Report on the 2010 Biennial Hooded Plover Count

Transcription

1 Report on the 2010 Biennial Hooded Plover Count Report by Glen Ewers, Nicolas Esbert, Mel Hardie, Kasun Ekanayake, Dr Meghan Cullen and Dr Grainne Maguire Birds Australia July 2011

2 2010 Biennial Hooded Plover Count Summary of Results Fixed routes were established and used for the first time in this Count kilometres of suitable coastline (i.e. Hooded Plover habitat) was identified in NSW, Victoria and South Australia, of which 82% was surveyed. A total of 1231 Hooded Plovers (HP)(1164 adults and 67 juveniles) were counted: o In Victoria (81% of coast surveyed): 585 HPs (569 adults and 16 juveniles). o In South Australia (88% of coast surveyed): 613 HPs (568 adults and 45 juveniles). o In New South Wales (35% of coast surveyed): 33 HPs (27 adults and 6 juveniles). Comparison with the 2008 Count revealed that, in proportion to the coastline length surveyed in each region, there appeared to be significantly fewer HPs between the NSW border to Point Hicks, and in The Coorong; and more HPs between Warrnambool and Yambuk, as well as between Wilsons Promontory and Waratah Bay. The highest densities of HPs were recorded between Warrnambool and Yambuk, on the Mornington Peninsula, Bass Coast (San Remo to Inverloch), and on Kangaroo Island. 2

3 Introduction The Biennial Hooded Plover Counts began in It is a census-style count which occurs over a single weekend in mid-november. The timing coincides with when most Hooded Plovers (HPs) are firmly established on their breeding territories, lessening the possibility of double counting. The Count has always included Victorian and South Australian coastlines, and in recent years it has expanded to include the NSW coastline as far north as (but not including) Jervis Bay. The Count does not include the Tasmanian coastline. This report details the results of the 2010 Hooded Plover Biennial Count, held on November Despite the inclement weather experienced on the Count weekend, the 2010 Count was very successful: a total of 257 volunteers undertook more than 550 hours of surveying, covering 1753 kilometres (82%) of suitable coastline from 250 kilometres west of Ceduna in SA to south of Jervis Bay in NSW. Currently, the population of the eastern subspecies of the Hooded Plover (which occurs in South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales) is estimated at 3000 birds, and listed as Vulnerable by Garnett s State of Australian Birds (soon to be released). The population in Victoria has been estimated at between 450 and 550 birds, based on counts in 2006, 2007 and In NSW, the population is estimated at 50 birds, on the basis of regular surveys during the breeding season (NSW NPWS), and in South Australia, estimates of between 600 and 800 in the population have been made based on data from Biennial Counts plus approximations made for areas not surveyed. Methods The data sheets used by surveyors in 2010 were similar to those used in previous Counts, with the only notable difference being that sightings of Red-capped Plovers were included in the Count for the first time. Species count One aspect of the Methods that changed from previous Biennial Counts is the establishment and collation of a set of fixed survey routes. Although HP Biennial Counts have been undertaken for 30 years, the capacity to compare each Count over time has been limited, particularly because there has been no determination of the lengths and proportions of suitable habitat surveyed on each Count. Thus, direct year-to-year comparisons of HP numbers are largely meaningless. Moreover, as explained in the 2008 report, temporal changes of HP populations are difficult to determine without knowing the number of HPs per kilometre (density), and to calculate this, one needs to know length of coastline surveyed. Take, for instance, the data from Kangaroo Island from the 2006, 2008 and 2010 Counts (Table 1). The total number of HPs sighted in the 2006 survey was 129, and 180 were seen in Without knowing what proportion of the coastline was surveyed in each Count, this would appear to represent a 28% increase in the population on Kangaroo Island. In fact, an extra 22% of suitable coastline was surveyed in 2008, indicating that the increase in the number of HPs was proportional to the extra survey effort, as shown by the almost identical density values (HPs per km) in those two years. In 2010, the same number of HPs was sighted as in the previous Count. Again, without being aware of what proportion of suitable habitat was surveyed, this would appear to represent a stabilisation of the island s population. However, 18% more of Kangaroo Island s coastline was surveyed in 2010 than in 2008, and so a similar proportional increase in numbers might be expected. Two conclusions could be drawn from this discrepancy: (1) the additional coastline surveyed does not represent suitable habitat for HPs; or (2) there was a decline in the number of HPs between the two surveys. Hopefully this will become clearer once the number of HPs recorded along each route on Kangaroo Island in the 2006, 2008 and 2010 Counts are compared. Table 1. Comparison of biennial count results for Kangaroo Island ( ). HP Total km covered Habitat covered HP per km % % %

4 A goal of the organisers of the 2010 Biennial Count was, in addition to surveying as many suitable shoreline habitats as possible, to create a standardised set of survey routes. This will ensure consistency over time and will allow for coordinators, volunteers and the people analysing the data to know exactly where any beach referred to is located. We used the start- and finish-points of the 2008 Count routes as a basis for this, but first had to determine the coordinates of these sites. In some cases it was a challenge to identify the locations of beaches with colloquial names. For the purposes of organising such an extensive census, the entire coastline of the south-eastern mainland of Australia was divided into 23 regions, each with a coordinator who organised surveyors for the routes in their region. Using the set of 2008 route start- and finish-points, we created maps depicting all of the routes that covered what appeared to be suitable HP habitat (typically high energy/surf beaches backed by dunes) in each region and queried some additional routes identified from Google Earth satellite imagery that appeared to have suitable habitat. Using feedback from regional coordinators, routes were modified as advised and then established as set routes to be used for the 2010 Count, and all future counts. The regional coordinators were asked to assign people to survey as many of the routes as possible, and to inform us if any routes were not covered. The benefits of following this process were: 1) Simplified coordination. Having clear maps and a corresponding set of start- and finish-coordinates for each route will make it easier for coordinators to match-up volunteers with survey routes. It will also make it clearer and simpler for volunteers to survey their routes. 2) Routes not surveyed twice or overlooked. This potential problem was particularly relevant at the boundaries of neighbouring regions. 3) Standardised surveys. It is easier to get meaningful data from the survey results if we use the same routes for each Count. If a route is not surveyed in a particular year (perhaps because of tides), then at least we will know which routes were not surveyed and we can take this into consideration when determining temporal changes and explaining discrepancies. The 2010 Biennial Count is therefore the first to report the proportion of suitable coastline surveyed and relate this to the density of birds observed. It is now possible to begin making meaningful interpretations of what these numbers might mean. Threat Assessment Volunteers were asked to note all of the threats present on the beach whenever a beach-nesting bird was observed. This data enabled us to devise a crude scoring system for threats at sites, such maps can be colourcoded (from red through orange and yellow to green) to signal how threatened the birds at these sites are. The threat score was calculated on the basis of the presence and type of threat: 5 = Vehicles Horses/Stock/Deer 4 = Dogs off leash Dune use 3 = Dogs on leash Evidence of People/Dogs/Cats/Foxes Threats given a score of higher than 3 are rated as having a greater impact because they: a. have multiple impacts on the birds, their eggs and chicks; and b. are generally present across a greater cross-section of the birds habitat (i.e. water s edge, beach and dunes). 4

5 Results Species count A total of 1231 HPs were counted (1164 adults and 67 juveniles) across 82% of suitable coastline of southeastern mainland Australia. For a regional and state breakdown of HP and other shorebird totals for the 2010 count, see Table 2. Table 2. Results of the 2010 Biennial Hooded Plover Count (by state and region). REGION Hooded Plovers Red-capped Plovers Sooty Oystercatchers Pied Oystercatchers Victoria Adult Juv. Total Adult Juv. Total Adult Juv. Total Adult Juv. Total 1. NSW Border to Point Hicks Mueller River to Lake Tyers Lake Tyers to Seaspray Seaspray to Corner Inlet Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay Venus Bay San Remo to Inverloch Phillip Island Mornington Peninsula Queenscliff to Lorne Lorne to Princetown Princetown to Warrnambool Warnambool to Yambuk Yambuk to Swan Lake Swan Lake to SA border South Australia VIC TOTAL South East SA Coorong Fleurieu Peninsula Kangaroo Island Yorke Peninsula Eyre Peninsula New South Wales SA TOTAL NSW south (no data) NSW north NSW TOTAL TOTAL As mentioned previously, when comparing regions, bird numbers are less informative than the proportion of suitable habitat surveyed and the density values that can be calculated from this. Table 3 presents the amount of habitat surveyed and the density of HPs in each region. It appears that there are several hotspots for HPs on the south-eastern mainland, where densities exceed 1 bird per kilometre and, in some cases, 2 birds per kilometre; areas with the highest densities were: the stretch of coast between Warrnambool and Yambuk (2.9 birds/km), the Mornington Peninsula (2.83), the Bass Coast, between San Remo to Inverloch (1.91) and Kangaroo Island (1.69). 5

6 Table 3. Habitat coverage and HP density for 2010 biennial count (by region). Region Habitat length (km) Habitat covered Density (HP per km) 1. NSW Border to Point Hicks % Mueller River to Lake Tyers % Lake Tyers to Seaspray % Seaspray to Corner Inlet % Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay % Venus Bay % San Remo to Inverloch % Phillip Island % Mornington Peninsula % Queenscliff to Lorne % Lorne to Princetown % Princetown to Warrnambool % Warnambool to Yambuk % Yambuk to Swan Lake % Swan Lake to SA border % South East SA % Coorong % Fleurieu Peninsula % Kangaroo Island % Yorke Peninsula % Eyre Peninsula % NSW south (no data) % n/a 23. NSW north % 0.73 Victoria % 0.88 South Australia % 0.58 NSW % 0.73 TOTAL % 0.70 Comparisons with previous years A total of 92 more HPs were counted in 2010 than in 2008 (see Table 4). However, this value says nothing of the proportion of suitable coastline that was surveyed. Table 4. Comparison between Count totals in 2008 and HP HP juv When comparing regions that were surveyed using the same methods in both 2008 and 2010, 21% extra coastline was surveyed in 2010 (Table 5). There was a concomitant 23% increase in the number of HPs recorded, but density (HP per km) was slightly lower. 6

7 Table 5. Comparison between selected Count totals in 2008 and To allow for direct comparisons this table excludes data from Eyre Peninsula and NSW which were collected using a different method (counting only pairs that were already known) in It also excludes data from Corner Inlet which was not surveyed in 2008, and data from Yorke Peninsula, where the length of suitable habitat still needs to be established. HP Habitat covered Density (HP per km) % % 0.77 Difference % Breaking down the density values shown in Table 5 into regions reveals some major differences (Table 6). Table 6. Differences between HP densities in 2008 and 2010, ranked by region. Region Density 2008 Density 2010 Difference Warnambool to Yambuk % Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay % Mueller River to Lake Tyers % San Remo to Inverloch % Venus Bay % Phillip Island % Yambuk to Swan Lake % Fleurieu Peninsula % Mornington Peninsula % Queenscliff to Lorne % Princetown to Warrnambool % Kangaroo Island % South East SA % Discovery Bay (Swan Lake to border) % Lorne to Princetown % NSW Border to Point Hicks % Coorong % Lake Tyers to Seaspray % However, because density is a combination of number of birds sighted and length of coastline surveyed, a significant difference in density may be a consequence of change in either of these values, or both. Table 7 separates the density values into their components, and then compares them directly. This provides a better insight into why some densities have changed so much in only two years, and others not. Theoretically, for each count, if all the habitat surveyed was suitable, the difference in proportions between the coverage and the number of HPs should be negligible; in other words, surveying an extra 20% of suitable coastline should yield approximately 20% extra HPs, leading to a minor discrepancy. 7

8 Table 7. Comparison between the coverage and the numbers of HPs in 2008 and 2010, by region. The Difference in Coverage column shows how much more or less coastline was surveyed in 2010 than in Similarly, the Difference in HP total column compares 2008 and 2010 totals of HPs. The Discrepancy column shows the difference between these two values which should, theoretically, be very small. The regions are ranked according to discrepancy. Region State Difference in Coverage Difference in HP total Discrepancy 13 Warnambool to Yambuk VIC 44% 69% 25% 5 Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay VIC 0% 24% 23% 2 Mueller River to Lake Tyers VIC -7% 8% 15% 6 Venus Bay VIC 41% 52% 10% 18 Fleurieu Peninsula SA 23% 29% 6% 7 San Remo to Inverloch VIC 32% 37% 5% 8 Phillip Island VIC 11% 15% 5% 14 Yambuk to Swan Lake VIC 27% 30% 4% 3 Lake Tyers to Seaspray VIC 47% 50% 3% 9 Mornington Peninsula VIC 11% 11% 0% 10 Queenscliff to Lorne VIC -4% -11% -7% 12 Princetown to Warrnambool VIC 29% 18% -11% 19 Kangaroo Island SA 18% 1% -16% 16 South East SA SA 17% -4% -21% 15 Discovery Bay (Swan Lake to border) VIC 12% -15% -28% 11 Lorne to Princetown VIC 40% 6% -34% 1 NSW Border to Point Hicks VIC 13% -41% -54% 17 Coorong SA 42% -44% -85% AVERAGE 22% 13% -9% Large discrepancies revealed in Table 7 indicate that either: 1. there has been a change in the population; or 2. unsuitable habitat is being surveyed. Between the 2008 and 2010 Counts, a major decline in population numbers is not expected and would be cause for great alarm. We suspect that the reason for most of the large discrepancies is the change in routes surveyed, with some beaches that look like suitable habitat being added, but they do not actually support HPs. During the 2010 Count, some remote stretches that are not usually counted were accessed. They did not, however, reveal an abundance of HPs. This information is interesting in itself, as it poses the question why? The two most troubling results are those at the bottom of Table 6: The Coorong and far-eastern Victoria. In these two regions, despite significant increases in the length of coastline surveyed, substantially fewer HPs were recorded in 2010 than in This signals that an actual decline in birds is likely in these areas, rather than being purely explained by the inclusion of additional routes. 8

9 Nests Volunteers were asked to record evidence of breeding when it was observed. Several people noted abandoned, washed-out or old nest scrapes, as well as adult behaviour that suggested breeding. However, overall there were low numbers of positive nest and chick sightings (see Table 8, below). There does not appear to be any correlation between nest success and the number of adult Hooded Plovers or their density, but this may be because there was a varied take up by the volunteers of recording this data, making it difficult to draw any conclusions. Count data are seldom useful for assessing breeding evidence, as Hooded Plovers are adept at hiding their nests and chicks, and as observers must cover a lot of ground during the survey, there is little spare time for them to spend observing the birds behaviour and searching for nests. This is why volunteers with various organisations (e.g. Birds Australia, Phillip Island Nature Park and NSW NPWS) embark on monitoring 120 breeding pairs in Victoria, 30 breeding pairs in South Australia, and all breeding pairs in NSW. Pairs are visited regularly and volunteers become proficient at recognising when the birds have nests or chicks. The data collected through this method of monitoring enables us to quantify breeding success, to devise more accurate threat profiles based upon multiple visits to breeding sites, and for us to make comparisons between areas with regard to breeding output, guiding us in our conservation efforts for the species. Table 8. Evidence of HP breeding (active nests or chicks) recorded in each region during the 2010 count. Region State Active breeding 1 NSW Border to Point Hicks VIC 2 2 Mueller River to Lake Tyers VIC 2 3 Lake Tyers to Seaspray VIC 0 4 Seaspray to Corner Inlet VIC 2 5 Wilsons Prom to Waratah Bay VIC 1 6 Venus Bay VIC 1 7 San Remo to Inverloch VIC 13 8 Phillip Island VIC 3 9 Mornington Peninsula VIC 9 10 Queenscliff to Lorne VIC 6 11 Lorne to Princetown VIC 4 12 Princetown to Warrnambool VIC 1 13 Warnambool to Yambuk VIC 8 14 Yambuk to Swan Lake VIC 1 15 Discovery Bay (Swan Lake to border) VIC 0 16 South East SA SA 3 17 Coorong SA 1 18 Fleurieu Peninsula SA 6 19 Kangaroo Island SA Yorke Peninsula SA 5 21 Eyre Peninsula SA NSW South NSW 5 9

10 Threat assessments Maps of threat scores have been made for each region surveyed (see Appendix 1). It is interesting to note the spread of green (low level of threat) versus orange or red sites (high levels of threat) and their proximity to population centres. Table 9 below provides a summary of the percentage of sites falling within the different threat categories where threat assessments were carried out. An additional 13% of sites were not assessed for threats. Table 9. The percentage of sites falling within each threat score category, by state. Green (1-3) Yellow (4-8) Orange (9-13) Red (14-23) NSW 31.3% 25.4% 32.8% 10.4% VIC 47.5% 31.1% 13.6% 7.8% SA 63.9% 14.3% 16.1% 5.7% TOTAL 52.2% 25.3% 15.2% 7.2% An interesting future comparison will be between (1) the threat scores as revealed by threat assessments made during regular breeding-monitoring visits for selected sites in Victoria and South Australia; and (2) the threat scores as revealed by a single assessment made during the 2010 Biennial Count. This provides a better indication of the accuracy of single visits, and the likelihood of missing threats that feature consistently at sites. Such information would be useful to consultants who carry out environmental impact assessments, for example. Volunteers were asked to note the presence of Marram Grass, Wheat Grass and Sea Spurge some of the main weeds that can dramatically alter the suitability of habitat for HPs. Weeds were not included in the above threat score because no estimates of their density were recorded weeds in very low abundance may have negligible effects on the birds at present (but may become an issue in the future), whereas a high abundance of weeds would be a greater current threat to birds and the availability of nesting habitat. The data on weeds that was collected during the Count will be passed on to the University of Melbourne, where researchers are engaging in a collaborative review of the impacts of coastal weeds in southern Australia (funded by Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation [RIRDC]). See Appendix 2 for a summary of the Just how bad are coastal weeds: assessing geo-eco-psycho-socio-economic impacts project. Participants on the 2012 Biennial Count will be provided with a weed identification sheet. Pyp Grass will also be added to the list of weeds, as this species is particularly prevalent in South Australia. A final important point regarding threat assessments: volunteers are asked to complete a great deal of paperwork when they conduct a survey, and some may think this is excessive. However, as the Count involves visiting beaches in three states covering thousands of kilometres this is a rare opportunity to collect important information such as threats. This should be emphasised to participants on the 2012 Count. Further work Although much has been achieved in creating a standard set of routes in each region, there are still a number of questions relating to the methodology that have not been answered adequately: 1. Is all the coastline that contains suitable HP habitats being covered by the set of routes? It seems that in Victoria and some regions in South Australia (Kangaroo Island, Fleurieu Peninsula and The Coorong) the answer is a tentative yes. Elsewhere, answering this question relies, in large part, upon the capacity of the regional coordinators to identify suitable habitat. Two regions in particular Eyre and Yorke Peninsulas comprise much suitable coastline but, despite the great efforts of the regional coordinators, there are not enough volunteers to adequately access and survey them. Researchers from Birds Australia (Glenn Ehmke and Grainne Maguire) and Deakin University (Mike Weston, Daniel Ierodiaconou and Tom Bird) are currently undertaking a study to assess which features of Hooded Plover beaches define suitable habitat using the Biennial Count data (presence absence points). This research will be completed in 2012, and it is hoped that it will reveal key characteristics that will 10

11 assist with better targeting of areas for surveys, as well as identifying the most important beach characteristics that need to be preserved. 2. Are there any routes being surveyed that aren t suitable HP habitat? This is an important question as having inappropriate routes not only takes volunteer attention away from actual routes, it also artificially deflates density values. After using a standard set of routes for a number of Counts it will become evident if any routes do not contain HPs, in which case they could perhaps be removed from the set. Care must be taken, however, since if HPs in the surrounding area are successfully breeding then these routes may contain sub-standard habitat that may be colonised by juveniles in the future. For example, in recent years, breeding pairs of HPs have recolonised beaches in Victoria which were formerly occupied in the 1980s and early 1990s. (It should be noted that the counts on Phillip Island and Eyre Peninsula coincide with a broader shorebird census, so the routes used may include habitat unsuitable for HPs.) 3. Are the lengths of routes accurate? The lengths were determined using the ruler function in Google Earth. For some of the curved stretches of coastline this method of measuring lengths is problematic. Ideally, they would all be measured using a GPS. In addition, some routes contain discrete stretches of suitable habitat with unsuitable patches in between, and this may not have been taken into account when measuring their lengths. 4. Do we accurately know whether the populations of HPs and other species of shorebird surveyed have changed over time, and if so, can we identify the significance of a decline or increase? With a set of routes now established it is timely to revisit previous Count data to determine which routes and what proportion of habitat were surveyed, and then convert that data so that it is directly comparable to count Methods Birds Australia is collaborating with Gaia Resources (Environmental Technology Consultants) to develop webbased citizen data-entry portals in other words, to create web pages which anyone can use to record bird sightings that relate to various projects, such as the Atlas of Australian Birds, Threatened Bird Network and the Beach-nesting Birds Project. It is intended that such a portal will be developed for the HP Biennial Count. Data entry is the most time-consuming aspect of this project, especially chasing up missing data and coordinates. It is hoped that the portal will allow HP counters to directly enter their data onto the web and, using a Google Earth type map that depicts the start- and finish-points of their route, to click on the map where each sighting was made (or else type in coordinates if known). Such a system would allow the production of a report (such as this one) to be speeded up greatly. Survey focus As always, the challenge is to source more volunteers in remote areas, such as far-eastern Victoria, southeastern South Australia, Yorke and Eyre Peninsulas, and the coast west of Ceduna. Perhaps, given sufficient notice, birding groups in other areas could organise an expedition to these areas. Only 61% of the eastern Victorian coastline from Region 1 (NSW border to Point Hicks) through to Region 5 (Wilson s Prom. to Waratah Bay) was surveyed. This is an unsurprising result, as there were only 12 volunteers spread across the 353 kilometres of coastline. This is an improvement from 2008 when Regions 3 and 4 (Lake Tyers to Seaspray and Seaspray to Corner Inlet) were barely surveyed at all. Increasing coverage of these zones must be a priority for the 2012 Count. Likewise, there also needs to be a focus on recruiting and training volunteers to conduct surveys on the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia, something the Beachnesting Birds project has already begun, by holding workshops there in January Hopefully the Southern NSW region will be surveyed in 2012, as well as Jervis Bay, the northernmost point in the Northern NSW region doing so will ensure the entire NSW population is covered. 11

12 Acknowledgments Thanks to all the volunteers who braved the wild weather and participated in the 2010 Biennial Count. It is an enormous feat to cover so many thousands of kilometres of coast within such a short time frame, and getting this snapshot of Hooded Plover numbers is the best opportunity we have to understand the status of the population. The effort of volunteers is something one cannot put a value on and we can t thank you enough. Special thanks to the regional coordinators for their feedback on the routes and for organising volunteers in their regions. Such an undertaking would be impossible without them. Thanks also to Parks Victoria, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (Vic), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SA), the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW) and the City of Holdfast NRM, who provided quad bikes, boats and staff time. At Birds Australia, organisation of the count and the subsequent collating, entering and analysing the resultant data became a full time job! Thanks to Glen Ewers for revising the route dataset, coordinating the count, analysing the data and writing the report; Kasun Ekanayake for helping create an initial dataset of route start- and finish-points; Mel Hardie and Nick Esbert for data entry and chasing up errors; Nick Esbert, Mel Hardie and Meghan Cullen for mapping the data; Grainne Maguire for assisting with report writing; John Peter for editing; and Andrew Dunn for technical advice. This report was funded by the Federal Government s Caring for Our Country program. Formulation of routes, coordination of the count and mapping of data were funded by the Victorian State Government s Investment Framework (DSE) in Victoria, and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and SA NRM Community Grants program in South Australia, respectively. Appendix 1. MAPS These maps occur as three separate attachments to this report, given the size of these files. Appendix 2. Summary of Just how bad are coastal weeds: assessing geo-eco-psycho-socio-economic impacts project by The University of Melbourne. Exotic plants seem to invade Australia s coastal fringe with impunity, whether arriving by chance or through deliberate introduction. However, with the exception of funding of Coastcare groups of volunteers whose coverage is fragmented we take little action. Part of the reason for this is an almost complete lack of information on their impacts (or an under-appreciation of what these impacts might be). Invasive plants, particularly in coastal regions, have a wide variety of interdependent impacts, both direct and indirect. We may be ignoring them at our cost, or we may be right in treating them as low priorities. This project will collate existing information on the impacts of invasive coastal plants in Australasia and undertake formal research on impacts that have received the least attention. Research will be conducted by a multi-disciplinary team, including ecology, economics, psychology, sociology and geomorphology, interacting with State Government, Catchment Management Authorities, shires and local communities. Two detailed case studies will be conducted in Victoria, with contrasting human pressures. Outputs will include a document summarising the impacts of coastal invaders to inform managers at all levels, a web site on coastal weeds, and a major research application with a wider range of stakeholders and researchers. Outcomes will be a better knowledge of the impacts of weeds, and the potential to build research on coastal weeds. The project will be unique in assembling and quantifying the network of interactions between weeds, people and our coastlines, and how these may be affected by climate change (i.e. rising sea levels). For more information, contact Charlotte Catmur, Department of Resource Management and Geography, catmurc@unimelb.edu.au. 12