Breaking the Barrier:
Assessing the value of fauna-friendly crossing structures at Compton Road
Lee-Anne Veage
Darryl N. Jones
A Report to Brisbane City Council
November 2007
©Centre for Innovative
Strategies Griffith University
Conservation
This work is copyright. Major extracts of the
document may not be reproduced by any
process without the written permission of
the Director, Centre for Innovative
Conservation Strategies, Griffith University.
Additional copies may be obtained from
the Centre of Innovative Conservation
Strategies, Griffith School of Environment,
Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111.
This publication should be cited as: Veage
L & Jones DN (2007) Breaking the Barrier:
Assessing the Value of Fauna-friendly
Crossing Structures at Compton Road.
Report for Brisbane City Council. Centre of
Innovative Conservation Strategies, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
November 2007
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Acknowledgements This report is a summary of research findings obtained as part of work undertaken by three
independent research groups working together as part of the Brisbane City Council’s Compton Road
Wildlife Movement Solution Project. These groups were contracted separately to BCC as part of the
Biodiversity Research Partnership Program. Partner organizations were Southern Cross University
(Ross Goldingay and Brendan Taylor, who undertook the glider studies), Queensland Museum (Steven
Wilson, who undertook reptile and amphibian studies) and Griffith University (Darryl Jones, who
supervised all remaining studies). While the information obtained by the Griffith University studies is
reported here in detail, data from the other researchers is reported in summary form only. Full details
of these studies may be obtained from Brisbane City Council.
We would like to thank and acknowledge the following people for their advice and comments in the
preparation of this report.
Thank you to Brisbane City Council, particularly: Matt de Glass, Amelia Selles, Leigh Slater, Stacey
McLean and Tom McHugh for their assistance in providing information and data.
The data contained within this report is based on collaborative research undertaken by fellow
researchers. We would like to thank the following for permitting us to include their findings in this
report: Adam Abbott, Amy Bond, James Bunker, Ben Green and Brett Taylor. Sincere thanks are also
extended to Ross Goldingay and Brendan Taylor for providing data and advice associated with
arboreal mammals and Steve Wilson of the Queensland Museum, for kindly providing us with data of
his pitfall trapping surveys. We also acknowledge the assistance of Matt Davis, especially in relation
to the many issues associated with the cameras.
Thanks also to members of the Karawatha Protection Society, particularly Tom Creevey for
complimentary road-kill data and other useful information.
This research was undertaken with the permission of Queensland Environmental Protection Agency
and the Griffith University Animal Ethics Committee (permit numbers: AES/11/05/AEC and
AES/04/05/AEC).
II Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Executive Summary This project synthesizes a diversity of findings relating to the use of fauna-friendly structures by
wildlife as part of the Compton Road Wildlife Movement Solutions project. Given the scale and
diversity of structures involved and the increasing interest in this field, confirmation of use by fauna is
likely to be of national and international significance. Such information will substantially increase the
Australian road ecology knowledgebase and potentially set a benchmark for the mitigation of the
effects of future roads and upgrades elsewhere. The results summarised here cover the period February
2004 – October 2007.
Roads are the inevitable component of contemporary urbanisation. They fragment the natural
landscape and simultaneously act as a physical barrier for wildlife, imposing an assortment of
ecological costs on biodiversity. These may influence animal movement patterns and population
dynamics, resulting in patches of isolated individuals reducing gene flow; alter animal behaviour due
to avoidance of the roadway or attraction to it subsequently increasing the risk of vehicle-induced
mortality. Australian mammals are particularly at risk due to their largely nocturnal behaviour, cryptic
body colouring and sometimes large home ranges. Such impacts of roadways extend far beyond their
physical presence. In an attempt to reduce the impacts of roads on wildlife, purpose-built structures
such as exclusion fencing, culvert underpasses, land-bridge overpasses, glider poles and canopy
bridges have been developed. Aimed to facilitate safe passage across roads, these structures are
referred to as fauna-friendly structures.
A 1.3 km section of Compton Road, a major east-west arterial road in the southern suburbs of
Brisbane, was up-graded from two to four lanes in 2004-2005. This raised significant concerns over
the impact of the road on fauna in the adjacent Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland reserves. In
response to community concern, wildlife agencies and government, Brisbane City Council (BCC)
ensured that the largest diversity of fauna-friendly structures existing in any single location - the
Compton Road Fauna Structures Array - were included in the design of the upgrade. The primary
objective of the Array was: to reduce road-kill; enhance connectivity; maintain genetic diversity; and
enable dispersal and re-colonisation, effectively attempting to reduce the impact on wildlife of the
larger road.
In 2004, BCC established a wildlife monitoring partnership with Griffith University's Centre for
Innovative Conservation Strategies (CICS) to assess the effectiveness of the Compton Road Fauna
Array and assess local populations of animals living in adjoining habitat. Due to the diversity of
species present, many different surveys were conducted, including: a four-month pre-construction
road-kill survey and ongoing (post construction) studies of sand-tracking, scat collecting, road-kill
surveying, mammal trapping, pitfall trapping, spotlighting, radio-tracking, bird surveying and infrared
cameras surveillance.
Surveys of the biodiversity of the surrounding bushland identified 95 species of birds, eight of which
were locally significant. Mammal surveys revealed 18 species living locally, ten of which were of
significance, including the common dunnart (Sminthopsis murina), eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus
giganteus) and three species of gliders.
A total of 29 months of road-kill surveys pre and post-construction enabled comparisons to be made as
to the effectiveness of the exclusion fencing. During the four months prior to construction 13
individuals were recorded as road-kill. In the two years since construction only five individuals have
been killed, including two wallabies following breaches in the fence. This clearly indicates a
significant reduction in road-kill.
Evaluation of wildlife use of the land-bridge and two purpose-built culverts began six months after
construction was completed. A total of 26 weeks (August 2005 to February 2006) of intensive sand
III Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies tracking was followed by monthly monitoring until June 2007. At the commencement of the study
during winter, 1-5 animal tracks were detected in the underpasses. This progressively increased and
peaked at approximately 42 tracks per day in February 2006, one year after construction. Twelve
species-groups and a variety of species were identified using the culverts. Five of these have been
identified to be significant species. Small mammal 'rodents', specifically Rattus species, both native
and introduced, dominated. Next most frequent were lizards, snakes and birds. Between 15% and 28%
of detected tracks by animals made complete crossings of the underpasses. Sand tracking also revealed
strong seasonal movements by the northern brown bandicoot (Isoodon macrourus).
During a 26-week survey (August 2005 to February 2006) scat collections on the land-bridge found
that the presence of animals was continual. Seven different species were detected including three
species of macropod (swamp wallaby Wallabia bicolour; the locally significant eastern grey kangaroo
Macropus giganteus and red-necked wallaby Macropus rufogriseus). The introduced brown hare
(Lepus capensis) dominated in summer 2006, with the locally significant short-beaked echidna
(Tachyglossus aculeatus) also reported.
Bi-monthly pit-fall surveys of reptiles and amphibians detected a total of 26 species in the bushland
adjacent to the road. At the time of reporting (October 2007), 11 species have become residents or
regular visitors to the land-bridge itself including lace monitors (Varanus varius), yellow-faced whip
snakes (Demansia psammophis) and ornate-burrowing frogs (Limnodynastes ornatus).
More recent techniques have included the installation of infrared and movement-detection camera
systems in the underpasses, on the land-bridge and on the canopy rope-bridge, the use of hair-funnels
on the glider poles, and the capture and experimental release of gliders. While these studies are still
underway, preliminary findings have confirmed that squirrel gliders (Petaurus norfolcensis) are using
the glider poles to cross the road. Opportunistic observations have also detected ring-tailed possums
on the canopy rope-bridge and the flights by free-ranging squirrel gliders across the entire four-lane
road.
These surveys clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array in
overcoming the road barrier-effect and may have substantial implication regarding local species of
significance.
IV Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table of Contents
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………
III
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………
IV
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..
VIII
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………….
X
1.
Context……………………………………………………………………
1
2.
Mitigation of Road Impacts……………………………………………..
3
3.
2.1
Fauna-friendly Crossing Structures……………………….....
3
2.2
The Upgrade of Compton Road……………………………...
5
2.3
Description of the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array….
8
2.3.1
Exclusion Fencing……………………………………
8
2.3.2
Land-bridge………………………………………….
9
2.3.3
Glider Poles………………………………………….
10
2.3.4
Canopy Bridges……………………………………...
11
2.3.5
Wet Culverts…………………………………………
12
2.3.6
Fauna Underpasses…………………………………..
12
The Compton Road Wildlife Movement Solutions Project…………....
14
3.1
Methods of Monitoring……………………………………….
14
3.1.1
Species Present in the Bushland……………………..
14
3.1.1.1
Mammal Trapping………………………..
14
3.1.1.2
Spotlighting Surveys……………………..
15
3.1.1.3
Bird Surveying……………………….…..
16
3.1.1.4
Pitfall trapping……………………………
16
Use of Fauna-friendly Structures…………………….
16
3.1.2.1
Sand Tracking in Underpasses……..…….
16
3.1.2.2
Scat Collecting on the Land-bridge…...….
18
3.1.2.3
Pitfall Trapping on the Land-bridge………
19
3.1.2.4
Hair-tube Sampling on the Glider Poles and
Canopy Bridge……………………………. 19
3.1.2.5
Radio Tracking……………………………
19
3.1.2.6
Infrared Cameras……………………….....
19
Roadkill Surveys……………………………………..
22
3.1.2
3.1.3
V Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 4.
Biodiversity of Surrounding Environments…………………………….
24
4.1
Conservation Context of Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland 24
4.2
Species Present in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland
2004-7………………………………………………………...
25
4.2.1
Birds………………………………………………….
25
4.2.2
Mammals…………………………………………….
28
4.2.2.1.
Arboreal Mammals……………………….
30
4.2.2.2.
Ground-dwelling Mammals……….……..
31
Reptiles and Amphibians…………………………….
31
5.
Preventing Road-kill……………………………………………………..
34
6.
Evaluating the Compton Road Fauna Structures……………………..
37
4.2.3
6.1
Underpasses…………………………………………………..
37
6.1.1
Sand Tracking………………………………………..
37
6.1.2
Infrared Cameras…………………………………….
43
Land-bridge Overpass………………………………………..
43
6.2.1
Scat Collecting…………………………………….…
43
6.2.2
Pitfall Trapping…………………………..…………..
47
6.2.3
Infrared Cameras…………………………………….
49
6.3
Glider Poles……………………….…………………………..
49
6.4
Canopy Bridges…………………….………………………….
50
7.
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………
51
8.
Implications for Road Design / Management Implications …………….
53
9.
References………………………………………………………….……...
55
10.
Appendices…………………………………………………….………......
60
6.2
A.
Vegetation Classification……………………………………..
60
B.
Bird Data……………………………………………………...
61
C.
Small Mammal Data……………………………….………….
86
D.
Arboreal Mammal Data……………………………….………
88
E.
Spotlighting Data……………………………………….……..
89
F.
Underpass Data……………………………………….….……
94
G.
Land-bridge Data……………………….…….……………….
108
VI Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Definition of fauna-friendly structures used to minimise the effects of
of roads and reconnect habitat, based upon van der Ree et al. (2007)..
4
Ground-dwelling mammal trapping timing, effort and trapping rate for
both Kuraby Bushland and Karawatha Forest………………………...
15
Table 3:
Mammal taxa categories associated with identified scat in sand plots with
most likely species and other possible species known to occur locally.
(*introduced species)………………………………………………….
18
Table 4:
Species and conservation status of birds identified within Kuraby
Bushlands and Karawatha Forest during the Compton Road study
(Feb 2004 – July 2007). (n= 32 samples). (* introduced species)………
25
Table 5:
The ten most abundant birds observed in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby
Bushland, 2004-7. (n= 32 samples, total number of all birds = 11 936). 28
Table 6:
Mammals species detected within Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha
Forest during July 2004 – June 2007 via small mammal trapping, arboreal
mammal trapping, spotlighting and nest-box monitoring. (#Single
specimen captured in pit-fall trap) (n= 80 samples). (^Species not detected
via usual sampling methods and were only identified from sand-tracking and
scat collecting). (* introduced species)………………………………………
29
Table 7:
Arboreal species identified throughout monitoring and observational
studies within Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands. Techniques
consisted of small mammal trapping, arboreal mammal trapping,
spotlighting and nest-box monitoring. (n= 80 samples, total number of all
mammals 505)……………………………………….…………….….
30
Table 8:
Ground dwelling mammals identified via monitoring and observational
studies within Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands using small
mammal trapping and spotlighting. (n= 80 samples) (* introduced
31
species)…………………………………………………………………
Table 9:
Reptile species detected within Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha Forest
during 2006 - 2007 via pitfall trapping, purpose searches and spotlighting
(n= 33 samples). (^Species only detected on the land-bridge and not
within neighbouring bushland). (* introduced species)………………… 32
Table 10:
Amphibian species identified in Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha Forest
during 2006 - 2007 via pitfall trapping, purpose searches and spotlighting
(n= 26 samples). (* introduced species)………………………………… 33
Table 11:
Total vertebrate road-kill species identified during four months preconstruction monitoring (February – June 2004), four months post
construction monitoring (February – June 2005) and subsequent two
years since (June 2005 – June 2007). (*introduced species)…….………
35
VII Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 12:
Total track numbers of vertebrate taxa distinguished in sand plots of
underpasses A and B for intensive and monthly surveys, with the
percentage total of each grouping that made full crossings. 'Small mammal
1-3' categories pooled as ‘rodents’. (Refer Table 3 for mammal categories)
(n= 114 samples, total sand tracks= 1125)……………………….….... 38
Table 13:
Species photographed using the underpasses (2007) from Faunatech
Digicam 120 infrared cameras…………………………………………
43
Table 14:
Total numbers (and percentages) of species' scats collected for the three
zones of the land-bridge between August 2005 – February 2006
(n= 26 samples, total scats = 1266) (*introduced species)……………… 45
Table 15:
Total numbers (and percentages) of species' scats collected for all zones
of the land-bridge during two weekly surveys in winter 2005 and 2007.
(*introduced species).................................................................................
46
Table 16:
Herptofauna identified as using and/or living on the land-bridge during
bi-monthly surveys 2006 - 2007. (n= 11 samples) (^Species only detected
on the land-bridge and not within neighbouring bushland). (*introduced
species)…………………………………………………………………. 48
Table 17:
Species photographed using the land-bridge (2007) from Faunatech
Digicam 120 dual infrared cameras……….……………………………
49
VIII Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies List of Figures
Figure 1:
Aerial view of Compton Road amid Karawatha Forest and Kuraby
Bushlands, south Brisbane. Fauna-crossing structures are marked and
approximately located as indicated on the map………………………
7
Figure 2:
Wildlife exclusion fencing to deter animals climbing over and burrowing
under………….………………………………………………………
8
Figure 3:
Hourglass shaped land-bridge spanning Compton Road, south Brisbane. 9
Figure 4:
Initial planting of vegetation across the land-bridge, 2005…………...
Figure 5:
Established native vegetation and hollow logs on the land-bridge, 2007. 10
Figure 6:
Glider poles traverse the land-bridge…………………………………
11
Figure 7:
Close-up of one of three canopy bridges constructed of rope for
arboreal mammals…………………………………………………….
11
Three wet culverts of reinforced concrete adjoining the rehabilitated
lagoon…………………………………………………………………
12
Figure 9:
Purpose built dry culvert underpass A with ‘wildlife furniture’……...
13
Figure 10:
Drift fencing leading to a pitfall trap in the ground…………………..
16
Figure 11:
Faunatech Digicam infrared camera located in both A and B culverts.
20
Figure 12:
Faunatech Digicam infrared camera with sensor beam located on the
land-bridge……………………………………………………………
21
Schematic of the infra-red camera and sensor beam located on the
land-bridge……………………………………………………………
22
Figure 8:
Figure 13:
10
Figure 14:
Comparison of road-kill monitoring at Compton Road, pre-construction
and post-construction…………………………………………………
36
Figure 15:
Total underpass use of all species detected per survey between August
2005 – June 2007……………………………………………………..
39
Figure 16:
Sand track of an echidna (L) and dasyurid (R) using the underpasses..
40
Figure 17:
Rattus species photographed using wall shelf in underpass A in March
2007 using Faunatech Digicam 120 dual infrared camera…………….
43
Figure 18:
Weekly number of animal scats collected from all zones of the land-bridge
survey over 26 weeks (2005-2006) and a two weekly 'snapshot' in
June 2005 & 2007…………………………………………….……….. 44
Figure 19:
Weekly number of scats for each zone detected on the land-bridge
during the 26 week intensive survey………………………………….
44
Total scat numbers of the predominant animals using the land-bridge
(intensive survey)………………………………………………………
45
Number of species identified in respective locations 2006-2007 via
pitfall surveys………………………………………………………….
48
Figure 20:
Figure 21:
IX Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 1.
Context Roads are an indispensable component of contemporary society, providing both functional advantages
and social services. Yet the ecological cost they impose upon local biodiversity may be substantial.
Roads act as a physical barrier for animals, decreasing access to essential resources and mates by way
of habitat fragmentation (Clevenger & Waltho 2000; Bissonette 2002; Cain et al. 2003; Alexander et
al. 2005; Ramp et al. 2005b; BCC 2006; Ascensão & Mira 2007; van der Ree et al. in press).
Depending on their mobility and habitat range, not all species are equally affected by roads
(FitzGibbon & Jones 2006; Weston in press). Road width and traffic volume can further influence the
success of an individual crossing (Bond & Jones in review). According to FitzGibbon & Jones (2006),
some species are able to adapt to the presence of roads, whilst others decline, potentially resulting in
local extinction. In addition, a number of species are known to be attracted to roadways – to forage or
to thermoregulate - whilst others actively avoid them (Cain et al. 2003; Ramp et al. 2005b; Ascensão
& Mira 2007). Although the most obvious effect is through direct mortality, roads may also have more
subtle influences such as indirectly altering an individual’s behaviour (Clevenger & Waltho 2000;
Bissonette 2002; Alexander et al. 2005; BCC 2006; FitzGibbon & Jones 2006; van der Ree et al. in
press). Traffic volume and its indirect effects include noise, artificial lighting and pollution amongst
others (Oxley et al. 1974; Clevenger et al. 2001; FitzGibbon & Jones 2006; Ascensão & Mira 2007).
Failure to cross the road barrier subdivides animal populations, sometimes permanently (Goosem
2005a). Such impediments may result in inbreeding reducing genetic diversity, increased susceptibility
to local extinction by catastrophic events and reduced ability to recolonise suitable areas (FitzGibbon
& Jones 2006).
The road-barrier zone further includes the disconnecting, clearing and altering of habitat. Within
south-east Queensland, there is growing pressure from an increasing population and resulting
urbanisation on existing bushland remnants (Weston in press). Often these areas are the reservoirs of
much of the biodiversity of local and regional significance. The value of such areas of native bushland
is increasingly being recognised by the community. For example, 97% of 172 Brisbane households
surveyed believed bushland near their residence to be areas of importance for wildlife conservation
(FitzGibbon & Jones 2006). The potential impact of urbanization on biodiversity is of great concern to
the community, wildlife agencies, local government and environmental planners (Weston in press;
Bond & Jones in review).
Given this context, the implications of up-grading Compton Road, Kuraby in the southern suburbs of
Brisbane from two to four lanes lead to considerable interest in both the local community and within
Brisbane City Council. The key focus of this concern was on the fact that this major road dissected the
nationally significant Karawatha Forest. In response to community concern, Brisbane City Council
required that a variety of fauna-friendly structures be included in the overall design of the Compton
Road upgrade undertaken in 2004/05. The primary function of these structures was to: reduce levels of
road-kill; enhance connectivity; maintain genetic diversity and enable dispersal and re-colonisation
(Jones et al. 2004). Consequently, a long-term research and monitoring partnership between the
Brisbane City Council (BCC) and the Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies (CICS) at Griffith
University was established to gauge the effectiveness of the various structures.
The primary aim of fauna-friendly structures is to minimise the influence of roads on wildlife
populations. This includes reducing direct effects such as road-kill and enhancing the capacity for safe
crossings. It is critical for researchers to demonstrate the efficacy of structures as being cost-effective
and effective in order to ensure their inclusion in road designs. This can only be achieved by
combining the development and implementation of fauna-friendly structures with detailed follow-up
monitoring as to the extent of their effectiveness. Linking fragmented habitat to enable safe crossings
by animals increases the likelihood of maintaining biodiversity. For the purpose of this report
(following van der Ree et al. 2007), we define fauna-friendly structures as 'a purpose-built, physical
structure that increases the permeability of the road by assisting safe passage of wildlife over or under
it together with preventing collision with vehicles'. 1 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies There has been much debate as to the extent to which fauna-friendly structures are effective
(McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Ng et al. 2004). Here we assess the use of fauna-friendly structures by
fauna and report on their effectiveness in mitigating the impact of the road-barrier effect, in relation to
the Compton Road upgrade. The overall project has employed a range of qualitative and quantitative
tools to gather baseline data and to evaluate the process, impact and outcome of wildlife using the
structures. The collation of four years (2004-7) of data from a diverse range of studies undertaken on
Compton Road will be collated and assessed. A comprehensive literature review of relevant road
ecology studies conducted in Australia and internationally has been undertaken to allow a wideranging comparison to be made. If the structures used on Compton Road are found to be successful, it
will provide a benchmark for mitigating the effects of future roads and upgrades through significant
tracts of bushland.
This report is an assessment of the first four years of a long-term study by CICS for the Brisbane City
Council, covering the period February 2004-October 2007.
2 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 2.
Mitigation of Road Impacts
2.1
Fauna-friendly Crossing Structures
Roads are known to significantly impede animal movement (Rodriguez et al. 1996). In order to offset
the impact of roads and resulting population decline, wildlife need to rapidly reproduce or traverse
roads safely in order to access shelter, food and mates (Bissonette 2002; Alexander et al. 2005).
Crossing roads without risking interactions with traffic typically requires animals using structures such
as existing culverts or bridge infrastructure. Road design authorities in recent times have begun to
include purpose-built structures into new road designs with the intention of facilitating safe passage of
animals across roads. Initially exclusion fencing erected alongside roads produced varied success in
reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions (Clevenger et al. 2001; Bond & Jones in review). When used
solely, however, fences created an additional barrier for wildlife (Bennett 1991; Bond & Jones in
review). Not all wildlife species respond to or use fauna-friendly structures (Goosem 2005a). For
example, underpasses with small openings (width by height) are unlikely to be used by large animals
(Goosem 2005a; Yanes et al. 2005) but may be preferred by small species (Ng et al. 2004). To
successfully minimise the barrier effect of roads, including the presence of exclusion fencing, a variety
of structures were incorporated into the Compton Road design with the intention of increasing
connectivity for a wide variety of species.
Referred to collectively as fauna-friendly structures, these design options include culvert underpasses,
land or green-bridges and overpasses, glider poles and canopy bridges, many of which have been used
around the world (Clevenger & Waltho 2000; Bissonette 2002; Alexander et al. 2005). Numerous
terms referring to fauna-friendly structures have been introduced by workers in this field, leading to
inconsistent usage in the literature. Given the need to develop standardised terms of reference, van der
Ree et al. (2007) developed the following (Table 1) to describe the types of fauna-friendly structures
used and to minimise confusion, particularly with regard to the range of underpasses and overpasses.
Compared to numerous other countries (primarily in North America and Europe), the implementation
of fauna-friendly structures in Australia has been relatively recent (Goosem et al. 2001; van der Ree et
al. 2007; Bond & Jones in review). As a result, there is a paucity of reliable data demonstrating the
effectiveness of structures, although this is slowly changing (van der Ree et al. 2007). Interest in this
issue is, however, expanding dramatically as road authorities, local governments and community
groups seek wildlife movement solutions. Usefully, there is an extensive literature on the efficacy of
fauna-friendly structures elsewhere, allowing valuable comparisons to be undertaken.
Despite mitigation measures being used globally for many years, only recently have studies assessing
their effectiveness on species other than specific target taxa in adjoining habitats been undertaken
(Clevenger et al 2001; Cain 2003; Mata et al 2005). The majority of studies to date have been based
primarily in the Northern hemisphere, in areas of vastly differing habitat and levels of human impact
than Australian studies (Mata et al 2005; van der Ree et al. 2007). Nonetheless, general principles
obtained from such studies can be utilised and applied within an Australian context (van der Ree et al.
2007).
Several studies have shown that culverts can minimise the effects of roads on small, medium and large
sized mammals (Clevenger et al. 2001; Goosem et al. 2001). Culverts have been particularly
successful for black bears (Ursus americanus), cougars (Puma concolor), wolves (Canis lupus)
(Clevenger & Waltho 2005) and murid rodents (McDonald & St. Clair 2004) in Banff National Park,
Canada; bobcats (Lynx rufux), coyotes (Canis latrans) and racoons (Procyon lotor) in southern
California (Ng et al. 2004) and mice (Apodemus sylvaticus), shrews (Sorex spp.), rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus), wildcats (Felis sylvestris), and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in central Spain (Yanes et al. 1995).
Within Australia, culverts were most successful for sleepy lizards (Tiliqua rugosa), Gould's monitor
(Varanus gouldii) and southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in Perth, Western Australia
(Ecologia Environmental Consultants 1995 in van der Ree et. al 2007); mountain pygmy-possums
3 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 1: Definition of fauna-friendly structures used to minimise the effects of roads and reconnect
habitat, based upon van der Ree et al. (2007).
Structure
Description
OVERPASS*
Permits passage of animals above the road
Land bridge
Also known as green bridge, eco-duct or wildlife bridge. Typically a 30 – 70
metre wide bridge that spans across the road. The bridge has soil over it, and
is planted with vegetation and landscaped with habitat features (e.g. logs,
rocks, small water-bodies etc).
Overpass
A bridge above a major road/arterial, likely to allow human/stock access
across the road. Typically is of narrow design not hourglass shape. The
overpass road is commonly a minor road, possibly unsealed and one lane etc.
(small roads)
Canopy bridge
A rope or pole suspended above traffic, either from vertical poles or roadside
trees. Primarily established for arboreal and scansorial species.
Glider pole
Vertical poles positioned in the centre median, on the road verge, or traversing
the land bridge. They provide species that glide intermediary landing pads and
launch opportunities.
Local traffic
management
Traffic calming to reduce the speed or volume of traffic via signage, lighting,
crosswalks, chicanes, road closures etc.
UNDERPASS*
Permits passage of animals below roads
Culvert
Frequently square, rectangular or semi-circle in shape. Usually pre-cast
concrete cells or arches made of steel. They may be specifically built for
wildlife passage or drainage purpose, or a combination of both.
Tunnel
Also known as eco-pipe. Commonly round pipes of reasonably small diameter
(< 1.5 metres).
Bridge
A structure that raises traffic above surrounding land or maintains the grade of
the road. Often facilitating water underneath, movement of local traffic or
assist wildlife passage.
NONSTRUCTURAL
MITIGATION
Commonly incorporates more sensitive road design that assists 'natural'
permeability.
Corridor Plantings
Essentially strips of vegetation, comprising of similar species either side of
the road. Often crossing the road providing corridor movement for animals.
(Burramys parvus) in Victoria (Mansergh & Scotts 1989); bandicoots (Isoodon and Permales spp.)
and wallabies (Macropus spp.) in north-eastern New South Wales (Taylor & Goldingay 2003); lace
monitors (Varanus varius), yellow-footed antechinus (Antechinus flavipes), brown antechinus
(Antechinus stuartii) in New South Wales (AMBSC 2002a); long-nosed bandicoot (Perameles nasuta)
(Hunt et al. 1987) and common wombats (Vombatus ursinus)(AMBSC 1997) in southern New South
Wales; and red-legged pademelons (Thylogale stigmatica) and common brushtail possums
(Trichosurus vulpecular) in north-east Queensland (Goosem 2005b).
Whilst not purpose-built for wildlife, existing culverts and tunnels have been and are continually being
used by wildlife to safely traverse roads, providing they connect to suitable habitat (Yanes et al. 1995;
Rodriguez et al. 1997; Ng et al. 2004). A study of 42 non-wildlife underpasses in Spain found them
useful in reducing isolation in carnivores (Rodriguez et al. 1997). Studies in southern California on 15
4 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies potential fauna underpasses clearly demonstrated regular usage by large, mid-size and small mammals
(Ng et al. 2004). Monitoring in this instance consisted of using remotely triggered cameras and
gypsum powder strips at both entrance and centre of culverts to detect both visits and crossings (Ng et
al. 2004). Research has also linked proximity to vegetation cover as a determining factor in wildlife
use of culverts (Monamy & Fox 2000; Clevenger et al 2001; Goosem 2001; Cain et al 2003; Mata et
al 2005). Many smaller animals associate loss of vegetation cover with increased predation risk,
consequently affecting their behaviour towards habitat use (Clevenger et al 2001; Goosem 2001;
Spencer et al 2005; Ascensão & Mira 2007). Research has also shown that within communities, road
width, traffic volume and associated noise can significantly affect faunal use of culverts (Clevenger et
al. 2001). Furthermore, human activity can considerably affect wildlife use of culverts (Clevenger &
Waltho 2000; Ascensão & Mira 2007) and other fauna-friendly structures. The use of culverts in
response to roads and associated disturbance may also result from learned behaviour associated with
surviving individuals (Clevenger et al 2001); Ng et al. (2004) reported entire families of racoons to
commonly use passages for foraging.
In Banff National Park, Canada, McDonald & St. Clair (2004) physically translocated small mammals
across the Trans-Canada Highway and tracked their return journey with fluorescent dye. The
structures consisted of two wildlife overpasses (15 m wide and length 75-79 m) and 22 variously sized
fauna culverts and drainage culverts, bordered by a 2.4 m high wildlife exclusion fence designed for
large mammals. The study found that, on average, all wildlife returned successfully using the various
crossing structures particularly if vegetation was present (McDonald & St. Clair 2004). Highly
successful at using overpass crossing structures, also in Canada, were grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), elk
(Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus sp) (Clevenger & Waltho 2005). Similar results were obtained
in north-eastern New South Wales with larger mammals such as macropods, canids and large lizards
using overpasses (Hayes 2006). Canopy bridges designed for arboreal mammals (species that spend
the majority of time in trees), were found to be successful in northern Queensland for the lemuroid
ringtail possum (Hemibelideus lemuroides), Herbert River ringtail possum (Pseudochirulus
herbertensis) and green ringtail possum (Pseudochirops archeri) (Goosem 2005b). Similarly common
brushtail possums and squirrel gliders (Petaurus norfolcensis) readily used a canopy bridge in New
South Wales (Bax 2006). Additionally, a sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) was observed using a
glider pole to cross a three lane section of the Princess Highway, New South Wales (AMBSC 2001b).
In regards to the successful use of exclusion fencing, Clevenger et al. (2001b) found road-kill to be
reduced for ungulates by 80% and carnivores by 16% in Banff National Park, Canada. This is a small
but representative sample of studies conducted in various locations which support the usefulness of
fauna-friendly structures in facilitating safe passage of animals across roads.
2.2
The Upgrade of Compton Road
Compton Road is a major east-west arterial route extending from Beaudesert Road at Calamvale to
Logan Road at Slacks Creek, Brisbane. The upgrade occurred in a 1.3 km section between Acacia
Road and the Gateway Motorway, flanked by Karawatha Forest on the southern side and Kuraby
Bushland to the north (Figure 1) (Mack 2005). Both Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland are
significant remnants of habitat comprising part of the regional Greenbank Corridor, extending from
Redland Shire (east Brisbane) to Greenbank Military Reserve (south Brisbane) (Mack 2005). The area
also contains several remnant ecosystems listed as endangered or of concern (Goosem 2005a).
In 2004/05, Compton Road was upgraded from two lanes to four with a central median strip, right turn
pockets and a wide-sealed road shoulder for cyclists (Mack 2005). The recommended travel speed is a
maximum of 80 km per hr. The original two-lane road posed a challenge to many animals crossing
between both Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland (Mack 2005) and Karawatha Protection Society
have documented large numbers of a wide variety of animals being killed, with wallabies and possums
being particularly vulnerable (KPS pers. comm.). While accepting that the up-grade was necessary,
BCC also appreciated that the increased impermeability of the upgraded road would be likely to
significantly affect most terrestrial species attempting to cross the road, especially in sections of the
5 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies road which are almost six lanes in width (Mack 2005). To ameliorate this barrier effect, BCC
collaborated with researchers and local community environmental groups to design and incorporate a
range of fauna-friendly structures to facilitate wildlife movement between habitats (BCC 2006; Mack
2005). Such alliances are currently being incorporated as relevant factors for wildlife management
elsewhere (Weston in press).
Collectively known as the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array, this integrated series of structures is
distinctive as it contains the highest diversity of fauna-friendly structures used in any given location
(FitzGibbon & Jones 2006; Bond & Jones in review). These include exclusion fencing, underpasses,
wet culverts adjoining an artificial pond, a land-bridge across the upgraded road; arboreal canopy
bridges and a series of 'glider poles' distributed across the land-bridge (Bond & Jones in review)
(Figure 1). The idea behind using such a diversity of fauna-friendly structures was to ameliorate the
road-barrier affect of the ungraded road and to less impact than the original two lanes, and to cater for
the variety of wildlife species that inhabits both forest remnants.
6 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Figure 1: Aerial view of Compton Road, amid Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands, south
Brisbane. Fauna-crossing structures are marked and approximately located as indicated on the map.
(Image: Buchanan 2005).
7 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 2.3
Description of the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array
The design of fauna-friendly crossing structures is largely site-specific, being strongly influenced by
local infrastructure requirements and the topography of the location (van der Ree et al. 2007). Ideally,
fauna-crossing structures should be located where regular crossing and/or migration pathways are
identified as adjoining habitat of high conservation significance for rare and endangered species
(Buchanan 2005). The locations for fauna-crossing structures at Compton Road were determined by
three factors. Principally, placement of the land-bridge was based upon topography coinciding with
suitable adjoining habitat (Mack 2005). The arboreal crossing structures were influenced by tree
suitability and nearness of the canopy to either side (Mack 2005). The locations of both the dry and
wet underpasses were predetermined by natural drainage lines and subsequent position of culverts
(Mack 2005).
The brief specifications and descriptions provide here are largely derived from Mack (2005) and Bond
& Jones (in review). Detailed information can be obtained from Transport and Traffic Branch, Urban
Management Division, Brisbane City Council.
2.3.1
Exclusion Fencing
Evidence of exclusion fencing successfully minimising road-kill as well as funnelling mammals onto
fauna-crossing structures has been documented in numerous studies (Taylor & Goldingay 2003). At
Compton Road the exclusion fencing (Figure 2) runs the length of Karawatha Forest and Kuraby
Bushland on both sides of Compton Road and continues across the land-bridge. This purpose-designed
structure is 2.48 m high and constructed of cyclone rubberised metal mesh extending 50 mm into the
ground with hardwearing vertical and horizontal tubular supports. UV stabilised PVC sheeting 10 mm
thick and 480 mm high is attached to the base of the fence, extending to just below ground level acts
as a barrier for small mammals, lizards, amphibians and snakes attempting to access the roadway
(Goosem 2005a). Spaced every 50 m on the road side of the fence are timber escape poles, positioned
to enable small terrestrial species to climb back into the forest should they enter the roadway. A single
metal sheet strip 590 mm wide was attached to the fence 1.38 m above the ground on the forest side to
prevent animals attempting to climb the fence. The exclusion fence requires relatively little
maintenance aside from the necessity of regular surveillance to ensure that any breaches through
which animals could pass are reported immediately.
Figure 2: Wildlife exclusion fencing to deter animals climbing over and burrowing under
(Photo: Darryl Jones).
8 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies In summary, the exclusion fencing was designed to meet the following criteria (Mack 2005):
•
Stop wildlife entering the roadway;
•
Permit wildlife entry to the forest from the roadway;
•
Be well-designed for a variety of wildlife, from wallabies and koalas to dunnarts and small
lizards;
•
Inhibit 4WD and trail bike entry into the forest;
•
Be of sufficient strength to oppose illegal entry;
•
'Funnel' wildlife towards purpose-built structures; and
•
Be of low maintenance requirement.
2.3.2
Land-bridge
Overpasses such as land-bridges can facilitate movement of both terrestrial wildlife and arboreal
species (Buchanan 2005). The Compton Road land-bridge is of hourglass shape, with two separate
pre-cast concrete arches, and has an arc length of 70 m, a base width of 20 m and a mid-width of 10 m
(Figure 3). The approaching slope of the batters to the structure from the forest is 1 in 3. The height of
the land-bridge above the road is 8 m, with a 5.4 m clearance in the tunnel. Soil and mulch cover the
land-bridge supporting a range of endemic plantings including grasses, shrubs and trees encompassing
approximately 70% of the structure (Figures 4 & 5). This serves as cover and refuge as well as
foraging resources for fauna crossing or living on the structure (Buchanan 2005). The remaining 30%
is relatively exposed and devoid of vegetation which suits wildlife that prefer open environments with
unhindered views. The rapid establishment of vegetation now present was due to well-planned drip
irrigation employed in the early stages of plant growth; this system has since been removed.
Figure 3: Hourglass shaped land-bridge spanning Compton Road, south Brisbane.
(Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
9 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Figure 4: Initial planting of vegetation across the land-bridge, 2005. (Photo: Darryl Jones)
Figure 5: Established native vegetation and hollow logs on the land-bridge, 2007.
(Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
2.3.3
Glider Poles
Spanning the entire length of the land-bridge are eight, 8 m high glider poles (Figure 6). The poles are
bare treated timber and have two cross beams at approximately 6 m and 7 m above the ground. These
were included primarily to serve as potential landing pads and launch opportunities for gliders moving
from the respective sides of forest.
10 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Figure 6: Glider poles traverse the land-bridge. (Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
2.3.4
Canopy Bridges
There are three canopy rope-bridges which each link to a centre pole in the median strip. These are
constructed of durable sailing rope and resemble a ‘ladder’ with three vertical supports. The canopy
bridges are linked into the adjoining canopy via several ropes leading from the top of the poles
adjacent to the forest (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Close-up of one of three canopy bridges constructed of rope for arboreal mammals.
(Photo: Matthew Davis)
11 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 2.3.5
Wet Culverts
The structures also include three wet culverts. Primarily included for storm water management, these
large culverts would also facilitate the movement of amphibian species from existing waterbodies on
either side of the road. At the entrance of the culverts on the Kuraby Bushland a vegetated artificial
pond has been established (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Three wet culverts of reinforced concrete adjoining the rehabilitated lagoon.
(Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
2.3.6
Fauna Underpasses
Finally and of particular significance to the present report are two purpose-designed faunal
underpasses. These are specially designed box culverts comprised of reinforced concrete 2.4 m high,
2.5 m wide and 48 m long. Internally the underpasses have four levels: a lower cement level for
possible water flow; a rough finished raised cement level with rock ‘furniture’ providing small-scale
shelters; and two raised wooden ledge/shelf for smaller species, one attached to the concrete wall and
the other supported by 1 m high poles (Figure 9). The shelves have ‘runners’ connecting from the
ground level and both continue for the entire length of the culvert; the suspended shelf is made of a
rough half-log with bark retained while the wall-attached shelf is constructed of flat board. The width
of the lower cement level is 0.9 m. The raised cement level is somewhat wider at 1.6 m, resting 0.4 m
above the ground. Ceiling height from this point is approximately 2 m.
12 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Figure 9: Purpose built dry culvert underpass A with ‘wildlife furniture’. (Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
Although structurally identical, the two faunal underpasses were identified as ‘A and B’ for the
purpose of this report: A was located to the east of the Array, and was immediately adjacent to the wet
culvert, while B was to the west. Underpasses A and B differed only by a large pipe crossing through
the middle of A and the presence of a skylight in the ceiling nearby. The skylight permits some light
into the culvert, whilst the pipe initially impeded animals using the shelf (Bond & Jones in review).
However, this has since been rectified by the inclusion of a ramp over the pipe. On the Karawatha
Forest entrance of underpass A, low shrubby vegetation occurs nearby whilst underpass B, on the
western side, retains vegetation at both entrances. A cement apron connects the entrance of underpass
A on the Kuraby side to that of the artificial pond, though dense reed-banks and other aquatic
vegetation have proliferated since initial construction.
13 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 3.
The Compton Road Wildlife Movement Solutions Project
In 2004, Brisbane City Council established the Compton Road Wildlife Movement Solutions Project
(the ‘Compton Road Project’), a collaborative research partnership established between Brisbane City
Council and Griffith University’s Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies (CICS). This project
was developed to critically assess the effectiveness of the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array.
It was appreciated that a variety of survey and monitoring methods would be required to assess
populations and presence each of the main faunal groups present (Garden et al. 2007). The Compton
Road Project has two key long-term monitoring programs: (i) to assess populations of grounddwelling mammals, arboreal mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians living in the bushland
surrounding the site; and (ii) to assess faunal use of the structures themselves. These programs have
employed the following techniques: a pre-construction road-kill survey, and ongoing (postconstruction) studies such as sand tracking, scat collecting, mammal trapping, pitfall trapping,
spotlighting, radio-tracking, bird surveying and specialised camera surveillance. Here we describe
these techniques. The findings associated with these techniques are presented below in sections 5 and
6.
3.1
Methods of Monitoring
As described above, several vertebrate species groups where identified as being of particular interest
to this project. These were: ground-dwelling mammals; arboreal mammals; birds; and reptiles and
amphibians. Although the fundamental focus of the project may be orientated toward the use of faunafriendly structures by local species, it is also essential that detailed information on the populations or
presence of these species groups living within the adjacent bushland is also available. For this reason,
the project was undertaken as two independent studies: determining the fauna species present in the
bushland; and evaluating fauna use of the structures. The techniques employed in these studies is
described here.
3.1.1.
Species Present in the Bushland
3.1.1.1. Mammal Trapping
Ground-dwelling mammals living in the bushland adjacent to Compton Road were surveyed 12 times
between July 2004 and June 2007 using standard baited traps. A mixed grid of Elliott and Sherman
traps were established and employed over three consecutive nights during each trapping session. The
trapping grid consisted of two traps were spaced every 10 m for a total length of 100 m, either side of
this transect point in both Karawatha and Kuraby Bushland. At the end of each trapping line, a larger
wire (‘bandicoot’) cage trap was set. Traps were placed during the late afternoon and checked from
first light the following morning; all traps were examined within 40 minutes of dawn. Bait inside the
cage traps consisted of a portion of apple and the standard mixture of rolled-oats, honey and peanut
butter. Animals caught were placed into cloth bags for identification, sexing and weighing. The
examination and marking took no longer than two minutes per animal. Following examination,
animals were released at the exact point of capture. Table 2 shows trapping rates for each month. The
variation in the number of trapping nights related to the purchase of additional Sherman traps.
Trapping success rates were adjusted to account for the differing numbers of traps used.
14 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 2: Ground-dwelling mammal trapping timing, effort and trapping rate for both Kuraby
Bushland and Karawatha Forest.
Date
July 04
October 04
February 05
June 05
October 05
February 06
July 06
November 06
December 06
March 07
May 07
June 07
Trap nights
150
150
150
150
275
275
312
372
312
312
312
312
Total number caught
2
11
18
25
23
11
7
38
11
10
24
23
Trapping rate
0.013
0.073
0.12
0.167
0.084
0.04
0.022
0.102
0.035
0.032
0.077
0.074
Two periods of glider trapping were undertaken by Brendan Taylor and Ross Goldingay within both
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland along 36 established 200 m transects (Taylor & Goldingay
2007). Trap nights occurred 14th to 17th and 21st to 24th November 2006 and 19th to 22nd and 27th to 30th
June 2007 to encompass all transects. These transects were used for spotlighting surveys (see below),
and had three traps positioned along each transect in Karawatha and two for the 100 m transect in
Kuraby Bushland. Elliott (type B) traps were mounted on brackets approximately 4 m above the
ground on selected trees and baited with the standard mixture. To attract gliders a mixture of water and
honey was sprayed along the tree trunk leading to the baited trap. Traps were inspected early each
morning. Animals caught were weighed and examined for teeth condition, breeding status and glider
membrane colour. Gliders were individually ear tagged in both ears with reflective tape to illuminate
under spotlight and exclusively numbered. For genetic analysis, small tissue samples were collected
from one ear of selected squirrel gliders and forwarded to Dr Andrea Taylor of Monash University,
Melbourne (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). In addition, experimental ‘catch and release’ studies of
squirrel gliders were undertaken to determine whether animals returned to their home range using the
fauna crossing structures; radio-tagged gliders were liberated at the base of glider poles as well being
translocated from one side of forest to another and their movement followed by detailed telemetry.
3.1.1.2. Spotlighting Surveys
Spotlighting was conducted nearby the structures and in adjoining Karawatha Forest and Kuraby
Bushland to detect nocturnal arboreal mammals. Some surveys were conducted with two spotlights
along the same designated track each time and on average took between 1.5 – 2 hours. These transects
were 36 m x 200 m within the respective forest and bushland. Other surveys conducted by Taylor &
Goldingay (2007) comprised of ten transects situated across Kuraby Bushland, spaced approximately
200 m apart. Eight comprised 200 m length whilst the remaining two were 100 m, due to the small
available patch size (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). Within Karawatha Forest, 26 spotlight transects 200
m long, were divided into 10 forest vegetation types, based on Kordas et al. (1993) (Appendix A;
Vegetation classification). Transect locations were allocated according to their extent i.e. a larger
distribution of specific vegetation class received more transects than small forest patches (Taylor &
Goldingay 2007). All spotlighting transect surveys were undertaken at a relatively slow pace
(approximately 500m/hr or 25 minutes per transect) by one or two observers using a 50 w spotlight,
(Taylor & Goldingay 2007). In either forest or bushland, one transect was located adjacent to the
fauna-friendly crossing structures parallel to and 100 m from Compton Road (Taylor & Goldingay
2007). Transects were distributed fairly evenly throughout the two sites. Animals were detected and
identified using eye-shine, vocalisations and/or sightings of movement.
15 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 3.1.1.3. Bird Surveying
Birds living in the bushland were surveyed using standard observation transect and point-count
techniques (Bibby et al. 2000). Pre-construction bird surveys were conducted over 16 weeks (February
to June 2004). Following the completion of construction, bird surveys recommenced and have been
undertaken monthly since May 2005. Bird surveys were carried out on both sides of the road in
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland, along five transects within 500 m of Compton Road. Two
transects were located 20 – 40 m from the road edge with the remaining transects spaced 100 m from
each other. Transects were of fixed-width measuring, 100 m x 15 m length and were followed
immediately by a 10 minute point-count survey.
3.1.1.4. Pitfall Trapping
To determine reptilian and amphibian species residing in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland,
Steve Wilson of the Queensland Museum undertook timed searches and pitfall trapping surveys
over18 months beginning in February 2006. These surveys were undertaken over two days and nights,
every two months. Four semi-permanent pitfall trap buckets were established in Karawatha and two in
Kuraby (Figure 10) (S. Wilson pers. comm.). Drift fencing 15 m in length, which facilitates the
funnelling of animals into the pitfall bucket, were employed during each survey. When not in use, the
drift fencing is removed and pitfall trap buckets are sealed to prevent animals falling in. In conjunction
with pitfall trapping, timed sweeping searches of 15 minute blocks were undertaken in areas of equalsize to the land-bridge in adjacent Kuraby Bushland and Karawatha Forest to within 20 m of the creek
(S. Wilson pers. comm.). Sweeping surveys are conducted through leaf litter, logs and bushes in order
to detect the more cryptic species.
Figure 10: Drift fencing leading to a pitfall trap in the ground. (Photo: Steve Wilson)
3.1.2.
Use of Fauna-friendly Structures
3.1.2.1. Sand Tracking in Underpasses
Starting six months after the completion of construction of both of the underpasses, an intensive sand
track monitoring program was carried out (twice weekly) for 26 weeks from 9th August 2005 to 6th
February 2006 (Bond & Jones 2006, in review). The aim of these surveys was to establish whether
animals were using the culverts, to identify the species involved and to determine the frequency of use.
16 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Following this intensive six-month period, monthly surveys were undertaken from June 2006 to June
2007, following a break between March and June 2006 (Bond & Jones in review). In total this equates
to 29 months of sand track monitoring; however, unforeseen weather and/or human disturbance events
during the intensive period, reduced the number of usable data from 26 to 19 weeks of data collection.
Sand tracking is a passive method with no disturbance or inducement (such as baiting) imposed upon
fauna. It is important to appreciate that sand tracking does not provide absolute numbers and normally
is unable to distinguish between individuals. Nonetheless, it does provide an index of relative
abundance and crossing rates (Goosem 2005a).
Strips of medium-grain size sand were laid inside both underpasses at both ends, approximately 1-2 m
from the entrance to minimize interference from weather conditions. Strips of sand were
approximately 10-20 mm thick, 1 m wide, and covered the entire width of the raised section of
respective culvert (Bond & Jones 2006). The length of the track-bed was deemed suitable in catering
for expected species' crossing and their gait size (Jones et al. 2004). Smaller sand strips were also
established on the raised shelf: these were 5 mm thick and 0.5 m wide (Bond & Jones 2006). The
lower levels of culverts were unsuitable for sand strips as they often retained water. Sand was
smoothed using both the flat part of a hand spade and the back of a nail rake as recommended by
Taylor & Goldingay (2003). This was conducted on the morning of the monitoring day and checked
for footprints of animal movements early the following morning (Bond & Jones in review). Where
present, the respective culvert, individual sand strip, number and direction of tracks (spoor) and
identified species were recorded. During site visits, other signs of animals such as scats were also
noted and collected. Determination of full crossings through the culverts were assumed when the same
identified species with an identical size print was observed to have moved in the one direction at both
ends on the same date (Bond & Jones in review).
Tracks were identified using information and illustrations in Triggs (2004), Morrison (1981) and
measurements provided in Menkhorst & Knight (2004). Tracks were assigned to one of 17 categories
or as an ‘unknown’. Categories consisted: small mammal 1, small mammal 2, small mammal 3, house
mouse, dasyurid, bandicoot, possum, wallaby, echidna, cat, dog, hare, agamid lizard, large skink,
snake, small bird and other bird (Table 3). The three small mammal categories were based on relative
size of the spoor, with ‘1’ for smallest and ‘3’ for largest. Where explicit identification could not be
made as to species (i.e. small mammal 1-3) all tracks of that grouping were pooled (as ‘rodents’).
Based on trapping experience and accumulated information from previous research, Bond & Jones (in
review) developed a list of the most likely species known to occur in Karawatha Forest (Table 3).
Classifications of these species in respect to groupings were based upon foot shape, gait and size
(Bond & Jones in review).
17 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 3: Mammal taxa categories associated with identified scat in sand plots with most likely
species and other possible species known to occur locally. (*introduced species)
Mammal taxa
category
Most likely species
Small mammal 1
Bush rat Rattus fuscipes
*Black rat Rattus rattus
Small mammal 2
Bush rat
*Black rat
Small mammal 3
House mouse
Dasyurid
Bandicoot
Possum
Wallaby
Echidna
Cat
Dog
Hare
Bush rat
*Black rat
*House mouse Mus musculus
Common dunnart Sminthopsis
murina
Northern brown bandicoot
Isoodon macrourus
Common brushtail possum
Trichosurus vulpecula
Red-necked wallaby
Macropus rufogriseus
Short-beaked echidna
Tachyglossus aculeatus
*Domestic or feral cat Felis
catus
*Domestic or feral dog Canis
familiaris
Brown hare Lepus capensis
Other possible species
Swamp rat Rattus lutreolus
Yellow-footed antechinus Antechinus
flavipes
Swamp rat
Yellow-footed antechinus
Swamp rat
Common planigale Planigale maculata
Yellow-footed antechinus
Common ringtail possum Pseudocheius
peregrinus
*Red fox Vulpes vulpes
-
3.1.2.2. Scat Collecting on the Land-bridge
In order to ascertain which species were using the land-bridge, scat collections were undertaken for 26
consecutive weeks from 10th August 2005 to 8th February 2006. Additional 'snap-shot' samples were
conducted over two weeks during June 2007. This method of monitoring is also of a passive nature
with no disturbance imposed on fauna. To enable a thorough examination of the distribution of scats,
the land-bridge was divided into three zones (Figure 3): zone one (the southern bridge slope facing
Karawatha Forest); zone two (the centre and slightly concave topmost section of the bridge); and zone
three (the northern bridge slope facing Kuraby Bushlands). A sampling period of 15 minutes for zones
one and three were undertaken by walking crossways through the zone continuously searching either
side of the route. Zone two is the narrowest of the three and was searched identically within ten
minutes (Bond & Jones 2006, in review).
All scats detected were collected and stored in separate zip-lock bags, labelled by zone and date, and
later identified using Triggs (2004), Morrison (1981) and previously collected scat samples from
known species occurring in Karawatha Forest. A log of scat abundance and identification has been
kept for each zone. Identification of dog, feral cat and fox scats proved problematic in terms of reliable
discrimination, and thus were pooled into a single category, 'feral carnivore' (Bond & Jones in review).
Only species producing detectable scats were included in the assessment. Critically, however, while
18 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies scat collecting can reliably reveal the species involved, without explicit information on scatproduction rates for individual species, it cannot indicate the number of individuals present.
3.1.2.3. Pitfall Trapping on the Land-bridge
To assess species of reptiles and amphibians present on the land-bridge for populations, pitfall
trapping and deliberate reptile searches was undertaken by Steve Wilson of the Queensland Museum.
The duration and methods of surveys and searches were conducted as described in section 3.1.1.4. A
single semi-permanent pitfall trap line was established on the summit of the land-bridge. Timed
searches were constrained on the land-bridge to counting active reptiles so as to avoid recurrent
disturbance of habitat (BCC 2007).
3.1.2.4. Hair-tube Sampling on the Glider Poles and Canopy Bridge
Hair-tube studies were conducted by Brendan Taylor and Ross Goldingay (2007) specifically to detect
the presence of glider species in the bushland and on the crossing structures. The hair-tubes were PVC
piping 100 mm x 40 mm, with holes bored through the centre and double-sided tape affixed to either
end (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). The inner sleeve, inserted in the hair-tube, was of plastic or metal
piping (40 mm x 20 mm) with an opening in the middle filled with a bait mixture of peanut butter,
honey and oats. The tube/sleeve was nailed to the tree or pole approximately 4 m above the ground
and further sprayed with a blend of water and diluted honey to attract squirrel or sugar gliders (Taylor
& Goldingay 2007). Detected hairs left within the tubes following investigation by an animal may
reveal the presence of the species at the site of the hair-tube but can only infer its likely use of the
crossing structures and not abundance.
Fifty hair-tubes were installed and monitored from 25th September 2006 to 9th October 2006 in the
following numbers: one hair-tube per glider pole (8); poles supporting the canopy bridges (6); trees
connecting ropes to the canopy bridges (24); and on three trap-point trees within four transects (12) in
both Karawatha and Kuraby bushlands (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). Four further hair-tube survey
sessions were also undertaken on the glider poles for approximately 2 – 3 weeks in
September/December 2006, June 2007 and August 2007 (B. Taylor pers. comm.). All hair-tubes
collected were sealed and marked in separate plastic bags and forwarded to Hans Brunner (a
mammalian hair identification consultant) for respective identification (Taylor & Goldingay 2007).
3.1.2.5. Radio Tracking
Radio tracking of tagged squirrel gliders was conducted by Brendan Taylor and Ross Goldingay
(2007) on and near some of the crossing structures. Squirrel gliders were captured and tagged in order
to track the spatial association of their home range marked on a reference grid. Tracking was
undertaken over three months in 2007, after which the gliders were re-caught and the collar removed.
Radio tracking can reveal the probability of gliders using the fauna crossing structures to safely
traverse the roadway. However, unless direct monitoring is undertaken at the same time, and despite
wildlife exclusion fencing prohibiting access to the road, it cannot be positively stated that use of
crossing structure has occurred (Goosem 2005a).
3.1.2.6. Infrared Cameras
Eight Faunatech Digicam 120 infrared triggered cameras were installed in late 2006 and are encased in
weatherproof and vandal deterrent housing (Figures 11 & 12). Installation of infrared cameras on the
land-bridge, underpasses and rope bridges will provide further information and photographic evidence
on the types of species crossing and the frequency of their visits. Although the cameras had been
installed for over a year, a series of serious technical issues prevented their use in regular data
collection. However, both the underpass and land-bridge systems were deemed operation by late 2007
and some indicative findings can be reported here.
19 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Four camera units, two in underpass A and two in underpass B have modified dual sensors for passive
infrared and microwave sensors triggered by treadles on the raised shelf (Figure 11). They are
positioned within 2-3 m of each culvert entrance and are currently mounted with stainless-steel
brackets that sit perpendicular to the culvert ceiling, secured via two U-shackled padlocks (M. Davis
pers. comm.). Initially cameras were mounted directly to the culvert ceiling, but this positioning was
found to be insufficient in terms of the field of vision and life of the batteries (M. Davis pers. comm.).
After removal and alteration, the brackets now allow 180° movement and are easier to remount. The
cameras monitor and capture images from the raised cement level, the suspended running shelf and the
raised wooden ledge. The lower drainage level is not in the field of camera vision. Individual camera
units are powered by a battery pack of 10 rechargeable nickel-metal hydride AA batteries. Battery
packs last a maximum of four nights. As a result, batteries need to be recharged weekly and it is
therefore recommended that these batteries should be replaced periodically.
Also within the culverts are microwave sensors that detect motion and are triggered when an animal
enters the field zone and crosses the treadle. Effectively this enables capturing evidence of smaller
species using the underpasses. The microwave sensors are tuned to a specific frequency for each
camera. Cameras are numbered FF001, FF002, FF003 and FF004. Incorrect coordination between
treadles and sensors to the respective cameras lead to the triggering camera facing elsewhere and
animals being missed. Each camera unit must be positioned adjacent to the corresponding number
written on the transmitter situated below the treadle. The bracketing of the cameras and replacement
has since corrected this issue.
Passive sensors are able to detect changes in ambient background temperature, particularly those of
moving warm-blooded animals (Goosem 2005a). They ideally work well within semi-enclosed areas
such as culverts that have not much background interference. It has been reported that passive sensors
have difficulty detecting cold-blooded reptiles and very slow moving animals (Goosem 2005a).
Should these taxa enter the underpass but avoid the treadle on the raised ledge, the camera may not
detect their presence. M. Davis (pers. comm.) advises that sensitivity of the cameras should be set to
three-quarters of the maximum on the dial of the camera. This should ensure that images of small
mammals and lizards are captured. If sensitivity is set too high, however, the camera may be triggered
by insects and even water droplets (M. Davis pers. comm.). Furthermore, setting the camera to 'fast
response' assists the digital capture of small, fast moving animals such as rodents.
Figure 11: Faunatech Digicam infrared camera located in both A and B culverts.
(Photo: Brett Taylor)
20 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies On the land-bridge, two Faunatech Digicam 120 cameras with dual sensor modification for passive
infrared sensors and active infrared beam sensors were installed (Figure 12). These are mounted on
raised poles either side of the land-bridge against the exclusion fencing (Figure 13). The security box
below each camera unit houses one 12V sealed lead-acid battery. These batteries must be recharged
fortnightly.
The active infrared beam sensor is triggered when an animal interrupts the beam and the receiver
sends a signal to activate the camera (Goosem 2005a). Sensitivity should be calibrated to threequarters of the maximum on the camera dial and set to 'fast response' in order to detect and record
small, fast moving animals (M. Davis pers. comm.). The area within the sensor beam range must be
clear of debris (Goosem 2005a), as it appears these obstacles such as plants constantly trigger the
sensor. Therefore vegetation around the sensors and within the cameras' field of vision should be
pruned back and kept to a minimum to sustain a clear field of vision (M. Davis pers. comm.). Sensors
facing the centre of the land-bridge must be adjusted to maintain the beam's sensor range and the
sensor housing needs regular tightening to ensure no movement occurs and breaks the beam (M. Davis
pers. comm.). Sensors also require frequent checking and cleaning of spiders and other insects that
favour building nests in the piping, housing the sensors which results in blockages (M. Davis pers.
comm.). Active infrared sensors work well despite the variable temperature changes and have an
accurate detection area for small, large or cold-bodied animals (Goosem 2005a). The passive infrared
sensors work in the way described above for the culverts. However, those used on the land-bridge may
be affected by background 'noise' of environmental factors and have a preset threshold that deters false
triggers (Goosem 2005a). Despite the openness of the land-bridge the camera can still detect changes
to local ambient temperatures, as body temperatures of medium to large sized animals are rarely
consistent across the whole body (Goosem 2005a).
Figure 12: Faunatech Digicam infrared camera with sensor beam located on the land-bridge.
(Photo: Lee-Anne Veage)
21 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Karawatha
Kuraby
Figure 13: Schematic of the infra-red camera and sensor beam located on the land-bridge.
(Matt Davis)
The final two Faunatech Digicam 120 cameras with active infrared beams are mounted atop the
support poles of two canopy bridges. The security box which houses the 12V sealed lead-acid battery
and USB port for downloading data is located on the pole closer to the ground. For security purposes
and to deter vandalism and theft, a small ladder is required to access the security box. A laptop
computer and CAT5 USB cable is needed to download images from the cameras. To date no images
have been recovered from these cameras. When installed it was believed that the solar panels mounted
on the poles actively recharged the batteries (Goosem 2005a). This assumption was incorrect when we
discovered the batteries to be fully discharged and degraded from lack of charge (M. Davis pers.
comm.). We have since learned the solar panels in question provide minimal charge through to the
batteries in order to maintain battery health in the situation of full discharge. New batteries have
subsequently been installed and require recharging fortnightly. M. Davis (pers. comm.) recently
advised that despite the installation of new batteries, the cameras on the canopy bridge are still not
functional. It is hypothesised that the sensors may have, over time, become blocked by spiders or
insects building nests. This may explain why the camera fails to turn on, as the sensors may be
blocked (Bax 2006). This issue is currently being investigated.
Infrared cameras can supply invaluable visual information, however passive monitoring methods such
as sand tracking, scat collecting and spot-lighting continue to be a reliable back-up where electronic
failure occurs (Goosem 2005a).
3.1.3. Road-kill Surveys
Jones et al. (2004) conducted pre-construction surveys up until the start of construction, by foot survey
along both sides of the 1.3 km road. Surveys were undertaken over 16 weeks, between February and
June 2004, twice weekly over consecutive days. All surveys were conducted in the morning between
the hours 8.30 am – 11.00 am (Jones et al. 2004). Each road-kill was given an individual number to
correspond with location so as to avoid duplication, with presence and absence noted for the
consecutive survey. No specimens were collected.
Immediately following construction, weekly road-kill surveys recommenced February 2005 and
continued until June 2007. This equates to a total of 29 months consistent data. Furthermore, due to
the regular presence of researchers on-site, subsequent to construction, large mammal road-kill was
22 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies recorded when observed (Buchanan 2005). Health and safety concerns of Brisbane City Council
recommended observations to be undertaken from a vehicle travelling at the then speed limit
(70km/hr) along the road in both directions (Bond & Jones in review). All vertebrate road-kill
observed within the study area were recorded to species level where possible. All mammals, birds and
reptiles larger than a blue-tongued skink (Tiliqua scincoides) were included (Bond & Jones in review).
Individual road-kill location details were compared per survey week to ensure no duplication occurred.
Incidental road-kill outside the study area was also noted. No specimens were collected.
23 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 4.
Biodiversity of Surrounding Environments
4.1
Conservation Context of Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland
Compton Road is located approximately 16 km south of the Brisbane CBD. Karawatha Forest, to the
southern side of Compton Road, is one of the largest areas of remnant bushland within the city
boundaries. Originally 642.5 ha, large amounts of land were acquired under the city's Bushland Levy,
and now consists of 950 ha of important habitat and natural area (Stewart 1997; Mack 2005).
Vegetation comprises of dry eucalypt forest, open woodland and heath understorey with a system of
lagoons (Kordas et al. 1993; Bond & Jones in review). Rich in diversity the forest contains 324 plant
species and sustains a plethora of native bird and mammal species (Kehl and Corben 1991; Kordas et
al. 1993, Bond & Jones in review). Kuraby Bushland, located on the northern side of Compton Road,
is somewhat smaller at 150 ha but an extension of the same vegetation structure that occurs in
Karawatha and contains many of the same wildlife species (Mack 2005). Both tracts of forest harbour
many species of flora and fauna now listed as rare or endangered (Mack 2005).
Karawatha Forest was listed on the Australian Heritage Commission's Register of the National Estate
on 24 June 1997 due to the variety of plant communities it supports, the occurrence of rare and
restricted plant species, and the presence of rare fauna (Mack 2005). Furthermore, in November 2002
the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared Karawatha Forest and Kuraby
Bushland to be areas of bioregional/state-wide importance due to the significant habitat and
biodiversity they contain (Mack 2005). Karawatha Forest is highlighted on Brisbane City Council's
CityPlan Strategic Plan to be of key conservation and recreation Green Space, due to its high
biodiversity, wildlife corridor and natural scenic significance (Mack 2005).
From a survey conducted by FitzGibbon & Jones (2006) and others, the following species have been
identified as becoming locally extinct in 38 fragmented habitat sites within Brisbane since European
settlement: satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus); sacred kingfisher (Todiramphus sanctus);
frilled lizard (Chlamydosaurus kingii); lace monitor; red-bellied black snake (Pseudechis
porphyriacus); short-beaked echidna; swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour); northern brown bandicoot;
koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) and common dunnart. These local extinctions “represent range
reductions…and highlight the continuing decline of wildlife in Brisbane’ (FitzGibbon & Jones 2006:
238). Significantly, almost all of the species listed as locally extinct in the sites surveyed by
FitzGibbon & Jones (2006) have been observed within Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland
(Tables 4 and 6).
A number of species of plant and animals currently living within Karawatha and Kuraby require steps
to ensure their continued conservation. Maintaining habitat and incorporating fauna-friendly structures
represent important steps towards such preservation. Animals which inhabit and/or forage in both
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland are listed below, along with their conservation status as
provided by the BCC (2007), and Queensland Government’s EPA (2007). Definitions of species'
status as set by the Queensland Museum (2007) were as follows: endangered species are 'in immediate
danger of becoming extinct'; vulnerable may 'soon become endangered if threats to its survival
continue'; and rare species 'occur in small numbers but are not presently endangered or vulnerable, but
are at risk'. Within Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands, a number of species are locally
significant: they are at risk of extinction within Brisbane City if future management and land use does
not sufficiently accommodate their ecological requirements (BCC 2004).
24 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 4.2
Species Present in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland 2004-7
4.2.1
Birds
Based upon systematic bird surveys (see 3.1.1.3 for details of methods) and opportunistic observations
conducted throughout 2004-7, a total of 95 species of birds were identified in Karawatha Forest and
Kuraby Bushland (Table 4). (Refer to Appendix B for detailed information on numbers, the location
and results from respective methods.) Of particular interest are locally significant species in decline,
many of which are key habitat indicators associated with significant vegetation communities. These
include the brown goshawk and grey goshawk which are listed as rare with restricted distribution;
non-migratory species such as the vulnerable powerful owl, white-throated treecreeper, varied sittella,
black-faced monarch and spectacled monarch (both monarchs have a restricted distribution), and the
satin flycatcher (Table 4). The ten most abundant species are listed in Table 5, together with their
representative percentage of the total number of birds observed. The majority of common species were
resident in the study site year round with the exception of the grey fantail and yellow-faced honeyeater
(Table 5). Rainbow lorikeets represented almost 20% of the total number of birds observed (Table 5).
The grey fantail was typically present in winter and absent in spring-summer while the, the yellowfaced honeyeater, normally a winter migrant to this region, was detected throughout the year (Table 5).
Table 4: Species and conservation status of birds identified within Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha
Forest during the Compton Road study (Feb 2004 – July 2007). (n= 32 samples). (* introduced species)
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Species
(Common name)
Brown Quail
Australian Wood
Duck
Pacific Black Duck
Australian Pelican
Great Egret
Australian White
Ibis
Pacific Baza
Black-shouldered
Kite
Whistling Kite
Brown Goshawk
Accipitridae
Grey Goshawk
Family
Phasianidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Pelecanidae
Ardeidae
Threskiornithidae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Falconidae
Charadriidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Collared
Sparrowhawk
Brown Falcon
Black Falcon
Masked Lapwing
Spotted
Turtle-Dove*
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered
Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested
Cockatoo
Cockatiel
Species
1
Status†
2
3
R
CD
BCD
Coturnix australis
Chenonetta jubata
Anas superciliosa
Pelecanus conspicillatus
Ardea alba
Theskiornis aethopica
Aviceda subcristata
Elanus axillaris
Haliastur sphenurus
Accipiter fasciatus
Accipiter
novaehollandiae
M
M
Accipiter cirrhocephalus
Falco berigora
Falco subniger
Vanellus miles
Streptopelia chinensis
Ocyphaps lophotes
Geopelia humeralis
Cacatua roseicapilla
Cacatua galerita
Nymphicus hollandicus
25 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Centropodidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Podargidae
Aegothelidae
Apodidae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Meropidae
Coraciidae
Climacteridae
Maluridae
Maluridae
Maluridae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted
Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Australian KingParrot
Pale-headed
Rosella
Pallid Cuckoo
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Shining
Bronze-Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed
Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Powerful Owl
Southern Boobook
Tawny Frogmouth
Australian
Owlet-nightjar
White-throated
Needletail
Laughing
Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated
Treecreeper
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated
Fairy-wren
Red-backed
Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed
Scrubwren
White-throated
Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
Blue-faced
Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Lewin's
Honeyeater
Yellow-faced
Honeyeater
Trichoglossus
haemotodus
Trichoglossus
chlorolepidotus
Glossopsitta pusilla
Alisterus scapularis
Platycercus adscitus
Cuculus pallidus
Cuculus pyrrhophanus
Chrysococcyx lucidus
Eudynamis scolopacea
Scythrops
novaehollandiae
Centropus phasianinus
Ninox strenua
Ninox novaeseelandiae
Podargus strigoides
V
C
Aegotheles cristatus
Hirundapus caudacutus
Dacelo novaeguineae
Todiramphus macleayii
Halcyon sancta
Merops ornatus
Eurystomos orientalis
Cormobates leucophaeus
CD
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus assimilis
Malurus melanocephalus
Pardalotus punctatus
Pardalotus striatus
Sericornis frontalis
Gerygone olivacea
Philemon corniculatus
Entomyzon cyanotis
Manorina melanocephala
Meliphaga lewinii
Lichenostomus chrysops
26 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Meliphagidae
White-throated
Honeyeater
White-naped
Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Meliphagidae
Eastern Spinebill
Meliphagidae
Petroicidae
Petroicidae
Scarlet Honeyeater
Jacky Winter
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow
Robin
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Petroicidae
Neosittidae
Varied Sittella
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Pachycephalidae
Little Shrike-thrush
Pachycephalidae
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced
Monarch
Spectacled
Monarch
Satin Flycatcher
Leaden Flycatcher
Restless Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced
Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Varied Triller
Olive-backed
Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred
Finch
Red-browed Finch
Nutmeg Mannikin*
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Golden-headed
Cisticola
Silvereye
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Campephagidae
Campephagidae
Campephagidae
Oriolidae
Oriolidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Corvidae
Passeridae
Passeridae
Passeridae
Dicaeidae
Hirundinidae
Sylviidae
Zosteropidae
Melithreptus albogularis
Melithreptus lunatus
Lichomera indistincta
Acanthorhynchus
tenuirostris
Myzomela sanguinolenta
Microeca leucophaea
Petroica rosea
Eopsaltria australis
Daphoenositta
chrysoptera
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
Colluricincla
megarhyncha
Colluricincla harmonica
Monarcha melanopsis
Monarcha trivirgatus
Myiagra cyanoleuca
Myiagra rubecula
Myiagra inquieta
Grallina cyanoleuca
Rhipidura frufifrons
Rhipidura fuliginosa
Rhipidura leucophrys
Dicrurus megarhynchus
Coracina
novaehollandiae
Coracina tenuirostris
Lalage leucomela
C
BD
BD
C
Oriolus sagittatus
Sphecotheres viridis
Cracticus torquatus
Cracticus nigrogularis
Gymnorhina tibicen
Streptera graculina
Corvus orru
Poephila bichenovii
Aegintha temporalis
Lonchura punctulata
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Hirundo neoxena
Cisticola exilis
Zosterops lateralis
27 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies †Status codes:
Column 1: As listed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, under Section 179 of
the Act. The Status category is (M) Migratory.
Column 2: As listed in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994
(including amendments up to SL No. 09 of 2004) of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Status categories are V:
Vulnerable, and R: Rare.
Column 3: Locally Significant: Native species at risk of extinction within Brisbane City if future land use and
management do not adequately accommodate their ecological needs. These species are typically uncommon in
Brisbane or declining. They generally do not adapt well to human-induced changes currently under way in
Brisbane and consequently have smaller populations and more restricted distributions than prior to European
settlement. The species are indicative of intact habitats or habitats that are threatened within Brisbane City. Some
species may be currently abundant within Brisbane City but represents a significant population regionally or
nationally (eg Squirrel glider).
Species are categorised as Significant within Brisbane City for one or more of the following reasons:
B – Restricted distribution: Small or large population with a restricted distribution
C – In decline: Local population decline has occurred or is occurring due to human influences.
D – Habitat indicator: Species strongly associated with intact habitat patches or Significant vegetation
communities.
Table 5: The ten most abundant birds observed in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland, 2004-7.
(n= 32 samples, total number of all birds = 11 936).
Species (Common Name)
4.2.2
Total Number
% of Total Observed Birds
Rainbow Lorikeet
2311
19.4
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
1091
9.14
White-throated Honeyeater
743
6.22
Torresian Crow
702
5.88
Striated Pardalote
474
3.97
Silvereye
439
3.68
White-throated Treecreeper
435
3.64
Grey Fantail
428
3.59
Pied Butcherbird
425
3.56
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
423
3.54
Mammals
Collating records from all monitoring methods (ground-dwelling mammal trapping, arboreal mammal
trapping, spotlighting and nest-box monitoring), 21 species of mammals were identified in both
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland within close proximity to Compton Road (Table 6). Ten of
these species are recognised as being significant species within Brisbane City. Albeit deemed to be of
lower risk, eastern grey kangaroos, bush rats, swamp rats and koala’s are all in decline regionally
(Table 6). Also in decline are the common planigale and yellow-footed antechinus, which are habitat
indicators of significant vegetation; the common dunnart and greater glider, which are regionally
significant priority taxa; the sugar glider, which has a restricted distribution whilst also representing
significant habitat, and the squirrel glider a regionally/nationally significant species that is a priority
taxa (Table 6). An additional three species were solely recognised via sand-tracking in the underpasses
and scat collecting on the land-bridge. These species comprised the often cryptic northern brown
bandicoot, the significant short-beaked echidna and the introduced brown hare (Table 6).
28 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 6: Mammals species detected within Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha Forest during July
2004 – June 2007 via small mammal trapping, arboreal mammal trapping, spotlighting and nest-box
monitoring. (#Single specimen captured in pit-fall trap) (n= 80 samples). (^Species not detected via usual
sampling methods and were only identified from sand-tracking and scat collecting). (* introduced species)
Status†
Species
(Common name)
Species
Canidae
*Red Fox
Vulpes vulpes
Dasyuridae
Common Dunnart
Sminthopsis murina
LR/lc
CDK
Dasyuridae
Common Planigale
Planigale maculate
LR/lc
CD
Dasyuridae
Yellow-footed
Antechinus
^*Brown Hare
Antechinus flavipes
LR/lc
CD
Macropus giganteus
LR/lc
C
Macropodidae
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo
Red-necked Wallaby
Macropus rufogriseus
Macropodidae
Swamp Wallaby
Wallabia bicolor
Muridae
*House Mouse
Mus musculus
Muridae
*Black Rat
Rattus rattus
Muridae
Bush Rat
Rattus fuscipes
LR/lc
C
Muridae
Swamp Rat
Rattus lutreolus
LR/lc
C
Permaelidae
Isoodon macrourus
Petauridae
^Northern Brown
Bandicoot
#Feathertail Glider
Acrobates pygmaeus
Petauridae
Sugar Glider
Petaurus breviceps
LR/lc
BD
Petauridae
Squirrel Glider
Petaurus norfolcensis
LR/nt
EK
Phalangeridae
Brush-tailed Possum
Trichosurus vulpecula
Phascolarctidae
Koala
Phascolarctos cinereus
LR/nt
Pseudocheiridae
Greater Glider
Petauroides volans
LR/lc
CDK
Pseudocheiridae
Ring-tailed Possum
Pseudocheirus
perigrinus
Pteropodidae
Unidentified
fruit bats
^Short-beaked
Echidna
LR/lc
H
Family
Leporidae
Macropodidae
Tachyglossidae
1
2
3
4
Lepus europeaus
Tachyglossus
aculeatus
V
C
†Status:
Column 1: As listed in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
Red List 2002. The categories are as follows:
Lower Risk (LR): A taxon is Lower Risk when it has been evaluated, does not satisfy the criteria for any of the
categories Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. Taxa included in the Lower Risk category can be
separated into two subcategories:
1. Near Threatened (nt). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent, but which are close
to qualifying for Vulnerable.
2. Least Concern (lc). Taxa which do not qualify for Conservation Dependent or Near Threatened.
29 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Column 2: As listed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, under Section 179 of
the Act. The Status category is (M) Migratory.
Column 3: As listed in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994
(including amendments up to SL No. 09 of 2004) of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. Status categories are V:
Vulnerable, and R: Rare.
Column 4: Locally Significant: Native species at risk of extinction within Brisbane City if future land use and
management do not adequately accommodate their ecological needs. These species are typically uncommon in
Brisbane or declining. They generally do not adapt well to human-induced changes currently under way in
Brisbane and consequently have smaller populations and more restricted distributions than prior to European
settlement. The species are indicative of intact habitats or habitats that are threatened within Brisbane City. Some
species may be currently abundant within Brisbane City but represents a significant population regionally or
nationally (eg Squirrel glider).
Species are categorised as significant within Brisbane City for one or more of the following reasons:
B – Restricted distribution: Small or large population with a restricted distribution
C – In decline: Local population decline has occurred or is occurring due to human influences.
D – Habitat indicator: Species strongly associated with intact habitat patches or significant vegetation
communities.
E – Significant Population: Local population that is regionally or nationally significant.
H – Poorly Known: Distribution and/or ecological needs are poorly known or understood.
K – Regionally Significant Priority Taxa: Taxa which is determined to be bio-regionally significant.
4.2.2.1. Arboreal Mammals
Of the total mammal species identified (Table 6) four of the six arboreal species are of significance.
Table 7 lists these species and provides total numbers and percentages of all animals observed. Refer
to Appendices C, D & E for detailed information on numbers, the location and results from respective
methods. The regionally significant greater gliders were only identified during spotlighting: three were
detected within 100 m of the crossing structures in Kuraby, and two in Karawatha, approximately 400
m away (B. Taylor pers. comm). To date we are unable to state whether this species has used any of
the structures. Overall, greater gliders were more commonly observed in Karawatha Forest and
represented 9% of the total mammals observed. The greatest component of mammals observed was
the regionally significant squirrel glider, comprising 19% of mammal abundance observed throughout
both forests (Table 7). The only feathertail glider detected was detected (and released) alive from a pitfall trap.
Table 7: Arboreal species identified throughout monitoring and observational studies within
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands. Techniques consisted of small mammal trapping, arboreal
mammal trapping, spotlighting and nest-box monitoring. (n = 80 samples, total number of all
mammals 505).
% of Total Observed
Total Number
Species (Common name)
mammals
37
7.33
Sugar Glider
Squirrel Glider
97
19.21
Undistinguished
Squirrel/Sugar Glider
Greater Glider
29
5.74
46
9.11
Feathertail Glider
1
0.20
Common Brushtail Possum
58
11.49
Common Ringtail Possum
47
9.31
Koala
8
1.58
30 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 4.2.2.2. Ground-dwelling Mammals
Five of the seven smaller ground-dwelling species were of a significant status (Table 6). Both
introduced species house mouse and black rat comprised a reasonably high percentage of total
mammals observed (Table 8). Notably, the house mouse represented the second highest overall (Table
7 and 8). All but the common planigale were identified through small mammal trapping. Refer to
Appendices C, D & E for detailed information on numbers, the location and results from respective
methods.
Table 8: Ground dwelling mammals identified via monitoring and observational studies within
Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushlands using small mammal trapping and spotlighting.
(n= 80 samples.) (* introduced species)
Total Number
% of Total Observed
mammals
Common Planigale
1
0.20
Yellow-footed Antechinus
2
0.40
Common Dunnart
11
2.18
*House mouse
84
16.63
*Black Rat
36
7.13
Bush Rat
1
0.20
Swamp Rat
12
2.38
Species (Common name)
4.2.3
Reptiles and Amphibians
Based upon findings from pitfall traps, direct searching and spotlighting, 23 species of reptiles and 7
species of amphibians were identified within 1 km of the land-bridge (Table 9). Methods of surveying
are detailed in sections 3.1.1.4 and 3.1.1.2. Two of the 23 species of reptiles identified are of local
significance and are in decline. The fire-tailed skink a regionally significant priority taxa, represents
the limit of its range and the lace monitor is a good indicator of significant vegetation and habitat
(Table 9). An additional species of skink, the Asian house gecko was observed solely on the landbridge and subsequently brings the total number of reptile species to 24 (Table 9). Skinks were the
most predominant species observed throughout the respective bushlands. S. Wilson (pers. comm)
advised that the total amount of terrestrial reptiles recorded in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland
equate to almost one quarter of all terrestrial species in the greater Brisbane area.
Of the seven amphibian species identified, none are listed under the BCC Significant Fauna Species
List (2004) as significant taxa (Table 10). T. Creevey of Karawatha Forest Protection Society (KFPS)
advised that there were 24 species of frogs within Karawatha Forest, significantly more than any other
single location in Brisbane (Mack 2005). Depending on the continuing duration of the drought, the
potential for increasing numbers of amphibian species to use the structures is a great possibility. The
results presented in this report are but a representative of species located within 1 km of the fauna
array and not the forest as a whole.
31 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 9: Reptile species detected within Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha Forest during 2006 - 2007
via pitfall trapping, purpose searches and spotlighting (n= 33 samples). (^Species only detected on the
land-bridge and not within neighbouring bushland). (* introduced species).
Species
(Common name)
Species
Pogona barbata
Agamidae
Eastern Bearded
Dragon
Eastern Water
Dragon
Tommy Round-head
Colubridae
Green Tree Snake
Elapidae
Gekkonidae
Yellow-faced Whip
Snake
^*Asian House
Gecko
Dtella Gecko
Gekkonidae
Robust Velvet Gecko
Oedura robusta
Gekkonidae
Stone Gecko
Diplodactylus vittatus
Pygopodidae
Lialis burtonis
Pythonidae
Burton’s Snake
Lizard
Carpet Python
Scincidae
Burrowing Skink
Scincidae
Copper-tailed Skink
Calyptotis
scutirostrum
Ctenotus taeniolatus
Scincidae
Eastern Blue-tongue
Tiliqua scincoides
Scincidae
Eastern Striped Skink
Ctenotus robustus
Scincidae
Eastern Water Skink
Eulamprus quoyii
Scincidae
Fence Skink
Scincidae
Fire-tailed Skink
Cryptoblepharus
virgatus
Morethia taeniopleura
Scincidae
Friendly Skink
Lampropholis amicula
Scincidae
Garden Skink
Lampropholis delicate
Scincidae
Litter Skink
Carlia foliorum
Scincidae
Lively Skink
Carlia vivax
Scincidae
Martin’s Skink
Eulamprus martini
Varanidae
Lace Monitor
Varanus varius
Family
Agamidae
Agamidae
Gekkonidae
Status†
1
2
3
4
Physignathus lesueurii
Diporiphora australis
Dendrelaphis
punctulata
Demansia psammophis
Hemidactylus frenatus
Gehyra dubia
Morelia spilota
CFK
CD
†Status:
Column 4: Locally Significant: Native species at risk of extinction within Brisbane City if future land use and
management do not adequately accommodate their ecological needs. These species are typically uncommon in
Brisbane or declining. They generally do not adapt well to human-induced changes currently under way in
Brisbane and consequently have smaller populations and more restricted distributions than prior to European
settlement. The species are indicative of intact habitats or habitats that are threatened within Brisbane City. Some
32 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies species may be currently abundant within Brisbane City but represents a significant population regionally or
nationally (eg Squirrel glider).
Species are categorised as significant within Brisbane City for one or more of the following reasons:
C – In decline: Local population decline has occurred or is occurring due to human influences.
D – Habitat indicator: Species strongly associated with intact habitat patches or significant vegetation
communities.
F – Limit of Range: Populations within Brisbane represent the limit of range for the species
K – Regionally Significant Priority Taxa: Taxa which is determined to be bioregionally significant.
Table 10: Amphibian species identified in Kuraby Bushlands and Karawatha Forest during 2006 2007 via pitfall trapping, purpose searches and spotlighting (n= 26 samples). (* introduced species)
Species
(Common name)
Species
Bufonidae
*Cane Toad
Bufo marinus
Hylidae
Litoria caerulea
Hylidae
Common Green Tree
Frog
Eastern Sedgefrog
Hylidae
Striped Rocket Frog
Litoria nasuta
Myobatrachidae
Copper-backed
Brood Frog
Ornate Burrowing
Frog
Striped Marsh Frog
Pseudophryne raveni
Family
Myobatrachidae
Myobatrachidae
Status†
1
2
3
4
Litoria fallax
Limnodynastes ornatus
Limnodynastes peronii
33 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 5.
Preventing Road-kill
Direct mortality from roads may have significant consequences for rare, endangered or threatened
species (Goosem et al. 2001; Ramp et al. 2005b; Ramp & Ben-Ami 2006). Especially notable was the
local extirpation of eastern quolls and the halving of a Tasmanian devil population within the Cradle
Mountain area of Tasmania almost entirely due to increased road-kill rates following the opening of a
new road (Jones 2000). However, even common species (such as the Swamp Wallaby may be
seriously affected by roads (Ramp & Ben-Ami 2006). Roads may also influence an individual
animal’s behaviour, creating reluctance to cross a road thereby increasing the barrier affect (Oxley et
al. 1974; Bissonette 2002; Ramp et al. 2005a; Ramp & Ben-Ami 2006; Ascensão & Mira 2007).
Increasingly studies are indicating that roads significantly impact on larger animals, particularly
mammals (Jones 2000; Taylor & Goldingay 2003; Ng et al. 2004; FitzGibbon & Jones 2006).
Characteristics that increase the vulnerability of a species to road mortality include large habitat range,
habitats near roadways, slow movement and activity periodicity that correspond with peak traffic
volume (Buchanan 2005; Roe et al 2006). Conversely, small to medium sized animals are also likely
to be susceptible to vehicle collision due to their reduced detectibility compared to larger animals
(Bissonette 2002). Australian mammal species appear to be particularly at risk due to their largely
crepuscular and nocturnal behaviour, cryptic body colouring and socialising activity (Coulson 1982;
Buchanan 2005).
The impacts of roads have proven to be difficult to quantify without knowledge of population
densities, behavioural characteristics of the taxa and home ranges (Buchanan 2005). Approximately
300 – 500 vehicles per day sufficiently reduce animal capability of crossing roads (Alexander et al.
2005). Compton Road is considered a major east-west arterial that facilitates travel to and from the
southern suburbs of Brisbane. Alexander et al. (2005) further recommended that high volume roads
carrying greater than 5,000 vehicles per day, such as Compton Road, require mitigation techniques to
reinstate safe passage across roads for the wildlife community. Road-kill monitoring can provide
valuable verification on the efficacy of wildlife-exclusion fences.
Compton Road is unusual in having relatively large areas of continuous bushland on either side
combined with the high speed and volume of traffic (Buchanan 2005). The initial four-months of roadkill monitoring undertaken in 2004 established a baseline of road-kill levels pre-construction (Table
11). These results revealed which faunal groups are most likely to benefit from the exclusion fencing
and fauna-crossing structures (Mack 2005). Following the end of construction, health and safety
concerns required that all road-kill monitoring be undertaken from a vehicle as opposed to the on-foot
pre-construction. Consequently, species smaller than a blue-tongued skink could not reliably be
detected from a travelling vehicle, and were thus excluded from the records.
34 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 11: Total vertebrate road-kill species identified during four months pre-construction
monitoring (February – June 2004), four months post construction monitoring (February – June 2005)
and subsequent two years since (June 2005 – June 2007). (*introduced species)
Scientific Name
Preconstruction
(four months)
Postconstruction
(four months)
Subsequent
monitoring
(24 months)
Red-necked
Wallaby
Macropus rufogriseus
1
1
1
Swamp Wallaby
Wallabia bicolour
1
Common Ringtail
Possum
Pseudocheirus
peregrinus
3
Northern Brownbandicoot
Isoodon macrourus
1
*Cat
Felis catus
1
*Dog
Canis lupus
1
Pheasant Coucal
Centropus phasianinus
1
Torresian Crow
Corvus orru
1
Australian Wood
Duck
Chenonetta jubata
Common name
Unidentified bird
1
1
Common Treesnake
Dendrelaphis
punctulatus
1
Small-eyed Snake
Rhinoplocephalus
nigrescens
1
Carpet Python
Morelia spilota
Total
1
1
13
2
3
A total of 13 vertebrates from 10 species, were killed in the four months prior to construction of the
upgrade (Table 2). Specifically these included two macropods (red-necked wallaby and swamp
wallaby), three common ringtail possums, one bandicoot, three birds and two reptiles (both snakes).
The cat and dog road-kill were likely to be wandering domestic animals as opposed to feral (Bond &
Jones in review).
In contrast to the pre-construction survey, only two individual vertebrates were recorded as road-kill in
the four months immediately post-construction. A single red-necked wallaby gained access to the road
due to a human-related breach in the fence and a wood duck was killed after unaccountably landing on
the road during the night. In the 24 months that followed (until June 2007), road-kill data was gathered
opportunistically by researchers, members of the Karawatha Protection Society and Brisbane City
Council. Within this timeframe a further three vertebrates were recorded as road-kill. This includes a
common ringtail possum, carpet python and, a red-necked wallaby again, directly attributable to a hole
deliberately cut in the fence.
35 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Despite the short time frame of pre-construction monitoring, exclusion fencing has clearly been
successful in reducing road-kill along Compton Road to date (Figure 14). A simple comparison of pre
and post-construction monitoring revealed a significant reduction in the level of road-kill following
the installation of the fencing (Figure 14).
Number of road-kill
5
4
3
2
1
Feb
Mar Apr May
(2004)
Pre-construction
May
Jul
Sept
Mar Sept
(2005)
(2006)
Post-construction
Figure 14: Comparison of road-kill monitoring at Compton Road, pre-construction and postconstruction.
36 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 6.
Evaluating the Compton Road Fauna Structures
Both Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland are fragmented habitats located amidst peri-urban areas.
The likelihood of animals using the crossing structures relies on their ability to find them (McDonald
& St. Clair 2004). As the previous section demonstrated, exclusion fencing has effectively prevented
fauna from reaching the road surface and directed them toward the crossing structures. Numerous
studies undertaken elsewhere have demonstrated the success of such mitigation fencing (see Yanes
1995; Rodriguez et al. 1996; Clevenger et al. 2003; Cain et al. 2003; Taylor & Goldingay 2003; Ng et
al. 2004).
During road construction, many animals leave the local area to avoid disturbances, noise and human
activity. Initial speculation over the utility of structures centres on whether animals would use the
structures as a corridor between suitable habitats (Hunt et al. 1987; Little et al. 2002) and on the length
of time necessary before fauna is sufficiently familiar with the structures to use them. The main aims
of the Compton Road Wildlife Solutions Project were to ascertain the level of use by wildlife of the
underpasses and land-bridge, identify the species involved, and undertake an assessment of the success
of the structures. The findings of this report are intended to critically address these aims in attempt to
address the question of the value of the structures. Monitoring of the use of fauna-friendly structures
commenced in August 2005. Hereunder are the results of monitoring studies to date to June 2007.
6.1
Underpasses
6.1.1
Sand Tracking
Mammal species detected during surveys in the surrounding bushland were listed in Table 6. Three
additional species were identified indirectly during underpass monitoring, increasing the total number
of mammal species known to live in the area from 18 to 21. Two of these species include the often
cryptic and secretive northern brown bandicoot and the locally significant short-beaked echidna (Table
6). The variety of faunal species using the structures appears to be analogous to other studies
conducted in similar bushlands within Australia (Hunt et al. 1987; AMBS 1997; Taylor & Goldingay
2003; Hayes 2006).
Numerous species were observed to use the underpasses, most of which were small in size.
Throughout the study a total of 1125 individual vertebrate tracks were detected, 967 during the
intensive 26 week survey and 158 during the 13 monthly surveys (Table 12). Surveys at the start of the
study in August 2005 revealed an average of 1-5 individuals entering the underpasses per day, a figure
that increased progressively, peaking at 42 tracks per day in January 2006 (week 26) (Figure 15).
Bond & Jones (in review) found the relationship between weekly track detections and time to be
highly significant, as can be seen by the sharp increase in use of underpasses over time (Figure 15).
Both the intensive weekly surveys and the later monthly surveys indicated similar seasonal trends of
lower crossing rates during winter and high activity mid-summer, with maximum use of 30 animals
per day during January 2007 (Bond & Jones in review). Wildlife usage rates and mean numbers of
animals per day using each of the underpasses were quite similar. Bond & Jones (in review) reported
that for both the intensive survey and monthly survey, the mean numbers of animals using the
underpasses was almost identical.
37 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 12: Total track numbers of vertebrate taxa distinguished in sand plots of underpasses A and B for intensive and monthly surveys, with the percentage total of each
grouping that made full crossings. 'Small mammal 1-3' categories pooled as ‘rodents’. (Refer Table 3 for mammal categories) (n= 114 samples, total sand tracks= 1125)
Intensive surveys
Taxa or
categories
Monthly surveys
Underpass
Underpass
Underpass
Underpass
A
B
A
B
Total
tracks
detected
in both
Total
tracks
detected
Number
per day
Total
tracks
detected
Number
per day
%
crossings
Period 1
Total
tracks
detected
Number
per day
Total
tracks
detected
Number
per day
%
crossings
Period 2
Small
mammal
79
3.02
257
9.88
3.6
16
1.23
10
0.77
5.9
362 (32.2)
(categories 1-3)
House mouse
Dasyurids
Bandicoot
Possum
Wallaby
Echidna
Cat
Dog/fox
Brown hare
Bird
Reptile
Unknown
59
7
52
9
1
1
6
10
0
39
167
17
2.27
0.27
2.00
0.35
0.04
0.04
0.23
0.38
0
1.50
6.42
0.65
25
0
87
2
2
1
27
0
2
21
76
19
0.96
0
3.35
0.07
0.07
0.04
1.03
0
0.07
0.81
2.92
0.73
21.4
28.6
17.3
18.2
0
0
48.5
40.0
0
20.0
1.7
5.6
18
4
15
1
0
0
9
2
0
4
13
1
1.38
0.31
1.15
0.07
0
0
0.69
0.15
0
0.31
1.00
0.07
12
6
33
2
0
0
2
7
1
1
1
0
0.92
0.46
2.54
0.15
0
0
0.15
0.54
0.07
0.07
0.07
0
20.0
0
39.6
100
90.1
67.1
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
447
17.18
520
20.00
15.76
83
6.38
75
5.77
28.5
114 (10.1)
17 (1.4)
187 (16.5)
14 (1.2)
3 (0.3)
2 (0.2)
44 (3.8)
19 (1.7)
3 (0.3)
65 (5.8)
257 (22.8)
37 (3.3)
1125
(100.0)
Periods
(and %)
34 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 45
No. of tracks (24hrs)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Week
Figure 15: Total underpass use of all species detected per survey between August 2005 – June 2007.
Over 1100 individual tracks were detected and subsequently classified into 16 taxa groups, 36 (3.2%)
of which could not be identified and were listed as ‘unknown’ (Table 12). This is likely an
underestimate due to weather conditions impeding the use of all data. Mammal use was of particular
interest, with possible species of mammal classes and most likely species listed in Table 3. The
greatest number of tracks detected was the small mammal–rodent category, accounting for one third of
all tracks (Table 12). Because they could not be reliably differentiated, Bond & Jones (in review)
suggest that these tracks were from a combination of both native and introduced Rattus species
(mainly bush rat and black rat), both of which are abundant throughout the respective bushlands. The
house mouse comprised 10.1% of all tracks (Table 12). The regionally significant priority taxa,
common dunnart, was confidently detected in 17 instances (1.4%) (Table 12, Figure 16). Pooled
together, these small mammals represent approximately half of all animals observed to use the
underpasses. Furthermore, if bandicoots are included, medium to small-sized mammals equate to
60.2% of all tracks (Table 12).
The second most frequent tracks (22.8%; Table 12) were derived from diurnal (animals that are active
during the day) medium-sized lizards and snakes. Together with various species of birds (5.8%),
diurnal species in total contributed 27.6% of tracks (Table 12).
Representing 5.5% of all tracks, domestic and/or feral cats and dogs were identified on 44 and 19
instances (Table 12). In January 2006 2-6 cats were found to have used both underpasses. Evidence of
likely cat depredations included a decapitated black rat in 2005, an eastern water dragon and pile of
feathers from a black-faced cuckoo shrike in February 2007. Dog tracks were only infrequently
detected; these could not be reliably differentiated from those of the red fox.
39 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Figure 16: Sand track of an echidna (L) and dasyurid (R) using the underpasses. (Photos: Amy Bond)
Of particular interest were tracks of the northern brown bandicoot, which were the third most common
category detected (Table 12). Bandicoots exhibited strong seasonal patterns. They were recorded
sporadically throughout the year but in mid-summer peaked at 30 individuals per night during
December 2006 and 23 in January 2007 (Bond & Jones in review). These tracks also represented 20%
of full crossings during the intensive phase of monitoring and 40% during the monthly phase. Other
medium-sized animals were less frequently observed. The locally significant short-beaked echidna
noted only three times during the intensive 26 week survey (Table 12, Figure 16) and brown hare
twice (Table 12). Unexpectedly, possums were also observed to use the underpasses a total of 14
times. The only larger species detected in the underpasses were red-necked wallabies which were
detected entering the underpasses three times during the intensive 26 week survey (section 6.2); these
animals did not make full crossings of the road.
The percentage of species making full crossings of the road via the underpasses differed considerably
between the intensive weekly and monthly surveys (Table 12). In total, 15.76% of animals observed
during the intensive survey made full crossings whereas the monthly surveys revealed 28.5% to do so
(Table 12). The dasyurid, echidna, wallaby and hare categories were the only taxa not recorded to
make full crossings (Table 12). For other categories, between 17.3% and 100% of all individuals
detected made full crossings (excluding diurnal reptiles and birds (Bond & Jones in review)). Being
detected in abundance, ‘rodents’ made relatively few complete crossings of the underpasses during the
respective survey periods (3.6% and 5.9%) as compared to 20% for house mice (Table 12).
The two types of raised shelfs, designed to cater for smaller species, was used by 120 individuals
(Bond & Jones in review): 4 dasyurids, 21 reptiles, 21 house mouse and 71 ‘rodents’ (Bond & Jones in
review). Of the total number of individuals for a species using the underpasses, 40% of dasyurids,
8.3% of reptiles, 19.1% of house mouse and 20% of ‘rodents’ used the shelves. (Refer to Appendix F
for detailed information on the numbers and species using each respective underpass.)
Studies such as Hunt et al. (1987), Clevenger & Waltho (2000), Goosem (2005a) and van der Ree
(2007) have indicated that regular use of underpasses may not occur for many months or even years
following the end of construction. Additionally, Mata et al. (2005) stated that some species may still
be adjusting to the structures after four years. Data from the present study revealed that usage of the
underpasses was evident from the start of monitoring (6 months post-construction) from 12 animals
per night using the two underpasses during winter to as many as 112 animals during mid-summer. In
40 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies fact, the underpasses showed signs of animal usage occurring within three weeks post construction
(Bond & Jones 2006), with small mammal tracks and those of the significant short-beaked echidna
observed in natural silt deposits at both ends of underpass B (D. Jones unpublished data). This activity
occurred despite possible lingering effects of the large-scale, physical disturbance that occurred and
the initial establishment of small vegetation planted near culvert entrances and alongside exclusion
fencing. The increasing activity by wildlife over time may be attributed to growing familiarity with the
fauna-friendly structures (Clevenger & Waltho 2000) together with the natural succession of cooler to
warmer seasonal conditions (Bond & Jones 2006). Complementing these factors may be the minimal
presence of humans following the end of construction. Elsewhere, it has been documented that
increasing presence of humans deters many wildlife species from using fauna-friendly crossing
structures (Clevenger & Waltho 2000, 2005) excluding some predatory carnivorous species (Ng et al.
2004).
Species exhibited strong seasonal affects and/or response to drought conditions in underpass usage
with a distinct increase in activity, spring to summer. Observed seasonality of increasing small
mammal activity has been documented elsewhere with the onset of warmer conditions (Bennett 1991;
Ashley & Robinson 1996; Rodriguez et al. 1996; McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Ng et al. 2004) and the
dispersal phase associated with the young males of many species (Law & Dickman 1998; Buchanan
2005). However, increase in movement and dispersal may also be due to drought conditions. During
the intensive survey, track numbers increased during December and January for the ‘rodent’ group,
house mouse and northern brown bandicoots. This pattern did not, however, continue the following
year, with the exception of bandicoot numbers increasing in 2006/7. Depending on the species, many
juveniles remain close to their parent den for a number of seasons and/or much of their first summer,
before dispersing and expanding their range (Loughry & McDonough 1996). Bandicoots making full
traverses of the roadway would likely be young males leaving their natal range. No other method other
than sand tracking detected bandicoots using the structures, despite bandicoot traps (cage traps) being
employed during the small mammal trapping procedures. Interestingly, a study undertaken in Perth,
W.A., found the activity levels of southern brown bandicoots to peak during autumn (Ecologia
Environmental Consultants 1995) while northern brown bandicoots and antechinus numbers peaked
around their breeding season in a New South Wales study (AMBSC 2002a). Bandicoots in
Queensland are known to breed throughout the year, although in NSW it is reported they do not breed
during winter (Menkhorst & Knight 2004), although, the latter statement is contested. It is likely that
the low numbers detected of numerous species of small mammals in recent times (Garden et al. 2007),
is due to the persistent and severe drought conditions impacting the entire region. Correspondingly,
animal trapping rates suggest similar findings with numbers considered low due to the drought and
have observed to be decreasing. Therefore, the bandicoots’ resilience is of special significance
(FitzGibbon & Jones 2006).
Studies have also linked proximity to vegetation cover as a determining factor associated with faunal
use of culverts (Monamy & Fox 2000; Clevenger et al. 2001a, 2003; Goosem 2001; Little et al. 2002;
Cain et al. 2003; Mata et al. 2005). Small mammals have been found to prefer underpasses with
nearby vegetation, provided by circular culverts 0.3 m in diameter to large 3 m open passages
(McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Goosem 2005c). Other studies have revealed closeness of vegetation at
the ends of culverts is exceptionally important (Ecologia Environmental Consultants 1995; Rodriguez
et al. 1997; Qld Main Roads 1998; Hayes 2006). Whilst the underpasses at Compton Road were 48 m
in length, the total distance animals had to traverse forest to forest was approximately 90 m. This is
further than almost all other culverts investigated to date. For example, Goosem (2001) in Northern
Queensland, found several small mammal species to have high rates of crossing at 12 m and 20 m.
Other Australian studies (Hunt et al. 1987; AMBSC 1997; Taylor & Goldingay 2003) reported
frequent use of culverts 5-25 m in length. Our findings suggest that 16-30% of all animals detected
crossed the 90 m. These findings are, therefore, of considerable significance.
Our surveys revealed no significant difference between the level of use in the two underpasses.
Although bandicoots encompassed a sizeable proportion of animals detected, ‘rodents’ in the small
mammal category were clearly the most common users of the underpasses. Similarly, numerous
41 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies studies have reported rodents to be dominant users of underpasses in Australia (Hunt et al. 1987;
Taylor & Goldingay 2003; Hayes 2006) and overseas (Yanes et al. 1995; Rodriguez et al. 1997;
Clevenger et al. 2001a; McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Ng et al. 2004). Whilst less often reported in
Australia, there has been evidence of reptiles using underpasses in the grey literature (AMBSC 1997,
2001a, 2002b; Abson & Lawrence 2003a & 2003b). Despite reptiles representing the second highest
usage in this study, relatively few made complete crossings (Table 12). It may be hypothesised that
whilst reptiles have accepted the presence of culverts, the species in question may have small home
ranges and are less likely to make full crossings (Yanes et al. 1995). The reasonably frequent use of
underpasses by diurnal lizards and birds may also be due to foraging opportunities: Bond & Jones
(2006) reported that substantial amounts of grass, sedge seeds and invertebrates are blown into
entranceways of culverts. To date, and as far as we are aware, reports of birds using underpasses have
not yet appeared. Our findings of increased usage by reptiles in spring and summer, coincides with the
results of other studies in Australia (Ecologica Environmental Consultants 1995; AMBSC 2002a) and
overseas (Rodriguez et al. 1997).
Reportedly, there are direct correlations between the size, width, length and location of underpass
structures and the features of the species using them (Goosem 2001, 2005c; Mata et al. 2005;
Ascensão & Mira 2007). Species which have large habitat ranges almost certainly encounter roadways
(Loughry & McDonough 1996). Compared to the northern hemisphere, Australia does not have the
same diversity of large-sized wildlife, the larger species of macropod being the main exceptions.
Despite the underpasses at Compton Road being 2.4 m high by 2.5 m wide, the only moderately sized
species to use them were three red-necked wallabies none of which made full crossings. Long-term
monitoring program may in time reveal if this continues to hold true. Larger species appear to prefer to
have an open line of sight of the surrounding area and are likely to avoid the enclosed nature of an
underpass, especially when the open conditions of the land-bridge exist nearby.
Further debate throughout the literature concerns the design and suitable dimensions of fauna-friendly
crossing structures (Foster & Humphrey 1995; Clevenger & Waltho 2000, 2005; Main Roads Qld
2002; McDonald & St. Clair 2004). Dimensions are important to cater for the key local target species
but will also be constrained by cost (Foster & Humphrey 1995). As iterated earlier, many field studies
have concluded that varying dimensions favour various taxa, with larger animals preferring larger
structures (Ng et al. 2004; Clevenger & Waltho 2000; Mata et al. 2005). Though standard dimensions
have not clearly been developed, many purpose-built underpasses have been intended for larger
species use. To illustrate, culverts at Compton Road were specifically designed to be large enough to
permit wallabies crossing. Recent studies have, however, determined that small mammals prefer using
smaller, enclosed passages (Mata et al. 2005), with varied findings on their respective length. Some
studies support findings of high usage by small mammals despite underpasses being relatively long
(Rodriguez et al. 1997; McDonald & St. Clair 2004) whilst others report that shorter length
underpasses are favoured (Yanes et al. 1995; Ascensão & Mira 2007). What is agreed is that an
unimpeded view of habitat or the horizon on the far side of the underpass in very important (Foster &
Humphrey 1995).
A large component of this study was to gauge the degree at which individuals within species were
utilising the underpasses to traverse the roadway. Whilst crossing rates were highly variable between
species groups, there was increasing likelihood for medium to larger species such as bandicoots,
possums, cats and dogs to completely cross. Bond & Jones (in review) estimated that about one animal
per night traversed the roadway using the underpasses and expected this to be highest during summer.
Efficient fauna-friendly structures are those that facilitate dispersal of sub-adults into areas of recolonisation after some absence (Gossem 2005a). Theoretically these data indicate that there is
sufficient gene flow occurring for species between the two habitats. However verification of this will
require further in-depth studies into specific species movement patterns. Foster & Humphrey (1995)
monitored four underpasses in south-western Florida and clearly determined species such as panthers,
raccoons and bobcats, deer and birds to use the underpasses at varying times. We may further
speculate that a contributing factor to high taxa usage may be that different species were using the
underpasses at varying times of day and/or night.
42 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies On occasion, concern has been raised that wildlife underpasses may act as prey-traps (Hunt et al.
1987; Foster & Humphrey 1995; Little et al. 2002). However, a recent review by Little et al. (2002)
into this issue found insubstantial evidence for these claims. Whilst the present study revealed three
signs of direct predation, likely by cats in the underpasses, the distribution of these scattered events
since time of construction, and the relatively low numbers of introduced mammalian predators
detected, suggests that this is not a major concern at Compton Road. We are aware that, BCC annually
conducts intensive pest management throughout the adjoining bushlands, and that a significant number
of foxes and feral/wild dogs have been removed. These actions may have contributed to the relatively
low numbers of predators within the surveys. Consequently, results from these studies cannot illicit
information on abundance or other activities of predators in the surrounding area.
6.1.2
Infrared cameras
Whilst the infrared cameras have suffered numerous logistical and technical problems, they are now
functioning and are producing images of some the species using the structures (e.g. see Figure 17).
Although these cameras will be employed in a major monitoring project in 2008-9, here we provide an
indication of preliminary information (Table 13).
Figure 17: Rattus species photographed using wall shelf in underpass A in March 2007 using
Faunatech Digicam 120 dual infrared camera.
Table 13: Species photographed using the underpasses (2007) from Faunatech Digicam 120 dual
infrared cameras.
Common Name
House mouse
Rodent
Skink
Scientific Name
Mus musculus
Rattus sp.
-
6.2
Land-bridge Overpass
6.2.1
Scat Collecting
Location
Underpass A
Underpass A
Underpass A
During the intensive 26 week survey conducted on the land-bridge, a total of 1266 vertebrate scats
were collected and subsequently identified. Unlike the results from the underpasses, there to be no
43 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies significant relationship over time with the total number of scats collected (Figure 18): fauna use was
relatively consistent throughout the survey period.
Comparing the respective zones of the land-bridge, the total number of scats and proportions were as
follows: 465 (36.73%) for zone one (southern slope facing Karawatha); 42 (3.32%) for zone two (top
and centre of land-bridge); and 759 (59.95%) for zone three (northern slope facing Kuraby). There
was a significant difference within mean weekly number of scats between each of the three zones,
specifically zone three comprising the highest quantity of scats and zone two, the lowest amount
(Figure 19, Table 14).
Weekly total no. of scats
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Week
2005 2007
June
Figure 18: Weekly number of animal scats collected from all zones of the land-bridge survey over
26 weeks (2005-2006) and a two weekly 'snapshot' in June 2005 and 2007.
120
100
zone 1
zone 2
No. of scats
80
zone 3
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Week
Figure 19: Weekly number of scats for each zone detected on the land-bridge during the 26 week
intensive survey.
44 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Table 14: Total numbers (and percentages) of species' scats collected for the three zones of the landbridge between August 2005 – February 2006). (n= 26 samples, total scats = 1266) (*introduced
species)
Taxa or category
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Total scats (%)
Red-necked wallaby
133
8
46
187 (14.8)
Swamp wallaby
8
5
3
16 (1.3)
Eastern grey kangaroo
39
3
18
60 (4.7)
Possum
4
0
4
8 (0.6)
Short-beaked echidna
5
0
1
6 (0.5)
*Brown hare
262
25
676
963 (76.1)
*Introduced predator
21
1
4
26 (2.1)
Total
472
42
752
1266 (100)
Scats collected on the land-bridge were produced by seven different taxa (Table 14). The greatest
proportion of all scats were produced by brown hare, followed by red-necked wallabies (Table 14). At
the outset of scat collecting, macropod pellets dominate. This pattern continued until week 11 when
brown hare scats began to increase (Figure 18 & 19). Detected in much smaller numbers on the landbridge were scats from the locally significant and declining eastern grey kangaroos, dogs/foxes,
swamp wallabies, possums and locally significant echidnas (Table 14, Figure 20).
120
100
Total no. of scats
80
60
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Week
feral carnivore
hare
red-necked wallaby
grey kangaroo
swamp wallaby
Figure 20: Total scat numbers of the predominant animals using the land-bridge (intensive survey).
45 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies An additional two-week survey was undertaken in June 2006 and June 2007. Comparing these 2007
‘snap-shot’ results with equivalent winter samples from a year earlier shows that the dominant species
initially using the land-bridge were still present (Table 15). However, the proportion of red-necked
wallaby, swamp wallaby and the eastern grey kangaroo scats increased in abundance in 2007 (Table
15) although brown hares remained abundant. Dog/fox scats (listed as introduced predators) which
remained rare (Table 15). (Refer to Appendix G for detailed information on scat numbers,
representative proportions of species and respective zones using the land-bridge.)
Table 15: Total numbers (and percentages) of species' scats collected for all zones of the land-bridge
during two weekly surveys in winter 2005 and 2007. (*introduced species)
2005
2007
Taxa or category
Week 1
Week 2
Total(%)
Week 1
Week 2
Total(%)
Red-necked wallaby
37
8
45 (46.3)
22
8
30 (19.2)
Swamp wallaby
0
7
7 (7.2)
30
8
38 (23.1)
Eastern grey kangaroo
8
1
9 (8.0)
16
4
20 (12.7)
*Brown hare
17
17
34 (35.0)
17
48
65 (41.6)
*Introduced predator
2
0
2 (0.1)
2
1
3 (1.8)
Total
64
33
97 (100)
87
69
156(100)
As opposed to underpasses, land-bridges are less frequently constructed to assist animal movement
across roads (Bond & Jones in review). This is partly due to the increased cost and detailed site
requirements of overpasses relative to underpasses. Of a total of 1864 structures included in 123
studies reviewed by van der Ree et al. (in press), only 68 (3.6%) were land-bridges. Nonetheless, these
structures are commonly used, especially by larger mammalian species such as: deer and foxes (Van
Wierwen & Worm 2001); wolves and elk (Clevenger & Waltho 2005); macropods, large lizards and
dogs/foxes (Hayes 2006) and moose (Olsson & Widen in press). Despite these findings, some
researchers suggest that these large, conspicuous structures are often avoided by many species (see
Gloyne & Clevenger 2001; Little et al. 2002; McDonald & St. Clair 2004).
In the absence of functioning cameras in 2004, the Compton Road project employed scat collecting on
the land-bridge to ascertain which species were using the structure. Other studies such as Johnson et
al. (1987) and Johnson & Jarman (1987) used scat collecting to approximate numbers of wildlife.
However, Laing et al. (2003) cautioned that comprehensive information on location-specific and
species-specific defecation rates is necessary for extrapolation of results to estimate animal numbers;
this information is presently unavailable for Compton Road. These data relate to the abundance of
scats and not numbers of individuals.
In regards to zones across the land-bridge, there is no even dispersal pattern evident (Figure 19, Table
14). The top of the land-bridge (zone two) displays a significantly lower mean density of scats
compared to zones one and three (Figure 19, Table 14). Zone three comprised the greatest number of
scats detected, possibly due to the patchy shrubby vegetation present and/or a gentler slope gradient to
that of zone one. Furthermore, its northerly aspect would receive greater sun, possibly providing better
grazing opportunities. It has been reported that grazing animals tend to defecate more frequently when
foraging, and not whilst they are travelling (Johnson et al. 1987). This would suggest that animals did
not graze atop the land-bridge, or perhaps did so and did not remain long enough to defecate. The
latter may be due to the somewhat exposed aspect, and/or lesser established vegetation due to its
relative openness (Figure 3), or alternatively, animals view to shelter in the adjoining bushlands was
impeded.
46 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies An unexpected finding from this survey was evidence of relatively rapid use of the structure by
macropods; the first scats were detected within only three weeks of the completion of construction,
and numerous animals were regularly found on the land-bridge at the start of monitoring proper. This
contrasts significantly with the a common consensus among researchers that animals may take months
or years before using such structures (cf. Gloyne & Clevenger 2001; Clevenger & Waltho 2005, Mata
et al. 2005). The dramatic results from Compton Road may be due to unintended foraging
opportunities associated with abundant grass growth. To assist the survival of the hundreds of tree and
shrub plantings on the land-bridge, an irrigation system was installed and operated for several months
immediately after the end of construction. As well as ensuring rapid groth of these plants, this
watering lead to the spontaneous growth of vast amounts of weedy-grass intermixed in the mulch. The
severe and on-going drought conditions in the area had greatly limited the growth of native grasses in
adjoining bushland; the obvious and abundant grasses and weeds on the land-bridge almost certainly
proved enticing to herbivorous animals. The decreasing use of the land-bridge by macropods after a
few months (Figure 20) is likely to be associated with over-grazing of this ephemeral resource and was
exacerbated by the striking increase of brown hares, equally attracted to the grasses (see Finch et al.
2003; Edwards et al. 2004).
Rapid acceptance and use of the land-bridge by animals was likely due to the attraction of the
unintentional growth of grasses. This factor suggests that intentional seeding may be an important
contribution of assisting animals in acclimatising to land-bridge structures. Success in establishing
vegetation on the land-bridge is clearly evident in Figure 4, with self-seeding by planted vegetation
occurring to form a self-contain micro-ecosystem (Figure 5). To date there have been no recorded
scats of smaller mammals using the land-bridge, but such scats have not been specifically sought.
Studies have revealed that the size of structures influences the size of the animal using them, and with
increasing vegetation cover, small mammal usage also increases (Hunt et al. 1987; Rodriguez et al.
1996; Ng et al. 2004; McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Mata et al. 2005). As the land-bridge vegetation
matures, we expect usage by a range of animals to increase, including small species and birds.
However, given that underpasses are located nearby we anticipate smaller species to continue using
these structures (McDonald & St. Clair 2004).
As a comparative ‘snap-shot’ between the two winter sampling periods in 2006 and 2007, the results
clearly demonstrate that animals were consistently using the land-bridge throughout this period (Table
15). Notably, total macropod scats of the red-necked wallaby, swamp wallaby and eastern grey
kangaroo were more evenly distributed in 2007, and as a whole, were more predominant this year
compared to the previous year (Table 15). The increase in total macropod scats may be related to the
remarkable growth in shrubs and vegetation since vegetation was initially planted (Figures 3 and 4).
Although brown hares did use the underpasses on three occasions (Table 12), they were far more
evident on the land-bridge (Table 14, Figure 20). Rodriguez et al. (1996) also reported hare preference
for overpasses rather than underpasses. Additionally, whilst two tracks of the short-beaked echidna
were observed in sand tracking (Table 12), six scats confirmed the presence of this species using the
land-bridge (Table 14). All scats collected on the land-bridge are largely representative of medium to
large size mammals, which agrees with the literature (Table 14). Mata et al. (2005) found small
mammals, reptiles and amphibians to use underpasses in crossing roads and the larger canids, foxes
and lagomorphs to use overpasses.
6.2.2
Pitfall Trapping
From February 2006 to October 2007, bi-monthly pitfall and search surveys of the land-bridge
detected a total of 11 species of reptiles and amphibians (Tables 9 & 10). This represents 42% of the
26 species found in the surrounding bushland (Table 16). Of the total species identified, those using
the land-bridge represent 3 skinks, 2 dragons, 2 geckos, 1 monitor, 1 elapid snake and 2 amphibians
(Table 16). The only locally significant species observed on the land-bridge to-date was the lace
monitor (Table 16). As a comparison, Figure 21 visually demonstrates the number of species using the
47 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies land-bridge compared to the number of species residing in adjoining bushlands either side of the
overpass. Of note, the introduced Asian house gecko was detected only on the land-bridge in the
camera housing and not within adjoining bushland (S. Wilson pers. comm).
Table 16: Herptofauna identified as using and/or living on the land-bridge during bi-monthly surveys
2006 to 2007. (n= 11 samples). (^Species only detected on the land-bridge and not within
neighbouring bushland). (*introduced species)
Common name
Species
^*Asian House Gecko
Hemidactylus frenatus
*Cane Toad
Bufo marinus
Dtella Gecko
Gehyra dubia
Eastern Bearded Dragon
Pogona barbata
Eastern Striped Skink
Ctenotus robustus
Fence Skink
Cryptoblepharus virgatus
Lace Monitor
Varanus varius
Lively Skink
Carlia vivax
Ornate Burrowing Frog
Limnodynastes orantus
Tommy Round-head
Diporiphora australis
Yellow-faced Whip Snake
Demansia psammophis
30
Species number
25
20
15
10
5
0
Land-bridge
Karawatha Forest
Kuraby Bushland
Location
Figure 21: Number of species identified in respective locations 2006-2007 via pitfall surveys.
The aim of revegetating the land-bridge was to provide a vegetation continuum of both the two
habitats of Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland. With the proliferation of native vegetative growth
on the structure, a new ecosystem is now established and providing refuge to a range of local lizards
and frogs species. Steve Wilson (pers. comm) has commented that the recent addition of many large
logs on the land-bridge appears to have provided habitat for a resident population of fence skinks. The
influences of these major new habitat components shall be further tested and investigated (S. Wilson
48 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies pers. comm). Other resident species established on the land-bridge are the eastern-striped skinks,
tommy roundheads and lively skinks (BCC 2007). There has been further reporting of success of the
land-bridge in the discovery of a clutch of lizard eggs, identified possibly as tommy round-head (S.
Wilson pers. comm).
The mixture of part vegetation and exposed areas on the land-bridge favours animals that prefer
foraging in open areas and/or amongst leaf litter and low vegetation. This is confirmed by the variety
of herptofaunal species (reptiles and amphibians) identified to be using the land-bridge (Table 16).
Mobile species such as the eastern bearded dragon, yellow-faced whip snake, ornate burrowing frog
and eastern-striped skink like the exposed areas offered on the land-bridge. Other species such as the
tommy round-head and the lively skink prefer leaf litter and low vegetation together with species of
dtella gecko and fence skinks preferring to utilise the timber logs or rocks on the land-bridge.
Skinks and invertebrates form the basic food source of other animals, particularly snakes. Reptile
predators such as the yellow-faced whip snake predate solely on skinks and have been recorded on the
summit of the land-bridge (BCC 2007). Furthermore, two lace monitors, which represent the largest
native predators in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby bushlands, have also been observed on the landbridge (BCC 2007). Such a slow moving species would certainly have had little success in surviving a
road crossing without the aide of the overpass. Therefore, not only is the land-bridge seen as a
structure to facilitate safe passage across the roadway, it is being used as a place to breed, live and as a
foraging ground.
6.2.3
Infrared Cameras
The infrared cameras on the land-bridge are also in the preliminary stages of testing on the structure.
The following species have been confirmed to-date (Table 17).
Table 17: Species photographed using the land-bridge (2007) from Faunatech Digicam 120 dual
infrared cameras.
Common Name
Brown hare
Red-necked wallaby
Swamp wallaby
Australian magpie
Torresian crow
Lace monitor
6.3
Scientific Name
Lepus europaeus
Macropus rufogriseus
Wallabia bicolor
Gymnorhina tibicen
Corvus orru
Varanus varius
Location
Zone B
Zone B
Zone B
Zone B
Zone B
Zone B
Glider Poles
Hair-tube surveys were undertaken to detect arboreal species using the glider poles across the landbridge (see section 3.1.2.4. for monitoring techniques, together with details of spotlighting (section
3.1.1.2). Four hair-tube sampling sessions of 2-3 week durations were conducted on the eight glider
poles. In regards to gliding mammals, information and understanding of the road-barrier effect and use
of crossing structures is scarce (Taylor & Goldingay 2007; Weston in press). Ball & Goldingay (in
review) did however document squirrel gliders using glider poles crossing a gap in tree canopy cover,
effectively connecting fragmented habitat.
The first two sessions (September and December 2006) detected no mammal hair in the hair-tubes
(Taylor & Goldingay 2007). The third and fourth sampling sessions (June and August 2007), however,
49 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies did reveal petaurid hair (squirrel or sugar glider) in tubes on seven of the eight glider poles and
brushtail possum hair on three of the eight poles (B. Taylor unpublished data).
Furthermore, B. Taylor (unpublished data) has recently reported that squirrel gliders have been
detected making full crossings over Compton Road. Three individuals were translocated from one side
of the road to the other, with their movements followed by radio-tracking. All three of the animals had
returned to the side they were initially captured on, two within the hour of being released. At this time
it remains unclear as to how they returned, it is most likely that two returned via the land-bridge and
the third via a canopy bridge.
Recent discussions with B. Taylor (October 2007) also revealed the unexpected and rare eyewitness
accounts of two squirrel gliders spontaneously gliding across the roadway (B. Taylor pers. comm.).
Gliding distance is directly comparative to launch height (Ball & Goldingay in review). The terrain on
either side of the land-bridge is such that gliding across the roadway can only occur one-way from
Kuraby to Karawatha, based on the higher landscape and tall trees on the Kuraby side. These are
preliminary results, and further investigations into the above are currently underway.
6.4
Canopy Bridges
Further hair-tube analysis was undertaken to detect arboreal species using two of the canopy rope
bridges (see section 3.1.2.4. and 3.1.1.2 for details of monitoring techniques). Weston (2006) reviewed
many types of arboreal crossing structures worldwide and within Australia. The majority of overseas
structures were focussed on arboreal to semi-arboreal mammals, particularly primates. Whilst no
direct observations have yet been made as to arboreal species crossing the canopy bridges at Compton
Road, hair-tubes have detected gliders and possums on trees connected via rope leading to the canopy
bridge (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). On the Kuraby side, hairs from two squirrel glider, three sugar
glider, one common brushtail possum and one common ringtail possum were detected on trees linked
via rope to the canopy bridge (Taylor & Goldingay 2007). On the Karawatha side, hair from two sugar
gliders were identified on the tubes of roped trees connected to the canopy bridge (Taylor &
Goldingay 2007).
It is hoped that when the technical difficulties of the infrared cameras are worked out, they will reveal
photographic evidence of structure use by arboreal mammals. Elsewhere in Australia, cameras have
obtained evidence of arboreal mammals using canopy bridges to traverse roadways (see Goosem
2005b and Bax 2006). Bax (2006) recorded 50 crossings, 46 of which were brushtail possums and 4
were squirrel gliders. In north-eastern Queensland, Weston (2005) and Goosem (2005b) found there to
be an adjustment period for arboreal species before using the structure. Based on this information, we
hypothesise that despite the land-bridge and underpasses being used by animals fairly quickly,
arboreal species may take longer to adjust the artificial canopy bridges and glider poles. Nonetheless,
Bax (2006) reported use almost immediately by arboreal mammals. Continued investigation into the
use of the canopy bridges is currently being undertaken by Taylor & Goldingay.
The majority of species studied in Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland are susceptible to the
effects of roads. These results demonstrate that the ecological benefits of fauna-friendly structures do
offset the impacts of roads (Ng et al. 2004).
50 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 7.
Conclusion
In the past many structures have been installed with little or no monitoring. This study displays the
necessity of monitoring structures to demonstrate and understand their effectiveness.
The significant reduction in road-kill post construction indicates the effectiveness of mitigation
fencing in preventing animals accessing the roadway, provided that regular maintenance is continued.
Most of the findings of this study resulted from methods of passive monitoring, consequently
demonstrating that a variety of species used the Compton Road Fauna Structures Array. Furthermore,
such usage was observed shortly after construction and continued until the completion of surveys.
Results from this long-term study also counter the prominent suggestions that prolonged periods of
accustomisation are required before use by animals of underpasses and overpasses is expected.
Clearly, animals at Compton Road displayed regular use over time, with a substantial number making
full crossings of the road using the structures. The increasing activity of small mammals and
bandicoots revealed strong seasonal effects, which may signify that use of the structures are being
included in behavioural patterns of endemic populations. Therefore, the structures appear to be
successful at the individual level. Further research needs to be conducted to confirm this hypothesis in
order to ascertain whether interbreeding amongst populations is occurring. Increasing movement
patterns may also be in response to the severe drought affecting the regional area. Whilst the
significance of animal movements persistently are questioned (McDonald & St. Clair 2004), only a
relatively few number of animals are required to move between populations to maintain gene-flow
(Aars & Ims 1999). The approximation of one animal per night in relation to this study would
certainly appear to be sufficient in addressing this issue.
Our results verify that a variety of small and medium-sized vertebrates used the underpasses. Of which
possibly five species are locally significant. Several studies (Rodriguez et al. 1996; Ng et al. 2004;
McDonald & St. Clair 2004; Mata et al. 2005) also revealed that small mammal species prefer small
structures with thick, vegetative cover nearby, whereby incorporating ‘wildlife furniture’ of hollow
logs on the floor of the underpasses would dramatically increase numbers. Few studies include
replication as road design is different at each location, thus it is difficult to define and predict what
dimension culverts should be suitable for which species. Our finding that many small mammals used
the innovative shelving suggests that modifying existing culverts to retro-fit such structures may be a
cost-effective way of increasing small species movement (McDonald & St. Clair 2004), along with
increasing proximate vegetation cover (Clevenger & Waltho 2001; Goosem 2001).
In reference to the land-bridge, the swift use of all three species of macropods is largely accredited to
the provision of suitable foraging resources on the structure itself. Although unintentional, the grasses
produced from the mulch, was likely a significant factor in influencing these animals to use the landbridge and acclimatise to it. Continued vegetative growth on the land-bridge is likely to attract
additional species in the years to follow.
Much debate has ensued as to how much length of time is required before animals begin using the
structures. Our data revealed that small and medium sized mammals used the culverts within months
and that medium to large sized mammals were crossing the land-bridge and were similarly quick to
respond. However, it would appear that arboreal mammals have taken a longer time to acclimatise to
the canopy rope-bridges and glider poles.
In conclusion, research from the numerous monitoring surveys have distilled detailed information on
many species living within Karawatha Forest and Kuraby Bushland, seasonal trends of structure usage
and the effects of prolonged drought throughout the region. Wildlife were found to use the structures
within a relatively short time-frame post construction and have continued to use the structures
regularly. Such evidence should encourage other councils within Queensland, Australia and overseas
to implement a variety of fauna-friendly crossing structures.
51 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies The next stage of this long-term project will involve more detailed investigations of many of the key
findings made during the last few years. For example, having discovered that many animals are using
the structures, we need to ascertain which species and individuals are involved (including discerning
the species of the rodent group), whether genetic interchange is occurring, and determining the details
of dispersal and re-colonisation. These studies would have important implications and consequences
for the significant species found using the crossing structures.
It has also come to light that many small bird species such as honeyeaters do not fly over the road.
However, recent observations have discovered that such species are using the land-bridge, traversing
the structure through the now dense vegetative cover to reach the other side.
To date, neither sand tracking nor scat collecting has detected species known to reside in nearby
bushland to be using the structures including koalas, sugar gliders, squirrel gliders, feathertail gliders
and greater gliders. Employing the infrared cameras, as well as more specific searches for signs, will
be a major project in the future.
Investigation into arboreal species using the canopy bridges and glider poles will also be aided by the
cameras, once fully operational.
Additional research of reptiles and amphibians using and residing on the land-bridge will continue.
52 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 8.
Implications for Road Design / Management Implications
Considering these findings and key issues evident in the literature, we make the following suggestions
as to improving the positive influence of fauna-friendly structures. It should be clear, however, that
every situation must be designed with careful regard to a full range of site-specific features in mind.
Nonetheless, the following may prove useful when considering how to eliminate or reduce road-kill
and maximise connectivity.
1)
Plan for long-term monitoring, both before and after construction
Many road ecologists and engineers attempting to develop fauna-friendly design options comment
upon the lack of reliable and relevant information. This lack of sound background information has
been an understandable component of the widespread reluctance to adopt wildlife movement
solutions. Careful long-term monitoring is critical for appraisals of the success or otherwise of
crossing structures and will assist the on-going development of this important field.
2)
Understand the existing populations
Before consideration of structures is possible, it is important that the populations of fauna likely to
be advantaged are well understood. For example, knowledge of healthy populations of three
species of macropod (which were also the most visible forms of road-kill) and the existence of
several glider species in the surrounding bushland at Compton Road lead directly to the inclusion
of the land-bridge and glider poles respectively.
3)
Exclusion fencing will almost always be essential
In almost every case, the elimination or reduction of road-kill rates will be a prominent objective
of a wildlife solutions project. Therefore, some form exclusion fencing will be necessary (Foster
& Humphrey 1995; Clevenger & Waltho 2005). The design of such fencing will depend on the
key taxa of a location, and need not always be complete. Certainly, the exclusion fencing was a
predominant factor for the success of the Compton Road Fauna Array, effectively reducing
wildlife-vehicle collision together with funnelling animals to the structures. Frequent inspection
and repair is necessary as wildlife quickly exploit breaches in the fencing (Foster & Humphrey
1995).
4)
Habitat continuity is important
The importance of proximity to adjoining forests in providing other suitable shelter has been
shown to be a key issue in animals utilising structures. Therefore it is recommended that
vegetation cover be provided near underpass entrances and on overpasses (Clevenger & Waltho
2001; Goosem 2001; Monamy & Fox 2001). Reportedly, within Australia this also discourages
feral predator use (Hunt et al. 1987; Little et al. 2002).
5)
Selection of structure types is critical
Selecting the most effective structures within an agreed costing, involves thoughtful placement
near travel routes and/or frequent spacing, vegetation, suitable dimensions, configuration and
design (Foster & Humphrey 1995; Clevenger et al. 2001; Goosem 2001; Cain et al. 2003; Mata et
al. 2005; Ramp & Ben-Ami 2006).
53 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 6)
Structures may be used by numerous species
While key taxa may motivate the selection of certain structures, one of the major findings of this
project was the discovery of unexpected species using these facilities. For example, we expected
small mammals to use the underpasses but found large numbers of reptiles; the land-bridge was
designed for larger species of mammals but is also well used by reptiles, amphibians and birds.
7)
Existing structures can be retrofitted
Wildlife usage has shown to increase dramatically with the retrofitting of existing structures (van
der Ree et al. 2007). This may range from providing 'wildlife furniture' of shelving, log runners,
rocks, revegetating entranceways and land-bridges.
8)
Habituation may take time
While this project did find unexpectedly rapid use of both underpasses and the land-bridge, this
should not be regarded as a normal expectation elsewhere. Patience, and pro-active activities, may
be necessary to enhance use.
9)
Avoidance can be overcome through attraction
We believe that the rapid use of the land-bridge by the macropods was related to the attraction of
these animals to the foraging opportunities provided by the germination of edible grasses. Similar
forms of experimental attraction should be considered in other locations.
54 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies 9.
References
Aars, J. and Ims, R.A. (1999) The effect of habitat corridors on rates of transfer and interbreeding
between vole demes. Ecology 80: 1648-1675.
Abson, R. and Lawrence, R.E. (2003a) Monitoring the use of the Slaty Creek wildlife underpass,
Calder Freeway, Black Forest, Macedon, Victoria, Australia. Proceedings of the 2003
International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Lake Placid, New York, USA. (Eds
CL Irwin, P Garret and KP McDermott) pp.303-308. (Center for Transportation and
Environment, North Carolina State University).
Abson, R. and Lawrence, R.E. (2003b) Slaty Creek wildlife underpass study, Final Report. Centre for
Sustainable Regional Communities, Latrobe University, Bendigo: Kyneton.
Alexander, S.M., Waters, N.M. and Paquet, P.C. (2005) Traffic volume and highway permeability for
a mammalian community in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The Canadian Geographer 49:
321-331.
Ascensão, F. and Mira, A. (2007) Factors affecting culvert use by vertebrates along two stretches of
road in southern Portugal. Ecological Research 22: 57-66.
Ashley, E.P. and Robinson, J.T. (1996). Roadway mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife
on the Long Point Causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. The Canadian Field Naturalist 110: 403-412.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (August 1997) Fauna usage of three
underpasses beneath the F3 Freeway between Sydney and Newcastle. Report to the Roads and
Traffic Authority.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (March 2001a) Fauna underpass
monitoring, Stage One – Final Report – Herons Creek. Roads and Traffic Authority.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (June 2001b) An investigation of the
use of road overpass structures by arboreal marsupials. Final report to Roads and Traffic
Authority.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (June 2001c) Pacific Highway – Fauna
underpass monitoring, Stage 2, Episode 3, Taree. Report to New South Wales Roads and Traffic
Authority.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (June 2002a) Fauna underpass
monitoring, Stage 2, Episode 5, Taree. Report to New South Wales Roads and Traffic
Authority.
Australian Museum Business Services Consultancy (AMBSC) (June 2002b) Fauna underpass
monitoring, Stage 2, Episode Five, Bulahdelah to Coolongolook. Report to New South Wales
Roads and Traffic Authority.
Ball, T. and Goldingay, R.L. (in review) Can wooden poles be used to reconnect habitat for a gliding
marsupial. Landscape and Urban Planning.
Bax, D. (2006) Karuah Bypass – fauna crossing report. Report prepared for Roads and Traffic
Authority, NSW, by Thiess Pty Ltd.
Bennett, A.F. (1991). Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: a review, pp. 99-117 in Saunders,
D.A. and Hobbs, R.J. (eds.) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty and
Sons, Sydney.
55 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Bibby, C.J., Burgess, N.D., Hill, D.A. and Mustoe, S.H. (2000) Bird Census Techniques (2nd Edition),
Academic Press, London.
Bissonette, J.A. (2002) Scaling roads and wildlife: the Cinderella principle. Z Jagdwiss Supplement
48: 208-214.
Bond, A., and Jones, D.N. (2006) Fauna use of underpasses and the land bridge at Compton Road:
Results from six months passive monitoring. Report to the Brisbane City Council. Suburban
Wildlife Research Group. Griffith University.
Bond, A., and Jones, D.N. (In review) Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and
overpasses. Wildlife Research.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) (2003) Flora and Fauna Database. BCC, Brisbane.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) (2004) Significant Fauna Species List (mainland only). BCC, Brisbane.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) (2006) Biodiversity Research Partnerships Program – 2006 Update.
Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
Brisbane City Council (BCC) (2007) Biodiversity Research Partnerships Program – 2007 Projects.
Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
Buchanan, K. (2005) Sharing the way with wildlife. B.Sc. (Masters) Thesis, Griffith University,
Nathan.
Cain, A.T., Tuovila, V.R., Hewitt, D.G. and Tewes, M.E. (2003) Effects of a highway and mitigation
projects on bobcats in Southern Texas. Biological Conservation 114: 189-197.
Clevenger, A.P. and Waltho, N. (2000) Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in
Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14: 47-56.
Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. and Gunson, K. (2001a) Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and
factors affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1340-1349.
Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. and Gunson, K. (2001b). Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlifevehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 646-653.
Clevenger, A.P., Chruszcz, B. and Gunson, K.E. (2003) Spatial patterns and factors influencing small
vertebrate fauna road-kill aggregations. Biological Conservation 109: 15-26.
Clevenger, A.P. and Waltho, N. (2005) performance indices to identify attributes of highway crossing
structures facilitating movement of large mammals. Biological Conservation 121: 453-464.
Coulson, G.M. (1982) Road-kills of Macropods on a section of Highway in Central Victoria.
Australian Wildlife Research 9: 21-26.
Ecologia Environmental Consultants (June 1995) Kwinana Freeway wildlife underpass study, fauna
monitoring program. Report to Main Roads Western Australia.
Edwards, G.P., Pople, A.R., Saalfeld, K. and Caley, P. (2004) Introduced mammals in Australian
rangelands: Future threats and the role of monitoring programmes in management strategies.
Austral Ecology 29: 40-50.
Finch, N., Stewart, C.D., and Jones, D.N. (2003) Use of ephemeral foraging resources by brown hares
in newly established suburban areas. Proceeding Royal Society of Queensland 69: 89-97.
56 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Fitzgerald, M. (2005) Final report: results of sandtrap monitoring in eight designated fauna crossings
of the Yelgun to Chinderah Pacific Highway Upgrade: sample 3 February – April 2005. Report
to AbiRoad Maintenance Pty Ltd.
FitzGibbon, S.I. and Jones. J.N. (2006) A community-based wildlife survey: the knowledge and
attributes of residents of suburban Brisbane, with a focus on bandicoots. Wildlife Research 33:
233-241.
Foster, M.L. and Humphrey, S.R. (1995) Use of highway underpasses by Florida panthers and other
wildlife. Wildlife Society Bulletin 23(1): 95-100.
Garden, J.G., McAlpine, C.A., Possingham, H.P. and Jones, D.N. (2007) Using multiple survey
methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: what are the most successful and costefficient combinations? Wildlife Research 34: 218-227.
Gloyne, C.C. and Clevenger, A.P. (2001) Cougar Puma concolor use of wildlife crossing structures on
Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park, Alberta. Wildlife Biology 7: 117-124.
Goosem, M. (2001). Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: inhibition of crossing
movements. Wildlife Research 28: 351-364.
Goosem, M., Izumi, Y. and Turton, S. (2001) Efforts to restore habitat connectivity for an upland
tropical rainforest fauna: A trial of underpasses below roads. Ecological Management &
Restoration 3: 196-202.
Goosem, M.W. (2005a) Wildlife surveillance assessment Compton Road upgrade 2005: Review of
contemporary remote and direct surveillance options for monitoring. Report to the Brisbane
City Council. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management.
Rainforest CRC, Cairns.
Goosem, M.W. (2005b) Effectiveness of rope bridge arboreal overpasses and faunal underpasses in
providing connectivity for rainforest fauna. International Conference on Ecology and
Transportation 2005 Proceedings, pp.304-322.
Goosem, M.W. (2005c) Effects of tropical rainforest roads on small mammals: inhibition of crossing
movements. Wildlife Research 28: 351-364.
Hayes, I.F. (2006) Effectiveness of fauna road-kill mitigation structures in north-eastern New South
Wales. Unpublished Third Year Undergraduate Report. School of Environmental Science and
Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore.
Hunt, A., Dickens, H.J. and Whelan, R.J. (1987) Movement of mammals through tunnels under
railway lines. Australian Zoologist 24(2): 89-93.
Johnson, C.N. and Jarman, P.J. (1987) Macropod studies at Wallaby Creek VI. A validation of the use
of dung-pellet counts for measuring absolute densities of populations of macropodids.
Australian Wildlife Research 14: 139-145.
Johnson, C.N., Jarman, P.J. and Southwell, C.J. (1987) Macropod studies at Wallaby Creek V.
Patterns of defecation by eastern grey kangaroos and red-necked wallabies. Australian Wildlife
Research 14: 133-138.
Jones, M.E. (2000) Road upgrade, road mortality and remedial measures: impacts on a population of
eastern quolls and Tasmanian devils. Wildlife Research 27: 289-296.
Jones, D., Appleby, R., Edgar, R., and Green, B. (October 2004) Compton Road wildlife movement
monitoring program: preliminary results of phase 1. Report for Environment and Parks,
Brisbane City Council, Suburban Wildlife Research Group.
57 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Kordas, G., Coutts, R.H. and Catterall, C.P. (1993) The vegetation of Karawatha Forest and its
significance in the south-east Queensland landscape. Report for the Karawatha Forest Protection
Society, Brisbane.
Laing, S.E., Buckland, S.T., Burn, R.W., Lambie, D. and Amphlett, A. (2003) Dung and nest surveys:
estimating decay rates. Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 1102-1111.
Law, B.S. and Dickman, C.R. (1998) The use of habitat mosaics by terrestrial vertebrates fauna:
implications for conservation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 323-333.
Little, S.J., Harcourt, R.G. and Clevenger, A.P. (2002) Do wildlife passages act as prey-traps?
Biological Conservation 107: 135-145.
Loughry, W.J. and McDonough, C.M. (1995) Are road kills valid indicators of Armadillo population
structure? American Midland Naturalist 135: 53-59.
Mack, P. (2005) When fauna corridors and arterial road corridors intersect. City Design, Brisbane City
Council.
McDonald, W., and St. Clair, C.C. (2004) Elements that promote highway crossing structure use by
small mammals in Banff National Park. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 82-93.
Main Roads Queensland (2002) Design of fauna underpasses, pp.8.
Mansergh, I.M. and Scotts, D.J. (1989) Habitat continuity and social organisation of the mountain
pygmy-possum restored by tunnel. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(3): 701-707.
Mata, C., Hervás, I., Herranz, J., Suárez, F. and Malo, J.E. (2005) Complementary use by vertebrates
of crossing structures along a fenced Spanish motorway. Biological Conservation 124: 397405.
Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2004) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia (2nd edition). Oxford
University Press, Melbourne.
Monamy, V. and Fox, B.J. (2000) Small mammal succession is determined by vegetation density
rather than time elapsed since disturbance. Austral Ecology 25: 580-587.
Morrison, R.G.B. (1981) A Field guide to the Tracks and Traces of Australian Animals. Rigby
Publishers Limited, Australia.
Ng, S.J., Dole, J.W., Sauvajot, R.M., Riley, S.P.D. and Valone, T.J. (2004) Use of highway
undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. Biological Conservation 115: 499-507.
Olsson, M.P.O. and Widen, P. (in press) Effects of highway fencing and wildlife passages on space
use and movements of moose Alces alces in southwestern Sweden. Wildlife Biology.
Oxley, D.J., Fenton, M.B. and Carmody, G.R. (1974) The effects of roads on populations of small
mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 11: 51-59.
Queensland Government, Environmental Protection Agency and Queensland Parks & Wildlife (June
2007) 'Threatened Plants and Animals' (online). Available: http://www. epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/ (31 August 2007).
Queensland Main Roads (1998) Roads in the Wet tropics, planning, design, construction, maintenance
and operation Best Practice Manual. pp:5.
Queensland Museum (2007) 'Endangered Species' (online). Available:
http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/features/endangered/ (31 August 2007).
58 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies Ramp, D., Caldwell, J., Edwards, K.A., Warton, D. and Croft, D.B. (2005a) Modelling of wildlife
fatality hotspots along the Snowy Mountain Highway in New South Wales, Australia. Biological
Conservation 126: 474-490.
Ramp, D., Wilson, V.K. and Croft, D.B. (2005b) Assessing the impacts of roads in peri-urban
reserves: Road-based fatalities and road usage by wildlife in the Royal National Park, New
South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 129: 348-359.
Ramp, D. and Ben-Ami, D. (2006) The effect of road-based fatalities on the viability of a peri-urban
swamp wallaby population. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1615-1625.
Rodriguez, A., Crema, G., and Delibes, M. (1996) Use of non-wildlife passages across a high speed
railway by terrestrial vertebrates. Ecological Society 33: 1527-1540.
Rodriguez, A., Crema, G., and Delibes, M. (1997) Factors affecting crossing of red foxes and wildcats
through non-wildlife passages across a high-speed railway. Ecography 20: 287-294.
Roe, J.H., Gibson, J. and Kingsbury, B.A. (2006) Beyond the wetland border: Estimating the impact of
roads for two species of water snakes. Biological Conservation 130: 161-168.
Spencer, R.J., Cavanough, V.C., Baxter, G.S. and Kennedy, M.S. (2005) Adult free zones in small
mammal populations: response of Australian native rodents to reduced cover. Austral Ecology
30: 868 – 876.
Taylor, B.D. and Goldingay, R.L. (2003) Cutting the carnage: wildlife usage of road culverts in northeastern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 30: 529-537.
Taylor, B.D. and Goldingay, R.L. (2007) The study of gliding possums at Compton Road 2006-07.
Final Report for Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
Triggs, B. (2004) Tracks, Scats and other Traces: a Field Guide to Australian Mammals. Revised
edition. Oxford University press, Victoria, Australia.
van der Ree, R., Clarkson, D.T., Holland, K., Gulle, N. and Budden, M. (2007) Review of mitigation
measures used to deal with the issue of habitat fragmentation by major linear infrastructure.
Report for Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR). Contract No. 025/2006.
Published by DEWR.
van der Ree, R., Van der Grift, E., Gulle, N., Holland, K., Mata, C., and Suárez, F. (in press)
Overcoming the barrier effect of roads – how effective are mitigation strategies? An
international review of the use and effectiveness of underpasses and overpasses designed to
increase the permeability of roads for wildlife. Proceedings, International Conference on
Ecology and Transportation, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, 20-25 May 2007.
Van Wierwen, S.E. and Worm, P.B. (2001) The use of a motorway wildlife overpass by large
mammals. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 51 (1): 97-105.
Weston, N.G. (in press) A review of technologies aimed at reducing road-kill and restoring habitat
connectivity for arboreal mammals. James Cook University, Cairns.
Yanes, M., Velasco, J.M. and Suárez, F. (1995) Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: the
importance of culverts. Biological Conservation 71: 217-222.
59 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX A: VEGETATION
Sourced from: Kordas et al. (1993).
Of the 12 vegetation types described by Kordas et. al. (1993) only 10 were used, as
appropriate for glider species
Vegetation
Type
Description
1
Paper bark tea tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) open forest and woodland to
10m
2
Tumbledown forest red gum (Eucalyptus seeana) and grey gum (E. major)
woodland to 16m
3
Scribbly gum (E. racemosa) open forest and woodland to 20m
4
Grey gum (E. major) and white stringybark (E. eugenoides) open forest and
woodland to 18m
5
Broad-leaved spotted gum (Corymbia henryi) open forest and woodland to
22m
6
Broad-leaved mahogany (E. carnea), brown bloodwood (C. trachyphloia)
and smudgee (Angophora woodsiana) open forest and woodland to 20m
7
White stringybark (E. eugenoides) open forest and woodland to 22m
8
E. fibrosa ssp fibrosa and E. major layered woodland and open forest to 20m
9
Bailey’s stringybark (E. baileyana) & white stringybark (E. eugenoides)
open forest & woodland to 22m
10
Planchon’s stringybark (E. planchoniana) open forest and woodland to 20m.
60 Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - TOP 10 (Page 1/25)
Raw data kindly provided by Scott Piper.
Note: Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB).
*Significant Species
Feb-04
Top 10 birds
Mar-04
Apr-04
May-04
Jun-04
Jan-05
Feb-05
May-05
Jun-05
Jul-05
Aug-05
KW
166
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
42
472
318
217
120
10
23
74
33
102
2
20
90
18
5
1
15
34
18
15
11
25
43
50
59
76
97
25
69
36
13
8
12
31
40
18
9
7
9
22
24
4
7
White-throated Honeyeater
29
17
42
10
34
26
27
23
24
8
6
16
8
29
7
3
12
10
17
4
3
Torresian Crow
11
10
54
50
70
20
2
1
21
11
2
22
37
9
5
2
2
16
16
6
3
Striated Pardalote
9
32
8
27
5
39
32
20
12
22
14
2
1
10
8
5
4
13
14
5
3
50
37
38
21
18
5
8
5
6
24
6
7
4
2
3
White-throated Treecreeper*
Grey Fantail
15
12
17
1
28
22
5
1
12
1
2
7
9
3
7
5
5
4
49
58
10
16
25
20
13
12
5
7
11
16
8
5
Pied Butcherbird
11
5
16
29
11
2
2
1
3
6
12
1
13
31
1
6
2
4
15
10
9
1
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
53
9
53
74
37
53
9
20
2
8
4
1
351
196
769
611
576
431
146
236
62
144
129
58
Rainbow Lorikeet
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
Silvereye
Total
Total number birds
preconstruction
5550
postconstruction
2611
pointcount
3775
Total
11936
61 12
2
96
153
225
111
138
34
112
61
32
2
15
10
6
1
36
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - TOP 10 (Page 2/25)
* Significant species
Oct-05
Top 10 birds
Nov-05
Dec-05
Feb-06
Mar-06
Apr-06
Jun-06
Jul-06
KW
KB
KW
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
17
7
22
14
5
11
5
46
5
16
18
14
21
11
8
20
19
17
6
6
12
15
5
7
2
7
1
10
7
12
11
16
19
19
11
31
White-throated Honeyeater
3
6
10
7
1
6
5
5
7
9
13
26
15
21
9
19
11
14
Torresian Crow
3
6
8
21
11
13
9
14
3
7
8
9
10
7
9
14
10
19
Striated Pardalote
5
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
13
12
12
8
15
10
9
10
Silvereye
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
1
3
5
1
33
White-throated Treecreeper*
Grey Fantail
6
4
10
6
9
7
8
5
4
2
9
8
5
11
12
10
10
10
11
12
16
13
15
13
15
Pied Butcherbird
5
2
13
4
6
7
9
6
4
8
13
13
4
3
5
7
7
11
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
3
2
11
1
14
3
2
1
1
2
4
33
80
83
39
100
29
58
109
96
94
125
91
160
Rainbow Lorikeet
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
Total
49
KB
Jan-06
41
53
Top 10 birds
pre
post
point
Total
% of total
Rainbow Lorikeet
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
1689
312
310
2311
19.4
584
217
290
1091
9.14
White-throated Honeyeater
270
215
258
743
6.22
Torresian Crow
323
79
300
702
5.88
Striated Pardalote
191
60
223
474
3.97
Silvereye
250
127
62
439
3.68
White-throated Treecreeper
Grey Fantail
134
55
246
435
3.64
179
116
133
428
3.59
Pied Butcherbird
143
54
228
425
3.56
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
310
60
53
423
3.54
62 1
1
8
90
88
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - TOP 10 (Page 3/25)
* Significant species
Aug-06
Top 10 birds
Sep-06
Oct-06
Nov-06
Feb-07
Mar-07
Apr-07
May-07
Jul-07
Grand
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
KW
KB
7
6
13
19
15
21
11
7
1
11
22
9
4
9
4
6
4
5
1
4
2261
9
11
11
14
12
12
9
5
1
6
6
4
3
12
12
10
11
12
5
12
1058
White-throated Honeyeater
10
5
8
10
10
15
8
3
2
6
13
2
5
13
9
2
15
7
3
2
708
Torresian Crow
5
4
10
9
12
12
3
4
2
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
670
Striated Pardalote
5
2
12
9
6
3
5
7
5
11
3
3
4
4
2
5
447
Silvereye
30
13
3
23
1
5
5
4
3
11
8
439
White-throated Treecreeper*
Grey Fantail
5
3
10
10
1
1
2
5
406
10
7
1
9
9
426
Pied Butcherbird
8
1
9
7
3
Total
63 89
52
80
9
KB
Jan-07
Rainbow Lorikeet
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
KW
Dec-06
9
1
5
10
5
6
1
4
5
5
3
2
5
2
8
4
14
5
3
4
1
2
9
5
4
4
2
1
10
9
9
1
72
50
8
110
87
6
78
9
9
46
25
11
35
75
43
29
35
51
Total
6
3
8
3
5
6
411
1
416
56
7242
53
22
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004)
(Page 4/25)
Raw data kindly provided by Scott Piper. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB).
* Significant
species
ORDER
30
148
160
167
168
179
188
290
338
346
366
371
372
373
374
377
382
390
415
418
421
427
439
446
450
456
64 Code
Family
Common name
Species
MADU
GREG
SAIB
BAZA
BSKI
GGOS
BLFA
MALW
CRPI
BSDO
GALA
SCCK
COCK
RALO
SBLO
LILO
AKPA
PHRO
PACU
FTCU
SHBC
PHCO
TAFM
AUON
WTNT
LAKO
Anatidae
Ardeidae
Threskiornithidae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae*
Falconidae
Charadriidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Centropodidae
Podargidae
Aegothelidae
Apodidae
Halcyonidae
Australian Wood Duck
Great Egret
Australian White Ibis
Pacific Baza
Black-shouldered Kite
Grey Goshawk*
Black Falcon
Masked Lapwing
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Cockatiel
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Australian King-Parrot
Pale-headed Rosella
Pallid Cuckoo
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Shining Bronze-Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Tawny Frogmouth
Australian Owlet-nightjar
White-throated Needletail
Laughing Kookaburra
Chenonetta jubata
Ardea alba
Threskiornis molucca
Aviceda subcristata
Elanus axillaris
Accipiter novaehollandiae*
Falco subniger
Vanellus miles
Ocyphaps lophotes
Geopelia humeralis
Cacatua roseicapilla
Cacatua galerita
Nymphicus hollandicus
Trichoglossus haematodus
Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus
Glossopsitta pusilla
Alisterus scapularis
Platycercus adscitus
Cuculus pallidus
Cacomantis flabelliformis
Chrysococcyx lucidus
Centropus phasianinus
Podargus strigoides
Aegotheles cristatus
Hirundapus caudacutus
Dacelo novaeguineae
Feb-04
KW KB
Mar-04
KW KB
Apr-04
KW KB
May-04
KW KB
Jun-04
KW KB
9
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
166
42
9
53
3
2
1
1
472
53
5
4
1
3
318
74
2
217
37
120
53
31
10
6
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
4
10
23
2
74
1
8
1
2
1
10
12
1
5
23
4
1
33
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004)
(Page 5/25)
* Significant species
Common name
Australian Wood Duck
Great Egret
Australian White Ibis
Pacific Baza
Black-shouldered Kite
Grey Goshawk*
Black Falcon
Masked Lapwing
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Cockatiel
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Australian King-Parrot
Pale-headed Rosella
Pallid Cuckoo
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Shining Bronze-Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Tawny Frogmouth
Australian Owlet-nightjar
White-throated Needletail
Laughing Kookaburra
65 Jan-05
KW
KB
6
Feb-05
KW
KB
4
6
9
2
1
4
3
3
4
8
102
2
20
9
90
20
11
1
6
6
1
2
2
20
5
5
Total
6
4
15
12
1
1
1
1
7
3
10
27
1
1689
310
7
1
87
1
5
1
1
2
1
34
57
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004)
* Significant
ORDER
461
463
473
480
482
487
499
502
510
555
560
565
571
590
594
614
632
654
660
663
665
668
678
680
682
683
686
66 (Page 6/25)
species
Code
Family
Common name
Species
SAKF
RBEE
WTTC
SUFW
VAFW
RBFW
SPPD
STPD
WSCW
NOFB
NOMI
LEHE
YFHE
WTHE
BRHE
SCHE
EYRO
SITT
GOWH
RUWH
LSTH
GSTH
SAFC
REFC
RUFT
GRFT
WIWA
Halcyonidae
Meropidae
Climacteridae*
Maluridae
Maluridae
Maluridae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Petroicidae
Neosittidae*
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Dicruridae*
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
Noisy Friarbird
Noisy Miner
Lewin's Honeyeater
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Scarlet Honeyeater
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Little Shrike-thrush
Grey Shrike-thrush
Satin Flycatcher*
Restless Flycatcher
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Todiramphus sanctus
Merops ornatus
Cormobates leucophaeus*
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus lamberti
Malurus melanocephalus
Pardalotus punctatus
Pardalotus striatus
Sericornis frontalis
Philemon corniculatus
Manorina melanocephala
Meliphaga lewinii
Lichenostomus chrysops
Melithreptus albogularis
Lichmera indistincta
Myzomela sanguinolenta
Eopsaltria australis
Daphoenositta chrysoptera*
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
Colluricincla megarhyncha
Colluricincla harmonica
Myiagra cyanoleuca*
Myiagra inquieta
Rhipidura rufifrons
Rhipidura fuliginosa
Rhipidura leucophrys
Feb-04
KW KB
1
1
2
15
12
Mar-04
KW KB
1
Apr-04
KW KB
28
22
9
9
3
3
2
8
17
1
2
25
27
5
17
4
39
36
9
4
14
23
31
25
29
43
17
50
42
15
6
1
59
10
2
4
7
3
1
20
5
1
41
3
10
3
11
27
1
76
34
16
1
2
2
21
May-04
KW KB
23
5
5
10
6
1
32
6
1
20
1
6
14
97
26
1
0
4
27
11
9
8
49
1
58
1
Jun-04
KW KB
12
1
3
9
4
12
22
14
8
25
27
3
2
69
23
36
24
27
2
13
8
2
1
5
6
8
6
7
9
2
2
12
1
7
5
16
25
1
9
1
10
20
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004) (Page 7/25)
* Significant species
Common name
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
Noisy Friarbird
Noisy Miner
Lewin's Honeyeater
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Scarlet Honeyeater
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Little Shrike-thrush
Grey Shrike-thrush
Satin Flycatcher*
Restless Flycatcher
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
67 Jan-05
KW
KB
2
7
6
17
8
6
2
12
Feb-05
KW
KB
1
9
3
6
7
2
1
4
13
6
31
16
1
24
40
8
1
10
2
1
2
Total
168
165
113
1
13
102
11
191
1
113
182
12
584
270
3
38
4
16
58
59
1
103
5
1
9
179
2
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004)
* Significant
(Page 8/25)
species
ORDER
Code
Family
Common name
Species
687
SPDR
Dicruridae
Spangled Drongo
688
691
694
697
698
706
708
709
710
721
746
753
771
792
BFCS
CICA
VATR
OBOR
FIGB
GRBU
PIBU
MAGP
PICW
TCRO
DBFI
RBFT
MIST
SILV
UNMB
UNWS
UNSB
Campephagidae
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Campephagidae
Campephagidae
Oriolidae
Oriolidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Corvidae
Passeridae
Passeridae
Dicaeidae
Zosteropidae
Cicadabird
Varied Triller
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Mistletoebird
Silvereye
Unknown Medium Bird
Dicrurus bracteatus
Coracina
novaehollandiae
Coracina tenuirostris
Lalage leucomela
Oriolus sagittatus
Sphecotheres viridis
Cracticus torquatus
Cracticus nigrogularis
Gymnorhina tibicen
Strepera graculina
Corvus orru
Taeniopygia bichenovii
Neochmia temporalis
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Zosterops lateralis
11
Mar-04
KW
KB
16
16
13
22
1
7
1
Apr-04
KW
KB
6
6
31
14
4
1
1
11
1
5
2
16
20
2
29
15
11
10
54
50
11
3
9
70
7
11
38
21
1
1
32
50
37
Unknown Woodswallow
Unknown Small Bird
5
5
1
2
4
20
10
8
11
18
May-04
KW
KB
3
2
1
Jun-04
KW
KB
1
2
4
5
5
2
3
1
9
3
4
6
6
5
2
1
21
11
6
2
5
8
5
275
188
4
Total
68 Feb-04
KW
KB
3
3
463
260
1019
791
752
581
138
224
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Preconstruction (2004) (Page 9/25)
* Significant species
Common name
Jan-05
KW
KB
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Varied Triller
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Mistletoebird
Silvereye
Unknown Medium Bird
13
1
Feb-05
KW
KB
15
15
2
7
1
1
2
12
6
1
2
1
2
12
13
2
4
22
31
4
1
37
16
6
24
6
262
343
Unknown Woodswallow
Unknown Small Bird
Total
69 204
50
Total
86
130
8
9
1
12
9
143
78
17
323
10
48
13
250
1
1
4
5550
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 10/25)
Raw data kindly provided by Brett Taylor, Matt Davis and Griffith student volunteers. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB).
* Significant
species
Order
10
30
34
138
160
167
173
178
180
185
332
338
346
366
371
373
374
377
390
418
424
426
427
428
431
439
450
70 Code
BRQU
MADU
PBDU
PELI
SAIB
BAZA
WHKI
BGOS
COSH
BRFA
SPTD
CRPI
BSDO
GALA
SCCK
RALO
SBLO
LILO
PHRO
FTCU
KOEL
CBCU
PHCO
POOW
SBOO
TAFM
WTNT
Family
Phasianidae
Anatidae
Anatidae
Pelecanidae
Threskiornithidae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae
Accipitridae*
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Centropodidae
Strigidae*
Strigidae
Podargidae
Apodidae
Species
(Common Name)
Brown Quail
Australian Wood Duck
Pacific Black Duck
Australian Pelican
Australian White Ibis
Pacific Baza
Whistling Kite
Brown Goshawk*
Collared Sparrowhawk
Brown Falcon
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Tawny Frogmouth
White-throated Needletail
Species
Coturnix australis
Chenonetta jubata
Anas superciliosa
Pelecanus conspicillatus
Theskiornis aethopica
Aviceda subcristata
Haliastur sphenurus
Accipiter fasciatus*
Accipiter cirrhocephalus
Falco berigora
Streptopelia chinensis
Ocyphaps lophotes
Geopelia humeralis
Cacatua roseicapilla
Cacatua galerita
Trichoglossus haemotodus
Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus
Glossopsitta pusilla
Platycercus adscitus
Cuculus pyrrhophanus
Eudynamis scolopacea
Scythrops novaehollandiae
Centropus phasianinus
Ninox strenua*
Ninox novaeseelandiae
Podargus strigoides
Hirundapus caudacutus
May-05
KW KB
3
Jun-05
KW KB
Jul-05
KW KB
Aug-05
KW KB
Sep-05
KW KB
2
2
70
40
32
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
10
8
2
7
19
3
8
2
10
14
1
8
2
2
7
12
2
1
10
2
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 11/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Brown Quail
Australian Wood Duck
Pacific Black Duck
Australian Pelican
Australian White Ibis
Pacific Baza
Whistling Kite
Brown Goshawk*
Collared Sparrowhawk
Brown Falcon
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Tawny Frogmouth
White-throated Needletail
71 Oct-05
KW KB
Nov-05
KW KB
Dec-05
KW KB
Jan-06
KW KB
Feb-06
KW KB
Mar-06
KW KB
Apr-06
KW KB
Jun-06
KW KB
1
2
Jul-06
KW KB
2
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
Oct-06
KW KB
1
1
1
1
30
23
9
3
3
12
2
1
1
1
2
1
6
12
2
1
1
2
2
2
13
5
6
2
8
39
11
1
2
2
1
1
2
11
10
5
2
13
5
3
1
2
12
4
9
7
2
2
1
1
8
2
7
3
1
1
1
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
4
3
1
3
6
6
2
3
6
2
1
1
3
10
2
1
5
4
6
12
2
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 12/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Brown Quail
Australian Wood Duck
Pacific Black Duck
Australian Pelican
Australian White Ibis
Pacific Baza
Whistling Kite
Brown Goshawk*
Collared Sparrowhawk
Brown Falcon
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Tawny Frogmouth
White-throated Needletail
72 Nov-06
KW KB
Dec-06
KW KB
Jan-07
KW KB
Feb-07
KW KB
Mar-07
KW KB
Apr-07
KW KB
May-07
KW KB
Jul-07
KW KB
1
1
1
1
6
3
2
6
1
17
7
4
4
7
4
6
2
1
1
2
1
4
3
1
Total
3
9
3
1
223
3
1
7
1
1
5
2
3
20
17
312
60
18
75
10
0
3
0
0
1
25
24
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 13/25)
*Significant
Order
456
459
461
463
464
473
480
482
487
499
502
510
532
555
558
560
571
590
591
594
607
614
620
626
632
654
660
663
73 species
Code
LAKO
FOKF
SAKF
RBEE
DOLL
WTTC
SUFW
VAFW
RBFW
SPPD
STPD
WSCW
WTGE
NOFB
BFHE
NOMI
YFHE
WTHE
WNHE
BRHE
ESPB
SCHE
JAWI
RORO
EYRO
SITT
GOWH
RUWH
Family
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Meropidae
Coraciidae
Climacteridae*
Maluridae
Maluridae
Maluridae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Petroicidae
Petroicidae
Petroicidae
Neosittidae*
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Species
(Common Name)
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Eastern Spinebill
Scarlet Honeyeater
Jacky Winter
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Species
Dacelo novaeguineae
Todiramphus macleayii
Halcyon sancta
Merops ornatus
Eurystomos orientalis
Cormobates leucophaeus*
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus assimilis
Malurus melanocephalus
Pardalotus punctatus
Pardalotus striatus
Sericornis frontalis
Gerygone olivacea
Philemon corniculatus
Entomyzon cyanotis
Manorina melanocephala
Lichenostomus chrysops
Melithreptus albogularis
Melithreptus lunatus
Lichomera indistincta
Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris
Myzomela sanguinolenta
Microeca leucophaea
Petroica rosea
Eopsaltria australis
Daphoenositta chrysoptera*
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
May-05
KW KB
Jun-05
KW KB
4
5
1
2
1
1
1
Jul-05
KW KB
2
5
2
1
1
3
Aug-05
KW KB
1
1
1
Sep-05
KW KB
5
2
7
1
5
2
4
5
3
4
2
5
1
5
5
5
5
1
1
14
3
3
10
20
2
1
1
2
4
8
10
5
9
11
2
2
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
3
6
5
11
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
2
8
1
1
2
1
1
5
4
2
5
1
1
1
7
3
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 14/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Eastern Spinebill
Scarlet Honeyeater
Jacky Winter
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
74 Oct-05
KW KB
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
Nov-05
KW KB
4
2
Dec-05
KW KB
1
7
3
6
1
Jan-06
KW KB
4
8
6
3
Feb-06
KW KB
1
4
2
1
Mar-06
KW KB
1
1
Apr-06
KW KB
2
Jun-06
KW KB
Jul-06
KW KB
3
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
3
6
Oct-06
KW KB
1
5
1
1
4
3
2
4
1
2
3
2
6
2
5
1
4
2
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
2
1
3
2
5
3
4
2
2
5
2
2
3
4
1
3
1
1
6
7
5
2
1
7
2
1
4
4
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
5
1
1
2
1
4
6
2
3
4
2
4
1
8
2
1
3
3
3
8
6
22
5
5
8
12
13
4
10
2
10
10
2
4
21
7
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
3
3
5
1
4
1
1
7
5
3
4
1
2
6
2
4
4
7
2
3
4
1
6
5
2
2
2
3
2
6
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 15/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Brown Honeyeater
Eastern Spinebill
Scarlet Honeyeater
Jacky Winter
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
75 Oct-05
KW KB
Nov-05
KW KB
2
1
Dec-05
KW KB
2
1
Jan-06
KW KB
1
Feb-06
KW KB
1
Apr-06
KW KB
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
Jun-06
KW KB
1
1
1
4
4
Mar-06
KW KB
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
4
2
8
10
1
8
2
1
2
7
11
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
7
8
7
4
5
6
11
5
7
5
4
8
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
7
4
1
Total
71
2
36
49
8
55
3
6
46
71
60
12
5
46
11
8
217
215
2
4
1
49
1
5
14
20
70
42
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 16/25)
* Significant
Order
668
670
672
677
681
682
683
686
687
688
691
697
698
706
708
709
710
721
746
753
758
771
774
788
792
species
Code
GSTH
BFMO
SPMO
LEFC
MALA
RUFT
GRFT
WIWA
SPDR
BFCS
CICA
OBOR
FIGB
GRBU
PIBU
MAGP
PICW
TCRO
DBFI
RBFT
NUMA
MIST
WESW
GHCI
SILV
Family
Pachycephalidae
Dicruridae*
Dicruridae*
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Campephagidae
Campephagidae
Oriolidae
Oriolidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Corvidae
Passeridae
Passeridae
Passeridae
Dicaeidae
Hirundinidae
Sylviidae
Zosteropidae
Species
(Common Name)
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Spectacled Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Nutmeg Mannikin
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Golden-headed Cisticola
Silvereye
Species
Colluricincla harmonica
Monarcha melanopsis*
Monarcha trivirgatus*
Myiagra rubecula
Grallina cyanoleuca
Rhipidura frufifrons
Rhipidura fuliginosa
Rhipidura leucophrys
Dicrurus megarhynchus
Coracina novaehollandiae
Coracina tenuirostris
Oriolus sagittatus
Sphecotheres viridis
Cracticus torquatus
Cracticus nigrogularis
Gymnorhina tibicen
Streptera graculina
Corvus orru
Poephila bichenovii
Aegintha temporalis
Lonchura punctulata
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Hirundo neoxena
Cisticola exilis
Zosterops lateralis
Total
76 May-05
KW
KB
1
1
Jun-05
KW
KB
Jul-05
KW
KB
1
2
1
Aug-05
KW
KB
1
5
5
2
2
5
7
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
Sep-05
KW
KB
1
4
4
4
4
2
4
1
1
3
3
5
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
4
1
5
4
3
2
104
3
37
20
38
1
100
88
42
88
106
117
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 17/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Spectacled Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Nutmeg Mannikin
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Golden-headed Cisticola
Silvereye
Oct-05
KW KB
Dec-05
KW KB
1
1
Jan-06
KW KB
1
3
Feb-06
KW KB
1
1
1
4
4
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
5
2
Mar-06
KW KB
2
5
4
3
3
11
1
Jul-06
KW KB
3
2
1
4
6
3
2
1
2
1
6
1
1
3
10
7
1
2
2
6
1
2
2
5
Sep-06
KW KB
1
4
1
2
1
Oct-06
KW KB
1
1
5
8
6
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
5
2
1
4
Aug-06
KW KB
3
1
6
1
7
1
1
Jun-06
KW KB
1
1
1
1
3
1
Apr-06
KW KB
1
1
1
5
3
1
6
2
2
1
4
3
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
6
8
1
3
10
2
2
3
1
1
1
Total
77 Nov-05
KW KB
2
40
61
73
3
2
2
61
31
56
17
91
17
47
60
70
74
47
2
2
74
91
30
47
154
29
76
11
39
20
38
88
1
41
58
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING – Post-construction (2005-2007) (Page 18/25)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Spectacled Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Nutmeg Mannikin
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Golden-headed Cisticola
Silvereye
Oct-05
KW KB
Dec-05
KW KB
1
Jan-06
KW KB
1
Feb-06
KW KB
Mar-06
KW KB
Apr-06
KW KB
2
Jun-06
KW KB
2
1
7
37
2608
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
1
2
1
4
0
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
0
26
3
2
2
17
7
23
62
33
20
46
39
14
10
35
46
10
Total
35
4
2
23
2
5
116
3
43
73
9
8
3
0
54
20
13
79
2
22
0
5
3
1
127
1
1
Total
78 Nov-05
KW KB
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 19/25)
Raw data kindly provided by Brett Taylor, Matt Davis and Griffith student volunteers. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB).
* Significant species
Order
167
332
338
346
366
371
373
374
377
390
418
424
426
427
456
459
461
463
464
473
480
482
487
499
502
510
532
555
79 Code
BAZA
SPTD
CRPI
BSDO
GALA
SCCK
RALO
SBLO
LILO
PHRO
FTCU
KOEL
CBCU
PHCO
LAKO
FOKF
SAKF
RBEE
DOLL
WTTC
SUFW
VAFW
RBFW
SPPD
STPD
WSCW
WTGE
NOFB
Family
Accipitridae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Columbidae
Cacatuidae
Cacatuidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Psittacidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Cuculidae
Centropodidae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Meropidae
Coraciidae
Climacteridae*
Maluridae
Maluridae
Maluridae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Pardalotidae
Meliphagidae
Species (Common Name)
Pacific Baza
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
Species
Aviceda subcristata
Streptopelia chinensis
Ocyphaps lophotes
Geopelia humeralis
Cacatua roseicapilla
Cacatua galerita
Trichoglossus haemotodus
Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus
Glossopsitta pusilla
Platycercus adscitus
Cuculus pyrrhophanus
Eudynamis scolopacea
Scythrops novaehollandiae
Centropus phasianinus
Dacelo novaeguineae
Todiramphus macleayii
Halcyon sancta
Merops ornatus
Eurystomos orientalis
Cormobates leucophaeus*
Malurus cyaneus
Malurus assimilis
Malurus melanocephalus
Pardalotus punctatus
Pardalotus striatus
Sericornis frontalis
Gerygone olivacea
Philemon corniculatus
May-05
KW KB
Jun-05
KW KB
Jul-05
KW KB
Aug-05
KW KB
Sep-05
KW KB
1
1
10
5
1
1
5
5
2
1
1
1
15
5
2
10
2
1
1
1
1
10
2
1
2
1
5
1
3
5
1
1
1
1
2
4
3
2
1
4
2
5
2
4
1
1
4
1
4
14
1
10
5
1
12
13
4
1
7
9
1
1
2
5
3
3
1
1
6
8
6
7
1
1
4
5
1
3
4
1
5
1
4
1
3
1
1
2
6
14
6
1
1
2
4
14
1
6
2
1
1
5
6
2
2
3
12
9
5
1
15
2
1
2
2
5
10
5
3
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 20/25)
* Significant species
Species (Common Name)
Pacific Baza
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
80 Oct-05
KW
KB
4
3
5
1
1
1
5
4
2
4
1
Nov-05
KW
KB
1
1
9
2
2
1
1
8
1
9
5
4
Dec-05
KW
KB
1
2
2
5
1
5
3
3
10
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
9
1
3
5
2
1
1
Feb-06
KW
KB
3
3
3
3
1
2
Apr-06
KW KB
5
1
1
5
1
5
10
2
4
6
1
5
7
3
5
1
8
9
1
1
1
8
1
1
3
6
2
Jul-06
KW KB
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
2
3
1
1
7
8
1
1
3
3
2
1
10
10
5
4
1
2
5
2
3
4
5
2
2
1
10
3
4
2
4
9
1
3
1
9
3
1
1
2
6
1
1
4
2
3
8
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
5
2
Jun-06
KW KB
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
5
Mar-06
KW KB
1
1
2
1
4
Jan-06
KW
KB
3
5
2
3
4
2
5
6
4
4
7
2
7
5
6
4
9
8
9
6
5
1
1
1
2
3
8
4
4
9
2
5
9
5
2
7
8
2
10
10
9
8
1
8
8
4
9
6
7
2
3
2
2
3
3
6
1
1
2
5
3
2
1
2
2
2
9
7
5
2
1
5
8
3
3
6
4
2
2
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 21/25)
* Significant species
Species (Common Name)
Pacific Baza
Spotted Turtle-Dove
Crested Pigeon
Bar-shouldered Dove
Galah
Sulphur-crested Cockatoo
Rainbow Lorikeet
Scaly-breasted Lorikeet
Little Lorikeet
Pale-headed Rosella
Fan-tailed Cuckoo
Common Koel
Channel-billed Cuckoo
Pheasant Coucal
Laughing Kookaburra
Forest Kingfisher
Sacred Kingfisher
Rainbow Bee-eater
Dollarbird
White-throated Treecreeper*
Superb Fairy-wren
Variegated Fairy-wren
Red-backed Fairy-wren
Spotted Pardalote
Striated Pardalote
White-browed Scrubwren
White-throated Gerygone
Noisy Friarbird
81 Oct-06
KW KB
2
Dec-06
KW KB
Jan-07
KW KB
Feb-07
KW KB
Mar-07
KW KB
Apr-07
KW KB
May-07
KW KB
Jul-07
KW KB
1
1
6
1
10
4
2
3
3
3
9
1
5
3
1
3
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
5
1
3
7
3
1
2
8
4
5
2
1
6
4
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
5
3
2
1
1
5
2
1
4
5
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
1
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
5
2
4
5
5
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
3
5
3
1
3
4
3
3
1
5
3
2
2
4
3
5
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
4
Total
2
8
5
15
50
30
310
53
19
85
12
4
17
6
88
3
47
77
8
246
5
5
34
160
223
28
17
84
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 22/25)
* Significant species
Order
558
560
571
590
591
614
626
632
654
660
663
668
670
677
681
682
683
686
687
688
691
697
698
706
708
709
710
721
82 Code
BFHE
NOMI
YFHE
WTHE
WNHE
SCHE
RORO
EYRO
SITT
GOWH
RUWH
GSTH
BFMO
LEFC
MALA
RUFT
GRFT
WIWA
SPDR
BFCS
CICA
OBOR
FIGB
GRBU
PIBU
MAGP
PICW
TCRO
Family
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Meliphagidae
Petroicidae
Petroicidae
Neosittidae*
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Pachycephalidae
Dicruridae*
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Dicruridae
Campephagidae
Campephagidae
Oriolidae
Oriolidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Artamidae
Corvidae
Species (Common Name)
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Scarlet Honeyeater
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
Species
Entomyzon cyanotis
Manorina melanocephala
Lichenostomus chrysops
Melithreptus albogularis
Melithreptus lunatus
Myzomela sanguinolenta
Petroica rosea
Eopsaltria australis
Daphoenositta chrysoptera*
Pachycephala pectoralis
Pachycephala rufiventris
Colluricincla harmonica
Monarcha melanopsis*
Myiagra rubecula
Grallina cyanoleuca
Rhipidura frufifrons
Rhipidura fuliginosa
Rhipidura leucophrys
Dicrurus megarhynchus
Coracina novaehollandiae
Coracina tenuirostris
Oriolus sagittatus
Sphecotheres viridis
Cracticus torquatus
Cracticus nigrogularis
Gymnorhina tibicen
Streptera graculina
Corvus orru
May-05
KW KB
1
8
9
2
5
2
3
7
6
3
1
1
5
2
3
Jun-05
KW KB
2
5
3
4
2
1
5
4
1
Jul-05
KW KB
2
15
6
1
4
2
4
2
10
11
12
4
5
2
1
1
7
3
3
4
2
1
1
6
7
1
1
2
1
1
7
1
4
3
Sep-05
KW KB
2
12
5
1
8
2
2
1
8
1
2
2
Aug-05
KW KB
2
3
5
1
1
2
7
2
6
9
4
1
5
3
2
1
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
3
5
2
1
2
2
4
2
12
1
2
10
4
2
14
13
4
1
4
1
2
3
5
2
13
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 23/25)
* Significant species
Species (Common Name)
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Scarlet Honeyeater
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
83 Oct-05
KW KB
4
3
5
2
Nov-05
KW KB
8
9
1
10
6
Dec-05
KW KB
3
5
3
2
Jan-06
KW KB
2
5
5
7
Feb-06
KW KB
1
1
5
2
2
4
Mar-06
KW KB
3
4
1
4
3
7
6
4
3
2
1
1
Jun-06
KW KB
Jul-06
KW KB
2
1
1
9
10
9
5
1
4
10
6
9
6
7
8
9
9
7
9
7
2
2
7
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
3
2
2
3
1
2
4
3
1
5
1
2
Apr-06
KW KB
5
1
2
9
1
4
6
3
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
5
4
5
3
9
10
10
9
1
2
4
6
1
1
4
1
1
3
1
5
1
4
2
6
1
1
3
4
4
5
5
6
4
1
4
4
6
4
4
1
1
3
2
6
5
4
3
2
4
2
3
6
1
1
4
2
6
6
9
8
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
7
1
1
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
3
2
3
3
2
2
5
1
1
5
4
8
3
4
10
1
7
1
1
9
1
2
2
1
3
2
5
6
4
1
5
1
4
1
10
6
1
1
7
1
7
4
9
2
6
4
4
3
1
5
2
8
9
9
3
5
7
4
1
6
1
9
4
6
3
1
1
8
3
2
3
6
5
3
9
7
1
1
8
7
2
9
10
3
1
9
2
1
3
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 24/25)
* Significant species
Species (Common Name)
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Noisy Miner
Yellow-faced Honeyeater
White-throated Honeyeater
White-naped Honeyeater
Scarlet Honeyeater
Rose Robin
Eastern Yellow Robin
Varied Sittella*
Golden Whistler
Rufous Whistler
Grey Shrike-thrush
Black-faced Monarch*
Leaden Flycatcher
Magpie-lark
Rufous Fantail
Grey Fantail
Willie Wagtail
Spangled Drongo
Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike
Cicadabird
Olive-backed Oriole
Figbird
Grey Butcherbird
Pied Butcherbird
Australian Magpie
Pied Currawong
Torresian Crow
84 Oct-06
KW KB
Dec-06
KW KB
3
9
9
2
10
9
5
4
4
3
4
1
5
1
Jan-07
KW KB
1
2
5
4
Feb-07
KW KB
3
4
5
2
2
2
1
Mar-07
KW KB
Apr-07
KW KB
May-07
KW KB
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
5
4
5
2
2
4
5
4
1
1
1
3
2
3
4
1
4
2
1
2
5
3
Jul-07
KW KB
1
3
4
2
1
4
5
4
1
1
1
4
5
3
2
4
2
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
4
4
1
7
4
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
1
2
1
9
4
4
10
3
5
1
1
10
3
3
1
3
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
4
5
3
2
3
5
1
3
4
1
4
2
1
5
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
4
4
Total
2
26
275
251
6
104
7
5
2
45
38
154
1
37
10
5
133
5
62
85
35
18
3
11
221
80
44
286
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX B: BIRD SURVEYING - Point Count (2005-2007) (Page 25/25)
*Significant
Order
746
753
771
774
792
species
Code
Family
DBFI
RBFT
MIST
WESW
SILV
Species (Common Name)
Passeridae
Passeridae
Dicaeidae
Hirundinidae
Zosteropidae
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Silvereye
Species
May-05
KW KB
2
Poephila bichenovii
Aegintha temporalis
Dicaeum hirundinaceum
Hirundo neoxena
Zosterops lateralis
1
Oct-05
KW KB
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Silvereye
Dec-05
KW KB
Jan-06
KW KB
Feb-06
KW KB
Aug-05
KW KB
Sep-05
KW KB
1
1
1
5
60
Mar-06
KW KB
4
64
Apr-06
KW KB
2
34
35
Jun-06
KW KB
1
77
87
Jul-06
KW KB
1
1
23
31
Aug-06
KW KB
0
76
Sep-06
KW KB
1
2
1
22
Total
Species (Common Name)
Double-barred Finch
Red-browed Finch
Mistletoebird
Welcome Swallow
Silvereye
25
1
50
Oct-06
KW
KB
1
52
1
35
34
Dec-06
KW
KB
41
1
43
Jan-07
KW
KB
20
1
28
Feb-07
KW
KB
2
54
56
2
58
Mar-07
KW
KB
1
53
1
56
Apr-07
KW
KB
3
56
1
67
3
75
May-07
KW
KB
1
40
2
31
Jul-07
KW
KB
1
Total
85 Nov-05
KW KB
Jul-05
KW KB
1
1
1
Total
Species (Common Name)
Jun-05
KW KB
2
1
4
2
68
4
60
3
29
1
26
8
25
1
3
34
1
31
22
5
38
5
45
1
1
2
2
33
3
33
1
29
16
1
31
3
70
3
68
Total
5
7
23
1
62
2049
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX C: SMALL MAMMAL DATA (Page 1/2)
Raw data sourced from James Bunker, Brett Taylor & Adam Abbott. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB)
Note: * Significant species
Family
Dasyuridae
Dasyuridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Muridae
Species
(Common Name)
Day 1
KW KB
Common Dunnart*
Yellow-footed Antechinus*
House Mouse
Black Rat
Bush Rat*
Swamp Rat*
Species
(Common Name)
Common Dunnart*
Yellow-footed
Antechinus*
House Mouse
Black Rat
Bush Rat*
Swamp Rat*
Feb-05
Day 3
KW KB
Sminthopsis murina
Antechinus flavipes
Mus musculus
Rattus rattus
Rattus fuscipes
Rattus lutreolus
Total
Day 1
KW KB
1
1
1
3
1
4
86 Species
1
1
1
4
Day 3
KW KB
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
Day 3
KW KB
1
Day 1
KW KB
Oct-05
Day 2
KW KB
3
10
3
1
9
1
2
3
3
1
2
10
Oct-04
Day 2
KW KB
Day 1
KW KB
1
1
Jun-05
Day 2
KW KB
1
2
1
3
Jul-04
Day 2
KW KB
0
4
0
10
Day 3
KW KB
8
0
1
1
2
4
0
1
9
0
1
3
1
5
2
2
Day 1
KW KB
0
Feb-06
Day 2
KW KB
2
3
1
5
1
1
1
1
Feb-05
Day 1
Day 2
KW KB KW KB
1
Day 3
KW KB
3
0
5
Day 3
KW KB
1
1
0
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
5
1
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX C: SMALL MAMMAL DATA (Page 2/2)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Day 1
KW KB
Jul-06
Day 2
KW KB
Common Dunnart*
Yellow-footed Antechinus*
House Mouse
Black Rat
Bush Rat*
Swamp Rat*
Mar-07
Day 3
KW
Common Dunnart*
Yellow-footed
Antechinus*
House Mouse
Black Rat
Bush Rat*
Swamp Rat*
Nov-06
Day 2
KW KB
1
Day 3
KW KB
Dec-06
Day 2
KW KB
Day 1
KW KB
0
2
KW
0
5
May-07
Day 2
Day 1
KB
3
KB
KW
1
0
1
Day 3
KB
KW
1
0
1
KB
KW
1
3
Jun-07
Day 2
Day 1
KB
3
2
3
KW
0
2
KW
5
Grand
Total
Day 3
KB
0
KB
8
1
4
5
87 Day 1
KW KB
2
2
0
Species
(Common Name)
Day 3
KW KB
2
3
1
0
0
4
8
0
8
12
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
53
13
1
12
89
Day 3
KW KB
2
2
0
4
Mar-07
Day 1
Day 2
KW KB KW KB
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX D: ARBOREAL MAMMAL DATA (Page 1/1)
Raw data sourced from Ross L. Goldingay & Brendan Taylor. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB)
* Significant species
Family
Petauridae
Petauridae
Phalangeridae
Summary of Numbers
Sugar Gliders
Squirrel Gliders
Brushtail Possum
Common Dunnart
Yellow-footed Antechinus
House Mouse
Black Rat
Bush Rat
Swamp Rat
Total
88 Species
(Common Name)
Sugar Glider*
Squirrel Glider*
Common Brushtail Possum
4
37
15
11
2
98
36
1
12
216
Species
Petaurus breviceps
Petaurus norfolcensis
Trichosurus vulpecula
Total
Nov-06
KW
17
6
23
KB
2
3
4
9
Mar-07
KW
1
1
KB
0
KW
Jun-07
KB
13
2
15
Total
2
4
2
8
4
37
15
56
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX E: SPOTLIGHTING DATA
(Page 1/5)
Raw data from Brett Taylor & Adam Abbott. Karawatha Forest (KW) and Kuraby Bushlands (KB)
Note: * Significant species
Family
Artamidae
Accipitridae
Cuculidae
Dasyuridae
Dicruridae
Halcyonidae
Halcyonidae
Macropodidae
Macropodidae
Macropodidae
Macropodidae
Petauridae
Petauridae
Petauridae
Phalangeridae
Phascolarctidae
Podargidae
Pseudocheiridae
Pseudocheiridae
Pteropodidae
Strigidae
Strigidae
Aves
Agamidadae
Colubridae
Gekkonidae
Gekkonidae
89 Species
(Common Name)
Australian Magpie
Collared Sparrowhawk
Common Koel
Common Planigale
Magpie-lark
Laughing Kookaburra
Sacred Kingfisher
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Unidentified Kangaroo/Wallaby
Sugar Glider*
Squirrel Glider*
Unidentified Squirrel/Sugar Glider
Common Brushtail Possum
Koala*
Tawny Frogmouth
Common Ringtail Possum
Greater Glider*
Unidentified microbat
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Unidentified Bird
Tommy Roundhead
Green Tree Snake
Eastern Stone Gecko
House Gecko
Species
Feb-04
KW KB
Mar-04
KW KB
Apr-04
KW KB
Dec-04
KW KB
Jan-05
KW KB
Feb-05
KW KB
Gymnorhina tibicen
Accipiter cirrhocephalus
Eudynamis scolopacea
Planigale maculate
Grallina cyanoleuca
Dacelo novaeguineae
Halcyon sancta
Macropus giganteus
Macropus rufogriseus
Wallabia bicolor
Petaurus breviceps
Petaurus norfolcensis
Peturid
Trichosurus vulpecula
Phascolarctos cinereus
Podargus strigoides
Pseudocheirus perigrinus
Petauroides volans
Ninox strenua
Ninox novaeseelandiae
Diporiphora australis
Dendrelaphis punctulata
Diplodactylus vittatus
Gehyra dubia
2
3
7
1
1
3
5
3
5
1
2
7
2
1
1
1
2
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX E: SPOTLIGHTING DATA
(Page 2/5)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Australian Magpie
Collared Sparrowhawk
Common Koel
Common Planigale
Magpie-lark
Laughing Kookaburra
Sacred Kingfisher
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Unidentified Kangaroo/Wallaby
Sugar Glider*
Squirrel Glider*
Unidentified Squirrel/Sugar Glider
Common Brushtail Possum
Koala*
Tawny Frogmouth
Common Ringtail Possum
Greater Glider*
Unidentified microbat
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Unidentified Bird
Tommy Roundhead
Green Tree Snake
Eastern Stone Gecko
House Gecko
90 Jun-05
KW
KB
Jul-05
KW
KB
Aug-05
KW
KB
Sep-05
KW KB
Oct-05
KW KB
Nov-05
KW KB
Dec-05
KW KB
Jan-06
KW KB
Feb-06
KW KB
Mar-06
KW KB
Apr-06
KW KB
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX E: SPOTLIGHTING DATA
(Page 3/5)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Australian Magpie
Collared Sparrowhawk
Common Koel
Common Planigale
Magpie-lark
Laughing Kookaburra
Sacred Kingfisher
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Unidentified Kangaroo/Wallaby
Sugar Glider*
Squirrel Glider*
Unidentified Squirrel/Sugar Glider
Common Brushtail Possum
Koala*
Tawny Frogmouth
Common Ringtail Possum
Greater Glider*
Unidentified microbat
Powerful Owl*
Southern Boobook
Unidentified Bird
Tommy Roundhead
Green Tree Snake
Eastern Stone Gecko
House Gecko
91 Jun-06
KW KB
1
Jul-06
KW KB
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
Nov-06
KW KB
Dec-06
KW KB
Jan-07
KW KB
May-07
KW KB
Jun-07
KW KB
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
5
2
2
14
3
1
5
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
8
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
2
1
1
6
1
1
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
17
17
55
22
32
8
24
49
46
9
2
2
1
1
1
21
5
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX E: SPOTLIGHTING DATA
(Page 4/5)
* Significant species
Family
Hylidae
Hylidae
Hylidae
Myobatrachidae
Pygopodidae
Pythonidae
Species
(Common Name)
Common Green Tree Frog
Eastern Sedge Frog
Striped Rocket Frog
Striped Marsh Frog
Burton's Snake Lizard
Carpet Python
Species
Feb-04
KW
KB
Jun-05
KW KB
Total
92 10
5
Apr-04
KW
KB
Dec-04
KW
KB
Jan-05
KW
KB
Feb-05
KW
KB
Litoria caerulea
Litoria fallax
Litoria nasuta
Limnodynastes peronii
Lialis burtonis
Morelia spilota
Total
Species
(Common Name)
Common Green Tree Frog
Eastern Sedge Frog
Striped Rocket Frog
Striped Marsh Frog
Burton's Snake Lizard
Carpet Python
Mar-04
KW
KB
Jul-05
KW KB
4
4
Aug-05
KW KB
8
8
Sep-05
KW KB
11
7
3
2
Oct-05
KW KB
0
3
13
Nov-05
KW KB
12
0
4
5
Dec-05
KW KB
8
4
3
6
Jan-06
KW KB
5
0
0
7
Feb-06
KW KB
8
8
1
Mar-06
KW KB
0
3
4
0
Apr-06
KW KB
6
4
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX E: SPOTLIGHTING DATA
(Page 5/5)
* Significant species
Species
(Common Name)
Common Green Tree Frog
Eastern Sedge Frog
Striped Rocket Frog
Striped Marsh Frog
Burton's Snake Lizard
Carpet Python
Jun-06
KW KB
Aug-06
KW KB
Sep-06
KW KB
Nov-06
KW KB
1
1
1
Dec-06
KW KB
Jan-07
KW KB
May-07
KW KB
Jun-07
KW KB
1
1
Total
93 Jul-06
KW KB
7
5
4
2
5
6
5
2
51
13
0
8
18
13
1
25
2
1
0
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
333
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 1/14)
Raw data kindly provided by Amy Bond
Note: Some weeks excluded sand-tracks disturbed by humans and/or weather
Underpass A: Western side of the land-bridge
Underpass B: Western side of the land-bridge
Data in either Underpass A or B, represents the number of trails identified of that species
Small mammal 1, 2, 3 = Rodent 1, 2, 3
* Significant species
9-Aug-05
Family
Felidae
Muridae
Permaelidae
Tachyglossidae*
Dasyuridae
Agamidae
94 Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Species
Felis catus
Mus musculus
Isoodon macrourus
Tachyglossidae aculeatus*
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
Total
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
16-Aug-05
Shelf B
Underpass
A
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
0
4
0
1
0
2
0
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06) (Page 2/14)
* Significant species
23-Aug-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
95 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
30-Aug-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
6-Sep-05
Shelf B
Underpass
A
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
2
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 3/14)
* Significant species
13-Sep-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
96 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
20-Sep-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
2
Underpass
B
27-Sep-05
Shelf B
Underpass
A
1
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
2
0
2
2
0
4
0
2
0
2
1
4
0
3
0
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 4/14)
* Significant species
4-Oct-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
97 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
11-Oct-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
2
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
1
2
Underpass
B
18-Oct-05
Shelf B
Underpass
A
Shelf A
Underpass
B
2
Shelf B
1
1
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
4
2
1
1
4
0
3
1
0
3
0
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 5/14)
* Significant species
1-Nov-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
98 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
8-Nov-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
15-Nov-05
Underpass
B
Shelf B
Underpass
A
2
Shelf A
Shelf B
1
2
1
Underpass
B
2
2
1
4
4
4
2
2
4
1
1
8
1
0
4
1
4
2
1
2
4
7
1
6
8
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 6/14)
* Significant species
22-Nov-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
99 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
6-Dec-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
13-Dec-05
Underpass
B
Shelf B
Underpass
A
2
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
2
2
2
3
2
10
2
1
2
4
2
1
4
3
1
4
0
15
6
2
0
3
0
5
3
2
3
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 7/14)
* Significant species
20-Dec-05
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
100 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
27-Dec-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
4
2
10-Jan-06
Shelf B
Underpass
A
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
1
4
9
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
14
8
14
1
2
7
1
10
4
2
4
2
4
0
1
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 8/14)
* Significant species
24-Jan-06
Common Name
Cat
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
101 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
31-Jan-06
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
Total
Shelf B
1
7
14
6
2
5
1
0
0
0
2
5
15
2
1
7
18
2
3
9
45
1
1
55
8
15
3
67
2
19
9
234
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 9/14)
Complete Crossings of Species
6-Sep-05
Family
Muridae
Permaelidae
Agamidae
Common Name
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Underpass
A
Species
Mus musculus
Isoodon macrourus
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
Total
Common Name
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Total
102 Shelf
A
20-Sep-05
Underpass
B
Shelf B
Underpass
A
2
2
0
0
0
2
4-Oct-05
Underpass
B
Shelf A
Underpass
B
Shelf B
0
0
0
2
27-Sep-05
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
11-Oct-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
2
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 10/14)
Complete Crossings of Species
15-Nov-05
Common Name
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Total
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
22-Nov-05
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
2
103 6-Dec-05
Underpass
B
Shelf B
Underpass
A
Shelf A
Underpass
B
2
Shelf B
3
2
2
2
0
0
0
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
2
0
20-Dec-05
Common Name
House mouse
Northern Brown
Bandicoot
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Total
Shelf
A
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
0
2
0
27-Dec-05
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
2
2
2
3
0
24-Jan-06
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Weekly August 05 - January 06)
(Page 11/14)
Complete Crossings of Species
31-Jan-06
Common Name
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Agamid (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Total
104 Underpass
A
Shelf
A
Underpass
B
Shelf
B
0
0
0
2
2
Total
2
13
4
2
4
2
4
31
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Monthly June 06 - June 07) (Page
12/14)
Raw data kindly provided by Amy Bond
Note:
Underpass A: Western side of the land-bridge
Underpass B: Western side of the land-bridge
Data in either Underpass A or B, represents the number of trails identified
of that species
Small mammal 1, 2, 3 = Rodent 1, 2, 3
* Significant
species
Jun-06
Family
Canidae
Felidae
Leporidae
Muridae
Permaelidae
Tachyglossidae*
Dasyuridae
Agamidae
105 Common Name
Dog
Cat
Brown Hare
House Mouse
Northern Brown
Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Frog (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Species
Canis familiaris
Felis catus
Lepus europeaus
Mus musculus
Isoodon macrourus
Tachyglossidae
aculeatus*
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
unidentified
Total
Underpass
A
Jul-06
Underpass
B
3
Underpass
A
2
Aug-06
Underpass
B
2
2
Underpass
A
Sep-06
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
Underpass
B
2
4
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
3
6
15
0
4
5
0
2
4
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Monthly June 06 - June 07) (Page 13/14)
* Significant species
Oct-06
Common Name
Dog
Cat
Brown Hare
House Mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Frog (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
106 Underpass
A
Nov-06
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
Dec-06
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
Jan-07
Underpass
B
Feb-07
Mar-07
Underpass
A
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
2
Underpass
B
5
5
2
17
3
9
1
4
2
1
Underpass
A
Underpass
B
4
1
1
8
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
6
2
1
8
2
6
0
10
24
12
1
1
13
3
2
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX F: UNDERPASS DATA (Monthly June 06 - June 07) (Page 14/14)
* Significant species
Apr-07
Common Name
Dog
Cat
Brown Hare
House Mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Short-beaked Echidna*
Dasyurid (unidentified)
Agamid (unidentified)
Frog (unidentified)
Possum (unidentified)
Small mammal 1
Small mammal 2
Small mammal 3
Bird
Small bird
Unknown
Total
Underpass
A
May-07
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
Jun-07
Underpass
B
Underpass
A
Total
Underpass
B
3
4
2
1
4
4
3
6
2
1
19
8
6
19
28
8
8
0
8
8
Complete Crossings of Species
Feb-07
Family
Canidae
Muridae
Permaelidae
107 Common Name
Dog
House mouse
Northern Brown Bandicoot
Species
Canis familiaris
Mus musculus
Isoodon macrourus
Total
Underpass
A
2
2
4
Underpass
B
2
6
8
9
11
1
35
48
0
10
14
21
5
2
25
7
3
2
1
194
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX G: LAND-BRIDGE DATA (Weekly August 05 - February 06) (Page 1/X)
Raw data kindly provided by Amy Bond
Zone 1: Kuraby side of land-bridge
Zone 2: Apex of land-bridge
Zone 3: Karawatha side of land-bridge
* Significant species
Family
Canidae
Leporidae
Macropodidae*
Macropodidae
Macropodidae
Tachyglossidae*
Zone
1
2
7
6
26
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Species
Vulpes vulpes
Lepus europeaus
Macropus giganteus*
Macropus rufogriseus
Wallabia bicolor
Tachyglossidae aculeatus*
Unknown
white fur with black/brown tips
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
9
1
2
7-Sep-05
Zone
2
Zone
3
12
4
Zone
1
10
2
11
3
Zone
1
7
3
12
10
2
3
14-Sep-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
3
26
5
4
Zone
1
5
1
7
24-Aug-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
4
1
2
5
2
Total
Zone
1
17-Aug-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
Zone
1
2
11
7
1
2
5
12
31-Aug-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
1
26
2
3
1
43
0
1
14
23
21-Sep-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
17
2
3
Zone
1
4
4
9
1
17
5
28-Sep-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
1
14
19
Zone
1
1
5-Oct-05
Zone
2
1
34
Zone
3
14
1
7
2
Unknown
Total
108 12
4
15
37
0
38
13
2
17
17
1
14
8
1
16
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX G: LAND-BRIDGE DATA (Weekly August 05 - February 06) (Page 2/X)
* Significant species
Zone
1
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
12-Oct-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
6
1
Zone
1
4
4
7
12
28
27
27
17
1
1
3
25
3
19-Oct-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
1
49
2
1
Zone
1
1
5
3
3
26-Oct-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
1
22
2
Zone
1
3
14
2-Nov-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
8
Zone
1
9-Nov-05
Zone
2
Zone
3
39
22
1
51
1
5
1
4
2
55
Unknown
Total
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Unknown
Total
109 Zone
1
14
16-Nov-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
2
5
22
Zone
1
2
4
3
50
23-Nov-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
6
12
Zone
1
1
24
30-Nov-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
25
0
40
27
Zone
1
7-Dec-05
Zone
2
Zone
3
Zone
1
3
16
8
99
3
23
7
1
1
1
9
5
1
14-Dec-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
2
22
2
2
1
19
2
23
6
6
100
4
0
33
13
3
16
10
2
24
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX G: LAND-BRIDGE DATA (Weekly August 05 - February 06) (Page 3/X)
* Significant species
Zone
1
2
15
1
3
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Unknown
Total
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Unknown
Total
110 21-Dec-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
2
Zone
1
10
28-Dec-05
Zone
Zone
2
3
5
14
Zone
1
4-Jan-06
Zone
Zone
2
3
25
2
40
3
Zone
1
11-Jan-06
Zone
Zone
2
3
17
20
Zone
1
18-Jan-06
Zone
Zone
2
3
22
29
2
1
1
1
21
Zone
1
28
2
11
25-Jan-06
Zone
Zone
2
3
1
38
6
0
14
25
2
43
Zone
1
1-Feb-06
Zone
2
Zone
3
Zone
1
8-Feb-06
Zone
2
Zone
3
5
1
14
18
1
11
Total
1
0
39
5
1
16
26
963
60
187
16
6
8
1
28
17
18
1
11
2
1268
0
20
22
0
32
Breaking the Barrier: Assessing the value of fauna‐friendly crossing structures at Compton Road Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies APPENDIX G: LAND-BRIDGE DATA (Weekly Snapshot June 07) (Page 4/X)
Note: * aka Feral Carnivore
Family
Canidae
Leporidae
Macropodidae*
Macropodidae
Macropodidae
Tachyglossidae*
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Zone
1
Species
Vulpes vulpes
Lepus europeaus
Macropus giganteus*
Macropus rufogriseus
Wallabia bicolor
Tachyglossidae aculeatus*
Total
Common Name
Red Fox*
Brown Hare
Eastern Grey
Kangaroo*
Red-necked Wallaby
Swamp Wallaby
Short-beaked Echidna*
Possum (unidentified)
Unknown
4
5
32
111 Zone
1
1-Jun-06
Zone
2
Zone
3
Zone
1
2
4
1
9
5
18-Jun-07
Zone
Zone
2
3
10
8
6
13
5
5
19
24
42
white fur with
black/brown tips
Unknown
Zone
1
1
22
1-Jun-06
Zone
Zone
2
3
25-Jun-07
Zone
Zone
2
3
26
2
7
1
1
9
28
Total
3
65
20
30
38
0
0
0
156
0
0
0
0
0
0
21