The Friends of the Wetlands would like to thank zoologist Dr Ronda Green and Darren Green, who are accredited data collectors, for their work on the fauna data collection. Below is their Winter report referring to their visit to Russell Island from June 14 to June 16, 2009. Whilst on the island they were provided some meals and accommodation at Anita's Russell Island B&B. Their work was mainly in relation to mammals, frogs and nocturnal species.
Russell Island Interim Report – Winter 2009
Introduction
Several areas of Russell Island, in southern Moreton Bay, are in relatively natural condition and span a number of habitat types, mostly within proximity of swamps and other wetland habitats.
A three-stage project to reclaim and improve the wetlands and surrounding habitats has been approved by the Federal Government. The first stage of this project – collection of data – has commenced.
A zoologist (Ronda J Green, BSc(Hons) PhD) and assistant (Darren Green) of Araucaria Ecotours were employed by Montaya (part voluntary, part paid) to conduct a fauna survey as part of the data collection and ultimately to assist formation of plans for the conservation management of the Whistling Kite and Turtle Swamp Wetlands and adjoining regions. The sites in question are all within the central area of the island latitudinally 9that is, about halfway down the island travelling north to south, but including both coastal and inland areas and spanning the island from west to east).
Full details and recommendations will be included in the final report. This interim report details the brief winter survey of June 14-15, 2009.
Note: All photos relating to this report were taken on the island during the survey. (The photos can be found in the winter report photos page (coming soon).
Methods
Eight primary study sites were selected including open forest and heathlands. Classification of the study sites were adopted from the ‘Whistling Kite and Turtle Swamp Conservation Areas Management Plan’ prepared by K. Nguyen, L. Abbott and D. O;Connell, conservation and land management students of the Metropolitan South Institute of TAFE in 2007.
Sites for trapping were:
- Zone 4, coastal sheoak and eucalypt woodland
- Zone 4, eucalypt forest, hilltop, some with tall banksia, inland
- Zone 3 (eastern end), heathland
- Zone 3. banksia and other heathland
- Zone 3, heathland near wide mown grassy strips of land
- Zone 5, eucalypt forest, near Site 5.
- Zone 2. eucalypt forest
- Zone 1. heathland near site 7
Traps were set in positions to maximize probability of trapping (i.e. where it was considered most likely for small mammals to traverse – near apparent runways, by logs etc.).
Traps were inspected soon after dawn to minimize any distress to trapped animals.
Nocturnal animals were searched for at night
- with spotlights from the roads and tracks while driving slowly (mostly on little-used areas, but switching off lights at the approach of other vehicles in more travelled areas)
- with handheld torches on foot
- by sitting and listening without lights
- by recording calls of frogs
Pitfall traps were set up with drift nets near small bodies of water where frogs were heard at Zone 5, and checked during the night, but proved to be unsuccessful as the water pressure within the soil forced the buckets up above ground level.
They will be employed again in spring, when frogs and small reptiles are ore likely to be active, and in locations not likely to incur the same problem.
Other observations were recorded by searching the area, including but not rest6ricyted to, the trapping sites, with binoculars and listening for bird calls in the early morning and during other parts of the day.
Results
Mammals
The only mammal to be sighted during the survey was a black flying fox feeding on Mrlaleuca blossoms in the central inland.
Macropod tracks were found near sites 1 and 5, and one was heard hopping at night at site 2. Soe tracks were large and ust have been eastern grey kangaroo, while others could have been young kangaroos or wallabies.
No possums, gliders or bandicoots were seen during nocturnal searches on either night. Bandicoots have however been previously sighted on the island by Bryan Atkins of Montaya. No scratching indicative of possums, gliders or koalas were seen on the tree trunks examined.
No dasyrurids were seen or captured, although this time of year they are at their most active, with young adults moving around seeking territories. A search of EPA databases revealed no mention of dasyurids having been found on the island.
No rodents were captures or sighted. In fact there were no captures of any kind in any of the traps for the two nights, which does not indicate absence of animals but doies suggest their populations are currently rather sparse.
The Redlands Shire Council sign at the Midgee St Wetlands mentions that the area is home to swamp wallabies, eastern grey kangaroos, flying foxes and bandicoots. Only one of these – a flying fox - was sighted during the survey, although footprints of kangaroos and possibly wallabies were found and bandicoots have previously been seen. A local longterm resident told us he had seen kangaroos near Site 2, and wallabies which from his description (small and darker than the kangaroos) sounded very much like the swamp wallaby. He also told us that in all his time of living on the island, although alert to wildlife, he had never seen a possum.
Birds
An array of birds of differing ecological roles was seen to exist in and near the study sites, some of these being typically residential species and others being seasonally migratory or more opportunistically nomadic in habit.
Passerine birds included:
|
silvereye |
site 7 |
|
mistleoebird |
Southern end of island |
|
grey fantail |
Sites 4 and 7 |
|
yellow-faced honeyeater |
site 4 |
|
scarlet honeyeater |
near site 3, also northern end of island |
|
noisy friarbird |
Sites 2, 3 and 5, also northern end of island |
|
brown honeyeater |
site 5, also northern end of island |
|
noisy miner |
near site 3 |
|
noisy friarbird |
site 3 |
|
Spangled drongo |
northern end of island |
|
magpie |
Suburban areas |
|
grey butcherbird |
sites 5 and 7 |
|
Torresian crow |
sites 2 and 7 |
|
Willy wagtail |
Suburb near site 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-passerine birds
|
bush stone curtlew |
near sites 5 and 7 |
|
masked lapwing |
various |
|
brahminy kite |
near phoenix rd |
|
barshouldered dove |
site 1 |
|
crested pigeon |
Suburban areas |
|
fantailed cuckoo |
site 1 |
|
rainbow lorikeet |
site 3 |
|
white0-faced heron |
Near site 1 |
|
galah |
Suburban areas |
|
sulphur-crested cockatoo |
site 4 |
|
tawny frogmouth |
Near site 7 and northern end of island |
|
boobook owl |
near sites 2 and 7 |
|
laughing koiokaburra |
sites 2 and 3 and other parts of island |
|
forest kinghfisher |
Near sute 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Large holes in arboreal termite nests indicated that kookaburras, sacred kingfishers or forest kingfishers had been using them for nests.
Other fauna
No reptiles were sighted, as expected during cold weather, but the pictured hole was fresh and, judging by the ‘D’ shape, possibly dug by a medium to large lizard.
No frogs were sighted or captured, but those heard at night were probably eastern sedge frogs (Litoria fallax) and possibly a Pseudophryne sp. A repeat visit in the spring, especially if a wet night is included, should locate more frogs . The introduced cane toad was, regrettably seen quite frequently.
As with the reptiles and frogs, this was not the ideal tie of year to be looking fro invertebrates. Some were still active, such as the evening brown butterfly pictured here and seen at several of the sites, and the meat ants, which tend not to persist in highly disturbed areas. Small wolf spiders were commonly encountered at night, and nocturnal orb-weavers were also seen. .
Discussion
We will be in a better position to assess the fauna after the next two survey periods.
The failure to capture dasyurids (small carnivorous marsupials such as Antechinus and Phascogale) even though this was the most favourable season for doing so, and the lack of any record that these have been seen here suggest they either never made it to the island or that land practices and/or feral and domestic predators may have eliminated or at least severely reduced their numbers. It remains possible that some do live here but in low numbers, as proving absence is always more problematical than demonstrating presence of any species.
It was surprising that no rodents – either exotic or native – were caught in the two nights of trapping. It would be very unusual for no house mice or introduced rats to be present in settled areas, and it is at least encouraging that they do not appear to be heavily invading the ore natural regions where trapping was concentrated. Swamp rats (Rattus lutreolus) have previously been recorded on the island (EPA data). These native rats are known to change habitat between breeding and nonbreeding season, and it is hoped that further trapping will reveal these and other native rodents. The rare and vulnerable water mouse (Xeromys myoides) has been found in a wetland reserve in the southern part of the island and it is possible it may inhabit other such areas within the study area.
There have been a number of microbat species of varying habitat and foraging requirements recorded either on or near the island (EPA data), and it is hoped that we can detect some of these on the next survey. Some of these small bats (especially those which are near the southern limits of their range here) are mostly inactive during winter months although some remain active throughout the year.
The complete lack of exotic birds seen within the study sites was encouraging. The presence of insectivorous, carnivorous, piscivorous, nectarivorous granivorous and frugivorous native birds in and near the sites suggests that there is good diversity of habitat and food resources within the natural parts of the island. Kingfishers have certainly been breeding there, and surveys in spring should determine other birds doing so. Springtime and summer surveys should also determine whether some of the birds seen in winter were visiting the island or whether they are resident. It would be useful to begin a calendar of flowering and frui9ting events during each calendar month to determine whether these kinds of resources are currently available throughout the year, and to consider what this might mean for resident birds, and how the disappearance or severe decrease of any such resource might impact the bird populations.
There is much rubbish on the island, which probably has more of a visual impact rather than a threat to wildlife. There are also many dogs, some of which may be roaming at night without the control of their owners. Cane toads could be causing a problem if swallowed by predators such as tawny frogmouths.
Swampy areas and other wetlands probably harbour nocturnal waterbirds at night, and also many frogs in warm weather, and it will be of interest to investigate this in spring and summer surveys. It is very likely that snakes will also inhabit such areas in search of frogs.
