DOCSLIB.ORG

Sass Sassandmetzler Frogs-1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 41-1v4_HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 35-1 2/06/13 9:14 PM Page 9 THE FROG DIVERSITY OF THE PAMBULA RIVER FLOODPLAIN IN SOUTH- EASTERN NEW SOUTH WALES Steve Sass 1,2,3 , Linda Sass 1 & Caroline Metzler 1 1EnviroKey, PO Box 7231, Tathra, NSW 2550. 2Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678. 3Email: [email protected] INTRODUCTION itage Reserve Trust for the purpose of conser - vation and restoration of a previously agricul - The Bega Valley local government area (LGA) tural dominant landscape. This area is known covers an area of approximately 6,052 as 'Panboola'. square kilometers and comprises the well- known coastal towns of Bermagui, Tathra, With little known of the frog diversity of the Merimbula and Eden. The LGA includes Pambula River floodplain, the aim of this almost 106 kilometres of coastline and to the manuscript is to document the frog species west, reaches the higher peaks of the Great present at 'Panboola', including a review of Dividing Range reaching beyond 1000 m previous records and provision of a systemat - above sea level. This fluctuation in topogra - ic survey. Discussion is also provided on the phy has led to the development of diverse likelihood of occurrence for unrecorded coastal floodplains, the majority now support - species. ing intensive agricultural activities. METHODS A recent literature review revealed that 26 frog species have been previously recorded in Study Area the LGA confirming a relatively high amphib - ian diversity (EnviroKey, 2011). However, the 'Panboola' is located on the NSW far south majority of past studies and previous surveys coast. It is broadly flanked by Ben Boyd are from within the forests of national parks, National Park to the east, Pambula River to state forests and nature reserves (Daly, 1998, the south, the Princes Highway and agricul - 2007; Daly et al., 2002; Daly & Senior, 2001, tural land to the west and the town of 2003; Lemckert et al. , 1997, 1998; Lunney & Pambula to the north (Figure 1). Barker, 1986; NGH 2008; Penman, 2005; Desktop Analysis Penman et al ., 2004, 2006, 2008) highlight - ing a paucity of data on frogs relative to other A desktop analysis was conducted to gain an land tenures. Further, less than 3% of all frog understanding of the frog species previously records within the LGA come from coastal recorded within the general locality of 'Pan - floodplains despite frog communities being boola'. This comprised searches of the NSW considered an important component of flood - BioNet database and records of the Aus - plain biota (Healey et al. , 1997). tralian Museum focusing on a 10 km radius from the centre point of the study area. The Pambula River floodplain comprises a series of diverse estuarine and freshwater Field Surveys wetlands which are now, in many parts, dom - Six survey sites were established at 'Panboola' inated by agricultural activities. A 77 hectare with the aim of including the full range of portion of the floodplain is now managed by habitats within the study area. This approach the Management Committee of Pambula had the objective of detecting the full diversi - Wetlands and Heritage Project Inc. in con - ty of frog species that could occur within the junction with the Pambula Wetlands and Her - study area. Two sites were established within Herpetofauna 41 (1-2) 2011 Page 9 HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 41-1v4_HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 35-1 2/06/13 9:14 PM Page 10 Figure 1. Location of the six survey sites for this study. permanent freshwater wetlands (Tips Bill - have supported populations of this species in abong, Waterbird Sanctuary 1), two sites the past (DECC, 2005; NPWS, 1999; White & within ephemeral freshwater wetlands (Corri - Pyke, 1996). Calls of this species were played dor, Waterbird Sanctuary 2), one site within for a period of two-minutes. This was fol - estuarine coastal saltmarsh (Saltmarsh) and lowed by a further two-minute listening one site within the riparian vegetation flank - period. ing the Pambula River (Riparian). Figure 1 Active searches and spotlighting were then details the location of the six survey sites. conducted over 40-person minutes and call Nocturnal surveys for frogs were undertaken recognition was also used to identify any frog at each of the six sites on three occasions species calling. Species heard or observed (27–28 October and 7–8 December 2010). within a 50 m radius of the site were record - This resulted in a total of 18 surveys and a ed with an approximation of their abundance total survey effort of approximately 13.2 made by estimating the numbers of frogs hours. A single frog survey comprised of a calling. This is represented by a ranked scale combination of listening for frog calls, spot - of between 1 and 5 (1 = <10 frogs, 2 = lighting, active searching of habitat where 10–30 frogs, 3 = 30–50 frogs, 4 = 50–100 possible and call playback of threatened frog frogs, 5 = >100 frogs). species within a 50 m radius of the site Weather conditions at the time of the surveys marker. At the commencement of each frog and rainfall within the preceding week were survey, a two-minute listening period was considered conducive to detecting frogs. Tem - undertaken to record any species heard peratures and rainfall data were drawn from calling. Call playback was chosen for the Merimbula Airport weather station (5 km to threatened Green and Golden Bell Frog the north) for the October and December (Litoria aurea ) given that 'Panboola' is likely to surveys. During the October survey, tempera - Page 10 Herpetofauna 41 (1-2) 2011 HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 41-1v4_HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 35-1 2/06/13 9:14 PM Page 11 tures ranged between 6° C (minimum) and Protocols for the control of disease were 19.2° C (maximum) with 21 mm of rainfall in the implemented at all times as outlined within 7 days prior to the survey. During the December 'Hygiene Protocols for the control of disease survey, temperatures ranged between 17.1° C in frogs' (DECC, 2008b). Nomenclature (minimum) and 24.9° C (maximum) with 107 adopted for this study follows Tyler and Knight mm of rainfall in the 7 days prior to the (2009) with the exception of Litoria dentata survey. which is more commonly referred to as the Bleating Tree Frog. Table 1. Frog species, their legal status and the number of individuals recorded within a 10 km radius of 'Panboola'. Data from DECCW NSW Atlas of Wildlife and Australian Museum records (P = Protected, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, TSC = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 , EPBC = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ). Common name Scientific name Legal No. of status individuals Common Froglet Crinia signifera P 59 Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus V TSC 7 V EPBC Eastern Banjo Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii P3 Striped Marsh Frog Limnodynastes peronii P 24 Haswell's Froglet Paracrinia haswelli P3 Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii P3 Tyler's Toadlet Uperoleia tyleri P4 Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea E TSC 6 V EPBC Blue Mountains Tree Frog Litoria citropa P1 Bleating Tree Frog Litoria dentata P2 Ewing's Tree Frog Litoria ewingii P 48 Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog Litoria fallax P2 Jervis Bay Tree Frog Litoria jervisiensis P6 Lesueur's Frog Litoria lesueuri P 12 Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peronii P 98 Narrow Fringed Frog Litoria nudidigitus P 21 Verreaux's Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii P 20 Herpetofauna 41 (1-2) 2011 Page 11 HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 41-1v4_HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 35-1 2/06/13 9:14 PM Page 12 RESULTS Species Abundance Desktop Analysis The highest level of abundance recorded was for Common Froglet ( Crinia signifera ) at The desktop analysis revealed a total of 17 WBS1 during the October survey (Table 3) and species of frog and a total of 319 records Bleating Tree Frog ( Litoria dentata ) at Corridor within a 10 km radius of 'Panboola' (Table 1). during the December survey (Table 4). This includes two species listed under the schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Relative abundance was higher during the Conservation Act 1995 and the Common - December surveys in comparison to the wealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity October surveys. At Corridor, both diversity Conservation Act 1999: the Giant Burrowing and abundance was notably different ranging Frog ( Heleioporus australiacus ) and the Green from no frog species in October to six frog and Golden Bell Frog ( Litoria aurea ). species present during December, with L. dentata the most abundant with 50–100 indi - Field Surveys viduals calling (Table 4). Field surveys during this study revealed a total Species Distribution of eleven frog species (Table 2). Some frog species were recorded at all, or the When pooling data from each site for the majority of the survey sites during this study. three surveys, six frog species were recorded Crinia signifera were recorded at every survey at each of the sites Corridor, Saltmarsh, Tips site while Striped Marsh Frog ( Limnodynastes Billabong and Waterbird Sanctuary 1 (WBS1) peronii ), Peron's Tree Frog ( Litoria peronii ) and (Table 3). The Riparian site had the lowest Verreaux's Tree Frog ( Litoria verreauxii ) were frog species diversity with only two species recorded at all survey sites with the exception recorded. of the Riparian site. Table 2. Frog species recorded on the Panboola River Floodplain (calling or observed). (C= Corridor, R = Riparian, S = Saltmarsh, T = Tips Bill - abong, WBS = Waterbird Sanctuary). Common Name Scientific Name CRSTWBS1 WBS2 Common Froglet Crinia signifera **** * * Eastern Banjo Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii * Striped Marsh Frog Limnodynastes peronii ***** Spotted Grass Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis * Bleating Tree Frog Litoria dentata ** Ewing's Tree Frog Litoria ewingii ** Jervis Bay Tree Frog Litoria jervisiensis * Peron's Tree Frog Litoria peronii ***** Verreaux's Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii ***** Bibron's Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii * Smooth Toadlet Uperoleia laevigata * Page 12 Herpetofauna 41 (1-2) 2011 HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 41-1v4_HERPETOFAUNA TEXT 35-1 2/06/13 9:15 PM Page 13 Conversely, three species of frog were record - distribution across 'Panboola' was no different.
Recommended publications
  • Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The

    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for The

    Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (Myuchelys georgesi) December, 2016 1 Workshop participants. Back row (l to r): Ricky Spencer, Bruce Chessman, Kristen Petrov, Caroline Lees, Gerald Kuchling, Jane Hall, Gerry McGilvray, Shane Ruming, Karrie Rose, Larry Vogelnest, Arthur Georges; Front row (l to r) Michael McFadden, Adam Skidmore, Sam Gilchrist, Bruno Ferronato, Richard Jakob-Hoff © Copyright 2017 CBSG IUCN encourages meetings, workshops and other fora for the consideration and analysis of issues related to conservation, and believes that reports of these meetings are most useful when broadly disseminated. The opinions and views expressed by the authors may not necessarily reflect the formal policies of IUCN, its Commissions, its Secretariat or its members. The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Jakob-Hoff, R. Lees C. M., McGilvray G, Ruming S, Chessman B, Gilchrist S, Rose K, Spencer R, Hall J (Eds) (2017). Status Review, Disease Risk Analysis and Conservation Action Plan for the Bellinger River Snapping Turtle. IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN. Cover photo: Juvenile Bellinger River Snapping Turtle © 2016 Brett Vercoe This report can be downloaded from the CBSG website: www.cbsg.org. 2 Executive Summary The Bellinger River Snapping Turtle (BRST) (Myuchelys georgesi) is a freshwater turtle endemic to a 60 km stretch of the Bellinger River, and possibly a portion of the nearby Kalang River in coastal north eastern New South Wales (NSW).
  • Catalogue of Protozoan Parasites Recorded in Australia Peter J. O

    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.
  • GBMWHA Native Amphibians Courtesy of Judy and Peter Smith - V3 Frogs NSW Comm

    GBMWHA Native Amphibians Courtesy of Judy and Peter Smith - V3 Frogs NSW Comm

    Blue Mountains Nature GBMWHA Native Amphibians Courtesy of Judy and Peter Smith - V3 frogs NSW Comm. Family Scientific Name Common Name status status Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog E V Hylidae Litoria booroolongensis Booroolong Frog E E Hylidae Litoria caerulea Green Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria chloris Red-eyed Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria citropa Blue Mountains Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria dentata Bleating Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria ewingii Brown Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria fallax Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria latopalmata Broad-palmed Frog Hylidae Litoria lesueuri Lesueur's Frog Hylidae Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog V V Hylidae Litoria nudidigita Leaf Green River Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria peronii Peron's Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria phyllochroa Leaf-green Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria tyleri Tyler's Tree Frog Hylidae Litoria verreauxii Verreaux's Frog Hylidae Litoria wilcoxi Wilcox's Frog Limnodynastidae Adelotus brevis Tusked Frog Limnodynastidae Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog V V Limnodynastidae Lechriodus fletcheri Fletcher's Frog Limnodynastidae Limnodynastes dumerilii Eastern Banjo Frog Limnodynastidae Limnodynastes peronii Brown-striped Frog Limnodynastidae Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Spotted Grass Frog Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus sudelli Sudell's Frog Limnodynastidae Platyplectrum ornatum Ornate Burrowing Frog Myobatrachidae Crinia signifera Common Eastern Froglet Myobatrachidae Mixophyes balbus Stuttering Frog E V Myobatrachidae Mixophyes fasciolatus Great Barred Frog Myobatrachidae Mixophyes iteratus Giant Barred Frog E E Myobatrachidae Paracrinia haswelli Haswell's Froglet Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne australis Red-crowned Toadlet V Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet Myobatrachidae Uperoleia fusca Dusky Toadlet Myobatrachidae Uperoleia laevigata Smooth Toadlet Myobatrachidae Uperoleia tyleri Tyler's Toadlet NSW/Comm. status: C - Critical, E - Endangered, V- Vulnerable page 1 of 1.
  • Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed

    Predation by Introduced Cats Felis Catus on Australian Frogs: Compilation of Species Records and Estimation of Numbers Killed

    Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed J. C. Z. WoinarskiA,M, S. M. LeggeB,C, L. A. WoolleyA,L, R. PalmerD, C. R. DickmanE, J. AugusteynF, T. S. DohertyG, G. EdwardsH, H. GeyleA, H. McGregorI, J. RileyJ, J. TurpinK and B. P. MurphyA ANESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. BNESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia. CFenner School of the Environment and Society, Linnaeus Way, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia. DWestern Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, Australia. ENESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. FQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, Qld 4701, Australia. GCentre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin University, Geelong, Vic. 3216, Australia. HNorthern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, Australia. INESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia. JSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom. KDepartment of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, 49 Kew Street, Welshpool, WA 6106, Australia. LPresent address: WWF-Australia, 3 Broome Lotteries House, Cable Beach Road, Broome, WA 6276, Australia. MCorresponding author. Email: [email protected] Table S1. Data sources used in compilation of cat predation on frogs.
  • ARAZPA YOTF Infopack.Pdf

    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
  • Memoirs of the Queensland Museum

    Memoirs of the Queensland Museum

    Memoirs OF THE Queensland Museum W Brisbane Volume 45 29 February 2000 PARTl Memoirs OF THE Queensland Museum Brisbane © Queensland Museum PO Box 3300, SouthBrisbane 4101, Australia Phone 06 7 3840 7555 Fax 06 7 3846 1226 Email [email protected] Website www.qm.qld.gov.au National Library of Australia card number ISSN 0079-8835 NOTE Papers published in this volume and in all previous volumes of the Memoirs of the Queensland Museum maybe reproduced for scientific research, individual study or other educational purposes. Properly acknowledged quotations may be made but queries regarding the republication of any papers should be addressed to the Editor in Chief. Copies of the journal can be purchased from the Queensland Museum Shop. A Guide to Authors is displayed at the Queensland Museum web site A Queensland Government Project Typeset at the Queensland Museum CATALOGUE OF PROTOZOAN PARASITES RECORDED IN AUSTRALIA PETER J. ODONOGHUE & ROBERT D. ADLARD O'Donoghue, P.J. & Adlard, R.D. 2000 02 29: Catalogue ofprotozoan parasites recorded iii -1 Australia. Memoirs ofThe Oiwenslcmd Museum 45( 1 ): I 63. Brisbane. ISSN 0079-8835. Published reports ofprotozoan 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 s\ mbionls but free-living species have been excluded. Over 590 protozoan species are listed including amoebae, flagcllalcs.ciliates and 'sporo/oa" (tlie latter comprising apicomplexans, microsporans, myxozoans, haplo- sporidians and paramyxeaiis). Organisms are recorded in association with some 520 hosts including eulherian mammals, marsupials, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates.
  • Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C

    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C

    Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S. M., Woolley L. A., Palmer R., Dickman C. R., Augusteyn J., Doherty T. S., Edwards G., Geyle H., McGregor H., Riley J., Turpin J., Murphy B.P. (2020) Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research, Vol. 47, Iss. 8, Pp 580-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19182 1 2 3 Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species’ 4 records and estimation of numbers killed. 5 6 7 J.C.Z. Woinarskia*, S.M. Leggeb, L.A. Woolleya,k, R. Palmerc, C.R. Dickmand, J. Augusteyne, T.S. Dohertyf, 8 G. Edwardsg, H. Geylea, H. McGregorh, J. Rileyi, J. Turpinj, and B.P. Murphya 9 10 a NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, 11 Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia 12 b NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Research, 13 University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia; AND Fenner School of the Environment and 14 Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2602, Australia 15 c Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Bentley, WA 6983, 16 Australia 17 d NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and 18 Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 19 e Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Red Hill, QLD 4701, Australia 20 f Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences (Burwood campus), Deakin 21 University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia 22 g Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, PO Box 1120, Alice Springs, NT 0871, 23 Australia 24 h NESP Threatened Species Recovery Hub, School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, 25 Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia i School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, 24 Tyndall Ave, Bristol BS8 1TQ, United Kingdom.
  • Assessing the Sustainability of Native Fauna in NSW State of the Catchments 2010

    Assessing the Sustainability of Native Fauna in NSW State of the Catchments 2010

    State of the catchments 2010 Native fauna Technical report series Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program Assessing the sustainability of native fauna in NSW State of the catchments 2010 Paul Mahon Scott King Clare O’Brien Candida Barclay Philip Gleeson Allen McIlwee Sandra Penman Martin Schulz Office of Environment and Heritage Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program Technical report series Native vegetation Native fauna Threatened species Invasive species Riverine ecosystems Groundwater Marine waters Wetlands Estuaries and coastal lakes Soil condition Land management within capability Economic sustainability and social well-being Capacity to manage natural resources © 2011 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage The State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this technical report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to
  • Frog Species of the ACT and Region

    Frog Species of the ACT and Region

    SOME FROG FACTS! Frogs are members of a class of animals with backbones (vertebrates) which evolved almost 400 million years ago. They are split up into three Orders or main groups: • The Caudata, or salamanders and newts, with 400 known species; • The Anura or frogs and toads, with 3500 species; and • The Gymnophonia, or worm-like amphibians, with 150 species. Amphibians are specialised in two ways: • Most have 2 distinct body phases in their life. They start as an aquatic tadpole living in water. Then they undergo a period of change, or metamorphosis, which leaves them as land living animals, with internal gills. • Their skin is very thin and moist. This lets them absorb oxygen and water through their skin, with a large network of blood vessels (capillaries) under the skin to transport gases and moisture. Frogs depend on water to breed, with most frogs breeding in shallow ponds, marshes and streams. However, some species live in areas where water is scarce or far away, for example tree frogs in tropical rainforests. These frogs lay their eggs in tree hollows or in the cup-like bases of certain plants (like bromeliads) where water collects. The eggs hatch in the watery pools and often the female frog comes back to lay feeder eggs to nourish the tadpoles as they grow. Some frogs can live in very dry areas, such as arid places and deserts. They take advantage of rain as it falls and can survive dry periods by storing water in their bodies and secreting mucus to waterproof their skin. Buried in the sand like this, they can survive until the next rains.
  • Amphibians 26 November to 3 December 2018 Submitted: 1 April 2019 Dr Jodi Rowley and Christopher Portway

    Amphibians 26 November to 3 December 2018 Submitted: 1 April 2019 Dr Jodi Rowley and Christopher Portway

    Bush Blitz – A.C.T. 26 November to 3 December 2018 A.C.T. Bush Blitz Amphibians 26 November to 3 December 2018 Submitted: 1 April 2019 Dr Jodi Rowley and Christopher Portway Nomenclature and taxonomy used in this report is consistent with: The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home Page 1 of 7 Bush Blitz – A.C.T. 26 November to 3 December 2018 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Survey techniques ..................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 4 2.3 Identifying the collections .........................................................................................
  • Myall Lakes Ramsar Site

    Myall Lakes Ramsar Site

    Myall Lakes Ramsar site Ecological character description Myall Lakes Ramsar site Ecological character description Disclaimer The Office of Environment and Heritage NSW (OEH) has compiled this document in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. OEH does not accept responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information supplied by third parties. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. Readers should seek appropriate advice about the suitability of the information to their needs. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Acknowledgements This document has been compiled with the help of many people in NSW Government agencies, and other people with expertise in ecology, hydrology, geomorphology and limnology. Those people include Steve Smith, Fiona Miller and Susanne Callaghan, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service; Peter Myerscough, Honorary Research Associate, University of Sydney; Matt Dasey, OEH; Peter Scanes, Kirsty Brennan, John Porter and Nick Carlile, Scientific Services, OEH; Matt Bell, Great Lakes Council; Meagan Callaghan, Manly Hydraulics Laboratory; Trudy Walford, NSW Department of Primary Industries; and David Turner. This publication has been prepared with funding provided by the Australian Government. Symbols for conceptual models are courtesy of the Integration and Application Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols), University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. © State of NSW, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. OEH is pleased to allow the reproduction of material from this publication on the condition that the source, publisher and authorship are appropriately acknowledged.
  • Frogs As an Indicator of Urban Wetland Health

    Frogs As an Indicator of Urban Wetland Health

    One pond fits all? Frogs as an indicator of urban wetland health Final report to Upper Murrumbidgee Waterwatch Supported by: Upper Murrumbidgee Waterwatch Environment and Planning Directorate ACT Government Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Material and Methods ............................................................................................................................ 9 Study area and species........................................................................................................................ 9 Field sites ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Frog surveys ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Habitat assessments - RARC ............................................................................................................. 11 Habitat assessments - FRARC ............................................................................................................ 11 Fish surveys ......................................................................................................................................