. F. (1889). Contributions for a systematic catalogue of the aquatic shells of Tasmania. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 1888: 60-83. Ponder, W. F., Clark, G. A., Miller, A.
  • Tasmanian Bird Report 38

    Tasmanian Bird Report 38

    Tasmanian Bird Report 38 July 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, a branch of BirdLife Australia Editor, Wynne Webber TASMANIA The Tasmanian Bird Report is published by BirdLife Tasmania, a regional branch of BirdLife Australia Number 38 © 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, GPO Box 68, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001 ISSN 0156-4935 This publication is copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, except for the purposes of study or research, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of BirdLife Tasmania or the respective paper’s author(s). Acknowledgments NRM South, through funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme, has provided financial assistance for the publication of this report. We thank them both for this contribution. Contents Editorial iv Wynne Webber State of Tasmania’s terrestrial birds 2014–15 1 Mike Newman, Nick Ramshaw, Sue Drake, Eric Woehler, Andrew Walter and Wynne Webber Risk of anticoagulant rodenticides to Tasmanian raptors 17 Nick Mooney Oddities of behaviour and occurrence 26 Compiler, Wynne Webber When is the best time to survey shorebirds? 31 Stephen Walsh A Eurasian Coot nests in Hobart 32 William E. Davis, Jr Changes in bird populations on Mt Wellington over a 40-year period 34 Mike Newman 2016 Summer and winter wader counts 44 (incorporating corrected tables for 2015 summer counts) Eric Woehler and Sue Drake Editorial In this Tasmanian Bird Report we institute what is hoped to be a useful and ongoing enterprise, which replaces the systematic lists of earlier years: a report on ‘The state of Tasmania’s birds’.