Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehab Burd Delta

Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehabilitation in the
Burdekin Delta Distributary Streams
Report No. 03/22
November 2003
A report to the Natural Heritage Trust for projects 992077 and 2012148
Prepared by Colton Perna

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research
James Cook University, Qld. 4811
Phone: (07) 47814262
Fax: (07) 47815589
Email: actfr@jcu.edu.au
Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehabilitation in the Burdekin Delta Distributary Streams ACTFR Report No. 03/22
Acknowledgements
The following individuals and stakeholders deserve recognition for their input and support for these
projects. They are:
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Mike Cappo
Lower Burdekin Landcare Association and BBIFMAC
Les Searle
Terri Buono
Archie Darwen
North and South Burdekin Water Boards
Graham Laidlow (North)

Bill Lowis (South)
Charlie Papale (South)
Burdekin Shire Council
Merv Pyott
Graham Anderson
John Woods
Burdekin Fish Restocking Association
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
Mike Cannon
Brett Galloway
Cherie Stafford
Landholders and other individuals that greatly helped with field work
Mick Magatelli Percy Jack

Jamie Jack Frank Gorizia
John Gorizia Morry Kelly
Brian Strathdie Bruno Milani
Lou Louizo Les Cox
The Schneiders
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents results of two complimentary Natural Heritage Trust funded projects:
1. “Management of fish habitat values in Burdekin River delta distributary streams”
project number 992077 and
2. “Rehabilitation of fish habitats in the Burdekin delta distributary streams” project
number 2012148 and is largely derived from a Masters thesis by the author (Perna,
2003).
The proponent of these projects was the Lower Burdekin Landcare Association.
Both of these projects are a direct result of the Burdekin Bowen Integrated Floodplain Management
Advisory Committee (BBIFMAC) strategy (Tait, 2000). The BBIFMAC strategy identified priority
strategy areas including:
• water management
• nature conservation and
• sustainable land use and development
Of major concern in the Burdekin delta is the modified hydrology of the distributary streams,
habitat loss and the proliferation of introduced aquatic plants. Remnant habitats and functions were
also identified as key issues in sustainable management of the floodplain.
The main objectives of these projects were to:

• Describe present fish habitat condition in the Burdekin delta distributary streams
(Sheep Station Creek and Warren’s Gully specifically), with comparison of habitat
conditions across the whole Burdekin floodplain
• Identify main drivers of water quality in the two main streams
• Identify the impacts of modified hydrology on these streams
• Identify and describe key remnant fish habitats
• Describe the impact of invasive floating weed infestations
• Monitor changes in water quality due to weed removal
• Monitor changes in fish assemblages due to weed removal
These projects provided the opportunity to conduct full-scale fish surveys in a region that has had
very little previous research. It also provided the chance to monitor a large-scale rehabilitation
project on weed removal and the subsequent changes in both habitat quality and fish assemblage
structure. The main foci of the research were two distributary streams, Sheep Station Ck. and
Warren’s Gully. The North (Sheep Station Ck.) and South (Warren’s Gully) Burdekin Water
Boards supplement flows in these two systems to supply irrigation water to the agriculture industry.
Five sites were selected in each stream, with four representing habitats receiving supplemental
flows, and one remnant site without the supplemental flows. These sites were surveyed for fish on
a quarterly basis from March, 2000 to August, 2002. In conjunction with the fish surveys, physico-
chemical water quality (temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen) was logged over 24-hour periods.
A further fifteen sites were selected across the floodplain for comparative purposes; however, water
quality assessment was only conducted at two of these sites included.
Habitat condition was assessed at all sites; in August, 2001 for the ten main sites and January, 2003
for the fifteen other sites. Evaluations took into consideration; riparian condition, instream
condition, morphological characteristics, land use and flow. This facilitated the identification of
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page ii

priority locations for rehabilitation works and provided a basis for determining which aspects of
habitat condition needed to be improved.
Detailed water chemical analysis was conducted at the ten main sites under various flow conditions.
Data were collected during periods of full supplemental flows, no flow and the falling limb of a
storm hydrograph. This allowed for examination of changes in water quality in the streams under
different hydrological conditions (i.e. natural or supplemented flows).
Notable findings of these projects included:
• Habitats in the delta are moderately to highly impacted by irrigation water supplementation
and/or agricultural runoff, unsupplemented remnant habitats do occur in backwater and sub-
catchment areas but these are still subject to anthropogenic pressures from farming or
grazing
• Habitats in the Barratta Ck., the upper levee floodplain lagoons and along the Burdekin
River, were most intact and are of high fish habitat value
• Supplemental flows have a significant impact on water quality
• Oxygen status in the distributary streams appears to benefit from the supplemental flows
• Supplemental flows may be aiding weed infestations of water hyacinth due to continuous
inputs of nutrients and the high turbidity associated with these flows reduces the potential
for competition by submergent plants (macrophytes, benthic algae and phytoplankton).
• Ambient water quality at most delta sites is dictated by supplemental flows – local
catchment storm runoff effects are comparatively brief and transient
• Weed infestations (mostly water hyacinth) caused severe oxygen deficits in ponded lagoons
• Overall fish diversity was lower than expected for a tropical floodplain of this size
• Site condition, and especially oxygen availability, greatly affected fish species diversity and
abundance
• Sites with supplemental flows had the lowest fish diversity
• Barratta Ck. had highest fish diversity
• Available fish passage is a major issue for fish migrating upstream from saltwater areas
• Floating weed mats cause short circuiting in the lagoons so that inflowing water does not
result in an adequate exchange of water within the lagoon. Weed mats and stale poorly
oxygenated water on the bottom and edges of the lagoon ostensibly function like the walls
of a pipe causing inflowing water to pass through rapidly without mixing with the lagoon
waters. The inflowing waters contain oxygen when it first enters the lagoon systems but
gradually deoxygenation occurs because there is insufficient light to enable biological
oxygen production by submerged plants; inadequate contact with the surface to be able to
take up oxygen from the air; and consumption of oxygen within the lagoon.
• Water quality showed an immediate improvement after weed removal
• Oxygen status continued to improve one year after weed removal
• Fish diversity increased greatly in study sites and Sheep Station Ck. as a whole, after
extensive weed removal works
These projects have had considerable support from both landholders and local and state
stakeholders. Other projects have direct links to these works such as the riparian revegetation
project conducted by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Continued habitat rehabilitation
and biological surveys are strongly recommended.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page iii

Priority Research Recommendations are:
• Continue monitoring the long term impacts of weed removal

• Investigate the feasibility of using flow supplementation to manage instream water quality
and assist in weed removal
• Continue developing improved integrated aquatic plant management techniques (utilising a
combination of hydrological, mechanical, passive, active and biological control techniques)
Recommended Priorities for Management Action (in order of attack)
1. Clear out top ends of systems
2. Clear out bottom ends
3. Remove fish barriers
4. Implement works recommended by above research
Other key recommendations include:
• Full survey of floodplain for remnant habitats and incorporation of management needs for
these habitats into regional NRM planning
o Conservation of these habitats will increase biological integrity and provide a
recruitment source for degraded streams
• More detailed research into the relationship between water quality, aquatic plants, artificial
flow and habitat condition
o This will increase understanding of how to best manage flows in the Burdekin
floodplain and how these flows affect habitat quality
• Work with Water Boards to establish environmental flows in the delta distributary streams
o The modified hydrology must be seen as something to manage and incorporate into
environmental planning. Due to the modified nature of the floodplain the streams
have to some extent become dependant on the flows, therefore these flows can been
seen to potentially be of environmental as well as agricultural benefit
• Identify major fish passage barriers and incorporate fish ways
o Fish will need to have open migration pathways to rehabilitated habitats otherwise
rehabilitation works with be creating islands in a sea of poor conditions where no
species can reach the rehabilitated habitats.
• Survey of fish in bunded coastal plain
o This is need to identify species that use these habitats and allow for prioritisation of
rehabilitation works
• Survey of water quality in bunded coastal plain
o It is not known what kind of barriers these areas are as they have largely been
invaded by Cumbungi and the impacts of this plant on water quality are known to
vary greatly between locations and over time, or Cumbugi’s physical ability to
block fish passage
• Weed removal and habitat rehabilitation works be conducted in a catchment based approach
with a top-down methodology
o This is vital in avoiding the creation of fish traps, where lagoons may be
rehabilitated in the lower reaches and then invaded by less tolerant fish species at
poor water quality periods during wet season flows, however once the wet season
flows cease, poor water quality from the degraded upstream sections well flow into
the rehabilitated section creating conditions for a fish kill.
• Develop a long-term annual monitoring programme
o This will help reduce the cost of weed control and water quality management by
incorporating management into an annual contractual procedure.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1

2.0 STUDY AREA AND AIMS ..........................................................................................2
3.0 GENERAL METHODS ................................................................................................3
3.1 Habitat Condition Assessment.....................................................................................3
3.2 Water Quality Analysis for 10 Main Sites...................................................................3
3.2.1 Physico-Chemical Water Quality .........................................................................3
3.2.2 Detailed Limnological Analysis............................................................................3
3.3 Survey of Fish Assemblages........................................................................................7
3.4 Weed Removal Experiments at Payard’s and Gorizia’s Lagoons ...............................8
3.4.1 Mechanical Weed Removal...................................................................................8
3.4.2 Fish Surveys..........................................................................................................9
3.4.3 Water Quality........................................................................................................9
3.4.4 Hydrological Investigation at Gorizia’s Lagoon................................................10
4.0 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................11
4.1 Present Habitat Conditions ........................................................................................11
4.2 Present Water Quality Conditions .............................................................................13
4.2.1 Flow and Oxygen Content ..................................................................................13
4.2.2 Submerged Macrophytes and Oxygen Cycling...................................................13
4.2.3 Water Hyacinth Impacts on Downstream Oxygen Content ................................13
4.2.4 Modified flows, Nutrients and Proliferation of Water Hyacinth ........................14
5.0 FISH ASSEMBLAGES OF THE BURDEKIN FLOODPLAIN.............................16
5.1 Impacts of Habitat Condition on Fish Assemblages..................................................21
5.2 The Importance of Connectivity and Remnant Habitats to Fish Assemblage Structure
and Migration............................................................................................................21
6.0 WEED REMOVAL AND FISH HABITAT REHABILITATION ........................27
6.1 Effects of Weed Removal on Instream Habitat Quality ............................................27
6.2 Effects to Oxygen Content from Infestation of Water Hyacinth, and Recovery After
Removal ....................................................................................................................27
6.3 Effects of Water Hyacinth Infestation on Fish Assemblages ....................................27
6.4 Recruitment of Species: Invasion and Direct Recruitment........................................34
6.5 Gorizia’s Hydrodynamic Study .................................................................................34
7.0 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS ............................................................................................................44
7.1 General Conclusions ..................................................................................................44
7.2 Recommendations and Future Research Priorities ....................................................45
7.2.1 High Priority.......................................................................................................45
7.2.2 Habitat Management ..........................................................................................46
7.2.3 Remnant Habitat Identification and Conservation.............................................47
7.2.4 Aquatic Plant Management ................................................................................48
7.2.5 Fish Passage Issues ............................................................................................50
7.2.6 Water Management.............................................................................................51
8.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................52
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page v

APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Habitat Condition Assessment Table for 25 Sites in the Burdekin Floodplain
Appendix 2
Detailed Laboratory Water Analysis from the Burdekin Delta
Appendix 3
Fish Habitat Conservation and Rehabilitation Recommendations: A Pilot Study on
Catchment Management in Sheep Station Ck
Appendix 4
Weed Management Guidelines for Tropical Freshwater Lagoons
Appendix 5
Progress Report on the Experimental Examination of the Effects of Aquatic Weed
Poisoning on Water Quality
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page vi

1.0 BACKGROUND
The Burdekin River in north Queensland has one of the largest delta floodplains in Australia (1,250
km2) with a large sugarcane and grazing industry (Hopley, 1970). The river’s hydrology is highly
modified as a succession of impoundments has been built along the river over the past 60 years.
Several weirs, located in the lower floodplain section of the river within 60km of the mouth, were
built to harvest water for the expanding sugar industry. The most recent developments have been
the Burdekin River Irrigation Area (BRIA) (1989 first operations). Since the construction of the
Burdekin Falls dam in 1986, water is released on demand to pump stations within Clare weir and
downstream (sand dams) where it is pumped into either artificial channels or natural overflow
distributary streams (Plantation, Sheep Station, Kalamia, Iya and Warren’s Gully) to service the
BRIA and the water board areas. The North and South Burdekin water boards (NBWB and SBWB)
are constituted under the State Water Act 1989 to use part of the flow of the Burdekin River to
replenish groundwaters in the north and south of the Burdekin River Floodplain (NBWB and
SBWB annual reports, 2002).
Invasive floating and emergent grassy weeds have had major impacts on the floodplain habitats in
the Burdekin. The main floating weed species is water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), which
forms heavily compacted mats that provide a “hydroponic platform” for other introduced and native
grasses to grow on. Within the Burdekin region the cost of Water hyacinth infestation to the
irrigation system, recreational fishery, vector control, and fish habitat values is very high. In some
areas that have been overgrown for extended periods it is possible to walk and even ride a
motorcycle over the weed mats (C. Perna and S. Manwaring, pers. observation; J. Tait, pers. com.).
Besides reducing habitat values on the floodplain, hyacinth has many other negative impacts in the
region. For example, it may encourage the proliferation of mosquitoes, important vectors of human
and animal diseases, by improving breeding (Julien et al. 2001). It may dramatically increase water
loss (through evapo-transpiration at rates up to four times that of evaporation), imposing higher
operational costs on water supply schemes (Julien et al., 2001). Weed removal may compensate for
environmental allocations due to water savings from decreased loss to evapo-transporation.
The impact of water hyacinth on fish is dramatic. By forming densely packed mats it essentially
blocks out most of the pathways for oxygen production and transfer in the water column (Julien et
al., 2001). Water hyacinth shades out submerged aquatic macrophytes, and in lentic lagoons and
excludes the establishment of phytoplankton, both important to oxygen production in the water
column. By restricting oxygen production in the water, hyacinth essentially reduces the fish
community to those species that are most tolerant of low oxygen levels (EPA, 1999). Therefore,
water hyacinth may be a driving force in the reduced fish diversity on the floodplain.
The aims of these projects were to examine fish habitat values and rehabilitation techniques in the
highly modified distributary streams of the Burdekin Delta floodplain. With the change in
hydrological regime there have been many changes in fish habitats along the streams. Changes
include increased flow velocities and sediment loading, infrastructure that creates barriers, weed
infestation, water logging and clearing of riparian trees and an overall change from seasonally
isolated water bodies (lagoons) to perennial flowing streams with intermittent deep holes. There
have been massive modifications to land cover, which has changed from forested Eucalyptus
woodlands, Melaleuca swamps, sedge wetlands and grassland, to cane paddocks (Hopley, 1970).
However, there are also remnant wetland areas identified and conserved within the landscape that
retain many of the more natural habitats and fish communities.
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 1

2.0 STUDY AREA AND AIMS
Ten main sampling sites were selected (five in each of two distributary streams) to be sampled over
a 2.5-year period. The sites in the NBWB area were all on Sheep Station Ck (Fig. 2.1), this stream
is also the focus of the weed removal and habitat rehabilitation works. Four impacted sites
(Payard’s, Dick’s Bank, Gorizia’s and Jack’s lagoons) were selected on the basis of their use for
irrigation storage and aquifer recharge. Mostly the sites had a high level of weed infestation and
highly disturbed riparian buffer. The low-impact site in the north (Kelly’s) was a lagoon just off the
distributary system and was selected on the basis of low weed infestation and lack of direct flow of
irrigation water. In the SBWB area the sites were located on Warren’s Gully and Saltwater Ck. (Fig.
2.2). The four impacted sites (Fowler’s, Munro’s, Princess and Saltwater) all received irrigation
water and had varying degrees of weed infestation. The low-impact site (Inkerman) was not
directly connected to the distribution system and had low weed infestation. These two streams are
floodplain distributaries of the Burdekin River Delta. Historically the creeks’ catchments were
vegetated by eucalypt and paperbark forests, woodlands and wetlands. They were seasonal creeks
that flowed during the wet season when local catchment rainfall or overbank flows from the
Burdekin River linked isolated deepwater lagoons through drainage channels and saltpan
depressions to mangrove channel estuaries.
Fifteen further sites (Fig. 2.3, Table 2.1) were selected to represent remnant values as a benchmark
with which to compare the main treatment sites. These sites were only surveyed once. Two of
these sites were within water board areas: Lilliesmere was sampled to compare present fish
communities to that found by Macleay when he sampled that site in 1883 (Macleay, 1884);
Hutchinson Lagoon was sampled because it has never been overgrown with weeds (it is managed
by the local water ski club) and because it has some connectivity to the saltwater reaches at flood
times.
Table 2.1 Location of sites by stream with WGS 84 grid map references.
Stream Site East North
Barratta Creek Allen Rd. 0521597 7831452
Barratta Creek Woodhouse 0514150 780832
Barratta Creek West Barratta 0521767 7836293
Bowen River Junction Bowen Junction
Burdekin River Clare weir 0524526 7804281
Burdekin River The Rocks 0530648 7821270
Haughton River floodplain Horseshoe 0514150 7838691
Lower Burdekin floodplain Rita Island
Pelican Ck. Clay Hole
Plantation Ck. Hutchinson 0539933 7833972
Plantation Ck. Lilliesmere
Sheep Station Ck. Castelanelli’s 0535829 7832866
Sheep Station Ck. Payard’s 0533023 7830717
Sheep Station Ck. Kelly’s 0534913 7832608
Sheep Station Ck. Dick’s Bank 0536249 7835648
Sheep Station Ck. Gorizia’s 0534529 7841876
Sheep Station Ck. Jack’s 0534091 7843724
Upper Burdekin floodplain Glady’s 0519806 7801910
Upper Burdekin floodplain Swan’s 0527205 7775884
Warren’s Gully Fowler’s 0536259 7818556
Warren’s Gully Princess 05460667 7815275
Warren’s Gully Munro’s 0549695 7815406
Warren’s Gully Inkerman 0548145 7814934
Warren’s Gully Saltwater 0554001 7813377
Warren’s Gully Warren’s gully splash pool

3.0 GENERAL METHODS
3.1 Habitat Condition Assessment
All sites were characterized by: A) descriptions of physical features, namely aspect (for photo-
period), topography, length, width, soil type, bank gradient, flow, land use, substrate and, where
available, minimum, maximum and average percent saturation of oxygen; B) riparian habitat
quality, namely width of buffer, continuity, shading of water body, average height of trees,
dominant community type and condition of riparian vegetation – condition was given a rating of 1
(highly degraded), 2 (moderately degraded) and 3 (remnant or intact); and C) instream habitat
quality, gauged by total cover of submerged and emergent vegetation, the dominant plant
community and depth, using a similar scoring system. Riparian and instream condition assessments
were conducted by line transects 100 m long by the width of riparian buffer or to mid-stream for the
instream habitats. All plant species were recorded. Instream cover was used to determine extent of
weed infestation as compared to native cover.
3.2 Water Quality Analysis for 10 Main Sites

3.2.1 Physico-Chemical Water Quality
On each sampling occasion a Hydrolab® datasonde multimeter was placed in the site to record
dissolved oxygen, pH, water temperature and electrical conductivity, however analysis was only
conducted on dissolved oxygen. During the first two sampling trips, data were recorded manually,
in the late afternoon, and collected from the inlet, middle (if not overgrown by weeds) and outlet of
each lagoon. At each location within a lagoon, sampling was vertically stratified and data recorded
at 50 cm intervals from the surface to the bottom. However, it was subsequently determined that
this protocol yielded insufficient understanding of the dynamics of diel oxygen cycling at each site.
Thus, Hydrolabs® were subsequently placed at a single location and at 60 cm depth in each site and
left in place to log water quality hourly for 24 hours. The Hydrolabs were always set away from
overhanging vegetation and macrophyte beds to minimize microhabitat effects. The focus of this
project was examination of diel oxygen cycles. Diel oxygen cycle is the daily peak and trough of
dissolved oxygen in the water column caused by productive and consumptive mechanisms. The
reasons for focusing on oxygen were that different fish species have different tolerance levels to
oxygen and therefore oxygen can be used as an indicator of fish habitat quality.
3.2.2 Detailed Limnological Analysis
Due to the highly variable nature of tropical floodplain wetlands, analysis of the detailed chemical
data is qualitative and based on graphical interpretation of data rather than a quantitative analysis.
The decision to adopt this approach is based largely on the findings of a Sugar Research
Development Corporation (SRDC) funded project (Pearson et al., 2003) that found that the
complexity of the dynamics of water quality coupled with a high degree of internal variability at
each site makes accurate data collection and interpretation difficult unless the sampling regime
includes substantial spatial and temporal replication. Water quality can vary substantially over time
periods less than and hour and over distances of only a few centimetres so it is necessary to take
large numbers of samples in order to account for this variability in data interpretation.
During rainy weather, supplemental flows are suspended and for a brief time (few months at most)
the distribution channels receive natural runoff from rainfall events. Detailed water quality
information was collected during a period of ‘natural’ flow and after supplemental flows resumed to
gain some indication of the variability in water quality due to pumping. Water quality variables
examined included chlorophyll a, phaeophytin, turbidity, total suspended solids, total nitrogen,

Fig 2.1 Aerial image of main study sites on Sheep Station Ck.

Fig. 2.2 Aerial image of main study on Warren’s Gully/Saltwater Ck.

Fig. 2.3 Aerial image of study area showing locations of study sites, including those
sites outside of the floodplain proper.

ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total phosphorus and filterable reactive phosphorus (FRP). Detailed
chemical data were collected under three flow conditions: 1) pumping, 2) falling hydrograph and 3)
no flow, at the upstream, middle and downstream reaches of each site, at 30 cm depth.
For the collection of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and filterable reactive phosphate, a 0.45 micron filter
was used in conjunction with a 50 ml syringe to filter water before collecting the sample. All
samples were cooled and returned to the ACTFR laboratory for analysis.
This report focused on nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorous (N and P). To examine input
loading of N and P, calculations based on concentrations at the end of a dry season (Nov. 2002)
were made using volume estimates from size and depth of the lagoons to calculate nutrient input
loadings. The two remnant sites from each stream, Inkerman (Warren’s Gully) and Kelly’s (Sheep
Station) were used as no flow examples and the most upstream sites from each stream Fowler’s
(Warren’s Gully) and Payard’s (Sheep Station) were used as the supplemented flow sites. Only the
upstream sites were used in order to reduce complications added by water extraction and natural
dynamics of nutrient cycles within the streams. The average concentration (from three samples) of
N and P from the November 2002 sample were used for all calculations.
1) Total quantity (mass) of N&P contained in the standing water in natural lagoons
(unsupplemented)
2) The total quantity of N&P that would have been contained in the standing water in Payard’s
and Fowler’s Lagoons if they did not receive supplemental flows
3) The total quantity of N&P carried into supplemented lagoons by irrigation water flows
3.3 Survey of Fish Assemblages
Fish surveys were conducted on several occassions over 2.5 years at ten main sites, five in Sheep
Station Ck. and five in Warren’s Gully/Saltwater Ck. Not all sites were sampled during each survey
(Table 3.1). The remnant sites in the two distributary streams, Inkerman and Kelly’s Lagoon, were
only sampled every other survey. Fifteen additional sites, including 12 remnant sites and three
irrigation distribution sites were sampled in June 2001 and August 2002.
Fish were collected in the ten main sites mainly using dip nets, gill nets and seine nets. Three other
techniques, visual observations, lure-fishing and baited traps were used opportunistically, and
grouped as “other” methods in all analyses. The dip net was 100 cm x 70cm net with a mesh size of
5mm. The dip net was placed in the bow of the boat and the boat was driven into a selected habitat
type and lifted. All the contents were sorted and bagged for later identification. A set of four gill
nets, each 30 m long with a 2 m drop, was used for each survey. Three nets consisted of a single
panel of 2.5 cm, 5 cm or 7.5 cm mesh while the fourth consisted of three 10 m panels of 0.75 cm, 1
cm and 1.25 cm mesh. Nets were set one hour before sunset and retrieved one hour after sunset. A
seine net ( 20 m x 2 m with 5 mm stretch knotless mesh) was used at the inlet of Payard’s Lagoon
on every sampling occasion, and once at Castelanelli’s Lagoon.

Table 3.1. Date and location of fish surveys. For Payard’s and Gorizia’s P represents
pre-weed removal surveys and PO are post-weed removal surveys.
Jun- Aug-2 Aug-22 Dec- Mar- Apr- Jun- Oct- Apr- Aug- Mar- Sept-
Location Site 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003
North Payard's P P P PO PO PO PO PO PO PO
North Dick's Bank X X X
North Jack's X X
North Gorizia's P P P P P PO PO PO
North Kelly's X X X X X X
South Munro's X X X X X X
South Princess X X X X X
South Saltwater X X X X X
South Fowler's X X X X X X
South Inkerman X X X X X
Other Clay hole X X
Other Lilliesmere X
Other Glady's X
Other Rita Island X
Other Allen Rd. X
Other Horseshoe X
Other Hutchinson X
Other Bowen River X
Other The Rocks X
Other Castelanelli’s X
Other Clare Weir X
Other Swan's X
Other Warren's X
Other West Barratta X
Other Woodhouse X
The remnant sites were surveyed using a boat-mounted electro-fisher (Smith-Root 2.5 GPP pulsed
DC current to 6amps) and dip net only. Up to ten two-minute shots were conducted at each site.
Fewer shots were run in smaller sites. The shots were conducted parallel to the bank. After the two
minutes of electrofishing the fish were identified, measured and released.
Total abundance and species richness were compared over time and between sites to examine
variations in fish assemblages. Sites were separated into: a) ecological condition (1 = highly
degraded; 2 = moderately degraded, 3 = remnant and 4 = riverine); and b) creek position (1 = north
(Sheep Station Ck.); 2 = south (Warren’s Gully); or 3 = other (remnant sites). On occasions, site
was used as a third factor, usually nested within one of the other main factors. For all fish sampled,
measurements of total length (TL) or length at caudal fork (LCF), were taken. If fewer than 20
individuals were caught, all were measured. If more than 20 were caught a sub-sample of 20 were
measured.
3.4 Weed Removal Experiments at Payard’s and Gorizia’s Lagoons
3.4.1 Mechanical Weed Removal
A mechanical weed harvester and excavator with a modified rake was used to clear water hyacinth
infestations at Payard’s Lagoon in August 2000, and Gorizia’s Lagoon in August 2002.

Considerable effort was expended to remove the dense macrophyte assemblages. Initial trials with
the weed harvester proved difficult until a method of using an excavator to remove the bulk of the
plant material while utilising the floating harvester to cut off pieces of the plant mat and
manoeuvring it over to the excavator for removal was devised. A vast majority of the plant material
was removed prior to the post-harvest assessments. Both sites retained around 10% of the weed
cover from original infestations, mainly in the form of free floating weed mats.
3.4.2 Fish Surveys
For Payard’s Lagoon surveys were conducted at three-month intervals as with the other main sites.
An additional survey was conducted on August 2, 2000 while weed removal was being conducted.
One survey was conducted prior to weed removal, in the inlet channel; the second and third surveys
were conducted during and after initial weed removal respectively, within the main body of the
lagoon. These three surveys are grouped in the analyses as “pre-weed removal” as no flow events
occurred which would have allowed recruitment into the lagoon from elsewhere (Table 3.1). Six
surveys were conducted after the first flow following weed removal and are referred to as “post-
weed removal” (Table 3.1). Dip net, gill net and seine net sampling techniques were used as for the
other sites (Section 3.3).
The data collected at Gorizia’s was predominantly pre-weed removal surveys. Gorizia’s Lagoon
was sampled five times prior to weed removal and three times after weeds were removed (Table
3.1). Prior to weed removal, surveys were conducted with gill and dip nets in a channel at the inlet
of the lagoon, the only open water available for sampling. The channel was 200 m long and
averaged about 1.5 m deep. Once the weeds were removed surveys were conducted in the main
body of the lagoon with the same techniques.
3.4.3 Water Quality
Physico-chemical water quality was measured as per section 3.2. In conjunction with this survey
work the same parameters were logged, hourly, at the inlet and outlet by CSIRO at Payard’s only.
The Hydrolab® was placed in a stainless tube at the inlet and outlet of the lagoon at a depth of 60
cm. Logging began on August 1, 2000 and continued until August 30, 2001, enabling description
of water quality before and after weed removal. Additional data logging occurred at Gorizia’s prior
to, during and after weed removal (Table 3.2)
Table 3.2 Dates and locations of water quality logging at Gorizia’s Lagoon just prior
to and just after weed removal
Date Set Hydrolab ID Date Pulled Location set
07-Jul-2002 11:00 Hydrolab A 22-Jul-2002 15:40 top in channel
07-Jul-2002 11:10 Hydrolab B 22-Jul-2002 15:50 bottom channel
23-Jul-2002 14:10 Hydrolab B 04-Aug-2002 11:00 bottom channel
04-Aug-2002 10:00 Hydrolab A 16-Aug-2002 12:00 top channel
04-Aug-2002 10:00 Hydrolab B 16-Aug-2002 12:00 bottom channel
21-Aug-2002 16:30 Hydrolab B 01-Sep-2002 16:30 Top
21-Aug-2002 16:40 Hydrolab A 01-Sep-2002 16:37 Bottom
05-Sep-2002 15:30 Hydrolab A 18-Sep-2002 16:00 top of bottom channel (2m)
05-Sep-2002 15:40 Hydrolab B 18-Sep-2002 16:00 top of bottom channel (0.6m)

3.4.4 Hydrological Investigation at Gorizia’s Lagoon
The hydrodynamics in the lagoon were assessed using a fluorescent dye tracer (Rhodamine WTS).
This involved injecting the dye at the upstream extent of the lagoon and collecting regularly timed
water samples for dye analysis downstream at a transect to determine the detention time and general
flow patterns through the lagoon. Samples were also collected at the downstream extent of the
lagoon to obtain a total detention time for the lagoon (using an ISCO 3700 autosampler) under the
prevailing conditions (i.e. weeded). Rhodamine WTS concentrations were analysed using a Turner
Model TD700 Flourometer. Lastly, inflow rates were estimated using the velocity-area method and
a Swoffer model 3000 velocity meter, for the duration of the tracer study.
Water quality assessments comprised:

• Logging of physico-chemical parameters at the upstream and downstream extents of the lagoon
using Hydrolab® multi-parameter probes throughout the term of the experiments and for 2
months afterwards.
• Collection of physico-chemical data from the dye sampling transect points using a Hydrolab
multi-parameter probe and flow-through cell connected sequentially to the pipework via the
peristaltic pump.
• The collection of diel cycling data at various locations on the lagoon at regular depths through
the profile post-harvest when access via a boat became possible.

4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Present Habitat Conditions
Habitats were most impacted in the delta distributary streams, which are also the oldest established
cane growing lands of the floodplain (ACTFR, 1994). Riparian vegetation loss and supplemental
flows were the main impacts. The loss of the riparian trees and thus shading may benefit the
establishment of emergent exotic grasses (Bunn, et al., 1998), and has instream impacts on food
webs, physico-chemical water quality, and survivorship of aquatic animals (Pusey and Arthington,
2003). Also the modified flow conditions appear to be related to water hyacinth infestations as no
other areas surveyed had as high biomass of this plant as found in the water board areas. All
condition 1 sites (the most degraded) were located in the water board distribution systems (Fig. 4.1,
Table 4.1, Appendix 1), these include the sub-catchments of Plantation (Hutchinson Lagoon) and
Kalamia (Lilliesmere Lagoon) Cks. There were however important high value areas within these
distribution systems (Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1, Appendix 1). These remnant sites receive no irrigation
water, as they are off-channel lagoon habitats that only connect to the main streams during high
water events. These sites may contribute greatly to the biological diversity of this highly
fragmented and impacted landscape (Pearson et al., 2003).
The Burdekin River sites all had high value riparian vegetation and instream habitat complexity
(Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1, Appendix 1). The flows however are highly modified and instream
connectivity is fragmented by a series of weirs and seasonally by sand dams. The upper floodplain
levee lagoons again had high riparian and instream habitat values but again lack the connectivity to
the lower reaches, although, this is naturally the case for these lagoons under all but the highest
flow conditions. The sites in the Barratta Ck. catchment had high value habitats as well as
connectivity to the lower reaches.
The Barratta Ck. sites have high conservation values (Fig. 4.1, Table 4.1, Appendix 1). There are
pressures on this creek from tailwater runoff from cane fields which can increase nutrient and
sediment loads downstream (Rayment, 2002). This input may impact on water quality and aid
floating weed infestations, water hyacinth has not yet been recorded from Barratta Ck. (only
Salvinia molesta which appears to be mostly under control by the introduced weevils that feed upon
it, and natural high flows from wet season flooding), however due to irrigation channels in the
upper floodplain levee area this plant may make it into the system during a large flood event or
naturally work its way down the distribution channels. These sites are suggested to have the
greatest biological diversity across the floodplain due largely to the high quality habitat and
connectivity to the estuarine reaches.
In general all sites sampled across the floodplain had at least moderate impacts to riparian and
instream habitats. Most of the impacts were either riparian clearing or modified flows (Appendix 1,
Table 4.1). Development on the floodplain is extensive but most of the distribution systems have
high value remnant sites that likely provide refuge and a source of recruitment in most floodplain
distribution streams.

Table 4.1 Summary of all sites by condition, location, flow and water hyacinth
infestation. Conditions are: 1=highly degraded, 2= moderately degraded, 3=
remnant habitat values; Locations are: 1= Sheep Station Ck., 2= Warren’s Gully,
3= Barratta Ck., 4= Burdekin River, 5= upper floodplain levee lagoons and 6=
Plantation/Kalamia Cks. (NBWB); flows are: 1=supplemental irrigation flows,
2=tailwater, 3=non-modified flows; and water hyacinth infestation: 1=full cover,
2=patchy cover not yet consolidated and 3= none present.
Site Condition Location Flow water hyacinth

infestation
Dick’s Bank 1 1 1 2
Gorizia’s 1 1 1 3
Jack’s 1 1 1 3
Fowler’s 1 2 1 2
Lilliesmere 1 6 1 2
Kelly’s 2 1 3 1
Payard’s 2 1 1 2
Munro’s 2 2 1 2
Princess 2 2 1 1
Burdekin Rocks 2 4 1 3
Glady’s 2 5 2 2
Castelanelli’s 2 1 3 3
Horseshoe 2 3 2 2
Woodhouse 2 3 1 3
Hutchings 2 6 1 2
Inkerman 3 2 3 3
Saltwater 3 2 2 2
Clay hole 3 3 2 3
West Barratta 3 3 2 2
Allen Rd. 3 3 2 3
Clare weir 3 4 1 3
Rita Island 3 4 3 3
Warren’s Gully 3 2 1 3
Swan’s 3 5 3 3
Bowen River 3 4 2 3

Figure 4.1 Aerial image of all sites across floodplain showing distribution by
conditions.

4.2 Present Water Quality Conditions
Oxygen content in these habitats is closely linked to habitat condition and flow. The oxygen is also
affected by inputs of nutrients, particulate matter and autotroph biomass (mass balance of re-
aeration, photosynthesis and consumption). The results of the oxygen cycles show how the
saturation of oxygen is driven mostly by inflow and habitat condition, and how the amounts of
nutrients (N and P) are affected by modified flow conditions, which in turn may provide better
growing conditions for water hyacinth. Oxygen values that have been identified as sub-lethal
(50%) and lethal (25%) (Pearson, et al., 2003) are referred to throughout the results.
4.2.1 Flow and Oxygen Content
The supplemental flows in the Burdekin floodplain have altered the diel cycling of oxygen in the
lagoons. Oxygen cycling in lagoons with natural hydrology (unsupplemented) follow a trend where
the minima occurs around sunrise, then gradually rises to maxima in the mid to late afternoon (Fig.
4.2). However with the supplemental flows, maximum and minimum oxygen concentrations may
occur at any time of the day or night reflecting downstream flows of oxygenated (or deoxygenated)
water from upstream locations (Fig. 4.3).
4.2.2 Submerged Macrophytes and Oxygen Cycling
Submerged aquatic plants can contribute greatly to oxygen content, however under certain
conditions they can also cause oxygen sags. An example is Kelly’s Lagoon, which showed super-
saturation (154%) and then fell over 70% , likely caused by low light (i.e. night time) over 14 hours
(Fig. 4.4). Not long after that data was collected, the landholder reported a fish kill (M. Kelly pers.
com). The system presumably crashed due to a combination of high biomass of submerged
macrophytes and a series of still, overcast days where light levels were low for an extended period
of time. In the beginning of the project the site had been scoured by flooding, but over the two
years of the project no significant flow events occurred, thus allowing submerged macrophyte
biomass to increase to over 80% cover. This became the driver of oxygen cycling in the site.
Collapse occurs when oxygen consumption exceeds production or during periods of low light
conditions and increased temperature where production decreases but consumption continues
(Pearson et al., 2003). It has been found that light availability and temperature most affect oxygen
production and respiration rates in tropical wetlands (Wetzel, 1983; Matthews, 1998; Pearson et al.,
2003). The reduced light levels and high respiration rates could have caused the crash in oxygen
and thus the fish kill. The very low levels that occurred after the first flush in Dec. 2000 highlight
how inputs from localized runoff can reduce oxygen concentration by increasing oxygen consuming
organic material.
4.2.3 Water Hyacinth Impacts on Downstream Oxygen Content
When water is pumped out of the Burdekin River, it is high in oxygen concentration (e.g., Fowler’s
Lagoon, Fig. 4.5). However, as this water flows downstream through weed-infested channels, the
oxygen is stripped out of the water. As water hyacinth grows over a water body, instream
production of oxygen is reduced to levels lower than would be found from consumption only, as the
plant inhibits photosynthetic oxygen production (Julien et al., 2001; Scheffer et al., 2003; Pearson
et al., 2003; ACTFR, unpublished data). Water hyacinth also prevents any mechanical re-aeration
by blocking the air/water interface. Plant decomposition can greatly reduce oxygen levels as well
(Kaenel et al., 2000; Battle and Mihuc, 2000). Therefore, at the downstream sites, the oxygen
levels recorded reflected the water quality upstream (a few hours previous to recording) rather than
oxygen dynamics within the site itself.

During flow, upstream condition greatly affects downstream oxygen content. Three consecutive
sites on Warren’s Gully highlight this effect (Fig. 4.5), demonstrating a clear decrease in oxygen
saturation from upstream to downstream lagoons. Also apparent is the gradual loss of cycling
within sites, indicating that the downstream sites were dominated by water hyacinth mats, flow and
quality of water from upstream, and were not capable of producing enough oxygen internally to
cause an increase in dissolved oxygen concentrations. Lastly, the extent of water hyacinth
infestation within the sites may reduce detention times of water in the lagoons thus inhibiting
mixing and re-aeration within the lagoon (Kaenel, et al., 2000; ACTFR, unpublished data).
Another factor that was not examined in detail, but is pertinent, is that where the riparian vegetation
is disturbed there tends to be extensive growth of invasive semi-emergent grasses on the banks, and
these grasses increase the impact of water hyacinth by growing out on to the mats. The invasive
para grass and the native rice grass grow on most of the banks in the distributary streams and both
grow over water hyacinth, binding it together, creating a very solid and stable mat (Scheffer et al.,
2003). Para grass on its own has also been found to create poor water by growing out over the
water and dominating the littoral zone, it accumulates sediment, thus reducing littoral habitats,
changing channel morphology and increasing flow velocities (Bunn et al., 1998); and it excludes
native plant growth further reducing habitat diversity (Houston and Duivenvoorden, 2002). Para
grass has also been found to contribute very little to food webs and contributes greatly to the thick
anoxic ooze layer that provides substrate for microbial oxygen consumption (Bunn et al., 1998;
Pusey and Arthington, 2003).
4.2.4 Modified Flows, Nutrients and Proliferation of Water Hyacinth
During irrigation pumping (water from the upper catchment), the volume of water entering the
lagoons increases, as does the total amount of nutrients. The concentrations in spot measurements
appear to be higher at base flow when the local catchment is the source of input, but the constant
flow created by pumping creates a much higher loading because of the high volume of water
pumped through (Tables 4.2 & 4.3, Fig. 4.4). It would be of benefit to take more samples to
determine if the downstream sections do indeed have higher nutrient concentrations as they may be
filtered out by the weed mats before reaching downstream. It has been documented that when
nutrients are not limited, floating macrophytes may establish a stable state and out-compete
submerged macrophytes as the floating varieties have primacy to light (Scheffer et al., 2003). The
increased loading of nutrients coming through the modified flows in the Burdekin may tip the
competitive advantage in favour of the floating macrophytes.
Table 4.2 Estimated total nitrogen and phosphorus input loading in remnant
lagoons (no artificial flow) and lagoons with modified flows. Rows in bold
and italics are sites with modified flows and loading is based on monthly pump
totals from NBWB and SBWB annual reports. Inkerman and Fowler’s Lagoons
are in Warren’s Gully and Kelly’s and Payard’s Lagoons are in Sheep Station
Ck.
Flow Condition Lagoon Total nitrogen Volume/Pump Total nitrogen
concentration (µg rate over 6 and phosphorus
N/L) and months (ML) input loading
phosphorus (µg P/L) (kg)
Natural Inkerman N 384 & P 27 585 N 225 & P 16
Natural Kelly’s N 286 & P 28 31.98 N 32 & P 3
Supplemented Fowler’s N 305 & P 29 17,581 N 5359 & P 508
Supplemented Payard’s N 298 & P 36 37,518 N 11,180 & 1344

Figure 4.6 Total N & P for supplemented and unsupplemented flows a ) nitrogen (Kg)
and b) phosphorous (Kg).
a) b)
flow flow
Unsupplemented 1250.00 Unsupplemented
10000.00
Supplemented Supplemented
1000.00
7500.00
750.00
5000.00
500.00
2500.00
250.00
0.00
Fowler's Inkerman Kelly's Payard's Fowler's Inkerman Kelly's Payard's
Table 4.3 Estimates of total nitrogen and phosphorus input loading in Payard’s and
Fowler’s if no modified flow was present. Based on volume and using total
nutrient from the remnant sites as indication of what concentrations would be
without flows.
Lagoon Volume Total nitrogen Total nitrogen Total Total

(ML) concentration input loading (kg) phosphorus phosphorus
(µg N/L) concentrations input loading
(µg P/L) (kg)
Payard’s 228 285.56 65 27.9 6
Fowler’s 22.4 384.22 9 27.2 1
In general, water quality across the Burdekin floodplain during this study was of moderate to low
quality. Oxygen levels rarely exceeded the minimum ANZECC/ARMCANZ guideline. The
altered flow conditions are seen to be the main driver of water quality. Water quality is further
eroded by degraded habitats. The floodplain systems have probably always been susceptible to
occasional severe oxygen depletion. However, prior to human development, the availability of
unaffected refuges would have been much more extensive, therefore the ecology of the floodplain
would have been more resilient.

5.0 FISH ASSEMBLAGES OF THE BURDEKIN FLOODPLAIN
Species richness in floodplain lagoons of the Burdekin River floodplain (30 species – Table 5.1) is
low compared with other systems in the region (40 species in the Black/Alice River - Beumer,
1980; 66 species from 11 areas Bloomfield to Cardwell - Pusey and Kennard, 1996; 36 species from
Mulgrave and South Johnstone Rivers - Pusey et al., 1995). Floodplain lagoons of the Burdekin
contained very few amphidromous (fish that move between saltwater and freshwater) species, in
contrast to other aquatic systems of northern Queensland (Beumer, 1980; Kennard, 1995; Pusey
and Kennard, 1996; Lokkers et al., 2000). The lack of saltwater-derived species is due largely to
the loss of connection to the saltwater reaches, either by physical barriers (bunding, drop boards and
sand dams) or barriers created by weed infestation (Tait and Perna, 2001; Perna, 2003). There are
an estimated 43 species of fish that occur or once occurred on the floodplain and most of the
missing species would be excluded by the above impacts (Tait and Perna, 2001). When species
richness is examined in the context of catchment size (>100,000 km2) the Burdekin can be seen as
low in fish species richness. The Burdekin also has one of the largest floodplains in Australia and a
wide range of habitats within this floodplain that should accommodate more species. The degraded
and fragmented nature of habitats across the floodplain is likely to account for the low species
richness recorded.
Table 5.1 Fish families and species recorded during this project, across the
Burdekin floodplain. The asterisk (*) indicates introduced species.
Anguillidae Terapontidae
Long-finned eel Anguilla reinhardtii Steindachner Spangled perch Leiopotherapon unicolor (Gunther)
Sooty grunter Hephaestus fuliginosus (Macleay)
Small-headed grunter Scortum parviceps (Macleay)
Banded grunter Amniataba percoides (Gunther)
Clupeidae Apogonidae
Bony bream Nematalosa erebi (Gunther) Mouth almighty Glossamia aprion (Richardson)
Ariidae Toxotidae
Salmon catfish Arius graeffei Kner and Steindachner Archerfish Toxotes chatareus (Hamilton)
Plotosidae Gobiidae
Black jew Neosilurus ater (Perugia) Speckled goby Redigobius bikolanus (Herre)
Hyrtl’s tandan Neosilurus hyrtlii Steindachner
Rendahl’s tandanPorochilus rendahli (Whitley)
Hemiramphidae Eleotridae
Snub-nosed garfish Arramphus sclerolepis Gunther Snakehead gudgeon Giurus margaritacea
(Valenciennes)
Sleepy cod Oxyeleotris lineolatus (Steindachner)
Purple-spotted gudgeon Mogurnda adspersa
(Castelnau)
Carp gudgeon Hypseleotris spp.
Belonidae Megalopidae
Long tom Strongylura krefftii (Gunther) Tarpon Megalops cyprinoides (Broussonet)
Atherinidae Lutjanidae
Fly-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus Mangrove jack Lutjanus argentimaculatus (Forsskal)
stercusmuscarum (Gunther)
Melanotaeniidae Gerreidae
Eastern rainbowfish Melanotaenia splendida splendida Silver biddy Gerres filamentosus Cuvier
(Peters)
Synbranchidae Scatophagidae
Swamp eel Ophisternon bengalense McClelland Scat Scatophagus argus (L.)
Ambassidae *Poeciliidae
Sailfin glass perch Ambassis agrammus Gunther Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki (Giriard)
Centropomidae *Belontidae
Barramundi Lates calcarifer Bloch Three-spot gourami Trichogaster trichopterus
(Pallas)

Habitat condition is one of the most important factors in fish assemblage structure across the sites
sampled. Species richness is higher in the better condition sites and lower in poor condition sites
(Fig. 5.1). Habitat cover, either large woody debris, macrophyte beds or overhanging vegetation,
has been shown to be important to fish for refuge from predation, foraging and spawning (Pusey et
al., 1993; Pusey and Arthington, 2003). Macrophytes especially have been found to provide habitat
and is well correlated with fish distribution in many Queensland rivers (Perna 1996; Pusey and
Arthington, 2003). Macrophytes provide spawning substrate (Pusey et al., 2001) and refuge from
predators (Webb, 2003) and high water velocities (Losee and Wetzel, 1993; Pusey and Arthington,
2003). Woody debris was found to be significantly correlated with species richness in the
Normanby River and necessary for predator avoidance (Kennard, 1995). The Burdekin, however, is
one of the most modified rivers in north Queensland and lacks many of the habitat characteristics
found in the studies mentioned above.
Figure 5.1 Species richness in dip net samples of 10 main sites, in two conditions.
The conditions are 1= degraded and 2= remnant.
10.0
Species richness
7.5
5.0
2.5
A
1.00 2.00
conditon
Explanation of box plot values

Minimum value that Maximum value that
Is not an outlier Inter-quartile Range Is not an outlier Extreme Value
25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile Outlier
Site condition was also shown to impact on the proportion of exotic fish caught to the total
abundance (Fig. 5.2). Exotic fish were more abundant and dominant in degraded sites. Sites with
better condition habitat that are more natural tended to less dominated by exotic species. These
better condition sites also had more even distribution of species abundances, whereas degraded sites
tended to be dominated by two or three very tolerant species (Table 5.2).
Although species distributions were shown to be correlated with habitat condition, some species
may have been more abundant in particular sites due to biotic factors rather than condition alone.
For example, Hypseleotris spp. was most abundant in degraded lagoon sites (Fig. 5.3), and

Figure 5.2 Proportion of exotics to total fish abundance in dip net samples of 10 main
sites, by condition. Condition is 1= degraded and 2= remnant. See Figure 5.1 for explanation
of boxplot symbols.
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
1.00 2.00
conditon
Figure 5.3 Abundance of Hypseleotris spp. for all sites and all m ethods, across
condition. The boxplot sym bols are explained below the figure. Conditions are: 1= highly
degraded, 2= m oderately degraded, 3= rem nant lagoon and 4= riverine. The * are extrem es. See
Figure 5.1 for explanation of boxplot
4000
abundance of Hypseleotris spp.
3000
2000
1000
1 2 3 4
Condition
abundances of this species have been strongly correlated with predation and habitat cover (Kennard,
1995). In the remnant lagoons and riverine sites the abundance and richness of predators is higher,
which may be the reason for the reduced abundance of the smaller species in these habitats. Large
amounts of habitat cover in the highly degraded sites (despite the fact that it is dominated by an
exotic weed) allows species such as Hypseleotris spp., G. holbrooki, and Trichogaster trichopterus
to avoid predation (Webb, 2003); also, the abundance and diversity of predators is lower in these
sites. Abundances of these small, tolerant species are much higher in degraded sites that have
reduced predation pressure. In some of the remnant sites, such as Clay Hole, where predators are
present the abundance of these smaller species was very low.

Table 5.2 Species composition, site condition and dissolved oxygen concentration .
Sites include the 10 main study sites plus two remnant sites and 1 degraded site
in Plantation Creek (Lilliesmere) showing mean, maximum, minimum and
standard error. of percent saturation of oxygen at each sites. Sites are arrayed in
ascending order of minimum dissolved oxygen content. lowest to highest
minimum content of oxygen. NB. oxygen content collected at Lilliesmere was
unusually high for that site because of recent weed removal and high pump rates.
Conditions are: 1=Highly degraded, 2=Moderately degraded, 3=Remnant
lagoons and 4=Riverine sites. Sites are: 1. Jack's, 2. Princess, 3. Gorizia's, 4.
Payard's (survey’s 1-3 only, does not included post weed harvest survey’s), 5.
Saltwater, 6. Munro's, 7. Dicks Bank, 8. Inkerman, 9. Kelly's, 10. Lilliesmere, 11.
Fowlers, 12. Castelanelli's, 13. Clay hole
SITE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Condition 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 4
Average DO %
Saturation 9.6 17.0 15.4 36.6 34.8 23.9 50.8 36.2 58.7 45.5 70.1 92.9 60.2
Maximum DO %
Saturation 30.4 78.3 92.8 89.8 92.9 44.7 80.0 107.5 148.6 75.0 99.7 104.0 65.8
Minimum DO %
Saturation 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.3 3.4 4.2 4.7 5.1 37.1 41.5 84.4 55.9
S.E. DO %
Saturation 1.6 1.3 1.1 3.0 2.4 0.9 1.6 1.6 3.2 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.1
Species Richness 4 9 10 9 14 11 15 11 14 7 14 11 15
Mosquitofish X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Tarpon X X X X X X X X X X X X
Carp gudgeon X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Long-finned eel X X X X X X X X X
Black jew X X X X X X X X X X X
Three-spot gourami X X X X
Hyrtl’s tandan X X X X X X
Rendahl’s tandan X X X X X X X X X
Snakehead gudgeon X X X X X
Eastern rainbowfish X X X X X X X X
Glass perch X X X X X X X X X X
Swamp eel X X
Fly-specked
hardyhead X X X X X X X X X
Purple-spotted
gudgeon X X
Barramundi X X X X
Spangled perch X X X X X X
Mouth almighty X X X X X X
Speckled goby X X
Bony bream X X X X X X
Sleepy cod X X X X X
Archerfish X
Fork-tailed catfish X

Conversely, the species that appear to be associated with good sites or river sites may not be
habitat-specific but rather excluded from the poor sites. The fork-tailed catfish (A. graeffei) was
once considered a pest by anglers in most lagoons on the floodplain (A. Darwen and A. Stennet,
pers com.). Throughout this study no individuals of this species were recorded in lagoon habitats,
probably because poor water quality and migration barriers exclude the species. Alternatively, the
sampling techniques were not suitable, but other research suggests this species is prone to capture in
gill nets (Halliday, et al. 2001), so individuals should have been recorded in the main sampling
program, had they been present.
5.1 Impacts of Habitat Condition on Fish Assemblages
From the results presented above in sections 3 and 4 there is a dynamic interaction between riparian
habitat condition, instream habitat condition, modified flows and water quality that largely drive the
quality of fish habitat throughout the floodplain. Three sites that represent each condition are
presented here to illustrate how the habitat and water quality affect the fish assemblage structure.
Condition 1 sites were characterized as having highly degraded habitats, low riparian cover and
connectivity, high weed infestation and modified flows (Section 3, Fig. 5.4). These sites typically
had fish assemblages dominated by highly tolerant fish species. The most abundant species were
small native gudgeons (Hypseleotris spp.) and the exotic Mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki).
Mosquito fish are capable of aquatic surface respiration (ASR) where they utilise the very small
layer of water at the surface that contains higher oxygen concentrations than the rest of the water
column. The gudgeons appear to be capable of lowering metabolism to tolerate the lower oxygen
concentrations (Person et al. 2003). Tarpon were also common in these sites, as this species is a
facultative air breather, swimming to the surface and gulping air which is forced into the
vascularized air bladder where the oxygen is absorbed into the blood stream.
Condition 2 sites were characterized as having moderate habitat but still with modified flows
(Section 3, Fig. 5.5). These sites tend to have more species and were less dominated by the two
small species mentioned above. Less tolerant species started to appear in these sites. Condition 3
sites were considered remnant and had mostly intact habitats and no irrigation flows (some received
tailwater) (Fig. 5.5). All remnant sites in the Barratta catchment, the Rocks, Inkerman Lagoon and
Horseshoe Lagoon had connectivity to the saltwater. These sites had greater numbers of species
present and many species with abundances much more evenly distributed than the other sites.
Species were recorded in these sites that were not recorded in the other conditions, including
saltwater derived species.
5.2 The Importance of Connectivity and Remnant Habitats to Fish Assemblage Structure and
Migration
Total species richness and abundance was less in the ten main sites compared with sites across the
floodplain (even though the main sites were repeat sampled over two years), but there was an
increase in the abundance of exotic species at these sites. Eight of the ten main sites were highly
impacted with low habitat values and input of irrigation water. The two remnant sites had high
habitat values and had no irrigation flows. The species richness and abundance was higher in these
remnant sites but still lower than in sites outside of the distribution systems. The main reason for
this is the lack of a connection to a recruitment source, in Sheep Station Creek and Warren’s Gully,
where migration pathways have all but disappeared except during times of major flooding (the last
bank overflow event was in 1991). There has been recent documentation of migration by
amphidromous species in Sheep Station Ck., such as the Milk fish (Chanos chanos), recorded in
Dick’s Bank lagoon (ACTFR, 1994).

Figure5.4 PrincessLagoon, condition1site, illustratinghabitat condition, oxygen

cyclingandfishassemblagestructure.
Key features of Condition1site:

•Very littleripariancover or connectivity
•Highfloating weedinfestation
•Fully supplementedflows with littleopen
water
•Oxygenconcentrations belowsub-lethal
thresholdof 50%
•Fishabundances dominatedbyfew
species
•Many species occurringonlyonce
•Noconnectivity tosaltwater
Fishabundances log10 transformedat PrincessLagoon

over two yearsandfivesurveys(speciesabundance
was highthan20 if bar reachestopof graph)
24hour oxygenconcentrationgraph
100.0
20
90.0
80.0
15
70.0
Percent Saturation
60.0
10
50.0
40.0
5
30.0
20.0
0
10.0
ar
l
ve cat
G by
Ee
on
Hy rdyh i
Gla h G
Ha uram
ng tom
Ca y br w
lee iddy
d
s ta d
gu m
Go
Sp oty ad
S
Ta el
rple Mou uito k
fis
i
Bla und
rch
otte alm h
ls fish
Ma ongan
n e
d g ighty
gle nte
n
co
rp
rtle ea
sq jac
amrch
pe
rra te
rp ea
th fis
Ridf an
Bo ck j
eo
So ketehe
le
tfis
L nd
pe
rb
Ba grun
an gru
m
nd ow
Sw pe
dg
Mo rove
p
Re adingbeo
tan
ca
an
ss
Sgnru
d
Sil
ed
S
ed
Ru
ed
ah
nd
tail
0.0
ad
Ba
rk-
he
Fo
sp
al
Sm
Pu

Figure 5.5 Fowler’s Lagoon, condition2 site, illustratinghabitat condition, oxygen

cyclingandfish assemblage structure.
Key features of Condition 2 site:

•Moderate riparian cover or connectivity
•Moderate floating weed infestation
•Fully supplemented flows
•Oxygen concentrations mostly above sub-
lethal threshold of 50%
•Fish abundances more evenly distributed,
still moderate diversity
•Fewer species occurring only once
•No connectivity to saltwater
Fishabundances log10 transformed at Fowler's Lagoon(Condition2)

over two years and fivesurveys(species abundance was highthan20
24 hour oxygenconcentrationgraph if bar reaches top of graph)
20
100.0
90.0
80.0 15
Percent saturation
70.0
60.0
10
50.0
40.0
5
30.0
20.0
10.0 0
ar
l
G by
ve cat
Ee
n
Gla h G
Hy rdyh i
Ha uram
ng tom
h
Ca ny br w
rpo
ep dy
od
Go
s ta d
gu m
Sp oty ead
Ta el
fis
rple Mou uito ck
Bo ck j i
rch
Bla und
otte alm h
ls fish
e
Ma ongan
gle nte
ty
n
rtle ea
amrch
Sle bid
pe
rp ea
th fis
rra te
yc
eo
Rifan
sq ja
igh
le
L nd
tfis
pe
So keteh
Ba grun
an gru
0.0
m
d
nd ow
Swpe
dg
Mo rove
r
tan
ca
an
ss
Re adingbe
Sgnru
d
Sil
ed
ed
Ru
ah
ed
nd
tail
dg
Ba
ad
rk-
he
Fo
sp
al
Sm
Pu

Figure 5.6 Clay hole, condition 3 site, illustrating habitat condition, oxygen
cycling and fish assemblage structure.
Key features of Condition 3 site:

•Intact riparian habitat
•Diverse instreamhabitats, moderate
biomass
•Connectivity to saltwater reaches
(presence of saltwater derived species)
•Oxygen concentrations above sub-lethal
threshold of 50%
•Fish abundances not dominated by few
species
•Moderate abundance of many species
Fishabundances at Clay hole for two surveys, June,

19 2001 and Apr., 7, 2002 (species abundance was
24 hour oxygen concentration graph high than 20 if bar reaches top of graph)
100.0
20
90.0
80.0
15
70.0
Percent saturation
60.0
10
50.0
40.0
5
30.0
20.0
10.0 0
ar
l
G by
ve cat
Ee
n
Hy rdyh i
Ha uram
Gla h G
ng tom
Ca y br w
ep y
od
rpo
gu m
s ta d
Go
Sp oty ad
Ta el
S
rple Mou uito k
fis
i
rch
Bla und
otte alm h
ls fish
Sle bidd
Ma ongan
d g ighty
gle nte
Bo ck je
rtle ea
sq jac
am ch
pe
rra te
rp ea
th fis
Ridf an
eo
yc
e
le
tfis
L nd
pe
0.0
Ba grun
So keteh
an gru
Sw er
m
nd ow
dg
Mo rove
r
Re adingbeo
tan
dp
an
ca
ss
Sgnru
n
Sil
ed
ed
Ru
ed
ah
nd
tail
ad
Ba
rk-
he
Fo
sp
al
Sm
Pu

This record was made in 1993, just under two years after a major flow event in which the Burdekin
overflowed into Sheep Station Ck., removing the weed mats. The result was, therefore, a
recruitment of these amphidromous species; however, by 2000 when the present project began, the
weed mats had re-established and closed off the migration pathways and most of these species again
became locally extinct.
The most economically important species in the area, Barramundi, was extinct in Sheep Station Ck.
(they have now been stocked in several lagoons) (Fig. 5.7), due to the presence of weed infestations
and bunding throughout the lower reaches. This species was found in Warren’s Gully sites, but its
presence in Saltwater Creek and Munro’s Lagoon is due to stocking (A. Stennet, pers. com.). Only
the fish recorded at Inkerman could have been wild stock as no stocking occurs at this lagoon. It is
suspected that juvenile Barramundi migrating from the saltwater reaches cannot survive the poor
water quality in the lower reaches sufficiently long enough to colonize the open water lagoons
upstream, hence their absence in Sheep Station Ck. (which was not stocked previous to this
research). It also must be noted that many Barramundi were recorded in the Burdekin River and
Barratta Ck. sites, however Barratta Ck. fish would likely be a mix of wild and stocked fish.
Figure 5.7 Barramundi abundance in all samples for Sheep Station Ck., Warren’s
Gully and all other sites across the floodplain. This figure illustrates local
extinction of Barramundi in Sheep Station Ck.
Bars show Means

20
Warren’s Gully
Lates Calcarifer
15
Other
Sheep Station
10
n=3 n=7
0
Many local freshwater species have restricted distributions on the floodplain. For example Banded
grunter were found only in Dick’s Bank Lagoon and Castelanelli’s Lagoon. Data suggests that this
species recruited back into Dick’s Bank only after a flow event allowed migration from
Castelanelli’s just upstream of Dick’s Bank. Castelanelli’s lagoon is a remnant site in the Sheep
Station catchment that receives no irrigation water and has high habitat values.
Clearly, the most significant impact within these distributary streams is the presence of weed mats,
which create migration barriers and proliferate from the modified conditions associated with
supplemental flows. Migration barriers in lotic systems are well documented as reducing fish
diversity (Cotterell, 1998) especially in tropical northern Australia, where a large component of the
diversity is derived from the saltwater reaches (Beumer, 1980). To rehabilitate fish diversity,
removal of physical or chemical barriers is required.

The results above show that habitats across the floodplain are degraded to some extent, however
many remnant habitats were identified which provide important refuge functions for the floodplain
fish assemblages. These remnant sites act as recruitment sources of fish for the rest of the
floodplain. During overflow events fish are able to move out of these habitats and invade lagoons
throughout the catchment. All of the sites surveyed in the Barratta Ck., upper levee lagoons,
Inkerman and Castelanelli’s Lagoons were of high value. These sites maintain fish assemblages
that include sensitive species and several also contain saltwater derived species so that when natural
flows occur the fish can migrate into other sites that may have lost these species.

6.0 WEED REMOVAL AND FISH HABITAT REHABILITATION
6.1 Effects of Weed Removal on Instream Habitat Quality
While both Payard’s and Gorizia’s lagoons were infested with floating weed mats, submerged and
emergent native macrophytes were largely absent. Only in sections of open water was there any
significant growth of these plants. In tropical floodplain lagoons a large proportion of oxygen
production comes from submerged aquatic plants (macrophytes, benthic algae and phytoplankton),
but under the fully weeded conditions at lagoons such as these, this input was largely missing
(Pearson et al., 2003; Butler, 2003). Once the weeds were removed, native aquatic plants re-
established very quickly. Lilies, for example, appeared in Payard’s by August 24, 2000, just weeks
after the Water hyacinth was removed, a similar trend occurred in Gorizia’s. By June 2003, beds of
“Duckweed” (Ceratophyllum demersum, Hydrilla verticillata, Utricularia gibba) and others were
distributed through both lagoons. Recruitment of these plants was much quicker in Gorizia’s as
water clarity downstream was better due to filtering effects of the weeded channels. Aside from
contributing greatly to oxygen concentrations, these plant species are very important to fish such as
Rainbow fish (for reproduction), Glass perch and Mouth almighty (for foraging) and Banded
grunter (for food and shelter) (Pusey et al., 1993; Perna, 1996; Pusey and Arthington, 2003). The
establishment of native macrophytes was, therefore, probably crucial to the re-invasion of fish
species.
6.2 Effects to Oxygen Content from Infestation of Water Hyacinth, and Recovery After
Removal
The oxygen content at Payard’s Lagoon outlet before weed removal was very low (median below
30%), and showed very little cycling between daytime and nigh time values (Fig. 6.1). After weed
removal, median oxygen levels were significantly higher within the lagoon. Immediately after
weed removal there were still periods when oxygen concentrations fell below 25% in the afternoon,
but only for a few hours. The same negative afternoon cycle at the outlet was still evident one year
after weed removal but much less pronounced (Fig. 6.2). The oxygen content was much higher in
2001 (one year after harvest of the weeds) showing that instream oxygen production was well
established. The median at the outlet only fell below 50% saturation during seven hours in the late
afternoon, whereas in 2000 only two hours were recorded above 50% saturation (Fig. 6.2). This
data shows that oxygen content increases almost as soon as floating weeds are removed.
Similar results were found downstream at Gorizia’s Lagoon (Fig. 6.3). Before floating weeds were
removed median oxygen content at the outlet was below 25% for all hours of the day. For the
month immediately after weed removal the median oxygen content rose above 25%, but did not get
above 50%. This shows again that as soon as floating weeds are removed, pathways for oxygen to
enter the water column are opened. The content of oxygen largely determines the fish species
present in these lagoons. Most native fish need oxygen levels above 25%, which is the lethal
threshold (Pearson, et al. 2003). Oxygen levels maintained below 50% (sub-lethal threshold) will
affect the fish assemblage as well.
6.3 Effects of Water Hyacinth Infestation on Fish Assemblages
The above two sections highlight the affects of water hyacinth on habitats and water quality which
will largely determine the fish assemblage structure. Prior to floating weed removal habitats were
dominated by floating weeds and little open water. Water quality was maintained below the lethal
and sub-lethal thresholds. The fish assemblages reflected this poor condition. Payard’s Lagoon had

a total of 9 species (from 3 surveys), dominated by Carp gudgeons, Glass perch and the exotic
Mosquito fish (Table 6.1 and Fig. 6.1). The inlet channel was important refuge for fish diversity, as
this location was the only open water viable habitat in an otherwise very poor condition lagoon.
After weeds were removed the fish assemblage greatly improved with the site being invaded over 1
year by eight new species (Table 6.1 and Fig. 6.1). Also the fish assemblage was not dominated by
just a few species after weed removal, but many species (Fig. 6.1). Gorizia’s showed a very similar
trend. Although prior to weed removal the site was dominated by only two species, Carp gudgeon
and Mosquito fish (Table 6.2 and Fig. 6.3). This site was further downstream and the oxygen
content in the inlet was greatly affected by poor upstream conditions, therefore restricting the Glass
perch numbers. This highlights the importance of refuges from both poor water quality and lack of
habitat as well as showing how connectivity is important in allowing invasion and recruitment.


Figure 6.2 Boxplot for percent saturation of oxygen at Payard’s Lagoon outlet, comparing oxygen saturation before and
after weed removal (1st. box) and one year after weed removal (2nd. box). The boxes for the year 2000 each
display one month (August and September respectively) of logged data, for the year 2001 the boxes display
data for August and September. Data was logged at the downstream outlet of Payard’s Lagoon. The dotted line
is the 25% lethal threshold and the dashed line is the 50% sub-lethal threshold. See Figure 5.1 for explanation of
boxplot symbols.
2000 2001
110.0
status
1
100.0
2
% saturation of oxygen
90.0 S S S S A S S
S S
S S
S
80.0 S
A
A
70.0
A
S
60.0 A A A A A A A A A A
50.0 A A
A A A
A A A A A
A A A A A A
40.0 S A A A
A S A
A
30.0
20.0
10.0
S
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
hour hour

Figure 6.3 Comparison of habitat condition, oxygen concentrationand fish diversity

before and after weed removal at Gorizia’s Lagoon
100.0
Treatment
Weeded
Open
75.0
A
A
A A
A
50.0 A A
A
A
25.0
A A A A A
A
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 22.0
1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0
hour
24hr oxygen cycles for August (pre) and

Pre-weed removal August 2002
September (post) 2002. Data are presented Post-weed removal September 2002
for one month in each box for each hour of
the day. For explanation of boxes see Fig. 5.1
Result for 6 Pre-weed removal surveys Result for 3 Post-weed removal surveys
(species abundance was high than 20 if bar
reaches top of graph)
20
20
Key Results:
•Increase in median oxygen
15
concentrations above lethal threshold 15
of 25%
10
•Increase in species diversity
•Increase in in-streamhabitat diversity 10
•Seven species invaded the lagoon

5 over
11 months without significant rainfall 5
•Barramundi stocked and growing

0
up to twice normal rate (200 mmin 6
Banded grunter
Barramundi
Black jew
Bony bream
Carp gudgeon
Eel
Fork-tailed catfish
Gar
Glass perch
Goby
Gurami
Hardyhead
Hyrtles tandan
Longtom
Mangrove jack
Mosquito fish
Mouth almighty
Purple spotted gudgeon
Rainbow fish
Rendahls tandan
Rifle fish
Scat
Silver biddy
Sleepy cod
Small headed grunter
Snakehead
Sooty grunter
Spangled perch
Swamp eel
Tarpon
months) 0
Banded grunter
Barramundi
Black jew
Bony bream
Carp gudgeon
Eel
Fork-tailed catfish
Gar
Glass perch
Goby
Gurami
Hardyhead
Hyrtles tandan
Longtom
Mangrove jack
Mosquito fish
Mouth almighty
Purple spotted gudgeon
Rainbow fish
Rendahls tandan
Rifle fish
Scat
Silver biddy
Sleepy cod
Small headed grunter

Snakehead
Sooty grunter
Spangled perch
Swamp eel
Tarpon

Table 6.1 Abundances of fishes recorded by each method in Payard’s

lagoon before and after weed removal (Treatment 1 = pre-weed
removal/recruitment and 2 = post-weed removal/recruitment).
Treatment 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total
Date 09-06-00 02-08-00 24-08-00 11-12-00 05-03-01 22-06-01 22-10-01 03-04-02 27-08-02 caught
Dip net total abundance 23 108 257 1277 1757 495 336 102 48
4403
(species richness) (2) (4) (4) (6) (7) (9) (6) (8) (6)
Gill total abundance 7 3 24 21 36 7 14 14
126
(species richness) (2) (2) (5) (3) (4) (5) (6) (5)
Seine total abundance 150 554 401 411 195 24 119 125 39
2018
All methods total
6547
abundance 173 669 661 1712 1973 555 462 241 101
Sailfin glass perch 134 534 281 483 207 17 87 44 4 1791

Mosquitofish 23 93 292 341 170 142 170 28 2 1261
Carp gudgeon 1 25 7 773 1352 311 78 25 22 2594
Fly-specked hardyhead 8 75 57 197 38 186 47 32 640
Spangled perch 5 4 1 2 1 1 7 21
Black jew 1 6 1 1 2 11 1 1 24
Purple-spotted
gudgeon 1 4 2 9 7 4 10 37
Tarpon 1 2 16 9 11 2 2 3 46
Eastern rainbowfish 2 7 3 6 18
Three-spot gourami 1 1
Snakehead gudgeon 1 1
Hyrtl’s tandan 4 2 1 3 1 11
Rendahl’s tandan 19 2 4 6 12 43
Bony bream 25 13 6 58 22 124
Mouth almighty 1 2 10 16 29
Archerfish 1 1

Table 6.2 Abundances of fishes recorded by each method in Gorizia’s lagoon before
and after weed removal (Treatment 1 = pre-weed removal/recruitment and 2 =
post-weed removal/recruitment).
Treatment 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Total
Date 22-08-00 14-12-00 6-3-01 23-10-01 5-4-02 22-8-02 7-3-03 9-10-03 caught
Dip net abundance 115 159 306 12 193 33 254 196

(species richness) (3) (3) (5) (2) (3) (4) (6) (9) 1039
Gill net abundance 18 43 6 9 19 20 45

(species richness) (2) (2) (1) (3) (2) (4) (6) 160
Total Abundance 133 202 312 12 202 52 274 241
(species richness) (5) (5) (6) (2) (6) (6) (8) (14) 1199
Carp gudgeon 38 41 226 9 21 4 151 166 656
Mosquitofish 75 103 73 3 171 27 67 13 532
Tarpon 17 42 6 4 16 5 30 120
Sailfin glass perch 2 1 31 8 42
Three-spot gourami 2 15 2 1 1 1 22
Long-finned eel 1 1
Snakehead gudgeon 1 1
Black jew 3 4 3 3 2 15
Rendahls tandan 1 1 5 7
Swamp eel 1 1
Hyrtl’s tandan 10 1 11
Fly-specked 1
hardyhead 1
Purple-spotted 6
gudgeon 3 3
Spangled perch 2 2 4
Barramundi 4 4
Bony bream 3 3
Mouth almighty 1 1
Eastern rainbowfish 1 1

In section 5.3 the importance of connectivity was highlighted. Further evidence of the importance
of connectivity was shown in the post weed harvest survey’s at Gorizia’s Lagoon. Invasion of
new species occurred over a smaller time scale and with fewer samples. In Payard’s the first fish
to invade were those that inhabited the refuge in the inlet. Gorizia’s Lagoon did not have this
refuge, nor did it have the overflow from another species source (eg. Red Lily Lagoon over flowed
into Payard’s 4 months after weed removal introducing Bony bream). However after 11 months
and no significant natural flows Gorizia’s species diversity rose from eight to 15 species an
increase of seven species. This is very significant as it suggests that the reach between Payard’s
and Gorizia’s no longer has any significant weed infestations restricting the downstream
movement of fish. This is highlighted by the invasion of one of the most sensitive species, the
Bony bream, into Gorizia’s Lagoon without a significant flow event to introduce them from
backwater or sub-catchment refuges.
6.4 Recruitment of Species: Invasion and Direct Recruitment
After weeds were removed from Payard’s Lagoon many fish invaded from the inlet and after a
natural flow, from upstream and Red Lily Lagoon. This occurred before further weed removal had
occurred downstream which limited recruitment sources to the two mentioned above. However, as
weed removal works progressed downstream invasion of new species occurred much faster due to
the opening of migration pathways throughout Sheep Station Ck. Gorizia’s Lagoon, which was
cleared out 2 years after Payard’s and after most of the lagoons and channels between it and
Payard’s were cleared out, showed a very quick recovery in species diversity. This is due in large
to the opening of the lagoons and channels which removed the low oxygen barriers between sites
created by weed infestations. Downstream migration and recruitment into Gorizia’s was
constrained to Sheep Station Ck. main channel as no significant flows have occurred that would
have connected these sites with backwater or sub-catchment lagoons and the data shows that these
species were not present downstream of Gorizia’s either, so this leave the cleared channels as the
only source of recruitment.
6.5 Gorizia’s Hydrodynamic Study
Figure 6.4 and 6.5 show images of the lagoon pre and post-harvest, respectively. It can be seen
that the plant mat consisted of a complex assemblage of several aquatic and semi-aquatic plant
species including Para grass (Brachiaria mutica), bullrush (Typha domingensis), swamp rice grass
(Leersia hexandra) and spiny mudgrass (Pseudoraphis spinecens) while Figures 6.6 and 6.7 show
the extent of the floating weed mat before and after harvest. Also indicated on these figures are the
locations of upstream and downstream monitoring stations, the dye sampling transect and the
location of the downstream dye sampling station.
6.5.1 Hydrodynamic Dye Analysis
The location for the dye sampling transect (See Figures 3 and 4) was chosen so that the flow of
water entering the main body of the lagoon could be traced through the water column. The three
sampling points were located at 1, 2 and 3 metre depths at approximately the centre of the lagoon
(40 metres from the bank) with a total depth of the lagoon at this point of 3.5 metres.
The dye was injected at the same time (1000 hours) on respective days for both the pre and post-
harvest analyses at the upstream culvert that represents the upstream extent of the lagoon (See
Figures 6.6 and 6.7). The results of the dye study pre-harvest (Figure 6.8) and post-harvest (Figure
6.9) show that a severe channelling of the flow occurred midway through the water column when
the water surface was totally covered with a layer of floating plants (See Fig. 6.9). This figure
shows that a large majority of the water that entered the lagoon short-circuited through the centre
of the water column with minimal surface mixing and exited the lagoon relatively quickly. Figure
6.9 shows that once the plants were removed surface flows predominated which resulted in greatly
enhanced mixing and re-aeration of the waterbody.

Figure 6.8: Dye time-of-travel curve before weed harvest.
15
12
Dye Concentration, ug/L
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, hours
1 metre deep 2 metres deep 3 metres deep
Figure 6.9: Dye time-of-travel curve after weed harvest.
15
12
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time, hours
1 metre deep 2 metres deep 3 metres deep
The study also included the collection of dye samples at the downstream extent of the lagoon to
analysis but this was only successful for the post-harvest experiment. This was probably due an
insufficient amount of dye used in the pre-harvest experiment, which could not be measured once
it had diluted through the whole lagoon. The post-harvest dye trace experiment was however
successful because a significantly higher concentration of dye was used (3 times more than for pre-
harvest) and we were able to produce a time-of-travel plot for the entire lagoon (see Figure 6.10).
It can be seen from this plot that the first significant dye concentrations were measured about 54
hours (2.25 days) after injection with the average detention time being about 72 hours (3 days).
Although we were not able to measure the pre-harvest detention time there is little doubt that it
would have been significantly less than 3 days (at existing inflow rates) due to the piped flow
effects evidenced by the results obtained further upstream (Figures 6.8 and 6.9). A feature of

Figure 6.10 is the significant deviation from plug flow shown by the lack of a significant single
peak in the dye concentration curve. This is typical of a system with complex mixing patterns with
the movement of the incoming flows through a large majority of the lagoon volume before exiting
the system. This is a much-improved scenario for enhanced mixing and re-aeration of the water
body compared to the pre-harvest case.
Figure 6.10: Dye concentrations recorded at the outlet end of the Lagoon after
weed harvest.
2
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time, hours
6.5.2 Water Quality Analysis
Hydrolab multi-parameter probes installed at the extreme upstream and downstream ends of the
lagoon (Figures 6.6 and 6.7) collected physico-chemical data during and immediately after the dye
tracer study. The parameters measured included dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature and specific
conductivity. In this study we were primarily concerned with the dissolved oxygen levels as it the
primary factor that dictates fish habitat quality in these systems. The dissolved oxygen levels at the
upstream and downstream locations (logged over 4 days) and the respective estimates of flow rates
are shown in Figures 6.11 and 6.12 (pre and post-harvest respectively). Remarkable improvements
in dissolved oxygen levels due to weed removal are clearly evident. Figure 6.11 shows that
although very poor quality water entered the lagoon pre-harvest (with

Figure 6.11: Dissolved oxygen data logged before weed harvest with
corresponding estimates of the upstream flow rates.
100 3
90
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration,% Saturation
2.5
80
70
2
Flow Rate, m /s
60
3
50 1.5
40
1
30
20
0.5
10
0 0
12/03/02 12/03/02 13/03/02 13/03/02 14/03/02 14/03/02 15/03/02 15/03/02 16/03/02
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
Time
Upstream DO Downstream DO Upstream Flow Rate
Figure 6.12: Dissolved oxygen data logged after weed harvest with corresponding
estimates of the upstream flow rates.
100 3
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration,% Saturation
90
2.5
80
70
2
Flow Rate, m /s
3
60
50 1.5
40
1
30
20
0.5
10
0 0
04/02/03 04/02/03 05/02/03 05/02/03 06/02/03 06/02/03 07/02/03 07/02/03 08/02/03
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00
Time
Upstream DO Downstream DO Upstream Flow Rate

daily dissolved oxygen cycling from 0 to a maximum level of 10% saturation during the study) the
water became almost totally devoid of oxygen (anoxic) once it reached the downstream end of the
lagoon. After the weeds were removed (Figure 6.12) the situation improved dramatically with
minimum daily dissolved oxygen levels of 10% saturation improving to 50% saturation once the
water reached to downstream end of the lagoon. It is also important to note that the observed
improvement in the upstream dissolved oxygen levels (pre to post-harvest) was primarily due to
the rehabilitation of a major upstream reach in the interim.
Figures 6.13 and 6.14 show the dissolved oxygen levels that were measured at the three different
depths midway across the lagoon at the dye sampling transect. These figures demonstrate that
severely hypoxic/anoxic conditions persist under dense macrophyte assemblages of this type but
much improved conditions can be rehabilitated once the plants are removed. These figures also
highlight the rapid recovery in dissolved oxygen levels that can be achieved; the point at which
these measurements were taken is only about 30 meters from the upstream water hyacinth clogged
section of the lagoon (see Figure 6.7) under which the dissolved oxygen levels were severely
depressed.
After harvesting of the weeds, additional diel cycling and vertical profile data were also collected
at 5 locations along the thread length of the lagoon, starting at the origin (representing the location
of the dye sampling transect) and extending almost 1 kilometre to the downstream end of the
lagoon.. Figures 6.15, 6.17 and 6.19 show the morning readings of dissolved oxygen, temperature
and pH respectively, measured at three different depths at each of the five sampling locations.
Figures 6.16, 6.18 and 6.20 show the equivalent late-afternoon readings at these same locations. A
general improvement in dissolved oxygen levels can be seen going from the upstream to
downstream end of the lagoon. The slight peak in the late-afternoon readings (Figure 6.16) can be
explained by the shallow depth (< 2 metres) and the dense assemblages of submergent plants
(consisting primarily of waternymph or Najas tenuifolia) found from about 50 to 300 metres
thread length during the time of the post-harvest experiments.
The results of the dye analysis show that the floating mats create an upper boundary on the
waterbody which acts as a confining surface that causes the flowing water to preferentially flow
through the middle of the water column (see Fig. 6.8) instead of across the water surface, which
was the case once the plants were removed (see Fig. 6.9). This piped flow caused a situation
whereby the replenishment of the dissolved oxygen by atmospheric re-aeration was severely
inhibited. Combined with the total shading effect of the floating plants that resulted in minimal
plant photosynthesis within the water column, constant conditions of severe hypoxia/anoxia
occurred throughout the entire water body (see Fig. 6.13).

Figure 6.13: Dissolved oxygen levels measured at the dye sampling transect before
harvest.
10
8
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration, % Saturation
0
12/03/02 12/03/02 12/03/02 12/03/02 13/03/02 13/03/02 13/03/02 13/03/02 14/03/02 14/03/02 14/03/02 14/03/02 15/03/02
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time
1 metre depth 2 metre depth 3 metre depth
Figure 6.14: Dissolved oxygen levels measured at the dye sampling transect after
harvest.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
04/02/03 04/02/03 04/02/03 04/02/03 05/02/03 05/02/03 05/02/03 05/02/03 06/02/03 06/02/03 06/02/03 06/02/03 07/02/03
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00
Time
1 metre depth 2 metres depth 3 metres depth

Figure 6.15: Early morning dissolved oxygen distribution along the lagoon thread
length after harvest.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 metres depth 0.5 metres depth 1 metre depth
Figure 6.16: Late afternoon dissolved oxygen distribution along the lagoon thread
length after harvest.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 metres depth 0.5 metres depth 1 metre depth

Figure 6.17: Early morning temperature distribution along the lagoon thread length
after harvest.
34
32
Temperature, Deg.C
30
28
26
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 m 0.5 m 1m
Figure 6.18: Late afternoon temperature distribution along the lagoon thread length
after harvest.
34
32
Temperature, Deg.C
30
28
26
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 m 0.5 m 1m

Figure 6.19: Early morning pH distribution along the lagoon thread length after
harvest.
7.5
pH
6.5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 m 0.5 m 1m
Figure 6.20: Late afternoon pH distribution along the lagoon thread length after
harvest.
7.5
pH
6.5
6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Thread Length, m
0.3 m 0.5 m 1m

Once the free water surface was rehabilitated to the lagoon the majority of the water flowed
through the near surface layers (see Fig. 6.9). This greatly enhanced re-aeration and mixing within
the lagoon and when combined with the effect of prevailing winds on the water surface, which
would be expected to further enhance deep mixing, the expectation that a greatly enhanced
dissolved oxygen regime would result proved to be correct. The water quality measurements taken
during the experiment confirm this view. Figure 6.11 shows that the quality of water flowing
through the lagoon was consistently poor before the plants were harvested. While, Figure 6.12
shows a dramatic net improvement in water quality from the upstream to downstream extent of the
lagoon (note that the input water was also of an improved quality compared to the unharvested
case due to the rehabilitation of upstream lagoons during the course of the study). The results in
Figures 6.15 and 6.16 provide clear evidence that there was rapid establishment of submergent
plant growth within the shallower (<2 m) section of the lagoon. This results in a healthy level of
diel oxygen cycling which enhanced daytime oxygen concentrations without inducing adverse
levels of hypoxia overnight.

7.0 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
7.1 General Conclusions
Floodplains are among the most diverse habitats on the planet today (Gopal and Junk, 2000).
They contain habitats that fluctuate from aquatic to terrestrial depending on water levels, which
create a mosaic of habitat types and conditions (Junk et al., 1989; Pearson et al., 2003). This
diversity of habitat types and conditions is largely responsible for the diversity of biological life
forms that inhabit these areas. However, when floodplains are modified for agriculture this
diversity of habitats is largely lost (EPA, 1999). On the Burdekin River floodplain, habitat
diversity and quality have been massively degraded as land has been cleared and levelled for sugar
cane production, natural distribution channels have been modified for irrigation distribution and
aquifer recharge, and flows have been greatly modified. This reduction in habitat diversity and
quality is seen in both the water quality and assemblage structure of the fish communities
throughout the Burdekin River floodplain.
Habitats on the Burdekin River floodplain were found to be most impacted in the delta region.
Riparian vegetation was largely cleared or trees had been water logged and killed by increased
water levels from irrigation water. Instream habitats were impacted by the increased flow
frequency and turbid water from the upper catchment that is used for irrigation. However, there
were sites within the delta that retained high habitat values and these sites most likely play a vital
role as refuges within the sub-catchments. The modification of the floodplain for agriculture has
had many effects on fish communities that include, but are not limited to: decreased habitat
diversity, weed infestation, increased nutrient input loads and migration barriers (ACTFR, 1994;
Arthington et al., 1997; Pusey and Arthington, 2003).
Burdekin River floodplain habitats include shallow ephemeral sedge and Melaleuca swamps,
saline super-tidal swamps, deep black-water lagoons, backwaters and overflow channels.
Agricultural activities have reduced these habitats to about 30% of their original extent (G.
Lukacs, pers. comm.). Those habitats that serve some function for the cropping activities
generally being retained. On the Burdekin River floodplain many of the shallow ephemeral
swamps have been lost and only the deep water lagoons and associated channels remain. Shallow
swamps, especially super-tidal varieties, are very important for economically important species
such as Barramundi (Lates calcarifer), mud crab (Scilla serratta) and a host of prawn species
(Davis, 1988). The remaining deep-water lagoons and channels have had much of their riparian
vegetation cleared, which has lead to degradation of water quality, increased infestation of exotic
emergent grasses and floating weeds, and consequent loss of instream and riparian habitat values.
Weed infestation, especially by Para grass (Brachiaria mutica), is very common through out the
floodplain. This grass grows into the channels and lagoons, and can increase flow velocities,
reduce oxygen content and has also been found to have no input into the aquatic food web (Bunn
et al., 1997, 1998). The floating weed water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) has also benefited
from the increased light, sustained water levels from supplemental flows and the grasses. Para
grass and the native rice grass (Leersia hexandra) bind the water hyacinth, creating stable
platforms that are difficult to flush. These grasses in combination with supplemental flows, most
probably, has aided water hyacinth to fully cover lagoons within the irrigation water board areas,
as full cover was not documented in any other part of the floodplain.
Increased light availability resulting from reduced riparian cover facilitates the growth of invasive
weeds and may contribute to the extensive infestations of water hyacinth. Section 6.5 showed how
water hyacinth infestations prevent oxygen from entering the water and contribute significantly to
the processes for consumption of oxygen in the water column. Therefore these exotic plants
reduce habitat diversity and quality and have negative impacts on the water quality, which
excludes sensitive native fish species from establishing. The poor quality habitat created by these
invasive weeds may aid the proliferation of exotic fish also (See Perna, 2003).

The water used for irrigation comes from the turbid Burdekin Falls Dam and is high in suspended
sediments. This turbid water supplies a continuous nutrient load which stimulate plant growth
(Section 4.2.4). However with the turbid water there may be an effect of light limitation on
submergent plant growth giving competitive advantage to the floating plants. Floating weed
infestations were usually the worst in sites that had irrigation water. Once the weed mats establish
and cover a lagoon or the channels, they effectively create a chemical barrier excluding oxygen
sensitive fish species. This is exemplified by the occurrence of an average of eight species of fish
in the highly degraded sites within the water board areas and the average of 12 species in the
remnant sites outside of the water board areas. However weed removal along the length of Sheep
Station Ck. has opened these pathways as seen in the reappearance of seven new species of fish in
Gorizia’s Lagoon without a significant wet season flow to aid migration from sources outside of
Sheep Station Ck. The next challenge will be opening these migration pathways to the saltwater
reaches where there is a whole other group of fish species that has been excluded from these
freshwater habitats for many years.
7.2 Recommendations and Future Research Priorities
7.2.1 High Priority
Water hyacinth is such a major driver of water quality and habitat condition that now that
rehabilitation works have been conducted and the weed removed, we are dealing with a ‘new’
system of which we have limited understanding (we do not know what the long-term affects will
be). This information deficiency will need to be addressed if future management strategies are to
be devised. Hence research priority 1 is:
• Monitor long-term effects of weed removal on water quality and habitat condition, in
order to answer the following key questions:
1. How will increased submerged plant growth effect water quality
2. What type of plant community will establish in the long-term for fish habitats
3. How will submerged plants effect water extraction (pump intake clogging)
Human intervention has altered biophysical environments on the Burdekin Floodplain to the point
where it is no longer feasible or desirable to rehabilitate wetlands to their pre-European condition.
Nevertheless this study has demonstrated that there are many opportunities to rehabilitate
waterways to create valuable, functional, albeit somewhat artificial, aquatic habitats. Artificial
throughputs of irrigation water are double-edged sword in this regard in that on the one hand they
can cause major ecological degradation (for example by filling invasions by pest plant and animal
species) while on the other hand, if carefully managed, they have the potential to become a
valuable ecological management tool. The quality of Burdekin irrigation water is in most respects
relatively good, making it well suited for use as a diluent/dispersant to remove or alleviate
accumulation of undesirable materials, and/or to promote mixing and aeration.
Under current water management practices flow supplementation is mostly driven by irrigation
demand so flow rates, and therefore aeration rates, fall to a minimum when farmers stop irrigating.
This usually happens during the onset of rainy weather at which time cloudy conditions also
reduce the capacity of aquatic plants to produce dissolved oxygen. This can cause potentially
catastrophic oxygen sags which would almost certainly be extenuated if it were possible to provide
an environmental flow allocation (in order to promote aeration).
This is just one of many examples of the ways in which flow manipulation could potentially be
used to assist the achievement of ecological objectives. However, at this stage this potential is
only theoretical and there is an urgent need to assess the practical feasibility of such
manipulations, and to develop appropriate operating procedures. Accordingly, research priority 2
is identified as follows:

• Investigate the feasibility of manipulating flow supplementation to manage instream water

quality and to assist in weed removal. Specifically there is a need to determine if:
1. The risk of fish kills can be minimized by ensuring that flows do not cease when
irrigation demands are low
2. Supplementation can maintain water quality at biologically sustainable levels
3. Flow manipulation can aid in weed removal by forcing weeds into collection
points or alternatively areas that can be drawn down to kill water hyacinth (or
eventually in some cases flush all the way downstream)
Lastly aquatic plants in this modified habitat will continually need to be managed. The key
species for management may change over time as the predominant conditions change (such as full
cover to open water) and therefore management will have to accommodate these changes.
Understanding of the implications of different effects on water quality by the different plant
communities will be needed to best manage the systems and their water quality and habitat
conditions. Hence research priority 3 is to:
• Development of continued improved aquatic plant management techniques be pursued

through local and regional management planing and advisory bodies.
1. As conditions change over time due to weed removal new and unexpected impacts
will appear management should be adaptive to these changes
2. All potential weeds should be identified and monitored to allow for any needed
control measures (See Tait, in press for comprehensive weed species list)
3. Dominant species such as ‘Duckweed’ should be studied so that a clear
understanding of it’s impacts can be presented and incorporated into managing
water quality
A list of priority actions for implementing aquatic plant management should be:
1. Clear out top ends of systems first (See Appendix 4)
2. Clear out bottom ends of systems (See Appendix 4)
3. Once weeds are removed, identify and remove fish passage barriers
4. Implement works recommended by the above priority recommended research
7.2.2 Habitat Management
This report showed that fish habitat rehabilitation in the distributary streams can be successful in
the short to medium term. Before weeds were removed from these lagoons, oxygen content was
well below levels that are required to sustain fish communities, and the fish present were mostly
highly tolerant to low oxygen levels or resided in any available refuge (such as the inlet channel at
Payard’s lagoon). Once the weeds were removed both water quality and fish community
composition started to recover. There was an immediate improvement in oxygen content
following weed removal, and at Payard’s Lagoon a longer-term pattern of progressive
improvement over the subsequent year. Clearly, the main culprit in degradation of fish habitat
quality in this system was water hyacinth, mats of which block the water/air interface needed for
re-aeration, as well as blocking light needed by submergent macrophytes that produce oxygen in
the water by biological means.
Within two weeks of weed removal native submerged and emergent vegetation was establishing.
The plants not only provide oxygen for fish but vital habitats for spawning, foraging and predator
avoidance (Perna, 1996; Pusey and Arthington, 2003). The regrowth of native submerged
macrophytes in conjunction with the increased oxygen concentration allowed for suitable habitat
conditions for the fish that invaded the cleared lagoons.
In conjunction with the weed removal works the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services was
conducting revegetation works along Sheep Station Ck. to re-establish a riparian corridor from Mt.

Kelly to Gorizia’s Lagoon. By re-establishing this riparian corridor there will be benefits to the
instream fish habitats. The trees will shade the banks, therefore reducing exotic grass growth that
has been shown to bind Water hyacinth, restrict channel flows and reduce water quality. Riparian
trees will also contribute woody debris, which is well documented as providing instream fish
habitat (Kennard, 1995).
A very important factor to consider with revegetation works is also the species of trees to be
planted (See Appendix 3). Trees such as Leichhardt’s produce many fruits and are a deciduous
species, which means that the fruits and leaves (as they decomposes) will contribute much organic
material at certain times of the year that will contribute greatly to oxygen demand in the water,
thus reducing oxygen content. Alternatively Ti trees such as paper barks have litter that degrades
at a slower rate thus demanding less oxygen. Also Ti tree litter is high in tannins which add to
water colour and may aid in limiting instream submergent macrophyte growth, which in it self can
cause major fluctuations in daily oxygen cycles (Butler, 2003). It is recommended that
revegetation works continue throughout the floodplain but that research into the best vegetations
communities to plant is conducted for maximum benefit to the fish community. Although many of
the lagoons in the delta region showed significant impacts on fish habitats, there were sites
identified that did retain high value habitats. These habitats are important in maintaining a mosaic
of habitat conditions available across the floodplain and therefore contribute to maintaining fish
species diversity (See Appendix 3).
Priority research needs:

• Identification of key habitats required to maintain high fish diversity (eg. Castelanelli’s
Lagoon, Barratta Ck.)
• Detailed investigation of most suitable tree species for revegetation
• Incorporate revegetation works with weed control to establish refuge areas that will
require little instream chemical weed control, provide shade and instream habitat,
therefore creating more refuge for fish across the floodplain and allowing more intense
weed control measures in other parts of the catchment (See Appendix 3).
7.2.3 Remnant Habitat Identification and Conservation
Presently there are Natural Resource Management planning groups in the region formulating long-
term planning for a range of issues. These groups and plans should take into consideration the
importance of the remnant habitats identified in this research for long-term conservation of these
habitats. Two key sites were identified in Sheep Station Ck., with more likely to be identified if
research continues. These sites (Castelanelli’s and Kelly’s Lagoon) are backwater or sub-
catchment lagoons that do not receive direct input of irrigation waters, but during overflow
connect the greater Sheep Station catchment (Tait, in press). All sites sampled in the Barratta Ck.
catchment were high value fish habitats (survey work on this catchment included the upper most
lagoon down to within 3 km or the saltwater interface). Upper levee floodplain lagoons surveyed
(See Fig. 4.1) also had high value habitat.
Within the sub-catchment context, lagoons such as Kelly’s and Castelanelli’s are extremely
important to the long-term maintenance of fish diversity (See Appendix 2). During periods (such
as the previous 10 years) of high levels of weed infestation in the main irrigation distribution
system, these sites provide refuge from the poor conditions created by the weed infestations.
Castelanelli’s Lagoon highlighted this as species such as banded grunter, bony bream and archer
fish, were all recorded there, but prior to extensive weed removal these species were absent from
the rest of the Sheep Station catchment. After the wet season of 2000/2001 these species were
able to migrate into Sheep Station Ck. again and remain there due to the improved conditions.
The remnant habitats in the upper levee area are important refuges for the same host of species.
These sites only have limited connectivity to saltwater reaches so species such as barramundi are

limited, but other vulnerable species such as banded grunter, bony bream, gar, long-tom and archer
fish are able to sustain populations in these sites. The Barratta Ck. catchment however still
maintains good connectivity with the saltwater reaches and has populations of saltwater derived
species such as barramundi. These habitats were also the least impacted by weed infestation,
however Hymenachne (an exotic pasture grass) is now present and spreading. It is suspected that
weed infestations are low because the riparian buffer is still largely intact with a prolific under
story that slows the establishment of exotic species. This system is also now under review for
establishment of freshwater fish Habitat Area under Department of Primary Industries Fisheries
Act 1994 (R. Sheppard, pers. comm.).
Of major concern in these remnant habitats is the use of fire to reduce grass loads. It has been
common practice in the past to use fire to “clean up the creeks”. This practice has had detrimental
effects to the remnant riparian vegetation. In the Barratta Ck. this has especially been the case due
to the Crown ownership of much of the riparian areas along the creek, where grazing has been
excluded and exotic grasses build a large fuel load (A. Darwen, pers. comm.). This is now being
address with funding from Burdekin Rangelands to Reef Initiative, investigating the re-
introduction of grazing to reduce the fuel loads and control grass growth (J. Tait, pers. comm.).
The main problem is that the exotic grasses burn at very high temperatures and the native trees
often die off as a result. The repeat burning also inhibits recruitment of native trees.
Priority Research needs:

• Full scale survey of floodplain to identify key remnant habitats
• Identify connectivity between these habitats and the more highly impacted irrigation
distribution streams
• Incorporation of remnant habitat management into regional NRM planning (such as Fish
Habitat Area declaration)
• Further investigation into grazing management of weedy grasses in the riparian areas
(such as the Burdekin Rangelands to Reef Imitative project)
7.2.4 Aquatic Plant Management
There is little doubt that the greatest threat to the long-term ecological health of the floodplain
water bodies is invasive weed growth. These weeds not only threaten the fish community health
and function but impact on infrastructure, irrigation water use, Water Board operations and costs,
and amenity. The main exotic weed species are the floating weeds; water hyacinth, slavinia and
water lettuce. Emergent species include the native cumbugi, and the introduced pasture grasses;
para grass, hymenachne, aleman grass and the native rice grass. Submerged native plants are a
double edged knife in this situation whereby they provide habitat and produce oxygen but at
higher biomass levels combined with the right climatic conditions, they can drive the oxygen
cycles to extremes and cause fish kills. The main species of submerged macrophytes are; Hydrilla
and Ceratophyllum (Duckweed to locals), although close monitoring should be conducted for
Cabomba (an introduced aquarium plant that is declared and present in the Haughton catchment).
The results of this work record medium-term effects. Fish assemblages increased in diversity and
water quality improved over one year but no information is available on the long-term effects of
weed removal. One notable situation is the rapid increase in submerged macrophyte growth
mainly “Duckweed”. The remnant Sheep Station Ck. site, Kelly’s Lagoon, highlighted one of the
main potential negative aspects of high biomass of this submerged aquatic plant. This site had not
been scoured by a wet season flow and thus two consecutive growing seasons allowed for the
submerged biomass to increase to levels high enough to cause massive diel fluctuations in oxygen
content, and under the right climatic conditions, cause lethal sags in oxygen content.
During February 2003 there were a series of hot still overcast days that were conductive for
causing a fish kill. Overcast conditions cause the aquatic plants to respire (consume oxygen)
rather than photosynthesise (produce oxygen). This coupled with still conditions (minimal

atmospheric mixing at the water surface), may have caused oxygen levels to remain below the
25% lethal threshold for an extended period and resulted in a fish kill (M. Kelly, pers. comm..).
This situation could become more wide spread as more areas are cleared of surface weeds and
biomass of these aquatic plants increases. This is already occurring at Gorizia’s Lagoon.
However within the irrigation system it may be possible to reduce the impact of these conditions
by allocating environmental flows to maintain the mixing effects, thus preventing the oxygen to
fall below acute thresholds.
Another impact may be the long-term maintenance of the weeds with chemical sprays. Chemical
control is seen as the most economically viable method for long-term control of weeds; however,
no information is available on the long-term effects of these chemicals on food webs and
biodiversity . Recent work in the Northern Territory found that herbicides used on Para grass (B.
mutica) had little effect on the aquatic macroinvertebrate community (Douglas and O’Connor,
2003). This study, however, did not present data on the effects of spraying on microinvertebrates
and larval fish, which could have a great effect on the trophic ecology of these systems. Finally, it
is clear that without establishing connectivity through the whole system, only marginal
improvements will be seen in fish diversity, and lagoons will be islands in a sea of poor habitats.
It is strongly recommended that rehabilitation projects be designed in a catchment context

(Appendix 2). Sheep Station Ck. showed that by starting at the top and working down there is less
chance of: 1) fish kills due to downstream flow of poor water quality from infested upstream
reaches, 2) downstream supply of weeds from upstream infested areas, 3) the fish species will
follow the open water downstream with little threat of being trapped in weeded reaches. It is also
recommended that reaches be selected as fish refuges while works are being conducted. These
reaches should include good riparian cover, low or controlled emergent exotic grass cover (this
binds water hyacinth and creates stable mats that are difficult to remove and reduce water quality
in the water column under the mat). Use control measures that remove the weed rather than killing
it with chemicals and letting it sink. This reduces vital habitats in-stream by smothering native
submerged plants, increasing oxygen demand and it is not known how the chemicals may impact
larval and juvenile fish. These areas may prove vital in sustaining fish diversity and allowing for
migration to newly rehabilitated habitats.
Weed management issues:
Removal of existing weed mats is only the first step in successful rehabilitation. Two key
questions emerge:
1) How can they be prevented from returning?
2) What new problems might develop and how can they be best managed?
Improvements will be sustained in the long-term only if control methods are efficient and
inexpensive. Expensive labour intensive control measures such as harvesting and poisoning may
be acceptable (and necessary) in the short to medium term, but less labour intensive methods will
need to be found to ensure that momentum is maintained.

Incorporate the findings of priority 1 & 2 research programs into an integrated plant and
water quality management plan
Test different methods of killing problem weed species (eg. Salt, steam, water level
manipulation)
Continually review developments in weed control methods and trial different techniques
for inhibiting the growth of undesirable plant species
Develop and test methods to improve the efficiency of mechanical weed removal. An
example of these research outcomes might be:
o Use of brine to break up weed mats and reduce above water biomass, then use a
flow pulse to move weeds downstream to collection points where they can be

easily removed of left high and dry by lowering water levels. See appendix 4 for
more detail.
Drivers of aquatic plant community change
Development of more effective aquatic weed biological control (particularly for water
hyacinth).
Grazing regimes for pasture grass weed control and habitat maintenance.
Potential role of grazing and seasonal water level drawdown as part of an integrated
approach for the broad acre control of Water hyacinth and emergent pasture grasses
Water quality characteristics and fish habitat values of lagoons with extensive growth of
native submerged macrophytes i.e. ‘duckweed’
Identification of reaches for refuge, using riparian vegetation, possibly grazing and other
non-chemical means to control weeds, therefore allowing fish assemblages areas of refuge
from weed control works and associated in-stream impacts.
Research is needed on the long-term effects of chemical weed control on the stream biota.
Effectiveness of turbid irrigation water at controlling build up of submerged plant biomass
Application of these weed removal activities in catchments without supplemental flows
(this is very important as other catchments without supplemental flows do not have the
ability to artificially manage water quality in modified lagoons after weed removal works
7.2.5 Fish Passage Issues
One of the greatest impacts to stream and river fish assemblages is migration barriers. In the
Burdekin floodplain these barriers include; weirs, sand dams, drop board structures, high velocity
culverts, high velocity flows, chemical barriers created by weed infestation, bund walls in the
lower reaches. All of these barriers restrict recruitment of the many saltwater derived species
(notably Barramundi) and inhibit within stream movement of freshwater species. Within the
distributary streams the main barriers are weeded reaches and lagoons, and drop board structures.
The issue of chemical barriers is being addressed as described above. Methods for removal of
drop boards during peak migration times needs to be addressed. At present drop boards are
removed for wet seasons to allow for flooding. The time at which they are replaced is vital to fish
movement. It should be considered that not all fish will be moving back upstream at the same
time or during peak flows. Many native fish will move during the falling stage of the flood when
velocities have dropped. Therefore they may need an extended period after the peak of flood
waters that the drop boards remain removed. At the lower end of these streams there is a network
of bund walls that may also affect upstream migration of fish after floodwaters recede.
Bund walls used to establish ponded pastures are extensive in the lower Burdekin. Generally these
structures flood easily allowing for passage, but due to the standing water now available due to
irrigation, extensive beds of Cumbungi now cover many of the bunded areas. It is not known it
these stands of Cumbungi are capable of creating fish barriers but further investigation is needed.
The bunds may also inhibit base flow movement between the fresh and saltwater, as many species
will invade the lower reaches of these streams throughout the year on the spring tides (eg Mullet,
Barramundi, Scats, Milkfish, Giant herring, Tarpon). Within the Burdekin River itself there are
also many barriers.
The irrigation infrastructure is based around extraction pools created either by sand dams or weirs.
Within the river these create migration barriers. The main barrier is Clare weir, which has
effectively cut off almost 100 km of river upstream, from migrating fish. It is highly
recommended that the fish way on this structure be updated and monitored so that natural
recruitment may again take place in areas such as the Bogie R., Bowen R. and the Burdekin R. to
Gorge weir. Downstream the sand dams have overflows that allow for passage, so migration is not
all together blocked.


The role of bunded drainage depressions in the maintenance of the freshwater seawater
interface
Fish movement and water quality interactions during flood flows
Migration timing for various fish species so that replacement of drop boards does not
interfere with upstream migration
Effectiveness of Cumbungi as both a physical and chemical barrier
Fish way design on Clare weir
Culvert design to reduce flow velocities, using baffles and small boulders to create eddys,
breaking the flow up
7.2.6 Water Management
Flow is a major factor affecting water quality and habitat condition in the Burdekin floodplain.
However with the modified nature of the floodplain it is feasible to utilize the irrigation water for
environmental flows, and the results suggest to some extent that the streams could benefit from
supplemental flows if they are managed in the right way. In section 4 it was shown that
supplemental flows may prevent severe minimum oxygen sags by the physical mixing of flowing
water. This can be used as an environmental flow thereby increasing oxygen in degraded reaches.
Under natural dry season conditions, Burdekin floodplain lagoons would experience high
variability in diel oxygen cycling. This is even more extreme in the late dry/early wet when
showers occur and there are a series of warm overcast days following the showers. It is these
times that natural fish kills occur even in the most intact habitats. Presently in the Burdekin,
habitats and water quality are degraded and therefore the resilience of the biological community
may not be very high. When these conditions occur there is generally low demand for irrigation
water, flows decrease, the oxygen content falls and the occurrence of fish kills increases (A.
Darwen, pers. comm.). What the supplemental flows essentially do is reduce the diel variability in
oxygen content as well as increase the minimum oxygen content by adding mixing to the overall
mass balance of oxygen in the water column. It is therefore strongly recommended that
investigations be carried out on the use of irrigation water for environmental flows and determine
the conditions in which to these flows apply.
Lastly the supplemental flows are typically high in suspended sediment, this may affect fish
species and aquatic plant growth. It is recommended that turbidity be a target variable in any
future water quality investigations, especially as it may play a key role in controlling the biomass
of aquatic plants.

Impacts and potential benefits of Water Board pumping regimes including interactions
with water quality
Potential benefits of using environmental flows to maintain healthy water quality
Long-term impacts of herbicide use in the distribution streams, on water quality and
bioaccumulation
How increasing biomass of submerged plants will impact oxygen cycling
Identification of fish kill conditions (Oct.-Dec. when temperatures are high and there may
be days of still overcast conditions after rains) where pumping might be suspended and
instream oxygen content will fall. Pumping water through these periods may prevent fish
kills by increasing the minimum oxygen levels through mixing.

8.0 REFERENCES
ACTFR, 1994. Burdekin River Irrigation Area Flora and Fauna Survey. Australian Centre for
Tropical Freshwater Research, James Cook University, Townsville. Report No. 94/10.
ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000. National Water Quality Guidelines. Australia New Zealand

Environment Conservation Council.
Arthington, A.H., J. Marshall, G. Rayment, H. Hunter and S. Bunn. 1997. Potential impacts of
sugarcane production on the riparian and freshwater environment. In: Intensive Sugar
Cane Production: Meeting the Challenges Beyond 2000 (eds. B.A. Keating and J.R
Wilson), CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp. 403-421.
Battle, J.M. and Mihuc, T.B. 2000. Decomposition dynamics of aquatic macrophytes in the lower
Atchafalaya, a large floodplain river. Hydrobiologia. 418: 123-136.
Beumer, J.P. 1980. Hydrology and fish diversity of a north Queensland tropical stream. Australian
Journal of Ecology 5:159-186.
BBIFMAC (Burdekin-Bowen Integrated Floodplain Management Advisory Commission) 1998.

Natural Resource Management Plan for Burdekin floodplain.
Bunn, S.E., Davies P.M. and Kellaway D.M. 1997. Contributions of sugar cane and invasive
pasture grass to the aquatic food web of a tropical lowland stream. Marine and Freshwater
Research. 48: 173-179.
Bunn S E, Davies P M, Kellaway D M and Prosser I P. 1998. Influence of invasive macrophytes

on channel morphology and hydrology in an open tropical lowland stream, and potential
control by riparian shading. Freshwater Biology. 39: 171-178.
Butler, B. 2003. Burdekin Basin Water Resource Plan, Current Ecological Condition Report -
Phase 1(Working Version), Appendix E. Queensland Department of Natural Resources.
Cotterell, E. 1998. Fish Passage in Streams: Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings.
Fish Habitat Guideline FHG 001, Fisheries Group, DPI Queensland.
Davis, T.L.O., 1988. Temporal changes in the fish fauna entering a tidal swamp system in tropical
Australia. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 21: 161-172.
Douglas, M.M. and O’Connor, R.A. 2003. Effects of exotic macrophyte, para grass (Urochloa
mutica), on benthic and epiphytic macroinvertebrates of a tropical floodplain. Freshwater
Biology. 48: 962-971.
EPA. 1999. State of the Environment Queensland. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency,
Brisbane.
Gopal, B. and Junk, W.J. 2000. Biodiversity in wetlands: An introduction. In Biodiversity in

wetlands: Assessment, Function and Conservation. (Eds Gopal, B., Junk, W.J. and Davis,
J.A.), Backhuys Publishing, Leiden. pp.1-10.
Halliday, I., Ley, J., Tobin, A., Garrett, R., Gribble, N. and Mayer, D. 2001 The Effects of Net
Fishing: Addressing Biodiversity and Bycatch Issues in Queensland inshore waters. FRDC
project report No. 97/206, QDPI, Southern Fisheries Centre, Deception Bay, Queensland.

Hopley, D. 1970. The Geomorphology of the Burdekin Delta North Queensland. Monograph
Series No. 1, James Cook University, Townsville.
Julien, M. H., Griffiths, M. W. and Stanley, J. N., 2001. Biological Control of Water Hyacinth 2:
The moths Niphograpta albiguttalis and Xubida infusellus: Biologies, Host Ranges, and
Rearing, Releasing and Monitoring Techniques for Biological Control of Eichhornia
crassipes. ACIAR Monograph series, Canberra.
Junk, W.J., Bayley, P.B. and Sparks, R.E. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain
systemsIn Proceedings of the International large river symposium. Canadian Special
Publications Fisheries and Aquaculture Science 106. 110-27.
Kaenel, B.R., Buehrer, H. and Uehlinger, U. 2000. Effects of aquatic plant management on stream
metabolism and oxygen balance in streams. Freshwater Biol. 45: 85-95.
Kennard, M.J. 1995. Factors Influencing Freshwater Fish Assemblages in Floodplain Lagoons of
the Normanby River, Cape York Peninsula: a Large Tropical Australian River. Masters of
Philosophy Thesis, Griffith University, Brisbane. 225 p.
Lokkers, C., Perry, T., James, D. and Perna, C. 2000. Property management assessment, Wongaloo
grazing property. Earthworks Environmental Services Report No. 98c14.2. Townsville,
Queensland, Australia.
Losee, R.F. and Wetzel, R.G. 1993. Littoral flow rates within and around submersed macrophyte
communities. Freshwater Biology 29: 7-17.
Macleay, 1884. Notes on a collection of fishes from the Burdekin and Mary Rivers, Queensland.
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. 8: 199-215.
Matthews, W.J. 1998 Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York.
North Burdekin Water Board. 2000. Thirty-Fifth Annual Report 1999/2000. North Burdekin Water
Board, Ayr, Queensland, Australia.
North Burdekin Water Board. 2001. Thirty-Sixth Annual Report 2000/2001. North Burdekin
Water Board, Ayr, Queensland, Australia.
North Burdekin Water Board. 2002. Thirty-Seventh Annual Report 2001/2002. North Burdekin
Water Board, Ayr, Queensland, Australia.
Pearson, R.G., Butler, B. and Crossland, M. 2003. Effects of Cane-Field Drainage of the Ecology
of Tropical Waterways. Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research, James Cook
University, Townsville. Report No. 03/04
Perna, C. 1996. Seasonal dynamics of coastal stream fish communities in the Townsville region,
Unpublished Honours Thesis, James Cook University, Townsville. 83 p.
Perna, C. 2004. Impacts of Agriculture and Restoration of the Habitat Values, Water Quality and
Fish Assemblages of a Tropical Floodplain. Masters of Science Thesis, James Cook
University, Townsville, Qld. Australia. 144pp.
Pusey, B.J., Arthington, A.H. and Read, M.G. 1993. Spatial and temporal variation in fish
assemblage structure in the Mary River, south-eastern Queensland: the influence of habitat
structure. Environmental Biology of Fishes 37: 355-380.

Pusey, B.J., Arthington, A.H. and Read, M.G. 1995. Species richness and spatial variation in fish
assemblage structure in two rivers of the Wet Tropics of northern Queensland, Australia.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 42. 181-199.
Pusey, B.J. and Kennard, M.J. 1996. Species richness and geographical variation in assemblage
structure of the freshwater fish fauna of the wet tropics region of northern Queensland.
Marine and Freshwater Research. 47: 563-573.
Pusey, B.J. and Arthington, A.H. 2003. Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and
management of freshwater fishes: a review. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
54: 1-16.
Rayment, G.E. 2002. Land use and surface water quality in sugar catchments. CRC for Sustainable
Sugar Production, Water Issue. Indooroopilly.
Scheffer, M., Szaba, S., Grangnani, A., van Nes, E.H., Rinald, S., Kautsky, N., Norberg, J.,
Roijackers, R.M.M., and Franken, R.J.M. 2003. Floating plant dominance as a stable state.
Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 100: 4040-4045.
South Burdekin Water Board. 2000. Thirty-Fifth Annual Report 1999/2000. South Burdekin Water
Board, Home Hill, Queensland, Australia.
South Burdekin Water Board. 2001. Thirty-Sixth Annual Report 2000/2001. South Burdekin
Water Board, Home Hill, Queensland, Australia.
South Burdekin Water Board. 2002. Thirty-Seventh Annual Report 2001/2002. South Burdekin
Water Board, Home Hill, Queensland, Australia.
Tait, J. and Perna, C. 2001. Fish habitat management challenges on an intensively developed
tropical floodplain. RipRap 19, pp.
Webb, A.C. 2003. The Ecology of Invasions of Non-Indigenous Fishes in Northern Queensland.
PhD Thesis, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Wetzel, R.G. 1983. Limnology: Second Edition. CBS college Publishing, New York. 767 p.

APPENDIX 1
HABITAT CONDITION ASSESSMENT TABLE FOR 25 SITES IN THE BURDEKIN FLOODPLAIN

Instream
Depth of Instream cover cover of
Depth submerged of emergent
buffer Continuity of Shading Avg. hight Riparian Dominant instream macrophyte submerged macrophytes
Stie date (m) Riparian (%) of water (%) of trees (m) Dominant Riparian Community Condition community growth (m) macrophytes (%) (%)
Dick's Bank 09/08/01 5 10 5 7 M. dealbata, N. orientalis, 1 E. crassipes*, U. mutica*, 5 10 70
U. mutica*, P. maximum*, T. orientalis, N. nucifora,
L. drudei
Gorizia's 08/08/01 4 10 0 7 L. drudei, M. dealbata, 1 L. hexandra, Vigna spp., T. orientalis, 5 0 100

U. mutica*, P. maximum* U. mutica*, C. scaber
Jack's 08/08/01 0 0 0 10 U. mutica*, M. dealbata, 1 E. crassipes*, U. mutica*, 4 5 95

T. orientalis, L. drudei, C. scaber,
P. aculeata
Kelly's 08/08/01 7 30 5 10 M. dealbata, C. tessellaris, 2 L. hexandra, U. mutica*, S. molesta*, 3 30 25

E. tereticornis, L. drudei N. violacea, N. indica, N. nucifora,
C. dermersum, H. verticillata,
Chara vulgaris
Payard's 24/07/01 20 60 10 20 M. dealbata, M. indica*, 2 U. mutica*, C. demersum, 2 (0) 30 (1) 10 (99)

A. procera H. verticillata, E. crassipes* U. mutica,
E. crassipes, T. orientalis, Cyperus spp.
and L. hexandra
Fowlers 07/08/01 7 20 5 7 M. dealbata, U. mutica, 1 U. mutica, Azolla, C. demersum, 1.5 60 40

P. maximum H. verticillata, Chara vulgaris ,U. gibba,
P. crispus
Inkerman 07/08/01 25 60 20 10 L. drudei, M. dealbata, 3 N. nucifora, C. demersum, U. gibba, 4 40 30

E. tereticornis U. mutica, P. attenuata
Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page A 2-55

Instream
Munro's 09/08/01 5 30 10 16 M. leucadendra, E. tereticornis, 2 E. crassipes, U. mutica, S. molesta, 3 70 20
L. drudei, N. orientalis, C. demersum, N. nucifora
U. mutica, T. orientalis
Princess 07/08/01 12 40 10 8 M. dealbata, C. tessellaris, 2 E. crassipes, U. mutica, C. demersum, 1.5 60 20

U, mutica, P. maximum T. orientalis
Saltwater 08/08/01 15 95 60 10 E. agallocha, M. leucadendra, 3 C. demersum, S. molesta, N. violacea, 1.5 70 80

L. drudei E. crassipes, U. mutica,
H. amplexicaulis
Clay hole 9/08/01 10 90 70 10 M. leucadendra, C. tessellaris, 3 N. violacea, C. demersum, P. attenuata 2 5 20

L. grandiflorus
W. Barratta 30/01/03 10 100 40 15 M. leucadendra, N. orientalis, 3 P. attenuata, S. molesta*, 6 5 10

L. drudei Lomandra, C. demersum
Allen Rd. 30/01/03 20 100 80 12 M. leucadendra, L. drudei, 3 Lomandra, P. attenuata, C. demersum, 3 5 10

Casuarina spp., H. amplexicaulis*
N. orientalis, Pandanus whitei
Burdekin Rocks 30/01/03 30 90 5 10 Complex vine thicket 2 H. verticillata, P. attenuata, 3 10 10

U. mutica*, P. crispus
Clare weir 30/01/03 30 90 50 15 Complex vine thicket 3 H. amplexicaulis*, P. attenuata, 7 2 2

(E. tereticornis, Blyxa spp., N. violaceae, H. verticillata
M. leucadendra)
Glady's 30/01/03 7 60 10 15 C. tessellaris, E. tereticornis, 2 N. nucifora, C. demersum, U. gibba, 4 30 40

U. mutica*, E. platyphylla, U. mutica*, P. attenuata, T. orientalis,
Cryptostegia grandiflora*, Azolla sp.
M. dealbata

Instream
Castelinalli’s 30/01/03 5 20 5 10 U. mutica*, M. dealbata, 2 U. mutica*, C. demersum, H. verticillata, 4 30 10
M. leucadendra, E. tereticornis, N. violaceae, T. orientalis
L. drudei, N. orientalis,
Pandanus whitei, Panicum
maximum*
Horseshoe 30/01/03 0 0 0 10 U. mutica*, H. amplexicaulis*, 2 C. carolinoana*, C. demersum, 3 90 60

M. dealbata, L. drudei E. crassipes, Cyperus spp., T. orientalis,
H. verticillata, Blyxa spp., P. crispus,
H. amplexicaulis*, L. peploides
Woodhouse 30/01/03 10 60 10 10 M. leucadendra, C. tessellaris, 2 N. violacea, C. demersum, U. mutica, 3 30 60

U. mutica*, U. mutica*, L. peploides,
Cryptostegia grandiflora*, Cyperus|Fimbristylis spp.
Parkinsonia aculeata*
Rita Island 30/01/03 20 70 50 15 Complex vine thicket, 3 C. demersum, H. verticillata, P. crispus 3 80 10

(M. leucadendra)
Warrens Gully 30/01/03 10 70 70 10 Complex woodland 3 P. crispus, C. demersum, Blyxa spp. 2 30 40

(Eucalypt and Corymbia
dominated)
Swans 30/01/03 30 70 20 10 E. tereticornis, C. tessellaris, 3 N. indica, Azolla, P. attenuata, 2 70 40
Grazed grass Cyperus spp.,
Hutchings 30/01/03 10 20 10 10 M. indica*, S. samanea, 2 H. verticillata, C. demersum, 4 30 60

L. drudei, E. crassipes*, U. mutica*, T. orientalis
Panicum maximum*, U. mutica*
Lilliesmere 30/01/03 60 40 5 25 M. indica*, S. samanea, 1 Not Available 3 40 30
L. drudei, Panicum maximum*,
U. mutica*
Bowen River 1/09/02 60 60 20 70 Cassuarina spp. and M. 3 Not Available 3 40 10
Junction leucadendra

APPENDIX 2
DETAILED LABORATORY WATER ANALYSIS FROM THE BURDEKIN DELTA

Site Position Date Time Depth (m) BOD Chl a Pha Turb. TSS Total N Ammonia Nitrite Nitrate Total P Fiterable
Reactive P
mg/L µg/L µg/L NTU mg/L µgN/L µgN/L µgN/L µgN/L µgP/L µgP/L
Dick's Bank outlet 28-Aug-2000 0.3 4.7
Dick's Bank down 13-Dec-2001 10:20 0.3 1 1.8 0.3
Dick's Bank up 13-Dec-2001 10:25 0.3 1 2.9 1.4
Dick's Bank upstream 25-Feb-2002 18:00 0.5 8.2 1.3 23.2 13.3 474 14 3.3 2.2 224 138
Dick's Bank upstream 25-Feb-2002 18:00 3.5 4.8 1.6 42.9 22.6 716 342 1.9 4.8 500 335
Dick's Bank middle 25-Feb-2002 18:45 0.5 5.7 1.8 22.5 10.4 490 16 2.4 5.6 210 142
Dick's Bank middle 25-Feb-2002 18:45 4.0 4.8 1.1 39.6 24.4 662 322 1.5 7.2 491 306
Dick's Bank downstream 25-Feb-2002 18:30 0.5 4.3 0.7 23.2 10.3 483 5 2.4 5.6 238 157
Dick's Bank downstream 25-Feb-2002 18:30 1.5 11.0 2.2 27.2 16.8 569 14 2.4 4.4 299 191
Dick's Bank downstream 19-Mar-2002 12:17 0.3 17.4 3.0 54.8 34 452 12 3.4 52.2 78 34
Dick's Bank downstream 19-Mar-2002 12:22 1 15.7 4.8 54.4 36 365 17 3.4 51.3 75 31
Dick's Bank middle 19-Mar-2002 12:40 0.3 31.0 9.4 52.6 43 584 24 3.8 85.3 115 30
Dick's Bank middle 19-Mar-2002 12:45 2 4.0 2.5 61.4 26 377 37 3.7 95 86 30
Dick's Bank upstream 19-Mar-2002 12:52 0.3 26.7 3.5 62.9 41 420 16 2.9 76.7 89 24
Dick's Bank upstream 19-Mar-2002 12:59 4 3.5 1.8 69.5 39 418 46 3.1 130.0 86 30
Fowlers upstream 23-Oct-2001 07:15 0.1 1.6 0.6 31 191 10 1.3 9 39 25
Fowlers middle 23-Oct-2001 07:20 0.1 0.8 1.3 22 205 11 0.9 9 44 23
Fowlers downstream 23-Oct-2001 06:40 0.1 0.3 0.5 28 214 11 0.9 9 46 24
Fowlers middle 25-Feb-2002 12:30 0.3 41.9 11.0 15.6 25.8 629 2 0.9 3.9 75 9
Gorizia's top culvert 28-Aug-2000 0.3 1.2
Gorizia's down 13-Dec-2001 09:40 0.3 1 3.9 1.5
Gorizia's up 13-Dec-2001 10:00 0.3 1 1.9 1.1
Gorizia's upstream 25-Feb-2002 16:00 0.3 5.3 0.2 22.9 12.7 648 71 0.5 8.1 332 198
Gorizia's downstream 25-Feb-2002 16:30 0.3 0.7 1.8 25.5 16.8 662 93 0.5 7.2 397 226
Gorizia's upstream 19-Mar-2002 10:00 0.3 4.5 3.3 30.7 15.3 441 34.7 3.4 23 105 40
Gorizia's upstream 19-Mar-2002 10:10 1.5 4.3 3.0 31.1 15 407 38 3.2 23 108 46
Gorizia's middle 19-Mar-2002 10:25 0.5 4.8 2.3 26.2 12.8 398 44 2.2 12.1 152 50

Reactive P
Gorizia's middle 19-Mar-2002 10:35 3 2.9 1.9 25.9 12 478 46 2.0 10.3 110 52
Gorizia's downstream 19-Mar-2002 10:45 0.3 2.1 2.5 22.7 9.3 399 49 1.7 5.0 112 64
Gorizia's downstream 19-Mar-2002 10:50 1.5 3 0.5 23.5 12 438 20 2.0 3.8 112 64
Inkerman middle 06-Feb-2001 00:30 0.3 6.7 4.9
Inkerman upstream 23-Oct-2001 13:30 0.1 5.1 1.5 1.6 455 9 1.3 10 33 9.5
Inkerman middle 23-Oct-2001 14:25 0.1 7.7 1.4 3.1 484 10 1.3 11 33 8.7
Inkerman downstream 23-Oct-2001 14:55 0.1 15 1.2 4.1 538 3 1.0 7 51 15
Inkerman upstream 25-Mar-2002 11:45 0.3 33.1 14.4 8.7 14.6 804 7 1.3 5.0 92 8.5
Inkerman upstream 25-Mar-2002 12:20 1.5 18.7 58.4 23.1 13 625 2 1.4 4.4 335 110
Inkerman upstream 25-Mar-2002 12:25 3.5 11.8 12.2 7.0 10 651 440 1.4 3.9 80 9.2
Inkerman middle 25-Mar-2002 12:30 0.3 15.0 20.9 7.2 8.5 629 4 2.0 2.9 98 28
Inkerman middle 25-Mar-2002 12:35 3 109.1 126.0 17.2 33 1627 4 1.4 3.5 238 11
Inkerman downstream 25-Mar-2002 12:45 1.5 15.5 26.0 7.7 10.4 862 52 4.1 2 121 32
Inkerman upstream 25-Feb-2002 10:10 0.5 26.2 5.2 8.4 9.0 689 9 3.1 4.8 135 52
Inkerman upstream 25-Feb-2002 10:10 4.5 4.8 4.2 33.4 26.6 638 229 1.5 7.9 197 76
Inkerman middle 25-Feb-2002 10:35 0.5 15.5 9.9 9.6 10.4 609 5 2.3 11.4 133 59
Inkerman middle 25-Feb-2002 10:35 4.5 6.9 6.5 28.7 58.1 572 225 2.3 6.8 164 78
Inkerman downstream 25-Feb-2002 10:50 0.5 19.2 10.3 9.2 11.6 535 7 3.1 5.9 122 69
Inkerman downstream 25-Feb-2002 10:50 3.0 24.0 24.6 27.4 18.1 725 18 1.8 8.5 243 111
Jack's upstream 28-Aug-2000 0.3 2.2
Jack's middle 28-Aug-2000 0.3 1.7
Jack's downstream 28-Aug-2000 0.3 2.4
Jack's outlet 06-Feb-2001 10:30 0.3 5.1 4.3
Kelly's middle 06-Feb-2001 11:00 0.3 26 15
Kelly's upstream 01-Mar-2002 11:15 0.3 15.0 4.7 5.5 7.2 939 7 1.5 6.6 262 151
Kelly's upstream 01-Mar-2002 11:15 2 18.2 14.7 13.8 13.2 839 14 1.8 5.7 419 208
Kelly's middle 01-Mar-2002 11:25 0.3 82.8 14.8 6.3 9.0 629 2 2.1 5.4 254 156
Kelly's middle 01-Mar-2002 11:25 2.5 17.6 5.2 30.8 26.8 727 20 2.0 8.0 513 242
Kelly's downstream 01-Mar-2002 11:35 0.3 47.0 26.3 5.3 9.6 491 10 1.9 5.6 265 156
Kelly's downstream 01-Mar-2002 11:35 1.5 42.2 7.5 16.1 17.2 801 18 3.3 8.6 484 223
Kelly's upstream 19-Mar-2002 13:32 0.3 14.6 5.3 5.6 11 577 2 0.9 4 170 70

Reactive P
Kelly's upstream 19-Mar-2002 13:42 2 19.6 7.1 7.1 10 588 60 1.1 3.8 175 67
Kelly's middle 19-Mar-2002 13:50 0.3 32.4 8.0 7.4 19 650 2 1.0 4.3 178 72
Kelly's middle 19-Mar-2002 13:55 2.5 23.5 16.1 9.6 17 695 4 0.9 3.9 309 111
Kelly's downstream 19-Mar-2002 14:00 0.3 48.1 13.8 12.2 20 968 1 1.1 3.8 224 70
Kelly's downstream 19-Mar-2002 14:05 2.5 33.6 24.7 8.0 16 719 4 1.2 3.2 167 70
Payard's downstream 24-Jul-2001 14:00 0.3 1
below culvert
Munro's upstream 23-Oct-2001 11:00 0.1 11 1.2 3.0 272 2 2.1 8 44 18
Munro's middle 23-Oct-2001 10:20 0.1 6.9 1.5 2.8 268 2 1.2 5 40 23
Munro's downstream 23-Oct-2001 09:40 0.1 3.7 0.6 2.0 268 6 1.2 4 40 24
Munro's middle 01-Mar-2002 12:30 0.3 1.6 0.2 13.1 13.2 830 2 2.3 7.1 575 248
Munro's Upstream 01-Mar-2002 12:30 4 8.5 2.7 34.9 7.1 594 188 2.3 11.8 374 293
Munro's downstream 01-Mar-2002 12:50 0.3 19.2 14.8 7.2 6.8 618 49 2.3 5.7 634 272
Munro's downstream 01-Mar-2002 12:50 2 19.8 1.9 13.6 10.2 531 13 3.2 4.7 516 214
Munro's upstream 06-Jun-2002 14:20 0.3 16.0 4.4 1.8 2.3 279 3 0.5 4.8 45 20
Munro's middle 06-Jun-2002 14:40 0.7 8.8 8.8 2.0 2.4 243 4 0.4 4.5 46 18
Munro's middle 06-Jun-2002 14:45 1.5 4.5 5.9 2.1 2.8 221 2 0.3 5 46 17
Munro's middle 06-Jun-2002 14:47 3.5 8.0 3.4 1.9 2.8 221 3 0.7 4 48 16
Munro's downstream 06-Jun-2002 14:50 0.7 5.1 3.2 2.6 2.8 234 4 1.0 4 51 19
Munro's downstream 06-Jun-2002 14:52 2.4 2.7 5.2 2.8 3.5 225 1 0.8 4 53 19
Payard's inlet 02-Aug-2000 13:10 0.3 27 12 240 14 0.3 1.1 45 20
Payard's outlet 02-Aug-2000 15:45 0.3 11 4.4 208 7.1 0.2 2.3 30 17
Payard's middle 02-Aug-2000 16:20 0.3 35 19 194 14 1 8.4 32 17
Payard's inlet 26-Aug-2000 11:00 0.3 2.6 0.2 2 9.5 267 2 7.3 68
Payard's outlet 26-Aug-2000 11:30 0.3 2.9 0.7 2.8 8 240 2 9.4 49
Payard's upstream 28-Aug-2000 0.3 11
Payard's middle 28-Aug-2000 0.3 9.8

Reactive P
Payard's downstream 28-Aug-2000 0.3 13
Payard's middle 06-Feb-2001 10:00 0.3 3.5 4
Payard's upstream 24-Jul-2001 14:00 0.3 1
Payard's downstream 24-Jul-2001 14:00 0.3 1
Payard's upstream 06-Dec-2001 06:45 0.1 0.5 1.9 19 293 9 1.3 23 57 31
Payard's middle 06-Dec-2001 07:05 0.1 1.3 1.3 13 272 10 1.0 21 53 28
Payard's downstream 06-Dec-2001 07:46 0.1 4.8 2.3 15 301 10 1.2 10 62 29
Payard's down 13-Dec-2001 10:45 0.3 1 1.6 1
Payard's outlet 18-Feb-2002 12:20 0.3 0.2 1.5 77.0 4.4 824 47 9.9 245.7 293 201
Payard's downstream 25-Feb-2002 15:00 0.5 10.0 6.5 24.2 17.5 584 15 0.6 1.0 209 138
Payard's downstream 25-Feb-2002 15:00 3.0 5.3 2.4 36.5 19.6 515 36 5.2 10.2 309 251
Payard's middle 25-Feb-2002 15:20 0.5 15.3 5.4 21.7 15.3 606 17 0.8 7.8 226 138
Payard's middle 25-Feb-2002 15:20 4.0 3.2 1.7 42.1 27.6 606 180 1.8 6.8 553 445
Payard's upstream 25-Feb-2002 15:30 0.5 24.2 8.2 27.5 21.0 698 6 0.5 9.0 251 143
Payard's upstream 25-Feb-2002 15:30 1.5 18.2 6.1 42.2 58.6 764 16 0.5 9.0 204 85
Payard's upstream 19-Mar-2002 14:45 0.3 13.9 4.8 69.2 48 422 18 2.3 46 92 29
Payard's upstream 19-Mar-2002 14:50 2.5 8.8 1.0 71.4 40 358 11 2.3 96.7 78 31
Payard's middle 19-Mar-2002 15:15 0.3 19.8 4.2 6.8 53 383 14 2.6 57.3 79 28
Payard's middle 19-Mar-2002 15:17 2.5 3.9 1.8 75.1 46 341 15 2.7 101.1 72 24
Payard's downstream 19-Mar-2002 15:23 0.3 3.2 4.5 74.7 35 369 15 2.7 92.9 75 29
Payard's downstream 19-Mar-2002 15:24 3 10.7 54.7 80.1 39.2 355 50 3.2 105.1 82 29
Princess upstream 23-Oct-2001 15:10 0.1 3.2 0.3 5.5 324 3 1.1 7 54 20
Princess middle 23-Oct-2001 15:20 0.1 1.1 0.6 3.1 268 3 1.6 6 61 33
Princess downstream 23-Oct-2001 14:45 0.1 5.3 1.4 3.8 270 19 1.7 6 59 31
Princess Middle 01-Mar-2002 13:45 0.3 21.4 1.6 13.9 11.0 647 9 2.8 9.6 570 272
Saltwater middle 06-Feb-2001 13:30 0.3 2.8 4.3 5.3
Saltwater outlet 06-Feb-2001 14:00 0.3 5.9 8.7
Saltwater upstream 23-Oct-2001 12:20 0.1 17 12 25 547 8 1.2 4 49 12
Saltwater middle 23-Oct-2001 12:00 0.1 50 14 20 754 7 1.8 3 96 21
Saltwater downstream 23-Oct-2001 11:15 0.1 70 23 17 822 48 1.6 5 97 16
Saltwater outlet 18-Feb-2002 13:40 0.3 0.8 0.3 26.9 11.6 490 15 7.7 60.2 251 196

Reactive P
Saltwater downstream 25-Mar-2002 11:35 1.5 4.7 7.9 8.8 8.3 491 2 1.3 3.6 241 90
Payard's upstream 11-Nov-2002 10:59 0.5 2.4 1.15 16.3 17 412 11.1 0.8 7.5 40 21.2
Payard's upstream 11-Nov-2002 10:55 1.5 0.1 20.04 19.8 12 293 8.4 1 7.3 43 21.8
Payard's upstream 11-Nov-2002 11:01 0.2 1.07 2.11 10.7 12 302 8.7 1 3.6 36 14.9
Payard's mid-stream 11-Nov-2002 11:15 2 12.82 3.26 12.7 3.7 266 4 0.9 6.1 36.4 20.8
Payard's mid-stream 11-Nov-2002 11:25 5 24.3 5.23 24.3 8.3 270 14.8 0.8 5.8 35 15.8
Payard's downstream 11-Nov-2002 11:27 0.2 8.19 7.51 11.3 9.6 286 5.8 0.9 5 33.7 17
Payard's downstream 11-Nov-2002 11:37 2.5 2.14 2.35 10.2 7.9 250 11.9 0.6 2.7 25.8 11.5
Payard's downstream 11-Nov-2002 11:47 5 3.47 0.83 17.1 7.2 305 29.3 0.75 7.5 36.8 14.7
Kelly's upstream 11-Nov-2002 12:15 0.2 2.36 777 10.5 1 3.6 39.2 8.4
Kelly's upstream 11-Nov-2002 12:21 1.5 5.55 741 7.7 1.1 4.3 43.6 11.4
Kelly's upstream 11-Nov-2002 12:25 2.5 4.43 1025 49.5 2.2 10.25 90.4 14.1
Kelly's downstream 11-Nov-2002 12:27 0.2 3.67 784 8.8 1 7.3 45.9 9.5
Kelly's downstream 11-Nov-2002 12:31 1 4.44 887 3.8 1 3.1 66.1 11.2
Kelly's downstream 11-Nov-2002 12:37 2.5 4.28 959 39.2 1.1 5.9 74 10.8
Dick's Bank downstream 11-Nov-2002 13:00 0.2 4.6 291 8.7 0.7 4.3 25.5 9.8
Dick's Bank downstream 11-Nov-2002 13:03 1.5 14 273 2.8 0.5 3.6 27.9 10.9
Dick's Bank downstream 11-Nov-2002 13:06 3 5.9 296 8.5 0.5 6.1 27 10
Dick's Bank Midstream 11-Nov-2002 13:15 0.2 4.84 295 3.7 0.7 6.3 24.7 10.8
Dick's Bank midstream 11-Nov-2002 13:19 2 6.79 279 3 0.6 8.1 26.6 11.2
Dick's Bank midstream 11-Nov-2002 13:23 4 13.5 257 3.8 1.1 3.5 30 12.9
Dick's Bank upstream 11-Nov-2002 13:50 0.2 3.74 0.56 2.85 3.3 291 2.7 0.5 9.8 26.6 10.8
Dick's Bank upstream 11-Nov-2002 13:54 2 2.14 0.29 2.61 3.5 279 4 0.8 5.8 29.3 12.7
Dick's Bank upstream 11-Nov-2002 13:57 3.5 9.61 0.36 2.69 3.5 309 19.2 0.8 9.9 33.8 16
Gorizia's upstream 11-Nov-2002 14:24 0.2 3.74 0.37 1.69 1.7 327 2.5 0.6 8.5 26.6 10
Gorizia's upstream 11-Nov-2002 14:32 2 1.6 0.85 3.32 2.7 297 3.1 0.75 10.6 25 9.2
Gorizia's midstream 11-Nov-2002 14:35 0.2 7.48 2.99 3.62 2.5 312 1.5 0.7 6 22.9 8.9
Gorizia's midstream 11-Nov-2002 14:38 1.5 5.34 2.14 3.52 3.4 273 2 0.6 10.6 21.8 9.8
Gorizia's midstream 11-Nov-2002 14:41 2.9 6.14 3.58 3.09 4.6 273 2.3 0.7 7.6 20.8 10.3
Gorizia's downstream 11-Nov-2002 14:46 0.2 3.47 2.32 1.83 1.9 295 1.4 0.7 11.7 23 9.8
Gorizia's downstream 11-Nov-2002 14:51 2.5 16.38 12.28 7.98 4.1 320 1.6 0.4 6.5 27 6.9

Reactive P
Jack's upstream 11-Nov-2002 15:05 0.3 3.09 2.22 2.14 2.5 336 7 0.6 9 20.3 6.3
Jack's downstream 11-Nov-2002 15:15 0.3 0.53 0.59 1.85 0.7 383 33.8 0.8 5 43 17.6
Saltwater downstream 12-Nov-2002 10:10 0.3 0.71 2.53 24.55 46 530 15.3 0.9 5.7 36.4 4.9
Inkerman upstream 12-Nov-2002 10:45 0.2 0.8 1.63 17.1 15 415 4.8 0.4 3.4 26.4 4
Inkerman upstream 12-Nov-2002 10:58 2 1.07 1.55 17 15 371 4.7 0.4 6.9 25.5 4.1
Inkerman upstream 12-Nov-2002 11:02 4 416 41 1.3 11.1 41.4 5.8
Inkerman midstream 12-Nov-2002 11:10 0.2 497 35.6 0.5 3.3 21.9 3.3
Inkerman midstream 12-Nov-2002 11:15 2 326 30.2 0.7 4.7 21.8 4
Inkerman midstream 12-Nov-2002 11:20 3.5 372 8.9 1.1 8.6 33 6
Inkerman downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:21 0.2 324 27.5 0.6 7.1 19.7 2.7
Inkerman downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:25 2 343 3.2 0.9 6.8 25.6 3.2
Inkerman downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:27 3 394 12.5 0.9 12.6 29.3 3.8
Munro's downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:50 0.2 324 31 0.6 3.2 37.9 11.1
Munro's downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:54 2 308 1.1 0.6 4.4 41.4 16.8
Munro's downstream 12-Nov-2002 11:58 4 309 1.6 1.4 5.9 148.3 50
Munro's upstream 12-Nov-2002 12:00 0.2 294 4.6 0.6 5.8 37.8 11.5
Princess midstream 12-Nov-2002 12:20 0.3 267 37.8 0.4 6.1 30.6 13.1
Fowlers upstream 12-Nov-2002 13:00 0.2 292 11.4 2.2 14.7 27.6 11.5
Fowlers upstream 12-Nov-2002 13:02 1 302 35 2.1 13.3 32.2 11.5
Fowlers midstream 12-Nov-2002 13:05 0.2 322 34.3 2.7 14.7 28.5 12.2
Fowlers midstream 12-Nov-2002 13:08 1.5 292 29.1 2.9 12.6 27.8 8.8
Fowlers downstream 12-Nov-2002 13:10 0.2 307 12.4 4.05 18.5 26.9 11.2
Fowlers downstream 12-Nov-2002 13:12 1 313 29.4 4 17.9 29.3 10.8
Fowlers downstream 12-Nov-2002 13:13 1.5 306 33.3 4 23.3 30 12.6

APPENDIX 3
FISH HABITAT CONSERVATION AND REHABILITATION RECOMMENDATIONS: A

PILOT STUDY ON CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT IN SHEEP STATION CK.
The remnant habitats identified in the distributary streams provide vital refuge from prevailing
poor conditions. It is these habitat types that need priority identification and conservation status to
maintain some ecological resilience in the streams to habitat impacts. Here are the main points
from the findings in Sheep Station Ck., specifically addressing fish habitat requirements that
should be addressed when planning catchment management within and outside of the Burdekin
floodplain. For a complete catchment management plan see Tait (in press).
• Any fish habitat conservation or rehabilitation should be considered in a catchment

contexts as streams are interconnected through flow and riparian habitat corridors
o Restoring sections of catchments or streams will provide refuges with little
value to the catchment as a whole if issues such as fish passage, riparian
revegetation, and wildlife corridors are not considered. Restoring Payard’s
lagoon on Sheep Station Ck. showed recovery but was limited by
restrictions on fish migration blockages downstream. After 12 months and
extensive weed removal downstream fish diversity increased again due to
the removal of migration barriers, therefore barriers between remnant
habitats and rehabilitated habitats must be managed and maintained.
• Due to the natural flow of water downstream any rehabilitation works should begin
the upper sections
o In some cases, such as the high level of weed infestation in the Burdekin
floodplain, highly invasive works may need to be employed to rehabilitate
fish habitats. These works can cause major fluctuations in water quality
both within the site being rehabilitated and downstream. When working on
a stream that is fully degraded working from the upstream down will
prevent to rapid of recruitment of fish and thus the increased possibility of
fish kills due to the fluctuations in water quality.
• Do largely to the fragmentation of habitats by agricultural activities, habitats that
retain high values should be regarded as vulnerable and considered in any regional
NRM planning to preserve refuge areas for fish and other wildlife
o Declaration such as Fish Habitat Areas under the Fisheries Act 1994, nature
refuge under the Environmental Protection Agency can be used to prevent
future impacts on these remnants and also provides public profile of there
importance to the overall nature conservation of the area.
• Surveys should be conducted to identify these key refuge habitats so that
rehabilitation works can be planned to optimise direct input of fish species from
these habitats. This should include identification of flow paths and connectivity
from the highly impacted sites to the remnant sites.
o Mapping of remnant habitats and drainage pathways will allow for
maximizing rehabilitation efforts in the degraded sections of the stream.
• Weed infestation is one of the main drivers in poor water quality and thus low fish
diversity and therefore needs to be addressed in any habitat management planning
o See appendix 4.
• Any habitat identified, as remnant, should not be part of any long-term chemical
weed control or highly invasive rehabilitation works. These areas should be left as
low impact, so that they may continue to act as refuge from either rehabilitation
works or poor conditions
o By reducing chemical and mechanical weed control and utilizing already
existing less impacted reaches fish communities will utilize these areas as

refuge from the impacts of the rehabilitation works and then be able to
migrate out into the rehabilitated habitats.
• In-stream habitat management should be complimented by riparian revegetation and
management. This will allow for increase habitat values and creates refuges as the
rehabilitation works progress
o Riparian revegetation is very important in maintaining instream habitat and
water quality. Research into the most suitable tree species for revegetation
will optimise benefits of revegetation to fish habitat quality.
• The practice of fire for weed control in riparian areas needs to be addressed and
alternatives such as grazing (where appropriate) should be considered (see Burdekin
Rangelands to Reef Initiative project on reintroduction of grazing in the Burdekin
floodplain).
o Due to the growth of introduced grass species fires burn hotter in these
areas, thus killing existing riparian trees and inhibiting recruitment,
alternative weed control must be found.

APPENDIX 4
WEED MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR TROPICAL FRESHWATER LAGOONS
Invasive weed growth in the Burdekin delta is the main driver of poor oxygen content. This
appears to be closely linked to determining the fish assemblages in the floodplain lagoons. It has
been shown throughout this report that weed removal is effective at restoring oxygen content and
fish diversity in the short to medium term (See Tait, in press, Perna, 2003 and in this report section
6 for weed removal results and recommendation specific to the Burdekin delta). Within the
Burdekin floodplain large-scale weed removal projects are being conducted and the results are
good but how do these methods apply to other catchments?
Due to the supplemental flows within the Burdekin floodplain impacts from mechanical weed
removal can be diluted by the supplemental flows. If the flows were not present there would be a
major issue of creating much worse water quality by invasive works required to remove the weeds.
In catchments without supplemental flows timing and location of works will be vital to avoid
creating lethal water quality events. In general weed management plans should include but not be
limited to the following and it is vital to understand the hydrology of the catchment so that water
quality impacts may be minimized:
• Weed removal must be planned in a catchment context and include a wide range of
approaches (Tait, in press):
1. Integrated using biological, chemical and mechanical means
Biological control has had mixed results in the tropics for water hyacinth,
plans are being made to establish weevil nurseries so that continuous
supply for seeding is available
Research has yet to establish the long-term effects of chemical use on the
biota and habitat in waterways and lagoons. In Appendix 1 it was
recommended that selected reaches with the least degraded habitats be
excluded from chemical weed control so that these areas may act as
refuge from any direct or indirect impacts of chemical use.
At present the floating weed harvester available in the Burdekin is capable
of conducting most weed removal projects, however with anything of this
sort designs modifications or alternative machinery may be more
economically affordable and removal efficiency increased. Alternatives
must be examined for both major removal efforts and long-term
maintenance.
2. Hydrological control using modified flows or timing controls in natural

hydrology’s with flow events to optimise impact to weed infestations while
minimizing impacts to water quality:
Within the Burdekin sustained water levels have been linked with weed
infestations. In these cases creating drawdown may aid in controlling
floating weeds such as water hyacinth.
Again in the Burdekin with the modified flows, utilizing high pump rates
to push floating weed mats into collection points (bottle necks, culverts
with gates, embayments etc. could be used to reduce times and locations
for mechanical weed removal.
In catchments without altered hydrology weed removal works should be
conducted so that wet season flows will follow the works, thus flushing
poor water quality and remaining weed fragments, this is likely to work
best in the Wet tropics where wet season flows are more predictable.
Removing weed in lagoons that may not get a flush for months may create
conditions for fish kills. This could also be used in a modified hydrology
context as a method of increasing efficiency and cost cutting.

3. Manipulation of salinity and the use of brine spray may be an effective alternative
to chemical use.
In the bunded coastal plain of most catchments on the east coast of
Australia plants such as the bulrush cumbungi has proliferated. This is
due to the ponding of freshwater upstream of the bunds. Installing tidal
gates in the bunds would be an effecting way of controlled introduction of
saltwater to kill back some of the stands of cumbungi. Research into the
feasibility is needed and any environmental impacts before wide-scale
application.
The ACTFR is presently looking at the use of brine spray to control water
hyacinth. Initial trials show a high level of resistance however by
incorporating the plants biology, specifically senescence during cooler
months combined with brine may be more effecting. Alternatively
incorporating steam and brine to increase salt penetration and speed up
wilting may be more effecting.
4. Emergent pasture grass control through grazing and revegetation. As was shown
in this report grasses such as paragrass, rice and in the future hymenchne will bind
water hyacinth mats together creating a floating hydroponic layer of weed that is
very difficult and expensive to remove mechanically as well as being somewhat
resistant to chemical control as propogules and vegetative regrowth occurs from
underneath where the chemical was not effective in killing the plant. By reducing
the cover of these grasses on the banks it will reduce costs of water hyacinth
control instream.
Presently grasses are burned in many of the streams and this posses
problems with killing remaining riparian trees and restricting recruitment.
The use of grazing is being investigated as an effective means of
controlling riparian grassy weeds (See Burdekin Rangelands to Reef
Initiative project by Wetland Care Australia).
Develop cost effective mechanical means to remove these grasses and
then replace with less invasive grass species that do not grow onto water
hyacinth mats.

Fish Habitat Assessment and rehabilitation in the Burdekin Delta Distributary Streams ACTFR Report No. 03/22
APPENDIX 5
PROGRESS REPORT ON THE EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF THE

EFFECTS OF AQUATIC WEED POISONING ON WATER QUALITY.
By Barry Butler
1.0 Introduction
The field observations discussed throughout this report suggest that weed-induced hypoxia (a
chronic lack of dissolved oxygen) imposes more direct and serious constraints on the habitat
values of the Burdekin Floodplain wetlands than any other water quality parameter. Field
trials have now demonstrated that mechanical harvesting and/or manual removal of floating
weed mats from weed infested waterways results in the subsequent recolonisation by hypoxia-
intolerant animal species (e.g. fish).
Although it is yet to be determined if these improvements can be sustained in the long term,
the unequivocal evidence of significant benefits in the short to medium term provide grounds
for optimism regarding the effectiveness of physical weed removal strategies. However,
mechanical harvesting is expensive and is not always feasible in some of the less accessible
wetlands, hence there is a need to employ other techniques, including herbicide applications.
It is well established that poisoning can effectively remove floating weeds from the water
surface thereby creating open waterbodies with a relatively healthy appearance. However,
herbicide applications have two major potential drawbacks:
1) Dead plants are retained and decomposed within the waterbody, resulting in elevated
oxygen consumption, nutrient recycling and potentially, serious hypoxia and other related
water quality degradation problems. Effects of this kind are usually tolerable (though still
not desirable) in cases where the poisoned weeds only occupy a minor proportion of the
waterbody and/or where the plant biomass is moderate. However, weed mats in the
Burdekin Floodplain wetlands often completely dominate entire waterbodies and can
comprise enormous quantities of organic matter. The effects of poisoning such dense
plant assemblages have not been studied in detail but there are clear theoretical grounds to
expect potentially severe, and quite prolonged, water quality problems to eventuate.
2) Modern herbicides are not nearly as toxic to animal life as older generation chemicals;
nonetheless, they are harmful to many native plants and phytoplankton, and may damage
some sensitive animals, such as microinvertebrates and larval fish. In the long term
successful rehabilitation, and the minimization of ongoing environmental costs, will be
partly contingent on the establishment of natural food webs (which is in turn dependent on
the establishment of natural phytoplankton and microinvertebrate communities).
Accordingly, significant benefits can potentially accrue if herbicide usage is kept to a
minimum, even in situations where decaying weeds do not cause major problems.
This study originally proposed to investigate the effects of decaying weeds on water quality
by monitoring a lagoon that had been treated by herbicide. However, after preliminary
investigations at prospective study sites, it was felt that the mass of organic material that
would be deposited in the wetlands during such an experiment could potentially be high
enough to significantly impede subsequent rehabilitation efforts. Accordingly, as a
precautionary measure, the proposal was amended and experiments were instead conducted in
open-air laboratory enclosures (mesocosms).

The experiments focused heavily on dissolved-oxygen-related effects, since this is the main
water quality issue for most local wetlands. Dissolved oxygen is also an integrator of effects
from many other water quality parameters and to some extent, herbicide residues. (For
example, it is a reliable indicator of the suppression of oxygen production that can result when
aquatic plant activity is inhibited by herbicides).
A detailed examination of the toxicological impacts of herbicide would be a substantial

undertaking in its own right, but falls outside the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the
potential for toxicological problems is significant enough to suggest that it would be very
desirable to find alternatives, or at lease adjuncts, to herbicide usage. There are anecdotal
reports that spraying with brine (sea salt) solutions has been used to successfully control water
hyacinth overseas, so this approach is one possible alternative that deserves consideration
(Burdekin River irrigation water has a low enough salinity to be able to accommodate
additions of sea salt without serious risk of harm to submerged aquatic organisms or adverse
effects on irrigation suitability). This makes brine spraying a potentially desirable tactic to
trial in local waters. To this end the current study incorporates a preliminary assessment of its
effectiveness as a weedicide under local conditions.
2.0 Aims
1) To determine the effects of weed poisoning on the dissolved oxygen status and
quality of waters influenced by dense mats of water hyacinth.
2) To conduct a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of brine spraying as a

control measure for water hyacinth infestations.
3.0 Methods
The experiment was conducted in an outdoor compound at James Cook University,

Townsville, Queensland, using 1000-litre oval-shaped polyethylene tanks. Nine (9) tanks
were used to conduct the experiment. Fifty litres of bottom sediment (sourced from a
freshwater lagoon on the Burdekin River floodplain) was placed in the bottom of each tank
and evenly distributed to an average depth of 2.5 centimetres. Nine hundred litres of filtered
tap water were then used to fill each tank to a depth of approximately 40 centimetres above
the sediment layer. The water hyacinth plants (sourced from the same lagoon as the sediment)
were then placed in the nine tanks (30 plants per tank) to replicate the types of densities found
naturally in Burdekin freshwater lagoons. Tanks were fertilised weekly to promote plant
growth.
Plants were acclimatized for several months and experiments commenced during the early
spring growth phase. The established weed mats contained small quantities of Azolla and rice
grass but were essentially water hyacinth monocultures. (In this respect they were somewhat
different from the weed mats that have developed in some Burdekin wetlands, where
subsequent invasions by semi-aquatic and even terrestrial vegetation have been so effective
that the original hyacinth rafts that they built upon are no longer in evidence).
Acclimitisation and preliminary monitoring was carried out in the open, under ambient
weather conditions. During the experimental phase, clear plastic roofing was fixed over the
tanks used to protect them from rainfall, in order to minimize the risks of brine or herbicide
being washed from the plant surfaces.

3.1 Experimental Treatments
The experiment employed five (5) separate treatments, which were applied to randomly
selected tanks (as detailed below).
Treatment 1 – Water hyacinth sprayed with herbicide
Three tanks were sprayed with a herbicide that is frequently used in aquatic environments
throughout the Burdekin Floodplain (i.e. Weedmaster Duo, active constituent: 360g/L
glyphosate present as isopropylamine and mono-ammonium salts). The application rate was
as recommended by the manufacturer (Nufarm Aust. Ltd.) which corresponds in this case to
1.6mL of herbicide in 140mL of filtered tap water. The solution was then evenly sprayed over
the entire plant coverage area (tank surface area of 2.13 m2) using a non-pressurised hand
sprayer. A plastic tent was used to eliminate spray drift.
Treatment 2 – Water hyacinth sprayed with brine solution
Two tanks were sprayed with a brine solution consisting of ordinary sea salt at a
concentration of 200 ppt (1:5). For each application 400 grams of salt was dissolved in
filtered tap water to make a 2 litre solution. A surfactant (biodegradable detergent) was added
(1 ml) to the salt solution as a wetting agent to ensure that some of the salt spray was retained
on the waxy plant surfaces. The spray solution was then applied to all plant surfaces (using a
pressurised hand sprayer) taking all necessary precautions to ensure that spray drift did not
occur.
Treatment 3 – Water hyacinth sprayed with brine followed by flushing of the tank
Two tanks were subjected to the same procedures as in Treatment 2 but were subsequently
flushed in order to replace the total volume of the tank with fresh filtered tap water. This step
was intended to purge most of the applied salt from the system to replicate conditions
whereby natural dilution and dispersion processes rapidly carry the salt over-spray away from
the treated area (as would occur in irrigation distributaries on the Burdekin Floodplain).
Treatment 4 – Water hyacinth control
One tank was left untouched and was used as a reference to provide indications of any
variations in weed-mat-induced water quality characteristics that might potentially occur over
time.
Treatment 5 – Control with the mechanical removal of water hyacinth post-treatment
One tank was left untouched until the plants in Treatment 1 began to disappear from the water
surface (due to decomposition and/or loss of floatation). At this point plants were physically
removed from the Treatment 5 tank in order to create open water spaces similar in area to
those appearing in the Treatment 1 tanks. This control provides a basis for comparing the
effects of harvesting and poisoning.
3.2 Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality
Prior to treatment, all tanks were monitored, using a WTW Multi-line P4 physico-chemical
field meter (Wellheim Germany, serial number 82671008) for dissolved oxygen, water
temperature and pH over a complete 24 hour cycle, In order to simultaneously determine
spatial variations in these parameters, three lateral positions were selected in each tank to
perform vertical profile measurements (at five evenly spaced depths) through the water
column. This comprised a total of 15 individual monitoring points in each tank.
Six (6) hours after treatment, all tanks were monitored for dissolved oxygen concentration,
water temperature and pH over a complete 24-hour cycle to determine the immediate effect of
each treatment on water quality. Similar detailed surveys were implemented at key times
over the duration of the experiment in order to record any progressive changes associated with
the initial spraying, die-back and subsequent rotting of plants.
In the interim, all tanks were monitored two to three times weekly for dissolved oxygen
concentration, water temperature and pH, but only at the time of day when dissolved oxygen
levels reached a minimum. Preliminary tests proved that this occurred at approximately 0530
hours. One point was selected to perform a depth profile (at five evenly spaced depths)
through the water column in each tank for these more frequent monitoring activities.
Plant Condition
Visual indications of plant condition have been documented on an ongoing basis and these are
supported by photographic records.
4.0 Results/Conclusion/Discussion
There was some minor die-back in the tanks after planting, and some plants developed rust
symptoms, making them initially unsuitable for tests. Within a few months however, all tanks
had exhibited sufficient regrowth to suggest that the plants had become acclimatized to
ambient conditions; however, this coincided with the onset of winter dormancy and unusually
low water temperatures (and therefore inhibited oxygen consumption rates). Systemic
herbicides only work effectively when plants are growing, and the effects of decaying plant
matter on oxygenation can only be realistically examined if water temperatures are normal.
Accordingly it was necessary to wait until spring before proceeding with experimental
treatments.
Intensive pre-treatment monitoring was conducted on 27th August 2003, experimental

treatments were applied on 28th August 2003 and post-treatment monitoring was carried out
on 29th and 30th August 3002.
At the time of writing, the glyphosate-treated plants had died and were showing clear signs of
decomposition. However, a large percentage of the biomass was still floating and significant
areas of open water had developed in only one of the replicate tanks. In order to achieve the
objectives of this study it will be necessary to continue monitoring until the dead plants have
fully decomposed or at least until an open water surface has been established and water
quality has reached a new steady state. It is difficult to predict how long this will take, but
given existing signs of putrification in the glyphosate-treated tanks it would be reasonable to
expect some results prior to the end of the year. To date, between-treatment differences in
dissolved oxygen are only subtle because all tanks are still ultimately dominated by floating
hyacinth and this tends to cause chronic hypoxia, regardless of the state of health of the
plants. Significant differences are only likely to occur when open water surfaces begin to
appear in both the treatment and control tanks.
Preliminary results suggest that brine spraying at the dosage rates used in this experiment
would only be partially effective at controlling hyacinth. In both brine treatments spraying
induced rapid (almost immediate) shriveling of leaves and some subsequent foliar die-back,
but ultimately the plants did not die or sink, and were beginning to show signs of regrowth

several weeks after treatment. It is possible that a higher dosage rate might produce stronger
results and this would be worth testing in future projects. Nonetheless, these results are not
entirely without merit; the brine spray has the effect of reducing the density, integrity and
cohesiveness of the weeds so that mats can be readily broken up. The capacity to do this
without risking excessive deposition of dead plants is potentially useful as an adjunct to other
removal techniques, such as harvesting or flush outs. Notably, because the effects of brine are
almost immediate (herbicides often take a few weeks to take effect) it would be feasible to use
this method to break-up or destabilize weed mats just prior to the onset of rain, greatly
enhancing the chances of them being flushed away.

Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehab Burd Delta

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehab Burd Delta

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fish Habitat Assessment and Rehabilitation in the

Burdekin Delta Distributary Streams

Report No. 03/22

Prepared by Colton Perna

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Lower Burdekin Landcare Association and BBIFMAC

North and South Burdekin Water Boards

Graham Laidlow (North)

Burdekin Shire Council

Burdekin Fish Restocking Association

Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Mick Magatelli Percy Jack

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page i

The main objectives of these projects were to:

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page ii

Notable findings of these projects included:

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page iii

Priority Research Recommendations are:

• Continue monitoring the long term impacts of weed removal

Other key recommendations include:

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page iv

1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................1

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page v

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page vi

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 1

2.0 STUDY AREA AND AIMS

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 2

3.0 GENERAL METHODS

3.1 Habitat Condition Assessment

3.2 Water Quality Analysis for 10 Main Sites

3.2.2 Detailed Limnological Analysis

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 3

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 4

Fig. 2.2 Aerial image of main study on Warren’s Gully/Saltwater Ck.

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 5

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 6

3.3 Survey of Fish Assemblages

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 7

3.4 Weed Removal Experiments at Payard’s and Gorizia’s Lagoons

3.4.1 Mechanical Weed Removal

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 8

3.4.2 Fish Surveys

3.4.3 Water Quality

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 9

3.4.4 Hydrological Investigation at Gorizia’s Lagoon

Water quality assessments comprised:

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 10

4.1 Present Habitat Conditions

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 11

Site Condition Location Flow water hyacinth

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 12

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 12

4.2 Present Water Quality Conditions

4.2.1 Flow and Oxygen Content

4.2.2 Submerged Macrophytes and Oxygen Cycling

4.2.3 Water Hyacinth Impacts on Downstream Oxygen Content

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 13

4.2.4 Modified Flows, Nutrients and Proliferation of Water Hyacinth

Natural Kelly’s N 286 & P 28 31.98 N 32 & P 3

Supplemented Fowler’s N 305 & P 29 17,581 N 5359 & P 508

Supplemented Payard’s N 298 & P 36 37,518 N 11,180 & 1344

Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research Page 14

Lagoon Volume Total nitrogen Total nitrogen Total Total