Low-density koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) populations in the mulgalands of south-west Queensland. IV. Abundance and conservation status

Urban encroachment on dense, coastal koala populations has ensured that their management has received increasing government and public attention. The recently developed National Koala Conservation Strategy calls for maintenance of viable populations in the wild. Yet the success of this, and other, conservation initiatives is hampered by lack of reliable and generally accepted national and regional population estimates. In this paper we address this problem in a potentially large, but poorly studied, regional population in the State that is likely to have the largest wild populations. We draw on findings from previous reports in this series and apply the faecal standing-crop method (FSCM) to derive a regional estimate of more than 59 000 individuals. Validation trials in riverine communities showed that estimates of animal density obtained from the FSCM and direct observation were in close agreement. Bootstrapping and Monte Carlo simulations were used to obtain variance estimates for our population estimates in different vegetation associations across the region. The most favoured habitat was riverine vegetation, which covered only 0.9% of the region but supported 45% of the koalas. We also estimated that between 1969 and 1995 similar to 30% of the native vegetation associations that are considered as potential koala habitat were cleared, leading to a decline of perhaps 10% in koala numbers. Management of this large regional population has significant implications for the national conservation of the species: the continued viability of this population is critically dependent on the retention and management of riverine and residual vegetation communities, and future vegetation-management guidelines should be cognisant of the potential impacts of clearing even small areas of critical habitat. We also highlight eight management implications.

Animal migration: is there a common migratory syndrome?

Ornithologists, and especially northern hemisphere ornithologists, have traditionally thought of migration as an annual return movement of populations between regular breeding and non-breeding grounds. Problems arise because selection does not ordinarily act on populations and because organisms of many taxa (including birds) are clearly migrants, but fail to undertake movements of the kind described. There are also extensive return movements that are not migratory. I propose that it is more useful to think of migration as a syndrome of behavioral and other traits that function together within individuals, and that such a syndrome provides a common ground across taxa from aphids to albatrosses. Large-scale return movements of populations are one outcome of the syndrome. Similar behavioral and physiological traits serve both to define migration and to provide a test for it. I use two insect (Hemipteran) examples to illustrate migratory syndromes and to demonstrate that, in many migrants, behavior and physiology correlate with life history and morphological traits to form syndromes at two levels. I then compare the two Hemipterans with migration in birds, butterflies, and fish to assess the question of whether there are migratory syndromes in common between these diverse migrants. Syndromes are more similar at the level of behavior than when morphology and life history traits are included. Recognizing syndromes leads to important evolutionary questions concerning migration strategies, trade-offs, the maintenance of genetic variance and the responses of migratory syndromes to both similar and different selective regimes.