* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Key Threatening Process Nomination Form
Survey
Document related concepts
Unified neutral theory of biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Storage effect wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Key Threatening Process Nomination Form for amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 2014/2015 Nomination Period This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities from becoming more threatened. Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale. For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question. Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A. If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text). Important notes for completing this form Please complete the form as comprehensively as possible – it is important for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to have as much information as possible, and the best case on which to judge a species’ eligibility against the EPBC Act criteria for listing. Reference all information and facts, both in the text and in a reference list at the end of the form. The opinion of appropriate scientific experts may be cited as personal communication, with their approval, in support of your nomination. Please provide the name of the experts, their qualifications and contact details (including state agency, if relevant) in the reference list at the end of the form. Keep in mind the relevance of your answers to the listing criteria. It is particularly important that the nomination addresses the impact of the threatening process across its national extent. Identify any confidential material and explain the sensitivity. Figures, tables and maps can be included at the end of the form or prepared as separate electronic or hardcopy documents (referred to as appendices or attachments in your nomination). Cross-reference relevant areas of the nomination form where needed. Nominations that do not meet the EPBC Regulations will not proceed – see Division 7.2 of the EPBC Regulations 2000 (www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html). As noted under sub-regulation 7.06(2), if information is not available for a particular question please state this in your answer. Nominated key threatening process 1. NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS The cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes. 2. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING Please mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse. The process could be eligible under one or all three criteria. Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological Criterion A community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. 3. Criterion B Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. Criterion C Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities. CONSERVATION THEME: Is the current conservation theme ‘terrestrial and marine flora and fauna that would benefit from national listing’ relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how. Yes. Pastoralists and conservation agencies lethally control dingoes across Australia to reduce, limit or remove the threat they pose to livestock production. Much research also has shown that threatened species benefit from the presence of dingoes in the landscape. Saving livestock from predation by dingoes and saving threatened Australian species from predation by recently introduced predators (feral cats and red foxes) and competition from introduced herbivores (European rabbits) are therefore conflicting natural resource management objectives. Listing loss or removal of the mammalian predator the dingo as a key threatening process will aid objectives of species programs inside protected areas and improve livestock management outside of protected areas. As outlined in the nomination, the loss or removal of dingoes from Australian landscapes impacts on a number of already listed threatened species, in addition to those species which may benefit from protection of dingoes, or suffer greater population declines if the threat is not abated. Description of the key threatening process 4. DESCRIPTION Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to: a. its biological and non-biological components; b. the processes by which those components interact (if known). An overwhelming amount of research around the globe shows that the loss or removal of predators causes the health of ecosystems/landscapes to decline (Ripple et al 2013). In all cases, predators are managed to reduce competition with economic objectives and/or to save human lives. Nominating ‘The cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes’ is distinguished from other threatening processes because: a. dingoes are the apex Australian communal living predator that influence ecosystem processes (biological); b. social views are divided between culling and conserving dingoes, however legislation supports dingo control because dingoes, wild dogs and their hybrids are a declared pest and land owners are obliged to control them; c. recent studies indicate that the Australia sheep industry has declined due to predation or the threat of predation by dingoes (Allen and West 2013) whilst other studies indicate the industry declined as an affect of market pressure (Purcell 2010; Forsyth et al 2014); d. arguments about ‘purity’ of dingoes and hybridisation between dingoes and domestic dogs divert the debate from ecological function to superficial semantic arguments; e. ideologies are influenced by the removal of predators due to conflict with social and 2 economic factors. Every state and territory in Australia control ‘dingoes, wild dogs and their hybrids’ to satisfy cultural beliefs that predators should be ‘eradicated’. For the purpose of this nomination the use of the term ‘dingo’ or ‘dingoes’ should be interpreted to include wild dogs and dingo-cross-dog hybrids, due to the fact that it is thought that the same ecological role is performed by wild dogs and dingo hybrids as performed by the ‘pure’ dingo. The essential role that top-order or communal living predators play in ecosystems has been well documented in terrestrial, marine and freshwater systems (Power et al., 1985; Estes et al., 1998; Crooks & Soulé 1999; Berger et al., 2001; Carpenter et al., 2001; Myers et al., 2007; Baum & Worm, 2009; Beschta & Ripple, 2009; Letnic et al., 2009b; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009). Top order predators are interactive with the ecosystem; not only do they regulate the abundance, diversity and composition of both their prey and competitors, but they are also intrinsically linked to the productivity and health of the ecosystem (Estes et al., 1998; Berger et al., 2001; Myers et al., 2007; Beschta & Ripple, 2009; Letnic et al., 2009b; Wallach et al., 2009). The influence that is exerted on the system, by the way of trophic cascades through the food web, has also been linked to less obvious processes such as the health of and biogeochemical exchanges between freshwater systems, the soil and the atmosphere; fire; carbon sequestration; and the dynamics of disease (Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010; Estes et al., 2011; Letnic et al., 2013). These trophic cascades have been found to act synergistically and additively with other environmental issues such as pollution, land clearing, habitat loss, and climate change (see Estes et al., 2011). The dingo (Canis dingo) also known as wild dog (Crowther 2014) is Australia’s top-order predator. Dingoes arrived in Australia from East Asia between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago (Savolainen et al., 2004; Oskarsson et al., 2012; Crowther et al., 2014). From the time of their arrival in Australia until European colonisation dingoes were isolated from all other canid species. Through natural selection and genetic drift, this led to dingoes becoming a unique taxon (Crowther et al., 2014). According to definitions of ‘native species’ in state legislation and under the EPBC Act dingoes are Australia’s native top-order mammalian predator. Further evidence for this is that they hunt in packs, have a social hierarchy between pack members and prey upon animals that weigh more than their average weight. Dingoes are also the largest native terrestrial carnivore, standing approximately 60cm high and weighing on average around 15kg. Like other wild canids such as wolves, coyotes and jackals, dingoes can inter-breed with domestic dogs. In most regions where dingoes remain hybridisation is minimal, however, in south-eastern introgression between dingoes and domestic dogs is more widespread. However, most animals in south-east Australia retain the typical morphological characteristics evident the pre-European and 19th century dingoes (Crowther et al 2014). Dingoes inhabit a diverse range of ecosystems on the mainland, from deserts to woodlands, to alpine regions and rainforests, and numerous habitats in between (Purcell, 2010). They are highly sociable animals that often live in family groups. Dingoes are crepuscular with most activities occurring at dusk and dawn, similar to that of their prey species (Brook et al., 2012). The majority of their diet is made up of one or two prey species, which differ depending on the region in which they live. The main prey species for dingoes in eastern and south-eastern Australia are eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), swamp wallabies (Wallabia bicolor), brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecular) and wombats (Vombatidae sp.); in central and north central Australia dingoes typically feed on agile wallabies (Macropus agilis), European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), reptiles and magpie geese (Anseranas semipalmata); and in western Australia on red kangaroos (Macropus rufus) and Australia euros (Macropus robustus) (Newsome et al., 1983; Thomson, 1992; Purcell, 2010). However, the main prey species change throughout the year depending on prey abundance, and on the dingo’s annual reproductive cycle (Newsome et al., 1983; Thomson, 1992; Purcell, 2010). When dingoes are in stable cooperative packs they tend to hunt larger prey such as kangaroos, while solitary dingoes hunt small to medium prey that are easier to catch (Glen et al., 2007). Control of dingoes results in the fracturing of these packs which is thought to lead to increased hunting of livestock. In the vital role that they fulfil as top order predator, dingoes help to regulate herbivore abundance 3 through direct predation. Dingoes have been shown to prey upon a number of introduced pest species including European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), feral goats (Capra hircus), pig (Sus scrofa) and deer (Cervidae Sp.) (Marsack & Campbell, 1990; Newsome, 1990; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010). Dingoes also prey upon native herbivores such as kangaroos and wallabies, species which without predation can deplete native vegetation (Caughley et al. 1980; Short, 1985; Thomson, 1992; Letnic et al., 2009b; Wallach et al., 2009; Colman et al 2014). Increased grazing or trampling by herbivores can have wide ranging effects, not only reducing food availability but also altering vegetation structure; this can be detrimental for smaller mammals and birds that rely on structurally-complex vegetation for refuges and nesting sites (Fisher, 2000; Berger et al., 2001; Wallach et al., 2009; Colman et al 2014). Dingoes provide substantial benefits for small and medium sized native mammals by suppressing the abundance of introduced predators, the red fox and feral cat (Letnic et al 2011; Brook et al 2012; Kennedy et al 2011). Dingoes supress cat and fox number through direct killing, but also influence the behaviour of these species (Newsome et al., 1983; Marsack & Campbell, 1990; Thomson, 1992; Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005). Brook et al. (2012) showed that in areas where dingo activity was reduced at dusk (controlled areas) there was increased cat activity. They also noted that cats avoided areas in which dingoes were frequently located. This may be an important and effective way to control feral cat populations as they typically avoid other control methods such as poisoned bait (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Brook et al., 2012). In areas where dingo populations are supressed by poison baiting, numbers of smaller predators tend to increase along with their predatory impact on prey. This phenomenon is termed mesopredator release (Ritchie and Johnson 2009). Consequently, populations of native animals that are preyed upon heavily by cats and foxes tend to be suppressed in areas where dingoes are controlled (Letnic et al 2009a&b, Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Gordon et al 2015). The effects of mesopredator release induced by dingo control are evident in continental-wide patterns of marsupial and rodent persistence (Smith and Quinn 1996; Johnson et al 2007). At a continental scale there is a strong correlation between the persistence of native rodents and marsupials and the presence of the dingo, which suggests that native mammals benefit from dingoes suppressive effects on foxes (Johnson et al 2006). Inside the dingo fence in western NSW – an area that has had no, or very few, dingoes for close to 100 years - 24 native mammal species have become extinct (Purcell, 2010). Although a number of other factors doubtlessly played a role in these extinctions, dingo removal was certainly a contributing factor. The suppression of dingoes has not only allowed introduced mesopredators (cats and foxes) to increase predation on the smaller ‘critical weight range’ animals (between 100-5000g; Johnson & Isaac, 2009), but also left larger herbivores (kangaroos) unregulated, causing extensive overgrazing and adding further pressure through competition for resources on smaller mammal species (Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009a, 2009b; Letnic & Crowther, 2013; Purcell, 2010). Research has shown a greater abundance and diversity of native mammals in areas that contain dingoes in comparison to those that exclude dingoes due to the fence; in the latter greater numbers of foxes and kangaroos have been found to occur (Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009a, 2009b; Letnic & Crowther, 2013). This has also been backed up by other studies that showed a greater abundance of native mammals where dingoes are present compared to when dingoes have been removed from the area due to control programs (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Brook et al., 2012). The link between the presence of dingoes and persistence of native mammals has led a number of researchers to conclude that dingoes could aid the conservation of critical weight range animals that are at severe risk of extinction due to predation by cats and foxes and competition from herbivores, especially as dingoes are more inclined to hunt large prey (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Letnic et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2013; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009; Purcell, 2010; Brook et al., 2012). This could occur because dingoes, although a predator, tend to 4 occur at lower densities than either foxes or cats do in the absence of dingoes (Ritchie & Johnson, 2009). Consequently, where dingoes are present, the per capita rate of predation on native mammals is lower than in areas where dingoes are rare and foxes and cats are common (Letnic and Dworjanyn 2011; Letnic et al 2012). Therefore, dingoes may be effective as a passive conservation tool (Letnic et al., 2013), especially in remote regions with little road access that comprise most of the continent. In remote areas, dingoes are likely to be a more effective at controlling foxes than poison baiting because the humans ability to access the landscape is limited, however dingoes traverse the entire landscape because they are not restricted to roads. Dingoes can effectively limit cat numbers and activity. This is an important benefit of retaining dingo populations because feral cats do not readily take most types of poison baits. It is for these reasons that this key threatening process nomination is proposed. Indigenous Values 5. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE Is the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available. It has been noted that the loss of the dingo would mean losing a living part of the hunter-gatherer heritage and Indigenous culture (Clutton-Brock, 1995). Since dingoes arrived in Australia they have been woven into numerous aspects of Aboriginal life, playing prominent parts in both mythology and everyday life. They fulfilled the role of companion and protector (both physical and spiritual), and were a source of warmth on cold nights (Clutton-Brock, 1995; Trigger et al., 2008; Smith & Litchfield, 2009; Purcell, 2010; AMRRIC, 2013). Dingoes may also have been used for hunting and a possible food source when meat was scarce, although this has been questioned (see Smith & Litchfield, 2009). Select dingoes were granted certain human privileges and included into family units; they were given ‘skin’ names, provided with some food and shelter, and were allowed to accompany women to their ceremonies (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; AMRRIC, 2013). Spiritually, dingoes been incorporated into the Dreamtime, with dog dreaming sites situated across the country. Ceremonies based around dingoes - with dances, songs and stories - are still being practised (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; AMRRIC, 2013). In some communities dingoes were considered to be reincarnations of ancestors (AMRRIC, 2013), and were often seen as spiritual totems, providing a reference point for social structure and custom (Smith & Litchfield, 2009; Purcell, 2010). Dingoes were also classed as ‘lawmen’ responsible for instituting Dreaming laws (Smith & Litchfield, 2009). Clearly dingoes play an important and culturally significant role within Indigenous communities. For an accurate understanding of how the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem impact upon the lives of Indigenous communities these communities should be consulted directly. Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question. 5 6. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include: a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing; c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; and d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria for listing. Scaly-tailed possum (Wyula squamicaudata) Scaly-tailed possums (Wyula squamicaudata) are classed as near threatened. This species is adversely affected by introduced cats (McKnight, 2008), which if not controlled could cause them to become threatened. If dingoes are removed from the ecosystem then the numbers of cats may flourish, which would likely result in greater losses of species, possibly including scaly-tailed possums. However, while dingoes are present in the region they suppress the numbers of cats (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012). It is also likely that other native animals could become eligible for listing as a result of the loss of dingoes from Australian landscapes. 7. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include: a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing; c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; and d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation to the criteria for listing. It is likely that the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem could result in ecological communities becoming eligible for listing under the EPBC Act, especially due to the resultant increased pressure from grazing. No specific examples can be provided at this stage. Criterion B: Listing in a higher threat category For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question. 8. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER THREAT CATEGORY AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each species please include: a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met); c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; and d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed. 6 Fauna Greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Vulnerable in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species The positive effects of dingoes are mentioned directly in the Commonwealth SPRAT profile for the threatened species Macrotis lagotis (Greater Bilby) (Department of the Environment, 2015a) as follows: “Dingoes are also known to take the Greater Bilby as prey, but have not been substantially linked with the decline of the species (Southgate 1990; Southgate et al 2007). The Greater Bilby and Dingoes occur in similar environmental conditions, and the presence of Dingoes may in fact improve habitat favourability for the Greater Bilby. Dingoes are an important predator of cats and can possibly displace fox activity (Southgate et al. 2007).” Predation by foxes has been listed as the greatest threat to the greater bilby. Feral cats have also been noted to prey upon them, however not to the extent to be a factor in their decline. While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system mesopredators flourish (LundieJenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) increasing predation pressure on the greater bilby. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Critically endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species The EPBC Act listing advice states that an overabundance of grazing herbivores can alter the structure and diversity of the vegetation impacting the suitability of the habitat for the malleefowl. Dingoes have been noted to mark the warrens of mallefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and greater bilbies (Macrotis lagotis) with faeces which deterred both cats and foxes from going near the warrens (O’Neill, 2002 cited by Glen et al., 2007; Wallach et al., 2009). These findings provide further evidence for an association between the presence of dingoes and the survival of threatened species Another major threat listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is predation, with foxes being the greatest threat. Feral cats have also been noted to prey upon them, however not to the extent to be a factor in their decline. Although this may change if the number of foxes decline as cat numbers will then increase and take over as being the main predator. (Department of the Environment, 2015b) While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both 7 mesopredators and herbivores are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system mesopredator and large herbivore numbers flourish (Newsome, 1990; Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2002 cited in Glen et al 2007; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) threatening the malleefowl even further. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. New-Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Endangered in Tasmania under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species The EPBC Act listing advice states that predation by red foxes, feral cats and dogs is a major threat to the species (Department of the Environment, 2015c). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system the abundance of mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) likely increasing predation pressure on the New-Holland mouse. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Dusky-hopping mouse (Notomys fuscus) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species The EPBC Act listing advice states that an over grazing by domestic stock, rabbits and the house mouse (Mus musculus) have alter the structure and diversity of the vegetation in the region. Predation is also listed as a threat, with foxes and feral cats being listed as the main sources. (Department of the Environment, 2015d) While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both mesopredators and herbivores are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system mesopredator and large herbivore numbers flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome, 1990; Newsome et al., 2001; O’Neill, 2002 cited in Glen et al 2007; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) threatening the duskyhopping mouse even further. Studies by Letnic and Dworjanyn (2011) and Gordon et al (2015) have shown that dusky-hopping mice foraged less efficiently in areas that had higher numbers of foxes and cats where dingoes were absent or only present in extremely low numbers. Another study by Letnic and Koch (2010) found that the Dusky Hopping-mouse was less abundant where dingoes were absent, suggesting that they may benefit from lower red fox numbers in the presence of dingoes. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Brush-tailed rabbit-rat, also known as the brush-tailed tree-rat (Conilurus penicillatus) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act 8 Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Near threatened on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species The major predator listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is the feral cat (Department of the Environment, 2015e). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system cats flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010; Brook et al., 2012), likely increasing predation pressure on the brush-tailed rabbit-rat. Recent research by Gordon et al (2015) also suggests that that apex predators provide small prey with refuge from predation by showing that rodents increased their habitat breadth and use of ‘risky’ food patches where the dingo was common but mesopredators rare. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Tiger quoll, also known as spot-tailed quoll or the spotted-tailed quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) Currently listed as: Endangered under the EPBC Act Vulnerable in the ACT under the Nature Conservation Act 1980 Vulnerable in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Vulnerable in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Endangered in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 The EPBC Act listing advice states that foxes, dingoes and domestic dogs prey on the tiger quoll, while competition from cats and foxes is also listed as a threat (Department of the Environment, 2015f). Although tiger quolls are predated upon by dingoes, a study by Glen et al. (2011) showed that quolls were more abundant when dingoes were present in the ecosystem compared to when they were absent due to dingoes suppressing foxes. They also had less dietary overlap, and therefore less competition for resources, with dingoes than with foxes and cats. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Rufous hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.) Currently listed as: Endangered under the EPBC Act Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 The EPBC Act listing advice states predation by cats as one of the main threats (Department of the Environment, 2015g) , while a study by Lundie-Jenkins et al. (1993) noted that foxes also preyed on the rufous hare-wallaby. In one instance a single fox decimated the entire local population of Rufous hare-wallabies in one night. Foxes only became present in the ecosystem once the dingoes were removed from the ecosystem through baiting. While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) increasing predation pressure on the Rufous hare-wallaby. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Western barred bandicoot (Perameles bougainville bougainville) Currently listed as: Endangered under the EPBC Act Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 9 The EPBC Act listing advice states that predation by red foxes and feral cats are major threats to the species (Department of the Environment, 2015h). Dingoes have been shown to be a regulating force in the presence and activity patterns of both foxes and cats. Therefore, if dingoes are removed from the area in which the western barred bandicoot are located there is a strong likelihood that the abundance of mesopredators would flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012), in turn increasing predation pressure on the bandicoot. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Golden bandicoot (Isoodon auratus auratus) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Endangered in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 Vulnerable in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 The major predators listed in the EPBC Act listing advice is the feral cat and domestic dogs (Department of the Environment, 2015i). While dingoes are present in the ecosystem the abundance and activity patterns of cats are suppressed. However, when dingoes are removed from the system cats flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Mitchell & Banks, 2005; Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010; Brook et al., 2012), leaving the golden bandicoot at risk of greater predation pressure which in turn may lead to a drastic decline in their numbers. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) Currently listed as: Endangered under the EPBC Act Critically endangered in the NT under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 Endangered in WA under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Predators listed as threats in the EPBC Act listing advice are foxes and feral cats (Department of the Environment, 2015j). The presence of dingoes in the ecosystem suppresses the abundance and activity patterns of both foxes and cats. However, when dingoes are removed from the system the abundance of mesopredators flourish (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993; Newsome et al., 2001; Letnic et al., 2009b; Letnic & Dworjanyn, 2011; Letnic et al. 2011; Brook et al., 2012) likely increasing predation pressure on the northern quoll. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Bridled nail-tailed wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata) Currently listed as: Endangered under the EPBC Act Extinct in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Endangered in QLD under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Threatened in VIC under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Predators listed as threats in the EPBC Act listing advice are feral cats and dingoes, with cats being the greatest threat (Department of the Environment, 2015k). Although dingoes are listed as a predator, the listing mentions that dingoes are also potentially of benefit to the bridled nail-tailed 10 wallaby, as their presence reduces the numbers of foxes and cats present in the area. Dingoes were also noted as possibly being the main reason that the population of bridled nail-tailed wallabies persisted in Taunton National Park has persisted whereas they have perished elsewhere (Fisher, 2000; Lundie-Jenkins, 2001). Hence, removing dingoes would leave this species vulnerable to greater predation pressure from both cats and foxes. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. Yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus) Currently listed as: Vulnerable under the EPBC Act Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Vulnerable in SA under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 According to the EPBC Act listing advice some of main threats to the yellow-footed rock-wallaby are predation by foxes and cats, as well as competition from introduced herbivores (mainly rabbits, goats and sheep) (Department of the Environment, 2015l). In a study by Wallach et al. (2009), yellowfooted rock-wallabies were shown to live in association with dingoes in nine locations in NSW. Dingoes were found to be present at nine yellow-footed rock-wallaby colonies within the dingo fence in NSW, suggesting that they offered some protection to the wallabies from predation by foxes and cats (Wallach et al., 2009). This was related to the fact that dingoes keep the number of foxes and cats in the region in check, reducing the predation pressure on the wallabies. Dingoes also reduce the number of rabbits and goats in the area by direct predation. Therefore, if dingoes are removed there will likely be an increase in number of both mesopredators and herbivores in the area, which could have a large impact on the population of yellow-footed rock-wallabies. The loss of the dingo from the Australian landscape therefore risks a decline in the conservation status of this species. The species listed above are just a sub-sample of animals that may be adversely affected by the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem. However, any other species currently listed on the EPBC Act that are preyed upon by foxes and/or cats, and/or in competition for resources with native and/or introduced herbivores may also be adversely affected by the loss or removal of the top-order predator from the system. Flora Any species currently listed on the EPBC Act list that is threatened by overgrazing or trampling from native and introduced herbivores may be adversely affected by the removal of dingoes from the ecosystem, due to the consequent increase in herbivore numbers. Examples of these plants include, but are not limited to: Austral toadflax (Thesium australe) Torrington pea (Almaleea cambagei) MacDonnell Ranges cycad (Macrozamia macdonnellii) Kalbarri leschenaultia (Lechenaultia chlorantha) Hakea maconochieana Ooldea Guinea-flower (Hibbertia crispula) Long-leafed myrtle (Hypocalymma longifolium) Olearia macdonnellensis Sclerolaena walkeri Mountain thryptomene (Thryptomene wittweri) 11 9. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER THREAT CATEGORY AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each ecological community please include: a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met); c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; and d. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community was previously listed. There is the potential for any of the listed Threatened Ecological Communities, as listed in section 11, to become eligible for listing in a higher category if the threat of the loss or removal of the dingo from the ecosystem is not abated. No specific examples can be provided at this time. Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. You do not need to provide details of the eligibility for all questions 6-11, however the more information you provide the more evidence is available to undertake the assessment. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question. 10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each species please include: a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and b. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process. All of the species listed in Section 8 are impacted by the proposed threatening process. This includes the following species: Greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) New-Holland mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae) Dusky-hopping mouse (Notomys fuscus) Brush-tailed rabbit-rat (Conilurus penicillatus) Tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) Rufous hare-wallaby (Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp.) Western barred bandicoot (Perameles bougainville bougainville) Golden bandicoot (Isoodon auratus auratus) Northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) Bridled nail-tailed wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata) Yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus) Justification for how they are adversely affected by the threatening process is covered in section 8. It is also likely that any other EPBC-listed species predated by foxes and feral cats, or impacted by over grazing or competition for resources from introduced or native herbivores will be affected by the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem. 12 11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide: a. the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and b. justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process. The communities listed below are currently listed on the EPBC Act due to the threats posed by grazing pressures by native and/or introduced herbivores, whose abundances may be increased by the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem. The detrimental effects of grazing pressures is noted in the EPBC Act listing advices for the following threatened communities: Peppermint box (Eucalyptus odorata) grassy woodland of South Australia (Critically Endangered) Natural grasslands of the Queensland central highlands and the northern Fitzroy basin (Endangered) Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland (Critically Endangered) White box – Yellow box – Blakely’s red gum grassy woodland and derived native grassland (Critically Endangered) Further research is required to look at the links between the loss of dingoes from Australian landscapes and the impacts on these ecological communities. Threat Abatement 12. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. Dingoes have long been persecuted in Australia for killing livestock, which also led them to being classed as a pest species in many jurisdictions. However, studies have shown that livestock makes up only between 1-7% of a dingoes diet, and even then it could not be determined whether these were healthy, sick, or even carrion before they were eaten (Corbett, 1995 cited in Letnic et al., 2013). Research has shown that in areas of South Australia and Queensland where dingoes are controlled there is an increase in livestock predation, particularly after the cull has taken place (Glen et al., 2007; Purcell, 2010). This is due to a breakdown in the social structure of packs that have lost one or more members causing some dingoes to hunt alone and seek out easy prey such as livestock (Wallach et al., 2009; Purcell, 2010). Young dingoes who are members of packs that have been controlled may not have been taught the skills required for hunting, which again leaves them searching for easy prey (Wallach et al., 2009). After dingo control there has also been shown to be an increase in rabbit (Corbett, 1995 cited in Glen et al., 2007), red kangaroo (Caughley et al., 1980), and feral cat populations (Lundie-Jenkins et al., 1993). Pasture depletion by irrupting kangaroos is also likely to lead to subsequent economic impacts on livestock production (Letnic and Crowther 2013 As a result, numerous cattle station owners are now beginning to see the dingo as an ally, with some consciously allowing dingoes to remain on their properties. For example, Angus Emmott, the chair of the Lake Eyre Basin Community Advisory Committee has stated “as a cattleman, I like to have dingoes on my place. Why? Do I lose a few calves? Yes, I probably do, though it’s hard to tell sometimes whether a half-eaten carcass was a healthy calf knocked over by dingoes or was sick and not going to make it anyway. But the dingoes I have on my place help my cattle production by keeping the kangaroo numbers down…. in many types of country they suppress the numbers of feral 13 cats and foxes. They kill some and scare others off. This is good for native species as the cats and foxes have the greatest impact on the many species of small native mammals which are struggling to hang on. Dingoes will get small animals sometimes, but they aren’t as agile and cunning at killing as the cats and foxes. As a person who loves the bush and our native animals, that’s important to me” (Emmott, 2013, p23). Restoring dingoes back into the ecosystem is therefore vital for the health of the environment and the conservation of native species. Alongside a number of farmers now encouraging dingoes on their lands (Emmot, 2013), Arian Wallach has set up three large-scale dingo recovery programs in collaboration with pastoral landowners and indigenous custodians to monitor the ecological impacts of restoring dingoes back into the ecosystem, through the ‘Dingo for Biodiversity Project’ (http://www.dingobiodiversity.com/arian-wallach.html ). It has been proposed that to protect the role of dingoes in the landscape dingoes should be reclassified as a protected native species rather than a pest species and that widespread dingo poisoning control programs should cease and instead replaced where necessary by targeted control of problem animals and non-lethal techniques to mitigate predation by dingoes. It is also suggested that programs to fund guard animals, such as alpacas, donkeys and maremmas, for farmers should be put in place to try to minimize any incidence of predation by dingoes. The nominator understands that such projects are already underway. As a relatively new area of science the important role of the dingo in the ecosystem has only recently been fully understood. As a result there are few known projects already undertaking abatement activities, however it is likely that this could be taking place across the country at the farm scale. However a more coordinated national approach is required to address this threat. 13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process? What other measures could be undertaken? The development of a threat abatement plan would be an appropriate way to deal with the loss or removal of dingoes from the ecosystem at the scale required across broad areas of Australia which crosses State and Territory borders. In addition efforts are needed to improve and harmonise State and Territory policies with regard to the identification of the dingo as a pest species, to be reclassified as a native species. It is likely that smaller scale projects at a local district or even farm level as noted in section 12 above would also complement a federal threat abatement plan and allow its delivery at a local level. 14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN If the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan include? The nominator considers that a threat abatement plan, and an associated threat abatement plan team would be an appropriate place in which to gather information on all ongoing research on the impact of the cascading effects of the loss or removal of the mammalian predator, the dingo (including wild dogs and dingo cross dog hybrids) from Australian landscapes. Further research should be funded to further our understanding of the ecological role of the dingo so that this can be broadly recognised, as demonstrated by current research. A threat abatement plan could provide a driving strategy to ensure the role of the dingo is recognised as well as a monitoring mechanism to demonstrate how dingo control programs currently in place are being managed or reduced wherever possible. This would also require an analysis of the state of legislation across all State and Territory Governments on how dingoes are treated to provide greater consistency in recognition of the ecological role they play. The nominator considers that a reduction 14 in dingo control programs is key to abating the threat, to be replaced with non-lethal approaches currently being trialled. The threat abatement plan should also list all species for which the presence of dingoes has been shown through research to be beneficial, as demonstrated in this nomination. 15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATION Is there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide? Reviewers and Further Information 16. REVIEWER(S) Has this nomination been reviewed? Have relevant experts been consulted on this nomination? If so, please include their names and current professional positions. The following people have all contributed to or been consulted on this nomination: Emma Jensson, HSI volunteer Emily Mowat, HSI volunteer Brad Purcell PhD, Adjunct fellow, School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney Mike Letnic, ARC Future Fellow & Associate Professor, Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales 17. MAJOR STUDIES Identify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process. It has been proposed that the dingo should be reintroduced to certain areas inside the dingo fence, such as that by put forward by Newsome et al (2015) in their recent paper. It is likely that many other studies are underway, at a local farm scale as well as broader projects such as the Dingo for Biodiversity project http://www.dingobiodiversity.com/ 18. FURTHER INFORMATION Identify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). There are likely to be many research projects underway as highlighted in section 17, however the nominator is not aware of any other recovery or conservation plans in place to address this threat or focussed on the dingo. 19. REFERENCE LIST Please list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination. Allen, B. and West, P. (2013), Influence of dingoes on sheep distribution in Australia. Australian Veterinary Journal, 91: 261–267. doi: 10.1111/avj.12075 Accessed 9th March 2015 Animal Management in Rural and Remote indigenous Communities (AMRRIC). (2013). http://www.amrric.org/news/dingoes-and-dogs-indigenous-culture Accessed 14 October 2014 Baum, J.K. and Worm, B. (2009). Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances. Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 78, 699-714 15 Berger, J., Stacey, P.B., Bellis, L. and Johnson, M.P. (2001). A mammalian predator-prey imbalance: Grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecological Applications. Vol. 11, 947-960 Berger, J. and Gese, E.M. (2007). Does interference competition with wolves limit the distribution and abundance of coyotes? Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 76, 1075-1085 Beschta, R.L. and Ripple, W.J. (2009). Large predators and trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western United States. Biological Conservation. Vol. 142, 2401-2414 Brook, L.A., Johnson, C.N. and Ritchie, E.G. (2012). Effects of predator control on behaviour of an apex predator and indirect consequences for mesopredator suppression. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 49, 1278-1286 Carpenter, S.R., Cole, J.J., Hodgson, J.R., Kitchell, J.F., Pace, M.L., Bade, D., Cottingham, K.L., Essington, T.E., Houser, J.N. and Schindler, D.E. (2001). Trophic cascades, nutrients, and lake productivity: Whole-lake experiments. Ecological Monographs. Vol. 71, 163-186 Catling, P.C. and Burt, R.J. (1995) Why are Red Foxes Absent from some Eucalypt Forests in Eastern New South Wales? Wildl. Rex, 1995,22,535-46 Caughley, G., Grigg, G. C., Caughley, J., and Hill, G. J. E. (1980). Does Dingo Predation Control Densities of Kangaroos and Emus? Australian Wildlife Research. Vol 7, 1-12 Clutton-Brock, J. (1995) Origins of the dog domestication and early history. In: The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. J. Serpell (Ed.) pp. 7-20. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge Colman, N.J., Gordon, C.E., Crowther, M.S., Letnic, M. (2014) Lethal control of an apex predator has unintended cascading effects on forest mammal assemblages. Proc. R. Soc. B 281: 20133094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.3094 Crooks, K.R. and Soulé, M.E. (1999). Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature. Vol. 400, 563-566 Crowther, M.S., Fillios, M., Colman, N. and Letnic, M. (2014). An updated description of the Australian dingo (Canis dingo Meyer, 1793). Journal of Zoology. Vol. 293, 192-203 Department of the Environment (2015)a. Macrotis lagotis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:17:06 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)b. Leipoa ocellata in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:04:23 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)c. Pseudomys novaehollandiae in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:08:26 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)d. Notomys fuscus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:10:10 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)e. Conilurus penicillatus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available 16 from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:12:48 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)f. Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population) in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:15:46 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)g. Lagorchestes hirsutus unnamed subsp. in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:17:46 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)h. Perameles bougainville bougainville in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:19:37 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)i. Isoodon auratus auratus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:20:53 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)j. Dasyurus hallucatus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:22:25 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)k. Onychogalea fraenata in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:24:54 +1100. Department of the Environment (2015)l. Petrogale xanthopus xanthopus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Mon, 9 Mar 2015 11:27:24 +1100. Emmott, A. (2013). Dingoes can be allies. National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program. Vol. 2, 23-24 Estes, J.A., Tinker, M.T., Williams, T.M. and Doak, D.F. (1998). Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystem. Science. Vol. 282, 473-476 Estes, J.A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J.S., Power, M.E., Berger, J., Bond, W.J., Carpenter, S.R., Essington, T.E., Holt, R.D., Jackson, J.B.C., Marquis, R.J., Oksanen, L., Oksanen, T., Paine, R.T., Pikitch, E.K., Ripple, W.J., Sandin, S.A., Scheffer, M., Schoener, T.W., Shurin, J.B., Sinclair, A.R.E., Soulé, M.E., Virtanen, R., and Wardle, D.A. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science. Vol. 333, 301-306 Fisher, D.O. (2000). Effects of vegetation structure, food and shelter on the home range and habitat use of an endangered wallaby. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 37, 660-671 Forsyth, D., Woolnough, A., Nimmo, D., Ritchie, E., Kennedy, M., Pople, A. and Watson, I. (2014), A comment on the influence of dingoes on the Australian sheep flock. Australian Veterinary Journal, 92: 461–462. doi: 10.1111/avj.12277 Accessed 9th March 2015 Glen, A.S., Dickman, C.R., Soulé, M.E. and Mackay, B.G. (2007). Evaluating the role of the dingo as a trophic regulator in Australian ecosystems. Austral Ecology. Vol. 32, 492-501 Glen, A.S., Pennay, M., Dickman, C.R., Wintle, B.A. and Firestone, K.B. (2011). Diets of sympatric native and introduced carnivores in the Barrington Tops, eastern Australia. Austral Ecology. Vol. 36, 290-296 17 Gordon, C.E., Feit, A., Gruber, J., and Letnic, M. (2015) Mesopredator suppression by an apex predator alleviates the risk of predation perceived by small prey. Proc. R. Soc. B 282: 20142870. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2870 Johnson, C.N. and Isaac, J.L. (2009). Body mass and extinction risk in Australian marsupials: The ‘critical weight range’ revisited. Austral Ecology. Vol. 34, 35-40 Letnic, M., Crowther, M.S. and Koch, F. (2009a). Does a top-predator provide an endangered rodent with refuge from an invasive mesopredator? Animal Conservation. Vol. 12, 302-312 Letnic, M., Koch, F., Gordon, C., Crowther, M.S. and Dickman, C.R. (2009b). Keystone effects of an alien top-predator stem extinctions of native mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B-Biological Sciences. Vol. 276, 3249-3256 Letnic, M. and Koch, F. (2010). Are dingoes a trophic regulator in arid Australia? A comparison of mammal communities on either side of the dingo fence. Austral Ecology, 35(2), 167–175 Letnic, M. and Dworjanyn, S.A. (2011). Does a top predator reduce the predatory impact of an invasive mesopredator on an endangered rodent? Ecography. Vol. 34, 827-835 Letnic, M., Greenville, A., Denny, E., Dickman, C.R., Tischler, M., Gordon, C. and Koch, F. (2011). Does a top predator suppress the abundance of an invasive mesopredator at a continental scale? Global Ecology and Biogeography. Vol. 20, 343-353 Letnic, M., Ritchie, E. G. and Dickman, C.R. (2012) Top predators as biodiversity regulators: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study Biol. Rev. (2012), 87, pp. 390–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1469185X.2011.00203.x Letnic, M. and Crowther, M.S. (2013). Patterns in the abundance of kangaroo populations in arid Australia are consistent with the exploitation ecosystems hypothesis. Oikos. Vol. 122, 761-769 Letnic, M., Baker, L. and Nesbitt, B. (2013). Ecologically functional landscapes and the role of dingoes as trophic regulators in south-eastern Australia and other habitats. Ecological Management and Restoration. Vol. 14, 101-105 Lundie-Jenkins, G., Corbett, L.K. and Phillips, C.M. (1993). Ecology of the rufous hare-wallaby, Lagorchestes hirsutus Gould (Marsupialia: Macropodidae), in the Tanami Desert, Northern Territory III: Interactions with introduced mammal species. Wildlife Research. Vol. 20, 495-511 Lundie-Jenkins, G. (2001). Recovery plan for the bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata) 1997-2001. Report to Environment Australia, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-recovery-plan-bridlednailtail-wallaby-onychogalea-fraenata-1997-2001 Accessed 02 Jan 2015 McKnight, M. 2008. Wyulda squamicaudata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 March 2015 Marsack, P. and Campbell, G. (1990). Feeding behaviour and diet of dingoes in the Nullarbor region, western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research. Vol. 17, 349-357 Mitchell, B.D. and Banks, P.B. (2005). Do wild dogs exclude foxes? Evidence for competition from dietary and spatial overlaps. Austral Ecology. Vol. 30, 581-591 Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. (2007). Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science. Vol. 315, 1846-1850 18 Newsome, A.E., Catling, P.C. and Corbett, L.K. (1983). The feeding ecology of the dingo II. Dietary and numerical relationships with fluctuating prey populations in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. Vol. 8, 345-366 Newsome, A. (1990). The control of vertebrate pests by vertebrate predators. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol. 5, 187-191 Newsome, A.E., Lunney, D. and Dickman, C.R. (2001). The biology and ecology of the dingo. In: A Symposium on the Dingo. D. Lunney and C.R. Dickman (Eds.). 20-33. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Mosman Newsome, T.M., Ballard, G-A, Crowther, M.S., Dellinger, J.A., Fleming, P.J.S., Glen, A.S., Greenville, A.C., Johnson, C.N., Letnic, M., Moseby, K.E., Nimmo, D.G., Nelson, M.P., Read, J.L., Ripple, W.J., Ritchie, E.G., Shores, C.R.6, Wallach, A.D., Wirsing, A.J., and Dickman, C.R.. (2015) Resolving the value of the dingo in ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration doi: 10.1111/rec.12186 Oskarsson, M.C.R., Kitsch, C.F.C., Boonyaprakob, U., Wilton, A., Tanabe, Y. and Savolainen, P. (2012). Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B-Biological Sciences. Vol. 279, 967-974 Power, M.E., Matthews, W.J. and Stewart, A.J. (1985). Grazing minnows, piscivorous bass, and stream algae: Dynamics of a strong interaction. Ecology. Vo. 66, 1448-1456 Purcell, B. (2010). Dingo. CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood Ritchie, E.G., and Johnson, C.N. (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters. Vol. 12, 982–998. Savolainen, P., Leitner, T., Wilton, A.N., Matisoo-Smith, E. and Lundberg, J. (2004). A detailed picture of the origin of the Australian dingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 101, 1238712390 Short, J. (1985). The functional response of kangaroos, sheep and rabbits in an arid grazing system. Journal of Applied Ecology. Vol. 22, 435-447 Smith, B.P. and Litchfield, C.A. (2009). A review of the relationship between Indigenous Australias, dingoes (Canis dingo) and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anthrozoös. Vol. 22, 111-128 Switalski, T.A. (2003). Coyote foraging ecology and vigilance in response to gray wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park. Canadian Journal of Zoology. Vol. 81, 985-993 Thomson, P.C. (1992). The behavioural ecology of dingos in north-western Australia. III. Hunting and feeding behaviour, and diet. Wildlife Research. Vol. 19, 531-541 Trigger, D., Mulcock, J., Gaynor, A. and Toussaint, Y. (2008). Ecological restoration, cultural preferences and the negotiation of ‘nativeness’ in Australia. Geoforum. Vol. 39, 1273-1283 Wallach, A.D., Murray, B.R. and O’Neill, A.J. (2009). Can threatened species survive where the top predator is absent? Biological Conservation. Vol. 142, 43-52 19 20. APPENDIX Please place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment. Nominator's details Note: Your details are subject to the provision of the Privacy Act 1988 and will not be divulged to third parties if advice regarding the nomination is sought from such parties. 21. TITLE Mrs 22. FULL NAME Alexia Wellbelove 23. ORGANISATION OR COMPANY NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Humane Society International 24. CONTACT DETAILS Email: [email protected] Phone: 02 9973 1728 Fax: 02 9973 1729 25. Postal address: PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 2107 DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. I understand that any unreferenced material within this nomination will be cited as ‘personal communication’ (i.e. referenced in my name) and I permit the publication of this information. Signed: Date: th 9 March 2015 * If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature Prior to lodging your nomination In order for received nominations to be eligible for consideration by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee for inclusion on the Finalised Priority Assessment List, nominations must contain all information required by Division 7.2 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (the Regulations) http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F2000B00190. To assist nominators in identifying information that is required to be included in the nomination, a checklist has been provided for reference. You are not required to complete the checklist and submit it with your nomination. Checking against the Regulations will be done by the department. The checklist is provided as a tool to so that you may ensure that the nomination contains the required information and can be considered for assessment. If the required information is not available to be provided in the nomination because of a lack of scientific data or analysis it is a requirement of the Regulations that the nomination includes an explicitly statement that the data are not available for that question. Please check that your nomination contains the required information listed in the checklist prior to submission 20 How to lodge your nomination Completed nominations may be lodged either: 1. by email to: [email protected], or 2. by mail to: The Director Species Information and Policy Section Protected Species and Communities Branch Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 * If submitting by mail, please include an electronic copy on memory stick or CD. Where did you find out about nominating items? The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible. Please tick DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper word of mouth Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one…………………………………………………………………. web search Other…Submitted previous nominations……………………………………………………….. Comments: 21 Attachment A: Further information on completing this form <back to top> 1. NAMING THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS <back to Q1> The name provided should accurately reflect the scope of the process based on the description and evidence provided in this form. The name nominated may not necessarily be the name adopted by the Committee for a successful nomination. Before nominating a key threatening process please check the list of listed key threatening processes and unsuccessful nominations to determine if the key threatening process, a similar nomination, or broader key threatening process that would include the nomination, has already been assessed and listed or found unsuccessful. The EPBC Act list of key threatening processes and unsuccessful nominations is available here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/unsuccessful-ktp.html 4. DESCRIBING THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS <back to Q4> Provide a description of the threatening process that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to (i) its biological and non-biological components. Consider all the components which make up the threatening process. Each biological and non-biological component of the process nominated should be defined as accurately and concisely as possible. If appropriate, in order to distinguish the nominated threatening process from other processes, components which are specifically excluded from the nominated process can be listed. While not wishing to restrict the generality of nominations, the Committee would prefer that threatening processes are identified as operating in particular landscape or ecological or seascape contexts. (ii) the processes by which those components interact (if known). In relation to the biological and non-biological components defined above, nominators should attempt to identify the interactions that occur between these components, i.e. to describe the actual process. All terms used to name the interactions making up the process should be defined as accurately and as concisely as possible. It would also be useful if the linkage between components demonstrates how the process threatens native species or ecological communities. For example, it is conceivable that a change in vegetation cover could be threatening to downstream aquatic species, but this linkage would need to be established before it could be understood as a threatening process. Specific examples or data demonstrating impact on named native species or ecological communities should not be included in the description (these are included in the justification section). 6 and 7. CRITERION A <back to Q6> <back to Q7> Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or an ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. This criterion refers to species or ecological communities not currently included in the EPBC Act lists, but which could become eligible for listing due to the impacts of the nominated threatening process. To meet this criterion there must be a high likelihood of a significant effect, to the extent that the species or ecological community will meet at least one of the criteria for listing, within an indicated timeframe, should the threat continue. The conservation status categories of listing relevant to this criterion are: for species: Extinct, Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable. for ecological communities: Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable. The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided. Evidence should be provided for each species or ecological community listed that explains how the impact of the key threatening process may result in the listing of the species/ ecological community and evidence for which listing category the species/ecological community would be eligible under. Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC. 8 and 9. CRITERION B<back to Q8><back to Q9> Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or a listed threatened ecological community to become eligible to be listed in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. This criterion refers to species or ecological communities which are currently included in the EPBC Act lists. In order to cause a species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in a category representing a higher degree of endangerment, there must be a high likelihood of a significant effect, to the extent that the species or ecological community will meet at least one criterion for the higher category, within an indicated timeframe, should the threat continue. The conservation status categories of listing relevant to this criterion are: for species: Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Conservation Dependant. for ecological communities: Endangered or Vulnerable. The categories Extinct for species and Critically Endangered for ecological communities are not relevant, since there are no categories representing a higher degree of endangerment. The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided. Evidence should be provided for each species or ecological community listed that explains how the impact of the key threatening process may result in the species/ ecological community being listed in a category representing a higher degree of endangerment. Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC. 10. CRITERION C <back to Q10> <back to Q11> Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities. This criterion refers to species or ecological communities which are currently included in the EPBC Act lists. In order to be adversely affecting a species or ecological community, the threatening process must currently occur where the species or ecological community occurs, and there must be evidence of a current effect. An adverse effect can include mortality, injury, spread of disease, disturbance to breeding, feeding or roosting habits, habitat alteration or habitat destruction. The extent of impact which can be considered to be an adverse effect depends on the attributes of the population, ecological characteristics, and category in which the species/ecological community is listed. For example, if a species listed as Critically Endangered has less than 50 individuals remaining, then the death of a few individuals would probably constitute an adverse effect. Conversely, the same impact in a species listed as Vulnerable, which has a population of over 9000, would not constitute an adverse impact for the purpose of this criterion. The conservation status categories relevant to this criterion are: for species: Extinct in the wild, Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable for ecological communities: Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable The category Extinct for species is not included since there cannot be a current adverse effect on this species. However, if there is evidence of a previous adverse impact before the species became extinct, and this is highly relevant to current impacts of the threatening process, this evidence can also be included. Some of the information provided in Criterion B will also be relevant here. In this case, it should be provided again in the context of this criterion, i.e. relating to adverse effects rather than population-level impacts. The guidelines and criteria for listing species and ecological communities in each of these categories can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-species.pdf http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/pubs/guidelines-ecological-communities.pdf Lists of EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities can be found here: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=fauna http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl?wanted=flora http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl Justification for the inclusion of species or ecological communities in the nomination needs to be provided. Although there are three criteria for listing a key threatening process, meeting any one of the criteria means a threatening process is eligible for listing as a key threatening process. However, provision of all available evidence against each criterion aids in assessment by the TSSC. 12. THREAT ABATEMENT <back to Q12> Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. Describe any mitigation measures or approaches that have been developed specifically for the species at identified locations. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date. 13. THREAT ABATEMENT ADVICE <back to Q13> If a decision is made to list the threatening process being nominated as a key threatening process, the Minister must then make a decision on whether to have a threat abatement plan. This section is not required for the nomination to be eligible for listing as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act. However any additional information provided by nominators can be used by the TSSC in preparing its advice to the Minister on the feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency of developing a threat abatement plan, should the threatening process be listed. 25. DECLARATION <back to Q25> In signing this nomination form, you agree to grant the Commonwealth of Australia (as represented by the Department of the Environment) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free licence to use, reproduce, publish, communicate and distribute the information described in the nomination form (i.e. information you have provided that is not referenced to other sources) in the Department’s websites and publications and to promote those web sites and publications in any medium. As the author of this information, you will be acknowledged in all publications and websites in which the information appears, in a manner consistent with the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (latest edition).