Biodiversity

Species Profile and Threats Database


For information to assist proponents in referral, environmental assessments and compliance issues, refer to the Policy Statements and Guidelines (where available), the Conservation Advice (where available) or the Listing Advice (where available).
 
In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.

EPBC Act Listing Status Listed as Vulnerable
Recovery Plan Decision Recovery Plan required, this species had a recovery plan in force at the time the legislation provided for the Minister to decide whether or not to have a recovery plan (19/2/2007).
 
Adopted/Made Recovery Plans National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
 
Other EPBC Act Plans Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories (Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2006p) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox (Environment Australia (EA), 1999a) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (Environment Australia (EA), 1999b) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Rabbits (Environment Australia (EA), 1999c) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats (Environment Australia (EA), 1999d) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Policy Statements and Guidelines Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Birds. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.2 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2010l) [Admin Guideline].
 
Federal Register of
    Legislative Instruments
Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) [Legislative Instrument].
 
List of Migratory Species (13/07/2000) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000b) [Legislative Instrument].
 
List of Migratory Species - Amendment to the list of migratory species under section 209 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (26/11/2013) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013af) [Legislative Instrument].
 
State Government
    Documents and Websites
NSW:Malleefowl General Fact Sheet (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2002g) [Information Sheet].
NSW:Malleefowl - profile (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2005gr) [Internet].
NSW:Malleefowl Threatened Species Information (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS), 1999bg) [Information Sheet].
NT:Threatened Species of the Northern Territory - Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Pavey, C., 2006u) [Information Sheet].
VIC:Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement 59-Malleefowl Leipoa acellata (Benshemesh, J.S., 2003) [State Action Plan].
WA:Fauna Species Profiles - Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Gould, 1840) (Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation (WA DEC), 2010a) [Information Sheet].
State Listing Status
NSW: Listed as Endangered (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales): December 2013 list)
NT: Listed as Critically Endangered (Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 (Northern Territory): 2012 list)
SA: Listed as Vulnerable (National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): June 2011 list)
VIC: Listed as Threatened (Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): February 2014 list)
WA: Listed as Vulnerable (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia): September 2013 list)
Non-statutory Listing Status
IUCN: Listed as Vulnerable (Global Status: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2013.1 list)
VIC: Listed as Endangered (Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria: 2013 list)
NGO: Listed as Vulnerable (The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010)
Scientific name Leipoa ocellata [934]
Family Megapodiidae:Galliformes:Aves:Chordata:Animalia
Species author Gould,1840
Infraspecies author  
Reference  
Distribution map Species Distribution Map

This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.

Illustrations Google Images

Scientific name: Leipoa ocellata.

Common name: Malleefowl.

Other names: Gnow, Lowan, Mallee Hen. It was formerly also known as the Native Pheasant (Marchant & Higgins 1993), but this name is probably no longer used. It is commonly known by the aboriginal name Nganamara in the deserts of central Australia (J. Benshemesh 2006, pers. comm.).

The taxonomy of this species is conventionally accepted (Christidis & Boles 1994; Sibley & Monroe 1990). No subspecies are recognized (Marchant & Higgins 1993). Although some authors have described eastern and western forms of the Malleefowl (e.g. Macdonald [1984]), genetic analysis indicates that there are no distinct subspecies (Benshemesh 2000).

The Malleefowl is a large and distinctive ground-dwelling bird that grows up to 60 cm in length and can weigh up to 2.5 kg. The adult Malleefowl has a greyish head and neck, with a short dark bill, brown irises, a narrow white stripe beneath each eye, chestnut colouring on the chin, a dark-brown to blackish medial stripe that extends from the forehead to the base of the head, and a broad black stripe that extends from the throat to the upper breast. The upper surfaces of the wings have a complex pattern of markings, consisting of mottled brown, white, grey and black. The upper surface of the tail is mostly greyish, with narrow brown-black barring and some small patches of white. The breast, belly and flanks are a creamy white colour, and the legs and feet range from pale grey to blackish-brown in colour, and have darker claws (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The sexes are similar in appearance, but male Malleefowl are slightly larger than female Malleefowl. There is no seasonal variation in the appearance of the adult plumage. Juvenile Malleefowl can be distinguished from the adults, most obviously by size but also in the paler and creamier colouring on the head and neck, and in the patterning of the upper surfaces of the wings and tail, which are mainly dull brown and cream, and lack the white patches present in the adults. Immature Malleefowl are like the adults in appearance, but are smaller (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The Malleefowl usually occurs singly when away from its breeding mounds, and in pairs when present at active mounds. It breeds in solitary pairs. The Malleefowl is a mainly terrestrial species; it rarely flies, preferring to walk slowly across the terrain. If disturbed, Malleefowl usually run rapidly through the vegetation to escape (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The Malleefowl inhabits semi-arid regions of southern Australia (Barrett et al. 2003; Benshemesh 2000; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

In New South Wales, it typically occurs west of the Great Dividing Range. Its distribution extends from Pilliga south-west to the districts of Griffith and Wentworth, although the species is absent from the southern parts of the Riverina region (Barrett et al. 2003; Benshemesh 2005b; Blakers et al. 1984; Brickhill 1987a; Marchant & Higgins 1993). There have been a small number of records from east of the Great Dividing Range, all from around Goulburn River National Park (Brickhill 1987a; Cooper 1990), but these almost certainly relate to vagrant birds rather than a resident population (J. Benshemesh 2006, pers. comm.).

In Victoria, the Malleefowl occurs in the Mallee and northern Wimmera districts. Its distribution extends south to approximately 36°S (Barrett et al. 2003; Benshemesh 1989; Emison et al. 1987). The species has occasionally been recorded at sites located outside of the normal recognised distribution described above. For example, vagrant birds have been recorded 50 km south of Horsham, and near Portland (Krohn 1982; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Robinson 1982).

In South Australia, the Malleefowl is distributed from the south-east, north to the Murray-Mallee region and west to Streaky Bay, south of 32°S (Barrett et al. 2003; Blakers et al. 1984; Marchant & Higgins 1993). The species also occurs west of the Eyre Peninsula. Recent records from the Yellabinna wilderness area and the Great Victoria Desert indicate that the species occurs north to approximately 26°30'S in the north-west of South Australia (Benshemesh 1997; Robinson et al. 1990).

In Western Australia, the Malleefowl is mostly located to the south and west of a line extending from Cape Farquhar, which lies north of Carnarvon, to the Eyre Bird Observatory in the south-east of Western Australia (Barrett et al. 2003; Blakers et al. 1984; Marchant & Higgins 1993). The distribution of the species extends approximately from 26°S in the west (in the Blackstone Range area), 27°S in the central region (around Yeelirrie), and 26°S in the east (around the base of the Peron Peninsula), with most birds located in the south-eastern region (J. Benshemesh 2002, pers. comm.). There have been odd reports of Malleefowl in the far south-west of the state in recent times. These reports are likely to be of vagrant birds (Benshemesh 2000), although there are also several old records from the coastal fringe between Cape Naturaliste and Point D'Entrecasteaux, where the current status of the species is unknown (Marchant & Higgins 1993). Surveys undertaken as part of EPBC 2010/5435, found evidence of Mallefowls in a study area located approximately 15 km south-east of Marvel Loch in the south-west of Western Australia (Keith Lindbeck & Associates 2009 in EPBC 2010/5435).

The extent of occurrence is estimated to be 900 000 km². This estimate is considered to be of high reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

The extent of occurrence is known to be decreasing (Garnett & Crowley 2000). The distribution of the Malleefowl was formerly more extensive, extending over a large proportion of mainland southern Australia, including the south-western region of the Northern Territory (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b; Blakers et al. 1984). The distribution has contracted substantially in all states in which the species occurs (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b) but, for the most part, these changes appear to have had a much greater impact on the area of occupancy than the extent of occurrence. Even so, it is evident that the extent of occurrence has also declined, with the most notable contractions in the limits of the distribution having occurred in the Northern Territory (where the Malleefowl may now be extinct), northern and south-western Western Australia, and central Victoria (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b).

The area of occupancy is estimated to be 40 000 km². This estimate is based on the number of 1 km² grid squares that the species is thought to occur in at the time when its population is most constrained. The estimate is considered to be of medium reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

The area of occupancy is known to be decreasing (Garnett & Crowley 2000). Historically, the Malleefowl has been recorded in a total of 194 one-degree grid cells across Australia. However, since 1992, the species has been recorded in only 104 of the 194 grid cells (Benshemesh 2005b). This represents a major contraction in the distribution of the species (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b) and indicates that the area of occupancy has declined by approximately 50%.

The distribution of the Malleefowl is severely fragmented i.e. many of the remaining Malleefowl populations are small and are isolated from other extant populations, which increases their risk of extinction (Benshemesh 2000).

Captive populations (including some that consist of only a single bird) are held in Taronga Zoo and Western Plains Zoo in New South Wales, Little Desert Lodge in Victoria, Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Zoological Park in South Australia, and Perth Zoological Gardens in Western Australia (Benshemesh 2005b; ISIS 2006).

A captive breeding program is established at the Western Plains Zoo. Breeding has also occurred at the Little Desert Lodge, Adelaide Zoo and Monarto Zoological Park (Benshemesh 2005b).

There have been three release projects in recent years. These have involved the release of captive-reared birds at Yathong Nature Reserve, Nombinnie Nature Reserve and Yalgogrin in New South Wales (Priddel & Wheeler 1994, 1996, 1997), at Yookamurra Sanctuary in South Australia (Copley & Williams 1995), and on the Peron Peninsula in Western Australia (Benshemesh 2005b). The release program that is being conducted in New South Wales may be expanded in the future to include other conservation reserves (Benshemesh 2005b).

The Malleefowl population has been well surveyed. For example, population monitoring is currently conducted at more than 100 sites across southern Australia, and targeted surveys have been undertaken in the arid areas where the distribution of the Malleefowl is poorly known (Benshemesh 2005b). The number and coverage of the surveys that have been conducted (at least in recent years) suggest that the known distribution of the Malleefowl is likely to be a reasonable approximation of the actual distribution of the species. The estimate of total population size is likely to be less accurate because, although many populations have been subject to surveys, there appear to have been very few estimates of regional or state population sizes.

The total population of the Malleefowl is estimated to consist of 100 000 breeding birds. This estimate is considered to be of low reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000).

The Malleefowl is estimated to occur in a total of 100 subpopulations. This estimate is considered to be of low reliability (i.e. there is uncertainty about the number of subpopulations and/or the extent of genetic separation) (Garnett & Crowley 2000). There is no information available as to the location of these subpopulations.

The largest of the 100 subpopulations is estimated to consist of 3000 breeding birds. This estimate is considered to be of low reliability (Garnett & Crowley 2000). No information is available on the population size of any of the other 99 subpopulations.

No information is available on the locations or trends in numbers for any of the estimated 100 subpopulations. However, the data presented in this profile (in regards to declines in the extent of occurrence, the area of occupancy and population densities at some sites) indicate that numbers are declining in some proportion of the estimated 100 subpopulations.

No information is available on the land tenure of any specific subpopulation. However, it is known that Malleefowl occur on a variety of land tenures, and that these are mainly comprised of Aboriginal land, land controlled by state governments and federal government (including national parks and reserves and unallocated crown land), pastoral leases, and private land (Benshemesh 2005b).

The total population size of the Malleefowl is known to be declining (Benshemesh 2005a; Garnett & Crowley 2000; Gates 2004).

For example, at some sites in Victoria, population densities have declined by up to 80% or more since the 1960s (Benshemesh 1989, 2000; Gell 1985).

Declines have also been recorded in New South Wales. For example, a severe decline in population densities seems to have occurred in central New South Wales between the late 1950s and early 1980s (Benshemesh 2000; Brickhill 1987a; Frith 1962a); in a 500 ha habitat remnant at Yalgogrin, breeding densities have declined by approximately 70% since the late 1980s (Benshemesh 2000); and there have been recent local extinctions in many small conservation reserves throughout the New South Wales wheatbelt (Priddel & Wheeler 1994).

Furthermore, population monitoring in conservation habitat in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia during the past decade (and especially the past five years) has revealed that populations are continuing to decline (Benshemesh 2005a; Gates 2004).

The generation length of the Malleefowl is estimated to be 15 years. This estimate is considered to be of low reliability due to a lack of reliable life history data (Garnett & Crowley 2000).
There are no published records of cross-breeding between the Malleefowl and any other species. Because the Malleefowl is the only species within the genus Leipoa (Sibley & Monroe 1990), it is unlikely to cross-breed with any other species.

The Atlas of Australian Birds records the Malleefowl in more than 40 conservation reserves since 1998 (n=158 records). Reserves in which the species has most frequently been recorded include Wyperfeld National Park in Victoria (n=12 records), Coorong National Park in South Australia (n=11), Innes National Park in South Australia (n=10), Cooltong Conservation Park in South Australia (n=8), Hattah-Kulkyne National Park in Victoria (n=8), Fitzgerald River National Park in Western Australia (n=7), Francois Peron National Park in Western Australia (n=7), Murray-Sunset National Park in Victoria (n=7), Nuytsland Nature Reserve in Western Australia (n=7), and Billiatt Conservation Park in South Australia (n=6) (Atlas of Australian Birds, unpublished data).

The Malleefowl occurs in semi-arid and arid zones of temperate Australia, where it occupies shrublands and low woodlands that are dominated by mallee vegetation. It also occurs in other habitat types including eucalypt or native pine Callitris woodlands, acacia shrublands, Broombush Melaleuca uncinata vegetation or coastal heathlands (Benshemesh 2005b; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

The shrublands and low woodlands communities where Malleefowl occur are dominated by multi-stemmed species of eucalypts (such as Eucalyptus socialis, E. dumosa or E. incrassata) and occur on sandy or loamy soils that receive 200 to 450 mm of rainfall each year (Frith 1959, 1962a; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). They have a dense but discontinuous canopy, a dense understorey of shrubs (including species of Acacia, Cassia, Bossiaea and Beyeria) or grass (especially species of Triodia) and herbs, and abundant leaf litter (Benshemesh 2005b; Frith 1959, 1962a).

The other habitat types where Malleefowl occur include eucalypt woodlands (dominated by species such as Eucalyptus sideroxylon, E. baxteri, E. araneosa, E. wandoo, E. leucoxylon, E. reudunca, E. microcarpa, E. astringens, E. populnea, E. camaldulensis or Corymbia callophylla), native pine Callitris woodlands, acacia shrublands (Benshemesh 2005b; Benshemesh & Malleefowl Preservation Group 2001; Campbell 1941; Carpenter & Matthew 1986; Frith 1962a; Kimber 1985; Korn 1988; Krohn 1982; Lindsey 1981; Sanders et al. 2003; Sharland 1966; Storr 1985, 1986, 1987; Storr & Johnstone 1988), Broombush vegetation (Woinarski 1989), or coastal heathlands (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

The breeding habitat of the Malleefowl, within its home range, is characterised by light soil and an abundant leaf litter, which is used in the construction of nesting mounds (Frith 1959; Marchant & Higgins 1993). The Malleefowl sometimes forages in open areas located near more typical habitat i.e. in grasslands, crop fields and around roads (Ashby 1912; Benshemesh 2005b; Blakers et al. 1984; Brickhill 1987a; Copley & Williams 1995; Storr 1991).

The Malleefowl is not known to associate with any other listed, threatened species. However, the habitat of the Malleefowl also houses a variety of other threatened species including species of mammals, birds (such as the Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis and both subspecies of the Western Whipbird posophodes nigrogularis), reptiles and plants (Benshemesh 2005b).

In captivity, Malleefowl reach sexual maturity at three or four years of age. Limited anecdotal evidence suggests that the birds are long-lived. For example, unbanded pairs have been recorded breeding for up to 25 years, one captive male was still breeding when at least 19 years old (Benshemesh 2000), and long-term studies of tagged adult Malleefowl have generally recorded few deaths or disappearances (Benshemesh 1992; Frith 1962a; Priddel & Wheeler 2003). This suggests that the average lifespan in the wild may be about 15 years (Benshemesh 2005b).

Malleefowl usually breed in monogamous pairs (Frith 1959, 1962b; Marchant & Higgins 1993). However, a single case of polygyny has been documented (Weathers et al. 1990). Pairs usually breed every year, but they may forego breeding during drought (Benshemesh 1995; Booth & Seymour 1984; Frith 1959).

The breeding season can extend for up to 11 months. Laying usually begins in September and continues until mid to late summer, or occasionally into autumn (Frith 1959; Marchant & Higgins 1993). The eggs are laid, at five to 17 day intervals (Benshemesh 1992; Frith 1959), into a large mound of sand or soil and organic matter (e.g. leaf litter, twigs, bark) that are usually four or five (but sometimes up to twelve) metres in diameter and more than one metre in height (J. Benshemesh April 2006, pers. comm.; Frith 1959; Marchant & Higgins 1993). The eggs, which are pink or (rarely) white when laid but stain a brown colour over time (Frith 1962b), are incubated within the nesting mounds for a period of 49 to 96 days (the average period is about 62 to 64 days) (Booth 1987b; Frith 1959). The chicks are capable of leaving the breeding site upon their emergence from the nesting mound (Benshemesh 1992; Marchant & Higgins 1993). They receive no parental care after hatching (Frith 1959; Priddel & Wheeler 1995) and are capable of flying and feeding themselves within 24 hours of their emergence (Frith 1962b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

Female Malleefowl are highly productive; although clutches are highly variable in size, and may consist of anywhere from three to 35 eggs, average clutch-sizes range from about 15 to 20 eggs (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a; Brickhill 1987b; Frith 1959; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). Hatching success varies between sites from about 50% to 85% (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a; Brickhill 1987b; Frith 1959) and pairs produce, on average, between eight and 17 chicks per year (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a; Brickhill 1987b; Frith 1959; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). However, the chicks suffer an extremely high mortality rate, with about 80% or more succumbing to predators or metabolic stress (i.e. starvation, over-exposure) during the first few weeks after hatching (Benshemesh 1992; Priddel & Wheeler 1990, 1994, 1996). The mortality rate declines as the young get older (Benshemesh 1992), but studies on older chicks and juvenile and sub-adult birds indicate that the mortality rate remains high nonetheless (Benshemesh 2005b; Harlen & Priddel 1992; Priddel & Wheeler 1994, 1996).

Because of the excessive mortality rates suffered by young birds, there is some doubt about the ability of the Malleefowl population to sustain itself. It had been suggested that very few young, and possibly no young at all, were being recruited into the adult breeding population (Priddel & Wheeler 1995). There is evidence to show that natural recruitment is occurring to some extent (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 2003), but it is not known if the recruitment rates are sufficient to maintain current Malleefowl populations (Benshemesh 2005b).

The Malleefowl is a generalist forager (Benshemesh 2005b). It feeds mainly on seeds, but also takes other plant material (mostly flowers, fruits and foliage), invertebrates (mainly insects including ants, beetles and cockroaches), lerp (a sugary substance secreted by psyllid insects), fungi and tubers (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1986; Brickhill 1987a; Frith 1962a; Harlen & Priddel 1996; Harold & Dennings 1998; Kentish & Westbrooke 1994; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Reichelt & May 1997).

The Malleefowl is an opportunistic forager that will feed upon any food resource that becomes locally or seasonally abundant (Benshemesh 1992; Frith 1962a; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). For example, Malleefowl may feed extensively on lerp when lerp are abundant in the local environment (Benshemesh 1992).

Malleefowl forage on the ground. They peck food items from the ground and from low vegetation (mostly herbs and shrubs) and use their feet to search among leaf-litter and to scratch at the soil to expose tubers and invertebrates (Benshemesh 1992; Frith 1962a; Marchant & Higgins 1993; Reichelt & May 1997).

There are some aspects of their foraging behaviour that can expose Malleefowl to threatening processes. Because they forage on the ground during daylight hours (primarily at dawn and dusk) (Benshemesh 1992; Marchant & Higgins 1993), Malleefowl are likely to be susceptible to mobile terrestrial predators such as foxes and cats. They regularly forage on and around roads, where they collect spilt grain and are susceptible to collisions with vehicles. They may also forage in croplands that lie adjacent to more typical habitat (Benshemesh 2005b) and, at these times, they are likely to be more susceptible to predation, especially by raptors (J. Benshemesh 2006, pers. comm).

The Malleefowl is a sedentary species. Established pairs and individuals usually remain in the same area throughout the year, and pairs tend to breed in the same general area for many years in succession (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a; Frith 1959). Some small-scale movements may occur during the non-breeding period, when pairs may wander away from their nesting mounds and at times congregate into small flocks (Mattingley 1908; Frith 1959, 1962b).

Radio-tracking studies show that Malleefowl move (i.e. range over) distances of several kilometres during the course of a year (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a). Following their emergence from nesting mounds, juvenile Malleefowl may disperse widely. For example, one juvenile moved a distance of 9 km in three weeks, and another 15-month-old bird travelled 17 km within a period of five weeks (Marchant & Higgins 1993); and at Wyperfeld National Park in Victoria, the average distance travelled by newly-hatched chicks away from their nesting mounds was 600 m per day (and some chicks averaged more than 2 km per day during the first day or two) (Benshemesh 1991).

Individual Malleefowl have occasionally been recorded some distance outside of the species' normal recognised range. For example, one bird was seen in forest 50 km south of Horsham in western Victoria (Robinson 1982) and another was seen near Portland in south-west Victoria (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The dispersal of Malleefowl is apparently achieved on foot. In areas of cleared or open land, Malleefowl travel through corridors of dense, native vegetation (Benshemesh 1992, 2005b). The fragmentation of the remnant native habitats that are occupied by Malleefowl provides a barrier to dispersal, jeopardising the survival of many small and isolated Malleefowl populations (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b).

The home ranges of individual Malleefowl can vary in size from 0.5 to 4.6 km², and can overlap considerably (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a). The majority of the home range appears not to be defended, but during the breeding season male Malleefowl defend a breeding territory from other Malleefowl. The breeding territory lies within the home-range, and consists of the area that immediately surrounds an active nesting mound (Frith 1959, 1962b; Marchant & Higgins 1993). There can be local shifts in territories and home ranges, with some pairs changing nesting mounds between breeding seasons (Booth 1987a; Frith 1959). However, some (usually older) pairs will return to the same nesting mounds for several years in succession (Frith 1959; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

The home ranges can differ in size between the breeding and non-breeding seasons (Benshemesh 1992, 2005b; Booth 1987a). No clear patterns have been established (Marchant & Higgins 1993), but this appears to be partly tied to differences between the sexes. During the breeding season, the home ranges of male Malleefowl are smaller than those of female Malleefowl (Benshemesh 1992; Booth 1987a) because the males remain close to their nests (Benshemesh 1992), presumably so they can guard their territories. However, during the non-breeding season, the sexes tend to remain together and, consequently, their home ranges tend to be similar in size (Benshemesh 2005b).

Distinctiveness
The Malleefowl is considered to be unmistakeable within its normal range (Magrath et al. 2004). There are no similar species; adult Malleefowl are the only large, ground-dwelling birds that occur within mallee habitats (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

Detectability
The birds themselves are difficult to detect (Magrath et al. 2004). They are generally shy (Marchant & Higgins 1993) and wary of humans, and their cryptic plumage makes them difficult to see in their preferred habitats. However, they have distinctive footprints that are readily detected in sandy areas, and they produce large and conspicuous mounds in which they lay their eggs. They can also occasionally give a distinctive call (Magrath et al. 2004).

The most recent national recovery plan for this species (Benshemesh 2005b) identified the following threats.

Land Clearance
The clearance of mallee vegetation for agricultural purposes has been a major factor in the decline of the Malleefowl in southern Australia (Benshemesh 2000; Frith 1962a). The extensive clearance of mallee vegetation in southern Australia (it is estimated up to 80% of the wheat-belts have been cleared [Glanznig 1995]) has resulted in the loss and fragmentation of Malleefowl habitat, and in some cases, local extinction of Malleefowl populations (Benshemesh 2000; Garnett & Crowley 2000). In the Western Australian wheatbelt, the contraction in range is considered to be in the order of 30% (Parsons et al. 2008). Clearing also increases exposure of Malleefowl to other threats, for example to predation by foxes, as individuals may spend more time foraging or foraging over greater areas to meet nutritional requirements (Priddel et al. 2007).

Land clearance remains a threat to populations that occur outside of reserves, although the clearance is intended for reasons other than agriculture. For example, a number of proposed sites for mineral sand mining are located in mallee regions of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. These sites, which collectively cover an area of many thousands of hectares, are likely to be severely degraded if mining is commenced. The habitat of the Malleefowl may also be threatened by timber harvesting (Benshemesh 2005b), although the actual effects of timber harvesting upon populations of the Malleefowl have not been determined (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 2003).

Fragmentation and Isolation of Populations and Remnant Habitats
The fragmentation and isolation of the remaining Malleefowl populations and their habitats (due to extensive clearing) is likely to increase the risk of extinction (Benshemesh 2005b). This is because small and isolated populations are more vulnerable to the impacts of threatening processes (Benshemesh 2005b; J. Benshemesh April 2006, pers. comm.). For example, the fragmented nature of the habitat may prevent Malleefowl from moving between patches of habitat, and from 're-stocking' populations that are unable to sustain themselves because of poor habitat quality or the impact of threatening processes (Benshemesh 2000).

The fragmented state of the remaining habitat is also likely to exacerbate the impact of other threats. For example, fox populations (and, consequently, rates of predation by foxes) are probably greater near cleared land (Benshemesh 2005b; Saunders et al. 1995); local extinctions could occur if a habitat fragment is engulfed by fire and the Malleefowl are unable to emigrate or immigrate between habitat fragments; and the proximity of their habitats to cleared land may increase the exposure of Malleefowl populations to agrochemicals (Benshemesh 2005b).

Grazing
Grazing herbivores have the potential to impact upon Malleefowl populations by competing for food resources (Benshemesh 2005b; Frith 1962a) and, when in high densities, by altering the structure and diversity of the vegetation, which may degrade the quality or suitability of Malleefowl habitats (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). The effect of grazing herbivores upon populations of the Malleefowl has been demonstrated by Frith (1962a), who found that the densities of breeding pairs in habitats that had been grazed by sheep were only 10 to 15% of those that were recorded in ungrazed habitat.

Introduced herbivores provide the major threat to the Malleefowl, and the most important of these species are goats and sheep. Grazing by sheep has been shown to have a substantial impact upon mallee habitats and their resident populations of Malleefowl (Frith 1962a) but continues to occur throughout vast areas of the Malleefowl's habitat, especially in New South Wales and Western Australia (Benshemesh 2005b; Stanley & Lawrie 1980). Feral goats are abundant at some sites that are important for the long-term conservation of the Malleefowl, most notably in eastern Australia north of the Murray River, where some of the highest densities of feral goats that have been recorded have been in reserves that support populations of Malleefowl (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b; Henzell & McLeod 1984; Newsome 1989; Pople et al. 1996). Other introduced herbivores such as rabbits, domestic cattle and feral camels may also be impacting upon the quality of Malleefowl habitat (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

Kangaroos could also be having an adverse affect on Malleefowl habitats (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995), but this is likely to be limited to sites where kangaroo numbers have become artificially high due to the provision of water, access to agricultural land, and the absence of predators (Benshemesh 2005b).

Predation
Predation is a major cause of mortality for the Malleefowl (Benshemesh 2005b) and, as such, has been considered to be one of the major threats to the long term survival of the species (Priddel & Wheeler 1995). Foxes are the main source of predation, and will prey upon the Malleefowl at all stages of its life cycle (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). The extent of predation by foxes can be severe. For example, foxes may take more than a third of the eggs laid at some breeding sites (Benshemesh 2005b; Benshemesh & Burton 1997a, 1999; Frith 1962a), and are also responsible for a high proportion of the mortality (up to 50% or more in some cases) that occurs among chicks and juvenile and sub-adult Malleefowl (as determined from release trials with captive-reared birds) (Priddel & Wheeler 1994, 1996; Priddel et al. 2007). It has even been claimed that, because the fox is such an efficient predator of the Malleefowl, there may be little or no recruitment of young Malleefowl into the adult (i.e. breeding) population (Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

The other main predators of Malleefowl are raptors, which at some sites may account for up to a third of all chick deaths (Benshemesh 1992; Priddel & Wheeler 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996). Raptors are natural predators of the Malleefowl (Priddel & Wheeler 1995), but their numbers (and, hence, the incidence of predation upon Malleefowl) may be artificially elevated in mallee habitats because of an abundant food supply (i.e. rabbits, carrion from goats and sheep). Furthermore, grazing herbivores have reduced the food supply and amount of vegetative cover available to the Malleefowl. This is likely to have prompted the Malleefowl to forage for longer periods and in sites that lack adequate cover, increasing their exposure to raptors and the risk of predation (Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

Feral cats are incidental predators of the Malleefowl (Priddel & Wheeler 1994) and are thought to have a negliglible impact on overall Malleefowl population trends (Priddel & Wheeler 1995). However, there is some evidence to suggest that cat populations (and, hence, the incidence of predation on Malleefowl by cats) might increase if fox numbers are reduced (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). If this is correct, it is possible that cats could become a more important threat to the Malleefowl in future at sites where intensive fox-baiting programs have been implemented (Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

The Malleefowl was, in the past, hunted by humans (including Aboriginals and European Australians) for food (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). However, the Malleefowl is now a protected species and hunting has largely ceased, although a small number of birds continue to be shot illegally (Benshemesh 2005b; J. Benshemesh 2002, pers. comm.; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

Fire
Fire (including both wildfire and prescribed burning) is a major threat to the Malleefowl, especially when it occurs on a broad scale or at frequent intervals (Benshemesh 2000, 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). The potential effects of fire on populations of the Malleefowl are twofold: in addition to causing the direct mortality of birds (including the potential elimination of entire populations during large-scale fires) (Benshemesh 2005b), fire can also reduce the suitability of habitat to the Malleefowl by altering the structural and floristic composition of the vegetation (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995).

This can have severe and long-term effects on Malleefowl populations (Benshemesh 2005b). For example, it takes at least six years (and up to 17 years in the case of extensive fires) for Malleefowl to resume breeding in habitats that have been burnt (Benshemesh 1996b; Benshemesh & Burton 1997b; Cowley et al. 1969; Tarr 1965). It can take even longer for populations to fully recover. For example, Benshemesh (1990, 1992) found that breeding densities in sites that had been burnt 20-30 years prior were about one third of the densities that were recorded in neighbouring sites that had remained unburnt of at least 40 years, and Woinarski (1989) recorded that population population densities were much lower in habitat that had been burnt within the past 40 years when compared with habitat that had remained unburnt for 60 to 80 years.

Disease
Disease is a potential threat to the Malleefowl. No information is available on the prevalence or impact of diseases upon wild populations, but captive Malleefowl are susceptible to a range of diseases (especially those that are known to affect other Galliformes). It is possible that these diseases could be transmitted to the wild population via the release of captive Malleefowl into wild populations, or where domestic fowl or pheasant farms are located in close proximity to sites that are occupied by Malleefowl (Benshemesh 2005b).

Inbreeding
Inbreeding is a potential threat to the Malleefowl. No information is available on the genetic diversity of Malleefowl populations. However, the small size and isolation of many of the remaining Malleefowl populations render them vulnerable to inbreeding, which can reduce the genetic diversity and, consequently, the 'fitness' of such populations (Benshemesh 2005b).

Agrochemicals
Exposure to agrochemicals is a potential threat to the Malleefowl. The impact of agrochemicals upon populations of the Malleefowl has not been determined (Benshemesh 2005b), but it is possible that exposure to agrochemicals could lower the fertility of breeding birds (Garnett & Crowley 2000). Furthermore, the fragmentation of the Malleefowl population (or, more specifically, the proximity of Malleefowl and their habitats to cleared land used for agricultural purposes) is likely to have increased the exposure of the birds to agrochemicals (Benshemesh 2005b).

The following recovery actions have been instigated (from Benshemesh 2005b).

  • The habitat of the Malleefowl has been protected through the establishment of conservation reserves, the purchase of land containing Malleefowl habitat by various bodies (e.g. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Trust for Nature, Birds Australia) for conservation purposes, the establishment of land-use agreements with private landholders, the introduction of controls to regulate the clearing of mallee habitat on private land, the fencing of some areas of Malleefowl habitat to exclude herbivores, and the introduction of programs to reduce goat populations in some reserves (Benshemesh 2005b).

  • Fire management plans have been developed for several reserves that are important for the conservation of the Malleefowl. In the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands of South Australia, regimes for prescribed burning have attempted to conserve breeding habitat of the Malleefowl (Benshemesh 2005b).

  • The habitat of the Malleefowl is being re-established at some sites, and corridors of vegetation are being established to link some areas of Malleefowl habitat (Benshemesh 2005b; Harold & Dennings 1998).

  • Control programs have been established in all states in which Malleefowl occur to reduce numbers of introduced predators, especially foxes (Benshemesh 2005b). Studies have been undertaken to determine the impact of predation by foxes upon the Malleefowl population, and to determine the efficacy of fox control programs to mitigate this impact (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1994, 1996, 1997).

  • Several surveys have been conducted in recent years to improve knowledge of the distribution (Cutten 1998; Benshemesh 1995a, 1996a, 1997, 2005b; Benshemesh & Malleefowl Preservation Group 2001; Copley et al. 2003; Hill 2002; Sanders et al. 2003). The public are also encouraged to report sightings of the species (Benshemesh 2005b; Harold & Dennings 1998), and in Western Australia these reports have greatly increased knowledge of the distribution of the Malleefowl in the state's wheatbelt (Benshemesh 2005b).

  • Population monitoring programs have been established in all states in which the Malleefowl occurs. These programs, which aim to estimate breeding densities, are currently being conducted at more than 100 sites throughout the range of the species (Benshemesh 2005b).

  • A captive breeding program has been established (Benshemesh 2005b). Captive-reared birds have been released into the wild at several sites, either to re-establish populations at sites that were formerly occupied by Malleefowl (i.e. where local extinctions have occurred) or to supplement existing populations (Benshemesh 2005b; Copley & Williams 1995). This includes the experimental release of captive-reared birds into existing populations in New South Wales to determine survival rates of Malleefowl in the wild (Priddel & Wheeler 1994, 1996, 1997). There have also been attempts to introduce Malleefowl to sites where the species had previously not been recorded, but these have all been unsuccessful (Cooper 1975; Copley 1995; Copley & Williams 1995; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

    As part of the Malleefowl Breeding Program at Western Plains Zoo, captive Malleefowls are each fitted with a microchip. The microchip is inserted into the bird's pectoral muscle mass. This facilitates positive identification of the bid for the nine to 12 months that the bird is housed at the Zoo. It also allows for the collection of useful data, including an individual's parentage. On release, a radio transmitter is glued to a representative number of individuals to enable the monitoring of individuals in the post-release period (The Science Show 2006).

    A remnant population occurs about 40 km out of Dubbo in Goonoo State Forest. As part of the Malleefowl Breeding Program, the Western Plains Zoo release Malleefowls into Yathong State Forest out west of Lake Cargelligo, or the adjacent Nombinnie State Forest. Both of these locations incorporate areas of semi and mallee country where Malleefowl were once found in large numbers (The Science Show 2006).

  • The habitat requirements of the Malleefowl have been investigated (Clarke 2005), and further studies are currently underway (Benshemesh 2005b).

  • Information about population dynamics has been obtained from a long-term banding study conducted at Yalgogrin in New South Wales (Priddel & Wheeler 2003).

  • A new population monitoring technique has been developed to allow rapid, broad-scale survey of Malleefowl breeding densities (Benshemesh 2005b; Benshemesh & Emison 1996). However, this technique has not been implemented into population monitoring procedures because it is more expensive, and less effective, than current ground-based surveys.

  • There has been an effort to educate and increase the awareness of the public about the Malleefowl. This has involved the production of education kits, talks to schools and rural community groups, seminars at conferences, information displays at public sites and events, and the production of regular newsletters (Benshemesh 2005b; Harold & Dennings 1998; Williams 1994).

  • A national recovery plan was published in 2000 (Benshemesh 2000). In accordance with this plan, considerable progress has been made to develop a community-based monitoring system, to standardise monitoring procedures and promote collaboration between states and regions, to determine the distribution of the species at some poorly surveyed sites, and to gain an understanding of the population dynamics of the species. In addition, a national forum was held in 2004 to discuss the conservation of the Malleefowl in the context of the original national recovery plan (Benshemesh 2005b).

The latest version of the national recovery plan (Benshemesh 2005b) proposes to continue with and expand upon the actions described above, and to undertake actions that were not completed during the lifetime of the previous recovery plan.

The following projects have received Government funding grants for conservation and recovery work benefiting Malleefowl:

Ngaanyatjarra Council (Aboriginal Corporation) received $33 000 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2005-06, part of which was for the monitoring of malleefowl populations, habitat changes and predation levels, as well as updating of the Ngaanyatjarra threatened species database.

North Central Malleefowl Preservation Group (WA) received $16 500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2005-06 for the conservation of Malleefowl through increasing public awareness and reducing impacts of introduced predators.

Yongergnow Inc (WA) received $25 162 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2005-06 for the maximisation of community management strategies for two malleefowl communities.

Birds Australia Gluepot Reserve (SA) received $430 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2006-07 for labelling of mounds with metal stakes and labels in accordance with proposed national standards.

The Friends of Mount Monster Conservation Park (SA) received $5 800 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2006-07 for monitoring of feral animal impact and control of deer, goats and foxes to prevent trampling on mounds.

Anangu Pitjntjatjara Inc (SA) received $19 000 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2001-02 for identification and protection of critical habitat and trial integration of traditional and western species conservation techniques, as well as reinstatement or continuation of traditional burning regimes on spinifex grasses adjoining critical habitat.

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Land Management (NT) received $21 970 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002-03 for identification and protection of critical habitat, including patch burning, baiting to control foxes and use of GIS to record, monitor, evaluate and plan to help protect this species.

The Lower Mallee Land Management Group (SA) received $3 300 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002-03, part of which was for the protection of populations through establishment of a fox control program and continuing monitoring program using a GPS, as well as enhancement of habitat.

Better Bencubbin Progress Association (WA) received $500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002-03 for placement of `Malleefowl crossing' signs along roads throughout the Shire of Mt Marshall with the aim of raising community and tourist awareness of this species and to encourage motorists to slow down near known habitat.

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land (SA) received $9 800 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2003-04 for protection of critical habitat, development of appropriate adaptive management methodology to collect ecological data, monitoring of breeding activity, abundance, threat mitigation, habitat use, seasonal activity and dispersal, and the use of GIS data to assist with recording, monitoring, evaluation and planning.

The Trayning Land Conservation District Committee (WA) received $3 498 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2003-04 for a co-ordinated community fox baiting program involving 15 landholders from Yeelanna, Yarragin and Waddouring Catchments to protect mounds.

North Central Malleefowl Preservation Group Inc (WA) received $10 500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2003-04 for determination of abundance, distribution, habitat use, movement and management actions needed to recover this species in the northern wheatbelt of WA.

Itha-Mari Ltd (NSW) received $28 589 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2004-05, part of which was for fencing to reduce grazing pressures and education programs with local Indigenous communities to assist the Malleefowl.

The Friends of Kooyoora Inc & Wedderburn Conservation Management Network (Vic) received $8 710 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2004-05 for revegetation with native species of an area of cleared land near private bushland which is home to an active pair of Malleefowl, and for species monitoring.

The Trayning Land Conservation District Committee (WA) received $16 500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2004-05 for fox baiting in known habitat for this species.

The Newdegate Land Conservation District Committee (WA) received $2 500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2004-05, part of which was for a fox baiting program aimed at protecting populations of Malleefowl, and the creation of awareness and encouragement for landholders to continue fox baiting.

Birds Australia Gluepot Reserve (SA) received $24 386 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2000-01, part of which was for assistance in the recovery of Malleefowl by closing dams and erecting exclusion fencing around two house dams to reduce grazing.

Birds Australia Gluepot Reserve (SA) received $6 500 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002-03, part of which was for restoration and enhancement of habitat for Malleefowl, and closure of the last two dams to reduce kangaroo and feral goat numbers.

The Conservation Council of SA received $6 390 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2001-02, part of which was for the identification of declining species of birds (including malleefowl), as well as critical habitat, significant impacts, gaps in management knowledge, and recommendation of priorities for better management.

The Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group Inc received $10 309 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2007-08. This project aims to map the distribution of Malleefowl by searching for Malleefowl prints along sandy tracks in Little Desert. It will also continue the Malleefowl site research work started in 2005 by the Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group Inc. (VMRG) involving Greencorps and community groups.

The Australian Bush Heritage Fund received $14 091 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2007-08. This project aims to boost Malleefowl populations by minimising threats and improving habitat through pest control and fire management. It also seeks to increase local understanding and encourage threatened species habitat protection.

The North Central Malleefowl Preservation Group (NCMPG) received $9 826 of funding through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2007-08. This project will extend habitat protection for Malleefowl populations on Warrah Farm, Latham, Western Australia by completing fencing of 310 ha of remnant vegetation on Victoria Loc 4010. In addition, the NCMPG will protect important flora and fauna species identified through three professional surveys completed at Latham 1997 to 2002.

The Wedderburn Conservation Management Network received $80,382 of funding through the Caring for our Counrty Grants Program for habitat restoration for the Malleefowl and other woodland birds.

There have been many major studies on the Malleefowl. Summarised findings of these studies, and their citations, may be found in Marchant and Higgins (1993) and Benshemesh (2000, 2005b).

A national recovery plan for the Malleefowl was published in 2000 (Benshemesh 2000), and an updated version was produced in 2007 (Benshemesh 2005). There are also management plans to guide conservation efforts in New South Wales (Priddel & Wheeler 1995) and Victoria (Benshemesh 1994).

The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.

Threat Class Threatening Species References
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000 (Garnett, S.T. & G.M. Crowley, 2000) [Cwlth Action Plan].
Commonwealth Listing Advice on Land clearance (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2001w) [Listing Advice].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Grazing pressures and associated habitat changes National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Habitat loss and modification due to clearance of native vegetation and pasture improvements National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
The Impact of Global Warming on the Distribution of Threatened Vertebrates (ANZECC 1991) (Dexter, E.M., A.D. Chapman & J.R. Busby, 1995) [Report].
Climate Change and Severe Weather:Climate Change and Severe Weather:Climate change altering atmosphere/hydrosphere temperatures, rainfall patterns and/or frequency of severe weather events National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Loss and/or fragmentation of habitat and/or subpopulations National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Small isolated populations National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Energy Production and Mining:Mining and Quarrying:Habitat modification through open cut mining/quarrying activities National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or habitat degradation Oryctolagus cuniculus (Rabbit, European Rabbit) National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
The threat posed by pest animals to biodiversity in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith, A.J., P.S. Mahon, M. Letnic & P.O. Downey, 2007) [Management Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or predation Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox, Fox) Recovery Plan Research Phase for the Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 1993) [State Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or predation Felis catus (Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat) Recovery Plan Research Phase for the Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 1993) [State Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or predation Canis lupus familiaris (Domestic Dog) National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Grazing, tramping, competition and/or habitat degradation Capra hircus (Goat) Recovery Plan Research Phase for the Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 1993) [State Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Grazing, tramping, competition and/or habitat degradation Camelus dromedarius (Dromedary, Camel) National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Presence of pathogens and resulting disease National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Problematic Native Species:Competition, predation and/or habitat degradation by kangaroos and wallabies National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate and/or changed fire regimes (frequency, timing, intensity) National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate prescribed regimes and/or vegetation management to control fire regimes National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl (Benshemesh, J., 2000) [Recovery Plan].
National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata (Benshemesh, J., 2007) [Recovery Plan].

Ashby, E. (1912). Birds of the mallee near Schwetze's Landing, River Murray, South Australia. Emu. 12:47-48.

Barrett, G., A. Silcocks, S. Barry, R. Cunningham & R. Poulter (2003). The New Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Birds Australia.

Benshemesh, J. (1989). Report on the Establishment of Sites for the Monitoring of Mallefowl Populations: Operation Raleigh 1989. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Melbourne.

Benshemesh, J. (1992). The conservation ecology of Malleefowl, with particular regard to fire. Ph.D. Thesis. Ph. D. thesis, Monash University.

Benshemesh, J. (1994). Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement 59. [Online]. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available from: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/6F6FCFD05BF8671ACA2570EC001E7495/$File/059+Malleefowl+1994.pdf.

Benshemesh, J. (1995). Malleefowl in the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands: Report on the Spring 1995 Expedition. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Benshemesh, J. (1995b). Monitoring Malleefowl in North-west Victoria: 1994-95. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Mildura, Victoria.

Benshemesh, J. (1996a). Malleefowl in the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands: Report on the Autumn 1995 Expedition. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide.

Benshemesh, J. (1996b). Monitoring Malleefowl in North-west Victoria: 1995-96. Page(s) 1995-96. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Mildura, Victoria.

Benshemesh, J. (1997). Caring for Nganamara. Wingspan. 7(4):16--21.

Benshemesh, J. (2000). National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl. [Online]. Department of Environment & Heritage. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/malleefowl/index.html.

Benshemesh, J. (2002). Personal communication.

Benshemesh, J. (2005a). Malleefowl Monitoring in Victoria 2004-05. Unpublished report to Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group, Melbourne.

Benshemesh, J. (2005b). National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl 2006-2010. Department of Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Benshemesh, J. (2006). Personal communication.

Benshemesh, J. (2007). National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata. [Online]. Adelaide, South Australia: Department for Environment and Heritage. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/malleefowl/index.html.

Benshemesh, J. & P. Burton (1997a). Fox Predation on Malleefowl After the Spread of RCD in Victoria: The First Malleefowl Breeding Season. Parks Victoria and Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Mildura, Victoria.

Blakers, M., S.J.J.F. Davies & P.N. Reilly (1984). The Atlas of Australian Birds. Melbourne, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.

Booth, D.T. (1986). Crop and gizzard contents of two Mallee fowl. Emu. 86:51-53.

Booth, D.T. (1987a). Home range and hatching success of of Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae), in Murray mallee near Renmark, South Australia. Australian Wildlife Research. 14:95-104.

Booth, D.T. (1987b). Effect of temperature on development of Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata egg. Physiological Zoology. 60:437-445.

Booth, D.T. & R.S. Seymour (1984). Effect of adding water to Malleefowl mounds during a drought. Emu. 84:116-118.

Brickhill, J. (1987a). The conservation status of Malleefowl in New South Wales. M.Sc. Thesis. M. Sc. thesis, University of New England.

Brickhill, J. (1987b). Breeding success of Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata in central New South Wales. Emu. 87:42-45.

Campbell, A.G. (1941). Lowans at Wyperfeld. Emu. 40:422-423.

Carpenter, G. & J.S. Matthew (1986). The birds of Billiatt Conservation Park. South Australian Ornithologist. 30:29-37.

Christidis, L. & W.E. Boles (1994). The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union Monograph 2. Melbourne, Victoria: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.

Clarke, R. (2005a). Ecological Requirements of Birds Specializing in Mallee Habitats. Unpublished La Trobe University report to the Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, and New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dubbo.

Cooper, R.M. (1990). 1986 New South Wales Bird Report. Australian Birds. 23:68-101.

Cooper, R.P. (1975). The avifauna of Wilsons Promontory. Australian Bird Watcher. 6:87-102.

Copley, P. & S. Williams (1995). Distribution, relative abundance and conservation of Malleefowl in South Australia. Working Papers of the National Malleefowl Forum. Page(s) 9-32. Working Papers of the National Malleefowl Forum, Adelaide.

Copley, P.B. (1995). Translocations of native vertebrates in South Australia: a review. In: Serena, M., ed. Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand fauna. Page(s) 35-42. Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping Norton, NSW.

Copley, P.B., L.M. Baker, B.J. Nesbitt, L.P. Pedler, D. Hopton & J.N. Foulkes (2003). Birds. Robinson, A.C., P.B. Copley, P.D. Canty, L.M. Baker, & B.J. Nesbitt, eds. A Biological Survey of the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands, South Australia, 1991-2001. Page(s) 1991-2001. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia, Adelaide.

Cowley, R.D., A. Heislers & E.H.M. Ealey (1969). Effects of fire on wildlife. Victoria's Resources. 11:18-22.

Cutten, J.L. (1998). Distribution and Abundance of the Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in the Murray Mallee and South East Regions of South Australia. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide.

Emison,W.B., C.M. Beardsell, F.I. Norman, R.H. Loyn & S.C. Bennett (1987). Atlas of Victorian Birds. Melbourne: Department of Conservation (Forest & Lands) & Royal Australian Ornithological Union.

Frith, H.J. (1956). Temperature regulation in the nesting mounds of the Mallee-fowl, Leipoa ocellata, Gould. CSIRO Wildlife Research. 1:79-95.

Frith, H.J. (1959a). Breeding of the Mallee Fowl, Leipoa ocellata, Gould (Megapodiidae). CSIRO Wildlife Research. 4:31-60.

Frith, H.J. (1962a). Conservation of the Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodidae). CSIRO Wildlife Research. 7:33-49.

Frith, H.J. (1962b). The Malleefowl: the Bird that Builds a Mound. Angus & Robertson, Sydney.

Garnett, S.T. & G.M. Crowley (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia and Birds Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/index.html.

Gates, J. (2004). A Review of Malleefowl Conservation in the Murraylands Region, South Australia: 1990-2002. Page(s) 1990-2002. Department of Environment and Heritage, South Australia, Adelaide.

Gell, P.A. (1985). Birds of Remnant Mallee Isolate at Wedderburn: A Biogeographic Approach to Nature Reserve Delineation and Management. Monash University.

Glanznig, A. (1995). Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline: An Overview of Recent Native Vegetation Clearance in Australia and its impliaction for Biodiversity. Biodiversity Series Paper 6. Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Harlen, R. & D. Priddel (1992). Assessment of Potential Food Resources Available to Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Report 2. Monthly Abundance of Food Resources. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

Harlen, R. & D. Priddel (1996). Potential food resources available to Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata, in marginal mallee lands during drought. Australian Journal of Ecology. 21:418-428.

Harold, G. & S. Dennings (1998). The First Five Years. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup, Western Australia.

Henzell, R.P. & P.I. McLeod (1984). Estimation of the density of feral goats in part of arid South Australia by means of the Petersen Estimate. Australian Wildlife Research. 11:93-102.

Hill, R. (2002a). Surveys for Ngananmara in the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands. Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Land Management, Umuwa, South Australia.

International Species Information System (2006). Captive animals and their locations. [Online]. www.isis.org. [Accessed: 18-Oct-2006].

Keith Lindbeck & Associates (Environmental Management Consultants) (2009). Mount Caudan-Ranger Iron Ore Ranger Project. prepared for Cazaly Resources and submitted as part of EPBC 2010/5435.

Kentish, B. & M. Westbrooke (1994). Crop and gizzard contents of a road-dead Malleefowl. Emu. 94:130-132.

Kimber, R.G. (1985). The history of the Malleefowl in central Australia. RAOU Newsletter. 64:6-8.

Korn, T. (1988). The Malleefowl of the Goonoo Forest, Dubbo. National Parks Journal. 32(4):22-24.

Krohn, J. (1982). Unexpected sighting of a Malleefowl. Australian Bird Watcher. 9:175-176.

Lindsey, T.R. (1981). New South Wales Bird Report for 1980. Australian Birds. 16:1-23.

Macdonald, J.D. (1984). Birds of Australia. Reed Books, Frenchs Forest, New South Wales.

Magrath, M.J.L., M.A. Weston, P. Olsen & M. Antos (2004). Draft Survey Standards for Birds: Species Accounts. Melbourne, Victoria: Report for the Department of the Environment and Heritage by Birds Australia.

Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2 - Raptors to Lapwings. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Mattingley, A.H.E. (1908). Thermometer-Bird or Mallee-Fowl (Lipoa ocellata). Emu. 8:53-61.

Newsome, A.E. (1989). Large vertebrate pests. Noble, J.C. & R.A. Bradstock, eds. Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and Their Management. Page(s) 406-417. CSIRO, Melbourne.

Parsons, B., J. Short and J. D. Roberts (2008). Contraction in the range of Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in Western Australia: a comparative assessment using presence-only and presence/absence datasets. Emu. 108:221-231.

Pople, A.R., G.C. Grigg, S.C. Cairns, P. Alexander, L.A. Beard & R.P. Henzell (1996). Trends in numbers and changes in the distribution of feral goats (Capra hircus) in the South Australian pastoral zone. Wildlife Research. 23:687-696.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (1990). Survival of Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata chicks in the absence of ground-dwelling predators. Emu. 90:81-87.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (1994). Mortality of captive-raised Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata, released into a mallee remnant within the wheat-belt of New South Wales. Wildlife Research. 21:543-552.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (1995a). The Biology and Management of the Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in New South Wales. Species Management Report 19. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, New South Wales.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (1996). Effect of age at release on the susceptibility of captive-reared Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata to predation by the introduced fox Vulpes vulpes. Emu. 96:32-41.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (1997). Efficacy of fox control in reducing the mortality of released captive-reared Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Wildlife Research. 24:469-482.

Priddel, D. & R. Wheeler (2003). Nesting activity and demography of an isolated population of Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Wildlife Research. 30:451-464.

Priddel, D. R. Wheeler & P. Copley (107). Does the intergrity or structure of mallee habitat influence the degree of Fox predation on Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)?. Emu. 107:100-107.

Reichelt, R.C. & T.W. May (1997). Malleefowl eating fungi and orchid tubers. Victorian Naturalist. 114:198.

Robinson, A.C., K.D. Casperon & P.B. Copley (1990). Breeding records of Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and Scarlet-chested Parrots (Neophema splendida) within the Yellabinna wilderness area, South Australia. South Australian Ornithologist. 31:8-12.

Robinson, D., ed. (1982). Victorian Bird Report 1981. Bird Observers Club, Nunawading. Bird Observers Club, Nunawading, Victoria.

Sanders, A., J. Benshemesh & Malleefowl Preservation Group (2003). WMC Operation Malleefowl Mulga to Mallee Research Project: A Report on Community Searches for and Monitoring of Malleefowl at Yeelirrie Station, August 2003. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup. Malleefowl Preservation Group, Ongerup, Western Australia.

Saunders, G., B. Coman, J. Kinnear & M. Braysher (1995). Managing Vertebrate Pests: Foxes. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Sharland, M. (1966). Mallee-Fowl of Goonoo Forest. Bird Observer. 411:4.

Sibley, C.G. & B.L. Monroe (1990). Distribution and Taxonomy of the Birds of the World. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Stanley, R.J. & J.W. Lawrie (1980). Pastoral use of mallee in the Western Division of New South Wales. In: Storrier, R.R., & M.E. Stannard, eds. Aoelian Landscapes in the Semi-arid Zone of South Eastern Australia. Page(s) 231-242. Australian Society of Soil Science, Riverina Branch, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales.

Storr, G.M. (1985b). Birds of the mid-eastern interior of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum. Suppl. 22:1-45.

Storr, G.M. (1986). Birds of the south-eastern interior of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum. Suppl. 26.

Storr, G.M. (1987). Birds of the Eucla Division of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum. Suppl. 27.

Storr, G.M. (1991). Birds of the South-west Division of Western Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum. Suppl. 35.

Storr, G.M. & R.E. Johnstone (1988). Birds of the Swan Coastal Plain and adjacent seas and islands. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement. Suppl. 28:1-76. Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Tarr, H.E. (1965). The Mallee-fowl in Wyperfeld National Park. Australian Bird Watcher. 2:140-144.

The Science Show (2006). 'Mallee Fowl breeding program' 22 April 2006. ABC Radio National.

Weathers, W.W., D.L. Weathers & R.S. Seymour (1990). Polygyny and reproductive effort in Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Emu. 90:1-6.

Williams, S.L. (1994). Malleefowl as a flagship species for conservation on farms in the Murray Mallee of South Australia. Saunders, D.A., J.L. Craig, & E.M. Mattiske, eds. Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. Page(s) 316-320. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.

Woinarski, J.C.Z. (1989). The vertebrate fauna of Broombush, Melaleuca uncinata vegetation in north-western Victoria, with reference to effects of Broombush harvesting. Australian Wildlife Research. 16:217-238.

EPBC Act email updates can be received via the Communities for Communities newsletter and the EPBC Act newsletter.

This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.

Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Leipoa ocellata in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:20:08 +1000.