Download ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT
MARY BASIN WATER
RESOURCE PLAN (WRP)
Appendix B
Other Vertebrates
Report No. 02/16
Prepared by Garry L. Werren
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
James Cook University, Qld 4811
Phone: 07-47814262
Fax: 07-47815589
Email: [email protected]
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX I............................................................................................................................. 1
Other Vertebrates ................................................................................................................ 1
I.1
Introduction. ......................................................................................................... 1
I.2
Obligate stream-dwelling vertebrates. ............................................................... 2
I.2.1
I.3
Chelid turtles. ................................................................................................... 2
Platypus, Water Rat, Water Dragon, Water Skink .......................................... 4
I.3.1
Platypus ............................................................................................................. 4
I.3.2
Water Rat.......................................................................................................... 7
I.3.3
Eastern Water Dragon..................................................................................... 7
I.3.4
Eastern Water Skink........................................................................................ 8
I.3.5
Frogs. ................................................................................................................. 8
I.4
Waterbirds and Bats. ......................................................................................... 10
I.4.1
Vertebrates of the end-of-system. ................................................................. 10
I.4.2
Vertebrates of special conservation concern. .............................................. 12
I.4.3
Landscape connectivity and other vertebrates............................................ 17
I.4.4
Exotic vertebrate species issues..................................................................... 17
I.4.5
Summary and water planning concerns....................................................... 20
References. .......................................................................................................................... 22
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page i
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
APPENDIX I
Other Vertebrates
I.1
Introduction.
The intention in this part of the investigation is to describe the vertebrate fauna (other than fish)
present in the study area, to identify its ecological conservation values and to discuss the condition of
the fauna with particular reference to implications of water resource management. Unlike the other
ecosystem components considered in Appendices A to H, the condition of the other vertebrate fauna
will not be formally ranked due to the great diversity of the vertebrate faunal assemblage and the fact
that it embraces such a range of groups as diverse as bird and frogs, the inherent patchiness in the
distribution of these various organisms and the lack of comprehensive data on species’ ecologies and
populations that would be required.
Due to its central location within the biodiverse South-East Queensland bioregion, and spanning three
of its distinctive provinces (Gympie Block, Great Sandy and Burnett-Curtis Coastal Lowlands –
Young and Dillewaard 1999), the study area (i.e. the Mary River catchment, Burrum River catchment,
but excluding the Gregory and Isis River catchments, and Beelbi Creek catchment) supports a large
array of vertebrate species. Excluding the fishes, many of these are totally (as in the case of chelid
turtles and platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus) or highly (as in the case of water dragons,
Physignathus leseueri, or water rats, Hydromys chrysogaster) dependent upon waterways and
waterbodies. Many others, while not obligate stream or wetland dwellers, are greatly reliant upon
streams (and wetlands) and their fringing vegetation, especially during critical stages of their life
cycles, seasonally or during periods of environmental stress. This is consistent with evidence (e.g.
Gross and Jackes 1992, Catterall 1993, Sattler 1993, Williams 1994) that a great proportion of the
vertebrate assemblage of Australian landscapes is dependent on riparian systems and associated
wetlands. Some such as the water dragon and eastern water skink (Eulamprus quoyi), as their names
denote, are rarely found more than a few metres from streams. Even terrestrial grassy open woodland
species such as the agile wallaby (Macropus agilis) strongly prefer habitat along streams and eat fallen
fruits of riparian and wetland forest components such as the Leichhardt tree (Nauclea orientalis)
(Merchant 1983 cited by Kitchener and Ball 1999). Others, such as the pale field-rat (Rattus tunneyi),
frequent tall grasslands along watercourses and the swamp rat (Rattus lutreolus) is generally confined
to riverside swamps.
Of particular importance for maintaining faunal habitat is the maintenance of integrity of riparian
systems and the curtailment of wetland drainage, especially along the coast. Some water resource
developments such as off-stream storages, can, in fact, advantage several of these species. But
because of the significant disruption of the riparian verge, in-stream storages are problematic. Further
problems can arise if water abstraction occurs to the extent that the quantum of water within a system
is insufficient to provide for maintenance of in-stream and near-stream communities that furnish
sustenance and shelter resources for these animals. Problems can also derive from supplementation if
it either disrupts these systems’ natural floristics and/or advantages exotic species invasion that, in
turn, changes the resource base.
Fluctuations in water levels within streams or within storages (both in-stream and off-stream) can also
constitute problems for some species. This is particularly so, at least during the breeding season, for
birds such as the great-crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus) that builds floating nest platforms, and for
others such as the dotterels/plovers (Charadriidae) that utilise near-stream locations (shores) for their
nest sites. However, such storages do provide increased habitat for such species. Most chelid turtles
are also greatly reliant upon stable water levels for breeding.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 1
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
I.2
Obligate stream-dwelling vertebrates.
I.2.1
Chelid turtles.
Of the vertebrates that are totally reliant upon waterways and waterbodies within the landscape, the
freshwater turtles belonging to the family Chelidae 1 are by far the most biodiverse and significant
group on the Australian continent. At least 30 taxa are recognised, comprising 25 species and five
sub-species within seven genera (Cann 1998:14). All belong to the sub-order Pleurodira (side-necks)
but are arranged in two groups: (i) short-necked turtles (comprising mainly the genera Elseya,
Emydura and the monotypic Elusor, and (ii) long-necked turtles belonging to the genus Chelodina.
Turtles recorded from the study area are set out in Table 1. The study area hosts at least six species of
freshwater turtle, comprising four short-necked species and two long-necked turtles (Flakus 2002).
This is directly comparable to the Burnett and Fitzroy systems, along with the much more extensive
Burdekin-Haughton Basin (see Werren 2002), each supporting six species, which are regarded as the
most species-rich drainages for this group (Flakus 2002:1). 1.2.1
Table 1. Freshwater turtles recorded from the study area (Flakus 2002)
Taxon
Chelodina
longicollis
Common Name
snake-neck or
long-necked
turtle
C. expansa
broad-shelled
turtle
Elusor macrurus
Mary River
turtle
Emydura krefftii
Krefft’s turtle
Elseya sp. aff.
dentata
Mary River
snapper
Diet
opportunistic
carnivore
Comments
an animal with an extensive
south-eastern continental
distribution and tolerant of a wide
range of conditions but generally
prefers slow-flowing, weedy
watercourses (Cann 1998:60)
carnivorous –
also a wide-ranging species, this
takes fish,
turtle has a variable but often
shrimp and
long incubation period and young
crayfish (Cann
may exhibit some degree of
1998:88)
torpor in nest chambers while
awaiting rains to permit their
escape (Cann 1998:87).
omnivorous –
monotypic genus endemic to the
takes
Mary River that exhibits a large
filamentous
adult size and large tail with
algae, figs and
aperture and barbels; cloacal
bivalve molluscs breather; nesting occurs in mid
October and again one month
later “in certain favourable areas
of riparian habitat” (Cann
1998:253)
omnivorous
not particularly demanding re.
breeding substrate (Cann
1998:135)
currently undescribed but
not precisely
distinctive taxon also found in the
known but may
Fitzroy and Burnett basins
be essentially
(Flakus 2002:1); Cann (1998:193)
herbivorous
documents the Mary River as the
southern range limit of the E.
1
The only other Australian freshwater turtle, the pig-nosed turtle, Carettochelys insculpta, that is
endemic to drainages of the Northern Territory, belongs to a monotypic family, Carettochelidae, which dates
back at least 40MYBP (Cann 1998:225).
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 2
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Taxon
Common Name
Diet
E.latisternum
saw-shelled
turtle
chiefly
carnivorous
Comments
dentata “group”; can switch
between pulmonary and cloacal
breathing and exhibits preference
for highly oxygenated water and
an intact riparian zone (Tucker, as
cited by Arthington, 2000)
prefers lagoons, billabongs and
creeks to major river systems
(Cann 1998:201); breeds from
early Sept-Jan., often with large
clutch sizes and an incubation
period of 60 days; as for the
above, this animal can switch
between pulmonary and cloacal
respiration but appears less
dependent on the latter than other
members of the group (Tucker,
cited by Arthington, 2000)
Of the taxa set out in Table 1, one is of very high conservation value. This is the monotypic Mary
River turtle, an endemic to the system and only relatively recently described (i.e. in 1994). Flakus
(2002:3) notes that E. macrurus occurs from Kenilworth (20°35’S, 152°46’E) in the upper reaches of
the river through to the tidal reaches upstream from the saltwater barrage at Tiaro (25°44.418’S,
152°31.554’E). It is also recorded at various localities along Tinana and Yabba Creeks, the two major
tributaries that run parallel to the main stream in its northern and southern reaches respectively.
Currently, this species is regarded as vulnerable under State legislation but endangered under the
National listing. In the 1960s and 1970s hatchlings of this species were sold in the pet trade
throughout Australia resulting in minimal recruitment into the population during that time (Flakus
2002:1). Flakus also argues that loss of nesting habitat and nest predation are the main factors
influencing the reproductive success of this species, with the breeding population in the lower Mary
declining by about 95% since the 1960s. While collection pressures may have diminished, population
rebound may be constrained by these other factors that are less easily identifiable, let alone
quantifiable. Apart from Elseya sp. aff. dentata (which requires taxonomic clarification), the
remaining species are relatively widely distributed and their status considered secure.
Reproductively, E. macrurus is classified as a temperate zone (c.f. tropical – Legler 1985) species,
nesting in spring and summer each year. Also, unlike some other freshwater turtles, it appears to
prefer unvegetated sand banks as egg-laying sites. Flakus (2002:4) cites historical information
indicating that these sand banks are ‘traditional’ sites that are used year after year by individual turtles
for nesting, however, lack of data on individual turtles using these sites means that confident
conclusions cannot be drawn on site fidelity without further research. Flakus also cites reports from
the 1960s and 1970s of synchronised or ‘mass’ nesting events recorded on these sand banks, however,
evidence of ‘mass’ nesting has not been apparent in recent years. The likely explanation is that with
the current population, functioning at about 5% of its former level, it is unlikely that such a nesting
event will be observed. Therefore, the records of mass nesting and site fidelity in the 1960s and 1970s
cannot, and probably will not, be substantiated until population levels recover.
The specialised gill-like structures (bursae) in the cloaca indicate that the Mary River turtle is a cloacal
ventilator (Flakus 2002:6). The Elseya group of freshwater turtles also uses cloacal bursae for
respiration and appears to be similarly reliant upon highly oxygenated water. Infrastructure
developments and modification of flow regimes that inundate riffles and reduce the relative proportion
of this in-stream habitat type within a system may be prejudicial to this animal’s long-term survival.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 3
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Sand and gravel extraction, cattle trampling, introduction of exotic weeds, flooding that occurs
unseasonally and/or at greater amplitudes than normal and permanent increases in water levels (i.e.
associated with weirs and dams), all have the potential to threaten the success of turtle nesting (Flakus
2002:4); the implications being far greater for a specialist species such as E. macrurus that also
appears to have a relatively long incubation period (Cann 1998:256). Exotic weed invasion of riverine
sand banks, that can be advantaged by more sustained base flows and a reduction of scouring flows,
may also constitute a major factor degrading this turtle’s breeding habitat. Also changes to flow
regimes can present serious implications for the movement of some freshwater turtles. Successful
reproduction and dispersal in these animals often relies on their ability to move up or downstream
(Flakus 2002:5). In particular, for a species such as E. macrurus that requires a specific habitat for
nesting, irregular or permanent flooding events could significantly affect the reproductive success and
continued survival of populations. Cann (1998:257) is also concerned that increased turbidities are
reducing habitat quality for this species.
Apart from these reasoned generalisations and predictions of impacts, few empirical data exist to make
more firm assertions. Albeit extra-regionally, more work has been undertaken on autecology of
animals such as the platypus that permits more confident claims regarding water infrastructure
development and flow modification impacts.
I.3
Platypus, Water Rat, Water Dragon, Water Skink.
I.3.1
Platypus.
The platypus is widely distributed along the east coast of Australia from Tasmania to Cooktown
(Grant 1984) and it is considered to be “common but vulnerable” (Grant 1991). This animal has been
recorded throughout the study area within perennial stream reaches and permanent waterholes (Water
Resources Commission, 1990). Information from other regions and sources has been assembled by
Arthington (2001) to provide guidance as to possible effects of flow regime change and water resource
development on platypus populations, and to point to environmental flow and other ecological
requirements.
Platypus may be found in a wide variety of habitats ranging from large riverine pools to fast-flowing
riffles. Ideal habitat is found in shallow rivers and streams flowing over a range of substrates with
relatively steep banks consolidated by the roots of native vegetation with growth overhanging the bank
(Scott and Grant 1997). The presence of overhanging vegetation is an important component for
several reasons: (i) roots help to consolidate the banks and prevent platypus burrows from collapsing,
(ii) overhanging vegetation provides cover from predators when animals move in and out of their
burrows and while they move and forage in shallow riffle areas, and (iii) overhanging vegetation
regulates the thermal and light environment of forested streams, provides energy to stream food webs
and contributes to habitat diversity (Bunn 1993, Cummins 1993).
Carrick and Grimley (1994) considered that platypus conservation relies mainly on maintenance of the
physical and biological integrity of waterways, and the physical integrity of stream banks that is
usually linked to the stabilising effects of vegetation. However, these animals are able to live in
disturbed waterways with little or no riparian vegetation flowing through agricultural lands, at weirs
and in large impoundments (Gunnidah 1997) and can also survive in degraded urban streams
(Arthington 2001).
Maintenance of the physical integrity of waterways, however, appears to be a necessary condition for
the production of invertebrate food supplies. The predominant food items are insect larvae from
Trichoptera, Diptera, Coleoptera, Ephemeroptera and Odonata, with a minor contribution by bivalve
molluscs and shrimp (Grant 1982). Platypus are opportunists, eating whatever is available in the
benthos of riffles and pools (Faragher et al., 1979, Grant 1995) although cicadas (Homoptera) and
moths (Lepidoptera) and other organisms floating at the surface, such as frogs, may be taken
occasionally (Carrick and Grimley 1994). Small fish and other fauna found in the water column
sometimes appear in the diet.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 4
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Animals may forage over extensive distances to gather their daily food requirements. The area of river
habitat available to individuals for feeding determines its carrying capacity and any reduction in
invertebrate biomass in streams and rivers is of concern for population maintenance. Factors reducing
invertebrate productivity may include loss of riparian vegetation and hence the allochthonous
(terrestrial) energy base of aquatic food chains, water pollution, high silt loads and sedimentation of
invertebrate habitat, excessive benthic algal biomass, release of cold water from impoundments, and
changes in discharge and velocity which reduce the extent and/or productivity of riffle habitat.
Platypus require stable riverbanks for the construction of burrows and the nest used for rearing the
young (Grant 1991). Burrows are more often associated with relatively steep and moderately undercut
banks where substantial vegetation overhangs the water. Animals exhibit a preference for relatively
high banks (mean height of banks at burrow entrances being 1.8 m) with burrows usually 50 cm below
the ground and following the slope of the riverbank. One or more oval entrances are located well
above the waterline. Williams and Serena (1999) suggest that nesting burrows may be placed
relatively high up along a bank to help prevent young from drowning in floods. Riparian vegetation
affords cover for animals and has the additional advantage of stabilising the bank against erosion and
collapse. The soil type must be suitable for supporting such earthworks without collapsing.
Breeding occurs during spring–summer when one to three eggs are laid by females in the underground
nest (Burrell 1927; Fleay 1980) and usually begins in October in the Brisbane region (Burrell 1927)
coinciding with months of relatively low river flows, although there can be exceptions in
unpredictable river systems. A plentiful supply of food must be available during this time. The
nesting burrow also needs to be secure from damage by floods or trampling and it must also provide
protection from predators. Dispersal of juveniles from the nest occurs at the end of the summer.
Assessment of impacts of water resource development on platypus needs to take into account their
rather specialised biology, habitat and reproductive requirements. Although these animals live through
natural periods of flooding and drought, water resource developments that impound long reaches of
riverine habitat, or significantly alter the frequency, duration and timing of flows can be expected to
have an impact on platypus populations.
Flooding may cause damage to unprotected riverbanks and scouring of riverbeds, and high sediment
loads may contribute in some areas to sedimentation of permanent pools. Sedimentation events were
reported to be associated with mortality of platypus after a storm event on a residential property
subdivision adjacent to Moggill Creek in Brisbane (Carrick and Grimley 1994). Burrell (1927)
described how the entrance and lower extremities of platypus burrows may become plugged with silt
following inundation of river banks by silt-laden flood waters. Platypus may move the entrance to the
nesting burrow several times during a single breeding season, possibly in response to damage or
sedimentation of the burrow entrance (Burrell 1927).
Grant (1981) has suggested that artificial water storages generally do not create additional habitat for
platypus as there is usually insufficient littoral vegetation to ensure stable banks for constructing
burrows, and the water in dams and weirs is often too deep to provide abundant benthic fauna at
depths animals can reach during diving. Platypus are generally restricted to dives of approximately
two minutes duration with most dives lasting 60-90 seconds (Johansen et al. 1966) and animals do not
regularly forage in water more than five feet deep (Williams and Serena 1999). Dams with shallower
areas and a variety of aquatic habitats do offer suitable foraging habitat (Williams and Serena 1999)
and shallower water at the upstream end of pondages are also suitable for foraging (Grant 1995).
Fluctuating water levels along the shoreline of impoundments can interfere with invertebrate
production and may flood burrows constructed under low water level conditions.
There is very little information on changes in platypus population biology in response to the
construction and physical presence of dams and weirs. Vertical concrete or metal surfaces at the exit
or entry point to a water body, for example, dam walls or drop structures, are often extremely difficult
or impossible for platypus to negotiate and may limit movements to and from pondages. Reducing the
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 5
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
height and/or angle of the vertical face, or providing a series of steps or footholds, may enable animals
to climb the surface, however movements may still be inhibited where water cascades over the
surface, or the structure is very high, or a protected alternative route is not available (Williams and
Serena 1999). However, personal observation of a sub-adult in the vicinity of Jarra Creek (TullyMurray system, far north Queensland) suggest that individuals can and do move overland and do so on
steep banks well above the water level. The platypus can live downstream from dams (Grant 1995) but
the effects of flow regime change on distribution and abundance are not well understood. Regulated
releases of water would appear to present a range of problems for platypus living downstream from
large dams and possibly also weirs. Rapid flow rates resulting from large releases have been
suggested to interfere with foraging activities as the currents may be too strong for the animals to
swim against and ‘broken white water’ is unsuitable for foraging (Grant and MacDonald 1996).
During irrigation releases from Eildon Weir on the Goulburn River, platypus have been observed to
avoid fast-flowing water and use shallow backwater areas for foraging (Grant 1995).
In this
particular instance, no net negative effects were caused by extended duration of bankfull flows (Gust
and Handasyde 1995). Platypus have been observed to forage in sheltered slack water and backwater
areas during natural floods in wet tropics rivers (B. Pusey, pers. comm.). Scott and Grant (1997)
suggest that the impacts of bankfull flows during the irrigation season are likely to be greater in rivers
where platypus cannot seek refuge in calm backwaters. Bankfull releases have to date not been an
issue in the study area.
When high flows are sustained for long periods, the availability of benthic invertebrates in the main
river channel can be reduced, particularly in riffle areas where velocities are high. These negative
effects of bankfull flows can be exacerbated by the sudden release of cold water (Scott and Grant
1997). Although the platypus can tolerate very cold water (Grigg et al. 1992), extra energy must be
expended to maintain body temperature.
While not a phenomenon exclusively associated with dams, another concern is that if the rise in water
level downstream from storages is too rapid, and high flows are sustained, juvenile and neonate
animals may become trapped in their burrows and drown. In addition, bankfull flows sustained for a
considerable time could mean that displaced animals are without the protection of their burrows and
more exposed to predators. Studies in the Shoalhaven River suggest that animals will return to their
burrows after flood levels have subsided provided they survive the flood and have managed to take
refuge in surrounding habitat (Grant 1991). Other observations indicate that individuals may use
several burrows within one pool or move between pools using burrows in each (Grant 1995). The use
of multiple burrows and burrow sharing (Grant 1995) may reduce the exposure of individual animals
dislodged from their original burrow by a period of natural or unnatural inundation or flooding.
Prolonged high flows released from dams during the breeding season (August to October in
Queensland) could lead to flooding of burrows occupied by lactating females and young, and to
drowning of young animals. Grant (1995) described an incident where a lactating female platypus was
washed from her burrow during flash floods that had extensively eroded the banks of a creek in the
Wollongong area of New South Wales. Dead platypus have been reported in several New South
Wales rivers after floods but the fate of young animals has not been recorded (Arthington 2001).
Williams and Serena (1999) suggest that nesting burrows may be placed relatively high up along a
bank to help prevent young juveniles from drowning during floods.
Droughts and artificially extended low flow periods also have implications for platypus. As flows
decrease, riffle areas between riverine pools shrink and may even become dewatered, reducing the
area available for platypus foraging (Scott and Grant 1997). In drought years, or periods of prolonged
spells of low flow, riffle areas may be severely diminished. There is some evidence to suggest that the
drying of parts of the Shoalhaven River during the 1982/83 drought reduced reproduction during that
breeding season (Grant et al. 1983). Scott and Grant (1997) assume that platypus populations would
recover during the wetter years.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 6
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Any form of flow regime change that influences the distribution and density of riparian vegetation
may impact on platypus if it disturbs the bank conditions favoured for burrow construction. Low
flows which isolate and expose burrow entrances may decrease their suitability as resting and nesting
habitat and lead to their abandonment. The construction of dams and weirs on many rivers destroys
burrows in the short term, and in the long term may render banks unsuitable for burrow construction.
River flow conditions appear to have the potential to influence all of the main requirements of
platypus either directly or indirectly. The secretive nature of these animals makes it very difficult to
ascertain quantitative impacts on population levels. Average platypus densities in some streams are as
low as one to two animals per kilometre of stream (excluding juveniles) and individual animals move
long distances to forage over large home ranges relative to body size (Serena 1995). These traits
“underscore the importance of conserving adequate platypus habitat throughout catchments in the
species’ range, including not only streams but also intervening sections of river” (Serena 1995).
I.3.2
Water Rat.
The water rat is widespread in eastern Australia and likely to be found in many streams of the study
area, including permanent headwater streams, slow moving reaches of permanent watercourses and
wetlands (Scott and Grant 1997; Morton et al. 1998). The diet of the animal is almost entirely aquatic,
comprised of crayfish (Decapoda), mussels (e.g. Velesunio wilsonii, V. ambiguus and Alathria
pertexta – Cann 1998:253) and fish (Van Dyck 1995) although small mammals, waterbirds and even
poultry have been listed as being part of the diet (Scott and Grant 1997). Arthington (2001) argues
that although high water velocities are likely to interfere with foraging and to incur high energetic
costs, floodwaters can increase foraging habitat and have longer-term implications for population
processes. This is supported by anecdotal reports of increases in rat abundance in Barmah Forest
during major floods in 1975 and along the Lachlan River during extended wet periods (Scott and
Grant 1997). Permanent inundation of temporary wetlands used for water storage in the MurrayDarling Basin appears to lead to increased abundance of water rats (Woollard et al. 1978).
Water rats occur in a range of habitats including permanent lakes, wetlands and irrigation areas (Scott
and Grant 1997). The water rat constructs a nest at the end of a tunnel in the riverbank or occasionally
in logs (Olsen 1982). Breeding can occur throughout the year but most litters are born between early
spring and late summer, with a peak of activity in early spring (Olsen 1982). Scott and Grant (1997)
have suggested that a sudden rise in water level in spring could flood the nests of the water rat and
cause mortality of young rats. However, if the first litter is lost, the water rat is capable of producing
another and possibly even a third in the same season.
The effects of water resource development on the water rats are likely to be similar to those described
for turtles, however there does not appear to be any detailed data on how rat populations are impacted
by impoundment of rivers, barrier effects, flow regime change or loss of wetland habitats in rivers of
northern Australia. Data from the Murray-Darling Basin may not be directly relevant. Any water
resource development that severely reduces or degrades rat habitat might be expected to have an
impact on their population biology, but on the whole they appear to be robust and tolerant animals.
I.3.3
Eastern Water Dragon.
The eastern water dragon lives in riparian and riverine habitats in the study area and is similar to
freshwater turtles in both diet and breeding characteristics. The diet consists of crustaceans, aquatic
insects and small vertebrates as well as fruits from riparian vegetation (Czechura and Miles 1983).
This species is able to tolerate conditions in semi-polluted drains and waterways. Overhanging
branches or emergent logs are used as perches (Wilson and Czechura 1995), much as turtles use
sandbanks and river snags for basking in the sun. Clutches of about 20 eggs are laid in sandy
riverbanks. The effects of water resource development would be similar to those described for turtles,
however there do not appear to be any detailed data on population responses of water dragons to
impoundment of rivers, barrier effects, flow regime change or loss of wetland habitats (Arthington
2001).
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 7
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
I.3.4
Eastern Water Skink.
Eulamprus quoyii, a small riparian water skink found in eastern Australia, usually forages along the
banks of streams but may also capture surface-swimming aquatic prey such as damselfly (Odonata)
nymphs, water beetles (order Coleoptera, e.g. Hydaticus bihamatus) and tadpoles (Cogger 2000). It
has been recorded at several locations about the north-eastern watershed (QMus. records) but its
putative distribution covers the entire study area (Cogger 2000). While not as dependent on streams as
the above animals, this skink is highly reliant on access to its streamside foraging habitat (i.e. bars,
banks and the riparian zone generally) and would suffer if such systems become significantly
degraded.
Vertebrates that are dependent on waterways/waterbodies:
I.3.5
Frogs.
More than 40 species of frogs are known from the Mary and Burrum River catchments and from areas
surrounding Beelbi Creek (QMus. records). Because of their moisture-dependent physiology they
constitute a group that is distinctly linked to waterways and waterbodies. Although considered more
fully in a later section, several of these are rare and/or threatened species. Almost all of these are lotic
stream-dwelling frogs of the upland rainforested streams of the south-eastern watershed (i.e. upper Six
Mile Creek, Obi Obi Creek, and Mary River headwater streams). Those typifying the open grassy
woodlands that characterise the great proportion of the study area are widespread and their status is
regarded widely as secure.
Some endangered frogs found within the study area are obligate lotic stream-dwellers and susceptible
to impacts of water resource development and other disturbances on first order streams. Some impacts
may have occurred with the construction of Baroon Pocket Dam.
Another subset of
endangered/vulnerable species comprises those associated with the wallum (acid swampy coastal
heathlands) of near-coastal sections of the study area. Species belonging to this group are perhaps
susceptible to water resource developments within the study area, but despite water resource
modifications in the form of Lenthalls Dam and the weirs on the Burrum, more impacts are likely to
be associated with the widespread clearing and topographic disruptions associated with urban
developments and residential subdivision between Maryborough and Hervey Bay.
Belonging to the rainforest stream group, Rheobatrachus silus, the platypus (gastric-brooding) frog,
was recorded initially from, and appeared to be confined to, streams draining the Conondale Range
near Kondalilla in 1972 (Tyler 1984). It has not been located for over 20 years and may be extinct or if
not, is certainly endangered (Tyler1989, McDonald et al. 1991). It, and its congener R. vitellinus, are
the only two species of exclusively aquatic frogs in Australia (Tyler 1984) and one of the only two
species known in the world to brood young in the stomach and give birth to living young via the
mouth.
Another distinctive lotic stream-dwelling frog found within this area and which is regarded as
endangered is Taudactylus diurnus. This animal was formerly abundant along upland rainforested
streams throughout its Mt Glorious to Kondalilla range but it too has suffered a precipitous population
decline and may be extinct (c.f. Trenerry et al. 1993, Campbell 1999).
Another two species of frogs classified as endangered, Mixophyes fleayi and M. iteratus, with the
former also at its northern range limit in the Conondale Ranges, are associated with rainforest and tall
open (wet sclerophyll) forest of the upper catchment of the Mary. Little is known about the biology or
current population status of these frogs, nor the extent to which they might be reliant on streams and/or
riparian habitat.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 8
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
A fifth frog species classified as endangered is Litoria personiana. This tree-frog breeds from spring
to summer “in pools beside or connected to streams” (Tyler 1992:28). Since Tyler (1992) suggested
that the species conservation status was ‘secure’ a decade ago and it is now listed as endangered, it is
yet another example of the many ‘disappearing’ frog species that has become an unfortunately
common global phenomenon (Trenerry et al. 1993, Campbell 1999).
The more common species of frogs recorded from the study area include various tree frogs and species
with a close affinity with freshwater habitats. Some, e.g. taxa in the Litoria lesueuri complex, even
construct small basin-type ‘nests’ akin to eel-tail catfish (Plotosidae) ‘nests’ on sandy streambanks
into which they deposit egg masses (Richards 1993). Limnodynastes ornatus, the ornate burrowingfrog, ranges from wet sclerophyll forest in coastal areas to dry arid woodlands, whereas L. peroni and
L. tasmaniensis are very adaptable species often the first to take advantage of new dams, ditches and
inundated areas on disturbed ground (Robinson 1995). Litoria fallax, the eastern dwarf tree-frog, is
usually found not far from water and amongst emergent bulrushes (Typha spp.), or in swamps, lagoons
and dams. Litoria gracilenta, the dainty green tree-frog, lives in sedges and inundated vegetation and
grasses along the banks of streams, and in lagoons, swamps and flooded ditches, L. latopalmata
usually lives well away from water moving near to standing and flowing waters during the breeding
season, while L. lesueuri also breeds in ponds and backwaters close to creeks (Robinson 1995) as well
as in sandbank ‘nests’ (Richards 1993).
Water resource development has potentially significant implications for frogs. Amphibians as a group
have a great dependency on wetlands and riverine or moist forest environments as habitat, as a source
of food and for successful reproduction. Frogs are particularly susceptible during the spawning and
tadpole life history stage, and the drying out of streams or increased flows that flush the spawn or
tadpoles downstream may seriously impact on successful recruitment (Arthington 2001). Some
species may require certain changes in flow rates or flooding episodes to stimulate reproduction. Any
changes in riverine conditions leading to loss of habitat or inhibition of the reproductive cycle are
undesirable. Many native frog species will not be able to survive unless suitable habitat is maintained
in either in the aquatic environment or in the riparian and wetland areas associated with streams and
rivers. The latter category would include any developments that impinge on the extent and condition
of wetlands, or cause them to be drained or contaminated by runoff and nutrients, or changes that
modify the connectivity of wetlands with stream and river channels.
The loss of wetlands and swamp areas that have been reclaimed or drained can lead to a decline in
numbers of frogs. Some frogs are known to travel large distances using corridors of riparian
vegetation and this interface zone between the river and the terrestrial landscape needs to be
maintained so that movement between different areas can occur. Other species may be more or less
fully dependent upon off-stream habitats that are wetted by rain and surface runoff and these species
are unlikely to be affected by water resource development unless such areas are inundated by
impoundments or the vegetation is disturbed by other water infrastructure such as irrigation and
tailwater drainage systems, particularly when these contain water contaminated by high concentrations
of pesticides and/or other toxic contaminants.
The direct impacts of stream flow regime change on frog populations have received little attention in
the literature and certainly warrant detailed investigation in the context of the WRP program. Morton
et al. (1998) listed the susceptibility of endangered frog species to flow regime change and other
threats, giving emphasis to the replacement of lotic (flowing water) habitats with lentic (lake) habitats,
the modification of flows by dams and weirs and water extraction, the barrier effects of dams and
weirs, and physically disruptive effects of water infrastructure emplacement on seasonal and
ephemeral wetland and floodplain habitats. The latter category would include any developments that
impinge on the extent and condition of wetlands, or cause them to be drained or contaminated by
runoff and nutrients, or changes that modify the connectivity of wetlands with stream and river
channels. Pearson and Clayton (1993) commented that many species of frogs would not adapt to the
modified habitat conditions of impoundments, the main factors conferring suitability being the fish
species present, the abundance and diversity of cover in the littoral zone (aquatic plants, snags) and the
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 9
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
proximity and condition of fringing vegetation. The presence of translocated and introduced fishes
(which proliferate in impoundments) has been shown elsewhere to have a highly negative impact on
frog populations (Gillespie et al., 1999). However, some species of Limnodynastes appear to benefit
from water infrastructure works and may be found in ditches, farms dams, fish ponds and swimming
pools, and may be moderately tolerant of water pollution (Robinson 1995). The species associated
with streams and swamps are vulnerable to wetland drainage, as well as loss of connectivity of stream
and river channels and their associated floodplain and wetland habitats. Those rare and/or threatened
frogs that are known only from gully and riverine forests of the upper Mary River catchment may be
vulnerable to changes in the water balance and distribution of vegetation communities in the
landscape, and to flooding of riparian vegetation by headwater impoundments.
The introduced Cane Toad, Bufo marinus has been recorded within the lower elevation sections of the
study area. As an exotic species, it will be considered further below.
I.4
Waterbirds and Bats.
While many other vertebrates access waterways and waterbodies (and their fringing vegetation)
periodically for water and food resources (Fisher and Goldney 1997, Williams 1994) - especially when
there is mass flowering of riverine paperbarks, eucalypts and bloodwoods – a relatively diverse group
that is greatly dependent on these landscape features are the waterbirds. Broadly this group comprises
the grebes (Podicepididae), darters and cormorants (Anhingidae, Phalacrocoridae), herons and egrets
(Ardeidae), ibises and spoonbills (Plataleidae), ducks, swans and geese (Anatidae), several species of
rails, crakes and coots (Rallidae) plus a range of wading birds (e.g. plovers, dotterels, sandpipers,
snipe) from several families. Most are specialist foragers of aquatic macrophytes and/or dive or probe
for invertebrates, while some are piscivorous and others patrol the watermark or shoreline for
invertebrate prey.
There are also some specialist kingfishers (Alcedinidae), e.g. the azure kingfisher (Ceyx azurea),
which are almost exclusively piscivorous and similarly dependent on healthy waterways. Azure
kingfishers also use in-stream woody debris and riparian vegetation as roosts and vantage points for
capturing prey.
In a manner similar to the roving or irruptive honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) that congregate in high
numbers when riverine trees are in massed bloom, the blossom-bats and flying foxes (Pteropodidae)
also forage along waterways. Insectivorous bats (Microchiroptera) also utilise flight paths along
riverine corridor to forage. There is also a bat, Myotis macropus, which is a specialist piscivore and
thus associated with streams and waterbodies.
The extent to which these animals are impacted by water resource development is unlikely to be easily
determined. The provision of both in-stream and off-stream storages may well advantage waterbirds,
but the inundation and consequent death of riparian trees may adversely affect nectar, blossom and
insect resources for a suite of other birds and bats. Stream supplementation may assist exotic plant
species to establish in and about streams, and where species such as Pará grass (Brachiaria mutica) are
advantaged, aquatic food webs are greatly disrupted and animals dependent on fish and aquatic
invertebrates may suffer adverse impacts. If flows are reduced, foraging habitats for piscivorous birds
such as the azure kingfisher and various others correspondingly diminish and local populations may
suffer declines.
I.4.1
Vertebrates of the end-of-system.
Water infrastructure and flow modification are likely to have had implications for the vertebrate fauna
of the estuaries – and possibly the near-shore areas of Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Strait into
which they debouche. Apart from fish and the host of marine invertebrates that are reliant on this part
of the system as spawning, larval nursery and foraging areas, there are several vertebrate species that
are similarly reliant on the integrity of the estuaries. One of the foremost of these is the vulnerable
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 10
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
dugong (Dugong dugon). It is known to be greatly dependent on seagrass beds that are associated
with near-shore marine environments. Six species of seagrass have been recorded from the Strait and
southern Hervey Bay and these comprise Cymodocea serrulata, Halodule uninervis, H. ovalis, H.
spinulosa, Syringodium
isoetifolium and Zostera capricorni (Environment Australia 2002). The sea grasses on which these
animals depend also appear to fluctuate greatly in response to influx of freshwater associated with
periodic flooding from the Mary River and any associated pollutants and elevated turbidities
(Environment Australia 2002). Modifications that result in added sediments and contaminants may
seriously degrade these vital foraging resources for the dugong. One cryptic specialised semi-aquatic
rodent classified as vulnerable has been recorded in mangroves and grassy areas immediately
landward of the fringing mangroves of the area. This is the water mouse/false water rat (Xeromys
myoides), an animal that has a very fragmented distribution along the Queensland coast (from
Cooloola to Proserpine – Menkhorst and Knight 2001) to coastal Arnhemland and Van Dieman Gulf
(where another Mary River enters the sea) in the Northern Territory. The State’s records are
concentrated in southeast Queensland, including several landward of the Great Sandy Strait into which
the Mary debouches. In the face of extensive disruption of the seaboard due to urban residential and
related development, it is unlikely that water resource development per se will impact adversely on the
survivability of this animal, although reductions of freshwater flows in the Burrum estuary that modify
systems immediately landward of the intertidal zone may have some implications for local
populations.
The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis), officially listed as rare, has also been recorded
associated with the lower Mary system (QMus. records). While not a great deal is known about this
animal’s requirements, it is expected that the survivability of this dolphin within the area would be
dependent upon the maintenance of flow conditions largely within existing amplitudes and of
intertidal wetland systems in which it forages.
Species of marine turtles of conservation significance are likely to occur in and about the estuarine
sections of the Mary and adjacent Burrum River. Indicative records from Ingram and Raven (1991)
suggest that these are likely to comprise the endangered loggerhead and leatherback turtles (Caretta
caretta and Dermochelys coriacea respectively) and vulnerable green turtle (Chelonia mydas),
hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and flatback turtle (Natator depressus). Any loss of
seagrasses in the estuaries, whether associated with flow modification or catchment land use and
associated sediment and nutrient in-washing, may deleteriously affect these animals, although more
serious threats are associated with disruption of breeding areas.
In addition to the marine vertebrates considered above there is a host of others within the near-shore
systems adjacent to the study area that comprise seabirds and marine mammals, the foremost of which
is the iconic humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) which is the basis of a burgeoning tourist
industry locally. Dwarf minke whale and Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera acuitrostrata, B. edenii) and
sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) are recorded in Hervey Bay (QMus. records). Other dolphins
such as the bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) occur also in these sheltered waters.
Environment Australia (2002) has documented in detail that wetlands along Great Sandy Strait
regularly support in excess of 20 000 migratory shorebirds several of which are protected by
international conventions (eg. CAMBA, JAMBA) Counts between 30 000 and up to 40 000 of these
shorebirds have been recorded in recent years. The wetlands support substantial numbers of particular
shorebird species with 17 species with 4% or more of their State totals being recorded for the region.
Maximum numbers recorded include grey-tailed tattler (Tringa brevipes) (7 681 - 42%), eastern
curlew (Nemenius madagascariensis) (6018 - 33%), bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica) (13 359 27%), greenshank (Tringa nebularia) (1 069 - 24%) and terek sandpiper (T. terek) (2 494 - 21%).
Another aspect commending the area’s international significance is that wetlands along Great Sandy
Strait regularly support more than 1% the total flyway (or world) population of the following species:
eastern curlews (19.6%), grey-tailed tattlers (16.2%), lesser sand plovers (Charadrius
mongolus)(5.5%), terek sandpipers (5.0%), whimbrels (N. phaeops) (3.8%), bar-tailed godwits (3.7%),
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 11
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
pied oystercatchers (Haematodus longirostris) (3.2%), greenshanks (2.6%) and grey plovers (Pluvialis
squatarola) (1.6%). The flow regime of the Burrum estuary, particularly upstream of the Cherwell
River, has been substantially changed by water resource development. Both the Burrum and Mary
estuaries have been artificially shortened (the Burrum by the lower weir, the Mary by the Mary and
Tinana Barrages). This may well have implications for resources supporting some of these species,
however, there are no readily available data to permit clear assertions beyond the fact that the quantum
of habitat has been reduced. The extent to which this may have occurred should be considered within
the context of the considerable area of wetlands within the district (i.e. 93 160 ha including wider
channels and open water – Environment Australia 2002), the high degree of motility of many species,
especially of the birds, and the importance of allocating resources to an evaluation of historical
records.
I.4.2
Vertebrates of special conservation concern.
The vertebrate assemblages of the study area are somewhat poorly documented. Some lists are
relevant but are rarely comprehensive, and others are fraught with problems suggestive of a serious
lack of biological understanding (e.g. those contained within “Mary Region Overview” compiled by
Water Resources Commission, 1990). Searches were undertaken of the WildNet database (EPA 2001)
for contemporary records to inform this exercise. Because the area is frequently considered to be
biogeographically transitional, especially with respect to mangroves for which communities within the
Strait represent a transition between essentially temperate and tropical floras (Environment Australia
2002). Several taxa are at or near the limits of their geographic ranges here. Occurrence of some
species at their range limits confers special biogeographic significance.
A significant proportion of the study area’s fauna consists of taxa that are officially listed by the State
as rare and/or threatened. These are set out in Table 2. In addition, there are others at or near their
range limits that also can be considered to be of special conservation significance. In some instances,
particular areas can constitute species’ strongholds.
Fifty species of vertebrates (excluding the fishes) are listed in Table 2. It is notable that 21 (or 42% of
the total so classified) of these are associated with the waterways and wetlands of the area (Table 3).
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 12
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Table 2. Rare/restricted and/or threatened vertebrates (excluding fishes and marine mammals
and turtles) of the study area, with those associated with waterways or waterbodies indicated by
a shaded entry (modified after Ingram and Raven, 1991, EPA 2001)
Class
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat/Inferred Habitat
Endangered taxa
amphibians Hylidae
cascade treefrog
E
amphibians Myobatrachidae Mixophyes fleayi
barred-frog
E
amphibians Myobatrachidae Mixophyes iteratus
giant barred-frog
E
amphibians Myobatrachidae Rheobatrachus silus
southern
platypusfrog
E
amphibians Myobatrachidae Taudactylus diurnus
southern dayfrog
E
birds
Accipitridae
red goshawk
E
birds
Laridae
Erythrotriorchis
radiatus
Sterna albifrons
little tern
E
birds
Pardalotidae
Dasyornis
brachypterus
eastern bristlebird
E
birds
Psittacidae
Cyclopsitta
diophthalma coxeni
Coxen's fig-parrot
E
amphibians Hylidae
Litoria freycineti
wallum rocketfrog
V
amphibians Hylidae
Litoria olongburensis wallum sedgefrog
V
Litoria pearsoniana
coastal heathlands/open
forest mid-lower sections
of area
upper southern section
rainforest; at northern
limit
as above
upper Mary catchment
(Conondale Range) in
rainforested streams
as above
breeds only along major
streams; sparse records
beaches
coastal heathland, in
sedges and blady grass
and along overgrown
watercourses
upper Mary rainforests –
near northern limit
Vulnerable taxa
amphibians Myobatrachidae Crinia tinnula
wallum froglet
V
reptiles
Chelidae
Elusor macrurus
Mary River turtle
V
reptiles
Pygopodidae
Delma torquata
birds
collared burrowing
lizard
Atrichornithidae Atrichornis rufescens rufous scrub-bird
V
birds
Cacatuidae
Calyptorhynchus
lathami
V
birds
Columbidae
birds
Maluridae
squatter pigeon
V
Geophaps scripta
(southern subspecies)
scripta
Stipiturus malachurus southern emu-wren V
birds
Podargidae
birds
Strigidae
Podargus ocellatus
plumiferus
Ninox strenua
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
glossy blackcockatoo
V
plumed frogmouth
V
powerful owl
V
coastal heathlands
(wallum)
along creeks and in
marshy areas in wallum
acid paperbark swamps
wholly restricted;
freshwater reaches of
major streams
? wide-ranging in forest/
woodland/heathland
upper Mary River
catchment rainforests
casuarina open
forest/woodland
throughout
interior open woodland
inhabits heathland,
swampy vegetation and
sandplain
upper Mary catchment
rainforests
as above plus tall open
forest gullies
Page 13
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Class
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
birds
Turnicidae
mammals
Dasyuridae
mammals
Dugongidae
Dugong dugon
mammals
Macropodidae
mammals
Muridae
mammals
Muridae
Petrogale penicillata brush-tailed rockwallaby
Hastings River
Pseudomys oralis
mouse
false water-rat
Xeromys myoides
mammals
Potoroidae
Status Habitat/Inferred Habitat
V
Turnix melanogaster black-breasted
button-quail
Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll V
(southern subspecies)
maculatus
Potorous tridactylus
tridactylus
dugong
long-nosed potoroo
V
V
V
V
V
dry rainforest, vinescrub
and lantana thickets
upper Mary catchment
rainforests and tall open
forests
near-shore marine
rocky outcrops in open
forest/ woodland
inhabits tall open forest of
upper Mary system
coarse grassland/
sedgeland behind
mangroves
coastal heath and dry and
wet open forest
Rare/restricted taxa
amphibians Hylidae
Litoria brevipalmata green-thighed frog
amphibians Hylidae
Litoria cooloolensis
R
breeds about grassy semipermanent pools (Cogger
2000:130); at northern
limit
freshwater lakes in coastal
woodland of eastern
portion
upper Mary catchment
rainforest; if present, at
northern limit
widespread open forest/
woodland/coastal
heathland
upper Mary catchment
moist forest; at northern
limit
upper Mary catchment
rainforest and wet
sclerophyll forest
monotypic genus; upper
Mary River catchment
rainforest/tall open forest
and vine thicket
upper Mary catchment
rainforests/ tall open
forests
moist forest; at northern
limit
forages over rainforest/tall
open forest-upper Mary
catchment
open woodland
Cooloola sedgefrog
R
amphibians Myobatrachidae Assa darlingtoni
marsupial frog
R
reptiles
Elapidae
Acanthophis
antarcticus
common death adder R
reptiles
Elapidae
Hoplocephalus
stephensii
Stephens' banded
snake
R
reptiles
Scincidae
Coeranoscincus
reticulatus
three-toed snaketooth skink
R
reptiles
Scincidae
Eroticoscincus
graciloides
elf skink
R
reptiles
Scincidae
Ophioscincus
truncatus
R
reptiles
Scincidae
Saproscincus rosei
R
birds
Accipitridae
Accipiter
novaehollandiae
grey goshawk
R
birds
Accipitridae
Lophoictinia isura
square-tailed kite
R
birds
Anatidae
cotton pygmy-goose R
lily covered wetlands
birds
Ciconiidae
Nettapus
coromandelianus
Ephippiorhynchus
black-necked stork
coastal streams and
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
R
Page 14
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Class
Family
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat/Inferred Habitat
wetlands
asiaticus
birds
Climacteridae
R
open woodland
R
Menuridae
Climacteris erythrops red-browed
treecreeper
Melithreptus gularis black-chinned
honeyeater
Albert's lyrebird
Menura alberti
birds
Meliphagidae
upper Mary and Burrum
open forests
upper catchment rainforest
birds
birds
Psittacidae
Neophema pulchella
turquoise parrot
R
birds
Rallidae
Rallus pectoralis
Lewin's rail
R
birds
Tytonidae
Tyto tenebricosa
sooty owl
R
mammals
Delphinidae
Sousa chinensis
R
R
mammals
Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin
Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus picatus little pied bat
mammals
Vespertilionidae Kerivoula papuensis
golden-tipped bat
R
mammals
Vespertilionidae Nyctophilus
timoriensis
eastern long-eared
bat
R
R
open woodland of central
areas
reedy wetlands
upper Mary catchment
rainforests
estuaries and near-coast
marine
dry open woodland
wide-ranging aerial
forager – may roost in sea
caves
dry open woodland
Inspection of Table 3 reveals that all five species of frog and three of four species of birds classified as
endangered (eight of the nine species so classified) are reliant upon water features in the landscape.
There are no endangered reptiles or mammals known from the study area. Less than half of those
listed as vulnerable and only one third of the rare/restricted animals are reliant upon water features in
the landscape. An implication of such proportions in the present context is that accommodating the
needs of the most threatened vertebrates within the water resource planning process rates as a high
priority with respect to rare/threatened species conservation.
Table 3. Summary of species from each of the major vertebrate groups (excluding fishes and
marine mammals and turtles) classified as rare and/or threatened listed according to
conservation status (Note: numbers associated with streams and wetlands of the study area
appear in parentheses).
Constat Category
Endangered
Vulnerable
Rare/Restricted
Total
Frogs
5 (5)
3 (3)
3 (2)
11 (10)
Reptiles
0 (0)
2 (1)
6 (0)
8 (1)
Birds
4 (3)
7 (1)
10 (3)
21 (7)
Mammals
0 (0)
6 (2)
4 (1)
10 (3)
Total
9 (8)
18 (7)
23 (6)
50 (21)
Biodiversity hot-spots/significant areas with regard to other vertebrates – with an emphasis on
wetlands.
Certain localities/areas within the study area, by virtue of their landscape situation and/or condition,
will contribute relatively more to the local and regional biodiversity than other often more extensive
areas. These loci of high habitat and/or species diversity and/or integrity/representativeness may be
referred to as biodiversity ‘hot-spots’ – i.e. locations of high conservation significance. By virtue of
their location at the lowest points of the landscape where water and nutrients are concentrated, and
where both the terrestrial and the aquatic meet and mix, waterways and waterbodies are themselves
biodiversity hotspots within any given locality.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 15
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Wetlands, both ‘non-linear’ (lentic) wetlands such as perennial or seasonal marshes, swamps and
mangroves, and ‘linear’ (lotic) wetlands such as streams or rivers, are such places. This is particularly
so in the Australian context where much of the land is inherently dry, at least seasonally, where
moisture is one of the greatest limitations to ecological productivity. These are functionally vital
landscape components, to such an extent that they are frequently referred to as the “ecological
arteries” of the landscape (Sattler 1993:161). This is differentially so in that their functional
importance increases in drier parts of the study area such as in the vicinity of Munna Creek.
Wetlands are amongst the world’s most productive ecosystems (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993) and
support high habitat diversity due to the influence of both land and water (Brady and Riding 1996:5).
They sustain plant and other aquatic communities that reflect improved moisture conditions and
superior soils due to nutrient in-washing at lower parts of the landscape (Reich 1998:14). In the
section immediately preceding, it will be evident that they also furnish valuable habitat for
rare/threatened animal species.
It is estimated that more than half of Australia’s wetlands have been drained or reclaimed and
destroyed since European settlement (Anon. 1998) and those that remain are some of the continent’s
most threatened systems. This is particularly so along the eastern seabord, where agricultural
activities, and increasingly residential subdivision and urban land uses, are concentrated. Vegetation
associated with streams (also linear wetlands) can constitute residual occurrences of endangered
Regional Ecosystems (REs) such as 12.13.1 (notophyll gallery rainforest on alluvial plains). Lentic
wetlands also comprise remnants of endangered REs, such as 12.1.1 (swamp oak, Allocasuarina
glauca, on estuarine muds) and 12.9/10.12 (eucalypt-bloodwood-paperbark woodland on seasonally
waterlogged sediments) (Young and Dillewaard 1999:12/59-12/60). Ecosystems classified as ‘of
concern’ also include sedgelands and paperbark swamp forest/woodland associated with coastal duneswale systems (12.3.8 and 12.3.5, 12.3.6).
The greatest significance is ascribed to those wetlands that are afforded international recognition under
the RAMSAR Convention. There is one of such pre-eminent status into which streams of the study
area flow. This is the Great Sandy Strait (encompassing an area of 93 160 ha – Young 2001:25,
Environment Australia 2002) and one of the five recognised within the State. Another significant
wetland system, the Burrum Coast, is classified as nationally important (Blackman 2001:67).
Wetlands are classified as being of importance at the national level on the basis of the following
criteria: wetlands that are good examples of wetlands within a biogeographic region, wetlands that
have an important ecological or hydrological role, wetlands that are or importance as faunal habitat,
and/or wetlands that support native plant or animal taxa or communities which are considered
endangered or vulnerable (Usback and James 1992:1-3, Larmour 2001). In addition, some of the
wetlands (along with sites in the ranges) within the study area also contain the Type Localities (i.e.
locations at which an organism was collected and first described) of several species. For example, the
Mary River Turtle’s Type Locality is “Mary River, 45.5km S.-21km W. of Maryborough” (Cann,
1998:248) – reach no. M10. This confers measures of significance that are currently accommodated
within State planning processes.
Again due to clearing associated with expansion of agricultural and pastoral land uses, and, more
recently, residential subdivision, much of the study area (perhaps as much as one half – Pointon and
Collins 2000) has lost its original vegetation cover, and that which remains, within the lowlands is
highly residual and fragmented. In contrast, the Burrum catchment retains much of its native
vegetation cover. Much of the natural values of the lower Mary River catchment and that of Beelbi
Creek (sens. lat.), therefore, are associated with these vegetation remnants. Catchment-coast linkages
along waterways that circumscribe areas of remnant vegetation that contain a good range of remnant
ecosystems and habitat for locally threatened plants to facilitate native plant dispersal and recruitment,
have an important landscape ecology significance.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 16
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
I.4.3
Landscape connectivity and other vertebrates
Within the context of increasing human transformation of the landscape it is readily understood that
regional biodiversity maintenance is predicated on maintaining links among the various patches of
predominantly native vegetation that remain. Catterall (1993) has clearly demonstrated that the
riparian zone is important habitat for a range of terrestrial fauna. Its importance during climatically
challenging periods may be substantial (Williams 1994). Not only do riparian zones furnish habitat,
they also facilitate faunal movement about the landscape (Fisher and Goldney 1997). In a review of
riparian zone management in Queensland and the Northern Territory, Sattler (1993:161) sets out a
variety of studies that demonstrate the wildlife significance of the riparian zone. These include
documented declines and local extinctions of birds ascribed to loss of riparian vegetation, the
importance of these zones in facilitating wildlife movement (as shown by herbivorous turtle
distribution and abundances corresponding with the distribution and density of riparian vegetation)
and the evolutionary significance of gallery (streamside closed) forest in allowing reinvasion of moist
forest patches by habitat-dependent vertebrates.
While riparian corridors are commonly recognised as animal movement corridors they also play a
potentially significant role in plant dispersal. Moving water can transport plant fruits, seeds and stem
fragments that can establish downstream. In addition, riparian zones can be major sources of plant
recruitment over extensive areas of the landscape, especially during periods of rapid climatic change
because of the favourable microclimate along stream valleys (Gregory et al. 1991:543).
In heavily developed catchments, remnant riparian areas are typically narrow, non-continuous, and
suffering from weed invasion and other edge effects such as fire damage (e.g. Petroeschevsky 1997).
Many existing riparian areas are poor representatives of what were once diverse and sometimes
extensive vegetation communities. As a result their value as corridors and refuges for wildlife is likely
to have been already reduced, but is still considered highly significant.
Because of the extent of disruption of the lower reaches of the Mary, and to a lesser extent the Burrum
and Beelbi catchments, there are limited opportunities to forge links between the hinterland and the
coast. Some workers, such as Clear (2000), argue a very strong case for the “high ecological
significance” of riparian systems as wildlife corridors and elevate their rehabilitation to a high priority.
I.4.4
Exotic vertebrate species issues.
Animal life that influences river geomorphology includes both terrestrial and aquatic animals.
Introduced animal species found in the study area include agricultural and domestic animals together
with exotic fish species. In the study area cattle, horses and feral pigs cause direct physical disturbance
to the river and indirect disturbance through input of animal waste products. Within the water itself
fish and invertebrates provide a more subtle influence on river geomorphology through their role in
consumption of plant matter and working of sediments. In south-east Australian rivers, carp (Cyprinus
carpio) have contributed to significant increases in the turbidity of rivers and other water bodies.
Recently, there has been a single record of a koi carp from the Mary (M. Kennard and S. Mackay,
pers. comm.). Elsewhere, exotic mammals are mostly associated with landscape disturbance and
degradation. The geomorphological and other stream-related habitat significance of exotic animal
species, including feral pigs and stock, is set out in Table 4.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 17
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Table 4. Relevant exotic terrestrial mammals and their implications for physical processes and
habitat condition
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Oryctolagus
cuniculus
rabbit
Sus scrofa
feral pig
Bos taurus,
Equus
caballus
cleanskin
stock
(cattle
and
horses)
Extent
of Impacts
Occurrence in the Observed
Study Area
• widespread but • none
variable
observed
abundances
•
assumed
widespread but
not known
(likely more
important in
wetter southern
part of the Mary
River catchment
and in coastal
wetlands)
• widespread
uncontrolled
stock access
throughout
grazing areas
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
•
no obvious
impacts
observed
during site
inspections
•
variety of
types and
intensities of
impact
observed
along
reaches
sampled
during field
survey
Physical and Other Impacts
on Streams of Study Area –
Actual or Ppotential
• rabbit foraging of
streamside vegetation and
amphibious plants can
initiate bank erosion by
disrupting binding
vegetation, modifying bank
surfaces resulting in releases
of fines for transport and
downstream deposition
• warrens near streams could
operate as sediment and
nutrient sources
• pig diggings can disrupt
stream bank stability and
release fines for transport and
downstream deposition
• pig foraging for fleshy herbs
and fern roots disrupt roots
that bind stream banks
•
trampling and browsing of
streamside vegetation and
amphibious plants can
initiate bank erosion by (i)
disrupting binding vegetation
and modifying bank surfaces
resulting in releases of fines
for transport and downstream
deposition, and (ii) by
compacting sections of
stream bank to create
situations where differential
erosion can occur resulting in
slope failure and bank
slumping
• direct damage to stream
banks, trampling of bar
surfaces and disturbance of
stream bed substrate?
• stock can be associated with
increased nutrients in and
about streams that can
promote increased vegetation
growth (usually of exotic
species) with minor
geomorphological
Page 18
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Extent
of Impacts
Occurrence in the Observed
Study Area
Cervus
elephus
red deer
•
Vulpes vulpes
European
fox
Canis
familiaris
wild
dogs/
dingos
Felis catus
feral cats
occur in the
Conondale
section of the
Mary – locally
common
• sparse in region
but records
appear to be
concentrated
along the Mary
River corridor
(S. Buchanan,
pers. comm.)
• sparse in most
of the study area
but there can be
ephemeral local
population
build-ups that
present
problems for
domestic stock
(S. Buchanan,
pers. comm.)
• throughout
study area in
variable
numbers
•
none
observed
Physical and Other Impacts
on Streams of Study Area –
Actual or Ppotential
implications related to
binding of bed and bar
sediments
• nutrients in faeces and urine
promote eutrophication of
stream water (especially in
lentic situations) leading to
prolific aquatic macrophyte
or algal growth which has
implications for aquatic
system integrity
• assumed to be generally as
above
none
observed
(but it is
possible they
could prey
on Mary
River turtle
eggs)
• none
observed
•
•
•
•
none
observed
•
dens/camps near streams
could operate as sediment
and nutrient sources for
stream inputs
as above
none likely apart from
predation of streamdependent vertebrates and
some macroinvertebrates (eg,
crayfish) with implications
for riparian and aquatic
systems.
The exotic cane toad is also present within the area. Due to its toxicity to many native animals, this
species is associated with declines of native frog eaters (Covacevich and Archer (1975). The
provision of water storages has likely advantaged this animal’s invasion of eastern Australian systems.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 19
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
I.4.5
Summary and water planning concerns.
Many frogs, reptiles, mammals and birds are associated with freshwater and riparian environments and
wetlands. Vertebrates also live in estuarine and marine habitats. Over 300 vertebrate species have
been recorded in the study area. With the exception of a few species of birds and skinks, and most of
the tree-frogs, all of the rare and significant vertebrates of the study area are associated with freshwater
environments, or depend at some stage of the lifecycle on aquatic and wetland resources.
Six species of turtles have been recorded from the Mary-Burrum system, although the Burrum section
supports only a subset of this total. Four species belong to the Elseya group of freshwater turtles that
employ specialised cloacal bursae for respiration. Elusor macrurus is entirely endemic to the Mary
River catchment and restricted to permanent water. The long-term survival of this specialised
endemic may be reliant upon retention of a natural proportion of riffle habitats that produce the
required highly oxygenated water for cloacal respiration, together with maintenance of in-stream and
near-stream habitat quality.
More than 40 frog species are known from the study area, and several species are of special
conservation significance. These include lotic upland stream-dwelling frogs of the first order streams
of the upper portion of the study area and several associated with the acid wallum communities of the
lower sections. Common species of frogs in the Mary-Burrum system include various tree frogs and
species having a close affinity with freshwater habitats.
Frogs and turtles may be affected by water resource development in four main ways:
(i)
impoundment of water in large dams and weirs, and the replacement of lotic (flowing
water) habitats with lentic (lake) habitats;
(ii)
(ii) flow regime change (iii)
(iii)
barrier effects of dams and weirs; and (iv)
(iv)
effects of water resource development on seasonal and ephemeral wetland and floodplain
habitats. Poor water quality in weirs and large impoundments that are stratified may be a
direct cause of diminished aquatic insect prey consumed by frogs and turtles. Turtles are
cold-blooded and need access to areas of exposed sand bars, gravel benches or large
woody debris for basking and thermal regulation. Impoundment reduces the availability
of suitable sand banks and/or the abundance and distribution of fallen logs and other
resting structures. Flow supplementation during the normally low flow spring months is
likely to impact on turtle recruitment by inundating sand bars and nests. Egg development
in most freshwater turtles cannot take place during inundation.
The platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus, is well distributed in the study area. It is considered that
platypus conservation relies mainly on maintenance of the physical and biological integrity of
waterways, and the physical integrity of stream banks, which is usually linked to the stabilising effects
of vegetation. However, these animals are able to live in disturbed waterways flowing through
agricultural lands, with little or no riparian vegetation, at artificial weir sites and in large
impoundments. Although platypus may live through natural periods of flooding and drought,
situations of flow regime modification that significantly alter the frequency, duration and timing of
flows can be expected to have an impact on platypus populations. Any form of flow regime
modification that influences the distribution and density of riparian vegetation may impact on
platypus, if it disturbs the bank conditions favoured for burrow construction. Flow regime
modification causing increased stream discharge and significantly elevated water levels during the
spring/early summer developmental period, normally a time of low flows, is likely to impact on
platypus recruitment by inundating nesting burrows.
Of several rodent species occurring in the study area, the water rat, Hydromys chrysogaster is the most
stream-dependent. It appears that requirements for the sustenance of populations of this animal are
comparable to those that are required to sustain populations of chelid turtles and platypus.
The eastern water dragon, Physignathus lesueurii, inhabits riparian and riverine habitats and is very
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 20
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
similar to freshwater turtles in both diet and breeding characteristics. Eulamprus quoyii, a small
riparian water skink found in eastern Australia, is also quite widespread. The effects of water resource
development would be similar to those described for turtles.
Around 200 species of birds live in or visit the study area. Within this assemblage there is a
significant waterbird component that is totally reliant upon waterways and waterbodies. Several
species are of special conservation significance. Loss of nesting sites in backwaters and in wetland
areas may have an impact on some species causing declines in local populations. Fluctuations in
water levels in streams or within storages (both in-stream and off-stream) can also constitute problems
for some birds, particularly species such as the great-crested grebe that build floating nest platforms.
Apart from dependence on riverine habitats to meet dietary requirements, some species of birds
require tall riparian trees for perching, roosting and nesting (especially in regard to the endangered red
goshawk), while others need hollows within mature trees for nesting, or dense canopy and groundlevel vegetation offering nest sites that are shaded, humid and protected from predators. Waterbirds
may need particular cues, such as flooding of wetland and backwater habitats during spring, to
stimulate breeding.
Not only being highly significant landscape features in the context of the driest inhabited continent,
wetlands are also vital habitat for vertebrates other than fish. In the Mary system, two wetlands are
classified as of national significance – i.e. the Burrum Coast (QLD126) and the Great Sandy Strait
(QLD132), into which the Mary River flows - with the latter attaining international significance under
the Ramsar Convention. Bruinsma and Danaher (2000) identify the smaller coastal wetland systems of
Beelbi Creek as of very high local importance and an important wetland resource for the State of
Queensland. Riparian systems along streams and adjacent to waterbodies provide important wildlife
movement corridors permitting animal (and plant propagule) movement about the landscape. This
conduit function can be almost as vital as the provision of faunal habitat in the maintenance of
regional biodiversity. The function can also extend to provision of invasion routes for exotic plant
species that modify faunal habitat and for feral animals that can have great impacts on native faunal
assemblages.
Exotic vertebrates are also well established within the study area. Feral pigs, cattle, horses and even
deer can caused physical disruption and organic contamination of waterways and waterbodies, with
uncontrolled stock access to stream verges throughout extensive areas of the Mary system, but less so
for the Burrum River and Beelbi Creek.
When assessing the effects of any changes to the river environment on aquatic and semi-aquatic
vertebrates, the primary consideration is to be aware that water and energy flows and significant
ecological processes very closely link the catchment, the riparian zone and the river system itself. The
importance of riparian vegetation to the health of the river, and to the vertebrates associated with it,
cannot be understated. Arthington (2001) demonstrates clearly that, in the absence of specific
methodologies for estimating the habitat and life history requirements of individual species of
vertebrates, and given the loose association of many vertebrates with the river environment, only very
general recommendations can be made in terms of environmental flow management. Habitat alone
may not be the most important limiting factor; access to abundant and reliable supplies of food,
nesting sites or movement corridors may be more relevant for certain species.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 21
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
References.
Anon. (1998) National Wetlands Program: Wetland Types. National Wetlands Program Web Site
(http://www.anca.gov.au/environm/wetlands), Environment Australia Biodiversity Group, Canberra.
Arthington, A. H. (2000) Appendix H: Reptiles, frogs, rats, platypus and birds. (in) Brizga, S.O.,
Arthington, A.H., Choy, S., Duivenvoorden, L., Kennard, M., Maynard, R. and Poplawski, W.
Burnett Basin WAMP: Current Environmental Condition and Impacts of Existing Water Resource
Development. Queensland Government – Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane: H/1-I/24.
Arthington, A. H. (2001) Appendix I: Frogs, reptiles, mammals and birds. (in) Brizga, S.O.
Arthington, A.H., Choy, S. Craigie, N.M., Mackay, S., Poplawski, W., Pusey, B.J. and Werren G.L
Pioneer Valley Draft Water Resource Plan: Environmental Condition Report Volume 2. Queensland
Government – Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane: I/1-I/36.
Arthington, A. H and Hegerl, E. J. (1988) The distribution, conservation status and management
problems of Queensland’s athalassic and tidal wetlands (in) McComb, A. J. and Lake, P. S. (eds) The
Conservation of Australia’s Wetlands. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney: 59-85.
Auble, G. T., Friedman, J. M. and Scott, M. L. (1994) Relating riparian vegetation to present and
future streamflows. Ecological Applications 4(3): 544-554.
Blackman, J.G. (2001) Queensland. (in) Environment Australia. A Directory of Important Wetlands in
Australia: 3rd Edition. Environment Australia, Canberra: 55-71.
Brady, A. and Riding, T. (1996) The Importance of Wetlands in Water Resource Management: A
Literature Review. Land and Water Conservation N.S.W., Sydney.
Bunn, S.E. (1993) Riparian-stream linkages: Research needs for the protection of in-stream values.
Australian Biologist 6(1): 46-51.
Burrell, H. (1927) The Platypus. Rigby, Sydney.
Campbell, A. (ed.) (1999) Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Cann, J. (1998) Australian Freshwater Turtles. Beaumont Publishing Pty Ltd, Singapore.
Carrick, F.N. and Grimley, A. (1994). A report on platypuses in near urban waterways of Brisbane
City. Unpublished report, Department of Zoology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Catterall, C. P. (1993) The importance of riparian zones to terrestrial wildlife. (in) Bunn, S. E., Pusey,
B. J. and Price, P. (eds) Ecology and Management of Riparian Zones in Australia. LWRRDC
Occasional Paper 05/93: 41-52.
Clear, R. (2000) Pioneer Catchment Rehabilitation Project. Pioneer Integrated Catchment
Management Association, Mackay.
Cogger, H. G. (2000) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland Publishers, Sydney.
Covacevich, J. and Archer, M. (1975) The distribution of cane toad, Bufo marinus, in Australia and its
effects on indigenous vertebrates. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 17(2): 305-310.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 22
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Cummins, K.W. (1993). Riparian stream linkages: in-stream issues. (in) Bunn, S. E., Pusey, B. J. and
Price, P. (eds) Ecology and Management of Riparian Zones in Australia. LWRRDC Occasional Paper
05/93: 5-20.
Czechura, G.V. (1995) Frogs. (in) Queensland Museum. Wildlife of Greater Brisbane. Brisbane:143146.
Environment Australia (2001) A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia: 3rd Edition.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Environment Australia (2002) Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS) Great Sandy Strait
(including Great Sandy Strait, Tin Can Bay and Tin Can Inlet).
Faragher, R.A., Grant, T.R. and Carrick, F.N. (1979). Food of the platypus (Ornithorhynchus
anatinus) with notes on food of Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) in the Shoalhaven River, N.S.W.
Australian Journal of Ecology 4: 171-179.
Fisher, A. M. and Goldney, D. C. (1997) Use of birds of riparian vegetation in an extensively
fragmented landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 275-288.
Flakus, S. (2002) Freshwater turtles of the Mary River Catchment: A Summary of Some Aspects of
their Ecology and Biology. Unpublished Summary Report. QPWS, Bundaberg.
Fleay, D. (1980) Paradoxical Platypus. Jacaranda Press, Hong Kong.
Gardner, J.L. and Serena, M. (1995) Spatial organisation and movement patterns of adult male
platypus, Ornithorhynchus anatinus (Monotremata:Ornithorhynchidae) Australian Journal of Zoology
43: 91-103.
Garnett, S. (1992) Threatened and Extinct Birds of Australia. Royal Australasian Ornithologists
Union/Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, RAOU Report 82.
Gillespie, G and Hero, J-M, (1999) Potential impacts of introduced fish and fish translocations on
Australian amphibians. (in) Campbell A. (ed.) Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs.
Environment Australia, Canberra: 131-144.
Goosem, S., Morgan, G. and Kemp, J. E. (1999) Wet Tropics. (in) Sattler, P. S. and Williams, R. D.
(eds) The Conservation Status of Queensland’s Bioregional Ecosystems. Environmental Protection
Agency, Brisbane: 7/1-7/73.
Grant, T. (1984) The Platypus. New South Wales University Press, Kensington.
Grant, T.R. (1981) Platypus and dams - questions and hypotheses. (in) Monash University. Wildlife
Management in the '80s. Monash University, Melbourne: 206-218.
Grant, T.R. and Bishop, K. (1996). Instream flow requirements for the platypus: I. Low Flows. An
assessment strategy. (in) Charles Sturt University. Platypus Biology. Charles Sturt University,
Bathurst.
Grant, T.R. and MacDonald, G. (1996) Instream flow requirements for the platypus: II High flows.
Studies of water transfers from the Shoalhaven river system to the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system.
(in) Charles Sturt University. Platypus Biology. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.
Gregory, S. V., Swanson, F. J., McKee, W., A. and Cummins, K. W. (1991) An ecosystem perspective
of riparian zones. BioScience 41(8): 540-552.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 23
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Grigg, G., Beard, L., Grant, T. and Augée, M. (1992) Body temperature and diurnal activity patterns in
the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) during winter. Australian Journal of Zoology 40:135-142.
Gross, C. L. and Jackes, B. R. (1992) Remnant Vegetation in the Mackay Region. “Save the Bush”
Report, Botany Department, James Cook University, Townsville.
Gunnidah (1997) Platypus population monitoring program baseline investigations: Walla Weir
Irrigation Project, Burnett River. Gunnidah Environmental Consultants, Crows Nest, NSW.
Gust, N. and Handasyde, K. (1995). Seasonal variation in the ranging behaviour of the platypus
(Ornithorhynchus anatinus) in the Goulburn River, Victoria. Australian Journal of Zoology 43: 193208.
Hegerl, E. (1993) An Evaluation of the Important Intertidal Wetlands on the Central Queensland
Coast between Bowen and Hay Point. Consultants Report for the Queensland Department of
Environment and Heritage by the Australian Littoral Society, Brisbane.
Ingram, G. J. and Raven, R. J. (eds) (1991) An Atlas of Queensland’s Frogs, Reptiles, Birds and
Mammals. Queensland Museum, Brisbane.
Jansen, A. and Robertson, A. I. (in press) Relationships between livestock management and the
ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. Journal of Applied
Ecology (forthcoming issue).
Kitchener, T. M. and Ball, D. S. (1999) The Biodiversity Values of the Pioneer River Catchment –
Technical Annex. (Draft) Environmental Protection Agency/ QNPWS, Mackay.
Larmour, G. (2001) Wetland classification system, criteria for inclusion and data presentation. (in)
Environment Australia. A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia: 3rd Edition. Environment
Australia, Canberra: 9-14.
Legler, J. M. (1985) Australian chelid turtles: reproductive patterns in wide-ranging taxa. (in) Grigg,
G., Shine, R. and Ehmann, H. (eds) Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles.Surrey-Beatty,
Chipping Norton: 117-123.
McDonald, K.R., Covacevich, J.A., Ingram, G.J. and Couper, P.J. (1991) The status of frogs and
reptiles (in) Ingram, G.J. and Raven, R.J. (eds) An Atlas of Queensland’s Frogs, Reptiles, Birds and
Mammals. Board of Trustees of the Queensland Museum, Brisbane: 338-345.
Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press,
South Melbourne.
Merchant, J. C. (1983) Agile Wallaby (in) Strahan, R. (ed.) The Australian Museum Complete Book of
Australian Mammals. Angus and Robertson, Sydney: 242-243.
Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G. (1993) Wetlands. 2nd edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Morton, R.M., Richardson, D., Laegdsgaard, P., Agnew, L., Burgess, R. and Schultz, M. (1998).
Burnett River Catchment – Identification of Aquatic and Terrestrial Flora/Fauna Data and Further
Study Requirements. WBM Oceanics Australia, Brisbane.
Olsen, P.D. (1982). Reproductive biology and development of the water rat, Hydromys chrysogaster,
in captivity. Australian Wildlife Research 9: 39-53.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 24
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Pearson, R. and Clayton, P. (eds.) (1993) Teemburra Creek Dam Study. Part A – Hydrological and
Biological Surveys.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research, James Cook University,
Townsville.
Petroeshevsky A, (1997) Assessment and Mapping of Riparian Vegetation and Stream Bank Erosion
on the Herbert River Floodplain. Herbert River Catchment Coordinating Committee, Ingham.
Reich, P. (1998) Riparian vegetation: some ecological perspectives. Trees and Natural Resources.
June edition: 14-15.
Richards, S. J. (1993) Functional significance of nest construction by an Australian rainforest frog: a
preliminary analysis. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 34(1): 89-93.
Robinson, M. (1995) A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Reed Books Australia, Chatswood, NSW.
Sainty, G.R. and Jacobs, S.W.L. (1981) Waterplants of New South Wales. Water Resources
Commission of New South Wales, Sydney.
Sattler, P. (1993) Riparian zone management in Queensland and the Northern Territory: Policy and
Practice. (in) Bunn, S. E., Pusey, B. J. and Price, P. (eds) Ecology and Management of Riparian Zones
in Australia. LWRRDC Occasional Paper 05/93: 157-171.
Sattler, P. S. (1999) Introduction. (in) Sattler, P. S. and Williams, R. D. (eds) The Conservation Status
of Queensland’s Bioregional Ecosystems. Environmental Protection Authority, Brisbane: 1/1-1/19.
Scott, A. and Grant, T. (1997) Impacts of water management in the Murray-Darling Basin on the
platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) and the water rat (Hydromys chrysogaster). CSIRO Land and
Water Technical Report 23/97.
Serena, M., Thomas, J.L., Williams, G.A. and Officer, R.C.E. (1998) Use of stream and river habitats
by the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) in an urban fringe environment. Australian Journal of
Zoology 46: 267-282.
Trenerry, M. P., Laurance, W. and McDonald, K. R. (1993) Further evidence for the precipitous
decline of Australian rainforest stream frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 1(2): 150-153.
Tyler, M. J. (1984) There’s Frog in my Stomach. Collins, Sydney.
Tyler, M. J. (1989) Australian Frogs. Viking O’Neill/Penguin Books Pty Ltd, Ringwood.
Tyler, M. J. (1992) Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Frogs. National Photographic Index of
Australian Wildlife and Australian Museum/Angus and Robertson, Pymble.
Usback, S. and James, R. (1992) A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Australian Nature
Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Van Dyck, S. (1995) Rats and Mice. (in) Queensland Museum. Wildlife of Greater Brisbane.
Queensland Museum, Brisbane: 307-314.
Water Resources Commission (1990) Mary Region Overview. Report prepared by the Burnett Region
and Overview Planning Group, Water Resource Assessment Division of the Water Resources
Commission of the Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Werren, G. L. (2002) Consideration of stream-dependent/reliant vertebrates (excluding fishes), and
vertebrate issues generally, of the Burdekin Basin WRP study area. Report to Queensland Department
of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane:11pp.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 25
Environmental Conditions Report Mary Basin Water Resource Plan (WRP) Appendix B Other Vertebrates
ACTFR Report No. 02/16
Williams, S. E. (1994) The importance of riparian habitats to vertebrate assemblages in north
Queensland woodlands. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 35: 248.
Williams, G.A. and Serena, M. (1999) Living with Platypus: A Practical Guide to the Conservation of
a Very Special Australian. Australian Platypus Conservancy, Whittlesea, Victoria.
Woollard, P., Vestjens, W.J.M. and MacLean, L. (1978) The ecology of the eastern water rat
Hydromys chrysogaster at Griffith, NSW: food and feeding habits. Australian Wildlife Research 5: 5973.
Young, P. A. R. and Dillewaard (1999) Southeast Queensland (in) Sattler, P. S. and Williams, R. D.
(eds) The Conservation Status of Queensland’s Bioregional Ecosystems. Environmental Protection
Agency, Brisbane: 12/1-12/55.
Young, S. (2001) The Convention on Wetlands in Australia (in) Environment Australia. A Directory
of Important Wetlands in Australia: 3rd Edition. Environment Australia, Canberra: 17-27.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
Page 26