Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095:body:0:p19
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 48858–51767

of very hot weather. Egg size varies considerably both between years and studies, and there is some evidence that egg size is related to the survivorship of chicks (Benshemesh 1992). The availability of food (Frith 1959; Booth 1987b; Priddel & Wheeler 2005; Hedger 2014) and water balance (Benshemesh 1992) are possible causes for this variation in mean egg sizes in populations, but the relationships are not clearly understood.

Chicks typically begin hatching and emerging from mounds in November, and although hatching may continue until March in some seasons, most chicks usually emerge from mounds before January (Frith 1959; Benshemesh & Burton 1997; Priddel & Wheeler 2005). Chicks hatch buried with up to a metre of sand above them, and their unaided struggle to the surface may take up to 15 hours (Frith 1959; Frith 1962b). The chicks receive no parental care after hatching, but like other megapodes can thermoregulate efficiently (Booth 1984; Booth 1987c), run and feed themselves almost immediately and fly within a day (Frith 1959; Frith 1962b). Mortality of chicks is very high over the first few weeks after hatching: radio-tracking studies have recorded mortality at about 80 % over the first ten days or so (Priddel 1989; Priddel 1990; Benshemesh 1992), with most chicks succumbing to predators or metabolic stresses such as starvation. Thereafter, mortality declines (Benshemesh 1992) but may nonetheless be high (see Predation section (4.2.6).

 Malleefowl chick emerging from shell in mound ©Joe Benshemesh, NMRG.
3.4.5 Habitat
Malleefowl occur in a wide range of habitat types; common elements include a sandy substrate with trees 3–8m in height and a shrub layer providing horizontal cover. Habitat critical to the survival of the species is known only in broad terms (see section 3.4.6 below). Nonetheless, mappable habitat models have been developed for Malleefowl and other threatened species in the Murray Mallee of eastern Australia (Clarke 2005). These models used Malleefowl sightings and GIS data on landforms, habitat type and fire history to develop statistical and spatially explicit maps of the broad habitat preferences of the species. In the WA Wheatbelt, Parsons (2008b) has created statistical models of Malleefowl occurrence in remnants within the Wheatbelt, and these models have been applied to prioritise management initiatives (Short & Parsons 2008).

All populations and areas occupied by Malleefowl are considered of equal importance for the protection and recovery of the Malleefowl. This is despite any variability of Malleefowl density, population size, conservation challenges relevant to the area, or other factors that may be perceived as discounting the relative importance of an area or population.

Malleefowl still occur over most of their range, and although populations tend to be sparser in areas with low or highly variable winter rainfall, this is