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