Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Constructed wetland wikipedia , lookup
Camelford water pollution incident wikipedia , lookup
Lake ecosystem wikipedia , lookup
Riparian-zone restoration wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
River ecosystem wikipedia , lookup
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