Grey-headed Flying-fox Management Strategy for the Lower Hunter Grey-headed Flying-fox

8.

9.To not delete these three lines (this is hidden text)

10.

10.1.1Taxonomy

Order: Chiroptera

Suborder: Megachiroptera

Family: Pteropodidae

Genus: Pteropus

Species in NSW: Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox; refer to Plate 4.1)
10.1.2Conservation Status

The GHFF is protected under the following legislation:

• 
  in NSW under the NPW Act (administered by OEH);
  
• 
  in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (administered by Department of Sustainability and Environment);
  
• 
  in Queensland under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (administered by Department of Environment and Heritage Protection); and
  
• 
  in South Australia under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (administered by SA Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources).
  

Additionally, the GHFF is listed as a species of conservation concern as follows:

• 
  Vulnerable within NSW under the NSW Government TSC Act (administered by OEH);
  
• 
  Vulnerable within Victoria under the Victorian Government Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (administered by the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment);
  
• 
  Vulnerable across Australia under the Commonwealth EPBC Act (administered by DSEWPaC); and
  
• 
  Vulnerable Internationally (IUCN Red List).
  

Identified nationally as a ‘Vulnerable’ species, the GHFF is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future (Duncan et al 1999). The reasons (criteria) that qualify the GHFF for this category include population reduction of over 20% over the last three generations, actual or potential levels of exploitation and effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites (Duncan et al. 1999). Since 1989, further evidence shows a decline in numbers of the GHFF of 30% (Tidemann et al. 1999, Parry-Jones 2000, Eby & Lunney 2006, NSW Scientific Committee 2001). The long-term population decline of the GHFF is considered greater than this. Ratcliffe (1932) hypothesised a 50% reduction in Australian flying-fox numbers had occurred by the late 1920s. The major threats affecting the GHFF have been identified as loss of foraging and roosting habitat, culling associated with orchard management and resource competition with the Black Flying-fox, Pteropus alecto (DECCW 2009a, NSW Scientific Committee 2001).

1. 
   Distribution
   

2. 
   Habitat
   

GHFFs are highly colonial, roosting in canopy vegetation in aggregations often referred to as ‘camps’. Typical characteristics of flying-fox roosting habitat (Eby 2002, Eby & Lunney 2002, Hall & Richards 2000, Peacock 2004, Roberts 2005) include:

• 
  closed canopy (rainforest, mangroves, floodplain or riparian forest dominated by Eucalypts, Corymbia, Casuarina spp. or Melaleuca quinquenervia);
  
• 
  continuous canopy area >1 ha (ideally >10 ha in size);
  
• 
  within 50 km of the coast or at elevation <65 m;
  
• 
  close proximity to waterways (<500 m), commonly rivers or creeks;
  
• 
  level topography, <5^o incline;
  
• 
  canopy height >8 m; and
  
• 
  positioned within nightly commuting distance (generally <20 km) of sufficient food resources to support the population of a communal roost.
  

These characteristics alone cannot predict where GHFF choose to camp and additional characteristics such as microhabitat traits, features of the surrounding landscape or simply the logistical location may also be important. Camps occur in vegetation ranging from continuous forest to remnants as small as 1 ha (Eby 2002, West 2002), although camps in vegetation smaller than this also occur (e.g. Lorn – approximately 0.2 ha). Urban roosts can be located in public parks in areas with continuous canopy cover (ARCUE 2009) or even in sites where canopies are relatively separate. In many cases, roosts in park lands do not contain a well developed understorey, often comprising of tall tree specimens with a mown or manicured grassy understorey (e.g. Lorn in Maitland and Burdett Park in Singleton). Landscape features near roosts, such as river and creek systems, may assist flying-foxes to navigate, as may street lighting in urban landscapes (Birt et al. 2000).

At night, flying-foxes navigate principally by sight (rather than echolocation as is the case with microbats), with their sense of smell and spatial memory assisting them to locate food. GHFFs forage up to 50 km from camps, although >75% of foraging activity is within a 20 km radius (Eby 1991, Tidemann 1999). The feeding distances of resident animals are shorter than those in the migratory population (Eby 1996). GHFFs have adapted to cleared and highly-altered landscapes, and there is no evidence that habitat responses, particularly avoidance of disturbed areas, influence feeding flights (Eby 1996). The animals utilise feeding trees in urban and cleared habitats, as well as in forested areas, although intact landscapes provide greater densities of many dietary species than cleared land. Recent studies have shown that some urban areas can sustain GHFF populations through street tree plantings and backyard trees (McDonald-Madden et al. 2005).

3. 
   Reproduction and Life Expectancy
   

Grey-headed Flying-Fox and Eucalypt blossom (Eucalyptus microcorys)

Individuals reach reproductive maturity in the second year of life, but typically do not successfully raise young until the third and fourth year (Divljan 2008). However food shortages and other as yet unknown events can cause mass abortion or abandonment of young (P. Eby unpublished data), decreasing reproductive output. Studies show that death of a female often results in the death of two GHFF due to the extended period of dependency of the young (Divljan et al. 2011).

4. 
   Diet
   

5. 
   Environmental Services
   

10.2.1Foraging Behaviour

An assessment of available foraging habitat for the GHFF was undertaken by Eby and Law (2008; refer to Table 10.3). They found the following for the Lower North East (LNE) region, a broader area that includes the Lower Hunter Valley:

• 
  40 species of plants occur which contribute to the GHFF nectar diet (38 Myrtaceae and two Proteaceae; refer to Appendix for full list);
  
• 
  seven of these species are highly productive:
  

• 
  Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata);
  
• 
  Red Bloodwood (C. gummifera);
  
• 
  Pink Bloodwood (C. intermedia);
  
• 
  Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta);
  
• 
  Grey Ironbark (E. siderophloia);
  
• 
  Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis); and
  
• 
  Broad-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia).
  

• 
  a relatively high proportion of these have regular annual flowering schedules, the highest proportion flower in December / January and the lowest in June / July. However, the frequency with which they flower varies between species, ranging from those that flower well every year (e.g. E. robusta) to those that flower well <30% of years (e.g. C. maculata);
  
• 
  43 species of rainforest trees and lianas that occur in the LNE region occur in the GHFF fruit diet;
  
• 
  of the 961 vegetation types described in the LNE, 57% contain nectar resources for GHFF, covering 43% of the LNE and comprising 75% of the extant vegetation. However few areas contain vegetation types containing nectar resources rated as being highly productive and reliable, comprising only 2% of vegetation types which cover 0.7% of the LNE land area. Nectar resources with moderate productivity and reliability scores cover approximately 9% of the land area; and
  
• 
  only 8% of vegetation types in the LNE region, covering 3% of the land area contain species providing fruiting resources for the GHFF.
  

Within the OEH Wildlife Atlas, 361 records of the GHFF are located within the Lower Hunter (refer to Table 10.4 and Table 10.6). The vast majority of these records are observations and audible detections of, presumably, commuting and / or foraging animals. A very small proportion relates to roost-site observations.

6. 
   Previous Studies
   

7. 
   Current Research / Monitoring Programs