Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened non-flying mammals

Dusky hopping mouse, wilkiniti

Notomys fuscus

States and territories: South Australia, Queensland, Northern Territory and NSW.

Regions: Patchily distributed; recorded from the Lake Eyre region, southern Strzelecki Desert and Cobbler Sandhills (South Australia), south-west Queensland and Sturt National Park (NSW) (Owens et al. 2008)

Habitat: Habitat generalist in sandy substrates (Moseby et al. 1999).

Habit: Ground-dwelling (burrows).

Avg. body weight: 32 g (Owens et al. 2008).

Activity pattern: Nocturnal.

Diet: Omnivore: grains, seeds, green vegetation, insects and small lizards (Moseby et al. 1999).

Breeding: Breeds throughout the year in captivity (Owens et al. 2008).

Description

The dusky hopping mouse adaptations are characteristic of a species that has evolved to respond opportunistically to a climatically unpredictable environment, such as the arid habitats with sandy soils of north-west South Australia, far north-west NSW, south-west Queensland and south-east Northern Territory (Moseby et al. 1999). The species is capable of opportunistically breeding in response to environmental conditions.

Individuals live in burrows in small groups (approximately five individuals per burrow), and the burrows occur in loose aggregations in dune habitat (Owens et al. 2008). The burrow entrance (approximately 10 centimetres in diameter) leads to a main shaft that is connected to up to six pop-holes of vertical shafts with 2–3 centimetre diameter entrances (Owens et al. 2008).

The species’ range has decreased in size and become fragmented during the last century. This observation of recent changes to the species distribution is supported by allozyme electrophoretic analysis, which indicates that the populations have only recently been separated (Moseby et al. 1999).

Survey methods

On the basis of pervious surveys, the following survey techniques are recommended to detect the presence of the dusky hopping mouse in areas up to 5 hectares in size:

• 
  investigation of key habitat characteristics through vegetation mapping, habitat modelling and aerial photography. Additionally, daytime searches for potentially suitable habitat resources, including but not limited to sand dune habitats (description of the survey technique and recommended effort is provided in Section 3.1)
  
• 
  daytime searches for signs such as tracks (these are the most obvious) and popholes (description of the survey technique and recommended effort is provided in Section 3.2)
  
• 
  collection of predator scats, owl casts or remains in predatory bird/mammal nests/dens (description of the survey technique and recommended effort is provided in Section 3.2)
  
• 
  Elliott A trapping surveys conducted according to the technique description and recommended effort provided in Section 3.3.9 using a mixture of rolled oats and peanut butter for bait (this technique can be difficult to use during summer)
  
• 
  pitfall trap surveys conducted according to the technique description and recommended effort provided in Section 3.3.8, modifying the depth of the pitfall traps to at least 60 centimetres as per Moseby and colleagues (1999) and using narrow PVC piping (diameter 16 centimetres) rather than buckets to reduce the chance of escapes
  
• 
  possibly a hair sampling device survey as the dusky hopping mouse is included among those known to be distinguishable from hair samples (see Table 2, Section 3.3.7)
  
• 
  consultation with local people, including leaseholders and station hands and investigating potential Indigenous knowledge of this species’ presence in an area. Consultation is particularly important for this species as it may be present at very low densities for extended periods of time during dry conditions, making it virtually impossible to detect under such conditions
  
• 
  consider the placement of baited camera traps (same as for predator pads) in suitable habitat, concentrating on well-used runway areas (as told from the number of tracks), particularly as this species can be relatively easily separated from other sympatric species.
  

In addition, sand tray/soil plot surveys may provide a suitable survey method for detection in areas that do not have a sandy substrate. A description of the technique and recommended survey effort is provided in Section 3.3.2.

Similar species in range

The dusky hopping mouse overlaps in distribution with the fawn hopping mouse Notomys cervinus and the spinifex hopping mouse Notomys alexis. The dusky hopping mouse and the spinifex hopping mouse are found in association with sand dunes, while the fawn hopping mouse is associated with the gibber plains habitat (Owens et al. 2008). However, habitat separation should not be used exclusively to distinguish between species and morphological features should always be considered. The main morphological feature distinguishing the species is the presence of a well-developed throat pouch in both sexes of the dusky hopping mouse. The throat pouch has a fleshy lip that is covered in white inward pointing hairs, whereas it is less prominent and only occurs on males in fawn hopping mice. Similarly, only male spinifex hopping mice have a chest gland, but not a pouch like the other species (Owens et al. 2008).

References

Moseby, K.E., Brandle, R. and Adams, M. 1999. Distribution, habitat and conservation status of the rare dusky hopping-mouse Notomys fuscus (Rodentia: Muridae). Wildlife Research 26: 479-494.
Owens, H. 2000. Guidelines for vertebrate surveys in South Australia, National Parks and Wildlife South Australia, Department for Environment and Heritage.
Owens, H.M., Moseby, K.M. and Brandle, R. 2008 Dusky Hopping-mouse Notomys fuscus. In ‘The Mammals of Australia’ (Eds. S. Van Dyck and R. Strahan) pp.602-604. (Reed New Holland: Sydney).
Schulz, M. (N.D.) Personal communication regarding the Dusky Hopping Mouse.