Evolution, Conservation and Cane Toads in Australia

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Evolution, Conservation and Cane Toads in Australia 1 INTRODUCTION EVOLUTION, CONSERVATION AND CANE TOADS IN AUSTRALIA 2 CONTEMPORARY EVOLUTION IN CONSERVATION There is an increasing realisation amongst biologists that evolution can occur rapidly – on time scales generally associated with “ecological time” (Stockwell et al. 2003; Thompson 1998). It is interesting that biologists have only recently incorporated the concept of “contemporary evolution” into their worldview. We have known since before the modern synthesis that, per generation, the response to selection (R) in a trait is equal to the heritability of that trait (h2) multiplied by the strength of selection (S) operating in that generation (Lynch and Walsh 1998): R = h 2S This apparently simple equation tells us much about the nature of adaptation, not the least of which is that it can happen rapidly; dependent upon high heritability and strong selection acting within the range of variability for the trait in question. We have also had, for many years, empirical evidence that under the right conditions evolution precedes rapidly from strong selection in natural populations (e.g. Kettlewell 1973). Why then, has it taken so long to appreciate the potential importance of evolution acting along timescales that are of relevance to our everyday existence? This is a question for a science historian – which I am not – but perhaps one of Gould’s (1991) creeping fox-terrier clones is to blame: Someone (perhaps Darwin himself, who as it turns out, was occasionally confused about the difference between microevolution and 3 speciation), told us that evolution takes a long time, and we have been repeating this mantra to ourselves and our students ever since. Nevertheless, contemporary evolution has slapped us in the face until we have had no choice but to pay it some attention. Predictably in hindsight, contemporary evolution first became apparent in areas of our lives that we care deeply about; our health and our food. The green revolution and its attendant barrage of pesticides was, on reflection, a thoroughly unintended experiment in evolution. Pesticides, that were initially incredibly effective became increasingly less so as pests rapidly evolved resistance (Palumbi 2002). Similarly, the discovery of antibiotics seemed set to save us from the scourge of disease (well, most of them anyway). Over time, our magic bullets have often come to resemble peashooters; many pathogens evolving either flak jackets or the simple ability to dodge (Ewald 1994). Two of the biggest human- killers on the planet – malaria and HIV – have achieved this position of prestige precisely because of their ability to evolve at such speed that our attacks continually hit nothing but air (Gardner et al. 2002; Palumbi 2002). We have no choice but to acknowledge evolution when it foils our plans, but we often fail to appreciate that it can also be useful. Domestication is, of course, evolution by human selection (blessed are the pigeon fanciers, for they shall convince Darwin of the truth). And recently, medical and agricultural researchers are realising that evolutionary problems require evolutionary solutions – “evolutionarily stable strategies” are the new weapons in the wars 4 against Malaria, HIV and pesticide resistance (Ewald 1994; Palumbi 2002; Rausher 2001). But let us step aside from directly human-oriented concerns and apply a worldview of contemporary evolution to conservation. There is little doubt that we are living in a time of accelerated extinction (Chapin et al. 2000; May et al. 1995). Species are going extinct at higher than normal rates due to the activities of our species. Like all species, we interact with the world and, as a consequence, modify it. Unlike most species however, our modifications are large and global in their reach. In the dry language of science however, our impacts are nothing more than “environmental change”, and a geological perspective tells us that environmental change is not a new phenomenon; continents have moved, climate has changed, land bridges have allowed mass invasions, and mountains have come and gone (Morrison and Morrison 1991). Ultimately, species either evolve through environmental change or they go extinct: Even Raup’s (1993) extinction through bad luck will almost always be the result of an environmental change. The activities of humans are causing rapid, global environmental modifications; the rapidity and size of these changes are causing an increase in the extinction rate. Understanding how to reduce or reverse the effect of human-mediated impacts on species and communities has become the province of conservation biology. Conservation biologists know that they are fighting an uphill battle and are well aware that the resources do not come close to matching the extent of the problem. Strategies and priorities thus need to be effective and as 5 efficient as possible. It is in this desperate, outnumbered rearguard that contemporary evolution is a mostly ignored, but potentially powerful ally. It is a property of living systems that they evolve – they are inherently dynamic and we know that evolution can happen in ecological time. Evolutionary time is, like all time, relative; in the case of evolution, time is relative to the generation time of the organism. If an environmental change occurs along a time scale that is not too rapid, a population can mount an adaptive response. In other words, if the per generation strength of selection (S) is not too large there is a good chance of evolution instead of extinction. Evolved adaptation is (almost by definition) the best “strategy” for the long- term persistence of a species; from a conservation perspective, whether or not a species will adapt to a change is more important than whether it suffers short- term impact. For conservationists, overwhelmed by the sheer number of species potentially at risk from human activities, the contemporary evolution perspective suggests that the problem may be slightly smaller than it otherwise looks. An ability to evolve around environmental change may see many species rescue themselves. The challenge for conservation biologists is to understand which species are likely to exhibit rapid evolution and which categories of environmental change are likely to encourage evolution rather than extinction. Organisms with short generation times relative to the pace of change will have evolution on their side. Similarly, environmental changes that are 6 relatively slow and cause selection on traits that are unlikely to have been previously important for fitness will encourage evolution. Conservation biologists need to start understanding where the boundaries lie in these continuums: When does an environmental change become too rapid to expect an evolved response from an impacted species? When does the generation time of an organism become too long to preclude adaptive response to an instantaneous change of a given magnitude? These kinds of questions are not necessarily simple to answer but in answering them we can have a profound impact on the size of the conservation battle. Perhaps less species are in need of “rescuing” than we currently believe and perhaps some environmental changes are less important than others. This thesis represents an attempt at a small piece of this puzzle. In the pages that follow, I examine the potential for Australian snake species (which have relatively long generation times of 1-3 years) to adapt to a strong and instantaneous shift in their selective environment; the invasion of a toxic prey item. 7 SNAKES AND TOADS IN AUSTRALIA “To others who scent a ‘nigger in the woodpile’ and suggest the possibility that the toad will, in turn, itself become a pest, we can point to the fact that nearly 100 years have elapsed since it was first introduced into Barbados, and there it has no black marks against its character. Experience with it in other West Indian islands and in Hawaii, certainly points to the fact that no serious harm is likely to eventuate through its introduction into Queensland” R W Mungomery upon returning to Australia from Hawaii with 101 toads in 1935. Australia has a particularly diverse reptile fauna, among which we count around 140 native, terrestrial snake species (Cogger 2000). Thirty-three of these species are typhlopids – mostly blind, burrowing eaters of ant and termite eggs. The remaining terrestrial species belong to the colubrid, pythonid and elapid families and eat vertebrate prey. Of these, the colubrids (11 species) are relatively recent colonisers of the continent, probably arriving from south-east Asia during the glaciations of the early Pleistocene (2 mya, Greer 1997). The pythons (15 species) and elapids (81 species) have been present much longer, at least since the early Miocene (ca. 20 mya, Shine 1991a). Australia’s snakes (even the newer ones!) have a long history on the Australian continent. This venerable history contrasts garishly against the history of Bufo marinus. The species was variously referred to as the “giant toad” or “marine toad” by authors of the early part of this century (e.g. 8 Kinghorn 1938), however it is now known through most of its introduced, English-speaking range as the “cane toad” (Lever 2001) – a fitting epithet for a species that has benefited so profoundly from the sugar-cane industry. Originally from South America, the global sugar industry, in a welter of small, poorly thought out decisions, introduced cane toads throughout much of the Caribbean and Pacific (Easteal 1981). It was the sugar industry that brought toads to Australia in 1935; in simple wooden crates, 101 toads were shipped from Hawaii to Gordonvale in north Queensland where, it was hoped, they were to save the sugar farmers from crop-ruining beetle pests (Mungomery 1935). The plan was that the toads were to eat their way through the cane beetle populations, leaving farmers with little beetle-filled faeces and healthy crops. The plan wasn’t a notable success and by the 1940s toads were made entirely redundant by the development of pesticides (Low 1999).
Recommended publications
  • Australia: from the Wet Tropics to the Outback Custom Tour Trip Report
    AUSTRALIA: FROM THE WET TROPICS TO THE OUTBACK CUSTOM TOUR TRIP REPORT 4 – 20 OCTOBER 2018 By Andy Walker We enjoyed excellent views of Little Kingfisher during the tour. www.birdingecotours.com [email protected] 2 | TRIP REPORT Australia: From the Wet Tropics to the Outback, October 2018 Overview This 17-day customized Australia group tour commenced in Cairns, Queensland, on the 4th of October 2018 and concluded in Melbourne, Victoria, on the 20th of October 2018. The tour included a circuit around the Atherton Tablelands and surroundings from Cairns, a boat trip along the Daintree River, and a boat trip to the Great Barrier Reef (with snorkeling), a visit to the world- famous O’Reilly’s Rainforest Retreat in southern Queensland after a short flight to Brisbane, and rounded off with a circuit from Melbourne around the southern state of Victoria (and a brief but rewarding venture into southern New South Wales). The tour connected with many exciting birds and yielded a long list of eastern Australian birding specialties. Highlights of our time in Far North Queensland on the Cairns circuit included Southern Cassowary (a close male with chick in perfect light), hundreds of Magpie Geese, Raja Shelduck with young, Green and Cotton Pygmy Geese, Australian Brushturkey, Orange-footed Scrubfowl, Brown Quail, Squatter Pigeon, Wompoo, Superb, and perfect prolonged dawn- light views of stunning Rose-crowned Fruit Doves, displaying Australian Bustard, two nesting Papuan Frogmouths, White-browed Crake, Bush and Beach Stone-curlews (the latter
    [Show full text]
  • Grand Australia Part Ii: Queensland, Victoria & Plains-Wanderer
    GRAND AUSTRALIA PART II: QUEENSLAND, VICTORIA & PLAINS-WANDERER OCTOBER 15–NOVEMBER 1, 2018 Southern Cassowary LEADER: DION HOBCROFT LIST COMPILED BY: DION HOBCROFT VICTOR EMANUEL NATURE TOURS, INC. 2525 WALLINGWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 1003 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78746 WWW.VENTBIRD.COM GRAND AUSTRALIA PART II By Dion Hobcroft Few birds are as brilliant (in an opposite complementary fashion) as a male Australian King-parrot. On Part II of our Grand Australia tour, we were joined by six new participants. We had a magnificent start finding a handsome male Koala in near record time, and he posed well for us. With friend Duncan in the “monster bus” named “Vince,” we birded through the Kerry Valley and the country towns of Beaudesert and Canungra. Visiting several sites, we soon racked up a bird list of some 90 species with highlights including two Black-necked Storks, a Swamp Harrier, a Comb-crested Jacana male attending recently fledged chicks, a single Latham’s Snipe, colorful Scaly-breasted Lorikeets and Pale-headed Rosellas, a pair of obliging Speckled Warblers, beautiful Scarlet Myzomela and much more. It had been raining heavily at O’Reilly’s for nearly a fortnight, and our arrival was exquisitely timed for a break in the gloom as blue sky started to dominate. Pretty-faced Wallaby was a good marsupial, and at lunch we were joined by a spectacular male Eastern Water Dragon. Before breakfast we wandered along the trail system adjacent to the lodge and were joined by many new birds providing unbelievable close views and photographic chances. Wonga Pigeon and Bassian Thrush were two immediate good sightings followed closely by Albert’s Lyrebird, female Paradise Riflebird, Green Catbird, Regent Bowerbird, Australian Logrunner, three species of scrubwren, and a male Rose Robin amongst others.
    [Show full text]
  • Ranavirus in Squamates Have Been Limited to Captive Populations
    SEPARC Information Sheet # 17 RANAVIRUSES IN SQUAMATES By: Rachel M. Goodman Introduction: Ranaviruses (family Iridoviridae, genus Ranavirus) are double-stranded DNA viruses that replicate in temperatures of 12- 32 °C and may survive outside of a host in aquatic environments for months and at temperatures > 40 °C (Daszak et al. 1999, Chinchar 2002; La Fauce et al 2012, Nazir et al. 2012). They infect and can lead to mass mortality events in reptiles, amphibians and fishes (Chinchar 2002; Jancovich et al. 2005). Studies on ranavirus pathogenesis and disease ecology have focused largely on amphibians and fishes, and have demonstrated that susceptibility and severity of infection vary with age and species of host, virus strain, and presence of environmental stressors (Brunner et al. 2005; Forson & Storfor 2006; Schock et al. 2009; Hoverman et al. 2010; Whittington et al. 2010). The impact of ranaviruses on reptilian population dynamics and factors contributing to pathogenicity and host susceptibility have been largely unexplored. In turtles, research has focused on surveillance and isolation of ranavirus from natural populations and reports of related deaths in captive and wild species. Reviews of ranavirus incidence in over a dozen species of chelonians globally are provided by Marschang (2011) and McGuire & Miller (2012). Experimental studies are currently underway to examine the importance of virus strain, temperature, and interactions with chemical stressors on susceptibility to and impact of ranavirus in Red-Eared Sliders (Miller & Goodman, unpub. data). In the US, there have been no published reports of ranavirus infection in crocodilians. It was suspected but not confirmed to be associated with death in three juvenile captive alligators (Miller, D.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cane Toad Control Should Be Based on Evidence Not Guesswork Submission to Inquiry Into Controlling the Spread of Cane Toads
    Cane toad control should be based on evidence not guesswork Submission to Inquiry into controlling the spread of cane toads Professor Rick Shine December 2018 Abstract Extensive scientific research (mostly, funded by government) has been conducted into methods to limit the spread and impact of cane toads in Australia. Control efforts that ignore that knowledge base are unlikely to be useful. The impact of cane toads on native wildlife has often been exaggerated; the impact is devastating but is limited to a small group of species (apex predators) and to a relatively short timescale. Thus, control of toads over large areas where they already occur would have little benefit for biodiversity, and likely is impossible without resorting to methods (e.g., genetic manipulation) whose risks outweigh the benefits. The huge clutch sizes and great mobility of toads render localised control efforts ineffective within the toads’ main range in tropical Australia; vast effort (primarily into hand-collecting) has failed to slow the march of the toads, or to decrease their abundances. In contrast, control of toads is feasible in isolated populations on islands, and/ or near the southern edge of the species’ distribution. Such populations have been successfully extirpated by using a combination of methods including hand-collection, fencing of waterbodies, trapping of adult toads, and pheromone(chemical)-based trapping of tadpoles. Cane toads frequently are translocated to sites far outside their main range (usually by hiding in cargo in trucks), so we need effective methods to eradicate such satellite populations before they can spread. I identify four priorities for future investment: (1) new pheromone-based techniques for tadpole eradication; (2) deployment of aversion- inducing stimuli to train vulnerable predators not to eat toads; (3) a recently-identified pathogen that causes lethal amoebic dysentery to cane toads in Australia; and (4) plans to exclude toads from the Pilbara by restricting their access to water along the dryland corridor south of Broome.
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Risk Assessment of Cane Toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT
    supervising scientist 164 report A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park RA van Dam, DJ Walden & GW Begg supervising scientist national centre for tropical wetland research This report has been prepared by staff of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist (eriss) as part of our commitment to the National Centre for Tropical Wetland Research Rick A van Dam Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, Locked Bag 2, Jabiru NT 0886, Australia (Present address: Sinclair Knight Merz, 100 Christie St, St Leonards NSW 2065, Australia) David J Walden Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia George W Begg Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist, GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801, Australia This report should be cited as follows: van Dam RA, Walden DJ & Begg GW 2002 A preliminary risk assessment of cane toads in Kakadu National Park Scientist Report 164, Supervising Scientist, Darwin NT The Supervising Scientist is part of Environment Australia, the environmental program of the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2002 Supervising Scientist Environment Australia GPO Box 461, Darwin NT 0801 Australia ISSN 1325-1554 ISBN 0 642 24370 0 This work is copyright Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Supervising Scientist Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction
    [Show full text]
  • Pentastomiasis in Australian Re
    Fact sheet Pentastomiasis (also known as Porocephalosis) is a disease caused by infection with pentastomids. Pentastomids are endoparasites of vertebrates, maturing primarily in the respiratory system of carnivorous reptiles (90% of all pentastomid species), but also in toads, birds and mammals. Pentastomids have zoonotic potential although no human cases have been reported in Australia. These parasites have an indirect life cycle involving one or more intermediate host. They may be distinguished from other parasite taxa by the presence of four hooks surrounding their mouth, which they use for attaching to respiratory tissue to feed on host blood. Pentastomid infections are often asymptomatic, but adult and larval pentastomids can cause severe pathology resulting in the death of their intermediate and definitive hosts, usually via obstruction of airways or secondary bacterial and/or fungal infections. Pentastomiasis in reptiles is caused by endoparasitic metazoans of the subclass Pentastomida. Four genera are known to infect crocodiles in Australia: Alofia, Leiperia, Sebekia, and Selfia; all in the family Sebekidae. Three genera infect lizards in Australia: Raillietiella (Family: Raillietiellidae), Waddycephalus (Family: Sambonidae) and Elenia (Family: Sambonidae). Four genera infect snakes in Australia: Waddycephalus, Parasambonia (Family: Sambonidae), Raillietiella and Armillifer (Family: Armilliferidae). Definitive hosts Many species of Australian reptiles, including snakes, lizards and crocodiles are proven definitive hosts for pentastomes (see Appendix 1). Lizards may be both intermediate and definitive hosts for pentastomids. Raillietiella spp. occurs primarily in small to medium-sized lizards and Elenia australis infects large varanids. Nymphs of Waddycephalus in several lizard species likely reflect incidental infection; it is possible that lizards are an intermediate host for Waddycephalus.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of Cane Toad (Rhinella Marina) Behaviour: How Can We Use This Knowledge to Refine Trapping Regimes? Phd Thesis, James Cook University
    ResearchOnline@JCU This file is part of the following work: Muller, Benjamin John (2018) An examination of cane toad (Rhinella marina) behaviour: how can we use this knowledge to refine trapping regimes? PhD thesis, James Cook University. Access to this file is available from: https://doi.org/10.4225/28/5b306c28a764e Copyright © 2018 Benjamin John Muller. The author has certified to JCU that they have made a reasonable effort to gain permission and acknowledge the owner of any third party copyright material included in this document. If you believe that this is not the case, please email [email protected] AN EXAMINATION OF CANE TOAD (Rhinella marina) BEHAVIOUR: HOW CAN WE USE THIS KNOWLEDGE TO REFINE TRAPPING REGIMES? PhD Thesis by: Benjamin John Muller, B.Sc., Grad. Cert. College of Science and Engineering James Cook University June 2018 Acknowledgements Cover photo provided by Alistair Bone (James Cook University). Used with permission. ii Acknowledgements 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 A PhD thesis requires the work of many people, in addition to its author. As I write this, I am 3 sad, not only because the journey with many of these wonderful people is coming to an end, but 4 also because there are probably many other people who, despite my best efforts, I have forgotten 5 to mention here. To anyone who reads this and finds they are not in the acknowledgements; I 6 apologise profusely (although maybe you should have done more). The first and largest piece of 7 my gratitude pie goes Professor Lin Schwarzkopf, who has supported me in my research 8 endeavours, as part of her lab, since 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Code of Practice Captive Reptile and Amphibian Husbandry Nature Conservation Act 1992
    Code of Practice Captive Reptile and Amphibian Husbandry Nature Conservation Act 1992 ♥ The State of Queensland, Department of Environment and Science, 2020 Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited without prior written permission of the Department of Environment and Science. Requests for permission should be addressed to Department of Environment and Science, GPO Box 2454 Brisbane QLD 4001. Author: Department of Environment and Science Email: [email protected] Approved in accordance with section 174A of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Acknowledgments: The Department of Environment and Science (DES) has prepared this code in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and recreational reptile and amphibian user groups in Queensland. Human Rights compatibility The Department of Environment and Science is committed to respecting, protecting and promoting human rights. Under the Human Rights Act 2019, the department has an obligation to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights and, when making a decision, to give proper consideration to human rights. When acting or making a decision under this code of practice, officers must comply with that obligation (refer to Comply with Human Rights Act). References referred to in this code- Bustard, H.R. (1970) Australian lizards. Collins, Sydney. Cann, J. (1978) Turtles of Australia. Angus and Robertson, Australia. Cogger, H.G. (2018) Reptiles and amphibians of Australia. Revised 7th Edition, CSIRO Publishing. Plough, F. (1991) Recommendations for the care of amphibians and reptiles in academic institutions. National Academy Press: Vol.33, No.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Native Animal Species List
    Native animal species list Native animals in South Australia are categorised into one of four groups: • Unprotected • Exempt • Basic • Specialist. To find out the category your animal is in, please check the list below. However, Specialist animals are not listed. There are thousands of them, so we don’t carry a list. A Specialist animal is simply any native animal not listed in this document. Mammals Common name Zoological name Species code Category Dunnart Fat-tailed dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata A01072 Basic Dingo Wild dog Canis familiaris Not applicable Unprotected Gliders Squirrel glider Petaurus norfolcensis E04226 Basic Sugar glider Petaurus breviceps E01138 Basic Possum Common brushtail possum Trichosurus vulpecula K01113 Basic Potoroo and bettongs Brush-tailed bettong (Woylie) Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi M21002 Basic Long-nosed potoroo Potorous tridactylus Z01175 Basic Rufous bettong Aepyprymnus rufescens W01187 Basic Rodents Mitchell's hopping-mouse Notomys mitchellii Y01480 Basic Plains mouse (Rat) Pseudomys australis S01469 Basic Spinifex hopping-mouse Notomys alexis K01481 Exempt Wallabies Parma wallaby Macropus parma K01245 Basic Red-necked pademelon Thylogale thetis Y01236 Basic Red-necked wallaby Macropus rufogriseus K01261 Basic Swamp wallaby Wallabia bicolor E01242 Basic Tammar wallaby Macropus eugenii eugenii C05889 Basic Tasmanian pademelon Thylogale billardierii G01235 Basic 1 Amphibians Common name Zoological name Species code Category Southern bell frog Litoria raniformis G03207 Basic Smooth frog Geocrinia laevis
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Frogs Elicit Species‐Specific Responses from a Generalist
    vol. 170, no. 6 the american naturalist december 2007 Natural History Note When Dinner Is Dangerous: Toxic Frogs Elicit Species-Specific Responses from a Generalist Snake Predator Ben Phillips* and Richard Shine School of Biological Sciences A08, University of Sydney, Sydney, toxins) traits. In all cases, the individual fitness benefit New South Wales 2006, Australia derived from a particular defense is straightforward: the antelope that escapes the lion lives another day and thus Submitted May 2, 2007; Accepted July 23, 2007; Electronically published October 24, 2007 has a greater chance to reproduce. Predators tend to exert asymmetrically strong selection on their prey whereby selection is strong on prey to evade capture (the prey risks its life) but selection is weak on the predator (which only risks its meal; Abrams 1986, abstract: In arms races between predators and prey, some evolved 2000; Vermeij 1994). This selective asymmetry may well tactics are unbeatable by the other player. For example, many types of prey are inedible because they have evolved chemical defenses. In become more equitable, however, when prey are dangerous this case, prey death removes any selective advantage of toxicity to (Brodie and Brodie 1999). Nevertheless, in all cases there the prey but not the selective advantage to a predator of being able is strong selection on prey to avoid predation. In this to consume the prey. In the absence of effective selection for post- article, we explore a loophole in these adaptive pathways: mortem persistence of the toxicity then, some chemical defenses a route by which predators can deal with prey defenses in probably break down rapidly after prey death.
    [Show full text]
  • Cane to Executive Report Ads in Communities
    Cane Toads in Communities Executive Report Rachel Clarke, Anna Carr, Sarah White, Bo Raphael and Jeanine Baker © Commonwealth of Australia 2009 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca. The Australian Government acting through the Bureau of Rural Sciences has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Bureau of Rural Sciences, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data set out in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law. Postal address: Bureau of Rural Sciences GPO Box 858 Canberra, ACT 2601 Copies available from: BRS Publication Sales GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Ph: 1800 020 157 Fax: 02 6272 2330 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.brs.gov.au ii Contents 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................i 1.1. Project background and context..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Australia Comprehensive Target Species Custom Tour Trip Report
    AUSTRALIA COMPREHENSIVE TARGET SPECIES CUSTOM TOUR TRIP REPORT 23 AUGUST – 1 OCTOBER 2019 By Andy Walker The Endangered (BirdLife International) Mallee Emu-wren has a tiny global range, and we had excellent views of a pair while birdwatching in Victoria. www.birdingecotours.com [email protected] 2 | TRIP REPORT Australia, Aug-Oct 2019 Overview This 40-day custom birdwatching tour of Australia commenced in Adelaide, South Australia, on the 23rd of August 2019 and ended in Sydney, New South Wales, on the 1st of October 2019. The tour also visited the states and territories of Victoria, Northern Territory, and Queensland. A pelagic trip was taken off southern South Australia (Port MacDonnell). Unfortunately a planned pelagic trip off southern Queensland (Southport) was canceled due to illness. This custom birding tour route was South Australia (Adelaide to Port MacDonnell) - Victoria (circuit around the western section of the state) - New South Wales (a brief stop for parrots along the state border) -Victoria (remainder of the western circuit back to Melbourne) - Northern Territory (Alice Springs area) - Northern Territory (Darwin to Kakadu and back) - Queensland (circuit out of Brisbane) - New South Wales (circuit out of Sydney). Several areas visited on this tour feature in our Australia set departure tours (e.g. East Coast and Northern Territory tours). A list of target birds was provided for the tour (the clients’ third trip to Australia), and these became the focus of the tour route and birding, though new trip birds encountered were also enjoyed! A total of 421 bird species were seen (plus 5 species heard only), including many client target birds.
    [Show full text]