A review of on-ground recovery actions for threatened freshwater fish in Australia

Abstract

Abstract. Freshwater fish are a highly threatened group and recovery of these threatened species is an increasingly difficult ecological and social challenge. There are many different on-ground recovery actions available to managers, but no synthesis of what, how or why these recovery actions have been deployed. The present paper reviews 428 reported on-ground recovery actions from a survey of practitioners of threatened freshwater-fish recovery in Australia. Recovery actions were grouped into 12 categories, with the most commonly utilised recovery categories being harvest control, translocation, habitat enhancement and stock enhancement. Major drivers of recovery actions were general conservation concern, recovery plans and emergency responses. The number of recovery actions grew significantly in the decade beginning 2000 as the impacts of prolonged drought in south-eastern Australia intensified. In all, 58% of recovery actions occurred in the Murray-Darling Basin, although this region holds only 27% of the 74 listed threatened freshwater fish in Australia. Few or no recovery actions were reported for many species, and few actions occurred in northern or western parts of the country. More than 80% of recovery actions reportedly had some form of monitoring. The diversity of management interventions is reviewed, and patterns and issues are identified to guide future recovery efforts.

Recovering threatened freshwater fish in Australia

“…The popularity of translocation as a freshwater recovery action in recent years is apparent for other freshwater species both nationally and internationally (e.g. Ayres et al 2011;Soorae 2011;Lintermans 2013c), and holds much promise for recovery of species outside of hatchery programs.…”

“…Similarly, assessments of the outcome of the Pedder galaxias translocation success and the benefits of a fishway in expanding the range of Macquarie perch required several years before success could be evaluated (Broadhurst et al 2013;Chilcott et al 2013). The high reported success rate in the national review of recovery actions (Lintermans 2013c) is difficult to critically evaluate and likely represents early assessments that may ultimately turn out to be less successful than initially claimed.…”

“…Although most of the case studies are from southern Australia, where most threatened freshwater fish are located (Lintermans 2013a(Lintermans , 2013c, the described recovery approaches are applicable more broadly, both nationally and internationally. Ten papers in this Special Issue outline the recovery efforts for a range of fish species, with an array of management interventions employed across a diversity of habitat types from sub-alpine lakes to semi-arid springs.…”

“…Ten papers in this Special Issue outline the recovery efforts for a range of fish species, with an array of management interventions employed across a diversity of habitat types from sub-alpine lakes to semi-arid springs. Lintermans (2013c) sets the scene by reviewing the diversity of on-ground recovery actions available to managers, synthesising the what, how and why these recovery actions have been deployed. The most commonly utilised recovery actions were harvest control, translocation, habitat enhancement and stock enhancement.…”

Recovery of the endangered trout cod, Maccullochella macquariensis: what have we achieved in more than 25 years?

“…Large, long-lived species can be especially susceptible to exploitation (Hogan et al 2004;Dudgeon et al 2006;Jelks et al 2008). In Australia, native freshwater fishes are no different; being subjected to a similar range of threats (Cadwallader 1978;Lintermans 2013a) with serious population declines as a result (Wager and Jackson 1993). The MurrayDarling Basin (MDB) in south-eastern Australia (Fig.…”