Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2016L01082:reg:1:p14
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2016L01082
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 1 (pt 14/30)
Character Range: 51160–54176

across the plains-wanderer's range to be reported back to a central repository. Thus the total amount of pesticide exposure to the species is unknown. Furthermore, as ground-level pesticide application can involve different application rates and methodologies to aerial spraying, the toxicological and environmental risk profiles associated with private landholder usage are also not clearly understood.
A review of safety data literature for Metarhizium anisopliae [M. acridum was previously recognised as a variety of M. anisopliae] indicates that no negative effects have been observed in birds following exposure to, or ingestion of, the fungus (Zimmermann, 2007). However, the effects of fenitrothion and fipronil on plains-wanderers are largely unknown. In one study avian mortalities were recorded in other bird species exposed to fenitrothion at application rates of eight ounces/acre (Pearce, 1971), however this rate is significantly greater than the application rate used by the APLC during locust control activities. International studies on the effects of repeated sublethal exposure to fenitrothion have documented reduced avian reproductive output and success as a result of disruptions to breeding activity and reductions in the number of young fledged (Varty, 1980); and inability to defend territory, territory abandonment and clutch desertion (Busby et al., 1990). Australian studies on the effects of sublethal fenitrothion exposure in birds have recorded potentially detrimental impacts to reproduction and feeding in a number of species (Fildes et al., 2006a; 2006b; 2009).
Furthermore, while policies regarding aerial spraying of insecticides in mapped plains-wanderer habitat should negate direct impacts to the species, this activity may still pose an indirect threat through impacts to food webs if the spraying outside of plains-wanderer habitat impacts on food abundance within areas that contain plains-wanderers.
At the time of writing this recovery plan, there had been no studies to indicate that broad scale declines in plains-wanderer numbers were associated with pesticide use. It is currently unknown as to whether pesticide use, either by way or aerial or on-ground application, is having any direct or indirect effects on plains-wanderer numbers.

4.2.7 Planting and natural recruitment of trees in or near native grasslands.
Plains-wanderers appear to avoid being in close proximity to living or dead trees, with no records of any birds within 300 m of trees of 10 m or greater in height across their strongholds in New South Wales and Victoria (Baker-Gabb, 2014). Plains-wanderer avoidance of trees and tall shrubs appears to be a defence strategy to limit the potential for attack by predatory birds that often perch in these trees; furthermore the distance plains-wanderers maintain from trees appears to depend on the height of the tree (Baker-Gabb, 2014). Planting of trees is also a threat to the flora of native grasslands (DSE, 2010).

4.2.8 Other potential threatening