Download Pseudomys novaehollandiae, New Holland Mouse

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T18552A22398752
Pseudomys novaehollandiae, New Holland Mouse
Assessment by: Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A.A.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A.A. 2016. Pseudomys novaehollandiae. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016: e.T18552A22398752. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20162.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Rodentia
Muridae
Taxon Name: Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Waterhouse, 1843)
Common Name(s):
• English:
New Holland Mouse, Pookila
Taxonomic Notes:
No subspecies are recognised for Pseudomys novaehollandiae. Ford (2003) found that the genetic
distinctiveness of P. novaehollandiae from P. delicatulus was no greater than that among individuals of P.
delicatulus. He suggested that the two may not be separate species and that P. novaehollandiae may be
a subspecies of P. delicatulus.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Vulnerable B2ab(ii,iii,iv,v) ver 3.1
Year Published:
2016
Date Assessed:
December 31, 2012
Justification:
The New Holland Mouse has a small area of occupancy (680 km² across its entire known range, but only
around 420 km² if only those sites where the species has been confirmed as present between 1999 and
2009 are included). Its geographic range is severely fragmented and there is a continuing decline in area
of occupancy, habitat, number of locations and number of mature individuals. Currently it is assessed as
Vulnerable.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2008 – Vulnerable (VU) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T18552A8427807.en
1996 – Lower Risk/least concern (LR/lc)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
The New Holland Mouse is a small, nocturnal, terrestrial, burrowing native rodent found in a disjunct
and highly fragmented coastal and near coastal locations in southern Queensland, New South Wales,
Victoria and Tasmania, including Flinders Island (Hocking and Driessen 2000, Kemper and Wilson 2008)
and Hummock Island (Norris et al. 1979). It has been found from coastal areas and up to 100 km inland
(Wilson and Laidlaw 2003) and from sea level up to around 900 m above sea level (Menkhorst et al.
2008). Its extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) have been estimated at 108,000 km²
and 680 km² respectively (TSSC 2010b). However, including only sites from which the species has been
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
1
confirmed as present between 1999 and 2009, the EOO was estimated to be ca 90,000 km², and the
AOO was estimated to be around 420 km² (TSSC 2010b). The distribution of recent subfossils further
suggests that the species has undergone a large range contraction since European settlement (Breed
and Ford 2007). At a regional level, there are several areas from which the species has disappeared since
European settlement (Wilson 1996).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Australia (New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
2
Distribution Map
Pseudomys novaehollandiae
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
3
Population
There is no robust estimate of population size nor that of most subpopulations; however, there are
probably fewer than 10,000 mature individuals (Menkhorst et al. 2008). Abundance varies with location
and vegetation condition. New Holland Mice peak in abundance in autumn and have lowest abundance
in spring (Kemper and Wilson 2008). At Anglesea, Victoria, population density at 10-20 individuals ha-1
during early 1995, with decline to 3-10 ha-1 in June 1995 (Wilson 1991, Lock and Wilson 1999, Lock
2005). The abundance of New Holland Mice varies with location, vegetation and fire history (see the
Habitats and Ecology section).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
The New Holland Mouse is a small, nocturnal, native rodent and is an opportunistic omnivore,
consuming seeds, stem and leaf tissues, roots, fungi, insects and other invertebrates (Cockburn 1980,
Norton 1987, Wilson and Bradtke 1999, Fox and Fox 2006). The introduced House Mouse Mus musculus
has been shown to compete for food in some studies, but may be more insectivorous than the New
Holland Mouse (Cockburn 1980). New Holland Mice live communally in burrows, emerging at night to
feed.
New Holland Mice are mostly associated with early to mid stages of vegetation succession
following fire. In a study in Victoria, they occurred most frequently in vegetation that had been burnt 34 years previously (Wilson 1991); while in Tasmania Pye (1991) recommended that to maintain a
population at Mt William National Park, regular firing of the habitat, either naturally or by regular
controlled patch-burn firing at intervals of 7-10 years was required. However, in Tasmania, the species
has been found in vegetation of up to 16 years post-fire (DPIW 2010).
The subpopulation of New
Holland Mice found in 1993 on the Yanakie Isthmus of Wilsons Promontory National Park, Victoria, was
occupying atypical habitat – vegetated sand dunes that had not been burnt for 20-30 years. The dune
habitat comprised a mature Banksia – Allocasuarina woodland with an understorey dominated by
sedges and low shrubs (Quin 1996, Quin and Williamson 1996). Three years later, New Holland Mice had
spread into adjacent open swales with a shrub layer of Coast Tea-tree Leptospermum laevigatum
regenerating after being slashed within the previous three years (Atkin and Quin 1999). However, Coast
Tea-tree and Coastal Wattle Acacia sophorae invasion of dunes was believed to threaten the ongoing
existence of New Holland Mouse on the dunes because the resulting monoculture out-competed the
vegetation community they preferred. Quin and Williamson (1996) and Atkin and Quin (1999) provided
recommendations for the short-term management of the New Holland Mouse and its habitat and for
further determining the impact of successional vegetation changes, including the effects of slashing and
grazing, on New Holland Mouse numbers. There is evidence that populations of the New Holland
Mouse are strongly impacted by rainfall. Subpopulations in New South Wales have been shown to
increase the length of their breeding season, and thus reproductive output, during times of above
average rainfall (Kemper 1976, 1980). Maximum population densities at Anglesea, Victoria were
recorded following four years of above average rainfall and declined during below average rainfall and
drought conditions (Lock 2005, Wilson et al. 2007) and there is evidence that population fluctuations at
Wilsons Promontory have been influenced by rainfall patterns (Wilson et al. 2005). At Anglesea
abundance was found to have a strong positive relationship to cumulative monthly residual rainfall
exhibiting a 0-9 month lag time (Lock 2005). It is likely that the impact of rainfall is related to its
influence on resource availability that can lead to variations in reproductive output such as births,
recruitment, and adult survival.
At Anglesea in Victoria, juveniles were captured from January to
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
4
March (Wilson 1991) and the breeding season at Wilsons Promontory, Victoria was from December to
May (Wilson et al. 2005). The longer breeding season of the New Holland Mouse in New South Wales
means that females are capable of having up to six litters per season, while Victorian and Tasmanian
subpopulations may have only 1-2 litters (Kemper 1990). The longer breeding season also means that
first year females can breed, but this is not the case at Anglesea or in Tasmania (Norton 1987, Wilson
1991). In New South Wales, breeding occurs between August and March with some variation between
years. A study in New South Wales found that mean litter size was 4.6 (range 2-6) (Kemper 1980). In
Tasmania, breeding is also seasonal and takes place from early November to late March and females are
capable of producing at least two litters in a breeding season (Pye 1991). In a laboratory study, sexual
maturity was earlier in females, at 13 weeks, than in males (20 weeks) (Kemper 1976). In the wild,
females may live up to two years, occasionally three. Generation length is here assumed to be 1.5 years.
Systems: Terrestrial
Use and Trade
New Holland Mice is not utilized.
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Threats to New Holland Mouse include:
• Inappropriate fire regimes (severe): the New Holland Mouse is dependent on early to mid stages of
vegetation recovery after fire.
• Predation by feral cats (severe, especially in association with frequent fire): feral Domestic Cats (Felis
catus) occur through entire range of this species, including Flinders Island. Cats are significant predators
of native mice, but probably significantly affect subpopulations only when the habitat is open.
• Habitat loss and fragmentation (moderate): coastal habitat subject to development; however, much
habitat is in reserves; nonetheless, most subpopulations are now fragmented by historic clearing,
rendering them less likely to be recolonised after fire.
• Climate change (moderate): New Holland Mouse subpopulations impacted by lower rainfall and more
frequent drought (Wilson et al. 2007).
• Predation by Red Foxes (moderate to minor): there is no direct evidence of significant predation on
this species by Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). Predation of similar-sized Pseudomys elsewhere is not significant
at the population level.
• Habitat degradation due to weeds (moderate to minor): recognised as a threat (TSSC 2010b)
• Habitat degradation due to livestock and non-native herbivores (moderate to minor): recognised as a
threat (TSSC 2010b)
• Habitat degradation due to Phytophthora infection (moderate to minor): recognised as a threat (TSSC
2010b)
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
There is no national recovery plan for this species; however, there is a Victorian Action Statement
(Seebeck et al. 1996).
There is no species-specific management. New Holland Mice occur in several national parks and other
conservation reserves with fire management, sometimes aimed at creating habitat for New Holland
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
5
Mouse (e.g., Gippsland Lakes Coastal Park).
Credits
Assessor(s):
Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A.A.
Reviewer(s):
Amori, G.
Contributor(s):
Wilson, B., Quin, B., Atkin, B., Menkhorst, P. & Quin, D.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
6
Bibliography
Atkin, B.W. and Quin, B.R. 1999. New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Rodentia: Muridae):
further findings at Yanakie Isthmus, Wilsons Promontory National Park. The Victorian Naturalist 116:
169-172.
Braithwaite, R.W., Morton, S.R., Burbidge, A.A. and Calaby, J.H. 1995. Australian names for Australian
rodents. Australian Nature Conservation Agency in association with CSIRO Australia, Canberra.
Breed, B. and Ford, F. 2007. Native mice and rats. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Cockburn, A. 1980. The diet of the New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) and the House
Mouse (Mus musculus) in a Victorian coastal heathland. Australian Mammalogy 3: 31-34.
Department of Primary Industries and Water, Threatened Species Section. 2010. Listing statement for
Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse). Department of Primary Industries and Water,
Hobart.
Ford, F. 2003. Conilurine rodent evolution: the role of ecology in modifying evolutionary consequences
of environmental change. James Cook University.
Fox, B.J. and Fox, M.D. 2006. Recolonization of coastal heath by Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Muridae)
following sand mining. Austral Ecology 3: 447-465.
Hocking, G.J. and Driessen, M.M. 2000. Status and conservation of the rodents of Tasmania. Wildlife
Research 27(4): 371-377.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 04 September 2016).
Kemper, C.M. 1976. Reproduction of Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Muridae) in the laboratory. Australian
Journal of Zoology 24: 159-167.
Kemper, C.M. 1980. Reproduction of Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Muridae) in the wild. Australian
Wildlife Research 7: 385-402.
Kemper, C.M. 1990. Small mammals and habitat disturbance of open forest of coastal New South Wales.
I. Population parameters. Australian Wildlife Research 17: 195-206.
Kemper, C.M. and Wilson, B.A. 2008. New Holland Mouse, Pseudomys novaehollandiae. In: S. Van Dyck
and R. Strahan (eds), The mammals of Australia. Third Edition, pp. 643-644. Reed New Holland, Sydney,
New South Wales, Australia.
Lee, A.K. 1995. The Action Plan for Australian Rodents. Australian Department of the Environment and
Heritage, Canberra, Australia.
Lock, M. 2005. Conservation and recovery of the New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae).
Deakin University.
Lock, M.L. and Wilson, B.A. 1999. The distribution of the New Holland mouse (Pseudomys
novaehollandiae) with respect to vegetation near Anglesea, Victoria. Wildlife Research 26: 565-577.
Menkhorst, P., Dickman, C., Denny, M., Aplin, K., Lunney, D. and Ellis, M. 2008. Pseudomys
novaehollandiae. In 'The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species'. Version 2012.1. Available at:
www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 13 October 2012).
Norris, K.C., Gilmore, A.M. and Menkhorst, P.W. 1979. Vertebrate fauna of south Gippsland, Victoria.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
7
Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria No. 40.
Norton, T.W. 1987. The ecology of small mammals in north-eastern Tasmania. 2. Pseudomys
novaehollandiae and the introduced Mus musculus. Australian Wildlife Research 14: 435 - 441.
Pye, T. 1991. The New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) (Rodentia: Muridae) in Tasmania: a
field study. Wildlife Research 18: 521-531.
Quin, B.R. 1996. New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Rodentia: Muridae) in South
Gippsland, South Victoria; Part 1 – distribution and status. The Victorian Naturalist 113: 236-246.
Quin, B.R., and Williamson, R.C. 1996. New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Rodentia:
Muridae) in South Gippsland, South Victoria; Part 2 – conservation and management. The Victorian
Naturalist 113: 281-288.
Seebeck, J., Menkhorst, P., Wilson, B. and Lowe, K.W. 1996. New Holland Mouse Pseudomys
novaehollandiae. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No. 74. Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Melbourne.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (Cth). 2010a. Commonwealth Listing Advice on Pseudomys
novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse). Canberra Available at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/96-listing-advice.pdf.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (Cth). 2010b. Commonwealth Conservation Advice on
Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse). Canberra, ACT Available at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/96-conservation-advice.pdf.
Tidey, D., Gibson, L. and Wilson, B. 2003. Refining release protocol for New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys
novaehollandiae) reintroductions at Anglesea, Victoria. Forty-ninth annual general meeting of the
Australian Mammal Society: 49. Sydney.
Wilson, B.A. 1991. The ecology of Pseudomys novaehollandiae (Waterhouse 1843) in the Eastern Otway
Ranges, Victoria. Wildlife Research 18: 233 47.
Wilson, B.A. 1996. The distribution and status of the New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae
(Waterhouse 1843) in Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 19: 31-46.
Wilson, B.A. and Bradtke, E. 1999. The diet of the New Holland Mouse, Pseudomys novaehollandiae
(Waterhouse) in Victoria. Wildlife Research 26: 439-451.
Wilson, B.A. and Laidlaw, W.S. 2003. Habitat characteristics for New Holland Mouse Pseudomys
novaehollandiae in Victoria. Australian Mammalogy 25: 1-11.
Wilson, B.A., Lock, M. and Magnusdottir, R. 2007. Impact of rainfall on native mammal populations in
south-eastern Australia. MEDECOS XI Conference. Perth, Western Australia.
Wilson, B.A., White, N.M., Hanley, A. and Tidey, D.L. 2005. Population fluctuations of the New Holland
Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae at Wilson’s Promontory National Park, Victoria. Australian
Mammalogy 27: 49-60.
Citation
Woinarski, J. & Burbidge, A.A. 2016. Pseudomys novaehollandiae. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2016: e.T18552A22398752. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20162.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
8
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
9
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.4. Forest - Temperate
Resident
Suitable
Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.4. Shrubland - Temperate
Resident
Suitable
Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.5. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Dry
Resident
Suitable
Yes
3. Shrubland -> 3.6. Shrubland - Subtropical/Tropical Moist
Resident
Suitable
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1.
Housing & urban areas
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Rapid declines
Medium
impact: 6
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Minority (50%)
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
Whole (>90%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire
suppression -> 7.1.1. Increase in fire
frequency/intensity
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire
suppression -> 7.1.2. Supression in fire
frequency/intensity
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Felis catus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Vulpes
vulpes)
Slow, significant
declines
Slow, significant
declines
Rapid declines
Negligible declines
Medium
impact: 6
Low impact: 5
High impact: 8
Low impact: 5
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: No
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
10
Conservation Actions in Place
Systematic monitoring scheme: No
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over part of range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Percentage of population protected by PAs (0-100): 31-40
Area based regional management plan: Unknown
Invasive species control or prevention: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagation
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.1. Species Action/Recovery Plan
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
0. Root -> 4. Other
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 420-680
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 325900
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
11
Distribution
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 15
Continuing decline in number of locations: Yes
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 900
Population
Number of mature individuals: 8000
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Extreme fluctuations: No
Population severely fragmented: Yes
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Yes
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 1.5
Movement patterns: Not a Migrant
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Pseudomys novaehollandiae – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T18552A22398752.en
12
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™