THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Minister’s delegate approved this conservation advice on 10/03/2016.

Conservation Advice

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form)

Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat

Conservation Status The species was listed as Vulnerable in April 2001 because: (1) it has undergone, is suspected to have undergone or is likely to undergo in the immediate future a substantial reduction in numbers; (2) its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival (being limited to the Pilbara); and (3) the estimated total number of mature individuals is limited and the number is likely to continue to decline (TSSC 2001). A recent assessment incorporating additional observations from the past 15 years predicted that if mining were to proceed without appropriate controls, there is likely to be a >30 % decline in population size over the next 15 years and, without intervention and management, most roost sites are likely to be destroyed over the next 30–50 years (Woinarski et al 2014).

Main factors causing this eligibility: Most underground mine adits used permanently by colonies of this species are threatened by mining development, flooding and/or structural collapse (Hall et al. 1997; McKenzie et al. 1999; Armstrong 2001; DotE 2015). There is also an increasing level of mining development in iron ore terrain that coincides with confirmed or suspected natural roost sites in caves (Armstrong 2011; Woinarski et al. 2014).

For more information on this listing and the species threats, see http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/81552-listing-advice.pdf

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 Advice revision

1. The species recovery is considered dependant on development control and additional information relevant to this was necessary in the Conservation Advice. 2. Significant new information has come to hand since the species listing.

Background

The Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (PLNB; Armstrong 2006a; family Rhinonycteridae—see Foley et al. 2015) is a small insectivorous bat that occurs throughout the Pilbara and adjacent upper Gascoyne regions of Western Australia. This population of the Orange Leaf-nosed Bat is geographically isolated from others further north in the Kimberley, Northern Territory and Queensland by the Great Sandy Desert. The species relies on underground roosts supporting warm, high humidity microclimates. Only relatively deep, complex caves and disused underground mines contain such conditions—these are relatively uncommon, and limit the area of occupancy of the PLNB. Further information on the biology of the PLNB is summarised in Appendix A and the Department’s Species Profile and Threats Database (DotE 2015).

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice Page 1 of 11

Conservation Actions

National conservation objectives

 Ensure that activities within the range of the PLNB do not have a significant impact under the EPBC Act. Guidance on what is likely to have a significant impact on this species is provided in Appendix A.  Eliminate key threats to the PLNB and halt the predicted decline of the species through best practice mining design and construction and better coordinated regional management.  Protect and manage all known roost sites to support the recovery and long term persistence of the PLNB.  Identify and protect sufficient high value foraging habitat around roost sites to support the long term persistence of PLNB colonies.  Support coordinated research on the occurrence, population size and ecological requirements of the PLNB so best practice management options can be developed to minimise anticipated impacts from new and existing mining activity.

Priority Conservation Actions

The following actions are considered necessary to stop the decline of and, or support the recovery of the PLNB:

 Discover new occurrences. Conduct field surveys for the PLNB in environmental assessments for proposed development projects using bat detectors to better understand the area of occurrence and highlight potential roost sites. Acoustic surveys should be undertaken in a manner consistent with currently prevailing wisdom on acceptable methods and equipment, so as to maximise the potential for encounter (e.g. DEWHA 2010; ABS 2015).  Discover new roosts. Include targeted searches for new roosts in environmental assessments for proposed development projects to determine whether critical roosting habitat of the PLNB (see Appendix A) coincides with development interests, and to better define the size and occurrence of colonies in the regional population.  Confirm diurnal roosts. Assess, with a sufficiently robust method (e.g. DEWHA 2010; DotE 2015), the likelihood of diurnal roosting in caves and underground mines within and adjacent to proposed development projects to determine their importance to the PLNB and allow the risk of the project to the regional population to be assessed.  Protect roosts. Protect confirmed and suspected diurnal roost sites—especially those occupied permanently and used for breeding—by establishing adequate buffers and restrictions around them, and implementing other management actions as appropriate to the local context. Consideration to should be given to managing and protecting colonies of the PLNB in historical underground mine workings occurring within a development project area (see map in Appendix A).  Monitor the population. Monitor all known colonies of the PLNB using robust and non- invasive methods to understand changes in usage across seasons and at times they are known to breed and raise young. From monitoring activity levels, assess the relative importance of roost sites based on estimated colony size and/or frequency of usage. Sites with the largest colonies should be designated as critical habitat.  Assess and protect foraging habitat. For development projects, retain and preserve an adequate extent of observed or predicted high value foraging habitat near critical roost habitats of the PLNB to support the persistence of any existing colony and their continued usage of roosts (see Appendix A).  Develop and support coordinated research. Undertake research projects, with the involvement of qualified biologists, to better understand the occurrence, population size

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 2 of 11

and ecological requirements of the PLNB in a regional and population-wide context (i.e. greater than local scale development project assessments).  Encourage submission of occurrence data. Environmental consultants, development proponents and researchers are encouraged to provide new information on the occurrence of the PLNB to database resources managed by the Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife (e.g. NatureMap at http://naturemap.dpaw.wa.gov.au/default.aspx), with embargoes and confidentiality maintained to the general public as appropriate.  Suitably control public access to all known roost sites on both private and public lands.  Implement a separate regional management plan. This plan should be linked to a dynamic database that provides information on occurrence and roosting for context to local developments, and provides further detailed guidance on surveying for, protecting and managing the PLNB. Information and research priorities The following information requirements inform the national conservation objectives and the identification of priority conservation actions. They may be useful for directing future research and environmental offsets, and include:

 Review and collate unpublished information, particularly that collected by mining companies.  Clarify the number and distribution of day roosts (see Appendix A for definition of roost types).  Characterise natural roosts.  Characterise and map foraging habitat.  Understand the role of landscape connectivity and resource availability for the movement between roosts.  Understand population and colony size and social behaviour.  Increase knowledge of appropriate buffer size for mining activities.  Develop protocols for artificial roost construction.  Develop a regional management plan that prevents destruction of or significant disturbance to roost sites. These priority research and information requirements were developed during a workshop held specifically to identify priority research actions for the PLNB (DPAW 2013a,b; Cramer et al 2016). These topics can be expanded as may be relevant to a situation—for example, an investigation into the behaviour and diet of bats near artificial light sources might be relevant for situations where light sources are planned for an area near a known, significant roost.

Priority should be given to non-invasive research methods. Research programmes should not include methods that will have a significant impact on the local persistence and survival of colonies under investigation, or introduce an unacceptable level of disturbance. The need for certain types of information needs to be weighed against the priority need to limit all types of disturbance to known colonies. Some types of research might impose greater levels of disturbance than activities associated with nearby resource developments. Consideration should also be given to conducting suitable research questions in parallel to lessen overall levels or risk of disturbance.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 3 of 11

Appendix A The Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance outlines the Department’s recommendations for determining a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance. Given that the conservation of the PLNB is considered dependant on the control of both new and existing development activities, some further clarity on the criteria and definitions relevant for assessing a significant impact on this species has been provided below. Making an allowance for this information will help proponents act consistently with the conservation advice for this species. The level of significance of a planned development on the PLNB will be dependent on the potential for loss or disturbance to critical roosting habitat, the size of colonies and their breeding status and potential, plans that cause the removal or degradation of large proportions of foraging habitat, the potential for fatalities of individuals by direct and indirect means that lead to local declines, and the potential for concurrent effects from multiple developments on several regionally important roost sites.

Populations and habitat critical to the survival Important populations

The PLNB in the Pilbara and upper Gascoyne represent one interbreeding biological population comprising multiple colonies (Armstrong, unpublished genetic data). This isolated population is of national significance given that individuals show evidence of divergence from those further north in terms of morphology, echolocation call characteristics and genetic identity, and are regarded as an Evolutionary Significant Unit (Armstrong 2002, 2005, 2006b; Armstrong and Coles 2007). There are at least 10 caves and underground mines that have been confirmed as diurnally occupied roosts and, in some cases, breeding sites. In addition, there are numerous others that are suspected to function as diurnal roosts, but which require confirmation; and others that are likely to exist in an area but have yet to be found and confirmed.

Habitat critical to the survival of the PLNB

An underground diurnal roost is critical to the survival of the PLNB, given their reliance on warm, humid roost microclimates for maintaining their heat and water balance (Kulzer et al. 1970; Baudinette et al. 2000; Churchill 1991; Armstrong 2001). Some roosts are important for breeding, and others may only be used in certain seasons or conditions. The PLNB does not roost in overhangs—shallow structures where the rear wall can be observed from the entrance—as these do not support warm, humid microclimates. A suggestion that this species becomes ‘forest dwelling’ in the wet season of the monsoonal northern areas (Churchill 1991, 1995) has not been supported, and is very unlikely in the Pilbara region (Armstrong 2001).

The detection of the PLNB at a cave or mine entrance soon after sunset does not confirm roosting within that structure during the day. Their presence can arise following visitation from another diurnal roost elsewhere. Underground refuges used by the PLNB can be categorised into one of the following standard categories:

 permanent diurnal roosts (Priority 1)—occupied year-round and likely the focus for some part of the 9-month breeding cycle; considered as critical habitat that is essential for the daily survival of the PLNB.  non-permanent breeding roosts (Priority 2)—evidence of usage during some part of the 9-month breeding cycle (July–March), but not occupied year-round; considered as critical habitat that is essential for both the daily and long-term survival of the PLNB.  transitory diurnal roosts (Priority 3)—occupied for part of the year only, outside the breeding season (i.e. April–June), and which could facilitate long distance dispersal in the region; considered as critical habitat that is essential for both the daily and long-term survival of the PLNB. Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 4 of 11

 nocturnal refuge (Priority 4)—occupied or entered at night for resting, feeding or other purposes, with perching not a requirement. Excludes overhangs. Not considered critical habitat, but are important for persistence in a local area.

Deep caves and complex mines are used as permanent diurnal roosts, however these are relatively uncommon in the region. Caves used or suspected of being used for diurnal roosting have been found in layered ironstone and silicious formations, and occupied mines are relatively deep, with multiple levels and cross cuts that often intersect the watertable. Those structures with the largest colony sizes are critical for the species’ survival—typically associated with Priority 1 and 2 refuge types. Sites supporting smaller colonies are also important as alternative roost sites and for facilitating longer distance dispersal in the region—typically associated with Priority 3 and 4 refuge types. Additionally, artificial roosts constructed to replace those lost to mining or other types of disturbance may become critical habitat, if they can be colonised successfully. The opportunity for bats to respond to disturbances in the short term is assumed to be limited by the availability of suitable alternative roosts nearby—either within nightly flight range, or within suitable seasons.

The type and quality of potential foraging habitat surrounding known or suspected roost sites can be critical to the survival of the PLNB. A colony requires access to suitable foraging habitat within its nightly flight range, and larger colonies might require access to a greater proportion of the landscape. The Orange Leaf-nosed Bat has been recorded foraging in a variety of habitats across its range, including open spinifex grasslands, black soil grasslands, open savannah woodland, tall open forest and monsoon rainforest (Churchill 2008). In the Pilbara, they are often encountered in large watercourses, around rocky outcrop, gullies, gorges and over pools (Armstrong 2001; DotE 2015). Given the lack of understanding around which habitats are required to sustain a roosting colony, it is difficult to define critical foraging habitat of the PLNB. However, based on observations of where they are most often encountered at night, and the assumption that the condition of these is important for sustaining a nearby colony, the foraging habitats used by the PLNB can be categorised as follows:

 Gorges with pools (Priority 1)—watercourses through upland areas bounded by sheer rock walls for parts of their length, often containing pools that remain for weeks or months, sites of relatively large biomass production, sometimes containing caves;  Gullies (Priority 2)—primary drainage with limited riparian development in upland rocky habitats, sometimes containing small pools that may last for weeks, with less biomass production than Priority 1 gorge habitat;  Rocky outcrop (Priority 3)—areas of exposed rock at the top of rocky outcrop and mesa hills that contain caves and overhangs, and boulder piles in the granite terrains;  Major watercourses (Priority 4)—riparian vegetation on flat land plus the main gravelly or sandy channel of the river bed, sometimes containing pools that persist for weeks or months, and generally supporting higher productivity of biomass than the surrounding habitats;  Open grassland and woodland (Priority 5)—dominated by Triodia, on lowland plains, colluvial slopes and hilltops.

Actions likely to have a significant impact on the species An action is highly likely to have a significant impact on the PLNB if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the PLNB population

The size of the PLNB population is unknown, however colonies range in size from few individuals to several hundred in a few instances, though only a handful of the larger colonies are known to exist. One exception is a colony discovered recently in the western Pilbara, which Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 5 of 11

preliminary studies by two independent assessments have suggested numbers several thousand, but this is unusual and colony size remains to be confirmed with a suitable method. The loss of, or unmitigated disturbance to, roosts constituting habitat critical to the survival of the PLNB (Priority 1 and 2 refuges, especially those with a known or suspected large colony size), is highly likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the PLNB population.

Reduce the area of occupancy of the PLNB population

Previous estimates of the area of occupancy of the PLNB relied on quantifying landscape area with the potential to contain caves, which might then be occupied by the species (Armstrong 2003). Given that bats spend the daytime in a limited number of roost sites critical for their survival, area of occupancy was more recently considered as the total area of those subterranean formations providing roosting conditions, which is much less than 10 km2 (Woinarski et al. 2014). The latter estimate would be higher if each confirmed roost occurrence was associated with a 4 km2 grid, as per the method used by the IUCN (2001). Regardless of the approach taken to calculate area of occupancy, the loss of even one confirmed or suspected permanent diurnal roost could limit access to large areas of foraging habitat and other transitory diurnal roosts and nocturnal refuges, and thus effectively reduce the area of occupancy in the region. In the absence of regionally focussed management and intervention, Woinarski et al. (2014) projected a loss of most roost sites in the next 30–50 years, with an associated >30% population size decline projected over the next 15 years. The combined effects from gradual losses in deteriorating or destroyed underground mines in the eastern Pilbara, plus the mining activities in ironstone terrain have the potential to significantly reduce area of occupancy and overall population numbers.

Adversely affect individuals or habitat critical to the survival of the PLNB

Mining-related activities such as vegetation clearing, excavation and earthworks, blasting, drilling, rail and haul road vehicle activity in habitat used by the PLNB have the potential to adversely affect the survival of the PLNB. These activities can reduce the size of a particular colony directly through the fatality of individuals (e.g. strikes from vehicles, which they are known to be susceptible to, and the destruction of roosts when bats are present within), or indirectly by destroying or degrading the quality of habitat (e.g. destroying roosts, creating disturbances to roosting colonies, removing vegetation communities and pools used for foraging, and reducing the availability of insect prey by reducing the production of vegetation biomass). A local decline from such incidents has the potential to contribute to a regional decline, especially if critical habitat is lost and a significant proportion of the regional population is affected.

The distance at which effects from mining-related activity might become significant is likely to vary in different situations. For confirmed diurnal roosts (of any of the three defined types), a buffer between the activity and the roost might be required. The option of the buffer and its width will depend on the local landscape context, the planned activity and the estimated or suspected colony size. Initially, and in the absence of information on local occurrences, it should be presumed that the availability of alternative roost sites nearby that bats could relocate to is low or non-existent. A non-invasive acoustic monitoring programme initiated before mining begins will provide locally relevant empirical observations on the usage of a suspected or confirmed roost, and help to assess the importance of the site in a wider context (e.g. Armstrong 2010). A well-designed programme would include multiple sites inside and outside infrastructure footprints (and ideally outside the project area) that are surveyed in a standardised manner, and could provide a comparison on how all sites are used. Relevant information when considering buffer definition and width would also include an estimate of colony size, the local availability or lack of alternative diurnal roosts, plus information on the nature of the proposed mining-related activities such as their types, durations and intensities.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 6 of 11

An action may have a significant impact on the PLNB if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important colony

Development-related activities in close proximity to diurnal roosts have the potential to disrupt the breeding cycle of the PLNB if they occur within any part of the breeding period (when aggregations may form to support mating, pregnancy, parturition and the raising of young), if they cause individuals to relocate elsewhere. The breeding period in the Pilbara is thought to be similar to that in the Northern Territory (Churchill 1995; Armstrong 2001), with mating beginning in July, parturition occurring in December following a prolonged gestation period and weaning and the independence of young in February and March. Disruption of breeding activity within this 9-month period has the potential to reduce the population size.

Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of PLNB habitat to the extent that the PLNB is likely to decline

Relatively few colonies of the PLNB are known, and most of the known population is aggregated in these few colonies for at least part of the year (Armstrong 2001; DotE 2015). Consequently, a reduction in habitat availability, and of the number of diurnal roosts in particular, could result in a decline in the region. A reduction in the availability of nocturnal roosts would be less likely to result in decline as shallow caves are relatively common in the Pilbara.

The extent to which a reduction in foraging area or its quality may contribute to a decline in PLNB is not well understood. The PLNB is often observed foraging in riparian zones, large watercourses, gullies, gorges and over pools, but the area required by a colony of a particular size is not known. Preservation of a suitable amount of foraging habitat is required to sustain the larger colonies of the PLNB. To determine the significance of any proposed removal of foraging habitat, estimates of the size of a nearby PLNB colony, and the relative proportion of identified foraging habitats to be removed (eg. within a surrounding 10 km radius from the roost) would need to be established. Other land management considerations such as fire frequency are also relevant to the maintenance of suitable foraging habitat, especially when females are lactating and might require greater food resources.

An action is unlikely to have a significant impact on the PLNB if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Result in invasive species that are harmful to the PLNB becoming established in its habitat

The PLNB has been exposed to the degradation and modification of natural habitats caused by introduced species such as invasive weeds, domestic herbivores and other larger feral ungulates since the arrival of Europeans. Carwardine et al (2014) estimated a 50-75% persistence probability for the PLNB both without and with strategies to abate these threats. Invasive species are unlikely to have a significant effect overall, and in comparison to other key threats.

Introduce disease that may cause the PLNB to decline

There are no known diseases threatening the PLNB. However, as is relevant to all cave-roosting bat species in Australia, adherence to sanitary protocols is required to ensure that entry to cave roosts or the handling of individuals does not introduce the risk of White Nose Syndrome or similar pathogens from overseas or other Australian regions. This pathogen was recently considered as a major threat to environmental biosecurity. Currently, the risk of introduced diseases to the PLNB is low, and can be controlled by limiting human access to roost sites.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 7 of 11

Avoiding or mitigating likely significant impacts

The primary objective for preventing the decline of the PLNB is to protect known and suspected diurnal roost sites, and avoiding activities within close proximity that could cause roost abandonment and fatalities of individuals.

Creation of artificial roosts to replace those lost to mining activities is being considered increasingly. The relative value of the roost to be lost, as determined by estimates of colony size and the role of the site for the dispersal of individuals and genetic connectivity in a regional context, is an important consideration that should underpin a decision about the appropriateness of this option. Proposals for the creation of an artificial habitat to offset the loss of an existing roost will need to consider carefully how individuals can be encouraged to move from the original site to a new one within a relevant timeframe, and without significantly increasing the rate of mortality.

Undertaking the following actions will help avoid significant impacts on the PLNB, and provide the necessary information to guide proponents in their conservation and management:

 During the planning and design stages of a new mine or expansion, ensure that placement of mine infrastructure on or near critical habitat of the PLNB discovered during pre- construction surveys is avoided.  Confirm diurnal occupancy of suspected roost sites with an appropriate method (as outlined in DEWHA 2010; DotE 2015), and estimate the actual or relative size of colonies in such roost sites using a robust non-invasive method with a demonstrable error rate;  Establish permanent buffers around suspected or confirmed diurnal roosts to exclude all anthropogenic activities with the potential to negatively affect the colony, with buffer width dependent on local context, colony size estimates and information on alternative sites nearby;  Implement a standardised monitoring programme to confirm continued presence and levels of activity at diurnal roosts, night refuges or in open habitats such as over pools. Baseline information should be collected as early as possible before works commence, methods should be noninvasive such as making acoustic or video recordings, the design should be standardised to allow long term comparisons and the programme should include triggers and contingencies in the event that a negative influence of nearby development-related activity is detected.  Minimise the loss of high value foraging habitat by considering it in the design of development projects;  Consider the location of diurnal roosts when designing and constructing roads, tracks and light sources to avoid mortality and localised decline of the PLNB through roadkill;  Maintain existing natural water pools to encourage long term persistence in a project area;  Avoid direct illumination of roosts by artificial lights;  Restrict general access and entry to known or suspected roost sites;  Consider the replacement of existing natural roost sites with artificially created habitat as a solution of last resort only.

Further information

Further information on the PLNB including ecology and biology, existing plans, information on mitigating impacts or conducting surveys is provided in the species profile in the Department’s Species Profile and Threats Database.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 8 of 11

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 9 of 11

References cited in the advice

Armstrong, K.N. (2001). The roost habitat and distribution of the orange leaf-nosed bat, Rhinonicteris aurantius, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28: 95–104. Armstrong, K.N. (2002). Morphometric divergence among populations of Rhinonicteris aurantius (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae) in northern Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 50: 649– 669. Armstrong, K.N. (2003) The bats that time forgot: the Orange Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantius (Gray, 1845) (Microchiroptera: Hipposideridae) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. PhD thesis, Department of Animal Biology, The University of Western Australia. Armstrong, KN (2005). A description and discussion of the penile morphology of Rhinonicteris aurantius (Gray, 1845) (Microchiroptera: Hipposideridae). Australian Mammalogy 27: 161– 167. Armstrong, K.N. (2006a). Resolving the correct nomenclature of the orange leaf-nosed bat Rhinonicteris aurantia (Gray, 1845) (Hipposideridae). Australian Mammalogy 28: 125–130. Armstrong, K.N. (2006b). Phylogeographic structure in Rhinonicteris aurantia (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae): implications for conservation. Acta Chiropterologica 8: 63–81. Armstrong, K.N. (2010). Assessing the short-term effect of minerals exploration drilling on colonies of bats of conservation significance: a case study near Marble Bar, Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 93: 165–174 Armstrong, K.N. (2011). The current status of bats in Western Australia. pp. 257–269. In: The biology and conservation of Australasian bats, (eds B. Law, P. Eby, D. Lunney and L. Lumsden). Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman, NSW, Australia. Armstrong, K.N. and Coles, RB (2007). Echolocation call frequency differences between geographic isolates of Rhinonicteris aurantia (Chiroptera: Hipposideridae): implications of nasal chamber size. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 94–104. Australasian Bat Society (ABS) (2015). Recommendations of the Australasian Bat Society, Inc. for acoustic surveys for bats. Version 2. Unpublished document by the Australasian Bat Society, Inc. Available at: http://ausbats.org.au/principles-and-policies/4573559802 Baudinette, R.V., Churchill, S.K., Christian, K.A., Nelson J.E., and Hudson P.J. (2000). Energy, water balance and the roost microenvironment in three Australian cave-dwelling bats (Microchiroptera). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 170: 439–446. Cramer, V., Armstrong, K.N., Bullen, R., Ellis, R., Gibson, L., McKenzie, N., O’Connell, M., Spate, A. and van Leeuwen, S. (2016) Research priorities for the Pilbara leaf-nosed bat (Rhinonicterus aurantia Pilbara form). Australian Mammalogy. Carwardine, J., Nicol, S., Van Leeuwen, S., Walters, B., Firn, J., Reeson, A., Martin T.G. and Chades I. (2014). Priority Threat Management of Pilbara Species of Conservation Significance. [Online]. CSIRO Ecosystems Sciences, Brisbane. Available at: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Environment/Biodiversity/Pilbara-threat-management- report.aspx Churchill, S.K. (1991). Distribution, abundance and roost selection of the orange horseshoe-bat, Rhinonycteris aurantius, a tropical cave-dweller. Wildlife Research 18: 343–353.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 10 of 11

Churchill, S.K. (1995). Reproductive ecology of the Orange Horseshoe bat, Rhinonycteris aurantius (Hipposideridae: Chiroptera), a tropical cave dweller. Wildlife Research 22: 687– 698. Churchill, S.K. (2008). Australian Bats. Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW. Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) (2013a). Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat Workshop TalkBook. Summary from a meeting held on 25 June 2013 at the Department of Parks and Wildlife, Kensington, Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPAW) (2013b). Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat BlueSheet. Summary from a meeting held on 25 June 2013 at the Department of Parks and Wildlife, Kensington, Western Australia, version 22 July 2013. Department of the Environment (DotE) (2015). Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form)—Pilbara leaf-nosed bat, In: Species Profile and Threats Database. Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=82790 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Bats. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.1. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/threatened-bats.html. Foley N.M., Thong V.D., Soisook P., Goodman S.M., Armstrong K.N., Jacobs D., Peuchmaille S.J. and Teeling E.C. (2015). How and why overcome the impediments to resolution: lessons from rhinolophid and hipposiderid bats. Molecular Biology and Evolution 32: 313– 333. Hall, L., Richards, G. McKenzie, N. and Dunlop, N. (1997). The importance of abandoned mines as habitat for bats. pp. 326–333 In: Conservation Outside Nature Reserves (eds. P. Hales and D. Lamb). Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. IUCN (2001). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Kulzer, E., Nelson, J.E., McKean, J.L., and Mohres, F.P. (1970). Temperature regulation in Australian bats (Microchiroptera). Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Physiologie 69: 426–451. [In German] McKenzie, N., Armstrong, K. and Kendrick, P. (1999). Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat. pp: 36–38 In: The Action Plan for Australian bats (eds. A. Duncan, G.B. Baker and N. Montgomery). Environment Australia, Canberra. Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) 2001, Commonwealth Listing Advice on Bats, viewed 18 August 2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/bats.html Woinarski, J.C.Z., Burbidge, A.A. and Harrison, P.L. (2014). The action plan for Australian mammals 2012. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) (Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat) conservation advice

Page 11 of 11