Fauna Spotters logo

Lake Disappointment Dragon (Ctenophorus nguyarna)

The Lake Disappointment dragon is a medium-sized burrowing dragon associated with salt-lake habitat in Western Australia. Its known range is restricted and records are sparse, so assess potential habitat carefully before works and avoid unnecessary disturbance. It has Priority 1 status on the WA DBCA priority fauna list.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 1.

Seasonal information

Species-specific activity and breeding months are not documented. The row below is a general planning prompt and does not indicate known seasonal activity.

Breeding months: Not documented.

Activity and detectability: Not documented.

Months for breeding, activity, movement or reduced activity are not documented.

  • Plan surveys and precautions: General planning window only. No species-specific seasonal information is available; assess survey timing and works precautions for the site rather than assuming a season of inactivity.

Identification: Appearance and size

Use the combination of body form, scale pattern and location to guide identification. Species-specific field signs and measurements are limited.

This is a medium-sized, robust dragon with a blunt head and moderately built short limbs. Its dorsal scales are heterogeneous, with enlarged scales tending to form vertical rows on the flanks.

It has a reticulated orange and black background, black bars on the dorsum and black vertical bars on the tail. No body-length or weight measurements are recorded.

Identification: Similar species

The related salt-lake dragon Ctenophorus salinarum differs in having a smaller body, more scattered enlarged dorsal scales, a more strongly keeled head and midline scales, and a different pattern of sexual dimorphism. Ctenophorus pictus differs in being smaller, having scattered enlarged dorsal scales and having pale, short, narrow claws.

These are specialist identification characters. Where identification is uncertain, take clear photographs and seek confirmation from a suitably experienced herpetologist.

Identification: Field signs

Diagnostic tracks, scats, burrow form and other indirect field signs have not been described for this species. Do not attribute a burrow to this dragon on appearance alone.

Distribution: Known range

The known range is centred on Lake Disappointment, also called Kumpupintil Lake, in Western Australia. The distribution is restricted and records are sparse.

The species is known from Western Australia, with Savory Creek Mouth at Lake Disappointment as its type locality. It has also been recorded at Kumpupintil Lake, previously called Lake Disappointment.

Atlas of Living Australia records show 15 name-matched records in WA at seven distinct 0.1-degree locations, between latitude -23.7 and -22.8 and longitude 122.6 and 123.7. Records outside WA were excluded as likely errors. These records do not establish that the species is absent from other areas.

Distribution: WA regions and status

The DBCA priority list identifies the Pilbara and Goldfields regions for this species. It is Priority 1, meaning poorly known, known from few locations, and with none of those locations on conservation lands.

Priority 1 is a DBCA priority-list category, not a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. There is no national listing.

Habitat: Recorded habitat

The species is associated with salt lakes and, more specifically, samphire vegetation at the margin of Kumpupintil Lake.

Its habitat is characterised as salt lakes. It has been recorded in low samphire shrubs fringing Kumpupintil Lake.

Habitat away from the lake margin and the species’ tolerance of different salt-lake conditions are not documented.

Habitat: Site assessment

For site planning, treat salt-lake margins and their samphire fringe as potential habitat where they occur within the known range. This is a precaution based on recorded habitat, not confirmation that the species occupies every such site.

Foraging habitat: Diet and foraging

The species’ diet, foraging behaviour and foraging microhabitat have not been documented.

No prey items, feeding observations or diet information are recorded. Do not assume a diet or feeding location when planning surveys or interpreting site observations.

Foraging habitat: Precaution on works sites

Avoid unnecessary disturbance to potential habitat, including the lake-margin samphire fringe, while the species’ presence or absence is being assessed. This is a habitat-based precaution, not a claim about where the dragon feeds.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

The species lays eggs, but its breeding season and nesting habitat are not documented.

The species is oviparous. Egg-laying locations, clutch size and breeding months are not documented.

Breeding habitat: Precaution on works sites

Do not assign a breeding season or identify a potential nest from habitat alone. If a suspected nest or egg is found during works, stop disturbance in the immediate area and obtain advice from the project ecologist or fauna spotter catcher.

Sheltering habitat: Known shelter information

The species is described as a burrowing dragon, but details of its burrows and other refuges are not documented.

The species is burrowing. Burrow dimensions, placement and use, and whether it uses alternative shelters, are not documented.

Sheltering habitat: Precaution around suspected refuges

Do not excavate or probe suspected refuges to confirm occupancy. Have potential burrows or other shelter features assessed by an experienced fauna professional, and avoid disturbing them until their status has been considered.

Threats: Information limits

The species has a restricted, poorly known distribution, but specific threats have not been identified.

The DBCA list describes the species as poorly known and known from few locations, with none on conservation lands. Particular pressures, population trends and causes of decline have not been identified.

Threats: Works-site implications

Because records are limited, do not treat a lack of sightings as evidence that suitable habitat is unoccupied. Assess potential habitat before disturbance and use the relevant project and regulatory processes to determine appropriate safeguards.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Species-specific survey methods and detectability have not been documented. Plan survey effort cautiously and use suitably experienced personnel.

Check the proposed works footprint against available records and distribution information. Identify salt-lake margins and samphire fringe within or near the footprint as potential habitat, without assuming that habitat suitability confirms occupancy.

Survey methodology: 2. Field inspection

Arrange a site inspection by an experienced herpetologist or fauna spotter catcher before clearing. Search potential habitat carefully for animals and possible refuge features, taking care not to damage samphire or disturb suspected burrows.

A detection method, survey season, effort level and likelihood of detection have not been established. Record the conditions, areas inspected, observations and any limitations, including where access or visibility is restricted.

Survey methodology: 3. Identification and records

Photograph any suspected animal where this can be done safely and without unnecessary handling. Record the precise observation location and habitat, and obtain expert confirmation where identification is uncertain.

Vegetation associations: Chenopod or saltbush shrubland

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

It has been recorded in low samphire shrubs fringing Kumpupintil Lake.

Automatically indexed from existing profile text. Not a verified preference, mapped occurrence or habitat requirement. Check the original source and regional qualifiers before use.

Evidence: Unreviewed profile-derived candidate

Confidence: Not independently verified

Region: Scope as described in the quoted profile text; not independently verified. Profile states: WA.

Habitat use: general

Attribution gap: No sentence-level reference is attached to the original profile block. Review the profile bibliography; this candidate is not source-verified.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations: Saline flats and salt pans

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

Its habitat is characterised as salt lakes.

Automatically indexed from existing profile text. Not a verified preference, mapped occurrence or habitat requirement. Check the original source and regional qualifiers before use.

Evidence: Unreviewed profile-derived candidate

Confidence: Not independently verified

Region: Scope as described in the quoted profile text; not independently verified. Profile states: WA.

Habitat use: general

Attribution gap: No sentence-level reference is attached to the original profile block. Review the profile bibliography; this candidate is not source-verified.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Map potential habitat

Identify potential salt-lake habitat and address uncertainty before clearing begins.

Map salt-lake margins and samphire fringe in and near the works area. Compare the location with available records and confirm whether the site falls within the relevant project assessment area.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Set work controls

Have the project ecologist define any exclusion areas, inspection requirements and stop-work triggers before machinery enters potential habitat. Brief clearing crews on the species’ appearance, the limits of current knowledge and the procedure for reporting a suspected animal or refuge.

Before habitat disturbance: 3. Confirm readiness

Where uncertainty remains about occupancy or suitable safeguards, seek advice from the project ecologist and follow applicable approvals and fauna-management procedures before disturbance proceeds.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Work to the approved limits

Use controlled, observant work practices in potential habitat and respond promptly to any suspected animal or refuge.

Keep clearing and vehicle movements within approved boundaries. Avoid unnecessary disturbance to salt-lake margins and samphire vegetation outside the authorised footprint.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Maintain observation

Ensure the fauna spotter catcher or other nominated observer can monitor the active work area in accordance with the project plan. Do not rely on an absence of sightings to conclude that the species is absent.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Stop and report

If a suspected Lake Disappointment dragon, egg or potential refuge is found, pause work in the immediate area. Prevent handling or further disturbance, notify the nominated environmental lead and follow the project response procedure.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Record outcomes

After works, document outcomes and address any further actions through the project’s environmental controls.

Document areas disturbed, habitat observations, survey limitations, fauna observations and any stop-work events. Record the location and photographs of suspected animals or refuges where available.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review incidents

Have the project ecologist review any injury, mortality, capture or unexpected discovery and determine the next steps under applicable approvals and project procedures. Do not release or relocate an animal without appropriate direction.

After habitat disturbance: 3. Follow up

Check that temporary exclusion measures and any agreed site controls remain effective until the relevant disturbance is complete. Report required findings to the project environmental lead.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Limit the footprint

Rehabilitation should address the disturbed footprint and the salt-lake and samphire habitat recorded for the species, without making unsupported assumptions about its recovery requirements.

Keep rehabilitation works within the approved disturbance area and avoid additional disturbance to undisturbed lake-margin vegetation.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Restore the site

Use the project’s approved rehabilitation plan to reinstate disturbed ground and vegetation. Species-specific revegetation, soil or water-management prescriptions are not documented.

Rehabilitation actions: 3. Monitor and report

Record rehabilitation actions and any observed changes to the lake-margin habitat. Refer unexpected impacts or fauna observations to the project ecologist for assessment.

Sources