DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frog Species in the Upper Catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands Near Sites Where Trout Releases Occur

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frog Species in the Upper Catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands Near Sites Where Trout Releases Occur Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frog Species in the Upper Catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands Near Sites Where Trout Releases Occur. Simon Clulow, Luke Price, John Clulow & Michael Mahony School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle Prepared For Recreational Freshwater Fishing Trust New South Wales Department of Primary Industries August 2006 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... v 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1 1.1. Scope ...................................................................................................................1 1.2. Local Context........................................................................................................1 1.3. Legislation and Licensing Requirements..............................................................3 1.4. Background to the Problem and Proposed Study ................................................3 1.4.1. The Recent Decline of Amphibians in Australia................................................3 1.4.2. The Implication of Introduced Trout in the Decline of Stream Frogs.................4 1.4.3. Addressing the Fisheries Management Strategy ..............................................5 1.4.4. Project Objectives .............................................................................................5 1.4.5. Target Species Profiles.....................................................................................6 1.4.5.1 Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa) ..........................................................6 1.4.5.2 Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus)................................................................7 1.4.5.3 Peppered frog (Litoria piperata) ....................................................................7 1.4.5.4 Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) ....................................................8 1.4.5.5 Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) .......................................................................8 2. METHODS.........................................................................................................17 2.1. Timing of Surveys...............................................................................................17 2.2. Survey Site Selection .........................................................................................17 2.3. Diurnal Surveys ..................................................................................................18 2.4. Nocturnal Surveys ..............................................................................................18 2.5. Identification of Animals......................................................................................19 2.5.1. Adults ..............................................................................................................19 2.5.2. Tadpoles .........................................................................................................19 2.6. Population Estimates..........................................................................................19 3. RESULTS ..........................................................................................................20 3.1. Historical Records of Target Species .................................................................20 3.2. Trout Release Locations.....................................................................................20 3.3. Field Survey Results...........................................................................................23 3.4. Description of Vegetation Present ......................................................................31 3.5. Tests of Significance ..........................................................................................33 4. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................35 5. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................37 6. RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................38 7. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................39 Appendix 1 – Sites surveyed with non-target species present.......................................... 42 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. ii August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle Appendix 2 – Sites surveyed with no detection of target species..................................... 45 Figures and Tables Figure 1. Map of NSW showing the location of the study area and surrounding towns......2 Figure 2. The Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa) ..........................................................9 Figure 3. The Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus)..............................................................10 Figure 4. The Peppered frog (Litoria piperata)...................................................................10 Figure 5. The Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis). .................................................11 Figure 6. The Tusked Frog (Adelotus brevis). ...................................................................11 Figure 7. Distribution of L. subglandulosa before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999. .............................................................................................12 Figure 8. Distribution of M. balbus before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.................................................................................................................13 Figure 9. Distribution of L. piperata before and after 1990. Post 1990 records believed to be due to taxonomic confusion. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999...............14 Figure 10. Distribution of L. booroolongensis before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999. .............................................................................................15 Figure 11. Distribution of A. brevis before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.................................................................................................................16 Figure12. An example of a trout release stream (A) (Little Styx River; 439350E, 6624835N) and a trout free control stream (B) (Eely Creek; 425350E, 6615500N) with similar vegetation structure, stream size and flow rates. ............................................18 Table 1. Trout release sites in the upper catchment of the Styx River, New England Tablelands. .................................................................................................................20 Figure 13. Sites where known trout releases have occurred in the study area prior to the 2005/2006 surveys. ....................................................................................................22 Table 2. Sites where one or more target species were detected during the 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. .................................................................................23 Figure 14. Location of all sites surveyed (trout release and control) showing sites where M. balbus and L. subglandulosa were located during the 2005/2006 surveys. ...............25 Figure 15. Location of sites where Mixophyes balbus were detected at trout release and control sites during the 2005/2006 surveys. ...............................................................26 Figure 16. Location of sites (trout release and control) where Litoria subglandulosa were located during the 2005/2006 surveys........................................................................27 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. iii August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle Figure 17. Location of near-stream site where Adelotus brevis was located during the 2005/2006 surveys. ....................................................................................................28 Figure 18. Location of all control sites during the 2005/2006 survey showing locations of M. balbus and L. subglandulosa records, and control sites where neither species was observed. ....................................................................................................................29 Figure 19. All trout release sites surveyed during 2005/2006 showing locations of M. balbus and L. subglandulosa recorded during the survey period, and trout release sites in which neither species was found....................................................................30 Figure 20. Example of a survey site surrounded by extensive areas of cleared, agricultural land (Barwick Creek; 437100E, 6626600N). ..............................................................31 Figure 21. Example of a survey site surrounded by medium density vegetation, in this case dry sclerophyll (open woodland) (Little Styx Creek; 439725E, 6625350N)........32 Figure 22. Example of a survey site adjoined by large areas of dense terrestrial vegetation, in this case wet sclerophyll forest with some rainforest species (Eely Creek; 425010, 6615150N). .......................................................................................32
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expert Witness Report
    Expert Witness Report Report prepared on instructions of: Bleyer Lawyers, Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 Australia Prepared by: Graeme Gillespie B.Sc. Ph.D. 55 Union Street, Northcote, Vic 3070, Australia Curriculum Vitae Attached (Appendix I) I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to be bound by it. Graeme Gillespie 23 February 2010 Qualifications and Experience Please see my curriculum vitae (Appendix I) for my general qualifications and experience. My Ph.D. in zoology focussed specifically on the conservation biology and ecology of frog species in south-eastern Australia. I have 23 years of field and scientific experience studying amphibians and their conservation and management in south- eastern Australia. I have published 24 refereed scientific papers and 38 technical reports on amphibian ecology, conservation and management. I am recognised throughout Australia as an authority on the frog fauna of Victoria, specifically with respect to conservation issues, and I am regularly asked to provide advice on such matters to individuals, government conservation and land management agencies, and non-government organisations. With regard to the Giant Burrowing Frog, I encountered this species on several occasions between 1986 and 1992 while undertaking and supervising pre-logging biodiversity surveys in East Gippsland, Victoria. These records are documented in the Victorian Wildlife Atlas. During this period, I gained knowledge of the species’ habitat associations, breeding biology, some aspects of its behaviour and an appreciation of its conservation status in Victoria (see Opie et al. 1990; Westaway et al.1990; Lobert et al. 1991). Because of my research into amphibian conservation and management, I am highly familiar with the existing literature on the impact of various forest management activities on amphibians and the implications of these activities for amphibian conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Maturity and Sexual Dimorphism in a Population of the Rocket-Frog Colostethus Aff
    Tolosa et al. Actual Biol Volumen 37 / Número 102, 2014 Sexual maturity and sexual dimorphism in a population of the rocket-frog Colostethus aff. fraterdanieli (Anura: Dendrobatidae) on the northeastern Cordillera Central of Colombia Madurez y dimorfismo sexual de la ranita cohete Colostethus aff. fraterdanieli (Anura: Dendrobatidae) en una población al este de la Cordillera Central de Colombia Yeison Tolosa1, 2, *, Claudia Molina-Zuluaga1, 4,*, Adriana Restrepo1, 5, Juan M. Daza1, ** Abstract The minimum size of sexual maturity and sexual dimorphism are important life history traits useful to study and understand the population dynamics of any species. In this study, we determined the minimum size at sexual maturity and the existence of sexual dimorphism in a population of the rocket-frog, Colostethus aff. fraterdanieli, by means of morphological and morphometric data and macro and microscopic observation of the gonads. Females attained sexual maturity at 17.90 ± 0.1 mm snout-vent length (SVL), while males attained sexual maturity at 16.13 ± 0.06 mm SVL. Females differed from males in size, shape and throat coloration. Males were smaller than females and had a marked and dark throat coloration that sometimes extended to the chest, while females lacked this characteristic, with a throat either immaculate or weakly pigmented. In this study, we describe some important aspects of the reproductive ecology of a population of C. aff. fraterdanieli useful as a baseline for other more specialized studies. Key words: Amphibian, Andes, gonads, histology, morphometry, reproduction Resumen El tamaño mínimo de madurez sexual y el dimorfismo sexual son importantes características de historia de vida, útiles para estudiar y comprender la dinámica poblacional de cualquier especie.
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Australia’S Forest Wildlife in Crisis
    Abandoned Australia’s forest wildlife in crisis Photo: Endangered Spotted-tailed Quoll by award-winning nature photographer David Gallan. Used with permission. ​ ​ ​ March 2019 (Updated July 2019) Contents Part 1: A sample of threatened forest-dwelling fauna species at risk from logging 3 ​ Comparison between ‘RFA forests’ and habitat for critically endangered species 5 Regent Honeyeater (NSW) 6 Western Ringtail Possum (WA) 7 Swift Parrot (NSW/Tas/Vic) 8 Leadbeater’s Possum (Vic) 9 Barred Galaxias (Vic) 10 ​ ​ Giant Freshwater Crayfish (Tas) 11 ​ ​ Koala (NSW/Vic) 12 ​ ​ Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (WA) 13 ​ ​ Giant Barred Frog (NSW) 14 ​ ​ Numbat (WA) 15 ​ ​ Spotted-tailed Quoll (NSW/Vic) 16 Greater Glider (NSW/Vic) 17 ​ ​ Large Forest Owls: Masked Owl, Sooty Owl, Powerful Owl (NSW/Tas/Vic) 18 Further threatened forest-dwelling, logging-impacted species 20 ​ Part 2: Summary of new laws and proposals for new protected areas 25 ​ Part 3: Case studies: Threatened species under new RFAs and accredited logging plans 29 ​ 3.1 NSW ‘Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals’ (IFOAs) 30 ​ 3.2 Victoria: State of the Forests Report documents species decline 31 3.3 Tasmania 31 Part 4: Relevant court cases and rulings and their implications 32 ​ 4.1 Enforcement of EPBC Act in relation to threatened species 33 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Appendix 1: The total number of EPBC-listed, forest-dwelling species in Australia 34 ​ ​ ​ Appendix 2: Key threatening processes 35 ​ ​ Appendix 3: FSC HCV categories 37 ​ Acknowledgements and selected references 38 The Wilderness Society acknowledges the First Nations peoples of the lands and seas on which we work across Australia, and recognises their continuing connection to land, water and community.
    [Show full text]
  • National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes Balbus
    National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie Prepared by David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Melbourne, October 2011. © State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. ISBN 978-1-74242-369-2 (online) This is a Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with the assistance of funding provided by the Australian Government. This Recovery Plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website www.environment.gov.au For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186 Citation: Hunter, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frog Species in the Upper Catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands, Near Sites Where Trout Releases Occur
    Status of populations of threatened stream frog species in the upper catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands, near sites where trout releases occur. Year 3: continuation of established transect monitoring for the study of trout impacts in endangered frog demographics. Simon Clulow, John Clulow & Michael Mahony School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle Prepared For Recreational Freshwater Fishing Trust New South Wales Department of Primary Industries October 2009 i Executive Summary The authors of this report were engaged to assess the status of populations of threatened stream frogs in and around the upper catchment of the Styx River on the New England Tablelands in areas where trout releases occur over the spring/summer periods of 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. The brief for this study required an assessment of the impact of introduced trout on these threatened frog populations in streams where trout have been released. The rationale for this study was the implication of trout in the decline of several Australian specialist stream breeding amphibian species in 1999 (Gillespie & Hero, 1999). Initial surveys of the region 2006 involved broad landscape scale surveys of the presence/absence of a number of threatened species that were known to be present in the New England Tablelands historically. In 2007 and 2008, the studies were focussed on a smaller number of permanent transects that were established at 11 sites in the Styx River area to investigate more intensely potential impacts of trout on two endangered frogs: the Glandular Frog, Litoria subglandulosa and the Stuttering Frog, Mixophyes balbus.
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan
    Appendix 1 to Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan Compiled by: Graeme Gillespie, Director Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria; Russel Traher, Amphibian TAG Convenor, Curator Healesville Sanctuary Chris Banks, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria. February 2007 1 1. Background Amphibian species across the world have declined at an alarming rate in recent decades. According to the IUCN at least 122 species have gone extinct since 1980 and nearly one third of the world’s near 6,000 amphibian species are classified as threatened with extinction, placing the entire class at the core of the current biodiversity crisis (IUCN, 2006). Australasia too has experienced significant declines; several Australian species are considered extinct and nearly 25% of the remainder are threatened with extinction, while all four species native to New Zealand are threatened. Conventional causes of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and invasive species, are playing a major role in these declines. However, emergent disease and climate change are strongly implicated in many declines and extinctions. These factors are now acting globally, rapidly and, most disturbingly, in protected and near pristine areas. Whilst habitat conservation and mitigation of threats in situ are essential, for many taxa the requirement for some sort of ex situ intervention is mounting. In response to this crisis there have been a series of meetings organised by the IUCN (World Conservation Union), WAZA (World Association of Zoos & Aquariums) and CBSG (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, of the IUCN Species Survival Commission) around the world to discuss how the zoo community can and should respond.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O
    1 CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. O’DONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O’Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue of protozoan parasites recorded in Australia. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 45(1):1-164. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports of protozoan species from Australian animals have been compiled into a host- parasite checklist, a parasite-host checklist and a cross-referenced bibliography. Protozoa listed include parasites, commensals and symbionts but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagellates, ciliates and ‘sporozoa’ (the latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplosporidians and paramyxeans). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. Information has been abstracted from over 1,270 scientific publications predating 1999 and all records include taxonomic authorities, synonyms, common names, sites of infection within hosts and geographic locations. Protozoa, parasite checklist, host checklist, bibliography, Australia. Peter J. O’Donoghue, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia; Robert D. Adlard, Protozoa Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane 4101, Australia; 31 January 2000. CONTENTS the literature for reports relevant to contemporary studies. Such problems could be avoided if all previous HOST-PARASITE CHECKLIST 5 records were consolidated into a single database. Most Mammals 5 researchers currently avail themselves of various Reptiles 21 electronic database and abstracting services but none Amphibians 26 include literature published earlier than 1985 and not all Birds 34 journal titles are covered in their databases. Fish 44 Invertebrates 54 Several catalogues of parasites in Australian PARASITE-HOST CHECKLIST 63 hosts have previously been published.
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA YOTF Infopack.Pdf
    ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Information pack ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Printing: The ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign pack was generously supported by Madman Printing Phone: +61 3 9244 0100 Email: [email protected] Front cover design: Patrick Crawley, www.creepycrawleycartoons.com Mobile: 0401 316 827 Email: [email protected] Front cover photo: Pseudophryne pengilleyi, Northern Corroboree Frog. Photo courtesy of Lydia Fucsko. Printed on 100% recycled stock 2 ARAZPA 2008 Year of the Frog Campaign Contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................5 Foreword part II ………………………………………………………………………………………… ...6 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................9 Section 1: Why A Campaign?....................................................................................................11 The Connection Between Man and Nature........................................................................11 Man’s Effect on Nature ......................................................................................................11 Frogs Matter ......................................................................................................................11 The Problem ......................................................................................................................12 The Reason
    [Show full text]
  • Context Statement for the Gloucester Subregion, PDF, 11.22 MB
    Context statement for the Gloucester subregion Product 1.1 from the Northern Sydney Basin Bioregional Assessment 28 May 2014 A scientific collaboration between the Department of the Environment, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia The Bioregional Assessment Programme The Bioregional Assessment Programme is a transparent and accessible programme of baseline assessments that increase the available science for decision making associated with coal seam gas and large coal mines. A bioregional assessment is a scientific analysis of the ecology, hydrology, geology and hydrogeology of a bioregion with explicit assessment of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of coal seam gas and large coal mining development on water resources. This Programme draws on the best available scientific information and knowledge from many sources, including government, industry and regional communities, to produce bioregional assessments that are independent, scientifically robust, and relevant and meaningful at a regional scale. The Programme is funded by the Australian Government Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia are collaborating to undertake bioregional assessments. For more information, visit <www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au>. Department of the Environment The Office of Water Science, within the Australian Government Department of the Environment, is strengthening the regulation of coal seam gas and large coal mining development by ensuring that future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert advice about the potential water related impacts of those developments. For more information, visit <www.environment.gov.au/coal-seam-gas-mining/>. Bureau of Meteorology The Bureau of Meteorology is Australia’s national weather, climate and water agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Management Plan (EPBC Act)
    APPENDIX E E1 - Species Management Plan (EPBC Act) E2 - Species Management Plan (NC Act) Species Management Program for Species Listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Six Mile Creek Dam Safety Upgrade Reference No. 30031970 Prepared for Seqwater 29 November 2018 SMEC INTERNAL REF. 30031970 Appendix E1 – Species Management Plan (EPBC Act) Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Proponent and project description .............................................................................................................. 5 Location ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Scope of Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Legislation and Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 8 SITE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Desktop assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Suitably qualified person .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Reptiles and Frogs in the Forests of New South Wales
    Please do not remove this page Conserving reptiles and frogs in the forests of New South Wales Newell, David A; Goldingay, Ross L https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/delivery/61SCU_INST:ResearchRepository/1266904610002368?l#1367373090002368 Newell, D. A., & Goldingay, R. L. (2004). Conserving reptiles and frogs in the forests of New South Wales. In Conservation of Australia’s forest fauna (pp. 270–296). Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/fulldisplay/alma991012820501502368/61SCU_INST:Research Repository Southern Cross University Research Portal: https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/discovery/search?vid=61SCU_INST:ResearchRepository [email protected] Open Downloaded On 2021/09/25 04:13:03 +1000 Please do not remove this page Conserving reptiles and frogs in the forests of New South Wales David Newell and Ross Goldingay* School of Environmental Science & Management, Southern Cross University, Lismore, 2480 NSW *Email: [email protected] The forests of New South Wales (NSW) contain a diverse fauna of frogs and reptiles (herpetofauna) with approximately 139 species occurring in forests and around 59 species that are forest-dependent. Prior to 1991, this fauna group received scant attention in research or forest management. However, legislative and policy changes in the early 1990s have largely reversed this situation. This review documents the changes in forest management that now require closer attention be given to the requirements of forest herpetofauna. We also provide an overview of research that contributes to a greater understanding of the management requirements of forest-dependent species. The introduction of the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 in NSW led to the need for comprehensive surveys of all forest vertebrate wildlife and detailed consideration of potential impacts on forest species listed as endangered by this Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Litoria Citropa)
    Herpetology Notes, volume 14: 803-808 (2021) (published online on 26 May 2021) Photo identification of individual Blue Mountains Tree Frogs (Litoria citropa) Jordann Crawford-Ash1,2,* and Jodi J.L. Rowley1,2 Abstract. We used a Photo Identification Method (PIM) to identify individuals of the Blue Mountains Tree Frog, Litoria citropa. By matching the body markings on photographs taken in the field of the lateral, dorsal and anterior views of the frog, we were able to re-match two individuals; one after 88 days and the other after 45 days. We present the first evidence that photo identification is likely to be a useful tool in individual recognition of L. citropa and is one of a few studies on the use of PIM in Australian frogs. Keywords. Body patterning, Australian frogs, non-invasive, mark recapture, individual recognition, PIM Introduction and utilised across multiple study periods (Auger-Méthé and Whitehead, 2007; Knox et al., 2013; Marlow et al., In a time of unprecedented rates of biodiversity decline, 2016). PIM has been particularly successful in studies of a good understanding of age structures, habitat use, cetaceans and mammals (Würsig and Jefferson, 1990; and population fluctuations is necessary for effective Auger-Méthé and Whitehead, 2007; Urian et al., 2015) ecological and conservation management strategies and is increasing in use for reptiles and amphibians (Phillott et al., 2007; Kenyon et al., 2009; Marlow et world-wide (Bradfield, 2004; Knox et al., 2013; Šukalo al., 2016). This information is often obtained through various sampling and survey methods such as mark- et al., 2013; Sacchi et al., 2016).
    [Show full text]