Biodiversity Conservation

For the past two months, I have spent my Wednesday afternoons in a little lab tucked away in the Rainforest Gulley in the Australian National Botanical gardens.
I have been helping Tom North, the curator and manager of the Seed Bank at the gardens, in running a seed germination trial for a species called Bossiaea bombayensis.Bossieae bombayensis,or Bombay Bossiaea, is a shrub listed as vulnerable that is solely found in the Shoalhaven River valley in South-Eastern NSW. The shrub grows on highly inaccessible steep, rocky slopes and much about the species is unknown- including its germination properties. Knowing the conditions under which there is the highest chance of successful germination is vital to be able to cultivate the plant in a setting such as the Botanical Gardens.

Bombay bossiaea is threatened due to competition from invasive species, erosion of riverbanks from recreational events, and stochastic events such as bushfires. The locations of these communities are greatly unknown, but their distribution is sporadic and individual communities are highly isolated from one another. This increases their vulnerability to events such as clearing, degradation and fire, which it is not believed to be resilient towards.

The research I was working on aims to find the most effective pre-germination treatment for Bombay Bossiaea to allow it to be cultivated on a large enough scale to assist conservation efforts.

The seeds used were collected in January and had been kept in a dry store since then. Of about 50 individual trees the seeds were collected from, seeds from 30 randomly ‘mother trees’ were chosen.

My first few sessions in the lab involved weighing seeds from the different parent trees to find an average weight, and counting out batches of 50 seeds from the samples chosen. 

The seeds were then randomly combined and then split into treatment groups, with four replicates being done for each.

• Control
• Microwaved
• Hot water
• Nicked

The next week about 4 hours were spent ‘nicking’ 100 very small seeds with a scalpel under a microscope, extremely painstaking work as the seed had to be nicked in a particular place.

The seeds were then all put in a humidifier overnight, soaked in ethanol and placed in groups of 25 on agar plates before being placed in the incubator for germination, where they currently remain.

I have been going in and ‘scoring’ the seeds every week but there are no signs of germination yet, which is expected to be seen from about 3 weeks of incubation. The results from this project will hopefully give an indication of the best way to allow for successful germination of Bossiaea bombayensis to allow it to survive and thrive in the future!

Working on this project has really emphasised to me the importance of detailed knowledge about what you are actually trying to conserve, as this is vitally necessary to be able to effectively work towards conservation goals.

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/project.aspx?ProfileID=20125

https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=20125

http://bie.ala.org.au/species/http://id.biodiversity.org.au/node/apni/2887625

By Emily Jones (u5714668)

ANU Intrepid Landcare with Carolyn Larcombe at Grasshopper Gully.  Photograph: David Stock (2018)

On a chilly August morning, myself and others from ANU Intrepid Landcare headed to a private property near Queanbeyan to undertake some restoration work. Upon arrival, I looked out of the minibus at the landscape around me. The property looked like many I had worked on before, with large tracts of native grassland, beautiful patches of remnant bushland and native seedlings dotted about the place.

However, there was one important difference, which made Carolyn Larcombe’s private property unlike any I had ever visited: There were no commercial activities in sight.

As it turns out, Carolyn had removed cattle from her property about ten years ago. She has been managing her property exclusively for conservation ever since.

   

Video (with fantastic footage of the Wandiyali-Environa Conservation Area) explaining Carolyn’s story and projects being carried out within the Wandiyali-Environa Conservation Area. Source: Carolyn Larcombe

Carolyn’s property, now named the Wandiyali-Environa Conservation Area, is certainly worth restoring. The site provides vital connectivity between areas like the Molonglo Ranges and the Murrumbidgee River Corridor (Wandiyali Restoration Trust, 2018). It also contains more than 400ha of remnant Box Gum Grassy Woodland, an endangered ecological community (Australian Government, n.d.).

It was a small area of this Box Gum Grassy Woodland, dubbed ‘Grasshopper Gully’, that ANU Intrepid Landcare had been tasked with restoring.

Restoration activities undertaken by ANU Intrepid Landcare at Grasshopper Gully on August 11 and October 4th. The graphic depicts the both the species and number of seedlings (as well as their location) planted at Grasshopper Gully, as well as sites where erosion and weed control have been undertaken. Source: Carolyn Larcombe (2018)

After setting up a photopoint for long-term monitoring of the site, we spent the morning controlling erosion in a small tributary, which flows into Jerrabomberra Wetlands. 

We then spent the remainder of the day planting native seedlings, with the dual aims of restoring Box Gum Grassy Woodland at the site, as well as improving connectivity between remnant patches of vegetation.

Top Left: Carolyn Larcombe setting up a photopoint for monitoring of Grasshopper Gully. Photograph: Emily Jones (2018). Top Right: Intrepid Landcarers undertaking erosion control in Grasshopper Gully. Photograph: Renee Gonlag (2018).  Bottom Left: Planting seedlings in Grasshopper Gully. Photograph: Michael Malone (2018). Bottom Right: Some of the seedlings planted in Grasshopper Gully, both by ANU Intrepid Landcare and previously by Carolyn Larcombe. Photograph: Renee Gonlag (2018)

My time at Grasshopper Gully really emphasised to me just how valuable conservation activities on private land can be for biodiversity.

Unfortunately, Australia’s National Reserve System is not large enough to protect biodiversity on its own. The reserve system only covers around 19% (at most) of Australia’s land area, yet we need at least 30% of habitat to remain if we are to slow the accelerated decline of species richness in a given landscape (DOEE, 2018; Andren, 1994).

Further, many of Australia’s bioregions are poorly represented in the National Reserve System (Neville & Arthington, 2009). This is because it’s largely only commercially unviable land that receives reserve status, whilst many ecological communities and threatened species largely occur on land suited to agriculture (Pressey et al., 2000).

The location and size of reserves in the National Reserve System. Source: Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (2014) 

Alternatively, private land covers around 70% of Australia’s land area, and harbours many threatened species and ecological communities (Figgis, Humann & Looker, 2005). Like the Wandiyali-Environa Conservation Area, private land can also be vitally important in providing connectivity between patches of remnant vegetation (Figgis et al., 2005).

“Private land covers around 70% of Australia’s land area, and harbours many threatened species and ecological communities”

Consequently, the importance of conservation on private land is significant. As such, many landholders, like Carolyn, are actively conserving habitat on their properties, often doing so with the help of volunteer-driven organisations and government programs (CoA, 2007).

Unfortunately, however, Carolyn’s work is not representative of broader trends at play on Australia’s private land.

The clearing of tropical forest on Cape York Peninsula. Photograph: Photograph: Kerry Trapnell/The Wilderness Society.

Instead, evidence suggests habitat destruction on private land is increasing (Hannam, 2018). For instance, clearing of native vegetation in NSW increased by 800% from 2014 to 2016, associated with the relaxation of land clearing laws for private landholders (Davies 2018).

As such, it seems strong policy is needed to turn these trends around, to see more landholders preserving and restoring, rather than destroying, important habitat on private land (Bekessy & Wintle, 2017).

If this work sounds like something you might like to get involved with, get in contact with ANU Intrepid Landcare here. 

If you’d like to support Carolyn’s work financially, please donate to the Wandiyali Restoration Trust here. 

References

Andren, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos, 355-366.

Arthington, A. H., & Nevill, J. (2009). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2020: scientists’ letter of concern. Ecological Management & Restoration, 10(2), 78-83.

Australian Government (n.d.). Approved Threatened Species Recovery Fund Open Round Projects. [PDF] Available at: http://www.nrm.gov.au/system/files/pages/9d130a47-9239-4694-9392 -9fee1d57cd76/files/tsrf-approved-projects.pdf [Accessed 02 Oct. 2018].

Commonwealth of Australia (CoA) (2007). Conserving Australia: Australia’s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas. [online] Parliament of Australia. Available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/senate/ environment_and_communications/completed_inquiries/2004-07/nationalparks/report/index [Accessed 6 Oct. 2018].

Davies, A. (2018). Clearing of native vegetation in NSW jumps 800% in three years. The Guardian Australia. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/04/clearing-of-native-vegetation-in-nsw-jumps-800-in-three-years [Accessed 5 Oct. 2018].

Department of the Environment and Energy (DOEE) (2018). National Reserve System protected area requirements. [online] Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/about-nrs/requirements [Accessed 2 Oct. 2018].

Figgis, P., Humann, D., & Looker, M. (2005). Conservation on private land in Australia. Parks, 15(2), 19-29.

Hannam, P. (2018). ‘Really scary’: NSW environment minister warned of land-clearing leap. Sydney Morning Herald. [online] Available at: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/nsw-environment-minister-land-clearing-upton-20180302-p4z2ji.html [Accessed 3 Oct. 2018].

Pressey, R. L., Hager, T. C., Ryan, K. M., Schwarz, J., Wall, S., Ferrier, S., & Creaser, P. M. (2000). Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive regions: quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation, 96(1), 55-82.

Wandiyali Restoration Trust (2018). Wandiyali Restoration Trust – Biodiversity Restoration and Resilience.

Wintle, B. and Bekessy, S. (2018). Let’s get this straight, habitat loss is the number-one threat to Australia’s species. The Conversation. [online] Available at: https://theconversation.com/lets-get-this-straight-habitat-loss-is-the-number-one-threat-to-australias-species-85674 [Accessed 6 Oct. 2018].

By Courtney Webber

The regent honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) is Australia’s most threatened songbird and is listed as critically endangered under international legislation. Habitat loss and attacks from other birds are the main reasons for the rapid decline of regent honeyeaters.

Fellow student Jack Stodart and I spent three days gaining work experience with ANU PHD student Ross Crates, gaining knowledge on the threats facing regent honeyeaters, and strategies for their conservation. We spent time in both Capertee Valley National Park and Goulbourn River National Park, home to regent honeyeaters.

Noisy minor control site

Ross Crates is a part of the Difficult Bird Research Group (https://www.difficultbirds.com/), a group of researchers studying Australia’s most endangered birds. These researchers coin these birds as “difficult” because they are hard to detect and move around wild and rugged terrain. One of the main issues for difficult birds like the regent honeyeater, is that by the time researchers can collect data, it is often too late to act.

Our first stop on our trip was Capertee Valley National Park. Unfortunately, on our arrival Crates informed us the regent honeyeaters had not yet arrived, potentially due to a lack of flowering blossoms. We walked through the valley, where the yellow box (Eucalyptus melliodora) had been cleared along the river flats. Yellow box blossom is a critical food source for the regent honeyeaters, and it is important these trees are replanted. In previous years Crates had taken ANU students out to Capertee Valley to plant yellow box, of which we could see slowly growing along the river flats.

Walking alongside cleared river flats with Stodart and Crates

Crates also pointed out the mistletoe (Amyema cambagei) growing on the river she-oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. Cunninghamiana), another key food source for regent honeyeaters.

Our second stop was Goulbourn River National Park, where we visited a biodiversity offset site (offsetting a nearby coal mine). The offset site was being used to assess the effectiveness of culling noisy minors (Manorina melanocephala). We surveyed a culled site, and a control site on the property, taking notes on the bird calls we could hear in a five-minute period. So far, it appears the culling has been effective in minimising the number of noisy minors and strengthening the numbers of regent honeyeaters and other songbirds.

Noisy minors are ‘edge specialists’, sticking to the edge of woodlands.

While in the field we used our limited reception to listen to Ross Crates being interviewed on the news about his detection of regent honeyeaters in the lower Blue Mountains (http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/critically-endangered-bird-at-risk-from-govt-dam-wall-proposal/10194042). Crates detected regent honeyeaters near the planned extension of the Warragamba dam wall. The proposed extension of the dam wall has the purpose of lowering the risk of flooding, however it poses a risk to the habitat of the regent honeyeaters, among other species.

Regent honeyeaters are a difficult species to conserve, however data collected by researchers like Ross Crates is creating greater understanding of the threats facing Australian songbirds, and strategies to mitigate them.

Photography: Courtney Webber 

Over the last couple of months, I’ve been involved in organising the establishment of a native bee pollinator garden at the Acton Community Garden. Leading the project, my roles thus far include researching suitable plant species, weeding, landscaping and planting out the area, garden design, meeting and collaborating with others involved, securing funding for the project and sourcing plants. While the project is still very much in its fledgling stages, in a few more months, what was previously an unused patch of weeds will soon be a gorgeous, diverse garden utilised both as an educational resource and as habitat to encourage native pollinator biodiversity on campus and in surrounding areas.

Before (overrun with periwinkle) & After (Weeds cleared, landscaping and planting underway)

Collaboration!

One of the most exciting elements of this project thus far are the diverse range of individuals that have come together to help bring it to life. Being located at the Acton Community Garden, this project is indeed all about community. It will exist for the community (both bee and human) and is being established by the community. Key players in this network thus far include the amazing staff at the Canberra Environment Centre (special shout out to Karina!), their generous volunteers, the wonderful ANU Environment Collective for allocating funding to the project, and those much more knowledgeable than myself who have helped to advise on garden design, appropriate plant species etc.

Education!

While the garden itself will help to encourage native bee visitation to the area, it will prove most valuable by acting as an educational tool for the broader community. The garden will include signage on things such as the aims of the garden, the incredible diversity of Australian bees, and how individuals can go about making their own gardens at home more bee friendly, with a QR code at the bottom of the sign linking them to more information about the project on the Canberra Environment Centre website. Indeed, the webpage itself will likely see more traffic than the garden itself, however the garden will still prove valuable as it will act as a palpable example of what a native pollinator backyard might look like. The garden is also located right alongside a day care centre, and so will help to foster biophilia, through environmental education, by helping to connect the little critters at the day care centre to the little critters in the garden.

Corridors!

It is hoped that by establishing this tiny slice of habitat, an increase in habitat connectivity will allow native pollinators to move across ANU’s fragmented landscape, helping to “play an important role in pollinator conservation”. But more importantly, it is my hope that the public will be inspired to plant their own native pollinator gardens, thereby creating corridors and enhancing the habitat connectivity for native pollinators across Canberra. These urban gardens can act as a vital resource for native bee fitness.

Watch this space!

While the garden to date is mostly just a (now weed free) patch of dirt, with a few sparse plantings and the beginnings of some landscaping, it is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was a few short weeks ago, and it continues to grow. So, watch this space, and if you’re interested in getting involved, come along to the volunteer working bee this Saturday the 13^th from 10-12am to check it out and lend a hand!

Written by u5799681

The Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) is listed as vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999). They are found in south-eastern Australia and inhabits predominately eucalypts woodlands and forests (Department of the Environment, 2018). Climatic conditions and variability have significant influences on the migration patterns of the species (Manning et al., 2007). Dr Rayner suggested that increased sightings in Canberra could be due to the shift in its geographic range induced by climate change.

Figure 1. The Superb Parrot by Bernard Spragg via https://www.flickr.com/photos/volvob12b/14253283657/in/photolist-nHvNDX-eSsLxe-diY6pH-jEYkib-27KR31s-qFXpph-qVpYQL-pUQvMj-pXoKeH-rpSuma-9d46t1-cAoUiy-obVQiU-24dSURG/ (Public Domain)

Why are hollows important?

The Superb Parrots rely heavily on hollow-bearing trees for nesting and breeding. It is predicted that the number of hollow-bearing trees will continue to decline (Gibbons et al., 2008). This phenomenon is concerning because regeneration in their habitats is limited and the generation time of new hollows is longer than 120 years (Manning et al., 2013). Therefore, conservation actions are urgently needed to conserve the population (Manning et al., 2013).

Urbanisation and interspecific competition

New residential developments are occurring throughout Canberra due to the population growth (Coleman, 2016). While urbanisation often irreversibly alter natural landscapes and reduce the quantity and quality of habitats for many species, some species thrive in urban environment (Sol et al., 2014).  For instance, Sulphur-crested Cockatoos (Cacatua galerita) are benefited by urbanisation since the urban environment provides them with a constant and reliable source of food and water (Temby, 2004).

Figure 2. Two Sulphur-crested Cockatoos are meddling with the climbing equipment (Image by Tai Law)

Given that some Superb Parrots nest and breed in hollow-bearing trees near new development sites, it is expected that the Superb Parrots will face increased competition from other hollow-dependent bird species which prefer urban environment, such as Sulphur-crested Cockatoos and Crimson Rosella (Platycercus elegans).

‘If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.’ – Peter Drucker

During the weekend, we surveyed the tree hollows around North Canberra. With professional tree-climbing skills from Dr Rayner and Mr Jardine, we were able to measure and record the physical and biological attributes of the tree hollows in detail. Examples of attributes surveyed include hollow depth and hollow entrance dimensions.

Dr Rayner suggested that the data collected can be used to develop a model to predict the relationship between Superb Parrots and hollow-bearing trees. In other words, such model would allow for the prediction of occurrence and abundance of Superb Parrots based on environmental surrogates such as the number of hollow-bearing trees per hectare. Not only will this model provide meaningful knowledge to support conservation of the species (Davis et al., 2014), it is also useful in the policy environment because direct monitoring of the species might be costly and practically infeasible (Lindenmayer et al., 2014).

Figure 3. Alex is measuring the physical and biological attributes of a tree hollow on a hollow-bearing tree (Image by Tai Law)

The bigger picture

The situation of Superb Parrot is experienced by many species in other countries. Fundamental drivers of biodiversity loss including population growth and climate change are threatening ecological communities all over the world (Spangenberg, 2007). Conservation actions with effective environmental monitoring and adaptive management approach would be critical to the success of biodiversity conservation (Dovers and Hussey, 2013).

On 22^nd and 23^rd September (10 am – 5 pm), we assisted Dr Laura Rayner from the ACT Parks and Conservation Service with research on the Superb Parrot around Canberra.

I would like to thank Dr Laura Rayner and Mr Alex Jardine for the opportunity and the experience.

Written by: Tai Law (Jackson) u5782608

References

Coleman, S., 2016. Built environment: Current urban planning and management. In: Australia state of the environment 2016, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Available at: https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/built-environment/topic/2016/current-urban-planning-and-management (accessed 27 September 2018)

Commonwealth of Australia, 1999. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Davis, A., Major, R. E. and Taylor, C. E., 2014. Distribution of tree-hollows and hollow preferences by parrots in an urban landscape, Emu – Austral Ornithology, 114(4): 295-303.

Department of the Environment, 2018. Polytelis swainsonii in Species Profile and Threats Database [webpage], Department of the Environment. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=738 (accessed 27 September 2018).

Dovers, S. and Hussey, K., 2013. Environment & sustainability: a policy handbook, The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW.

Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D., Fischer, J., Manning, A., Weinberg, A., Seddon, J., Ryan, P. and Barrett, G., 2008. The future of scattered trees in agricultural landscapes, Conservation Biology, 22(5): 1309-1319.

Lindenmayer, D. B., Barton, P. S., Lane, P. W., Westgate, M. J., McBurney, L., Blair, D., Gibbons, P. and Likens, G. E., 2014. An Empirical Assessment and Comparison of Species-Based and Habitat-Based Surrogates: A Case Study of Forest Vertebrates and Large Old Trees, PLOS ONE, 9(2): e89807.

Manning, A. D., Gibbons, P., Fischer, J., Oliver, D. L. and Lindenmayer, D. B., 2013. Hollow futures? Tree decline, lag effects and hollow-dependent species, Animal Conservation, 16(4): 395-403.

Manning, A. D., Lindenmayer, D. B., Barry, S. C. and Nix, H. A., 2007. Large-scale spatial and temporal dynamics of the vulnerable and highly mobile superb parrot, Journal of Biogeography, 34(2): 289-304.

Sol, D., González-Lagos, C., Moreira, D., Maspons, J. and Lapiedra, O., 2014. Urbanisation tolerance and the loss of avian diversity, Ecology Letters, 17(8): 942-950.

Spangenberg, J. H., 2007. Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind, Ecological Economics, 61(1): 146-158.

Temby, I. D., 2004. Urban wildlife issues in Australia, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Urban Wildlife Conservation, Tucson, Arizona.

On Wednesday mornings, for the past three weeks, I have been volunteering at the Greening Australia nursery, in Kubura Place, Aranda. They have a fairly small nursery, with large benches of various species of seedlings and a small green house. I have encountered various native plants, such as, Daviesia mimosoides, Microseris lanceolata and some native tussock grasses at their nursery. They also had a broad range of Eucalyptus seedlings, many of which, I have not encountered before.

Figure 1. Nursery at Greening Australia, in Aranda

Every Wednesday, a list of task will be written on the white board for volunteers to carry out from 9.30am till 12.30pm. Majority of tasks consisted of weeding and consolidating pots of seedlings onto trays, that would eventually be planted, during their volunteer plantation day on Thursdays. Being a newbie at the nursery, weeding is a common task. However, some regular ‘green thumb’ volunteers are commonly involved in the repotting of seedlings and the administrative aspect. During weeding, we would also have to ensure that only one seedling is growing in each pot, to avoid root competition.

Though, there was no particular plant that I remember from the first week. It was exciting seeing the growth of the various seedlings, over the past three weeks. The average heights of all the seedlings have increased significantly. This change can be observed between Figure 2 and Figure 1 (which was taken on my third week there).

Figure 2. My first Wednesday weeding at the Nursery. On the left is a bucket filled with weeds and on the right, is a tray of weeded out seedlings

 Importance of Weed management

The importance of weed control has been widely acknowledged and practiced (Davies, 1985). Weeds commonly establish root competition with native plants. As for young trees, the competition for nutrients and moisture by invasive plants, can reduce their chances of survival and growth (Davies, 1985). The presence of weeds ultimately affects the soils ability to retain moisture (Davies, 1985). As such, the most effective way to manage weeds, as we have practiced at the nursery, is to eliminate the root competition (Davies, 1985).

Oddly enough, weeds are commonly the ones that look pretty but clearly, damaging to threatened biodiversity (Coutts-Smith and Downey, 2006). This is especially the case for Australia’s flora and fauna species, as over 400 listed species are largely threatened by weeds (Coutts-Smith and Downey, 2006). The Australian rangelands are highly susceptible to major changes in the composition of native plant species, which will consequently impact the country’s biodiversity (Grice, 2004). Hence, it is essential to monitor the impacts of weeds on biodiversity in the Australian rangelands, so as to develop weed management programmes that would be successful (Grice, 2004). The management of weeds has evidently developed into an economy as large investments are required to control these invasive plants and protect biodiversity (Sinden et al., 2004). Based on a traditional generalised invasion curve (Fleming et al., 2018), control and quarantine in the early stages of invasion is essential to avoid asset based protection of biodiversity, which would require consistent investment.

Reference List:

COUTTS-SMITH, A. & DOWNEY, P. O. 2006. Impact of weeds on threatened biodiversity in New South Wales, CRC for Australian Weed Management Adelaide.

DAVIES, R. 1985. The importance of weed control and the use of tree shelters for establishing broadleaved trees on grass-dominated sites in England. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 58, 167-180.

FLEMING, P. J., BALLARD, G., REID, N. C. & TRACEY, J. P. 2018. Invasive species and their impacts on agri-ecosystems: issues and solutions for restoring ecosystem processes. The Rangeland Journal, 39, 523-535.

GRICE, A. C. 2004. Weeds and the monitoring of biodiversity in Australian rangelands. Austral Ecology, 29, 51-58.

SINDEN, J., JONES, R., HESTER, S., ODOM, D., KALISCH, C., JAMES, R., CACHO, O. & GRIFFITH, G. 2004. The economic impact of weeds in Australia. Technical Series, 8.

Written by: U6125900

Monitoring Overview

On the morning of the 22^nd of September 2018, Jackson Law (a fellow coursemate) and I met up in North Canberra to be picked up for Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) monitoring.

We were to be working with Dr Laura Rayner, from the ACT Parks and Conservation service, and her colleague Alex, in order to assist them in collecting data on the nesting hollows of the parrots.

The task itself was quite straightforward. Dr Rayner and Alex were to climb the trees and relay details of all hollows present, and we were to act as scribes. The information to be noted down described the main features of the hollows, including hollow and support aspect, hollow entrance size, hollow depth, and floor size.

Dr Rayner climbing a tree. (ABC News: Craig Allen)

The main species of tree that we were to survey was Blakely’s Red Gum, one of the two main dominant species within that landscape, the other being Yellow Box.

Endangered Box Gum Grassy Woodland.

Threats to Superb Parrots and their habitat

That morning, we were lucky enough to hear (click here for a recording), and even catch sight of some of them, heralding the start of the breeding season, as they migrated into the area to nest.

As we worked, we talked about the threats to Superb Parrots and the Box Gum Grassy Woodland ecological community that they nested in.

Superb Parrot chick. (ABC News: Craig Allen)

Superb Parrots are considered to be a vulnerable species, with less than 5000 breeding pairs left in the wild (NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, 2017). Dr Rayner related to us how this situation was made worse due to their selective nature with regards to nesting hollows. The hollows they preferred were in mature Scribbly Gums and Blakely’s Red Gums (Manning et al., 2004), which were also used by a range of species, most notably Crimson Rosellas (Platycercus elegans). This posed issues as these other species were observed to be more successful and dominant in human-altered landscapes, and would be able to outcompete the less aggressive Superb Parrots for nesting hollows (L. Rayner, pers. comm. 22 September 2018). This brought to mind issues regarding anthropogenic disturbance to the environment, and how species that were more capable of adapting to these changed environmental conditions were able to better establish themselves.

Dr Rayner went on to detail that the plight of the Superb Parrot was further exacerbated by the fact that numbers of such mature hollow-bearing trees were declining due to the clearing of land for housing development (Manning et al., 2012), with a 95% decline in Box Gum Grassy Woodland (Department of the Environment, 2018). Even the particular site we were working on was previously slated to have been a part of a nearby suburb, but was spared, being designated as an ecological offset.

Future Conservation Efforts

However, all hope is not yet lost for the Superb Parrot. Their numbers seem to be increasing in Canberra (Allen, 2017), although it has yet to be seen if this is due to changes to their geographical range caused by climate change (Manning et al., 2005; Manning et al., 2007). The numbers of Superb Parrots are also well above the Minimum Viable Population threshold, and a National Recovery Plan has been drawn up for the species (Baker-Gabb, 2011).

The data that we collected will also go towards the creation of a database of all Superb Parrot nesting hollows, which will allow Dr Rayner and her colleagues to be able to maintain and preserve key nesting areas.

Hopefully, the protection of keystone remnant mature hollow-bearing trees in the landscape and the recruitment of future ones (Manning and Lindenmayer, 2009), will help to conserve the species in the long run.

Darren Choo u5935818
(Monitoring was carried out from 9am to 5pm in North Canberra. Many thanks to Dr Laura Rayner for allowing us to participate in conservation efforts and for arranging transport for us.)

References:

Allen, C. (2017). Canberra becoming superb parrot central for not-so-superb reasons. ABC News. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/canberra-superb-parrot-changing-habitat/9207150 (Accessed 7 Oct 2018).

Baker-Gabb, D. (2011). National Recovery Plan for the Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii. Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Department of the Environment (2018). White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland in Community and Species Profile and Threats Database. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=43. (Accessed 7 Oct 2018).

Manning, A. and Lindenmayer, D. (2009). Paddock trees, parrots and agricultural production: An urgent need for large-scale, long-term restoration in south-eastern Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration, 10(2), pp.126-135.

Manning, A., Gibbons, P., Fischer, J., Oliver, D. and Lindenmayer, D. (2012). Hollow futures? Tree decline, lag effects and hollow-dependent species. Animal Conservation, 16(4), pp.395-403.

Manning, A., Lindenmayer, D. and Barry, S. (2004). The conservation implications of bird reproduction in the agricultural “matrix”: a case study of the vulnerable superb parrot of south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation, 120(3), pp.363-374.

Manning, A., Lindenmayer, D., Barry, S. and Nix, H. (2007). Large-scale spatial and temporal dynamics of the vulnerable and highly mobile superb parrot. Journal of Biogeography, 34(2), pp.289-304.

Manning, A., Lindenmayer, D., Nix, H. and Barry, S. (2005). A bioclimatic analysis for the highly mobile Superb Parrot of south-eastern Australia. Emu – Austral Ornithology, 105(3), pp.193-201.

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (2017). Superb Parrot Profile. Available from: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10645. (Accessed 7 Oct 2018).

Water Bugs are known to be a reliable and useful indicator on the health system of streams, rivers, wetlands and ponds. There are various types of water bugs and each type requires particular environmental conditions to be able to grow, reproduce and survive. Some water bugs are sensitive to water pollution others are tolerant. On the 26^th of September 2018, I had the opportunity to join the Water Watch Ginninderra Catchment Group for surveying water bugs. The water bug survey data was collected from Ginninderra creek from three sites GIN020, GIN024 and GIN011 (upstream to downstream). The Stream Invertebrate Grade Number- Average Level 2 (SIGNAL 2) was used as a scoring system to identify water bugs.

The water bugs was collected using net then are transferred to the buckets that is filled with water. Once there is enough to sample then it is poured into the white tray. From the white tray and with a clear sunlight we are able to identify and differentiate water bugs. The spoons and pipets are used to collect the water bug from the white tray then transferred to the ice-cube tray according to the same Order/type of water bugs. The magnifying glass are only used if the water bug cannot be identified by naked eyes. The number of water bugs collected per type in every site is at 200 maximum and the total is then estimated. After identifying the water bugs they are taken back to the same area they are collected.

Figure 1: Ginninderra creek water bug survey

The various types of Water Bugs are classified into seven major groupings or in hierarchy categories (top-down) – Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. For this survey the water bugs were classified from the category called Order. The total number or types of water bug collected was nine. From the nine water bugs, there was only one type of water bug that is very sensitive and sensitive to pollution found in all three sites (refer to Figure 2).

Interestingly, the type of water bugs and abundance decreases as sample is collected downstream. This decrease is attributed to certain factors with large impact from ongoing urban developments where the sediments, storm water, natural process are washed or blown into the creek. The sediments and storm water (toxic chemicals that might affect water bug) accumulate in the creek and increases the level of turbidity (water colour) as such when it rains, Ginninderra creek water turns brown. This affects the sunlight reaching the organic materials that water bugs feed on and also their movement around the creek. Additionally, through natural process during winter when the leaves, grasses are blown into the creek they decompose and turns into algae evident to the three sites having an abundance of algae. The sensitive water bugs are the most vulnerable to pollution as a result it declines in number (biodiversity, food chain & habitat loss) and are hardly found in Ginninderra creek because it is located near urban areas.

The Images are referring to Figure 2

Figure 3. Very sensitive to most pollutants. Figure 4. Sensitive to most pollutants. Image source: Canberra nature map.

Figure 5. Moderately tolerant of most pollutants. Image Source: Canberra nature map & John Goordeham.

Figure 6. Very tolerant to most pollutants. Image source: Canberra nature map, Frank Sawyer & Crankshaft publishing.

Conclusion

Defining why water bugs matter is important, it determines the health systems of Ginninderra Creek. The survey undertaken to determine its importance involves a series of steps by following procedures to define their existence and how sensitive are water bugs to pollution. The survey draws concluding remarks that in the future, continuing urban development will contribute to loss of water bugs and their biodiversity. In this context, water bugs monitoring can provide the platform for analysing different health of river, ponds, lakes, and stream systems.

By: u5686629

References

Canberra nature map, Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), viewed 3 October 2018, https://canberra.naturemapr.org/Community/CategoryGuide/298.

Chessman B, 2003, SIGNAL 2 – A Scoring System for Macro-invertebrate (‘Water Bugs’) in Australian Rivers, Monitoring River Heath Initiative Technical Report no 31, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Elwood, W.J., Newbold, D.J., Triumble, A.F., and Stark, R.W., 1981. ‘The limiting role of phosphorus in a woodland stream ecosystem: Effects of P enrichment on leaf decomposition and primary producers’, Ecological society of America, vol. 62, Issue 1, pp. 146-158.

Sawyer, F., 2009, Water boatman (Order Hemiptera, Family corixidae), viewed 02 October 2018, https://www.flickr.com/photos/25651248@N05/albums/with/72157614132039120

The water bug company, ALT KEYS v1.5 2017, viewed 2 October 2018, http://www.thewaterbug.net/attachments/ALT_KEYS_v1.5_withorderkeyback.pdf.

The-Crankshaft Publishing, Class Hirudinea, (Leeches), viewed 02 October 2018, http://what-when-how.com/animal-life/class-hirudinea/

Water bug company pty Ltd, 2018, Agreed level taxonomy (ALT), viewed 02 October 2018, viewedhttp://www.thewaterbug.net/ALT.html.

Introduction

Over the mid-year holiday, I spent two weeks as a research assistant in Transylvania, Romania. I was helping a team of researchers from a UK non-profit conservation organization called Operation Wallacea. Operation Wallacea has been working in the area for the past six years collecting data for a long-term monitoring project that measures the biodiversity of high nature value hay meadows. These meadows are ecologically significant because Transylvanian farmers have been using the same agricultural practices for centuries and continue to refrain from using herbicides and pesticides. This has created a rich collection of biodiversity within an agricultural landscape that is increasingly rare in Europe. The project uses transects in six villages in the Tarnava Mare valley to monitor the abundance and diversity of bats, birds, large mammals, small mammals, butterflies, and indicator wildflower species. Changes in these values are paired with data from interviews conducted with local farmers to see how biodiversity is changing in response to changes in agricultural techniques.

Figure 1: Traditional Saxon village of Mesendorf in the Tarnava Mare region, surrounded by High Nature Value meadows

Bat Surveys

Despite all the hype and Dracula memorabilia sold in tourist shops, there are no vampire bats in Transylvania. There are, however, plenty of harmless and very cute insectivorous bats. To survey these bat populations, we set out each night around dusk and set up a series of mist nets and harp traps along potential flight corridors. We checked the traps every fifteen minutes and for every bat we caught we recorded the species and took some measurements. My favorite species was the brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus) that has adapted extremely large ears to hear prey movement in dense vegetation where physical clutter often interferes with echolocation (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Adult brown long-eared bat (Plecotus auritus)

Figure 3: Taking measurements for an adult whiskered bat (Myotis mystacinus)

Bird Surveys

Bird surveys involved getting up well before sunrise to open our mist nets. We had a transect with six nets that we checked at 30-minute intervals. Each bird we caught was banded with a unique number and country code that is entered in an online database. If these birds were recaptured at another location the identifier code could be linked to our data. The most common species we caught was the Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio) (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Adult male Red-backed Shrike (Lanius collurio)

Figure 5: Adult Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (Dryobates minor)

Large Mammals

Our large mammal surveys involved setting camera traps (Figure 6) and identifying tracks and signs. We set our traps along clearings and natural paths through the woods because large mammals often use these for quick and easy passage through dense vegetation. We also used tracks (Figure 7) and scat to identify which species were in the area.

Figure 6: One of our camera traps capturing movement near a water source

Figure 7: Track from a Eurasian Brown Bear (Ursus arctos arctos)

Conclusion

I have always considered agriculture and biodiversity to be at odds with one another. Spending time in Romania was so refreshing because it reminded me that this doesn’t always have to be the case. In 2008 the Tarnava Mare region became protected under the European Union’s Natura 2000 program. This means local farmers are being paid to maintain traditional agricultural practices instead of intensifying, allowing both biodiversity and tradition to survive in the modern world.

References

Akeroyd, J. R., 2011. Conservation of High Nature Value (HNV) grassland in a farmed landscape in Transylvania, Romania.

Akeroyd, J. R. and Page, N., 2006. The Saxon villages of southern Transylvania: conserving biodiversity in a historic landscape, In Nature conservationSpringer, pp. 199-210.

Bullock, J. M., Pywell, R. F. and Walker, K. J., 2007. Long‐term enhancement of agricultural production by restoration of biodiversity, Journal of Applied Ecology,44(1): 6-12.

Written by

u5836818