Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095:body:0:p24
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L01095
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 62289–65234

than 20 years is generally preferred, and in some cases might decline in suitability after 40 -60 years, although this may vary with habitat and circumstances across the range of the species (Benshemesh pers. comm. 2023).

The reasons for the slow recovery of Malleefowl populations after fire, despite increased abundance of seed-bearing shrubs and after substantial quantities of litter accumulate on the ground, are unclear.

While large-scale fires are deleterious to Malleefowl populations in the short and long-term, the effect of fire is mitigated if fires burn patchily. Birds in a radio-tracking study in Vic survived in relatively small unburnt patches by utilising the burnt habitats for foraging, and the unburnt habitats for roosting, nesting and daytime shelter (Benshemesh 1990; 1992a). Unburnt patches were only about a tenth the average home-range size of Malleefowl in that study. Breeding density was greatly reduced by the fire, but the breeding success within the unburnt patches was similar to before the fire. Twelve years after the fire, Malleefowl breeding densities had returned to within 80 % of their original density (Benshemesh 1997a) and continued to increase until 16 years after the fire when breeding density peaked at 60 % above those before the fire. The population then crashed following a severe drought and stayed low for several years (Benshemesh 2005). While this example lends some support to the notion that limited and patchy burns might actually improve habitat for Malleefowl (Brickhill 1987b), the effect was temporary and longer term habitat enhancement of mosaic burns is yet to be clearly demonstrated in mallee for any size or pattern of fire.

In central Australia, much less is known about the fire ecology of Malleefowl. Cultural burning practices by Traditional Owners (Kimber 1983) appear to have protected some habitats important for Malleefowl such as mulga, particularly desert-mulga, by regularly burning surrounding spinifex habitat and thus reducing the fuel loads surrounding the mulga patches (Benshemesh 1997b). Recent studies suggest Malleefowl in central Australia may also benefit directly from such burning of spinifex habitat near mulga thickets as fire regenerates herbs and shrubs that are important food sources (J. Benshemesh, unpublished data). However, while the spinifex habitats appear well adapted to frequent burning, the mulga communities are sensitive to fire (Hodgkinson & Griffin 1982) and probably take at least 50 years after being burnt to recover a habitat structure that is suitable for Malleefowl to breed in. During the regenerative phase and before soil seed reserves are replenished, a second fire or high grazing pressure may permanently remove mulga communities (Griffin & Friedel 1985).

Traditional burning practices in central Australia likely created a mosaic of different aged habitats which prevented the occurrence of very large fires, in most