Status of Populations of Threatened Stream 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 in Australia...... 3 1.4.2. The Implication of Introduced Trout in the Decline of Stream ...... 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 ...... 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 Figure 23. Example of a survey site surrounded by large areas of dense vegetation, in this case temperate rainforest (Five Day Creek; 442200E, 6625800N)...... 33 Figure 24. Number of trout release and control streams in which M. balbus was present or absent during the 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. There was no significant difference in the proportion of control or trout streams with M. balbus...... 34 Figure 25. Number of trout release and control streams in which L. subglandulosa was present or absent during 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. There was no significant difference in the proportion of control and trout streams with L. subglandulosa...... 34

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. iv August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

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 period of 2005/2006. 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 species in 1999 (Gillespie & Hero, 1999).

A list of threatened amphibian fauna reported from the local area was compiled from data in the Australian Museum’s New England Frog Database and from a publication of a survey of the distribution and abundance of declining frog species in upper north-east New South Wales (Mahony, 1996). The threatened species identified from these sources were the Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus), the Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa), the Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis), the Peppered frog (Litoria piperata), and the New England Tableland population of the Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis).

Surveys were conducted on three occasions during the spring/summer period with a total of 17 survey days and nights undertaken over an area of approximately 297000 hectares. More than 75 sites throughout the New England Tablelands were surveyed using standardised survey techniques for the detection of stream frogs. These included 43 sites along trout inhabited streams and 33 sites along trout free (control) streams.

The Stuttering frog was detected at 9 trout release sites and 10 control sites while the Glandular frog was detected at 9 trout release sites and 4 control sites. The Tusked frog was only detected at one near-stream site. Using the survey data minimum population estimates for the Stuttering frog range from less than 10 to more than 40 individuals for both trout release sites and control sites. Minimum population estimates for the Glandular frog range from 5 to more than 50 individuals at trout release sites, and 5 to more than 10 individuals at control sites. All sites where stream frogs were found were considered to have established breeding populations due to the presence of calling males and tadpoles in the water.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. v August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

The at both control and trout release sites where the Stuttering frog and Glandular frog were found varied from extensively cleared farm land with little remnant riparian vegetation through less intensively cleared land with varying amounts of riparian vegetation to natural bushland surrounded by large areas of riparian and forest vegetation. Major Vegetation types encountered included wet and dry sclerophyllous eucalypt forest and temperate rainforest.

Searches were also conducted throughout the survey for the Peppered frog and the Booroolong frog. These species were not found at any of the 33 control sites or 43 trout sites suggesting that factors other than trout release are responsible for their disappearance.

The Stuttering frog and Glandular frog were detected on a similar proportion of streams where trout release occurs and streams that are trout free. This suggests that trout are not a direct cause of their decline. However as this study only determined the presence or absence of species at sites, further studies need to be pursued to determine if trout impact on size and population dynamics within extant populations at sites where trout and endangered stream frogs co-exist. This might be achieved through setting up longer term transects along both control and trout streams to monitor population demographics over a number of years. This would allow a comparison of population size, age structure and recruitment between trout inhabited and trout free streams that would determine whether trout have a negative effect within endangered stream frog populations.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. vi August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. SCOPE

The authors of this report were engaged by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (Recreational Freshwater Fishing Trust) to prepare an assessment of 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. The purpose of this assessment was to provide an insight into the impact of the release of introduced trout species on the distribution and abundance of threatened stream dependent frogs. The location of the study area is shown in Figure 1.

1.2. LOCAL CONTEXT

The study area is located in north-eastern NSW on the New England Tablelands and is situated between Coffs Harbour to the east, Armidale to the west, Grafton to the north and Kempsey to the south (see Figure 1). It occupies approximately 297000 hectares and contains numerous creeks, streams and rivers, some of which are utilised for stocking with introduced trout. The vegetation and landscape throughout the study area varies greatly with rural townships, cleared land (generally utilised for farming), and natural forest areas.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 1 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

N

WE

S

Lismore

Glen Innes Grafton

Walgett Coffs Harbour Armidale

Tamworth Kempsey

Port Macquarie

Taree

Mudgee Newcastle

Bathurst

Sydney

LEGEND

STUDY AREA MAJOR CITIES 0200 km

Figure 1. Map of NSW showing the location of the study area and surrounding towns.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 2 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

1.3. LEGISLATION AND LICENSING REQUIREMENTS

This project was undertaken in accordance with the following Policies and Approvals:

• Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); • NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act); • NSW Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Act 2002; • National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NP&W Act); • Fisheries Management Strategy – Freshwater Fish Stocking in NSW Environmental Impact Statement (NSW Fisheries, 2003) • NSW NPWS Scientific License S10382 • University of Newcastle Ethics Approval 6771006

Schedules 1 and 2 of the TSC Act contain lists of flora and fauna species, populations and communities, which have been determined by the NSW Scientific Committee as being under threat of serious decline that could ultimately lead to extinction. Schedule 3 of the TSC Act contains a list of ‘key threatening processes’ deemed to be processes that have a negative impact on threatened species, populations or communities.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and the University of Newcastle Animal Ethics Committee have approved these animal surveys.

1.4. BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM AND PROPOSED STUDY

1.4.1. The Recent Decline of Amphibians in Australia In the early 1980’s the decline of an Australian amphibian was observed for the first time with the disappearance of the Gastric Brooding (Rheobatrachus silus) frog in south- eastern Queensland. Since then, there has been a recorded decline in the distribution and abundance of numerous native frog species throughout Australia (see papers in Campbell, 1999). Stream dependent frogs (species that rely on streams for breeding and larval support) make up the majority of Australian amphibians undergoing decline (Morrison & Hero, 2004). The cause of this decline is a matter of considerable debate and current

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 3 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle research among scientists today. Several hypotheses have been put forward to explain this decline including disease, habitat loss and degradation, climate change, pollution, increased levels of UV-B radiation, and predation by introduced species (Alford & Richards, 1999). Today it is estimated that a possible 32% of amphibian species are at risk of extinction globally (Stuart et al, 2004). These declines have resulted in numerous species being listed as threatened in Australia under both state and federal legislation. Accordingly, activities that may impact on populations of these frogs or their are required to be subject to impact assessment.

Five stream dependent frogs that are listed as threatened occur in the New England region. Two that have population records near to the sites of fish releases on the Styx River on the New England Tablelands are the Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) and Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa). Populations of three other threatened frog species are also likely to occur in the area, the Peppered frog (Litoria piperata), the Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) and the Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis).

1.4.2. The Implication of Introduced Trout in the Decline of Stream Frogs Considerable research has gone into investigating the affect that both introduced fish, and native fish translocated into areas where they previously did not occur, have had on amphibian larvae. Studies of the effects of presence of species such as the introduced Mosquito Fish (Gambusia spp.) have suggested that they may play a role in the decline of several amphibian species through predation on tadpoles (for example Morgan & Buttemer, 1996; Pyke & White, 1996; Webb & Joss, 1997). Introduced trout have been linked to the decline of macroinvertebrates in Utah (Luecke, 1990) and several overseas studies have implicated various salmonids in the decline of endemic amphibian populations (for example Braña et al, 1996). Gillespie and Hero (1999) suggested that various trout species, including the Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), were playing a significant role in the decline of several species of stream dwelling frogs in Australia. In particular, the species considered to be at threat from trout were those that breed exclusively in streams throughout south-eastern Australia (Gillespie & Hero, 1999). Such species include the Spotted Tree frog (Litoria speceri), Leaf-green Tree frog (Litoria phyllochroa) and the Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) (Gillespie & Hero, 1999; Gillespie 2001).

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 4 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

1.4.3. Addressing the Fisheries Management Strategy The first goal of the Fisheries Management Strategy (FMS) is to “manage the activity in a manner that minimises impacts on aquatic biodiversity including threatened species and genetic resources” and it sets out to achieve this by a set of objectives, the second of which states, “to minimise or eliminate any negative impact from the activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, and where possible promote their recovery.” (NSW Fisheries, 2003).

This translates to the need to appropriately manage trout stocking areas where the activity may adversely affect threatened species. The FMS notes that any stocking event that has the potential to affect threatened species will be thoroughly reviewed with a view to preventing or minimising any potential impacts (objective 1.2a). Accordingly it is a high priority to assess the potential for fish stocking of the Styx River on the New England Tableland to impact on threatened frog fauna.

1.4.4. Project Objectives In accordance with the goals and objectives of the Fisheries Management Strategy four specific project objectives were proposed for this study:

1. Determine whether populations of the two threatened frog species (Stuttering frog and Glandular frog) occur in the upper Styx River catchment. 2. If populations of the two threatened frog species occur, document their location and make an estimate of the population size and the habitat used for breeding. 3. Using a suitable survey design, including appropriate control sites, provide an assessment of the impact of fish releases on the distribution and abundance of threatened frog species in the upper Styx River catchment. 4. Provide a record of the frog species present in the Styx River catchment, including searches for populations of the threatened Peppered frog, Booroolong frog and Tusked frog.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 5 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

1.4.5. Target Species Profiles

1.4.5.1 Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa) (Figure 2) This species is similar to other members of the Litoria citropa complex and for many years was considered to be a form of L. citropa. It is now clear that it is a distinct species and has been further divided into two sibling species (L. subglandulosa, L. daviesae) in recent years (Mahony et al, 2001). The dorsum ranges from green to olive brown above with the sides almost always remaining green (Robinson, 1998). The head stripe is similar to L. citropa, containing a broad dark stripe running from the nostrils, through the and above the indistinct tympanum, with a thin gold stripe running above it. The distinct white stripe on the upper jaw however is much reduced or absent in L. citropa (Barker et al, 1995). The backs of the thighs are reddish-brown and the toes are almost fully webbed while the fingers remain free (Barker et al, 1995). There are vomerine teeth behind the choanae, and maxillary teeth (Robinson, 1998).

The Glandular frog has a relatively small distribution, occurring along the ranges from the Southern New England Tablelands to the northern most forests of NSW, extending just into south-eastern QLD (Figure 7) (Barker et al, 1995; Anstis, 2002). A large portion of its range, and indeed its type locality, falls in the New England Tablelands and it is sometimes referred to as the New England Tree frog (Tyler & Anstis, 1975). To the south of this distribution extending from the Barrington Range to the southern border of the New England Range is a closely related sibling species Litoria daviesae (Mahony et al, 2001). Both species are associated with small permanent creeks, streams and rivers in rainforest, montane areas or wet sclerophyll forest above 300m (Anstis, 2002) although they may also be found along streams running through disturbed grazing lands (Barker et al, 1995). Males call during summer and early spring in a variety of weather conditions from low vegetation surrounding the stream. Calling intensity greatly increases during and after rain events (Anstis & Littlejohn, 1996) and breeding generally occurs in shaded pools where the flow rate is slower (Anstis, 2002). Larvae in L. subglandulosa and L. daviesae are unique in that they lack tooth rows and jaw sheaths. Instead they contain a large suctorial oral disk with numerous finely pointed papillae that increase in size towards the mouth opening (Anstis, 2002). Tadpoles may be found frequenting the bottom of shallow, slowly flowing sections of the stream where they are well camouflaged and can be observed

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 6 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle using a unique ‘oral locomotion’ not observed in other species when feeding (Anstis, 2002).

1.4.5.2 Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) (Figure 3) The Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus, is among the largest amphibians in Australia and has appeared to reduce greatly in number in recent times (Daly, 1998). The species is yellow-grey above and finely granular with a dark irregular mid-dorsal band extending from between the eyes to the rear of the back. The limbs have narrow dark cross-bars that may be incomplete or indistinct (not to be confused with Lechriodus fletcheri) (Cogger 2000). Individuals grow to a length of approximately 80mm. The historical distribution of the Stuttering Frog was from east of the Great Divide and extended from south-eastern Queensland through NSW to Victoria (Figure 8) (Barker et al, 1998). The preferred habitat of the Stuttering Frog is along streams in rainforest, Antarctic beech and wet sclerophyll forests (Cogger 2000). The species depends on freshwater streams and riparian vegetation for breeding and habitation. It makes use of riffle zones along creeks and streams where it makes hollowed out nests in the gravel in which it deposits its eggs at very precise times when the water flow is correct (M Mahony unpublished data). The tadpoles are then washed into deeper pools where they grow and metamorphose. The best time to detect naturally calling males therefore is after heavy rains when the creeks and streams have filled and are beginning to recede, forming ideal riffle zones. The males will however respond readily to call playback most of the time through spring and summer, the season in which it is known to breed.

1.4.5.3 Peppered frog (Litoria piperata) (Figure 4) Litoria piperata is a slender and delicate tree frog growing to around 30mm in length with expanded disks on the tips of the fingers and fully webbed toes (Barker et al, 1995). It is grey to slate on the dorsum with small black dots scattered throughout as well as on the sides. There is an obscure dark stripe running through the and tympanum from the nostril (Robinson, 1998). L piperata is now considered to be extinct, with the few records in recent times believed by most biologists to be cases of misidentification due to taxonomic confusion (Figure 9). Little is known about this species with breeding habits and calling behaviour never being recorded.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 7 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

1.4.5.4 Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) (Figure 5.) This stream-dwelling frog was abundant along the ranges from Victoria to NSW above 200m until it began to decline drastically throughout much of its distribution over the last twenty years (Figure 10) (Anstis et al, 1998). Reaching around 55mm in length the Booroolong frog is usually dull grey or reddish-brown above with paler spots and mottling and slightly warty texture. The abdomen is white and fairly granular and there is a thin black line that passes through the eye from the snout and over the small, distinct tympanum to the shoulder. The fingers are free from webbing while the toes are strongly webbed to the disks (Barker et al, 1998). L. booroolongensis is strongly associated with flowing rocky streams on the slopes and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range and can often be seen on rocks and next to streams throughout the day. L. booroolongensis is now only know from two locations in northern NSW (upper reaches of the Barnard River and on a small tributary of the Cockburn River) and from various locations on the western slopes of the central and southern tablelands (Gillespie & Hines, 1999). L. booroolongensis often occurs in similar locations to L. lesueuri and L. wilcoxi and can strongly resemble these two species (Gillespie & Hines, 1999). It may be distinguished by the greater webbing between its toes.

1.4.5.5 Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) (Figure 6.) While remaining somewhat common throughout much of its range in NSW and QLD, this ground dwelling frog has experienced a significant range contraction on the New England Tablelands (Figure 11) (Gillespie & Hines, 1999). It has recently been listed as an endangered population in the Nandewar and New England Tablelands bioregions under the TSC Act, 1995. While both the male and female have a similar olive green to brown back with a rough, warty texture the Tusked frog displays a high level of . The males of the species are larger (reaching 5cm in length) and contain a much broader head that can be as broad, or broader than its body (Barker et al, 1995). The males also contain a pair of large bony ‘tusks’ at the front of the mouth, which is believed to be used for defending their territory (Reader’s Digest, 2005). The smaller females (reaching around 4cm in length) lack any tusks and have a much narrower head (Barker et al, 1995). Both sexes have black and red marbling in the groin and thighs and a

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 8 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle black and white marbled belly. Nevertheless females tend to have more vividly marbled black and white bellies as opposed to the males that tend to have black bellies with white spots (Robinson, 1998).

The tusked frog ranges along coastal plains and adjacent ranges from southern NSW to central eastern QLD. It can be found in varying habitats from open country that occasionally floods to wet sclerophyll forest and rainforest (Robinson, 1998; Barker et al, 1995). It breeds beside still water or gently flowing streams, often in puddles, ditches or flooded areas and is one of the few species outside of the Limnodynastes to produce foam nests (Anstis, 2002; Daly, 1995). Males can most often be found calling from behind logs or rocks in the water, or hidden well in amongst vegetation (Robinson, 1998).

Figure 2. The Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa)

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 9 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 3. The Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus)

Figure 4. The Peppered frog (Litoria piperata)

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 10 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 5. The Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis).

Figure 6. The Tusked Frog (Adelotus brevis).

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 11 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 7. Distribution of L. subglandulosa before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 12 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 8. Distribution of M. balbus before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 13 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

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.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 14 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 10. Distribution of L. booroolongensis before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 15 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 11. Distribution of A. brevis before and after 1990. Reproduced from Gillespie & Hines, 1999.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 16 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

2. METHODS

A list of threatened amphibian fauna reported from the study area was obtained from the Australian Museum’s New England Frog database and from Mahony (1996). This was used to initially determine which threatened species of stream frogs were known to occur historically in the study region. The Stuttering frog and the Glandular frog were selected as the primary target species due to their expected abundance across the survey area.

Field surveys were subsequently conducted on three occasions during the spring/summer period of 2005/2006, involving a total of 17 survey days and nights. Standardised survey techniques for frogs and tadpoles were employed throughout the survey periods and included diurnal habitat searches, nocturnal spotlight surveys, call playback surveys and dip netting for tadpoles.

2.1. TIMING OF SURVEYS

Both primary target species are active in Spring and Summer and advertisement calls of males can be detected at these times. Tadpoles of the Stuttering frog occur in the stream for a period of several months after the breeding season and those of the Glandular frog for a shorter period up until the end of Summer.

Surveys were conducted during the spring/summer period and were timed to coincide with optimal conditions for finding the target species, usually during or shortly after rain events.

2.2. SURVEY SITE SELECTION

Surveys were focused on sites in and around the upper catchment of the Styx River, generally within a 10km radius of trout release sites. Selection of sites was made in consultation with State Fisheries officers with a knowledge of the trout release program in the area. Individual sites were selected by inspection during daylight surveys and were dependent on habitat assessment and logistics of access, bearing in mind that surveys had to be conducted at night in order to locate frog breeding sites.

To assess the impact of fish, both trout inhabited sites and trout free control sites were selected. Trout inhabited sites included streams and tributaries where trout releases had occurred, trout had been sighted, or where there was sufficient connectivity to trout

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 17 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

release sites that trout were considered likely to occur. Control sites included streams and tributaries where no trout have been released and no movement corridor existed for trout to have migrated into them. As much as practicable, control and trout inhabited sites were selected on streams with similar structure (geomorphology and stream size and flow rates), riparian vegetation, and at similar altitudes (Figure12).

(A) (B)

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.

2.3. DIURNAL SURVEYS

Habitat searches were undertaken during daylight hours to search for basking adults and to locate possible breeding sites. During these survey periods dip netting and visual searching was conducted to locate any tadpoles present in the streams.

2.4. NOCTURNAL SURVEYS

Spotlight surveys were carried out by walking lengths of stream and using head torches to search for frogs by eye shine or physical sightings. Most frogs are more active by night

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 18 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle than by day and it is at this time that they are best surveyed. Call playback surveys were conducted by playing the target species calls over a megaphone in order to get a call back response from breeding males. This technique is known to work particularly well with the Stuttering frog and Glandular frog and they readily respond to their respective mating calls when climatic conditions are suitable.

2.5. IDENTIFICATION OF ANIMALS

2.5.1. Adults Adult frogs were identified by visual confirmation or by the detection of their distinct advertisement calls.

2.5.2. Tadpoles Tadpoles were keyed out using diagnostic features including mouth parts (tooth rows, jaw sheaths and papillae), pigmentation, body size, tail structure (musculature, fin depth and shape, tip shape), eye direction and spacing, pupil pigmentation, nare shape and spacing, spiracle height and direction, vent length and direction, and tadpole behaviour. The key used was that of Anstis (2002).

2.6. POPULATION ESTIMATES

Population sizes were estimated assuming an equal sex ratio. The conservative approach was adopted whereby the number of males detected were tallied and doubled to account for females present (rarely detected due to lack of calling behaviour) giving a minimum population estimate.

Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. 19 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

3. RESULTS

3.1. HISTORICAL RECORDS OF TARGET SPECIES

A search for prior records of target species was conducted using the Australian Museum’s New England Frog Database, and a publication of a survey of the distribution and abundance of declining frog species in upper north-east New South Wales (Mahony, 1996). Five species of stream dwelling frogs listed as threatened have been recorded in the New England region with two having populations recorded around the Styx River. These are the Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) and the Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa).

3.2. TROUT RELEASE LOCATIONS

Trout release locations were determined in consultation with local State Fisheries officers with a knowledge of the release programs in the New England area. Information on release sites were gathered from both official records and by personal communication with Fisheries officers and local fishing club members. A total of 33 trout release sites were identified in the study area (Table 1, Figure 13).

Table 1. Trout release sites in the upper catchment of the Styx River, New England Tablelands. Site Name Cross Reference Eastings Northings Deer Park Ck. 454300 6640425 Meldrum Ck. 452325 6641250 Whiskey Ck. 469250 6640775 Bielsdown Rv. 470650 6642875 Bielsdown Rv. Little Falls Ck. 471575 6648075 Little Murray Rv. Deer Vale Rd. 464925 6645175 Little Murray Rv. 463650 6645230 Borra Ck. Deer Vale Rd. 463400 6646425 Nymboida Rv. Harness Cask 457350 6651425 Brush Ck. 453330 6651625 Glen Fernaigh Rv. Cedar Log Rd. 452425 6652710 Boundary Ck. Tyler’s Rd. 450735 6651125 Blick’s Rv. Merengo Rd. 440650 6653075 Blick’s Rv. 439825 6648900 Jock’s Water 442100 6642300 Major’s Ck. 441520 6640450 Alan’s Water 446960 6641100 Coutt’s Water 449600 6642250 Nymboida Rv. 449450 6641450 Guy Fawkes Rv. 437225 6636070

20 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Serpentine Ck. 435175 6628740 Serpentine Ck. Dutton Trout Hatchery 434550 6627900 Back Ck. 437150 6626900 Styx Rv. 432500 6623175 Styx Rv. Jean’s Rd. 432940 6623325 Styx Rv. Near Hyatt’s Flat 435125 6623085 Little Styx Rv. 439350 6624835 Wollomombi Rv. Armidale Rd. 407750 6623800 Oaky Rv. 416000 6620775 Oaky Rv. Wakefield Rd. 418100 6623225 Styx Rv. 1 Mile Cutting Rd. 420050 6615750 Styx Rv. Wattle Flat 424310 6616400 Wollomombi Rv. Chandler Rd. 404800 6633175

21 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands.

N

WE

93372n 94373n S Hernani Dorrigo › › › › › 93373s 93372s 94373s

B

I Maidens Creek Ebor Darkwood K E

E L

E S › R D C O Y W R › N

A K R E I D BORRA CR E V

N K E

U E R E 93364n 93361n O › B R C Jeogla Hyatts Flat K M E E › U › R R C D L K E R M A P

G R › U E DORRIGO Y › › E D R Topographic Map Locations F E A IV W › › R K › Y E A › S R › › R R U I V M E R E L T T I L EBOR G U Y F › A W R K E E

V S I R R I W V

R E O R E L L L › D O

M N

A B I H

C R I V E R

... › RE C › CK BA ›

O TO AR AK MI Y C DA RE › LE EK › › ›› ›

R ›› E EEK IV A CR R ARR YX AW T UN S C

› ›

LEGEND

› TROUT RELEASE SITES TOWNSHIP

010 km

Figure 13. Sites where known trout releases have occurred in the study area prior to the 2005/2006 surveys. 22 August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

3.3. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

More than 75 sites were surveyed throughout the New England Tablelands including 43 sites along trout inhabited streams and 33 sites along trout free streams (Table 2; Appendix 2; Figure 14). The Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) was detected at 9 trout release sites and 10 control sites (Table 2; Figures 14 & 15) while the Glandular frog (Litoria subglandulosa) was detected at 9 trout release sites and 4 control sites (Table 2; Figures 14 & 16). There were 28 trout release and 19 control sites where neither L. subglandulosa or M. balbus were found (Appendix 2). Minimum population estimates for the Stuttering frog ranged from less than 10 to more than 40 individuals for both trout release and control sites. Minimum population estimates for the Glandular frog ranged from more than 5 to more than 50 individuals at trout sites and more than 5 to more than 10 individuals at control sights (Table 2). All sites containing Stuttering and Glandular frogs were considered to support breeding populations based on the presence of calling males and tadpoles.

The Tusked frog (Adelotus brevis) was found at one near-stream site (Table 2; Figure 17), while searches for the Peppered frog (Litoria piperata) and Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) failed to detect individuals of either species at any of the 33 control sites (Figure 18) or 43 trout inhabited sites (Figure 19). Appendix 2 lists the 28 trout release and 19 control sites at which neither threatened target species was located.

Table 2. Sites where one or more target species were detected during the 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. Sites With Target Threatened Species Present Site Present Min. Population Eastings Northings Trout Species Estimates Present Serpentine Ck. L. subglandulosa >20 434800E 6628100N Yes (Dutton Hatchery) Barwick Ck. L. subglandulosa >5 437100E 6626600N Yes (Back Ck.) Snowy Ck. L. subglandulosa >10 433200E 6634600N Yes (Rd. to Guyra) Biscuit Ck. L. subglandulosa >10 429100E 6638500N No (Rd. to Guyra) Thungutty Camp Gr. L. subglandulosa >8 441200E 6625550N Yes (Styx Rv.) George’s Ck. M. balbus >2 439500E 6623750N No (Cunnawarra trail) Cunnawarra Ck. L. subglandulosa >15 435550E 6619300N No

23 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

(Cunnawarra trail) Backwater Ck. L. subglandulosa >5 434900E 6618500N No (Diamond flat) M. balbus >8 435100E 6618600N Hyatts flat L. subglandulosa >50 435700E 6623400N Yes Eely Ck. L. subglandulosa >5 427650E 6616950N Yes (Jacks Fire Rd.) M. balbus >5 Forest Way Rd. M. balbus >5 426900E 6614800N No Eely Ck. L. subglandulosa >10 425010E 6615150N Yes (Eely Ck. Rd.) M. balbus >40 Eely Ck. L. subglandulosa >5 423200E 6615070N Yes (Boundary trail) M. balbus >10 Spankers Rd. M. balbus >4 422650E 6613650N No (Spankers Gully) Rd. to Guyra L. subglandulosa >5 432200E 6636800N No (150m from Thuddungra) Bullock Ck. M. balbus >2 432820E 6628980N No (Armidale Rd.) Boggy Ck. M. balbus >10 417450E 6609600N Yes (Mains Fire Rd.) Sunday Ck. M. balbus Detected by 420500E 6608000N No (Brushwood Forest tadpoles only Rd.) Little Sunday Ck. M. balbus >50 421900E 6608750N No (Management trail) Eely Ck. L. subglandulosa >5 425350E 6615500N Yes (Loop Rd. bridge) M. balbus >6 Eely Ck. M. balbus >5 424550E 6614700N Yes (Bashers Rd.) Sandy’s Ck. M. balbus >2 461525E 6640075N Yes Yarrum Ck. M. balbus >10 459500E 6639100N Yes 3.5 km W of Sandy’s M. balbus >10 458775E 6638800N Yes Ck. Never Never Picnic M. balbus >50 480425E 6641075N No Area Unnamed Dorrigo Ck. M. balbus >50 480125E 6641400N No Sassafras Ck. M. balbus >50 479700E 6641710N No Cow Paddock Near A. brevis >10 440750E 6630825N - Serpentine Ck.

24 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands.

N LEGEND

WE SURVEY LOCATIONS

Control Site, M.balbus S Control Site, L.subglandulosa Control site, no Detection of target species Trout site, M.balbus Trout site, L.subglandulosa

Trout site, no Detection of Target Species B I K E

E L Township E S R D C O Y W R K N K E A E R E RA CR D OR I E B V N

R E K U

C R E O E B M R U C R K

LD R G E A NEVER NEVER PICNIC U P Y M R AREA R E DORRIGO F E V A I W R DE K Y E A S R R R U I M V E E R L T T I EBOR L GUY F R A

E W

V K I E W S R O R L R IV L E E O L R

M D

B N

I A

R H

I C V E R .. RE. C CK BA

OA TO AR K MI Y C DA RE LE EK

R E EEK IV A CR R ARR YX AW T N S U C

93372n 94373n 94372n Hernani Dorrigo Brooklana

K E B E O K R G E G C Y CR E Y 94373s A 93373s 93372s D N Maiden Creek Ebor Darkwood U S

E L LIT T

93364n 93361n Jeogla Hyatts Flat

93364s Big Hill

Topographic Map Locations 0 10 km

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

N LEGEND WE Control Site M.balbus Findings Trout Site M.balbus Findings S Township

B

I E

L

S D O W K N

E R

K E RRA CR I E O E B V

R E K R C E E M R U C R K D R L R E A E NEVER NEVER PICNIC P M V I AREA R R E Y E A D R R U M E L T T I L

GUY F A W K E EBOR S R IV E R

... RE C CK BA

R 94372n E EEK 94373n IV A CR Brooklana R ARR Dorrigo YX AW T N S U C

93372s 94373s Ebor Darkwood

K E B E O K R G E G C Y CR E Y A D N U S

E L 93364n LI T T 93361n Jeogla Hyatts Flat

93364s Big Hill

010 km Topographic Map Locations

Figure 15. Location of sites where Mixophyes balbus were detected at trout release and control sites during the 2005/2006 surveys. 26

N

WE

S

K E E G R U C Y F IT AW CU IS KE 93372s B S RIV Ebor ER

EBOR G U Y F A W K E S R IV E R 93364n 93361n Jeogla Hyatts Flat

Topographic Map Locations

... RE .. C E. K R C C BA E IN T N PE R SE

O AK Y C RE EK

R VE REEK RI RA C X WAR Y NA ST CU

K EE R C LY E E

LEGEND

Control Site L.subglandulosa Findings 010 km Trout Site L.subglandulosa Findings Township

Figure 16. Location of sites (trout release and control) where Litoria subglandulosa were located during the 2005/2006 surveys. 27

N

WE 93372n 94373n Hernani Dorrigo S

93373s 93372s 94373s

Maidens Creek Ebor Darkwood B I E

L

EEK S R D C O Y W R N A K R E I D BORRA CR E V

N K E

U E R E O 93364n 93361n B R C K Jeogla Hyatts Flat M E E U R R C D L K E R M A P

G R U E DORRIGO Y E D R F E A IV W Topographic Map Locations R K Y E A S R

R R I U V M E R E L T IT L EBOR G U Y F A W R K E E

V S I R R I W V

R E O R E L L L O D

M N

A B I H

C R I V E R

... RE C CK BA

O TO AR AK MI Y C DAL RE E EK

ER EK IV CRE R ARRA YX AW T UN S C

LEGEND

A.brevis Population TOWNSHIP

0 10 km

Figure 17. Location of near-stream site where Adelotus brevis was located during the 2005/2006 surveys. 28

N LEGEND WE Control Site no Detection of Target Species Control Site L.subglandulosa Findings S Control Site M.balbus Findings Township

B

I E

L

S D O W K N

E R K E

E RRA CR I O V E B

R E K C R E E M R U C R K D L R E A NEVER NEVER PICNIC P M R AREA R E DORRIGO E IV R DE Y A R R U M

E G L U T Y T I FA L W EBOR G K UY ES RI F R V A ER W E K V E W I S R O R R I L V L E E O L R

M D

B N I A

R H I C V E R ... RE C CK BA

OA TO AR K MI Y C DA RE LE EK

94373n 94372n Dorrigo Brooklana ER EEK IV A CR R ARR YX AW T N S U C

93373s 93372s 94373s Maiden Creek Ebor Darkwood

K E B E O K R G E G C Y CR E Y A 93364n 93361n D N Jeogla Hyatts Flat U S

E L LI T T

93364s Big Hill

Topographic Map Locations

0 10 km

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

LEGEND N

W E Trout Site no detection of Target Species

B

I K Trout Site L.subglandulosa Findings E

E L E S S Trout Site M.balbus Findings R D C O Township Y W R N

R A EK D E I

RRA CR V K BO

N E E

U E R

O R

B C K

E M E U R R C

D K L E R A M P G U R Y E R DORRIGO E E F D A IV 010 km W R K Y E A S R R R U I V M E E R L T T I L EBOR GU Y F A W R

E K E V S I W R R I O V R E L E R L L OM D

N

B A

I H

R C I V E R

... RE C CK BA

O TO AR AK MI Y C DA RE LE EK

93372n 94373n ER EK Hernani Dorrigo IV CRE R RRA X WA Y NA ST U C

93373s 93372s 94373s Maidens Head Ebor Darkwood

K B E O E G K G E R Y C 93364n 93361n CR E Y Hyatts Fla A Jeogla t D N U S

E L T T L I

93364s Big Hill

Topographic Map Locations

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

August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

3.4. DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION PRESENT

The habitat along the streams at both control and trout release sites where the Stuttering frog and Glandular frog were found varied from cleared farm land with little remnant riparian vegetation, through less intensively cleared farm land with varying amounts of riparian vegetation, to natural bushland surrounded by large areas of riparian and forest vegetation. Major terrestrial vegetation types included sclerophyllous forest (both wet and dry) and temperate rainforest (Figures 20-23). Several control sites and trout release sites were noted to contain weed species.

Figure 20. Example of a survey site surrounded by extensive areas of cleared, agricultural land (Barwick Creek; 437100E, 6626600N).

31 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 21. Example of a survey site surrounded by medium density vegetation, in this case dry sclerophyll (open woodland) (Little Styx Creek; 439725E, 6625350N).

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 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Figure 23. Example of a survey site surrounded by large areas of dense vegetation, in this case temperate rainforest (Five Day Creek; 442200E, 6625800N).

3.5. TESTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Differences in the relative proportions of trout release and control streams containing the two target species (Figs 24 and 25) were tested statistically by chi-square analysis. There was no significant difference in the proportion of trout and control streams in which M. balbus was located (21% of trout streams (n=9/43) and 30% of trout free control streams (n=10/33), P > 0.25). There was no significant difference in the proportion of trout and control streams in which L. subglandulosa was located (21% of trout streams (n=9/43) and 12% of trout free control streams (n=4/33), P > 0.25).

33 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Survey Results For M. balbus

40 35 30 25 Trout Streams 20 Control Streams 15 10 Number of Streams 5 0 M. balbus Present M. balbus Absent

Figure 24. Number of trout release and control streams in which M. balbus was present or absent during the 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. There was no significant difference in the proportion of control or trout streams with M. balbus.

Survey Results For L. subglandulosa

40 35 30 25 Trout Streams 20 Control Streams 15 10 Number of Streams 5 0 L. subglandulosa Present L. subglandulosa Absent

Figure 25. Number of trout release and control streams in which L. subglandulosa was present or absent during 2005/2006 threatened stream frog surveys. There was no significant difference in the proportion of control and trout streams with L. subglandulosa.

34 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

4. DISCUSSION

This study resulted in the detection of both Stuttering and Glandular frog populations on numerous streams throughout the study area including sites where trout release occurs and sites that are trout free (control sites). For both species, the proportion of sites where they were detected was similar for control and trout release sites i.e. no statistically significant differences were found in the frequency of the two species at trout release or control sites. Furthermore, trout release and control sites appeared to support all stages of the life cycle with adult male breeding behaviour observed at all sites where the species were located. While the causes of the decline of these species remain unresolved (and much debated amongst biologists), the presence at both control and trout release sites in similar proportions suggests that trout are not a direct cause of the decline of these species, and that other factors must be involved. The considerable geographic distance between streams and sites surveyed suggests that a large number of independent populations exist throughout the study area.

Searches were also conducted for the Peppered Tree frog and Booroolong frog throughout the study period. These species were not found at any of the 33 control or 43 trout release sites. The absence of these species from all control sites where trout are not present, as well as from trout release sites, strongly suggests that factors independent of trout release are responsible for their disappearance in the New England Region. One reasonable, although unproven, hypothesis is that amphibian chytridiomycosis (a disease only recently introduced to Australia, and against which native species apparently have no innate resistance) may have been responsible for the disappearance of these species. Epidemiological evidence suggests this disease exerts its greatest impact at higher altitudes and against stream frogs, conditions fulfilled for both these species in the New England region.

The Tusked frog was once abundant in the New England Tablelands and has since undergone a considerable decline in the region. It has consequently has been listed as an endangered population in the Nandewar and New England Tablelands bioregions under the TSC Act, 1995. Only one near-stream population of the Tusked frog was located during the 2005/2006 surveys despite an abundance of apparently suitable habitat being present throughout the survey area. Our data support the view that the Tusked frog has indeed undergone a considerable decline in abundance and that the species was not showing any signs of recovering at the time of the surveys. It is not possible to make firm

35 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle conclusions about the role of trout beyond the observations made above for the Stuttering and Glandular frogs, i.e. the absence of records from control sites implicates factors other than trout in the decline. However, in this case we are not able to say that the Tusked frog can or does co-exist with trout.

Other frog species detected during the surveys included one common stream breeding species (Rocky River frog, Litoria wilcoxii) that was encountered over much of the study area. Sixteen other amphibian species were also found at survey sites in this study of the Styx River frogs (Appendix 1).

This study found no evidence of a difference in the presence of the target species between control and trout release streams. However, further work would be needed to determine if trout impact on the dynamics within extant populations at sites where trout and endangered stream frogs co-exist. This data might be obtained through establishing longer term transects along both control and trout streams to monitor population demographics over several seasons. Such an approach would allow a comparison of population size, age structure and recruitment between trout inhabited and trout free streams that would determine whether trout have a negative effect on endangered stream frog populations.

36 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

5. CONCLUSIONS

1. Breeding populations of two threatened stream frogs, the Stuttering frog and the Glandular frog, occurred throughout the Styx River region in the summer of 2005/2006.

2. The frequency of populations of these species was not significantly different in streams that were classified as trout free in comparison to streams where trout had been released.

3. There is no evidence from this study that trout release in the Styx River region streams caused the loss of populations of these species in this area.

4. It is suggested that factors other than trout release (possibly the pathogenic chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) are primarily responsible for the decline of these species.

5. No conclusion is drawn from this study as to whether the presence of trout in Styx River streams causes a reduction in population densities or altered population dynamics of the Stuttering and Glandular frogs in streams where the frogs and trout co-exist.

37 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It is recommended that population demographics of the Stuttering and Glandular frogs be studied over several seasons using replicated transects in trout release and trout free streams to determine if the presence of trout suppresses populations of these species without causing their local extinction.

2. It is recommended that any study of the demographics of the Stuttering and Glandular frogs include testing for the presence and frequency of infection with the chytrid fungus in the same populations, to provide further understanding of one of the likely causes of decline in these species. This should include a determination of the relative frequency of the fungus in frogs between trout release and trout free streams to establish whether the presence of trout influences the epidemiology of the disease in the two frog species.

38 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

7. REFERENCES

Alford, R. A. & Richards, S. J. (1999). Global amphibian declines: a problem in applied ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 30; 133-165.

Anstis, M. (2002). Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia: A Guide With Keys. New Holland: Australia.

Anstis, M. & Littlejohn, M. J. (1996). The breeding biology of Litoria subglandulosa and L. citropa (Anura: Hylidae), and a re-evaluation of their geographic distribution. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 120(3): 83-99.

Anstis, M., Alford, R. A. & Gillespie, G. R. (1998). Breeding biology of Litoria booroolongensis (Moore, 1961) and Litoria lesueuri (Dumeril and Bibron, 1841) (Anura: Hylidae) and comments on population declines of L. booroolongensis. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 122(1): 33-43.

Australian Museum. New England Frogs Database.

Barker, J., Grigg, C. G. and Tyler, M. J. (1995). A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons: Norton.

Braña, F., Frechilla, L. and Orizaola, G. (1996). Effect of introduced fish on amphibian assemblages in mountain lakes of northern Spain. Herpetological Journal, 6: 145- 148.

Campbell, A. (1999). Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia: Canberra.

Cogger, H. (2000) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia - 6th edn. Reed New Holland.

Daly, G. (1998). Review of the status and assessment of the habitat of the Stuttering frog, Mixophyes balbus, (Anura: ) on the south coast of New South Wales. Herpetofauna. 28(1), 2-11.

Daly, G. (1995). Observations on the Tusked Frog Adelotus brevis (Anura: Myobatrachidae). Herpetofauna 25(2): 32-35.

Gillespie, G. R. (2001). The role of introduced trout in the decline of the spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) in south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation. 100(2), pp. 187-198.

Gillespie, G. R. & Hero, J. M. (1999). Potential impacts of introduced fish and fish translocations on Australian amphibians. In Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs, ed. A. Campbell. Environment Australia, Canberra, pp. 131-144.

39 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Gillespie, G. R. & Hines, H. B. (1999). Status of temperate riverine frogs in south- eastern Australia. In Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs, ed. A. Campbell. Environment Australia, Canberra, pp. 109-130.

Hamer, A.J., Lane, S.J., Mahony, M.J. (2002). Management of freshwater wetlands for the endangered green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea): roles of habitat determinants and space. Biological Conservation 106(3): 413-424.

Luecke, C. (1990). Changes in abundance and distribution of benthic macroinvertebrates after introduction of cutthroat trout into a previously fishless lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 119(6), pp. 1010-1021.

Mahony, M.J. (1999). Review of the declines and disappearances within the bell frog species group (Litoria aurea species group) in Australia. In Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs, ed. A. Campbell. Environment Australia, Canberra, pp. 81-93.

Mahony, M. (1997). Survey of the distribution and abundance of declining frog species in upper north east New South Wales. Prepared for the Threatened Frogs of Queensland and north east New South Wales Recovery Team.

Mahony, M., Knowles, R., Foster, F. & Donnellan, S. (2001). Systematics of the Litoria citropa (Anura: Hylidae) complex in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, Australia, with the description of a new species. Records of the Australian Museum 53(1): 37-48.

Morgan, L. A. and Buttemer, W. A. (1996). Predation by the non-native fish Gambusia holbrooki on small Litoria aurea and L. dentata tadpoles. In G. H. Pyke and W. S. Osborne (eds), The Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea): Biology and Conservation. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, pp. 143-149.

Morrison, C., Hero, J. M. & Browning, J. (2004). Altitudinal variation at the age of maturity, longevity, and reproductive lifespan of anurans in subtropical Queensland. Herpetologica. 60(1), p.34-44.

NSW Fisheries (2003). Freshwater Fish Stocking In NSW Environmental Impact Statement: Public Consultation Document. Volume 1. Published in November 2003 by NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, NSW.

NSW Fisheries (2003). Freshwater Fish Stocking In NSW Environmental Impact Statement: Public Consultation Document. Volume 2. Published in November 2003 by NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, NSW.

NSW Fisheries (2003). Freshwater Fish Stocking In NSW Environmental Impact Statement: Public Consultation Document. Volume 3. Published in November 2003 by NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, NSW.

40 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Pyke, G. H. and White, A. W. (1996). Habitat requirements of the green and golden bell frog Litoria aurea (Anura: Hylidae). In G. H. Pyke and W. S. Osborne (eds), The Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea): Biology and Conservation. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, pp. 224-232.

Reader’s Digest (2005). Encyclopedia of Australian Wildlife. Reader’s Digest: Australia.

Robinson, M. (1998). A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Reed New Holland: Sydney.

Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L. and Walter, R. L. (2004). Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science. 306(5702), pp. 1783-1786.

Tyler, M. J. & Anstis, M. (1975). and biology of frogs of the Litoria citropa Complex (Anura: Hylidae). Records of the South Australia Museum 17: 41-50.

Webb, C. and Joss, J. (1997). Does predation by the fish Gambusia holbrooki (Atheriniformes: Poeciliidaae) contribute to declining frog populations? Australian Zoologist, 30 (3): 316-324.

41 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Appendix 1 – Sites surveyed with non-target species present. Sites With Non-target Species Present Site Species Present Eastings Northings Serpentine Ck. Litoria verreauxii 434800E 6628100N (Dutton Hatchery) Litoria peronii Limnodynastes dumerilii Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Crinia signifera Barwick Ck. Litoria verreauxii 437100E 6626600N (Back Ck.) Litoria peronii Crinia signifera Pseudophryne bibronii Limnodynastes peronii Snowy Ck. Crinia signifera 433200E 6634600N (Rd. to Guyra) Litoria verreauxii Litoria peronii Limnodynastes dumerilii Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Biscuit Ck. Crinia signifera 429100E 6638500N (Rd. to Guyra) Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Litoria verreauxii Limnodynastes dumerilii George’s Ck. Litoria barringtonensis 439500E 6623750N (Cunnawarra trail) Litoria verreauxii Cunnawarra Ck. Litoria verreauxii 435550E 6619300N (Cunnawarra trail) Litoria barringtonensis Crinia signifera Backwater Ck. Litoria verreauxii 434900E 6618500N (Diamond flat) Litoria barringtonensis Crinia signifera Hyatts flat Crinia signifera 435700E 6623400N Litoria verreauxii Eely Ck. Litoria verreauxii 423200E 6615070N (Boundary trail) Litoria fallax Spankers Rd. Litoria barringtonensis 422650E 6613650N (Spankers Gully) Crinia signifera Rd. to Guyra Crinia signifera 432200E 6636800N (150m from Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Thuddungra) Litoria verreauxii Bullock Ck. Litoria verreauxii 432820E 6628980N (Armidale Rd.) Litoria wilcoxii Boggy Ck. Crinia signifera 417450E 6609600N (Mains Fire Rd.) Litoria wilcoxii Eely Ck. Litoria wilcoxii 425350E 6615500N (Loop Rd. bridge) Pseudophryne spp. Uperoleia spp. Litoria barringtonensis Litoria wilcoxii Sandy’s Ck. Crinia signifera 461525E 6640075N 3.5 km W of Sandy’s Uperoleia spp. 458775E 6638800N Ck. Litoria verreauxii Never Never Picnic Mixophyes fasciolatus 480425E 6641075N Area Litoria phyllochroa Litoria barringtonensis Litoria wilcoxii Lechriodus fletcheri Unnamed Dorrigo Ck. Litoria wilcoxii 480125E 6641400N Lechriodus fletcheri Mixophyes fasciolatus

42 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Sassafras Ck. Mixophyes fasciolatus 479700E 6641710N Litoria wilcoxii Spring Ck. Litoria verreauxii 438400E 6625800N Crinia signifera Litoria peronii Uperoleia spp. Native Dog Ck. Crinia signifera 429900E 6637800N Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Litoria verreauxii Limnodynastes dumerilii Litoria peronii Uperoleia spp. Kangaroo Ck. Crinia signifera 434700E 6632300N Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Litoria verreauxii Cathedral Rock Crinia signifera 431550E 6631750N Newell’s Culvert Litoria fallax 422650E 6611500N Limnodynastes peronii Wyatt’s Ck. Crinia signifera 421750E 6618650N Litoria fallax Litoria verreauxii Litoria peronii Wattle Flat Camp Gd. Litoria fallax 423200E 6616100N Litoria wilcoxii Bangalow Ck. Litoria fallax 456410E 6640625N Mason’s Ck. Crinia signifera 450400E 6641500N 800m from Mason’s Ck. Crinia signifera 450020E 6641850N Limnodynastes peronii Coutts Water Crinia signifera 449600E 6642300N Boundary Ck. Crinia signifera 445620E 6641800N Jock’s Water Crinia signifera 442150E 6642350N Diamond Ck. Litoria fallax 410400E 6622780N Green Gully Litoria fallax 405100E 6623700N Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Wollomombi Rv. Litoria wilcoxii 407700E 6623800N (Armidale Rd.) Wollomombi Rv. Limnodynastes dumerilii 404800E 6633175N (Chandler Rd.) Oaky Rv. (Wakefield Litoria fallax 418150E 6623300N Rv.) Oaky Rv. (Armidale Litoria fallax 428400E 6625450N Rd.) Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Water Cress Ck. Litoria fallax 457225E 6639375N Litoria verreauxii Crinia signifera Bullock Ck. Litoria verreauxii 432600E 6627600N Limnodynastes peronii Crinia signifera Crinia parinsignifera Litoria peronii Uperoleia spp. Limnodynastes dumerilii Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Pseudophryne bibroni Styx Rv. (Point Lookout Crinia signifera 439200E 6624600N Rd.) Litoria peronii Litoria verreauxii Little Styx Ck. between Crinia signifera 439650E 6625350N Litoria verreauxii 439725E 6624875N Uperoleia spp. Limnodynastes peronii

43 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Opposite Tom’s Cabin Philoria sphagnicolis 442200E 6625800N Pond on Jack’s Fire Rd. Crinia signifera 427350E 6617300N Litoria verreauxii Pseudophryne coriacea Eely Ck. Rd. Litoria wilcoxii 425150E 6614350N Seven Mile Cutting Rd. Mixophyes fasciolatus 423400E 6606450N Quarry Near Point Litoria peronii Lookout Rd. Turnoff Limnodynastes dumerilii (Near Pump Station) Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Crinia parinsignifera Litoria verreauxii Uperoleia spp.

44 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands. August 2006 School of Environmental and Life Sciences University of Newcastle

Appendix 2 – Sites surveyed with no detection of target species. Sites With No Detection of Target Species Site Eastings Northings Trout Present Spring Ck. 438400E 6625800N Yes Native Dog Ck. 429900E 6637800N No Rigneys Ck. 435100E 6633900N No Ebor Falls 437000E 6636150N Yes Kangaroo Ck. 434700E 6632300N No Cathedral Rock 431550E 6631750N No 4 Cks. between 419890E 6611500N No 419400E 6611700N Newell’s Culvert 422650E 6611500N No Wyatt’s Ck. 421750E 6618650N Yes Styx Rv. 422750E 6615450N Yes Wattle Flat Camp Gd. 423200E 6616100N Yes Bangalow Ck. 456410E 6640625N Yes Wymbaddum Rainforest Accom. 455650E 6640480N Yes Deer Park Ck. 454300E 6640425N Yes Meldrum Ck. 452325E 6641250N Yes Mason’s Ck. 450400E 6641500N Yes 800m from Mason’s Ck. 450020E 6641850N Yes Coutts Water 449600E 6642300N Yes Alan’s Water 447400E 6641980N Yes Boundary Ck. 445620E 6641800N Yes Jock’s Water 442150E 6642350N Yes Styx Rv. (Falls Rd.) 419800E 6614920N Yes Diamond Ck. 410400E 6622780N No Green Gully 405100E 6623700N No Chandler Rv. 409900E 6623300N No Wollomombi Rv. (Armidale Rd.) 407700E 6623800N Yes Wollomombi Rv. (Chandler Rd.) 404800E 6633175N Yes Ponds Ck. 415820E 6624900N Yes Oaky Rv. (Wakefield Rv.) 418150E 6623300N Yes Oaky Rv. (Tanners Rd.) 427700E 6624100N Yes Oaky Rv. (Armidale Rd.) 428400E 6625450N Yes Dirty Ck. 436400E 6639010N No Little Murray Rv. 458100E 6638450N Yes Water Cress Ck. 457225E 6639375N Yes Major’s Ck. 441520E 6640450N Yes Sandy Ck. 431075E 6636875N No Biscuit Ck. 429250E 6638900N No Bullock Ck. 432600E 6627600N Yes Styx Rv. (Point Lookout Rd.) 439200E 6624600N Yes Little Styx Ck. between 439650E 6625350N Yes 439725E 6624875N Mill Gully Cks. (3) between 420065E 6613890N No 421100E 6613825N Opposite Tom’s Cabin 442200E 6625800N No

45 Status of Populations of Threatened Stream Frogs in the New England Tablelands.