Williams et al. (2009) report on new multibeam sonar bathymetry and underwater video data collected from submarine canyons and seamounts on Australia's southeast continental margin to 'investigate the degree to which geomorphic features act as surrogates for benthic megafaunal biodiversity' (p. 214). The authors describe what they view as deficiencies in the design of the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the southeast region of Australia, in which geomorphology information was employed as a surrogate to infer regional-scale patterns of benthic biodiversity. This comment is designed to support and underscore the importance of evaluating MPA designs and the validity of using abiotic surrogates such as geomorphology to infer biodiversity patterns, and seeks to clarify some of the discrepancies in geomorphic terminologies and approaches used between the original study and the Williams et al. (2009) evaluation. It is our opinion that the MPA design criteria used by the Australian Government are incorrectly reported by Williams et al. (2009). In particular, we emphasise the necessity for consistent terminology and approaches when undertaking comparative analyses of geomorphic features. We show that the MPA selection criteria used by the Australian Government addressed the issues of false homogeneity described by Williams et al. (2009), but that final placement of MPAs was based on additional stakeholder considerations. Finally, we argue that although the Williams et al. (2009) study provides valuable information on biological distributions within seamounts and canyons, the hypothesis that geomorphic features (particularly seamounts and submarine canyons) are surrogates for benthic biodiversity is not tested explicitly by their study.

I55/B1-141 Vertical scale: 400

22-2/H56-03/1-4 Contour interval: 2

22-3/I55-4/8-1/2 Vertical scale: 100

Legacy product - no abstract available

10% coverage SE corner Enngonia & 15% coverage SW corner Angeldool. Lower part of each sheet in a long strip. 22-1/H55-6-7/6 Vertical scale: 400

No abstract available

I55/B1-131

Amino acid racemization (AAR) dating of the eolianite on Lord Howe Island is used to correlate several disparate successions and provides a geochronological framework that ranges from Holocene to Middle Pleistocene time. The reliability of the AAR data is assessed by analysing multiple samples from individual lithostratigraphic units, checking the stratigraphic order of the D/L ratios and the consistency of the relative extents of racemization for a suite of seven amino acids. Three aminozones are defined on the basis of the extent of racemization of amino acids in land snails (Placostylus bivaricosus) and 'whole-rock' eolianite samples. Aminozone A includes Placostylus from modern soil horizons (e.g. mean D/L-leucine ratio of 0.03±0.01) and whole-rock samples from unconsolidated lagoonal and beach deposits (0.10±0.01-0.07±0.03). Aminozone B includes Placostylus (0.45±0.03) and whole-rock samples from beach (0.48±0.01) and dune (0.45±0.02-0.30±0.02) units of the Neds Beach Formation, deposited during OIS 5. The oldest, Aminozone C, comprises Placostylus recovered from paleosols (0.76±0.02) and whole-rock eolianite samples (0.62±0.00) from the Searles Point Formation, which indicate the formation was likely deposited over several Oxygen Isotope Stages (OIS), during and prior to OIS 7. These data support independent lithostratigraphic interpretations and are in broad agreement with U/Th ages of speleothems from the Searles Point Formation and corals from the Neds Beach Formation, and with several TL ages of dune units in both formations. The AAR data reveal that eolianite deposition extends over a significantly longer time interval than previously appreciated and indicate that the deposition of the large dune units is linked to periods of relatively high sea level.

Legacy product - no abstract available