Fauna Spotters logo

Laverton Fairy Shrimp (Branchinella apophysata)

The Laverton Fairy Shrimp is a freshwater crustacean known from its type locality, a shallow pool on Mount Margaret near Laverton, Western Australia. DBCA lists it as Priority 1, meaning it is poorly known and known from few locations; none are on conservation lands. This is a DBCA priority category, not a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Its recorded association with a shallow pool makes checking and protecting suitable waterbodies important before works.

Conservation status

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

Seasonal planning

Activity, breeding and survey months are unknown. Use the following as a planning prompt only and obtain specialist advice on survey timing.

Known seasonal timing: Not documented.

Planning approach: Assess potential pools before disturbance and do not rely on one visit to establish absence.

Seasonal activity and detection windows for Branchinella apophysata are unknown.

  • Assessment and pre-works checks: Planning window only. No species-specific activity or survey season is known; arrange checks before works and seek specialist advice.

Identification: Appearance and size

Field identification is poorly documented. Confirm any suspected record with a suitably qualified freshwater invertebrate specialist.

The species is a crustacean in the fairy shrimp genus Branchinella and family Thamnocephalidae. Its appearance and size are not described.

Identification: Similar species and field signs

The species is reported as closely related to Branchinella affinis, B. denticulata, B. latzi, B. longirostris and B. proboscida. Distinguishing characters are not documented.

Species-specific field signs and survey detectability are undocumented.

Distribution: Known range

The known range is extremely limited.

The species is endemic to Australia and is known only from its type locality, a shallow pool on Mount Margaret near Laverton, Western Australia. No other localities are recorded.

Distribution: WA region and status

The WA list flags the Goldfields region. No national listing is recorded.

Habitat: Recorded habitat

Only a shallow pool at the type locality is described; broader habitat requirements are unknown.

The type locality is a shallow pool on Mount Margaret, near Laverton. The pool's water chemistry, inundation duration, substrate and surrounding vegetation are not documented.

Habitat: Other waterbodies

No other habitat types are confirmed for this species. On works sites, treat shallow pools as potential habitat for precautionary assessment, not as confirmed occupied habitat.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

The species' diet and feeding habitat have not been documented.

Diet, feeding behaviour and foraging locations are unknown.

Foraging habitat: Site precautions

Do not assume that a pool is unsuitable because its feeding resources or water quality are unknown. Avoid introducing sediment, pollutants or other material to shallow pools being assessed as potential habitat.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

Breeding biology is poorly known.

Breeding sites, timing, life cycle and reproductive output are not documented.

Breeding habitat: Precaution

Until a qualified specialist has assessed a pool, avoid works that could fill it, drain it or alter water entering or leaving it. These are precautionary measures, not documented species-specific threats.

Sheltering habitat: Known information

Sheltering behaviour and refuges are not documented.

The type locality is a shallow pool, but where individuals shelter or persist when water is absent is unknown.

Sheltering habitat: Precaution

Do not assume that dry pool margins or adjacent ground are unimportant. Ask a freshwater invertebrate specialist to advise on the assessment area and any proposed works around potential habitat.

Threats: Recorded threats

No threats specific to this species have been identified.

No species-specific threats are documented. Its Priority 1 status reflects that it is poorly known and known from few locations, rather than a threat assessment.

Threats: Potential work pathways

Filling, drainage, changes to water flows, sediment deposition and contamination are potential ways development could affect a shallow pool. These are precautionary impact pathways, not documented threats to this species.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Occurrence and detectability are poorly documented, so survey design should be led by a qualified freshwater invertebrate ecologist.

Review project mapping and records, noting that the known locality is the Mount Margaret type locality. Public WA coordinates are not available in the Atlas of Living Australia.

Survey methodology: 2. Pool inspection

Map shallow pools and their immediate catchments in or near the works footprint. Record whether each pool is wet or dry at the time of inspection and document its condition with photographs and field notes.

A single visit or failure to detect the species is not evidence that a pool is unoccupied; species-specific detectability is unknown.

Survey methodology: 3. Specialist sampling

Where assessment is needed, have a freshwater invertebrate specialist select and carry out suitable aquatic sampling and identification methods. Record survey conditions, effort and identification confidence.

Vegetation associations

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

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

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

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

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

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. Define assessment areas

Plan works to avoid disturbing the known type locality and any shallow pools that could provide potential habitat.

Map the works footprint, nearby shallow pools and water-flow pathways. Do not assume a site is outside the known range because public coordinates are unavailable.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Seek specialist advice

Arrange a specialist assessment where shallow pools may be affected or where works are near the known locality. Confirm survey timing and methods with the specialist because no species-specific survey season is known.

Before habitat disturbance: 3. Set controls

Where practicable, establish exclusion areas around pools being assessed as potential habitat. Brief crews to avoid pool filling, drainage changes, sediment run-off and contamination.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Maintain exclusions

Keep disturbance and indirect impacts away from shallow pools being assessed as potential habitat.

Keep vehicles, plant, stockpiles and clearing activity out of marked exclusion areas. Do not enter or sample a pool unless this is part of an approved specialist survey.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Protect water and pool form

Avoid works that fill or drain a pool, change water flows, or carry sediment and contaminants into it. These controls are precautionary and do not imply that such impacts are documented threats to this species.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Respond to a suspected record

Pause nearby works if a suspected specimen is found. Avoid handling it unless authorised, record the location and conditions, and contact the project ecologist for identification and advice.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Inspect controls

After works, check that agreed controls remain in place and record any changes to potential habitat.

Check exclusion markers and sediment or contamination controls around relevant pools. Repair or escalate any failure promptly.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Record outcomes

Document any disturbance, pool alteration, suspected records and corrective actions. Provide records to the project ecologist and relevant environmental personnel.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Prevent further change

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements are not documented.

If a pool or its surroundings have been affected, obtain specialist advice before attempting repair. Avoid unapproved changes to pool shape, drainage or water inputs.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and document

Record rehabilitation actions and subsequent site condition. Do not claim that habitat has been restored for this species unless a qualified specialist has assessed the outcome.

Sources