Following is a note from a reader on the subject of species incorrectly listed as vulnerable to exinction in Australia. The reader, who I will call Matthew for convenience*, makes the point that both state and federal lists of threatened speces are notoriously unreliable and tend to over estimate the number of rare, vulnerable and threatened species because they include populations at the edge of their natural range.
“Jennifer,
In your blog post titled ‘Species Vulnerable to Extinction: Part 1, The Daintree’ you asked for details of some fauna or flora species which are incorrectly listed as threatened.
The threatened species lists of the [Australian] states are littered to varying degrees with species which are incorrectly listed. New South Wales (NSW) in particular lists many species which are on the edge or beyond of their natural distributions in this Australian state.
Here are a few:
Black-necked Stork (E), Cotton Pygmy-goose (E), Magpie Goose (V), Red-tailed Tropic bird (V), Masked Booby (V), Collared Kingfisher (V).
These species aren’t under any threat in NSW. They just don’t occur in the state or are right on the edge of their distribution near the NSW border.
Most only ever show up in NSW as strays or birds blown in by large storms and do not require any protection in that state. Similarly Queensland lists the Common wombat as Rare. It only occurs in a tiny part of the state near Stanthorpe.
The Australian federal government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBS) listings are mixed up because the feds take their listings from the states and filter out most of the kind of listings mentioned above. Just to make things interesting they list some species differently from the states, for example the Queensland lungfish. It only occurs in Queensland and is not under threat or listed in that state, but for some reason is listed federally.
In general they are interested in the species as a whole but get confused with listings for a lot of subspecies and particular populations. So you get the glossy-back cockatoo not listed under the EPBC Act except on Kangaroo Island and many similar listings.
Your Tasmanian wedgetail eagle is another but the Tasmanian Azure kingfisher has managed to avoid EPBC listing so far and is only listed on the Tasmanian state list.
You’ve labeled Thinksy’s list as critically endangered bird species but this is misleading. Many of the birds are not critically endangered species at all. They are subspecies or regional populations. I note that Birds Australia have labeled it as critically endangered birds.
Other species are listed based on poor knowledge of the species originally followed by the states and Canberra being slow to update their lists in line with the real situation. One I have worked with is a Brachychiton vitifolius, a small shrub from Cape York Peninsula. It is reasonably common, spread over 500 km of the peninsula in most areas where Darwin stringybark woodland (one of the most common ecosystems in the region) occurs. It loses its leaves in the dry season so it looks like a bunch of twigs when most people visit the area and is difficult to find unless you know what to look for. It commonly grows on eroding creekbanks and thrives on road edges, fencelines and other disturbed areas. It was formerly listed by Queensland as ‘Vulnerable’ but nowdays has been dropped to ‘Rare’.
It should and probably will be dropped altogether but the process is slow. Meantime it is still listed under the EPBC act as ‘Vulnerable’.
Matthew*”
Thanks for this information, Matthew*. But if the Azure Kingfisher is only on the state list, why is it listed by Environment Australia as critically endangered?
Is the Tasmanian population really a distinct subspecies?
Interestingly the species has a distribution that extends from Papua and New Guinea right down the east coast of Australia but the map next to the listing at Birds Australia only shows it occuring in Tasmania. On careful reading it is evident that this listing only refers to the Tasmanian subspecies, but hey it could be construed as misleading.
How does the average person work out which species are really vulnerable to extinction – really needing of special care and attention?
Which species on Thinksy’s list are really critically endangered?
————-
* Matthew is the pen name that I have given this reader who wishes to remain anonymous.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Interesting that ‘Mathew’ cites the magpie goose as a species in NSW that is on the edge of its natural range. If I recall correctly, the magpie goose was formerly (early colonial) much more widely distributed, right down to the Victorian border, but has experienced a range contraction correlated with the expansion of agriculture in NSW.
Of the other species listed, both the black-necked stork and the cotton pygmy goose are associated with wetlands and it may be the same agricultural expansion that saw off the magpie goose that also contracted their distribution in NSW?
The two marine birds, tropic bird and booby are wide ranging species that are vagrants in NSW waters.
The collared kingfisher I do not know anything about so cannot comment on.
This is a common tactic by greenies to shoot for shock value.
“Extinction” to the lay person means that a species is completely gone from the earth. In scientific terms it merely means that a certain population vanishes.
So when people say things like “x animal is in danger of becoming extinct”, a lot of the time they only mean “extinct in tasmania” or whatever. There are still plenty of them elsewhere, but this sort of population loss is still called an “extinction”.
When greenpeace says things like “95% of all whale species are in danger of extinction”, this is what they mean. Essentially true but very misleading to their intended audience.
You ask .. But if the Azure Kingfisher is only on the state list, why is it listed by Environment Australia as critically endangered?
Is the Tasmanian population really a distinct subspecies?
The details in the action plan for this subspecies give some useful details to answer your questions.
The listings from Birds Australia and in the Commonwealth DEH Action Plan for Australian Birds are for the Tasmanian subspecies of the Azure kingfisher Alcedo azurea diemenensis and the action plan states that the conservation status for the species as a whole is Least Concern.
Within Australia two more subspecies are recognised. These are A. a. azurea (eastern Australia) and A. a. ruficollaris (northern Australia). Other subspecies occur in New Guinea and Indonesia.
As for whether populations are really distinct subspecies is a matter that is subject to debate. Some might be valid and some might not. It all depends on whether you are more inclined to be a lumper or a splitter. The concept of subspecies is often an artificial construct that is just a way to explain variation within a species across its geographic range.
It seems most likely that the primary purpose of the fragmentation of species into local populations etc is to exaggerate their rarity and understate the range and population.
This was done to extreme in the Queensland vegetation ecosystem classification system where the exact same dominant tree mix was divided into a number of categories based on land form. In this way, for example, a common mix of Spotted Gum and Iron Bark could be divided into, Iron Bark with Spotted Gum on alluvial flats, Spotted Gum and Iron Bark on Alluvial flats, Spotted Gum and Iron Bark on quaternary deposits, and vice versa.
This is a distinction that a Koala, feeding on said Spottys, would merely record as a minor change in taste and a minor change in number of edible trees. Furthermore, it would only be noted by a wandering adolescent in search of a new territory.
It is also a distinction that could have been created by past harvesting activity or past nuances in fire behaviour and which, could also be either enhanced or negated by subsequent silviculture.
The sole purpose was not to inform, but rather, to bamboozle the poorly informed public as to the complexity of the classification task. It also enabled parts of some very common species mixes to be classified as endangered on the basis of there being less than 10,000ha remaining.
All part of the terrible tangled web we weave when governance is subordinated to political sleaze.
Yobbo makes a false accusation about greenie shock tactics. He says of extinction: “in scientific terms it merely means that a certain population vanishes.”
In proper scientific terms that’s called ‘extirpation’ not extinction. Extinction is the loss of a taxonomic group, generally a species. The correct scientific term matches public perception in this case.
I work with Queensland lungfish, and they are considered a threatened species. The researcher I work with considers them to be endangered, although DEH seems to think otherwise, listing them as vulnerable.
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/n-forsteri.html
This is an example of not enough being known about a species and it not being listed as endangered when it very well may be.
And Thinksy is right. Extinction means gone, snuffed out totally, waiting to be resurrected by the geneticist gods.
Libby – have they been introduced into many other Queensland river systems e.g. the Brisbane. And some hobbyists keep them in farm dams I believe. Is this legal?
Hi Phil,
I’m not aware of them being introduced into other rivers (apart from those mentioned)or even being in farm dams. They are a protected species and so keeping them in farm dams etc would certainly be illegal. There are two facilities set up for captive breeding, with only one allowed to export offspring, which are worth big bucks in countries like Japan.
http://www.qmuseum.qld.gov.au/inquiry/leaflets/leaflet0027.pdf
says introductions to Albert, Coomera, Stanley, North Pine, South Pine and Enoggera Reservoir.
and
http://www.ceratodus.com/links.html
I’d be interested to hear Libby’s researcher’s reasons to believe the lungfish is threatened. Although it is often said to be threatened there is plenty of evidence that suggests that this isn’t the case.
The EPBC listing makes interesting reading. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee decided that the species is not eligible for listing under the following criteria:
Population size and decline in numbers or distribution
Population size
Probability of extinction in the wild
The species was not originally listed under the EPBC Act. It was listed as ‘non-threatened’ in the Action Plan for Freshwater Fishes (1993). A nomination in 1997, under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, to have the species listed as endangered was unsuccessful. The nomination was assessed by the Endangered Species Scientific Subcommittee as not meeting the relevant criteria as its numbers have not been reduced to such a critical level, and its habitats so drastically reduced, that it is in immediate danger of extinction.
Here’s an interesting note from the Qld DPI/Fisheries
http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/2609.html
The Queensland lungfish is not an endangered species but is restricted in its distribution. It occurs naturally in the Burnett and Mary River systems in south-eastern Queensland, but was successfully introduced to other areas including the Brisbane, Albert, Coomera and Stanley Rivers and the Enoggera Reservoir in the 1890s. Protected areas such as the Enoggera Reservoir support large populations of Queensland lungfish.
A major study of lungfish was carried out by icthyologists from Qld DPI Fisheries
According to a review of the findings of the study by the Manager Icthyology Qld Museum
http://www.sunwater.com.au/pdf/burnett/paradise_eis_appH_ReviewOfDraftLungfishReport.pdf
… In summary from available information, reports and personal observations:
Lungfish maintain large populations, with evidence of successful recruitment, in the Mary and Brisbane River systems
There are moderate but viable populations showing irregular evidence of recruitment, in the North Pine Dam and Enoggera Reservoir.
The reason most often mentioned is the apparent low recruitment but as the above report mentions .. The collection of juvenile lungfish has been notoriously difficult ever since the discovery of the species in 1870, and numerous authors have commented on the scarcity of juveniles. Even in the late 1800’s zoologists were so concerned about the perceived lack of recruitment as to commission the translocation of specimens to other catchments in order to prevent its extinction.
So the lungfish has managed with apparently low recruitment for quite some time.
Rare and threatened species issues are not always black and white. There is a tendency to want to believe that threatened species are delicate and sensitive and need us to look after them. While there are species which are critically endangered and may not survive without intervention, there are others which are tough as nails and just require a bit of habitat to go on doing what they always have.
Hi Meta4,
I will be catching up with the researcher tomorrow, so hope to have some details from her for you then.
So if the definition of an extinction is as Libby has said, “Extinction means gone, snuffed out totally, waiting to be resurrected by the geneticist gods” then a local population cannot become extinct until all possibility of recolonisation of the area by other members of the same species is ruled out.
So while it may be possible to mount an argument in favour of preserving a local population, any use of, or reliance on, the term “extinction” is inappropriate. A sub-species that is capable of mating successfully with other sub-species can only be at risk of extinction if all other sub-species are under similar risk.
You’re rather desperately trying to make a tenous argument on semantics Ian.
“Local extinction” = extirpation.
“Extinction” = “extinction”.
A particular sub-species that is genetically distinct might have a unique taxonomic status.
Whether or not populations are capable of mating with each other is a rather simplistic undergraduate level explanation of a species definition. (I’m still waiting on the results of your mating attempt with a Chimpanzee, btw).
This information was provided by the lungfish researcher and an article in Ecos, written by Graeme Armstrong (Nov-Dec, 2004).
A recent study of QLD lungfish suggests that they don’t reach sexual maturity until they are 20 years old. They are long-lived – an individual that has been in a US museum for the past 80 years arrived there as an adult. They are large fish, and often when people observe groups of large animals they assume they are plentiful. Being long-lived animals, under natural conditions they don’t need high recruitment rates.
Hormones are secreted to stimuate reproduction. When times are bad, they simply resorb their eggs and sperm and wait until conditions are favourable.
The researcher spent some 10 years studying the fish in the Mary River, before moving on to the Burnett. She found that although the fish in the Mary were OK, those in the Burnett were larger and in better condition than those in the Mary. The areas the fish have been introduced in to, such the Enogerra, show signs of habitat alteration, and spawning seems to be restricted throughout their range.
Lungfish need shallow sites for spawning, and the Burnett River is the major site. When the Paradise Dam was scheduled for construction in the Burnett, the researcher applied for a listing under the Endangered Species Act. Studies were done by QLD DPI. The studies showed that recruitment was way down, but the fish were listed as Vulnerable based on ther restricted habitat, which is threatened by human encroachment. At the time, the low recruitment rate was largely played down.
The former Federal Minister for the Environment signed off federal approval for the dam when he already had a report from his Threatened Species Scientific Committee that the fish be listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The Scientific Committee identified loss of spawning sites as a major threat to the QLD lungfish. On ABC radio the former QLD Minister for Environment said “If there’s an election undertaking, then that overides any studies that might be done, any academic papers…all of these things can be put to good use to guide better decision making and future decision making..(but) if something is undertaken in an election than that should be implemented because that promise overrides any other second thoughts that you might have in almost all circumstances.”
The Paradise Dam covers 45km of the Burnett River system, and has flooded major lungfish spawning sites. Previous tag and release studies showed a high degree of site fidelity, so adult fish were observed as returning to flooded spawning sites. However, conditions were not suitable for spawning so recruitment was well down. QLD Fisheries is now putting in money for population studies, and a 10 year funding follow up.
The researcher has made numerous recommendations to try and create suitable spawning sites, such as floating vegetation islands. Lungfish are not easy to breed in captivity. Facilities such as that at Macquarie University can act as institutions to refine captive breeding techniques and maintain an isolated population, however, introduction of captive-bred individuals would only ever be a last resort. Due to their status and prehistoric appeal, lungfish are much sort after by hobbyists and zoological parks/aquariums. Their size and longetivity are often overlooked in future considerations of their husbandry.
In the researcher’s opinion, the QLD lungfish is endangered. They occur nowhere else and have a limited range. They have a low recruitment rate and live in environments that are under increasing pressure. Obviously they need some recruitment, but it is important not to be complacent and leave any protection of spawning sites until it is too late.
Good post Libby – thanks for update. Don’t know if you have any time left for a supplementary – how’s the Mary River Cod going ?
Categorical classifications always cause problems especially where there is also no detailing of certainty about how accurate a particular classification is e.g. could be endangered but we are highty uncertain about status.
I think we need another classification “resurected” for species deemed extinct but found to be still present. This may stop endangered lists growing without people realising there have been removals from teh extinc list.
The list of ex-extinct species and the stories behind the species on it are interesting but unfortunately it’s a very short list.
I worked on a presumed extinct plant 2 years ago that was relegated to extant. It’s story was that it had been happily minding its own business for the last 100 years. It had a restricted range, doesn’t have a showy appearance and dies back in the dry season when most people are in the area.
Fauna species back from the dead are going to be a lot rarer though.
The night parrot specimen found in 1990 was exciting but provided tantalisingly few clues about the continuing existence of the species.
Thinksy, I could have sworn I redirected the query on mating with a Chimpanzee to your mother.
Your researchers apparent claim that the 45km of Paradise dam represents a loss of habitat is a touch one eyed. While the original spawning sites may be innundated by too much water for the Lung fish to return to, it does not follow that new spawning sites are not available or are unlikely to be utilised.
If these fish have been successfully introduced to Enogerra Dam then it would not seem too big a problem, given an appropriate budget, to facilitate their adaption in a location where they already existed.
And given that they can suspend breeding in times of drought then it may also be possible for them to return to their old spawning grounds when drought lowers the impounded water to appropriate levels.
It would also seem possible that the release of impounded water for environmental flows may actually increase the breeding rates in downstream spawning grounds by providing favourable conditions more frequently.
Indeed, this could also take place up stream by simply recycling flows by pumping water back up stream for as far as the opportunity cost of water will allow.
Clearly, if the Lung fish is threatened by the Dam, it is most threatened by a lack of vision and a lack of the capacity to recognise the opportunites presented by every problem.
I suggest you advise QLDDPI, EA, the QLD environmental minister, the federal environmental minister and the one-eyed researcher, as your vision seems so clear. Lungfish breed only for a certain period in spring. Does drought always coincide with spring? They tend to show site fidelity, and are not necessarily looking for new sites to spawn in. Which site where they already existed would you think best to reintroduce them into?
The researcher’s work does not hinge on the wild population of fish. Any suggestion that she may be trying to further her own cause or get that necessary funding would be very far from the truth.
I would say that the one-eyed researcher, in that company, would most certainly be Queen. Drought quite often lasts a few seasons and one is bound to wonder how much of the original creek lines are close to original levels when Dam levels are at 30% of capacity. And if a creek line is back to old levels then one can’t help but ask if a spring flush could not be replicated with a pump and pipe that recycles each days flow.
My perspective on this is that the dam has been built so lets see if we can come up with a workable alternative. Especially on the downstream side where more frequent spring flows can be created.
I don’t quite get the gist of your first sentence Ian, sorry. Yes, the dam has been built, and I agree it makes sense to try and come up with a workable solution. As I mentioned it has been suggested that floating islands be set up to try and get the lungfish to spawn in them. They need suitable vegetation to spawn in, that is preferrably in shallow water.Frequent spring flows will not do the trick.
“I could have sworn I redirected the query on mating with a Chimpanzee to your mother.”
Don’t bother trying to mate with my mother Ian. She’s (whisper – delicate topic) past the change. For your experiment you need a fertile female homo sapiens. (Try shaving all-over before you approach them though)
Sorry Thinksy, I thought it perfectly apparent that your human mother had already mated with a chimp. But as Bogart said in Cassablanca, Well, I guess I was misinformed. Might pay to check though.
Pffah! Nothing so dull as trying to tidy up a joke after you’ve already been crucified by the retort. (& I thought you’d deliberately left it wide open to extend the fun)
So you’re into bestial fantasy are you, Thinksy?
Is that how greenies do it? Instead of “boddice rippers” we have “koala suit rippers”? I love it when you talk biodiversity?
how old would a 1.225m long lungfish be as i was fishing saterday night and pulled in three lungfish and that was the lenght of the biggest one