land for wildlife news - department of primary industries ... · 12/13/2006 · page 4 land for...

Land for Wildlife News

Newsletter of the Land for Wildlife Scheme Tasmania

Volume 13: December 2006Contact details:Land for Wildlife CoordinatorPh: (03) 6233 6427, Fax: (03) 6223 8603Post: PO Box 44, Hobart 7001Email: [email protected] ISSN 1442-942X

The Land for Wildlife Scheme in Tasmania is delivered through The Department of PrimaryIndustries and Water in partnership with Wildcare Inc.

Young Brush’tail possum in a hollow – urban wildlifeand significance in biodiversity conservation

see page 6(Photo: Peter Tonelli – TasNature)

Contents

From the Coordinator - Iona Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Protecting your Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

DPIW Natural Values Atlas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The New Flat Rock Reserve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Incentives to Support Landholders toConserve Bush and Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Biodiversity Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Furnishings for Velvet Worms and Stag Beetles . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Pardalotes, Eucalypts and Lerp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Members’ Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LFW Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

LFW Vision, Mission and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Land for Wildlife News, Vol. 13, December 2006

From the CoordinatorWelcome to the thirteenth edition of the Land for Wildlifenewsletter. The deadlines for the editions for next year(2007) are 23 February, 27 July and 23 November if youwould like to contribute an article or advertise an upcomingactivity or event – please feel free to do so and let me know.I also encourage you to use the Members’ Page for any notesor events that other LFWers would be interested in. In manyareas there are members who would like to meet other like-minded people, so activities like bird or botanical walks,revegetation site visits or any activity of interest to othermembers is a good way to achieve this.

This year has been quite busy with continued interest in theLand for Wildlife scheme, despite no active promotion of thescheme. To date we have 50 new properties registered - awarm welcome to the new members - with a further 29property assessments in progress. In the last month or sothere has been a sudden surge of interest with approximately26 requests to join the scheme! I also have had interest frompeople keen to become LFW assessors in the north of thestate, which has been a great help as there has beenincreasing interest in the scheme from landowners in thecentral north to north west in particular. I have modifiedthe two-day training course to cover small groups, orindividual training. I would like to welcome and thank PeterTonelli, Sue Oberg-Berry, Lynne Robertson, Sally Fennerand Guy Robertson who have recently completed the LFWassessor training.

In early October the Australian Plants Society of Tasmaniaheld their ‘Wildflower Spectacular’ over three days in theHobart City Hall – and it was quite spectacular. I shared adisplay with the Understorey Network covering not onlyLFW but other options available to private landownersthrough the Private Property Conservation Program. It wasquite extraordinary the number of people who stopped toask about LFW and the various other programs, or to showtheir support for the ‘good work’ these programs were doingto protect our natural environment. There was a lot ofinterest in people wanting to know how to provide wildlifefriendly habitats or who were strongly supportive andcommitted to doing so already. There were many peoplewho wished to register their properties as LFW, butunfortunately their properties did not qualify because of thesmall size and location within urban areas. The stronginterest shown in protecting native wildlife species in urbanenvironments has led me to write an article on biodiversityconservation of wildlife species and habitat in urbanenvironments – a field which is becoming an increasing areaand focus of research.

Other articles in this edition of the newsletter include aninteresting article by Sarah on the association betweenPardalotes, eucalypts and lerps. Jo Naylor from theTasmanian Land Conservancy describes the fascinatinghistory of the new Flat Rock Reserve which has recentlybeen secured – this is a significant achievement, particularlyas it is a hotspot for biodiversity. Janine Berechree gives anupdate on the Protected Areas on Private Land (PAPL)program and the achievements of this very valuable natureconservation progam. Invertebrates, the often overlookedspecies – Ruth Mollison tells why forest floors should be left‘messy’ and how this is important habitat for the threatenedvelvet worms and stag beetles. Recently DPIW havelaunched the Natural Values Atlas which provides a wealthof information on Tasmanian flora and fauna and record ofobservations – this provides a valuable means of looking upthreatened fauna or flora species, or record of other specieswhich may occur on, or near your property. Details of whatthe Natural Values Atlas is and how to access it are providedby Kristy Goddard. Peter Stronach from Greening Australiahas written an article on bush and stream incentiveprograms operating in the north west and south and talksabout a recent field day which was attended by someLFWers. Field days and workshops are planned for next yearwhich you may be interested in attending – contactGreening Australia (see article for contact numbers).

There are a few events early next year which may interestyou, one is ‘Plants and ants at Birralee’ on Ron and Sarah’sproperty. The other are day activities on Bruny Island, atLongford, Lower Snug and Orford which the UnderstoreyNetwork are holding, largely for seed collecting, but theyalso provide the opportunity to look at other vegetationcommunities, revegetation works or go on a botanical walkthrough a wetland and learn of the species found there.These are listed on the Members’ Page.

I hope you enjoy this volume of the newsletter. Please feelfree to contribute articles or notes to the newsletters – Iencourage you to do so, it would be nice to hear and shareyour experiences or advice. Feedback on the contents of thisnewsletter, or suggestions for information you would like tosee included is most welcome.

I wish you all an enjoyable and safe Christmas and bestwishes for the coming year.

Iona Mitchell

A tip to stop drowningsFollowing on from Sarah’s article ‘A scarce resource – leave logs for frogs’ (LFW Vol 9,August 2005) about frogs’ association with water, here is a simple tip to stop frogs drowningin water containers – yes, this can happen as I experienced. I collect rainwater off a sectionof roof into a tall bucket where one day I discovered the body of a poor drowned frog in thewater. The bucket was half full and presumably the sides too slippery for it to climb back out.So now I keep a stick or other solid object sticking out of my rainwater buckets and evenwatering cans so that if frogs, or any other creature fall into the water they have a means ofclimbing back out safely. To prove the point, the photo shows one of my resident frogs whooften climbs into my watering can – it even stays holding on while I water the garden!

Help prevent drownings – keep sticks in water containers, especially ones with slippery sides(Photo: Iona Mitchell)


What is the long-term security of the assets onyour property? Many people with Land forWildlife agreements would undoubtedly putnatural values high on the list of assets thatmake their land such a special place. Tasmanianeeds private landowners and governments towork together to ensure that what people takefor granted today is available for futuregenerations to enjoy.

Land for Wildlife has often been the instigatorfor landowners wanting to place aconservation covenant on their land toprotect its natural values. Land for Wildlifeassessors often recognise that certainlandowners have areas of high conservationvalue on their property and with the supportand interest of the Landowner refer them tothe Protected Areas on Private Land Programfor the possibility of pursuing a conservationcovenant.

The National Reserve System (NRS) fundedProtected Areas on Private Land Program(PAPL) is a joint initiative between the TasmanianDepartment of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW),Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association (TFGA), andTasmanian Land Conservancy (TLC).

PAPL promotes and negotiates voluntary conservationagreements between the Tasmanian Government and privatelandowners with important natural values on their property.PAPL’s aim is to protect coastal areas, grassland, heathland,saltmarsh, threatened species and their habitat on private land.In total, there are 4,233ha of important vegetation secured byPAPL covenants.

Since the launch of PAPL in 1999 it has been highly successfulin assisting landowners to protect threatened species andimportant vegetation communities that occur on theirproperties. Last year PAPL celebrated its 100th conservation

covenant, with a get together at a covenanted block at BarillaBay. PAPL continues to work with private landownersinterested in pursuing conservation agreements.

The PAPL team would like to take this opportunity to thankeveryone involved in making PAPL the success story it istoday. Without the goodwill of private landowners the aims ofprotecting significant flora and fauna habitat, nativevegetation and other important natural values on private landwould not succeed. PAPL will ensure that all covenanted landwill be monitored and the landowners supported into thefuture.

For further information on PAPL please contact the PAPL Co-ordinator at DPIW on (03) 6233 2716 or 1300 368 550, or theTLC on 6225 1399.

Protecting your assets for future generations

Channel through the salt marsh at the northern end of the Long Spit Private Nature Reserveat Marion Bay

(Photo: Jim Mulcahy)

DPIW Natural Values Atlas -www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au

Comprehensive information on Tasmania’s natural values.

The Natural Values Atlas provides an easy to use, accessible and efficient interface allowing access to comprehensive, maintainednatural values information with integrity and validation.

The Natural Values Atlas can be used to search for information on more than 20,000 flora and fauna species from Tasmania andcan display maps showing their location.

The Natural Values Atlas is a database with a web-based interface that allows observations of Tasmanian flora and fauna to beviewed, recorded and analysed. The application maintains species taxonomy and provides access to management documents suchas listing statements and recovery plans. Natural Values Reports are available and include several natural resource managementdata sets such as threatened species, Geoconservation and TASVEG.

The Natural Values Atlas is a valuable resource available for government and nongovernment organisations, scientists,consultants, students, educators, travellers and nature enthusiasts.

To access the Natural Values Atlas externally, go to:www.naturalvaluesatlas.dpiw.tas.gov.au and download and submit the NVA Access Form to register as a NaturalValues Atlas user. Simplified species observation information is available now via www.thelist.tas.gov.au.

Kristy Goddard - Project Coordinator Threatened Species Information [email protected] ph: 6233 2667


The southern midlands region ispart of an internationallyrecognised biodiversity hotspot.As well as supporting high overallspecies diversity, the regionsupports a large number ofendemic species and a highconcentration of threatenedspecies.

In August 2006, a new 455hareserve east of Bagdad was createdon land formally owned by GunnsLimited. This magnificent resultwas achieved due to the hardwork of the Southern MidlandsCouncil, the local communitygroup Friends of Chauncy Vale,Gunns Limited and the Tasmanian LandConservancy (TLC).

The new Flat Rock Reserve links thehistoric Chauncy Vale WildlifeSanctuary with the Alpha PinnacleConservation Area, creating acontinuous protected area of over 1000ha.

Flat Rock Reserve is part of a range ofrocky dolerite hills, supporting remnantareas of silver peppermint forest andgrassy blue gum forest - both prioritycommunities for conservation. Areas ofimportant rock plate grasslands providesuitable habitat for threatened annualplant species and orchids.

The reserve contains priority vegetationcommunities/ecosystems including:

• Inland E. tenuiramis (60ha) (Highpriority)

• Grassy E. globulus (45ha) (Highpriority)

• Dry E. obliqua old growth (40ha)(med priority)

• Dry E. obliqua (130ha) low priority

• Dry E. delegatensis (70ha) lowpriority

• Dry E. pulchella (90ha) low priority

Prior to the TLC’s involvement GunnsLimited offered the Southern MidlandsCouncil a very generous and substantial33% discount on the land to make thecommunity purchase achievable.

The TLC finalised the arrangements byaccessing funds from a number ofsources including:

– major funding from the Common-wealth Government’s NationalReserve System Program;

– major funding from the TasmanianPrivate Forest Reserve Program,funded through the CommonwealthGovernment’s Natural HeritageTrust and;

– funds from regular TLC donors.

The three linked reserves will now bemanaged jointly by Southern MidlandsCouncil, Parks and Wildlife ServiceTasmania, Friends of Chauncy Vale andTLC.

The challenge ahead is to increase ourunderstanding of the natural values ofFlat Rock Reserve and to work with thelocal community to protect the landfrom wood hooking and refuse dumping.The Southern Midlands Council, inconjunction with Parks and WildlifeService Tasmania, Friends of ChauncyVale and the TLC is currentlydeveloping a management plan.

Damien Mackey, Manager forEnvironmental Services andDevelopment for the SouthernMidlands Council has commented,“From a nature conservation point, thecombined area of over 1000 ha is somuch more than the sum of theindividual parts.”

In the TLC’s five years of operation thislatest acquisition brings the number ofproperties protected to eight. We arevery excited to have achieved this latestwin for Tasmanian conservation andespecially thank those who support TLCregularly via monthly donations.

Plans are now being finalized for a teamfrom Green Corp to work over a 14week period in early 2007 to buildfences, weed control, track work, 4WDtrack rehabilitation and installation ofinterpretative signage. The work will

cover both the new Flat RockReserve and the Chauncy ValeWildlife Sanctuary.

The Friends of Chauncy ValeChairperson Heather Chauncysaid “My parents would have beenvery pleased to know thisinspirational area has now beenpermanently protected. It is a realwin for preservation, educationand benign walkers.” HeatherChauncy, is the daughter of thefamous Tasmanian children’sauthor Nan Chauncy, whosefamily have a long association andconnection with the area.

The family connection with the areadates back to 1914 when hergrandfather bought land at Bagdad toestablish an orchard and hut to provideretirement income.

In contrast to the backdrop of the FirstWorld War, the childhood bushexperience made an enormousimpression on Nan Chauncy (1900 –1970). The area offered a rich naturalexperience of Australian wildlife withcaves and creeks to explore.

Bringing the appreciation of theAustralian bush to others was thecornerstone of Nan’s life. In the 1920’sshe trained as a Girl Guide leader andwas appointed Captain of the FirstClaremont Company. A cottage wasbuilt on the land for Nan’s older brotherthat was later used for guide and scoutexpeditions.

In 1938 the land was given to Nan andAnton Rosenfeldt as a wedding present,the year before Heather was born. Inthe1940’s adjoining land was purchased,and in 1946 the property was declared awildlife sanctuary. This was the first areaof dry bushland to be conserved and thelargest conservation area at the time inthe Southern Midlands.

Anton was a specialist in animalconservation and the effect of habitatloss on animal populations. He saw theneed to establish reserve areas for nativefauna, including thylacines that werefrequently seen here in the 1920s.

Over the years Nan wrote many scriptsand novels inspired by this landscape,reflecting her love of the naturalenvironment and the humanconnection to it.

Anton bequeathed the wildlife

A new reserve in Tasmania’s biodiversity hotspotJo Naylor, Tasmanian Land Conservancy

Flat Rock Reserve(Photo: Matt Newton)

Greening Australia Tasmania manages several nature conservation incentive programs in Tasmania in conjunction with theregional NRM bodies. In the northwest two projects operate; one for the protection of remnant native vegetation and the otherfor streamsides and wetlands. In Southern Tasmania the incentives project provides a wider range of incentives to addressvegetation, water and soil management issues, mainly in the Coal River and Swan/Apsley catchments. Greening Australia ismanaging the southern project in conjunction with Agricultural Resource Management and has close links to the SouthernTasmanian Property Management Planning initiative.

Greening Australia recently conducted several field days across Cradle Coast region that included talks by experts in the fields ofriver management, fencing, revegetation, weeds, farm management and farm nutrient budgeting. A number of Land for Wildlifelandholders attended the Leven Valley field day. It was an unsettled weather day, but over 25 landholders braved the conditions tovisit a property under new management that adjoins a stunning section of the Leven River at Dobsons Flats. Talks were given byMike Askey-Doran from the River Section in DPIW, Christine Corbett from Greening Australia, and Guy Robertson from CradleCoast NRM on various topics related to river and vegetation management. Property Manager Steven Blanden has completed

riparian fencing around the property andshowed us some excellent examples ofrevegetation works. The location is near theconvergence of a number of vegetationcommunities, some being listed as threatenedat a state scale.

Greening Australia will conduct more fielddays and workshops next year, so if you areinterested in attending any or would like moreinformation on incentive programs or othervegetation management advice in you areacontact Greening Australia on 6223 6377 or6432 1405.

Peter Stronach, Project Manager GreeningAustralia, Burnie.

Mike Askey-Doran talking to landholders beside the LevenRiver at the Gunns Plains Greening Australia Bush and RiversField Day.

sanctuary to the SouthernMidlands Council in 1988 withHeather simultaneously giftingthe house and paddocks.

The further extension of thisarea with the newly formed FlatRock Reserve provides asubstantially increased wildliferefuge. For those wishing to findout more about the work of theTasmanian Land Conservancyand our mission of acquiringand managing Tasmanian landfor biodiversity please visitwww.tasland.org.au or call us on03 6225 1399.


IInncceennttiivveess ttoo ssuuppppoorrtt llaannddhhoollddeerrss ccoonnsseerrvvee bbuusshh aanndd ssttrreeaammss

Flat Rock Reserve(Photo: Jim Mulcahy)


As human population numbers continue to grow, moredemand is placed on land for agricultural development andconversion of agricultural lands into urban sprawl. The lossand increase in fragmentation of native habitats is widelyrecognised as the most serious threat to the conservation ofbiodiversity (Main et al., 1999). To many, conservation is athing which only occurs in wilderness areas such as NationalParks and Reserves. However, it is recognised that many of thenatural habitats considered essential for biodiversityconservation or protection of threatened species, occur outsideNational Parks and Reserves. A large proportion of wildlifespecies and habitats occur on privately owned land. Theprotection of biodiversity values is increasingly extendingbeyond reserve systems into many non-reserve areas and a widerange of people and organisations, including Land for Wildlife,are protecting our natural biodiversity on private land(Williams et al., 2001). Biodiversity is defined from the 1992United Nation Convention on Biological Diversity as ‘thevariability among living organisms from all sources including,inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems andthe ecological complexes of which they are part; this includesdiversity within species, between species and of ecosystems(Williams et al., 2001).

One of the most significant threats to natural diversityidentified in both the Tasmania and Australia State ofEnvironment reports is the clearing of native vegetation andconversion to other activities or land use. The more intensiveand hence largely irreversible forms of land clearing includeplantation developments, replacement of native vegetation forimproved pastures and cropping, inundation (eg dams), andurban growth. Since European settlement in 1803, half ofTasmania’s forests have been cleared and 90% of ourwoodlands. The greatest losses have occurred on productivesoils largely cleared for agriculture with the lowest losses onthe most infertile, unproductive soils. Urban growth andspread into agricultural and natural bush land is increasinglybeing recognised as one of the most significant threats toconserving natural biodiversity locally, nationally and in factglobally (Savard et al., 2000; DeStefano et al., 2005;FitzGibbon and Jones, 2006).

The greater percentage of the human population lives withinurban or suburban environments and many urban-suburbandwellers attitudes and values to wildlife and nature differ fromtheir rural counterparts(DeStefano et al., 2005). Tomany urban dwellers ‘wildlife’are animals which live innatural environments. Manypeople do not recognise ‘urbanwildlife’, that is, native animalsliving in habitats found in townsand cities (Lunney and Burgin,2004). There is a growing trendand recognition of theimportance of urban wildlifeecology and conservation andthe need to protect andconserve biodiversity withinurban environments. Indeed it is

within the urban environment that many people will formtheir ethic of care for our native fauna, their concern for theconservation of remnant bushland and their interest inrestoring degraded habitats (Lunney and Burgin, 2004).Enhancing biodiversity in urban ecosystems can have apositive impact on the quality of life of urban dwellers, whichincreases environmental awareness and can in turn encouragegreater preservation of biodiversity in natural ecosystems(Savard, et al., 2000).

The significance of ensuring the persistence of urban wildlife ishighlighted by the fact that 85% of people in Australia live inurban areas and that the type of engagement that urbandwellers have with their local environment and urban wildlifeis likely to influence their view on conservation, not solely forthreatened species, but for all flora and faunal species andhabitats (Davies et al., 2004). This has greater meaning in thecontext that decisions made by this very large proportion ofthe population can have a major influence on future directionsfor natural and cultural heritage conservation (Davies et al.,2004).

The New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Serviceundertook a research study in 2001-2002 to investigate howurban residents in NSW relate to living with wildlife and toidentify means by which urban wildlife could increaseengagement in conservation and hence encourage people toactively support the conservation of wildlife in urbanenvironments (Davies et al., 2004). The research findings ofthis very interesting social research study have been publishedin a report titled “Urban Wildlife Renewal – GrowingConservation in Urban Communities” (http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/urbanwildliferesearch). Interesting findingswere that the word ‘wildlife’ generally brought to mind largeranimals, especially mammals, but also birds, reptiles andamphibians; very few people thought of invertebrates. Seldomwere the terms ‘Ecosystem’ or ‘Biodiversity’ used in associationwith wildlife and appeared to be poorly understood, or elseconsidered as issues elsewhere under some global category. Theconcept of urban ecology was poorly understood and nativeflora and fauna surviving in the urban area were seen as beinga “left over” of the original environment rather than belongingthere (Davies et al., 2004). Davies et al. (2004) indicated thatpeople did not realise that some native plants and animals maybe unique to their area and hence there was no recognition

that the survival of these speciesmay depend on our ability tolive with them or to maintaintheir natural, modified orartificial habitats in urban areas.

The issue of conflict withwildlife in the urbanenvironment is one which willbe an on-going problem andchallenge to overcome, althoughresearch is providing greaterknowledge resulting in bettermanagement methods (Adams,2005). There will always besome who welcome and enjoywildlife, while others who will

Biodiversity conservation– broadening the scope to include urban wildlife

Blue-tongue lizards - good snail controllers in the garden(Photo: Peter Tonelli, TasNature)

incorporate public opinion, values and attitude of people whohave an interest in the wildlife being managed whileintegrating this new input from research. Although itcomplicates the decision-making process, it is more likely toresult in a satisfactory outcome for all concerned (FitzGibbonand Jones, 2005). FitzGibbon and Jones (2005) state that suchinclusion of ‘human dimensions’ in urban wildlife managementplanning is particularly important because the risk of human-wildlife interaction and conflict is greater in urbanenvironments.

With deforestation and urbanisation, the majority of remnantbushland in urban environments is generally the bits left afterdevelopment, often because of severe building constraints, orareas which have not been developed as yet or set aside forfuture development (Adam, 2004). Thus urban bushland isvery fragmented and includes formal conservation reserves andparks generally owned by local or state governmentauthorities. With many developments the approach is tocompletely clear the land of all vegetation for ease ofinstallation of roads, services and buildings and then re-plantas part of landscaping gardens or nature strips. Planningprocesses and legislation do not necessarily provide orguarantee protection (Adam, 2004) and regulatorymechanisms relied upon have often been ineffective atpreventing the loss of wildlife habitat and the decline ofendangered species particularly on private land (Main et al.,1999). In Tasmania, priority vegetation communities andthreatened species have already been cleared or are underthreat from clearance and development in the Greater Hobartand Greater Launceston areas (RPDC, 2003). While thehabitat values of fragmented urban bushland patches are oftenreduced, they may be enhanced by being set in a matrix ofgardens which may provide continuity of habitat and allowmovement between patches for some species (Adam, 2004).An example of this has been shown by the Redland ShireCouncil in SE Queensland who have developed a programtargeting property owners in particular areas of known koalahabitats. The program largely came about from recognition ofefforts needed to conserve the existing koala population in theshire and to conserve, manage and enhance corridors andlinkages between isolated areas of remnant bush (pers. comm.Richard Collins, Redland Shire Council). The program targetsresidents in corridors between large reserves and encouragesthem to adopt a more fauna friendly approach to gardening.The linkages are also aligned to include gardens containingexisting ‘habitat’ trees. The program started in 2004 and todate there has been a good response from property ownerstargeted.

The effects of deforestation and urbanisation have largely beenbetter documented for birds withmany promotional and educationalmaterials about urban wildlifelargely focusing on providingresources for birds, such as suitableattracting trees and shrubs(Catterall, 2004). Birds are also auseful ecological indicator ofhabitat condition and biodiversity– the dominance by noisy miner isa classic example of indicatingseverely modified environments.Providing resources useful fornative bird species is more complexthan planting local native speciesand consideration needs to bemade of the role of spatial structureand habitats (Catterall, 2004). Thepresence of physical structure and


see them as a pest and nuisance, some who prefer manicuredlawns and gardens to those that enjoy an eclectic mix ofdiverse species and structure – this potentially may createtensions over neighbours’ fences, but largely these tensionsalready exist. However, I’m intrigued by how one caninfluence change even at small scales between adjacentlandowners. As an example, I am working towards creating awildlife friendly garden and absolutely delight in the increasein bird species which frequent my garden and am rapt to havefrogs, eastern barred bandicoots, lizards and native orchidspresent. My neighbour observes my activities and we havefrequent ‘over the fence’ discussions of the rationale for speciesI have planted. It has been encouraging to see a gradualadoption of a similar approach. It is possible to effect change ata smaller scale, and collectively many people doing exactly thiscan effect change over a considerable area, all to the benefit ofbiodiversity conservation and wildlife species.

One of the classic conflict issues has been brushtail possums –people either like them or consider them a nuisance. This is aspecies which will pose a challenge for managers of urbanwildlife because of the varied attitudes towards this species.Whilst brushtail possums may be considered common and highin numbers, they have disappeared from more than half oftheir previous range across Australia and are now commononly in Tasmania, Kangaroo Island and some cities (Matthewset al., 2004). Urban environments have proved beneficial tobrushtail possums as they provide increased food resources(fruit trees, ornamental plants, food scraps) and increasedshelters and den sites, however there is always the risk of ahigher incidence of mortality from motor vehicles, dog and catattacks (Matthews et al., 2004). Brushtail possums areprotected in NSW and there appears to be a trend ofpopulation decline. In NSW, the revised management strategyfor captured possums states that they must be released within50 m of the capture site; in extreme cases possums consideredto be a nuisance are euthanased by a veterinarian if they cannot be relocated to a suitable site. Translocation studies haveshown a high percentage of mortality of possums that aretranslocated greater than 5 km from their capture site(Matthews et al., 2004). Management advice to reduce the riskof conflict with urban dwellers and brushtail possums includedealing with trees near buildings and power lines, deterringpossums from roof spaces inside houses, providing nest boxesand protecting plants. The NSW Department of Environmentand Conservation promotes living with possums andencourages means to reduce negative attitudes towards thespecies (Matthews, et al., 2004).

Urban wildlife is becoming an increasing area and focus ofresearch. This greater knowledge of wildlife and plantpopulations and communities inurban areas has enabled a betterunderstanding and the ability toprovide and manage sustainableurban ecosystems (Adams, 2005).Adams (2005) takes a broad viewof urban wildlife as one whichincludes nondomestic vertebratesand invertebrates of urban andurbanising areas, in addition towildlife and plant associations.However, while the understandingof the dynamics of urban wildlifehas increased, knowledge of thebiological and social dimensionsnecessary for the development ofeffective management plans isextremely limited (FitzGibbon andJones, 2005). It is important to

Masked lapwing – birds which nest and raise young - often in the mosthazardous of places beside roadways(Photo: Peter Tonelli, TasNature)


complexity is essential to provide habitatfor moving, foraging, resting, breeding,and avoiding predators. Habitatrequirement can vary depending on themorphology and behaviour of a particularbird species, also the habitat must be ableto provide these requirements for livingon a daily, seasonal or annual basis for thecontinued persistence of a species(Catterall, 2004). Loss of natural habitatsat the periphery due to the expansion ofurban development, or in remnantfragments within urban centres canseverely impact some bird species to theextent of local extinction (Parsons andMajor, 2004).

Management of remnant local bushland orindividual animal species are often dealtwith in isolation and urban wildlife hasnot been included in the framework ofcomprehensive plans (Lunney and Burgin,2004). Urban wildlife need to be part ofany urban plan, catchment plan, oroverall plan for biodiversity and theseplans must follow an approach ofintegrated management with urban wildlife conservation inthe planning process (Lunney and Burgin, 2004; Hobbs, 2005).The overall connectivity of a landscape needs to be consideredwith assessment of the relative isolation between patches(habitats), linking corridors and the nonhabitat (matrix orgardens) of urban environments (Hobbs, 2005). Theencouragement of planting native vegetation for wildlife needsto incorporate habitat suitable for the wildlife species –floristic composition and structural diversity will greatlyinfluence the faunal species which inhabit the vegetation(Lunney and Burgin, 2004). Lunney and Burgin (2004)caution that poor selection of species and/or combinationscould favour the dominance of some species which maybecome regarded as pests, and lead to local extinction of otherspecies. A long term study of the influence of management andvegetation changes on bird species recorded in Kings Park(Western Australia) also highlighted the fact that if it isdesired to have greater diversity of bird species in urbanenvironments then it is necessary to have structural as well asplant species diversity (Recher, 2004). The study by Recher(2004) also highlighted important faunal species which manypeople overlook or do not consider, that is, invertebrates,especially for insectivorous bird species. Invertebrates – egbeetles, worms, and butterflies, all have a very important roleto play. Some people may not realise that withoutinvertebrates, we would not see other larger species in oururban areas.

Urban habitat values are influenced by the choices peoplemake as individuals. Providing greater knowledge of how toprovide a wildlife friendly habitat in an urban environmentand creating an attitude of welcoming wildlife in urbangardens will greatly promote a more positive attitude towardsurban wildlife and nature conservation in general (Davies etal., 2004). There are very real benefits for encouragingbiodiversity conservation within the urban environment bycreating wildlife friendly spaces and more environmentfriendly practices. These include reduced chemical use throughnatural pest control from insect feeding birds, reduced wateruse from growing native drought tolerant species, increasedproduction from fruit and vegetable gardens from naturalpollination, reduced wildlife road kill by increasing awarenessand hence modifying driving practices and creating anenvironment of enjoyment and relaxation simply by watching

nature. This can have environmentalbenefits which extend beyond gardenboundaries such as reduced water demand,reduced chemical runoff into storm watersystems and ultimately waterways, andincreased survival chances for nativespecies.

It has been recognised that there is a needto achieve broad community engagementin support of nature conservation andsustainable land use practices on privateland, largely focusing on properties withinthe urban or suburban fringe. It is alsorecognised that for broad landscapeconservation to be successful it needs thesupport of the wider community, not justindividual landowners. There is asignificant gap in promoting andencouraging participation in naturaldiversity conservation for ‘smaller’landholders. As suburban sprawl and otherforms of land clearing continue to reducewildlife habitat and safe refuge, gardensincreasingly become more important for

providing space, food, water, shelter and a place to rear young.We should strive to reduce the impact of urbanisation onwildlife. Additionally, another important consideration is thatthe success of meeting the challenge of protecting biologicaldiversity in urban areas will be a good measure of thecommitment to protecting ecosystems worldwide (Adams,2005). Adams (2005) quite rightly states that if we cannot actas responsible stewards in our own backyards, the long-termprospects for biological diversity on the rest of the planet lookgrim.

Iona MitchellReferences:Adam, P. (2004). Urban bushland – stepping stones, living

museums or cemeteries? In: Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds)Urban Wildlife: more than meets the eye, Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales, p 32-37.

Adams, L.W. (2005). Urban wildlife ecology and conservation:A brief history of the discipline. Urban Ecosystems, 8: 139-156.

Catterall, C.P. (2004). Birds, garden plants and suburbanbushlots: where good intentions meet unexpected outcomes. In:Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds) Urban Wildlife: more thanmeets the eye, Royal Zoological Society of New SouthWales, p 21- 31.

Davies, R.G., Webber, L.M. and Barnes, G.S. (2004). Urbanwildlife management – it’s as much about people. In:Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds) Urban Wildlife: more thanmeets the eye, Royal Zoological Society of New SouthWales, p 38-43.

DeStefano, S., Deblinger, R.D. and Miller, C. (2005).Suburban wildlife: Lessons, challenges, and opportunities.Urban Ecosystems, 8: 131-137.

FitzGibbon, S.I. and Jones, D.N. (2006). A community-basedwildlife survey: the knowledge and attitudes of residents ofsuburban Brisbane, with a focus on bandicoots. WildlifeResearch, 33: 233-241.

Hobbs, R. J. (2005). Landscapes, ecology and wildlifemanagement in highly modified environments – anAustralian perspective. Wildlife Research, 32: 389-398.

Brushtail possum – welcomed by some,despised by others

(Photo: Peter Tonelli, TasNature)


FURNISHINGS FOR VELVET WORMS AND STAG BEETLESThe message with conserving habitat for some of our smallercreatures is don’t clean up the forest floor! It provides essentialfurniture for some of our more unique invertebrates, such asthe flightless stag beetle and the ancient velvet worm.

Tasmania’s threatened species of stag beetles are designed likeminiature bulldozers, with a hardened wing cover fused overtheir abdomen, allowing them to push their way through theremains of rotten logs, and layers of leaf litter, on the floor ofwet forests. The males have distinctive large jaws, (similar tostag horns) that are used for displaying and fighting ratherthen chewing. The adults probably don’t feed, relying insteadon the energy reserves laid down as larvae. Most of the two tothree year lifecycle of a stag beetle is spent as a beetle larvae,chewing through the fungi-rich rotten wood of large old logs,usually only present in old growth wet forest.

When the larvae is large enough to pupate, it forms a chamberunder or inside the log, then hatches out several months laterinto an adult beetle. The main purpose of the adult is to find amate, breed then die – usually in one season, although somemales may over winter.

Similarly, velvet worms rely on a well furnished forest floor,with very large rotted logs and layers of leaf litter to provide ahome for smaller prey such as slaters and crickets.Velvet wormsare an evolutionary relic, providing a link between worms andarthropods they move hydrostatically like segmented worms,have 15 – 17 pairs of non-jointed legs and shed theirexoskeleton periodically as they grow to full size. Their velvetyappearance is from lots of small papillae covering their softbody.

Velvet worms are very efficient nocturnal hunters movingthrough the leaf litter at night and sensing small prey, such asslaters, with their long antennae. When a suitable prey item isfound, they capture it by quickly and precisely ejecting a stickysubstance over it from a pair of modified appendages on theirhead.

Both these animals have specialised lifecycles and habits thatare reliant on the furnishings of undisturbed wet forest floor –large rotten logs and layers of leaf litter. The supply of rottenlogs is dependant on the natural ageing process of the foresttrees, which can take hundreds of years. Excessive removal ofstanding dead trees for firewood, means that the stock of logson the forest floor isn’t replenished. Similarly, hot frequentwildfire removes most of the potential habitat on the forestfloor.

Both these animals have restricted ranges living in relativelysmall islands of suitable habitat – the East Coast is home toseveral threatened species of stag beetles and velvet worms,each species has been mapped according to its range.

If you have wet forest on your land, please consider the habitatrequirements of these small and cryptic but unique inhabitantsin managing your land.

Ruth MollisonUnderstorey Network CoordinatorEmail: [email protected]: (03) 6234 4286

Land for Wildlife Newsletter deadline for 2007If you have items you would like posted on the members’ page or even articles you would

like to contribute to the newsletter, please note the deadline for the next newsletter is

FEBRUARY 23rd 2007See “From the Coordinator” article for other 2007 editions deadlines

We encourage and welcome your input and contribution.

Lunney, D. and Burgin, S. (2004). Urban wildlife management:an emerging discipline. In: Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds)Urban Wildlife: more than meets the eye, Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales, p 1-7.

Main, M.B., Roka, F.M. and Noss, R.F. (1999). Evaluatingcosts of conservation. Conservation Biology, 13(6): 1262-1272.

Matthews, A., Lunney, D., Waples, K. and Hardy, J. (2004).Brushtail Possums: “Champion of the suburbs” or “Ourtormentors”? In: Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds) UrbanWildlife: more than meets the eye, Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales, p 159-168.

Parsons, H. M. and Major, R. E. (2004). Bird interactions inSydney gardens: some initial findings of the Birds in Backyardsprogram. In: Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds) UrbanWildlife: more than meets the eye, Royal ZoologicalSociety of New South Wales, p 211-215.

Recher, H. F. (2004). The Kings Park Avifauna: keeping birds inthe city. In: Lunney, D and Burgin, S (Eds) Urban Wildlife:more than meets the eye, Royal Zoological Society of NewSouth Wales, p 8-20.

Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC)2003, State of the Environment Tasmania 2003: Biodiversity.Available from the RPDC web site: http://www.rpdc.tas.gov.au /soer/bio/4/index.php (Accessed: 21/11/2006).

Savard, J-P. L., Clergeau, P. and Mennechez, G. (2000).Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape andUrban Planning, 48: 131-142.

Williams, J., Read, C., Norton, A., Dovers, S., Burgman, M.,Proctor, W. and Anderson, H. (2001). Biodiversity ,Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (ThemeReport), CSIRO publishing on behalf of the Department ofthe Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Available fromthe DEH web site: http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/biodiversity/ index.html (Accessed: 9/11/2006)


I eagerly await the Striated Pardalotes’ return. In earlyAugust, flocks of tiny birds fly south and their delightfultinkling songs and contact trills hint that spring is just aroundthe corner. For almost twenty years a pair has returned to ourhome and on a conveniently positioned tree stump just belowtheir nest they perform with outstretched wings theircourtship dance.

Pardalotes are diminutive birds. Though rarely seen, theirbreeding songs and contact calls are uttered repeatedly as theyforage amongst the foliage of eucalypts. With their short,stout, partially notched beaks designed to peck substances offleaves, pardalotes are among the most specialised feeders ineucalypt forests and woodlands throughout the country. Thefoods they mostly seek are psyllid insects and an associatedexudate called lerp.

Psyllids, in the family Hemiptera, are sap-sucking insects thatare particularly associated with eucalypts. They exude a sweetsugary substance that hardens to afford them a protectivecovering known as lerp. Because lerp are rich in carbohydrate,they provide an important high energy food source for a rangeof forest birds, especially pardalotes, thornbills andhoneyeaters.

Tasmanian forests support three pardalote species. Spottedand Forty-Spotted Pardalotes are residentswhile the Striated Pardalote returns to coastalVictoria, New South Wales and southernQueensland after breeding in Tasmania.

The Forty-spotted Pardalote is endemic toTasmania and is now classified as endangered.Though never common, it used to rangethroughout the north and east but is nowconfined to restricted pockets in the island’ssoutheast. Its close association with white gum(E. viminalis) which has been extensivelycleared and now covers less than half itsoriginal range may be the reason for its decline.

All pardalotes are cavity nesters. SpottedPardalotes nest at the end of tunnels theyexcavates in loose soil; Striated Pardalotesusually nest in tree hollows but will also nest insteep banks, particularly riverbanks. Forty-spotted Pardalotes nest in hollows in trunks,branches, stumps, fence posts or fallen woodand occasionally in wall crevices or banks.

After breeding Spotted and Striated Pardaloteswander in search of lerp. In years wheneucalypts don’t flower or flower sporadically,outbreaks of lerp are also important sustenancefor large honeyeaters that aggressively defendthe rich food source and chase away the tinypardalotes. The unpredictability of lerpoutbreaks and the difficulty in locating themaway from their familiar home range cansometimes lead to mass mortality.

There are few places in the country where threespecies of pardalotes co-exist. Their closeassociation with eucalypts makes them less ablethan more generalist feeders to adapt tochanges in the landscape.

The clearing and fragmentation of forests as well as the deathof senescent eucalypts all threaten the viability of their habitatand we must ensure that the two more common species don’tsuffer the losses of the third.

References:

Bryant, S L & Jackson, J (1999) Tasmania’s threatened faunahandbook: what, where and how to protect Tasmania’sthreatened animal, Threatened Species Unit, Parks andWildlife Service, Hobart.

Pizzey, G (1997) The Graham Pizzey & Frank Knight field guideto the birds of Australia, Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Recher, H.F. (1991) The conservation and management ofeucalypt forest birds: resource requirements for nesting andforaging. IN Lunney, D. (Ed) Conservation of Australia’sforest fauna. The Royal Zoological society of New SouthWales, Chipping Norton.

Woinarski, J. (1985) Foliage gleaners of the treetops, thePardalotes. In Birds of Eucalypt Forests and Woodlands,Ecology, Conservation, Management. ed by A. Keast, H.F.Recher, H.Ford and D. Saunders.

Surrey Beaty and Sons, Chipping Norton

Pardalotes, eucalypts and lerp by Sarah Lloyd

Lerp covered psyllid insects on eucalypt leaf (magnified - photo taken through a microscope)(Photo: Sarah Lloyd)

MEMEMBEMBERRS’S’ PPAAGEGEJanuary 7th 2007 ‘Plants and ants at Birralee’. A walk up the track to Sarah and Ron’s place. Meetat the bottom of the track at the end of Denmans Road at 10.00a.m. Birralee is 15km north of Westburyon B72. Turn left into Priestleys Road after the Birralee Hall then after about 500m turn right intoDenmans Road (opposite white picket fence). For people coming from the west along the FrankfordHighway, turn right into Priestley’s Road about 2km after Frankford. Travel for approximately 6km thenturn left into Denmans Road. 4WDs are needed to negotiate the 2km track to Sarah and Ron’s house.For more details phone Sarah (03) 6396 1380.

Understorey Network Field DaysBruny Island farm visit and seed collection

Where: ‘Murrayfields’ Property, North Bruny Island.

Ferry Info: Car Ferry leaves Kettering at 9:30am (arrive at 9am for car-pooling). Full fare return$25.

Directions: On Bruny travel approx. 8km along road from ferry to main intersection. Turn righttowards south Bruny. Murrayfields entrance is about 1km along on left side, drive in to shearingsheds.

When: Tuesday, 16th of January 10:30am to 1:30pm.

Bring: ID books, paperbags, pen, secateurs, refreshments, hat, protective footwear.

A great opportunity to visit this spectacular property, have a look at revegetation sites and collectseed.

Northern Wetland Plant ID & Seed Collection

Where: Woodstock Lagoon at ‘Springbank’ Longford. Travel 4.5km along the Bishopsbourne Roadfrom Longford, to just past the ‘Springbanks house, to a marked paddock gate.

When: Saturday, 20th of January, 11am to 1 pm.

Bring: ID books, paperbags, pen, secateurs, refreshments, hat, protective footwear.

Micah Visiou, the Seed Collecting Officer for the Botanical Gardens Seedbank will lead a walkthrough these special wetlands, and assist with reed/sedge identification and seed collection.

Channel farm visit and seed collection

Where: ‘Fort Chimo’ property, 449 Old Station Road, Lower Snug.

RSVP for directions and map.

When: Sunday, 28th of January 11am to 1pm.

Bring: paperbags, secateurs, pen, ID books, refreshments, hat , protective footwear.

A great opportunity to visit this lovely working farm, with extensive coastal bush. We will becollecting seeds for the seedbank.

East Coast plant ID walk and seed collection

Where: Friends School Property, Happy Valley Road, Orford.

When: Wednesday, 31st of January. Meet at 10am at the new café near the main bridge at Orford.

Bring: paperbags, secateurs, pen, ID books, refreshments, hat , protective footwear.

We will be identifying the understorey plants on this dry coastal bushblock, and collecting seed forour seedbank.

Please RSVP to Ruth Mollison for Understorey Network field daysPh: 6234 4286, Mobile 0407 352 479, [email protected]



Land for WildlifeContactsLFW State CoordinatorIona MitchellPrivate Property Conservation ProgramDPIWPh: (03) 6233 6427Fax: (03) 6223 8603Email: [email protected]

LFW Project AssistantTherese SmithPrivate Property Conservation ProgramDPIWPh: (03) 6233 6427Fax: (03) 6223 8603Email: [email protected]

Thinking of selling, or have recently sold your property?

Please let the LFW Coordinator know so that we can collect the sign or register with the new owner.Transfer of registration does not occur with change of ownership and the new owners are invited tojoin the scheme. The Land for Wildlife sign(s) allocated for display on land which is registered in thescheme remain the property of the Department of Primary Industries and Water.

Please contact the authors before reproducing material from this newsletter.The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the policies of the Land for Wildlife Program or the Department of Primary Industries andWater.

If undelivered return to:Land for WildlifePO Box 44, Hobart, Tas 7001Phone: (03) 6233 6427Fax: (03) 6223 8603Email: [email protected]

Land for Wildlife Program: Vision, Mission and Goals1. Vision• Land owners and land managers integrate the principles and practices of nature conservation into overall land

management.

2. MissionLand for Wildlife encourages and facilitates voluntary nature conservation by:

• building on existing community networks;• sharing information and learning;• supporting and recognising land owners and managers; and• having nature conservation principles put into practice on unreserved land.

3. GoalsLong term and medium term

1. Nature Conservation principles are applied and practices are integrated with overall land management.2. Land for Wildlife contributes to ecologically, economically and socially sustainable property management.3. Land for Wildlife contributes to a healthy and diverse ecosystem.4. Information is gathered and shared, learning about managing for nature conservation on unreserved land is facilitated.

Immediate5. Existing community networks are involved and expanded.6. There is broad community participation in Land for Wildlife.7. Adequate resources are provided to the Land for Wildlife program.8. Land owners and land managers are given support and their voluntary contributions to nature conservation on

unreserved land are recognised.9. The numbers of land owners and land managers participating in Land for Wildlife increase.10.There are adequate distribution of and connections between native habitats managed for nature conservation to ensure

viability of populations of native plants and animals.11.A comprehensive, integrated database of information is established, maintained and is accessible.

Source: Land for Wildlife (Tasmania) Implementation Plan 1998

Events(refer to Members Page (page 11) for details)

January 7 Central North Field Naturalists field trip ‘Plants andants at Birralee’ to Sarah and Ron’s place at Birralee.

UNDERSTOREY NETWORK FIELD DAYSJanuary 16 ‘Murrayfields’, North Bruny Island, farm visit, look at

revegetation sites and seed collection.January 20 ‘Springbank’, Woodstock Lagoon, Longford,

botanical walk through wetlands and seed collection.January 28 ‘Fort Chimo’, Lower Snug, farm visit, coastal bush

and seed collection.January 31 Friends School Property, Orford, identifying

understorey plants in dry coastal bushland and seedcollection.

land for wildlife news - department of primary industries ... · 12/13/2006 · page 4 land for...

Documents