DOCSLIB.ORG

Applied Conservation Management of a Threatened Forest Dependent Frog, Heleioporus Australiacus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Applied Conservation Management of a Threatened Forest Dependent Frog, Heleioporus Australiacus Vol. 5: 45–53, 2008 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Printed September 2008 doi: 10.3354/esr00111 Endang Species Res Published online August 21, 2008 OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Applied conservation management of a threatened forest dependent frog, Heleioporus australiacus T. D. Penman1, 2,*, F. L. Lemckert1, 2, M. J. Mahony1 1School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, New South Wales 2308, Australia 2Research and Development Division, Forests New South Wales, P.O Box 100 Beecroft, New South Wales 2119, Australia ABSTRACT: Threatened species management should be based on reliable scientific research. The giant burrowing frog Heleioporus australiacus is a threatened species in south-eastern Australia, and is often recorded on land managed for commercial forestry. As a result, management prescrip- tions have been developed in the absence of significant research data. Here, we review the available research data and assess the potential for forest management practices to impact upon this species. The species is restricted to naturally vegetated areas, but avoids steep areas, large rivers and forests with high levels of vegetative ground cover. Individuals spend the majority of the year in the non- breeding habitat considerable distances from bodies of water in small (~0.05 ha) activity areas. Fire is unlikely to have any significant direct effects upon populations of this species, although longer term vegetative changes associated with certain fire regimes may have an impact. Logging is more likely to have a significant short-term effect on individuals in the logging area, but it is not clear whether the species populations are affected in the medium to long term. Current conservation man- agement prescriptions are ineffective for the species and only enforced if individuals are detected. Detection of this species is difficult and relies on strict climatic conditions. Therefore, new prescrip- tions, independent of detection, are required to provide a landscape approach to the management of this species. We propose that key populations be identified and protection zones established around these populations, which should be geographically separated to provide longer-term protection against stochastic events. KEY WORDS: Amphibian · Management · Forestry · Disturbance impacts Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher INTRODUCTION that has required management with little guidance from research data. Ideally, the management of threatened species Heleioporus australiacus is a large threatened myo- would always be based on reliable scientific research. batrachid frog in south-eastern Australia. Records of In reality, the rarity of many of these species often the species are from the coast and adjacent ranges restricts opportunities for the collection and analysis of from Singleton to approximately 100 km east of Mel- threatened species data. As a consequence, the man- bourne (Martin 1997, Gillespie & Hines 1999) (Fig. 1). agement of these species is based on either the precau- A disjunction of 100 km occurs in the records of the tionary principle or the ‘best guess’ approach. Where species from south of Jervis Bay to Narooma (Lemck- threatened species research does occur, we have a ert et al. 1998). It has been argued that populations to responsibility not only to present our research within the north and south of this disjunction represent sepa- the scientific community, but also to interpret our data rate species (Penman et al. 2004, 2005a) but this in terms of the conservation management of the spe- remains to be confirmed. For the purposes of this cies. Until recently, the giant burrowing frog Heleio- paper, we refer only to the northern and southern porus australiacus has been an example of a species populations (Fig. 1). *Email: [email protected] © Inter-Research 2008 · www.int-res.com 46 Endang Species Res 5: 45–53, 2008 Fig. 1. Known localities of the giant burrowing frog Heleioporus australiacus; m: northern population sites; j: southern popu- lation sites. Dark shaded area in inset: study area in New South Wales and Victoria Throughout its range the giant burrowing frog is regions. In the northern populations (Forests NSW— considered rare, or at least rarely encountered. As a Hunter Region), stream buffer zones of 30 m are estab- result the species has been listed under threatened lished around all drainage lines within 200 m of a species legislation nationally under the Environmental known locality for the species. Two Forests NSW man- Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in agement regions, South East Region and the South New South Wales (NSW) under the Threatened Spe- Coast Region, cover the southern NSW populations. In cies Conservation Act (TSCA) 1995 and in Victoria the South East Region, if an individual is found, a under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Inclu- 200 ha exclusion zone is established, within which no sion of this species in threatened species legislation logging is to occur, and there are restrictions placed has occurred primarily due to a small number of on conducting prescribed burns. In the South Coast records of the species suggesting the species occurs in Region, an exclusion zone with a 500 m radius (78 ha) low abundance (Mazzer 1994) and to a poor under- around the record is established. The more precaution- standing of the species ecology (Tyler 1997, Penman et ary approach was adopted in these regions, as fewer al. 2004). The species was listed under the TSCA records exist in these areas compared with the north- because its population and distribution were suspected ern populations. In Victoria, where individuals are to have been reduced; it was thought that the species detected in first order streams or away from streams, a faced moderate threatening processes and it was con- 50 ha exclusion zone is established. For records on sec- sidered to be an ecological specialist (i.e. it depends on ond order or higher streams, a linear buffer of 100 m is particular types of diet or habitat) (Lunney et al. 2000). established around the stream for 1 km up- and down- The 2 main perceived threats to the long-term survival stream of the record. of this species are fire and commercial forestry (Pen- These prescriptions were developed in the absence man et al. 2004). of significant research data and it is not clear how Management prescriptions have been developed for effective they are. Here, we review the biology of the this species on land subject to commercial forestry, giant borrowing frog, evaluate its conservation status although the prescriptions vary between management and assess the potential for logging and fire to impact Penman et al.: Conservation management of Heleioporus australiacus 47 upon populations of this species. Using this informa- appear inappropriate for the species in large river tion, we assess the appropriateness of existing man- valleys, coastal lowlands and on high peaks (Penman agement prescriptions and propose alternatives that et al. 2005a). could be applied throughout the range of the giant Studies on this species have been limited by the burrowing frog. small number of known sites and the lack of true or known absence sites. As a result, statistical analysis and verification of the derived statistical models is dif- SPECIES BIOLOGY ficult. The lack of true or known absence sites means that any presence/absence statistical approaches re- A complete review of the species biology is pre- quire the use of random or null sites. These sites may in sented by Penman et al. (2004). It was found that little fact be occupied by the species, i.e. false negatives, is known of the species’ habitat use and behaviour and the inclusion in a model as a negative site will bias throughout its range. Descriptions of habitat were model results. This has occurred, as the species is diffi- based on a small number of observations of the species cult to detect even in areas where it is known to exist. in a relatively small area (e.g. Gillespie 1990, Daly While statistical methods are available for dealing with 1996, Lemckert et al. 1998). Northern populations imperfect detection (e.g. MacKenzie et al. 2003, Tyre were commonly associated with heath communities et al. 2003, Wintle et al. 2004), data for such models (Mahony 1993), whereas the southern populations have not been collected for this species. were reported from a range of forest environments Detection rates for this species using common (Littlejohn & Martin 1967, Webb 1987, Gillespie 1990, amphibian survey techniques are extremely low. This Lemckert et al. 1998). occurs in part because the behaviour of this species is More recent radio-tracking studies have allowed for strongly associated with specific environmental condi- a comprehensive analysis of the species’ behaviour tions. The species is most active following rainfall of (Lemckert & Brassil 2003, Penman 2005). These studies at least 5 mm, when temperatures are above 8oC, have found that individuals spend the majority of the humidity above 60% and in still or light wind condi- year (>95%) in forest areas away from the breeding tions (Penman et al. 2006a). Using pitfall traps in site. In the non-breeding environment, individual frogs known population areas has resulted in detection have non-breeding territories, which are on average rates ranging from 1 in 800 trap nights (Penman 2005) 500 m2 or 0.05 ha. There is no significant difference in up to 1 in 3000 trap nights (Kavanagh & Webb 1998). the size of the male and female territories; however, Gillespie (1990) reported capturing no frogs in 5400 male territories are more commonly found closer to the pitfall trap nights in suitable habitat for the species in breeding site than female ones (males: mean = 99 m, eastern Victoria. The rate of detection using nocturnal females: mean = 143 m; Penman 2005). Within each road transects varies widely according to a number of territory an individual will have a number of ‘home factors, including habitat traversed, experience of the burrows’ or sites they frequently use and a number of observer and vehicle speed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 11:408–425. Submitted: 26 January 2016; Accepted: 2 September 2016; Published: 16 December 2016. Amphibian Abundance and Detection Trends During a Large Flood in a Semi-Arid Floodplain Wetland Joanne F. Ocock1,4, Richard T. Kingsford1, Trent D. Penman2, and Jodi J.L. Rowley1,3 1Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, 2052, Australia 2Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires, Institute of Conservation Biology and Environmental Management, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia 3Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 6 College St, Sydney, New South Wales 2010, Australia 4Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Amphibian abundance and occupancy are often reduced in regulated river systems near dams, but com- paratively little is known about how they are affected on floodplain wetlands downstream or the effects of actively managed flows. We assessed frog diversity in the Macquarie Marshes, a semi-arid floodplain wetland of conserva- tion significance, identifying environmental variables that might explain abundances and detection of species. We collected relative abundance data of 15 amphibian species at 30 sites over four months, coinciding with a large natural flood. We observed an average of 39.9 ± (SE) 4.3 (range, 0-246) individuals per site survey, over 47 survey nights. Three non-burrowing, ground-dwelling species were most abundant at temporarily flooded sites with low- growing aquatic vegetation (e.g., Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, Limnodynastes fletcheri, Crinia parinsignifera). Most arboreal species (e.g., Litoria caerulea) were more abundant in wooded habitat, regardless of water permanency.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Abatement Plan
    gus resulting in ch fun ytridio trid myc chy osis ith w s n ia ib h p m a f o n o i t THREAT ABATEMENTc PLAN e f n I THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN INFECTION OF AMPHIBIANS WITH CHYTRID FUNGUS RESULTING IN CHYTRIDIOMYCOSIS Department of the Environment and Heritage © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 ISBN 0 642 55029 8 Published 2006 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Environment and Heritage. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: Assistant Secretary Natural Resource Management Policy Branch Department of the Environment and Heritage PO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 This publication is available on the Internet at: www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid/ For additional hard copies, please contact the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Community Information Unit on 1800 803 772. Front cover photo: Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) Sequential page photo: Taudactylus eungellensis (Eungella day frog) Banner photo on chapter pages: Close up of the skin of Litoria genimaculata (Green-eyed tree frog) ii Foreword ‘Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting Under the EPBC Act the Australian Government in chytridiomycosis’ was listed in July 2002 as a key implements the plan in Commonwealth areas and seeks threatening process under the Environment Protection the cooperation of the states and territories where the and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). disease impacts within their jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Witness Report
    Expert Witness Report Report prepared on instructions of: Bleyer Lawyers, Level 1, 550 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Vic 3000 Australia Prepared by: Graeme Gillespie B.Sc. Ph.D. 55 Union Street, Northcote, Vic 3070, Australia Curriculum Vitae Attached (Appendix I) I have read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agree to be bound by it. Graeme Gillespie 23 February 2010 Qualifications and Experience Please see my curriculum vitae (Appendix I) for my general qualifications and experience. My Ph.D. in zoology focussed specifically on the conservation biology and ecology of frog species in south-eastern Australia. I have 23 years of field and scientific experience studying amphibians and their conservation and management in south- eastern Australia. I have published 24 refereed scientific papers and 38 technical reports on amphibian ecology, conservation and management. I am recognised throughout Australia as an authority on the frog fauna of Victoria, specifically with respect to conservation issues, and I am regularly asked to provide advice on such matters to individuals, government conservation and land management agencies, and non-government organisations. With regard to the Giant Burrowing Frog, I encountered this species on several occasions between 1986 and 1992 while undertaking and supervising pre-logging biodiversity surveys in East Gippsland, Victoria. These records are documented in the Victorian Wildlife Atlas. During this period, I gained knowledge of the species’ habitat associations, breeding biology, some aspects of its behaviour and an appreciation of its conservation status in Victoria (see Opie et al. 1990; Westaway et al.1990; Lobert et al. 1991). Because of my research into amphibian conservation and management, I am highly familiar with the existing literature on the impact of various forest management activities on amphibians and the implications of these activities for amphibian conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania Regional Focus
    November 2011 Vol. 99 www.amphibians.orgFrogLogNews from the herpetological community Regional Focus Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania INSIDE News from the ASG Regional Updates Global Focus Recent Publications General Announcements And More..... Spotted Treefrog Nyctixalus pictus. Photo: Leong Tzi Ming New The 2012 Sabin Members’ Award for Amphibian Conservation is now Bulletin open for nomination Board FrogLog Vol. 99 | November 2011 | 1 Follow the ASG on facebook www.facebook.com/amphibiansdotor2 | FrogLog Vol. 99| November 2011 g $PSKLELDQ$UN FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOH 7KHWZHOYHVSHFWDFXODUZLQQLQJSKRWRVIURP $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VLQWHUQDWLRQDODPSKLELDQ SKRWRJUDSK\FRPSHWLWLRQKDYHEHHQLQFOXGHGLQ $PSKLELDQ$UN¶VEHDXWLIXOZDOOFDOHQGDU7KH FDOHQGDUVDUHQRZDYDLODEOHIRUVDOHDQGSURFHHGV DPSKLELDQDUN IURPVDOHVZLOOJRWRZDUGVVDYLQJWKUHDWHQHG :DOOFDOHQGDU DPSKLELDQVSHFLHV 3ULFLQJIRUFDOHQGDUVYDULHVGHSHQGLQJRQ WKHQXPEHURIFDOHQGDUVRUGHUHG±WKHPRUH \RXRUGHUWKHPRUH\RXVDYH2UGHUVRI FDOHQGDUVDUHSULFHGDW86HDFKRUGHUV RIEHWZHHQFDOHQGDUVGURSWKHSULFHWR 86HDFKDQGRUGHUVRIDUHSULFHGDW MXVW86HDFK 7KHVHSULFHVGRQRWLQFOXGH VKLSSLQJ $VZHOODVRUGHULQJFDOHQGDUVIRU\RXUVHOIIULHQGV DQGIDPLO\ZK\QRWSXUFKDVHVRPHFDOHQGDUV IRUUHVDOHWKURXJK\RXU UHWDLORXWOHWVRUIRUJLIWV IRUVWDIIVSRQVRUVRUIRU IXQGUDLVLQJHYHQWV" 2UGHU\RXUFDOHQGDUVIURPRXUZHEVLWH ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJFDOHQGDURUGHUIRUP 5HPHPEHU±DVZHOODVKDYLQJDVSHFWDFXODUFDOHQGDU WRNHHSWUDFNRIDOO\RXULPSRUWDQWGDWHV\RX¶OODOVREH GLUHFWO\KHOSLQJWRVDYHDPSKLELDQVDVDOOSUR¿WVZLOOEH XVHGWRVXSSRUWDPSKLELDQFRQVHUYDWLRQSURMHFWV ZZZDPSKLELDQDUNRUJ FrogLog Vol. 99 | November
    [Show full text]
  • Frogs of the Perth Region – Darling Range
    FROGS OF THE PERTH REGION Darling Range Eight species of frogs are found commonly along streams and in the many small swamps in the Darling Range east of Perth. All of these species breed during the wetter months between late autumn and early spring. B. Maryan D. Robinson Whooping Frog Crawling Toadlet Heleioporus inornatus Pseudophryne guentheri BUILD: stout round body and short limbs, BUILD: flattened body, small head and short males have black nuptial spine on first finger limbs LENGTH: maximum length 7cm LENGTH: maximum length 3.5cm LOOK FOR: uniformly copper brown back, LOOK FOR: ‘warty’ back mottled with browns flanks may be mottled with white, grey or and grey, belly blotchy with black on white yellow background, crawls BREEDING SEASON: late autumn BREEDING SEASON: winter MALE CALL: ‘whoop whoop whoop’ MALE CALL: short, sharp grating sound B. Maryan D. Robinson Sand Frog Western Spotted Frog Heleioporus psammophilus Heleioporus albopunctatus BUILD: robust body with short limbs, males BUILD: large with a robust build may have black nuptial spine on first finger LENGTH: maximum length 8.5cm LENGTH: maximum length 6cm LOOK FOR: white or yellow spots on LOOK FOR: back brown to dark grey. Pale chocolate brown body coloured bumps on lower flanks BREEDING SEASON: late autumn BREEDING SEASON: late autumn MALE CALL: short, high pitched ‘coo’ MALE CALL: high pitched trilling ‘purr’ D. Robinson D. Robinson Humming Frog Hooting Frog Neobatrachus pelobatoides Heleioporus barycragus BUILD: medium size, flat broad head, robust BUILD: males have massive front arms and with short legs black nuptial spine on first finger LENGTH: maximum length 4.5cm LENGTH: maximum length 9cm LOOK FOR: back patterns with base colour LOOK FOR: greyish to chocolate brown body of green or grey with darker green or brown with scattering of yellow spots on its flanks irregular patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Ecology of the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus Australiacus): Implications for Conservation Prescriptions
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health January 2008 Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Trent D. Penman University of Wollongong, [email protected] F Lemckert M J Mahony Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Penman, Trent D.; Lemckert, F; and Mahony, M J: Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions 2008, 179-186. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/724 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Spatial ecology of the giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus): implications for conservation prescriptions Abstract Management of threatened anurans requires an understanding of a species’ behaviour and habitat requirements in both the breeding and non-breeding environments. The giant burrowing frog (Heleioporus australiacus) is a threatened species in south-eastern Australia. Little is known about its habitat requirements, creating difficulties in vde eloping management strategies for the species.Weradio-tracked 33 individual H. australiacus in order to determine their habitat use and behaviour. Data from 33 frogs followed for between 5 and 599 days show that individuals spend little time near (<15 >m) their breeding sites (mean 4.7 days for males and 6.3 days for females annually). Most time is spent in distinct non- breeding activity areas 20–250m from the breeding sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Balance of Field-Excavated Aestivating Australian Desert Frogs
    3309 The Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3309-3321 Published by The Company of Biologists 2006 doi:10.1242/jeb.02393 Water balance of field-excavated aestivating Australian desert frogs, the cocoon- forming Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning Notaden nichollsi (Amphibia: Myobatrachidae) Victoria A. Cartledge1,*, Philip C. Withers1, Kellie A. McMaster1, Graham G. Thompson2 and S. Don Bradshaw1 1Zoology, School of Animal Biology, MO92, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia and 2Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 19 June 2006 Summary Burrowed aestivating frogs of the cocoon-forming approaching that of the plasma. By contrast, non-cocooned species Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning N. aquilonius from the dune swale were fully hydrated, species Notaden nichollsi were excavated in the Gibson although soil moisture levels were not as high as calculated Desert of central Australia. Their hydration state (osmotic to be necessary to maintain water balance. Both pressure of the plasma and urine) was compared to the species had similar plasma arginine vasotocin (AVT) moisture content and water potential of the surrounding concentrations ranging from 9.4 to 164·pg·ml–1, except for soil. The non-cocooning N. nichollsi was consistently found one cocooned N. aquilonius with a higher concentration of in sand dunes. While this sand had favourable water 394·pg·ml–1. For both species, AVT showed no relationship potential properties for buried frogs, the considerable with plasma osmolality over the lower range of plasma spatial and temporal variation in sand moisture meant osmolalities but was appreciably increased at the highest that frogs were not always in positive water balance with osmolality recorded.
    [Show full text]
  • National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes Balbus
    National Recovery Plan for the Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie Prepared by David Hunter and Graeme Gillespie (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria). Published by the Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Melbourne, October 2011. © State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2010 This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. ISBN 978-1-74242-369-2 (online) This is a Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, with the assistance of funding provided by the Australian Government. This Recovery Plan has been developed with the involvement and cooperation of a range of stakeholders, but individual stakeholders have not necessarily committed to undertaking specific actions. The attainment of objectives and the provision of funds may be subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved. Proposed actions may be subject to modification over the life of the plan due to changes in knowledge. Disclaimer: This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence that may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. An electronic version of this document is available on the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website www.environment.gov.au For more information contact the DSE Customer Service Centre 136 186 Citation: Hunter, D.
    [Show full text]
  • 2219573-REP-Marine Assessment Report AR
    Appendix L – Marine Assessment GHD | Report for Hunter Water Corporation - Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant, 2219573 Hunter Water Corporation Belmont Drought Response Desalination Plant Marine Environment Assessment Amendment Report July 2020 Table of contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and structure of this report .................................................................................... 2 2. Project changes ............................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Key features of the amended Project .................................................................................. 4 3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Review of relevant legislation .............................................................................................. 7 3.2 Review of databases and searches ..................................................................................... 7 3.3 Review of previous marine ecology reports ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Two Hundred and Ten Years Looking for the Giant Burrowing Frog
    Two hundred and ten years looking for the Giant Burrowing Frog 1 2 Trent Penman , Francis Lemckert and Michael Mahony' 'School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, N.S.W 2308,Australia 2Biodiversity Systems, Research and Development Division, Forests NSW P.O Box I 00 Beecroft, N.S.W 2119 Australia. Email for corresponding author: [email protected] The giant burrowing frog Heleioporusaustraliacus (Shaw) is a large, morphologically distinctive, but Downloaded fromhttp://meridian.allenpress.com/australian-zoologist/article-pdf/32/4/597/1471522/az_2004_005.pdf by gueston26September2021 cryptic frog found in south eastern Australia. This paper reviews the literature pertaining to the Giant Burrowing Frog. It is a forest dependent species found on the coast and adjacent ranges of south-eastern Australia, with five congeners in south-west Western Australia. The species is listed as vulnerable in NSW and Victoria and under Commonwealth legislation, although there is no obvious cause for a decline nor is it clear how much decline has occurred. Proposed threats to the species survival include forestry operations, habitat destruction, introduced species, pollutants, increased UV and disease.A large gap exists in the species distributional records and H. australiacusmay represent two distinct species, although the evidence for this remains inconclusive. Standard detection methods for frogs do not apply well to the Giant Burrowing Frog and alternative methods are required to provide a more detailed understanding of its ecology and distribution. Key words: review, conservation, Heleioporus, management, amphibian Introduction Despite being one of the first frogs described from The review brings together all known records from various Australia, there has been very little research into museum specimens, the published literature and previous the ecology of the Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus collations of habitat requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • SIS Manly Vale Public School Review – Prepared by Renata Bali
    SIS Manly Vale Public School Review – Prepared by Renata Bali This review has been prepared by Dr Renata Bali from Ecosense Consulting Pty. Ltd. I was asked by EDO NSW, on behalf of the Save Manly Dam Catchment Committee, to conduct a brief ecological review of the following report: Species Impact Statement Manly Vale Public School (Kleinfelder 2016), including documents attached in Appendix 7. I previously undertook a detailed ecological assessment of the Preliminary Species Impact Statement (SIS) prepared by Kleinfelder (2015) and relevant documentation (Bali 2015 provided as Attachment 1). As part of the present review, I also considered the following: OEH Referral response to Preliminary SIS dated 30 September 2015; and Proposal for a Biobank Site at Galston Park Bushland prepared by Hornsby Shire Council (November 2016). I note that, as a result of a reconfiguration of the school buildings, the amount of vegetation to be cleared has decreased (3.65 ha vs 4.37 ha). Similarly the amount of vegetation to be managed as an Asset Protection Zone (APZ) has decreased (3.34 ha vs 4.01 ha). More extensive survey work was undertaken by Kleinfelder within the subject site and the surrounding APZ in 2015-6. In the case of flora, this included the analysis of 2 additional 20 X 20 m quadrats and 8 hours targeted search for threatened species. In the case of fauna, this included an additional 7 hours of amphibian survey, 442 remote camera nights and ~1000 arboreal trap nights (discrepancy between Table 7 in the SIS and Table 1 in Appendix 7(2).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]