Fauna Spotters logo

Muirillup Rock Non-marine Harpacticoid Copepod (Fibulacamptus bisetosus)

Fibulacamptus bisetosus is a non-marine harpacticoid copepod in the Australian endemic genus Fibulacamptus. Its specific habitat and distribution are poorly documented. Potential habitat should be checked carefully before works.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 2.

Seasonal planning

Seasonal activity, breeding and survey information for this species are not documented. The row below is a planning window only, not a species activity pattern.

Species-specific seasonal information is not documented.

  • Assessment and impact avoidance: No seasonal pattern is known; plan assessment and precautions whenever works are proposed.

Identification: Appearance and size

The taxon is identified by name and broad group, but diagnostic field characters are not documented.

It is a harpacticoid copepod. Body form, colour, distinguishing features and size are not documented.

Identification: Similar species

The genus Fibulacamptus includes F. gracilior, F. tasmanicus and F. victorianus as well as F. bisetosus. Field characters to distinguish these species and information about whether they occur together are not documented.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific field signs and detectability are not documented. Do not identify an unconfirmed copepod observation as this species.

Distribution: Known range

The taxon is associated with a WA region and a place name in its common name, but its detailed range and confirmed coordinates are not documented.

The DBCA common name associates the taxon with Muirillup Rock. Coordinates, a detailed range and further locality records are not documented.

Distribution: WA region and status

The WA priority list identifies the Warren region. Priority 2 means the taxon is poorly known and known from few locations, with some occurrences on conservation lands. No national listing is recorded.

Habitat: Available habitat information

The only documented habitat descriptor is non-marine; specific site conditions are not documented.

The DBCA name describes the copepod as non-marine and associates it with Muirillup Rock. A waterbody, substrate, moisture regime, vegetation type and other habitat features are not documented.

Habitat: Site assessment

Do not assume that any particular wetland, stream, pool, soil or rock feature is occupied. Have an ecologist assess site conditions and potential non-marine habitat before disturbance.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

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

Food, feeding behaviour and foraging microhabitat are not documented.

Foraging habitat: Precaution

Do not assume feeding areas are absent. If potential habitat is identified, retain it for specialist assessment rather than treating it as unsuitable because feeding signs are not visible.

Breeding habitat: Breeding information

Species-specific breeding information is not documented.

Breeding sites, reproductive timing, eggs and development are not documented.

Breeding habitat: Works planning

No safe season for disturbance has been established. Plan assessment and impact avoidance without relying on a presumed breeding calendar.

Sheltering habitat: Shelter and persistence

Sheltering behaviour and persistence between active periods are not documented.

Sheltering behaviour, refuges and persistence strategy are not documented.

Sheltering habitat: Precaution

Do not assume the species is absent because no animals are visible. Retain potential habitat features until an ecologist has assessed them and the need for specialist survey.

Threats: Known threats

Threats specific to Fibulacamptus bisetosus have not been identified.

No species-specific threats are documented. Priority 2 status indicates that the species is poorly known and known from few locations; it does not establish any particular threat.

Threats: Potential works risks to assess

For any potential habitat identified on site, assess whether clearing, excavation, drainage changes, sediment or pollution could affect it. These are general impact pathways to assess, not documented threats to this species.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Species-specific survey methods and detectability are not documented. Plan surveys with a specialist, based on site assessment.

Check current DBCA priority fauna information and available site records. The taxon is associated with the Warren region and Muirillup Rock in its common name, but no public WA coordinates are given.

Survey methodology: 2. Habitat inspection

Have an ecologist inspect the proposed disturbance area and nearby potential non-marine habitat. Do not assume a specific habitat type from the species name alone.

Survey methodology: 3. Specialist survey

If potential habitat may be affected, seek advice from a suitably experienced aquatic invertebrate specialist on whether sampling is warranted and which methods are appropriate. Confirm identifications with a specialist. No species-specific sampling protocol or survey season is documented.

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. Plan and brief

Assess the possibility of suitable habitat before clearing or ground disturbance begins.

Include the taxon’s Priority 2 status in environmental planning and brief the ecologist and clearing crew. The species is poorly known, and its specific habitat is not documented.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Check and mark

Arrange a site inspection before works. If potential habitat is identified, mark it for avoidance where practicable and communicate the limits to all workers and machinery operators.

Before habitat disturbance: 3. Set response arrangements

Agree in advance who will stop or redirect work if a potential occurrence or previously unassessed habitat is found, and how the environmental lead will be contacted.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Follow marked limits

Use a cautious, stop-and-check approach wherever potential habitat may be affected.

Keep clearing, excavation and vehicle movements within approved boundaries. Avoid unnecessary disturbance of marked potential habitat.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Stop and report

If a possible copepod occurrence or unassessed potential habitat is encountered, pause work in the immediate area and notify the environmental lead. Do not collect or move material unless directed by an appropriately qualified specialist.

During habitat disturbance: 3. Prevent avoidable impacts

Apply the site’s controls for sediment, spills and changes to drainage where these could affect potential habitat. These are general precautions, not confirmed species-specific threat controls.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Inspect controls

After works, confirm that agreed avoidance measures were followed and report relevant observations.

Check that exclusion markers and other agreed controls remained in place and that disturbance did not extend into areas retained for assessment or avoidance.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Record and escalate

Record any potential occurrence, habitat observation or unexpected impact and pass it to the project ecologist. Seek specialist identification and follow applicable DBCA and project reporting requirements.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed areas

Species-specific rehabilitation requirements are not documented. Base rehabilitation on site assessment and avoid assumptions about habitat needs.

Where rehabilitation is required, use the project’s approved methods and prevent avoidable sediment, pollution or drainage impacts to potential habitat.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Review outcomes

Have the ecologist review rehabilitation near areas retained as potential habitat. Describe a rehabilitation treatment as suitable for this species only if a specialist assessment supports that conclusion.

Sources