DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing the Population Status of the Endangered Booroolong Frog (Litoria Booroolongensis) in Areas Subject to Non-Native Trout Stocking

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing the Population Status of the Endangered Booroolong Frog (Litoria Booroolongensis) in Areas Subject to Non-Native Trout Stocking Assessing the Population Status of the Endangered Booroolong Frog (Litoria booroolongensis) in Areas Subject to Non-Native Trout Stocking. Prepared by David Hunter and Rod Pietsch Biodiversity Conservation Section Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) PO Box 2115, Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Emails: [email protected] [email protected] Unpublished Report to the NSW Department of Primary Industries July, 2008 Trout Stocking and the Endangered Booroolong Frog Summary The range of the Booroolong frog (Litoria booroolongensis) has greatly contracted over the past 25 years, and as a consequence, this species is currently listed as endangered at both the State and National level. A number of factors have been suggested as contributing to this decline, including; disease caused by infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), habitat degradation, and predation by exotic fish species. This study was contracted to assess the likely impact of trout stocking on the Booroolong frog in the South West Slopes region of New South Wales. There were two primary components to this study: The first was to assess whether the Booroolong frog has persisted in areas where trout stocking has been undertaken in recent years. The second was to assess the infection status of Booroolong frog populations for the amphibian chytrid fungus, as the transport and release of fingerling trout has the capacity to spread this potentially virulent amphibian pathogen. We found Booroolong frogs present along sections of stream immediately adjacent to, or within, areas where trout stocking currently occurs. Given the long history of trout stocking in these areas, this result suggests that Booroolong frogs are capable of persisting in the presence of trout stocking. This conclusion does not discount the possibility of more subtle impacts, or that the relative impact of stocking in the future may not increase. I also found low to moderate levels of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus in Booroolong frog populations subject to trout stocking. While this result demonstrates that trout stocking will not introduce the amphibian chytrid fungus into areas that are free of this pathogen, there is still the possibility that stocking may spread different strains of this pathogen. If trout stocking is to continue in streams supporting populations of the Booroolong frog, then the following recommendations should be considered: 1) Monitor the persistence of Booroolong frog populations along sections of streams where trout stocking is undertaken as well as at paired sites on streams that are not stocked. 2) Undertake research to determine whether fish stocking may introduce potentially harmful strains of the amphibian chytrid fungus into Booroolong frog populations. NSW Dept. of Environment and Climate Change Trout Stocking and the Endangered Booroolong Frog Table of Contents: 1 Background:.......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Potential Impact of Non-Native Salmonid Stocking on Amphibians................ 1 1.2 Decline and Conservation of the Booroolong Frog.......................................... 2 1.3 General Scope and Aims of this Study. ........................................................... 3 2 Methods: ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Study Area and Survey Localities ................................................................... 4 2.2 Spotlight Surveys............................................................................................ 6 2.3 Habitat Measurements .................................................................................... 6 2.4 Field Swabbing for Pathogen Testing.............................................................. 6 2.5 Statistical Analysis.......................................................................................... 6 3 Results................................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Presence absence surveys and extent of potential breeding habitat. ................. 7 3.2 Results of swabbing for the amphibian chytrid fungus. ................................... 8 4 Discussion............................................................................................................. 8 4.1 Direct Population Level Impacts of Trout Stocking......................................... 8 4.2 Potential for Trout Stocking to Exacerbate the Impact of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Implications of these findings to the conservation management of the Booroolong frog. ..................................................................................................10 4.4 Summary of Specific Recommendations........................................................10 5 References.............................................................................................................11 Acknowledgements: This study was funded by the Recreational Fishing Trust, NSW Department of Primary Industries. This study was covered under a NSW NPWS scientific license (No. S11409), and a NSW DECC Animal Ethics license (No. 041025/02). Craig Watson and Cameron Westaway provided valuable advice and comments on a draft of this report. We are particularly thankful to the property owners who granted us access to undertake the surveys in this study. NSW Dept. of Environment and Climate Change Trout Stocking and the Endangered Booroolong Frog 1 Background: 1.1 Potential Impact of Non-Native Salmonid Stocking on Amphibians. Predatory fish species can be an important factor regulating amphibian populations through predation on the eggs and tadpoles (Alford 1999). The capacity for some amphibian species to breed in aquatic environments occupied by predatory fish is typically the result of coevolution between predator (fish) and prey (tadpole) resulting in tadpole defence mechanisms to avoid being eaten by the fish (Kats et al. 1988, Sih et al. 1988, Werner and McPeek 1994). A number of experimental studies have shown that tadpole defence mechanisms are often predator or predator group specific, and may have limited effectiveness against fish species for which there has been minimal co-evolutionary history (Kats et al. 1988, Gillespie 2001). Hence, it is not surprising that the introduction of a non-native predatory fish species may result in the decline of native frog populations (Denoel et al. 2005). The release of non-native fish species may also have indirect impacts on amphibian populations. Fish predation may exclude species of amphibian from some habitats or sections of stream, resulting in greatly reduced and fragmented populations which are more prone to loss of genetic variation or local extinction (Bradford et al. 1993, Shaffer et al. 2000). Moreover, some diseases have been shown to infect both fish and amphibians and so the movement of fish to different water bodies may inadvertently result in the spread of pathogens that are harmful to amphibians (Kiesecker et al. 2001). Similarly, water used to transport fish may also contain pathogens that are harmful to amphibians, even if the fish themselves are not infected (Johnson and Speare 2003). There is also the potential for fish to compete with tadpoles for resources and so indirectly reduce their fitness (Resertarits 1995). Because of their popularity as a recreational angling species, several fish species within the family salmonidae have been extensively liberated outside their natural range. Salmonids are highly efficient predatory species, and so not surprisingly, their recent introduction into waterways in various parts of the world has been associated with the decline of native frog species (Mathews et al. 2001, Lowe and Bolger 2002, Bosch et al. 2006, Orizaola and Brana 2006). The capacity for non-native salmonids to regulate the population density of a native amphibian species was particularly well demonstrated by Vrendenburg (2004), who found that the removal of two salmonids from high altitude lakes in California resulted in the rapid recovery of Rana mucosa populations in those water bodies. While this study demonstrated a clear negative impact from the presence of introduced salmonids, it is also clear from correlative distributional studies and controlled experiments in artificial environments that susceptibility to salmonid predation may vary greatly among amphibian species (Gillespie 2001, Orizaola and Brana 2006). For over a centaury two salmonid species, brown trout, Salmo trutta, and rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, have been widely released into rivers and dams in south- eastern Australia, and have established self-sustaining populations (McDowall 1996). Predation by introduced trout has been identified as a potential causal factor in the decline of one frog species in south-eastern Australia, the spotted tree frog, Litoria spenceri, through a combination of field observations, palatability experiments, and an in-stream experiment (Hunter and Gillespie 1999, Gillespie 2001). Since several other threatened frog species occur in streams where O. mykiss and S. trutta have become established, it has been strongly recommended that further studies examining NSW Dept. of Environment and Climate Change 1 Trout Stocking and the Endangered Booroolong Frog the impact of introduced
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interactions Between Amphibian Skin Sloughing and a Cutaneous Fungal Disease
    Interactions between amphibian skin sloughing and a cutaneous fungal disease: infection progression, immune defence, and phylogenetic patterns Michel E. B. Ohmer BSc (Hons), MSc Zoology A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2016 School of Biological Sciences Abstract Worldwide, there has been an unprecedented rise in emerging infectious diseases of wildlife, and this has contributed to a widespread biodiversity crisis. Amphibian populations, in particular, are threatened by the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which in post-metamorphic animals only infects the skin, and causes the potentially lethal disease chytridiomycosis. Amphibians regularly slough their skin, and in doing so remove many skin- associated microbes. Thus, skin sloughing may play an important role in the pathogenesis of chytridiomycosis. To investigate this association, the influence of Bd infection on amphibian skin sloughing, and the role of sloughing in regulating infection, was examined. Furthermore, to better understand the variation in skin sloughing rates across species and ecological groups, and make inferences about the role of this process in susceptibility to this fungal disease, amphibian skin structure and function was investigated within a phylogenetic context. To determine the relationship between skin sloughing and disease progression (chapter 2), adult green tree frogs (Litoria caerulea) were exposed to an Australian Bd strain, and sloughing rates and infection load were monitored on a naturalistic cycling temperature regime (15 - 23˚C). Sloughing rates were determined by filming frogs and infection intensity was monitored before and after sloughing with conventional swabbing and quantitative PCR. Sloughing rate was found to increase with Bd infection load in infected frogs, but sloughing itself did not affect Bd load on the ventral skin surface.
    [Show full text]
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • An Overdue Review and Reclassification of the Australasian
    AustralasianAustralasian JournalJournal ofof HerpetologyHerpetology ISSN 1836-5698 (Print) ISSN 1836-5779 (Online) Hoser, R. T. 2020. For the first time ever! An overdue review and reclassification of Australasian Tree Frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Pelodryadidae), including formal descriptions of 12 tribes, 11 subtribes, 34 genera, 26 subgenera, 62 species and 12 subspecies new to science. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 44-46:1-192. ISSUE 46, PUBLISHED 5 JUNE 2020 Hoser, R. T. 2020. For the first time ever! An overdue review and reclassification of Australasian Tree Frogs (Amphibia: Anura: Pelodryadidae), including formal descriptions of 12 tribes, 11 subtribes, 34 genera, 26 130 Australasiansubgenera, 62 species Journal and 12 subspecies of Herpetologynew to science. Australasian Journal of Herpetology 44-46:1-192. ... Continued from AJH Issue 45 ... zone of apparently unsuitable habitat of significant geological antiquity and are therefore reproductively Underside of thighs have irregular darker patches and isolated and therefore evolving in separate directions. hind isde of thigh has irregular fine creamish coloured They are also morphologically divergent, warranting stripes. Skin is leathery and with numerous scattered identification of the unnamed population at least to tubercles which may or not be arranged in well-defined subspecies level as done herein. longitudinal rows, including sometimes some of medium to large size and a prominent one on the eyelid. Belly is The zone dividing known populations of each species is smooth except for some granular skin on the lower belly only about 30 km in a straight line. and thighs. Vomerine teeth present, but weakly P. longirostris tozerensis subsp. nov. is separated from P.
    [Show full text]
  • ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan
    Appendix 1 to Murray, K., Skerratt, L., Marantelli, G., Berger, L., Hunter, D., Mahony, M. and Hines, H. 2011. Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. ARAZPA Amphibian Action Plan Compiled by: Graeme Gillespie, Director Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria; Russel Traher, Amphibian TAG Convenor, Curator Healesville Sanctuary Chris Banks, Wildlife Conservation and Science, Zoos Victoria. February 2007 1 1. Background Amphibian species across the world have declined at an alarming rate in recent decades. According to the IUCN at least 122 species have gone extinct since 1980 and nearly one third of the world’s near 6,000 amphibian species are classified as threatened with extinction, placing the entire class at the core of the current biodiversity crisis (IUCN, 2006). Australasia too has experienced significant declines; several Australian species are considered extinct and nearly 25% of the remainder are threatened with extinction, while all four species native to New Zealand are threatened. Conventional causes of biodiversity loss, habitat destruction and invasive species, are playing a major role in these declines. However, emergent disease and climate change are strongly implicated in many declines and extinctions. These factors are now acting globally, rapidly and, most disturbingly, in protected and near pristine areas. Whilst habitat conservation and mitigation of threats in situ are essential, for many taxa the requirement for some sort of ex situ intervention is mounting. In response to this crisis there have been a series of meetings organised by the IUCN (World Conservation Union), WAZA (World Association of Zoos & Aquariums) and CBSG (Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, of the IUCN Species Survival Commission) around the world to discuss how the zoo community can and should respond.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotted Tree Frog Litoria Spenceri Review of Current Information in NSW July 2008
    NSW SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Spotted Tree Frog Litoria spenceri Review of Current Information in NSW July 2008 Current status: The Spotted Tree Frog Litoria spenceri is currently listed as Endangered under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Threatened in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). The NSW Scientific Committee recently determined that the Spotted Tree Frog meets criteria for listing as Critically Endangered in NSW under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), based on information contained in this report and other information available for the species. Species description: The following description was taken directly from Cogger 2000: ‘…grey to olive-green above, with irregular darker mottling or marbling, the latter often forming irregular cross-bands on the limbs. Ventral surface white or yellow. Lower and concealed surface of limbs yellowish. Skin shagreened, with a few tiny whitish tubercles on the back becoming numerous on the sides. Skin granular below. Small but prominent vomerine teeth, mostly behind choanae. A slight pectoral fold. Finger and toes discs moderate, only a little wider than digits. Fingers with distinct basal webbing; toes fully webbed. A small but prominent inner metatarsal tubercle, no outer. Tympanum indistinct. Second finger larger than first, 45 mm. Taxonomy: Originally this species was described as Hyla maculata by Spencer (1901) from a specimen found in Powong, Victoria. Australian treefrogs previously referred to the genus Hyla are now placed within the genus Litoria (Tyler, 1971). The species was renamed as Litoria spenceri by Dubois (1984) when it was demonstrated that the name ‘Litoria maculata’ had been used previously for another species.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Booroolong Frog Offset Plan for Chaffey Dam Augmentation and Safety Upgrade Project
    Booroolong Frog Offset Plan for Chaffey Dam Augmentation and Safety Upgrade Project Prepared by Phil Spark North West Ecological Services For WaterNSW Decemeber 2015 The information presented in this report is based on an objective study undertaken in response to a brief provided by the client. While every attempt has been made to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the report, the variability of the natural environment and the paucity of comparative research data may require that professional judgement be applied in reaching conclusions. Any opinions expressed in the report are the professional opinions of the author Philip Spark of North West Ecological Services. They are not intended to advocate any specific proposal or position. Philip Spark____________________ ___24 December 2015__ Author Date Philip Spark North West Ecological Services 112 Back Nundle Rd Tamworth 2340 Ph. 02‐67642245 Mob. 0427642245 Email: [email protected] Cover photo shows the Booroolong Frog at hotspot 4 in the offset property Rhuvieg, such wide rocky riffles zones are ideal habitat for the Booroolong Frog. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared with the assistance of Dr Andrew Stauber and Dr Elizabeth Broese van Groenou, and comments from the review committee of Tim Watts North West Local Land Services, Andrew Cruckshank Public Works, and Jubrahil Khan WaterNSW. This report should be cited as North West Ecological Services (2015). Booroolong Frog Offset Plan for Chaffey Dam Augmentation and Safety Upgrade Project. Prepared for WaterNSW Booroolong Frog Offset Plan for Chaffey Dam Augmentation_Rev3 24 December 2015 Page 2 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 9 1‐0. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 14 Decline of the Booroolong Frog .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Values of the TWWH 2013 Extension
    Natural Values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 2013 Extension - Central North Sector Nature Conservation Report 20/3 DeparNaturalt mentand Cultural of Heritage PrDepartmentimaryNatural Industr of Values Primaryies, PaSurveyrk Industries,s, W• 2013ater TWWHA Parks,and En Water vExtensionironmen And Area, tEnvironment Central North Sector 1 Natural Values of the TWWHA Extension - Central North Sector Edited by Elise Dewar Document design by Land Tasmania Design Unit © Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment This report was prepared under the direction of the Natural and Cultural Heritage Division of the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Program). Australian Government funds contributed to the project. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Governments. ISSN: 1838-7403 (electronic) Front cover photograph by Micah Visoiu; overlooking the headwaters of Brumby Creek in the TWWHA Cite as: DPIPWE (2020). Natural values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area 2013 Extension – Central North Sector. Nature Conservation Report 20/3, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart Natural Values Survey • 2013 TWWHA Extension Area, Central North Sector 2 KEY FINDINGS In 2013, an area of 172,276 ha was added to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA). A review of the known natural values for this extension and the threats to those values highlighted significant knowledge gaps (Balmeret al., 2017). To redress these knowedge gaps, at least partially, a multi-disciplinary survey was undertaken in November 2019 to document flora, fauna and geodiversity values in part of the extension area known as the Central North Sector (CNS).
    [Show full text]
  • Attracting Frogs to Your Garden @Sustainablegardeningaustralia #Sustainablegardeningaustralia
    Sustainable Gardening Australia www.sgaonline.org.au [email protected] Attracting Frogs to your Garden @sustainablegardeningaustralia #sustainablegardeningaustralia • Froggy Facts Frogs are carnivorous and will eat anything that fits in their mouths but mainly eating insects; Frogs are the only living native amphibian in Australia; Over 240 species of native frog in Australia; 21 new species have been discovered over the past decade; Undergo metamorphosis from a tadpole to a frog; Each frog species has a unique call; Four ways of breathing 1)Gills (tadpoles); 2) Skin (in water and on land) 3) Lining of the mouth cavity; 4) Lungs As frogs can absorb water and breath through their skin, they are very susceptible to chemicals, including garden chemicals; An abundance and diversity of frogs is an indication of a healthy eco-system / garden • Threats to Frogs Highly sensitive to changes in the environment; Populations in decline around the world and in; Australia ; Contributing factors - Habitat loss; Introduced predator animals; Pollution and chemicals; Salinity; Climate change Chytrid fungus - First detected in Australia in 1978; 43 Australian species have declined; 7 extinctions; 6 species at high risk of extinction • A Gardeners’ Response 1. Stop using harsh garden chemicals 2. Use natural solutions to garden challenges 3. Be a responsible pet owner 4. Build a frog friendly garden 5. Contribute to scientific research via citizen science activities 6. Learn about your local frogs • Stop Using Garden Chemicals Frogs absorb moisture and breath through their skin and can easily absorb herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers; Pesticides kill a frog’s food source; Insects that have been sprayed can be harmful to frogs that eat them; Low levels of nitrates (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Methods S1
    1 Validation methods for trophic niche models 2 3 To assign links between nodes (species), we used trophic niche-space models (e.g., [1]). 4 Each of these models has two quantile regressions that define the prey-size range a 5 predator of a given size is predicted to consume. Species whose body mass is within the 6 range of a predator’s prey size, as identified by the trophic niche-space model, are predicted 7 to be prey, while those outside the range are predicted not to be eaten. 8 9 The broad taxonomy of a predator helps to predict predation interactions [2]. To optimize 10 our trophic niche-space model, we therefore tested whether including taxonomic class of 11 predators improved the fit of quantile regressions. Using trophic (to identify which species 12 were predators), body mass, and taxonomic data, we fitted and compared five quantile 13 regression models (including a null model) to the GloBI data. In each model, we log10- 14 transformed the dependent variable prey body mass, and included for the independent 15 variables different combinations of log10-transformed predator body mass, predator class, 16 and the interaction between these variables (Supplementary Table S4). We log10- 17 transformed both predator and prey body mass to linearize the relationship between these 18 variables. We fit the five quantile regressions to the upper and lower 5% of prey body mass, 19 and compared model fits using the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). The predator body 20 mass*predator class model fit the 95th quantile data best, whereas the predator body mass 21 + predator class model fit the 5th quantile data marginally better than the aforementioned 22 interaction model (Supplementary Figure S2, Supplementary Table S4).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Temperature and Social Environment Interact to Affect Call Rate in Frogs (Crinia Signifera)?
    Austral Ecology (2004) 29, 209–214 Do temperature and social environment interact to affect call rate in frogs (Crinia signifera)? BOB B. M. WONG,1* A. N. N. COWLING,2 ROSS B. CUNNINGHAM,2† CHRISTINE F. DONNELLY2 AND PAUL D. COOPER1 1School of Botany and Zoology, and 2Statistical Consulting Unit of the Graduate School, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia Abstract Acoustic displays are pervasive and conspicuous forms of sexual advertisement used by animals to attract mates. Evidence suggests that individuals may use environmental cues and/or the presence of other displaying animals to select the best times for display to optimize the chances of mating. Less well-known is how the physical and social environment might interact to affect the actual content of the display itself. We examined the effects of social environment and temperature on calling rate in a frog Crinia signifera. We found that both variables interacted to affect call rate but only among continuous callers. Call rate increased with temperature in individuals calling continuously on their own but no relationship was found in frogs calling continuously in the presence of others, either in a duet or in a group calling situation. We suggest that the temperature sensitivity of calling rate in frogs could depend on the social environment of the caller. As such, we suggest caution in generalizing about the way temperature affects calling rates in frogs and encourage greater consideration of how physical and social environ- ments might interact to influence the signal content of acoustic displays. Key words: male–male competition, Myobatrachidae, social environment, temperature.
    [Show full text]