Consultation on Species Listing Eligibility and Conservation Actions

Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog)

You are invited to provide your views and supporting reasons related to:

1) the eligibility of Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) for inclusion on the EPBC Act threatened species list in the Critically Endangered category; and

2) the necessary conservation actions for the above species.

The purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the status of the species and help inform on conservation actions and further planning. As such, the below draft assessment should be considered to be tentative as it may change following responses to this consultation process.

Evidence provided by experts, stakeholders and the general public are welcome. Responses can be provided by any interested person.

Anyone may nominate a native species, ecological community or threatening process for listing under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) or for a transfer of an item already on the list to a new listing category. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes the assessment of species to determine eligibility for inclusion in the list of threatened species and provides its recommendation to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

Responses are to be provided in writing by email to: [email protected]. Please include species scientific name in Subject field. or by mail to:

The Director Marine and Freshwater Species Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment John Gorton Building, King Edward Terrace GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601

Responses are required to be submitted by 7 May 2021. Contents of this information package Page General background information about listing threatened species 2 Information about this consultation process 3 Consultation questions specific to the assessment 3 Information about the species and its eligibility for listing 5 Conservation actions for the species 13 Listing assessment 24 References cited 15

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment 1 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

General background information about listing threatened species The Australian Government helps protect species at risk of extinction by listing them as threatened under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Once listed under the EPBC Act, the species becomes a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and must be protected from significant impacts through the assessment and approval provisions of the EPBC Act. More information about threatened species is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/index.html.

Public nominations to list threatened species under the EPBC Act are received annually by the department. In order to determine if a species is eligible for listing as threatened under the EPBC Act, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) undertakes a rigorous scientific assessment of its status to determine if the species is eligible for listing against a set of criteria. These criteria are available on the Department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/d72dfd1a-f0d8-4699-8d43- 5d95bbb02428/files/tssc-guidelines-assessing-species-2018.pdf.

As part of the assessment process, the Committee consults with the public and stakeholders to obtain specific details about the species, as well as advice on what conservation actions might be appropriate. Information provided through the consultation process is considered by the Committee in its assessment. The Committee provides its advice on the assessment (together with comments received) to the Minister regarding the eligibility of the species for listing under a particular category and what conservation actions might be appropriate. The Minister decides to add, or not to add, the species to the list of threatened species under the EPBC Act. More detailed information about the listing process is at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/nominations.html.

To promote the recovery of listed threatened species and ecological communities, conservation advices and where required, recovery plans are made or adopted in accordance with Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Conservation advices provide guidance at the time of listing on known threats and priority recovery actions that can be undertaken at a local and regional level. Recovery plans describe key threats and identify specific recovery actions that can be undertaken to enable recovery activities to occur within a planned and logical national framework. Information about recovery plans is available on the department’s website at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery.html.

Privacy notice The Department will collect, use, store and disclose the personal information you provide in a manner consistent with the Department’s obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Department’s Privacy Policy.

Any personal information that you provide within, or in addition to, your comments in the threatened species assessment process may be used by the Department for the purposes of its functions relating to threatened species assessments, including contacting you if we have any questions about your comments in the future.

Further, the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have agreed to share threatened species assessment documentation (including comments) to ensure that all States and Territories have access to the same documentation when making a decision on the status of a potentially threatened species. This is also known as the ‘Common Assessment Method’ (CAM). As a result, any personal information that you have provided in connection with your comments may be shared between Commonwealth, State or Territory government entities to assist with their assessment processes.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

The Department’s Privacy Policy contains details about how respondents may access and make corrections to personal information that the Department holds about the respondent, how respondents may make a complaint about a breach of an Australian Privacy Principle, and how the Department will deal with that complaint. A copy of the Department’s Privacy Policy is available at: https://www.awe.gov.au/about/commitment/privacy .

Information about this consultation process Responses to this consultation can be provided electronically or in hard copy to the contact addresses provided on Page 1. All responses received will be provided in full to the Committee and then to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment.

In providing comments, please provide references to published data where possible. Should the Committee use the information you provide in formulating its advice, the information will be attributed to you and referenced as a ‘personal communication’ unless you provide references or otherwise attribute this information (please specify if your organisation requires that this information is attributed to your organisation instead of yourself). The final advice by the Committee will be published on the department’s website following the listing decision by the Minister.

Information provided through consultation may be subject to freedom of information legislation and court processes. It is also important to note that under the EPBC Act, the deliberations and recommendations of the Committee are confidential until the Minister has made a final decision on the nomination, unless otherwise determined by the Minister.

Consultation questions 1. Do you agree with the current taxonomic position of the Australian Faunal Directory for this taxon (as identified in the draft conservation advice)?

2. Can you provide any additional references, information or estimates on longevity, age of maturity, average life span and generation length?

3. Has the survey effort for this taxon been adequate to determine its national distribution and adult population size? Can you provide further details on surveys conducted that are not presented in the document?

4. Do you accept the estimate provided in the nomination for the current population size of the taxon?

5. For any population with which you are familiar, do you agree with the population estimate provided? If not, are you able to provide a plausible estimate based on your own knowledge? If so, please provide in the form: Lower bound (estimated minimum): Upper bound (estimated maximum): Best Estimate: Estimated level of Confidence: %

6. Can you provide any additional data, not contained in the current draft conservation advice, on declines in population numbers over the past or next 10 years or 3 generations, whichever is the longer?

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 3 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

7. Is the distribution as described in the nomination valid? Can you provide an estimate of the current geographic distribution (extent of occurrence or area of occupancy in km2) of this taxon?

8. Has this geographic distribution declined and if so by how much and over what period of time?

9. Do you agree that the taxon is eligible for inclusion on the threatened species list, in the category listed in the draft conservation advice?

10. Do you agree that the threats listed are correct and that their effects on the taxon are significant?

11. To what degree are the identified threats likely to impact on the taxon in the future?

12. Can you provide additional or alternative information on threats, past, current or potential that may adversely affect this taxon at any stage of its life cycle?

13. In seeking to facilitate the recovery of this taxon, can you provide management advice for the following:

What individuals or organisations are currently, or need to be, involved in planning to abate threats and any other relevant planning issues? What threats are impacting on different populations, how variable are the threats and what is the relative importance of the different populations? Would the development and implementation of a translocation strategy be of benefit? What recovery actions are currently in place, and can you suggest other actions that would help recover the taxon (e.g. Recovery Plan)? Please provide evidence and background information.

14. Can you provide additional data or information relevant to this assessment?

15. Can you advise as to whether this species is of cultural significance to Indigenous Australians?

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 4 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Conservation Advice for Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog)

This document combines the proposed conservation advice and listing assessment for the species. It provides a foundation for conservation action and further planning.

There were limited data to support the conservation advice for Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog). The lack of data is due (in part) to The Tinkling Frog’s brief appearance in the biological record, being first described in 1973 and last recorded in December 2000. This short period of time to survey and monitor the species is compounded by the species’ remote and (in places) inaccessible distribution, with the Tinkling Frog occurring at higher elevations in wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics, Queensland.

Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) © Copyright, Professor Michael Mahony (from University of Newcastle) Conservation status Summary of assessment Taudactylus rheophilus is currently listed in the Endangered category of the threatened species list under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act).

Taudactylus rheophilus is being assessed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee). The Committee’s draft assessment (at Attachment A) finds the species to likely be eligible for listing as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act.

The main factors that make the Tinkling Frog eligible for Critical Endangered listing status are its restricted and severely fragmented extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO), and estimated very low population numbers, together with its vulnerability to climate change driven habitat loss and susceptibility to disease.

Species can also be listed as threatened under state and territory legislation. For information on the current listing status of this species under relevant state or territory legislation, see the Species Profile and Threat Database.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 5 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Species information Taxonomy Conventionally accepted as Taudactylus rheophilus Liem & Hosmer (1973).

Description The Tinkling Frog is a small and slender frog from the family Myobatrachidae (“ground frogs”). Females are larger than males, having a snout-to-vent length (SVL) to 31 mm, while males reach 29 mm SVL. The dorsal surface has a few small tubercles, while the ventral surface is smooth. Dorsal colouration is highly variable, being composed of various hues of brown (grey-brown, dark brown, reddish-brown, or yellow-brown). Darker markings may also be present, including a band between the eyes, an inverted V-shape over the shoulders, and other patches. The limbs are either faintly or more heavily banded. A narrow dorsolateral gold streak is often present, from snout to groin, bordering the dark sides of the body below. Contrasting reticulated cream lines over the sides of the head and body may also be present. Ventral colouration is grey, white, or a brown-wash with numerous round cream blotches. The head is broad and fairly short with a bluntly rounded snout. The eyes are golden or bronze and reticulated with fine black venation. The tympanum is hidden. Toes and fingers have small distinct discs and are unwebbed. The toes have distinct lateral fringes. The species can be further identified from the male’s breeding call, which is a soft, metallic “tink, tink, tink” sound repeated four-five times in rapid succession. The description of the adult is drawn from Lime & Hosmer (1973), Hoskins & Hero (2008), Cogger (2014), and Anstis (2017). The eggs and tadpoles have not been described. Distribution The Tinkling Frog is endemic to the Wet Tropics of far north Queensland, having only been found in wet montane forest at elevations from 940–1500 m. Historically, the species was found in four disjunct subpopulations: Thornton Peak, Carbine Tableland, Lamb Range, and Bellenden Ker Range (Williams et al. 1996). By 1996, the distribution range had contracted, and the species was reduced to two subpopulations, one at Mt Lewis (in the Carbine Tableland) and the other at Mt Bellenden Ker (in the Bellenden Ker Range). Mt Bellenden Ker is Queensland’s second highest mountain, with a height of near 1600 m, Mt Lewis is just over 1200 m. The Tinkling Frog was last recorded in December 2000 (Hoskins & Hero 2008; Hoskins & Puschendorf 2014; Anstis 2017).

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 6 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Map 1 Modelled distribution of the Tinkling Frog

Source: Base map Geoscience Australia; species distribution data Species of National Environmental Significance database.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 7 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Relevant biology and ecology Little is known about the Tinkling Frog. It’s historical distribution falls within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area in remote, high elevation locations, which are difficult to access. This remoteness, together with the species brief appearance in the biological record (see Table 4 below in Attachment A), has meant that much of its biology and ecology have not been studied. Further, other Taudactylus species are also poorly understood, making it difficult to infer the biology and ecology from these likely similar species.

Habitat The Tinkling Frog has only been recorded in wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics, at high elevations (940–1500 m), along small rocky streams and associated seepage areas (Liem & Hosmer 1973; Williams & Hero 1998, 2001; Marshall 1998; McDonald & Alford 1999; Clarke 2006; Hoskins & Hero 2008). The Wet Tropics are characterised by high rainfall, uplands of granite with steep topography, and (at higher elevations) moist closed forests (McDonald & Alford 1999). Roughly 60 percent of mean annual rainfall occurs in the wet season (December to March), and at higher elevations, rainfall is supplemented by “cloud stripping”, where the clouds come in contact with trees and water collects on the leaves and stems and becomes part of the throughfall (WTMA 2014). Mt Bellenden Ker is Australia’s wettest place, recording a mean annual rainfall of over eight metres, with nearly 12.5 metres being recorded in 2000 (WTMA 2014; BOM 2020). Here, during the wet season, soil profiles are often saturated, and high intensity rainfall cannot be absorbed by the soil. This can result in widespread overland flow even on relatively steep slopes (DASET 1987). The uplands of the Wet Tropics are cool, with a mean summer temperature range of 17–28 °C and a mean winter temperature range of 9–22 °C. Humidity during the summer months is on average 78 percent, but it can reach the high nineties (DASET 1987). On the slopes and summits of the high peaks, where there is frequent cloud cover and strong winds, simple microphyll vine-fern forests and thickets occur. On Mt Bellenden Ker and Mt Lewis, the montane forest canopy is often low and dense and shows the streamlining effects of strong winds. Above 1000 m, Leptospermum wooroonooran (Mountain Teatree) is prevalent in the overstory (DASET 1987), and the upland reaches are particularly rich in ancient, bio-regionally endemic flora with Lauraceae, Monimiaceae, Myrtaceae and Proteaceae families prominent (WTMA 2014). At higher elevations on Mt Bellenden Ker, Dracophyllum sayeri (Queensland Dragon Heath), Cinnamomum propinquum (Pepperwood), Flindersia oppositifolia (Mountain Silkwood), Orites fragrans (Prickly Ash), and Uromyrtus metrosidros (Mountain Malletwood) are found. On Mt Lewis, the floristics differ, being comprised of Prumnopitys ladei (Brown Pine), Aceratium ferrugineum (Rusty Carabeen), Archontophoenix purpurea (Mount Lewis King Palm), and species from the Proteaceae family, including Helicia recurva and Austromuellera, amongst others (DASET 1987). Breeding The Tinkling Frog breeds in spring or late summer/early autumn. Males form a chorus, calling from under rocks or roots, and may be partially submerged in water (Ingram 1980 & K McDonald pers obs, both cited in NQTFRT 2001). Eggs have not been observed in the wild but are probably laid under rocks in water or under submerged roots of shrubs. Large eggs (1.8–2.4 mm diameter), numbering 35–50, have been found in gravid females (Anstis 2017). Tadpoles also have not been observed. However, Tinkling Frog tadpoles are probably similar to those of other Taudactylus species, and are likely small and stream-adapted, with a robust tail muscle and suctorial oral disc (Anstis 2017). Tadpoles of both T. liemi (Eungella Tinker Frog) and T. eungellensis (Eungella Day Frog) inhabit the benthic layer among rocks, litter, and detritus, where they remain motionless most of the time. If disturbed, the tadpoles are capable

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 8 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice of short bursts of rapid swimming (Retallick & Hero 1998). Tadpoles of the Tinkling Frog may overwinter in streams, with juvenile frogs found in December and May (Anstis 2017).

Behaviour The Tinkling Frog is a stream-dwelling frog, found in fast-flowing water, where it shelters under rocks and roots of shrubs (Anstis 2017). Frogs of the Taudactylus genus are ground-dwelling and mainly nocturnal, though they may be active on overcast days (Clarke 2006; Hoskins & Hero 2008). Habitat critical to the survival It is difficult to define habitat critical to the survival of the Tinkling Frog as there are insufficient data. However, as the Tinkling Frog is being assessed for a Critically Endangered listing and has a highly restricted range, all known or likely habitat, as well as areas designated for any future translocations, are considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species. Further, the entire historical distribution range of the Tinkling Frog is within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and all sites where the species has been historically recorded are within National Parks. Therefore, any site with a population, or designated to receive a translocated population (as required), is subject to the requirements of the EPBC Act. Habitat critical to the survival includes the following:

• Any site where a wild Tinkling Frog population is detected in the future. • All high elevation (above 900 m) sites that the species is likely to occur (as outlined in Map 1), particularly Mt Lewis and Mt Bellenden Ker, which are the last known occupied locations. • All high elevation translocation sites within the Wet Tropics (as required). These sites should contain habitat patches large enough to sustain a viable Tinkling Frog population under a range of future climate scenarios.

No Critical Habitat as defined under section 207A of the EPBC Act has been identified or included in the Register of Critical Habitat.

Important populations Any population of the Tinkling Frog is considered an important population. The last known populations of the Tinkling Frog were recorded on Mt Lewis and Mt Bellenden Ker. The last individual was recorded in December 2000. However, given the remoteness and (in places) inaccessibility of the wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics, it is feasible that a yet unknown population exists.

Threats Due to the prolonged absence of the Tinkling Frog from the biological record, the causes of the population decline to possible extinction are uncertain. However, the most plausible explanation is disease (chytridiomycosis), which is implicated in the decline of other frog species, particularly at higher elevations in the Wet Tropics (McDonald et al. 2005; Woodhams & Alford 2005; Skerratt et al. 2010; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014; Berger et al. 2016; Skerratt et al. 2016; McKnight et al. 2017; Alford & Rowley 2018). The historical distribution range is covered by relatively pristine forest and within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, and the last known occupied sites are in National Parks, with Mt Bellenden Ker in Wooroonooran National Park (WTMA 2020d) and Mt Lewis in Mt Lewis National Park (DES 2020). Despite this protection, habitat loss is still a major threat through climate change and (to

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 9 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice a lesser degree) invasive species, including rooting and wallowing by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and the encroachment of weeds. Introduced fish are a likely threat to eggs and tadpoles, and yellow crazy ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) are a potential future threat as they spread in the Wet Tropics.

Table 1 Threats impacting The Tinkling Frog

Threat Status and severity Evidence

Disease Chytridiomycosis Status: current Chytridiomycosis is an infectious disease caused by the caused by chytrid Confidence: inferred amphibian chytrid fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium fungus dendrobatidis (Bd). Infected subpopulations exhibit Consequence: severe diverse susceptibility to Bd. Some species do not exhibit Trend: unknown any apparent symptoms while others are extremely Extent: across the entire range vulnerable, resulting in mass die-off and extinction (DOEE 2016).

Bd is pervasive in the Wet Tropics. It has been detected in all threatened stream-dwelling rainforest frog species, at all localities, and is implicated in the population decline and disappearance of ten frog species (McDonald et al. 2005; Woodhams & Alford 2005; Skerratt et al. 2010; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014; Carmody et al. 2015; Berger et al. 2016; Skerratt et al. 2016; McKnight et al. 2017; Alford & Rowley 2018). In particular, Bd-induced mortality is thought to have been the main driver in the decline and extinction of two of the six species in the Taudactylus genus: T. diurnus (Southern Day Frog) (Schloegel et al. 2006; DAWE 2020a) and T. acutirostris (Sharp-snouted Day Frog) (Berger et al. 1998, 1999; Hero et al. 2006; Schloegel et al. 2006; DAWE 2020b) and in the decline of another two: Eungella Day Frog (DAWE 2020c; Meyer et al. 2020) and T. Pleione (Kroombit Tinker Frog) (Skerratt et al. 2016; DAWE 2020d).

The Tinkling Frog is restricted to wet montane forest habitat at high elevations. This cool, moist environment provides the optimal conditions for Bd growth (Ron 2005; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Sapsford et al. 2013). Seasonal fluctuations in water temperature are lower (12.3–22 °C) (Sapsford et al. 2013) and stay within the temperature range that allows for Bd growth and reproduction (4–25 °C) (Piotrowski et al. 2004). Subsequently, Bd can grow year-round and infections can more readily reach a lethal threshold (Carey et al. 2006). In addition, as the Tinkling Frog is strongly associated with streams, transmission from infected to healthy individuals is accelerated through contact with waterbodies containing motile aquatic fungal zoospores (Carey et al. 2006; Sapsford et al. 2013, 2015).

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 10 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Threat Status and severity Evidence

Climate Change Loss of habitat Status: current Climate change is expected to cause a pronounced Confidence: inferred increase in extinction risk for frog species over the coming century (Hagger et al. 2013; Pearson et al. 2014). Consequence: severe Climate projections for the Wet Tropics include increased Trend: unknown/probable average temperatures, possible decrease in annual increasing average rainfall but with an increase in days of extreme Extent: across the entire range rainfall, and more intense tropical cyclones (WTMA 2014; CSIRO & Bureau of Meteorology 2015). Also, a rise in the average basal altitude of the mountain cloud layer is expected. This rise would exacerbate the effects of longer and more variable dry seasons through a reduction in “cloud-stripping” (Williams et al. 2003; Hines et al. 2020).

The wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics (and its fauna) is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Species are adapted to a cool, wet, and a relatively aseasonal environment (Williams & Hero 2001; Williams 2010). Under possible climate change scenarios, the extent of upland rainforest is predicted to shrink significantly, with increasing temperatures expected to be most noticeable across elevation gradients, and wet montane forest may disappear altogether (Williams et al. 2003; WTMA 2014).

Wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics is projected to decrease by 50 % with a 1 °C increase in temperature (Hilbert et al. 2001; Preston & Jones 2006). This rise in temperature is less than the Paris Accord Climate Limits (UNCC 2020). Under this climate change scenario, bioclimatic models predict the extinction of many Wet Tropic frog species. Models by Williams et al. (2003) predicted contractions in endemic rainforest vertebrates would be significant, Fordham et al. (2016) showed a reduction in the average range size of Wet Tropics frog species and a mix of imminent and delayed extinctions, and Clark (2006) predicted that 70 % of occupied locations by the ecologically and morphologically similar Kroombit Tinker Frog would be reduced in patch size to an extent that they would be uninhabitable.

Under a 3.5°C rise in global temperature, models predict that there would be no areas with high species richness remaining (greater than 30 species) within the Wet Tropics, and all endemic vertebrates would disappear from low and mid-elevation ranges, as well as from high elevation ranges at all known historical Tinkling Frog sites (Williams et al. 2003).

Bushfires Status: current Recent intense and broad-scale fire activity (2018 and Confidence: inferred 2019-20) has taken place in many parts of Queensland. Fires in 2018 burnt significant areas of rainforest and Consequence: severe scrub communities (totalling nearly 20 % of rainforest Trend: unknown/probable within Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service managed increasing estates), including high elevation wet montane forest (Hines 2020). The 2019-20 fires burnt over 7.5 million ha

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 11 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Threat Status and severity Evidence Extent: unknown of forest in Queensland (4 % of the State) (QRA 2020); although, the Wet Tropics region was largely unaffected (DAWE 2020e).

These fires were associated with a severe drought, which had already depleted much of the surface and ground water, and conditions that promote bushfires are predicted to occur more frequently as climate change intensifies (see climate change section, above). The recovery of burnt, fire-sensitive communities, such as wet montane forest, is likely to take decades to centuries (Hines 2020).

Normally, the rainforest canopy shades out inflammable grasses that fuel fires, protecting most of the forest from fire. However, following the 2018 fires, invasive weeds have become established in burnt areas, including lantana (Lantana camara) and high-biomass grasses. These weeds increase the rainforest’s susceptibility to future fires (Hines 2020).

Even where weeds do not occur, the rainforest edge is vulnerable to burning, and advances and retreats in response to fire. Fires can surge up hill-slopes and scorch the edge of the rainforest, pushing it back several metres each time. An accumulation of these events can result in a significant retreat over decades (WTMA 2020b).

Invasive species

Feral pigs (Sus Status: current Feral pigs are a threat to rainforest frogs (DoEE 2017). scrofa) Confidence: suspected Pigs cause significant damage in rainforest gullies, both in the highlands and lowlands (Richards et al. 1993; Mitchell Consequence: moderate & Mayer 1997), and potentially kill adult Tinkling Frogs Trend: unknown (Richards et al. 1993). Pigs are a major vector of weeds Extent: across part of its range (including fire prone high biomass grasses), pathogens, and parasites (DoEE 2017; WTMA 2020c). Also, foraging pigs can cause in-stream rock crevices to fill with silt, thereby reducing the availability of suitable oviposition sites or refugia for tadpoles (Welsh & Ollivier 1998; Clark 2006).

Feral cats (Felis Status: current Feral cats are widespread in the Wet Tropics and appear catus) Confidence: suspected to be common in some upland areas, including Mt Lewis and Mt Bellenden Ker (Rowland et al. 2020). The impacts Consequence: moderate of cats on the endemic and threatened fauna of the Wet Trend: unknown Tropics is unknown. However, a study by Woinarski et al. Extent: across part of its range (2020) estimated that nearly 100 million frogs are killed annually in Australia by feral cats.

Invasive weeds Status: current Invasive weeds have established in areas burnt by recent Confidence: suspected fires within the Wet Tropics, including lantana and high-biomass grasses (see bushfire section, above). In Consequence: moderate addition, tropical cyclones are predicted to intensify in Trend: unknown the Wet Tropics (see climate change section, above), Extent: unknown which can cause extensive damage and open the canopy, allowing weeds to establish.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 12 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Threat Status and severity Evidence

Invasive weeds increase the susceptibility of the rainforest to fires (Hines 2020) (see bushfire section, above), and can encroach into the riparian zone, causing sediment to build up and fill crevices and interstitial spaces in stream substrates, thereby reducing the availability of suitable oviposition sites or refugia for tadpoles (Welsh & Ollivier 1998).

Invasive species of Status: current At least six species of non-native fish have established fish Confidence: suspected populations in the Wet Tropics, including the Daintree and Mossman River basins, where Mt Lewis is situated, Consequence: moderate and the Mulgrave and Russell River basins, where Mt Trend: unknown Bellenden Ker is situated (Kroon et al. 2015). Fish are a Extent: unknown major influence on amphibian assemblage structure, and their introduction to aquatic systems has the potential to eliminate amphibian species through egg and tadpole predation (Gillespie & Hero 1999).

Cane toad Status: future The cane toad has been recorded in the Wet Tropics for (Rhinella mariana) Confidence: suspected many years (Alford & Rowley 2018) and has been found in cool, high elevation areas (above 1000 m) previously Consequence: moderate thought inaccessible to the species (McCann et al. 2014). Trend: unknown However, although the cane toad may compete with, and Extent: unknown prey upon, juveniles of native species, and its parasites could infect native species, it has had little effect on populations of native frogs in other parts of Australia (Shine 2018).

Yellow crazy ants Status: future Yellow crazy ants can have severe impacts on a range of Confidence: suspected ecological processes, which can lead to significant loss of biodiversity. Ants spray formic acid to subdue prey Consequence: moderate (including frogs), which causes burns and irritates the Trend: unknown skin and eyes (WTMA 2020a). Extent: unknown Yellow crazy ants were detected within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area at Edmonton and Little Mulgrave

National Park in 2012 and now cover up to 61 ha (WTMA 2020a). In December 2013, Yellow crazy ants were also detected in the Kuranda area (WTMA 2020a).

Status—identify the temporal nature of the threat; Confidence—identify the extent to which we have confidence about the impact of the threat on the species; Consequence—identify the severity of the threat; Trend—identify the extent to which it will continue to operate on the species; Extent—identify its spatial content in terms of the range of the species.

Conservation and recovery actions Primary conservation outcome Specific management actions for the conservation of the Tinkling Frog are limited. It is uncertain whether the species is extant, and the historical distribution range is already protected, consisting of relatively pristine forest habitat within National Parks in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Therefore, the primary conservation action is to survey historical sites, and

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 13 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice habitat likely to be suitable for the species, to ascertain the population status and (if frogs are found) population trends. All invasive research should be avoided until stable populations are known and adequate protection measures can be implemented (identified below), as required. Call surveys for the Tinkling Frog should be conducted:

• during the known calling period of the species, between December and May (Ingram 1980), and

• at different levels of intensity:

o intensive monitoring conducted frequently at a small number of previously occupied sites (particularly at Mt Bellenden Ker and Mt Lewis) o less frequent monitoring at other sites with a history of the species; and o extensive surveying in suitable wet montane forest habitat and potential Bd refuge habitat in peripheral dry forest adjacent to rainforest. Conservation and management priorities Invasive species (including threats from grazing, trampling, predation) • Manage priority sites to reduce the impacts of habitat destruction by feral pigs by using fencing and controlling pig numbers, as required.

• Manage priority sites to reduce the impacts of feral cats by controlling feral cat numbers, as required.

• Minimise the spread of yellow crazy ants and manage their impacts by implementing an eradication program based on baiting at critical stages of the ants life cycle.

• Establish the impact of introduced fish on frog populations and, if the Tinkling Frog is shown to be compromised by predation, eradication programs should be considered. Fire • Protect likely Tinkling Frog habitat from fire, particularly at any sites where a remnant population is discovered. This may require removal of weeds from patches where the rainforest canopy has been opened following cyclones or bushfire. Disease • Determine the history of Bd-infection in the Tinkling Frog through examination of existing museum specimens.

• Determine the mechanism/s for population level resistance to Bd that may allow frogs distributed at high elevations in the Wet Tropics to co-existing with the pathogen, including frog resistance to Bd, lower virulence of Bd, less favourable environmental conditions to Bd, or behavioural adaptation. Breeding and other ex situ recovery action • Investigate, and where appropriate, apply strategies such as captive breeding and/or head- starting (rearing juvenile stages in captivity until they can be released when translocation success will be higher). Follow appropriate protocols and guidelines for translocation, including acclimation, health screening, genetic management, and long term monitoring, noting the importance of avoiding the introduction of diseases into any existing amphibian populations.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 14 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Survey and monitoring priorities • Undertake call surveys for the Tinkling Frog to ascertain the population status of the species. If a population is found:

o Monitor the species to detect any change in population size and understand how different subpopulations are responding in different environmental and management settings and in response to various threats or ecological loads. o Assess the distribution and long-term population trends using the established modelling and analytical methods. Develop models to evaluate critical life history stages and the roles of key threatening processes.

• Assess the stream and patch characteristics of likely habitat that may be impacted from climate change, fire, and feral animals. Information and research priorities • Investigate options for providing new habitat areas that would be suitable for the species under climate change scenarios.

• Assess all management activities undertaken in National Parks (i.e. control of introduced species and fire management) for their potential impacts on Tinkling Frogs and modify if required.

• Identify all potential threatening processes that may have affected the species distribution and abundance, then evaluate their relative contribution to the decline and impediment to recovery. In particular:

o Understand the influence of climate change on the long-term survival prospects of the species due to altered rainfall patterns, temperatures, bushfires, and diseases, through maintaining robust population and environmental monitoring. o Improve understanding of the extent and impact of Bd-infection on the Tinkling Frog to better inform how to apply existing or new management actions relevant to the recovery. Links to relevant implementation documents DoEE (Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy) (2017). Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Commonwealth of Australia. Viewed 25 October 2020. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b022ba00-ceb9-4d0b-9b9a- 54f9700e7ec9/files/tap-feral-pigs-2017.pdf

DoEE (Commonwealth Department of the Environment & Energy) (2016). Threat abatement plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis, Commonwealth of Australia 2016. Viewed: 25 October 2020 Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/infection- amphibians-chytrid-fungus-resulting-chytridiomycosis-2016

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 15 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Conservation Advice and Listing Assessment references Alford RA & Rowley JL (2018). Status of decline and conservation of frogs in the Wet Tropics of Australia in H Heatwole & JJL Rowley (eds) Status of conservation and decline of amphibians Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands. CSIRO publishing, Clayton South Victoria. pp 15-21.

Anstis M (2017). Taudactylus rheophilus in Tadpoles and frogs of Australia, 2nd edition. New Holland Publishers, Australia. pp 699-700.

Berger L, Roberts AA, Voyles J, Longcore JE, Murray KA, & Skerratt LF (2016). History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Fungal Ecology 19, 89-99.

Berger L, Speare R, Daszak P, Green DE, Cunningham AA, Goggin CL, Slocombe R, Ragan MA, Hyatt AD, McDonald KR, Hines HB, Lips KR, Marantelli G, & Parkes H (1998). Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rainforests of Australia and Central America. PNAS 95, 9031-9036.

Berger L, Speare R, & Hyatt A (1999). Chytrid fungi and amphibian declines: overview, implications and future directions in A Campbell (ed) Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Environment Australia. pp 23-33.

Carey CJE, Bruegel LJ, Livo LJ, Walling ML, Kuehl KA, Dixon BF, Pessier AP, Alford RA, & Rogers KB (2006). Experimental exposures of boreal toads (Bufo boreas) to a pathogenic chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). EcoHealth 3, 5-21.

Carmody J, Murphy H, Hill R, Catterall C, Goosem S, Dale A, Westcott D, Welbergen J, Shoo L, Stoeckl N, Esparon M (2015). The Importance of Protecting and Conserving the Wet Tropics: A synthesis of NERP Tropical Ecosystems Hub Tropical Rainforest Outputs 2011-2014. Report to the National Environmental Research Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns.

Clarke JM (2006). Habitat, microhabitat, and calling behaviour of Taudactylus Pleione (Anura: Myobatrachidae), a critically endangered frog from central Queensland, Australia. Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland.

Cogger HG (2014). Taudactylus rheophilus in Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, 7th edition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. p 117.

De Castro F & Bolker B (2005). Mechanisms of disease-induced extinction. Ecology Letters 8, 117-126

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 16 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Edmunds RC, Villacorta-Rath C, Huerlimann R, & Burrows D (2019). Development of eDNA assays for monitoring three endangered frog species (Litoria dayi, L. lorica and L. nannotis) in Australia's Wet Tropics. Report 19/24, Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook University Press, Townsville.

Fordham DA, Brook BW, Hoskin CJ, Pressey RL, VanDerWal J, & Williams SE (2016). Extinction det from climate change for frogs in the Wet Tropics. Biological Letters 12, 1-5.

Freeman AB (2003). An observation of calling Northern Tinker Frogs on Mount Bellenden Ker. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 49, 295-297.

Gillespie G & Hero JM (1999). Potential impacts of introduced fish and fish translocations on Australian amphibians. In A Campbell (ed) Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Canberra: Environment Australia. pp 131-144.

Hagger V, Fisher D, Schmidt S, & Blomberg S (2013). Assessing the vulnerability of an assemblage of subtropical rainforest vertebrate species to climate change in south-east Queensland. Austral Ecology 38, 464-475.

Hero J-M, Williams SE, & Magnusson WE (2005). Ecological traits of declining amphibians in upland areas of eastern Australia. Journal of Zoology 267, 221-232

Hero J-M, Morrison C, Gillespie G, Roberts JD, Newell D, Meyer E, McDonald K, Lemckert F, Mahony M, Osborne W, Hines H, Richards S, Hoskin C, Clarke J, Doak N, & Shoo L (2006), Overview of the conservation status of Australian frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 12(4), 313-320.

Hilbert DW, Ostendorf B, & Hopkins MS (2001). Sensitivity of tropical forests to climate change in the humid tropics of north Queensland. Austral Ecology 26, 590-603.

Hines HB, Brook M, Wilson J, McDonald WJF, & Hargreaves J (2020). The extent and severity of the MacKay highlands 2018 wildfires and the potential impact on natural values, particularly in the mesic forests of the Eungella-Crediton area. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 125, 139-157.

Hoskins CJ & Hero J-M (2008). Rainforest frogs of the Wet Tropics, north-east Australia. Griffith University, Gold Coast.

Hoskins CJ & Puschendorf R (2014). The importance of peripheral areas for biodiversity conservation: with particular focus on endangered rainforest frogs of the Wet Tropics and Eungella. Report to the National Environmental Research Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns. pp 1-19.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 17 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Kroon F, Phillips S, Burrows D, & Hogan A (2015). Presence and absence of non-native fish species in the Wet Tropics region, Australia. Journal of Fish Biology 86, 1177-1185.

Laurance WF, McDonald KR, & Speare R (1996). Epidemic disease and the catastrophic decline of Australian rainforest frogs. Conservation Biology 10(2), 406-413.

Liem DSS & Hosmer W (1973). Frogs of the genus Taudactylus with description of two new species (Anura: Leptodactylidae). Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 16, 435–457.

Marshall C (1998). The reappearance of Taudactylus (Anura: Myobatrachidae) in north Queensland streams. Pacific Conservation Biology 4, 39-41.

McCann S, Greenlees MJ, Newell D, & Shine R (2014). Rapid acclimation to cold allows the cane toad to invade montane areas within its range. Functional Ecology 28, 1166-1174.

McDonald KR (1992). Distribution patterns and conservation status of north Queensland rainforest frogs. Conservation Technical Report 1. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage.

McDonald K & Alford R (1999). A review of declining frogs in northern Queensland in A Campbell (ed) Declines and disappearances of Australian frogs. Environment Australia. pp14-22.

McDonald KR, Mendez D, Muller R, Freeman AB, & Speare R (2005). Decline in the prevalence of chytridiomycosis in frog populations in North Queensland, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 11(2), 114-120.

McKnight DT, Alford RA, Hoskins CJ, Schwarzkopf L, Greenspan SE, Zenger KR, & Bower DS (2017). Fighting an uphill battle: the recovery of frog’s in Australia’s Wet Tropics. Ecology 98(12), 3221-3223.

Meyer EA, Hines HB, Clarke JM, & Hoskin CJ (2020). An update on the status of wet forest stream dwelling frogs of the Eungella region. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland 125, 97-115.

Mitchell J & Mayer R (1997). Diggings by Feral Pigs within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area of North Queensland. Wildlife Research 24, 591-601.

Murray KA & Skerratt LF (2012). Predicting wild hosts for amphibian chytridiomycosis: integrating host life-history traits with pathogen environmental requirements. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 18(1), 200-224.f

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 18 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Pearson RG, Stanton JC, Shoemaker KT, Aiello-Lammens ME, Ersts PJ, Horning N, Fordham DA, Raxworthy CJ, Ryu HY, McNees J & Akçakaya HR (2014). Life history and spatial traits predict extinction risk due to climate change. Nature Climate Change 4, 217–221

Piotrowski JS, Annis SL, & Longcore JE (2004). Physiology of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a chytrid pathogen of amphibians. Mycologia 96, 9-15.

Puschendorf R, Hoskins CJ, Cashins SD, McDonald K, Skerratt LF, Vanderwal J, & Alford RA (2011). Environmental refuge from disease-driven amphibian extinction. Conservation Biology 25, 956-964.

Reeder NMM, Pessier AP, & Vredenburg VT (2012). A reservoir species for the emerging amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis thrives in a landscape decimated by disease. PLoS ONE 7(3), 1-7.

Retallick RWR & Hero J-M (1998). The tadpoles of Taudactylus eungellensis and T. liemi and a key to the stream-dwelling tadpoles of the Eungella rainforest in east-central Queensland, Australia. Journal of Herpetology 32(2), 304-309.

Retallick RWR, McCallum H, & Speare R (2004). Endemic infection of the amphibian chytrid fungus in a frog community post-decline. PLoS Biology 2(11), 1965-1971.

Richards SJ, McDonald KR, & Alford RA (1993). Declines in populations of Australia’s endemic tropical rainforest frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 1(1), 66-77.

Ron S (2005). Predicting the distribution of the amphibian pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the New World. Biotropica 37, 209-221.

Rowland J, Hoskin CJ, & Burnett S (2020). Distribution and diet of feral cats (felis catus) in the Wet Tropics of north-eastern Australia, with a focus on the upland rainforest. Wildlife Research 47, 649-659.

Rowley & Alford (2013). Hot bodies protect amphibians against chytrid infection in nature. Scientific Reports 3, 1515.

Roznik EA & Alford RA (2015). Seasonal ecology and behaviour of an endangered rainforest frog (Litoria rheocola) threatened by disease. PlosOne 10(5), 1-17.

Sapsford SJ, Alford RA, Schwarzkopf L (2013). Elevation, temperature, and aquatic connectivity all influence the infection dynamics of the amphibian chytrid fungus in adult frogs. PLoS ONE 8(12), 1-12.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 19 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Sapsford SJ, Voordouw MJ, Alford RA, Schwarzkopf L (2015). Infection dynamics in frog populations with different histories of decline caused by deadly disease. Oecologia 179, 1099-1110.

Scheele BC, Hunter D, Skerratt LF, Brannelly L, & Driscoll DA (2015). Low impact of chytridiomycosis on frog recruitment enables persistence in refuges despite high adult mortality. Biological Conservation 182, 36-43.

Scheele BC & Gillespie GR (2018). The extent and adequacy of monitoring for Australian threatened frog species in S Legge, DB Lindenmayer, NM Robinson, BC Scheele, DM Southwell, & BA Wintle (eds) Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria.

Schloegel LM, Hero J-M, Berger L, Speare R, McDonald K, Daszal P (2006). The decline of the Sharp-snouted Day Frog (Taudactylus acutirostris): the first documented case of extinction by infection in a free-ranging wildlife species? EcoHealth 3, 35-40.

Shine R (2018). The impact of an invasive amphibian: the cane toad Rhinella marina in H Heatwole & JJL Rowley (eds) Status of conservation and decline of amphibians Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Islands. CSIRO publishing, Clayton South Victoria. pp 107-124.

Skerratt LF, Berger L, Clemann N, Hunter DA, Marantelli G, Newell DA, Philips A, McFadden M, Hines H, Scheele BC, Brannelly LA, Speare R, Versteegen S, Cahsins SD, & West M (2016). Priorities for management of chytridiomycosis in Australia: saving frogs from extinction. Wildlife Research 43, 105-120.

Skerratt LF, McDonald KR, Hines HB, Berger L, Mendez D, Phillott AD, Cahsins SD, Murray KA, & Speare R (2010). Application of the survey protocol for chytridiomycosis to Queensland, Australia. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92, 117-129.

Smith GC (2013). Vertebrate Survey Effort across Queensland. Queensland Herbarium, Science Delivery Division. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government.

Welsh HHJ & Ollivier LM (1998). Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case study from California’s redwoods. Ecological Applications 8, 1118-1132.

Williams SE, Bolitho EE, & Fox S (2003). Climate change in Australian tropical rainforests: an impending environmental catastrophe. Biological Sciences 270(1527), 1887-1892.

Williams SE & Hero J-M (1998). Rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics: guild classification and the ecological similarity of declining species. Biological Sciences 265(1396), 597-602.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 20 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Williams SE & Hero J-M (2001). Multiple determinants of Australian tropical frog biodiversity. Biological Conservation 98, 1-10.

Williams SE, Pearson RG, & Walsh PJ (1996). Distributions and biodiversity of the terrestrial vertebrates of Australia’s Wet Tropics: a review of current knowledge. Pacific Conservation Biology 2(4), 327-362.

Williams SE, VanDerWal J, Isaac J, Shoo L, Storlie C, Fox S, Bolitho EE, Moritz C, Hoskin C, & Williams YM (2010). Distributions, life history specialisation and phylogeny of the rainforest vertebrates in the Australian Wet Tropics. Ecology 91(8), 2493

Woinarski JCZ, Legge SM, Woolley LA, Palmer R, Dickman CR, Augusteyn J, Doherty TS, Edwards G, Geyle H, McGregor H, Riley J, Turpin J, Murphy BP (2020). Predation by introduced cats Felis catus on Australian frogs: compilation of species records and estimation of numbers killed. Wildlife Research.

Woodhams D & Alford RA (2005). Ecology of chytridiomycosis in rainforest stream frog assemblages of tropical Queensland. Conservation Biology 19(5), 1449-1459.

Other sources cited in the advice

BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) (2020) (website). Viewed 22 October 2020. Queensland climate extremes. Available from: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/extreme/records/qld_ext.pdf

Carmody J (2014) Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Tour Guide Handbook (2nd Edition). Published by the Reef & Rainforest Research Centre Ltd., Cairns.

DASET (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories) (1987). Nomination of Wet Tropical rainforests of north-east Australia by the Government of Australia for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Viewed 22 October 2020. Available from: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/afd62f21-3393-48e8-8b99- 999dbc05c9a1/files/1987-wet-tropics-world-heritage-nomination.pdf

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020a) (website). Taudactylus diurnus Southern Day Frog. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1886

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020b) (website). Taudactylus acutirostris Sharp-snouted Day Frog. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1911

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 21 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020c) (website). Taudactylus eungellensis Eungella Day Frog. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1887

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020d) (website). Taudactylus pleione Kroombit Tinker Frog. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1889

DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2020e) (website). Australian Google Earth engine burnt area map. Viewed: 02 October 2020. Available from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/a8d10ce5-6a49-4fc2-b94d- 575d6d11c547/files/ageebam.pdf

DES (Queensland Department of Environment & Science) (2020) (website). Mount Lewis National Park. Viewed: 02 October 2020. Available from https://parks.des.qld.gov.au/parks/mount-lewis/about

Hoskin C (2020). Personal communication by email, 24 November 2020. Senior lecturer, College of Science and Engineering, Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustability Science, James Cook University, Australia.

IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee (2019). Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 14. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Committee. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/RedListGuidelines.pdf.

IUCN (2020a) (website). Taudactylus liemi. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21532/9299232#assessment-information

IUCN (2020b) (website). Taudactylus rheophilus. Viewed: 01 October 2020. Available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/21534/9299696

Preston BL & Jones RN (2006). Climate change impacts on Australia and the benefits of early action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. A consultancy report for the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change. CSIRO. Viewed: 29 October 2020. Available from: http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/802/1/climate_change_impacts.pdf

QRA (Queensland Reconstruction Authority) (2020) (website). 2019 Queensland bushfires stare recovery plan 2019-2022. Viewed 02 October 2020. Available from: https://www.qra.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020- 08/2019_qld_bushfires_recplan_2019-20_lr.pdf

Simpkins C (2013) (website). Australian endangered species: Tinker frogs in The Conversation. Viewed: 24 September 2020. Available from:

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 22 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

http://www.angfaqld.org.au/aqp/blog/2013/10/23/australian-endangered-species- tinker-frog/

UNCC (United Nations Climate Change) (2020) (website) Viewed: 01 October 2020. Available from: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris- agreement

WTMA (Wet Tropics Management Authority) (2014). State of Wet Tropics Report 2013/14: Ancient, threatened and endemic plants of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area.

WTMA (Wet Tropics Management Authority) (2020a) (website). Yellow Crazy Ants. Viewed: 22 September 2020. Available from: http://www.wettropics.gov.au/yellow-crazy-ants.html

WTMA (Wet Tropics Management Authority) (2020b) (website). Altered fire regimes. Viewed: 02 October 2020. Available from https://www.wettropics.gov.au/fire

WTMA (Wet Tropics Management Authority) (2020c) (website). Feral animals. Viewed: 02 October 2020. Available from https://www.wettropics.gov.au/feral-animal-control

WTMA (Wet Tropics Management Authority) (2020d) (website). Zoning map-sheet Gordonvale. Viewed: 02 October 2020. Available from https://www.wettropics.gov.au/site/user- assets/docs/WTP1_13.pdf

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 23 THREATENED SPECIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Attachment A: Listing Assessment for Taudactylus rheophilus Reason for assessment The Tinkling Frog was listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 and transferred to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) when it commenced in July 2000.

This assessment follows provision of new information provided to the Committee to reassess the threatened species listing status of the Tinkling Frog.

Assessment of eligibility for listing This assessment uses the criteria set out in the EPBC Regulations. The thresholds used correspond with those in the IUCN Red List criteria except where noted in criterion 4, sub-criterion D2. The IUCN criteria are used by Australian jurisdictions to achieve consistent listing assessments through the Common Assessment Method (CAM).

Key assessment parameters Table 3 includes the key assessment parameters used in the assessment of eligibility for listing against the criteria.

Table 2 Key assessment parameters

Metric Estimate used Minimum Maximum Justification in the plausible plausible assessment value value Number of mature <250 0 <250 The species was last recorded in individuals December 2000 (Hoskins & Hero 2008; Hoskins & Puschendorf 2014; Anstis 2017) and is possibly extinct (Hoskins & Puschendorf 2014). When previously recorded, numbers were very low at any one location (Marshall 1998; Freeman 2003). However, surveying has been limited at streams in difficult to access montane areas of the Wet Tropics (Roznik & Alford 2015; Meyer et al. 2020), and a small remnant population may still be extant. Trend Unknown Generation length is unknown. Therefore, it is uncertain whether a population decline occurred within the three generation timeframe. No individual has been recorded over the default 10 year period. Generation time No estimate. 3 years 10 + years The biology of the Tinkling Frog, as (years) Instead a well as other species within the default 10-year Taudactylus genus, is largely period is used unknown. A monitoring study on the for Criterion A Eungella Day Frog recaptured individuals over the four-year study period (Retallick et al. 2004), demonstrating that a species within the genus lives at least this long. However, the age of sexual maturity is unknown.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 24 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Metric Estimate used Minimum Maximum Justification in the plausible plausible assessment value value Extent of <100 km2 0 km2 <800 km2 The maximum plausible value occurrence reflects known habitat over an extended period, so as to include records prior to the Bd-induced population decline (1989-1991). However, only some, if any, of this habitat may now be occupied. The minimum plausible value reflects that the species was last recorded in December 2000 and may be extinct.

Given the observed impact from Bd to stream-dwelling frog species across higher elevation regions of the Wet Tropics (McDonald et al. 2005; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014; Berger et al. 2016; Skerratt et al. 2016; McKnight et al. 2017), and the length of time the Tinkling Frog has been absent from the biological record, it is assessed that the EOO is more likely to be towards the minimum plausible value. Trend Unknown Insufficient monitoring data to demonstrate the trend. Species last recorded in December 2000. Area of <10 km2 0 km2 <40 km2 As above (section on extent of Occupancy occurrence)

Trend Unknown Insufficient monitoring data to demonstrate the trend. Species last recorded in December 2000. Number of Not used in 0 1-2 As above (section on number of subpopulations assessment mature individuals)

Trend Unknown Basis of Not used in assessment. Surveying has been limited at streams in difficult to access montane assessment of areas of the Wet Tropics (Roznik & Alford 2015; Meyer et al. 2020), and a small remnant subpopulation population may still be extant. However, if a remnant population exists, it is not expected to number be widespread, and the number of subpopulations is likely to be very low in number.

No. locations Not used in 0 1-2 As above (section on number of assessment mature individuals) Trend Unknown Basis of As above (section on basis of assessment of subpopulation number). assessment of location number Fragmentation Species is severely fragmented. Historically, the species was found in four disjunct subpopulations (Williams et al. 1996). These subpopulations were likely isolated from each other during the past large-scale climate change (Williams & Hero 1998, 2001). The Tinkling Frog was last recorded in December 2000, indicating that none of the previously known subpopulations were viable.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 25 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Metric Estimate used Minimum Maximum Justification in the plausible plausible assessment value value Fluctuations Not used in assessment. It is unknown whether the species is subject to extreme fluctuations in EOO, AOO, number of subpopulations, locations, or mature individuals.

Criterion 1 Population size reduction

Reduction in total numbers (measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations) based on any of A1 to A4

– Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Very severe reduction Severe reduction Substantial reduction

A1

A2, A3, A4 ≥ 90% ≥ 70% ≥ 50%

A1 Population reduction observed, estimated,≥ 80% inferred or suspected in ≥the 50% (a) direct≥ 30% observation [except past and the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND A3] understood AND ceased. (b) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon A2 Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred or suspected in the (c) a decline in area of past where the causes of the reduction may not have ceased OR may not occupancy, extent of be understood OR may not be reversible. occurrence and/or quality of habitat A3 Population reduction, projected or suspected to be met in the future (up Based on (d) actual or potential levels of any of the to a maximum of 100 years) [(a) cannot be used for A3] exploitation following (e) the effects of introduced A4 An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population taxa, hybridization, reduction where the time period must include both the past and the pathogens, pollutants, future (up to a max. of 100 years in future), and where the causes of competitors or parasites reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible.

Criterion 1 evidence Insufficient data to determine eligibility

The generation length is not known for the Tinkling Frog or for any other species within the Taudactylus genus. Therefore, the default of a ten-year period is used for this criterion. However, this is likely conservative. A monitoring study on the Eungella Day Frog recaptured individuals over the four-year study period (Retallick et al. 2004), demonstrating that species within the genus live at least this long. Therefore, the time-period for this criterion should be adjusted as ecological knowledge of the species/genus improves.

Major population declines for the Tinkling Frog occurred from 1989 to 1991 (McDonald & Alford 1999), with the species missing from the biological record until two small subpopulations were discovered in 1996, one at Mt Lewis (Carbine Tableland) and the other at Mt Bellenden Ker (Bellenden Ker Range) (Marshall 1998). Despite significant search effort, particularly on the Carbine Tableland (K McDonald & AB Freeman unpublished data cited in Freeman (2003)), no other subpopulations have been found. However, the re-appearance in the biological record was brief, and the species was last recorded in December 2000 (Freeman 2003; Hoskin &

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 26 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Puschendorf 2014). Indeed, following targeted surveys at Mt Lewis and Mt Bellenden Ker (2013- 14), Hoskin & Puschendorf (2014) concluded that the Tinkling Frog may be extinct, and further surveys at both sites since have not recorded the species (C Hoskin 2020. pers comm 24 November 2020). This decline, and the period the species has been absent from the biological record, is outside of the default 10-year period for evaluating a change in population size. Therefore, the Tinkling Frog does not meet the threshold for listing under this criterion.

Despite the Tinkling Frog’s extended absence from the biological record, the level of certainty required to list the species as Extinct has not been reached. The EPBC Act classifies a taxon as Extinct when “there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died”. This definition is expanded upon in the IUCN guidelines (2019), where a taxon is presumed extinct when “exhaustive surveys in known and expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual (surveys should be over a time frame appropriate to the taxon’s life cycle and life form)”.

Wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics is remote with some areas largely inaccessible, including slopes on Mt Lewis (Carmody 2014). Subsequently, surveying effort across potential Tinkling Frog habitat has not been exhaustive (see Table 4, below), with many kilometres of stream habitat in the Wet Tropics unsurveyed (Roznik & Alford 2015; Meyer et al. 2020). Also, rediscovery of frog species after an extended absence from the biological record has a precedent in the Wet Tropics, where Litoria lorica (Armoured Mist Frog) was missing for several decades (Edmunds et al. 2019).

The Armoured Mist Frog was found in upland dry forest adjacent to rainforest, a habitat it was not formally known to occupy (Puschendorf et al. 2011). The subsequent “dry forest disease refuge” hypothesis suggests that due to higher temperatures experienced by frogs at dry forest sites (due to rocks the frogs sit on at night remaining hot for hours after sunset), Bd does not proliferate on their skin and, subsequently, they are less vulnerable to the pathogen (Puschendorf et al. 2011). Therefore, peripheral areas outside of core rainforest habitat may provide a refuge for other missing and threatened frogs (Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014). This habitat has not been extensively surveyed for the Tinkling Frog (Carmody et al. 2015).

A summary of recorded survey effort for the Tinkling Frog is provided in Table 4, below. Given the limited surveying conducted across possible Tinkling Frog habitat and potential peripheral refuge habitat, there are insufficient data to demonstrate if the species is eligible for listing under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Table 4 Surveys conducted for the Tinkling Frog

Survey Period Area Result

Richards et al. (1993) Summer 1991-1992 Included Mt Lewis No frogs recorded. (Carbine Tableland), Bellenden Ker, and Danbullulla (Lamb Range).

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 27 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Trenerry et al. (1994) 1993 Carbine Tableland, Tadpole survey. No Lamb Range, Bellenden Tinkling Frog tadpoles Ker. found.

Marshall (1998) 1996 Bellenden Ker, Lamb Five frogs recorded on a Range, and Mt Lewis tributary of the Mulgrave (Carbine Tableland). R (Mt Bellenden Ker) and seven recorded on a tributary of the Mitchell R (Mt Lewis).

Hero et al. (2000) cited in 1998 Mt Bellenden Ker One juvenile recorded. Freeman (2003)

Freeman (2003) 2000-2002 Mt Bellenden Ker and At Mt Bellenden Ker, Mt Lewis. three-five frogs recorded and two captured. All records were from December 2000. No individuals or tadpoles were recorded in subsequent visits (September 2001, January 2002, and April 2002). At Mt Lewis, no individuals were recorded during December 2001.

2003 Mt Bellenden Ker No frogs recorded.

Hoskin & Puschendorf 2013-2014 Mt Lewis and Mt No frogs recorded. (2014) (spring/summer). Bellenden Ker, including Automatic recorders peripheral upland dry (three months). forest areas.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 28 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Criterion 2 Geographic distribution as indicators for either extent of occurrence AND/OR area of occupancy

– Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Restricted Limited Very restricted

B1. Extent of occurrence (EOO) < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2

B2. Area of occupancy (AOO) < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2

AND at least 2 of the following 3 conditions:

(a) Severely fragmented OR Number = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 of locations

(b) Continuing decline observed, estimated, inferred or projected in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat; (iv) number of locations or subpopulations; (v) number of mature individuals

(c) Extreme fluctuations in any of: (i) extent of occurrence; (ii) area of occupancy; (iii) number of locations or subpopulations; (iv) number of mature individuals

Criterion 2 evidence Eligible under Criterion 2 B1ab(i,ii,iii)+2ab(i,ii,iii) for listing as Critically Endangered.

The historical range of the Tinkling Frog is high elevation sites within the northern half of the Wet Tropics, Queensland (Williams et al. 1996). However, the species was last recorded in December 2000.

Maximum and minimum plausible values are provided for the geographic distribution of the Tinkling Frog, which are estimated by mapping point records obtained from state governments, museums, and CSIRO. The maximum plausible value reflects known habitat over an extended period, so as to include records prior to the Bd-induced population decline (1989-1991). However, only some of this habitat may now be occupied. This estimate is required as, although distributional surveys have been conducted, potential Tinkling Frog habitat across parts of the Wet Tropics has not been surveyed (see Criterion 1). Therefore, the set of known recent occurrences may underestimate the area of occupied habitat. The maximum plausible value provides an extent of occurrence (EOO) estimate of 796 km2 and an area of occupancy (AOO) of 40 km2. The minimum plausible value reflects that the species was last recorded in December 2000 and that it may be extinct (see Criterion 1). Therefore, the minimum plausible value for both EOO and AOO is set at zero km2.

Given the observed impact from Bd to stream-dwelling frog species across higher elevation regions of the Wet Tropics (see below), and the time the Tinkling Frog has been absent from the biological record, it is assessed that the EOO and AOO are more likely to be towards the lower bound estimate. Therefore, the EOO and AOO are determined to be very restricted (<100 km2 and < 10 km2, respectively), meeting the threshold for listing as Critically Endangered under subcriterion B1 & B2.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 29 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

There are six species in the Taudactylus genus, with Bd-induced mortality identified as a primary reason for their decline and extinction (Berger et al. 1998, 1999, 2016; Schloegel et al 2006; Hoskin & Hero 2008; Skerratt et al. 2016; DAWE 2020a; Meyer et al. 2020). Of these species, two are listed Extinct under the EPBC Act ( Southern Day Frog and Sharp-snouted Day Frog), one is listed as Critically Endangered (Kroombit Tinker Frog), and one as Endangered (Eungella Day Frog). The remaining species, the Eungella Tinker Frog, is not listed under the EPBC Act but is IUCN listed (in 2002) as Near Threatened (DAWE 2020a, b, c, & d; IUCN 2020a). All Taudactylus species are/were found in similar habitat to the Tinkling Frog, being recorded at mid-high elevations in wet rainforest gullies or streams (Simpkins 2013), and are thought to have (or to have had) a similar ecology.

In the 1980s and early 1990s an outbreak of chytridiomycosis caused multiple frog species, including the Tinkling Frog, to decline or disappear throughout the Wet Tropics (McDonald et al. 2005; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014; Berger et al. 2016; Skerratt et al. 2016; McKnight et al. 2017). Bd thrives in cool (17–25 °C), moist environments, making high-elevation (above 400 m) tropical rainforests an ideal environment for the pathogen (Retallick et al. 2004; Ron 2005; Woodhams & Alford 2005; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Murray & Skerratt 2012; Sapsford et al. 2013; Berger et al. 2016).

The Tinkling Frog shares characteristics with other frog species that have undergone significant population declines and are deemed extinction-prone, being unable to recover quickly from either habitat contractions or catastrophic population crashes (Williams & Hero 1998; Hero et al. 2005). These characteristics are a combination of low fecundity (the Tinkling Frog is believed to lay between 35–50 eggs in a clutch), a high degree of habitat specialisation (the Tinkling Frog is endemic to wet montane forest), and reproduction in flowing streams (Williams & Hero 1998; McDonald & Alford 1999; Hero et al. 2005; Rowley & Alford 2007; Rowley & Alford 2013). For such species, threats (including disease) have been shown to drive populations temporarily or permanently to such low numbers or densities, that it predisposes them to extinction (De Castro & Bolker 2004).

The Tinkling Frog’s close association with streams is not just restricted to reproduction. All life-stages are thought to be stream-dwelling (McDonald & Alford 1999). This further increases the species’ vulnerability to Bd, with all post-metamorphosis stages at risk of infection. This is significant, as with high juvenile Bd-induced mortality, there is a decrease in the number of first-time breeders, which in other species (where juveniles spend considerable time away from streams and are at less risk of infection) has been observed to compensate for Bd-induced mortality in adults (Scheele et al. 2015; Berger et al. 2016). Further, even at low densities, the pathogen can be transmitted from infected animals (both of the same species or other “reservoir” species) to healthy animals through contact with water containing fungal zoospores and does not require direct contact between individuals (De Castro & Bolker 2004; Carey et al. 2006; Rowley & Alford 2007; Reeder et al. 2012; Sapsford et al. 2013, 2015). Therefore, even as the Tinkling Frog population declined to low densities, remaining individuals were still vulnerable to this pathogen.

A recently observed recovery in the upland distribution in some frog species that were impacted by Bd has been recorded. However, the distribution of these slowly recovering species differs from that of the Tinkling Frog by also included mid-low elevation ranges (400 m or lower), from where Bd-induced declines were less severe (Laurence et al. 1996; McDonald & Alford 1999).

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 30 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Higher temperatures at lower elevations slows Bd growth and prevents many individual infections from reaching lethal thresholds of zoospores (Piotrowski et al. 2004; Carey et al. 2006; Sapsford et al. 2013). This allows survivors from lower elevations to recolonise higher elevation sites after the initial outbreak, where they now co-exist with the pathogen (McDonald et al. 2005; Puschendorf et al. 2011; Hoskin & Puschendorf 2014; Sapsford et al. 2015; McKnight et al. 2017). The mechanism/s that allow these species to co-exist with the pathogen are unknown, with frog resistance to Bd, lower virulence of Bd, less favourable environmental conditions to Bd, and behavioural adaptations all being proposed as explanations (Retallick et al. 2004; McDonald et al. 2005; Sapsford et al. 2015; Scheele et al. 2015; McKnight et al. 2017). Without having a lower elevation cohort that survived the initial Bd-wave and able to reoccupy higher elevations, the impacts from Bd on the Tinkling Frog are assessed to have likely been catastrophic, with no evidence of a population recovery.

The Tinkling Frog population is considered severely fragmented, meeting subcriterion (a). A taxon is considered to be severely fragmented if “most (>50 percent) of its total area of occupancy is in habitat patches that are smaller than would be required to support a viable population and separated from other habitat patches by a large distance” (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee 2019). Historically, the species was found in four disjunct subpopulations at Thornton Peak, Carbine Tableland, Lamb Range, and Bellenden Ker Range (Williams et al. 1996). These subpopulations were likely stranded, and isolated from each other, in the cool, moist uplands during the Quaternary period by past large-scale climate change (Williams & Hero 1998, 2001), when the surrounding landscape changed from wet forest to dry plains. The Tinkling Frog has not been recorded in any location since December 2000, indicating that none of the previously known subpopulations were viable.

It is possible a remnant, undiscovered population of the Tinkling Frog exists within the Wet Tropics (see Criterion 1). However, given the impacts from Bd and the threat to its wet montane forest habitat from climate change, any extant subpopulation is likely to be in decline and would not be considered viable.

The wet montane forest of the Wet Tropics are projected to decrease by 50 percent with a 1 °C increase in temperature (Hilbert et al. 2001; Preston & Jones 2006). Under this scenario, bioclimatic models predict the many habitat patches would be too small to support viable frog populations (Williams et al. 2003; Clark 2006). Under more severe climate change scenarios (3.5 °C increase in temperature), all endemic vertebrates would disappear from low and mid-elevation ranges, as well as from high elevation ranges at all known historical Tinkling Frog sites (Williams et al. 2003). This projected contraction in habitat, and therefore EOO and AOO, meets subcriterion (b)(i,ii,iii).

The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Critically Endangered under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 31 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Criterion 3 Population size and decline

– Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Low Limited Very low

Estimated number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000

AND either (C1) or (C2) is true

C1. An observed, estimated or projected Very high rate High rate Substantial rate continuing decline of at least (up to a 25% in 3 years or 1 20% in 5 years or 2 10% in 10 years or max. of 100 years in future) generation generation 3 generations (whichever is (whichever is (whichever is longer) longer) longer)

C2. An observed, estimated, projected or inferred continuing decline AND its geographic distribution is precarious for its survival based on at least 1 of the following 3 conditions:

(i) Number of mature individuals ≤ 50 ≤ 250 ≤ 1,000 in each subpopulation (a) (ii) % of mature individuals in one 90 – 100% 95 – 100% 100% subpopulation =

(b) Extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals

Criterion 3 evidence Eligible under Criterion 3 C2a(i) for listing as Critically Endangered

Maximum and minimum plausible values for the number of mature individuals are provided in Table 3. The maximum value reflects the possibility of a yet undiscovered remnant population being extant, with potential Tinkling Frog habitat across parts of the Wet Tropics having not been surveyed (see Criterion 1). However, given the low numbers recorded in any one subpopulation in past surveys (see Table 4, Criterion 1), the maximum value is estimated to be under 250 mature individuals. The minimum value reflects the possibility that the Tinkling Frog may be extinct (see Criterion 1). Therefore, the minimum value of mature individuals is zero. Both the maximum and minimum plausible values meet the threshold for listing as Critically Endangered.

Major declines in the Tinkling Frog population occurred between 1989 and 1991, with the species missing until two subpopulations were discovered in 1996. From 1996-2000, the species was only recorded in low numbers, with a maximum of seven individuals recorded at one time at Mt Lewis and five at Mt Bellenden Ker. The species was last recorded in December 2000 (see Table 4, Criterion 1). From these low numbers, it can be projected that any remnant population would be small and the number of mature individuals in any subpopulation under 50. In addition, a continued decline is inferred to any remnant population from the ongoing impacts of

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 32 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

Bd and a predicted decline in AOO from habitat loss modelled from climate change scenarios (see Criterion 2), meeting the threshold under subcriterion C2(a)(i).

The estimated total number of mature individuals of this species is very low, with an inferred continuing decline, and the geographic distribution is precarious for the survival of the species because the number of mature individuals in each population is <50. Therefore, the data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Critically Endangered under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Criterion 4 Number of mature individuals

– Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable Extremely low Very Low Low

D. Number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 < 1,000

D2.1 Only applies to the Vulnerable category D2. Typically: area of Restricted area of occupancy or number occupancy < 20 km2 or - - of locations with a plausible future threat number of locations that could drive the species to critically 5 endangered or Extinct in a very short time ≤

1 The IUCN Red List Criterion D allows for species to be listed as Vulnerable under Criterion D2. The corresponding Criterion 4 in the EPBC Regulations does not currently include the provision for listing a species under D2. As such, a species cannot currently be listed under the EPBC Act under Criterion D2 only. However, assessments may include information relevant to D2. This information will not be considered by the Committee in making its recommendation of the species’ eligibility for listing under the EPBC Act, but may assist other jurisdictions to adopt the assessment outcome under the common assessment method.

Criterion 4 evidence Eligible under Criterion 4 for listing as D Endangered & D2 for listing as Vulnerable

The number of mature individuals is estimated to be very low (< 250) (see Criterion 3) with the species possibly extinct. However, without adequate survey effort, there is insufficient evidence to list the species as Extinct under the EPBC Act (see Criterion 1), and an extremely low number of mature individuals (<50) cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty. Therefore, a conservative figure of under 250 individuals is estimated, meeting the Endangered threshold under subcriterion D.

In addition, the AOO is considered very restricted (<10 km2) (see Criterion 2), with low climate change scenarios projected to decrease available habitat by 50 percent (see Criterion 2). This poses a plausible threat to any remnant population of the Tinkling Frog, meeting the Vulnerable threshold under subcriterion D2.

The data presented above appear to demonstrate that the species is eligible for listing as Endangered under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 33 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status. This conclusion should therefore be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Criterion 5 Quantitative analysis

– Critically Endangered Vulnerable Endangered Near future Medium-term future Immediate future

Indicating the probability of generations, 5 generations,

extinction in the wild to be: whichever≥ 50% in 10 is years longer or 3 whichever≥ 20% in 20 is years longer or (100 years max.) (100 years max.) ≥ 10% in 100 years

Criterion 5 evidence

Insufficient data to determine eligibility

Population viability analysis appears not to have been undertaken. Therefore, there are insufficient data to demonstrate if the species is eligible for listing under this criterion. However, the purpose of this consultation document is to elicit additional information to better understand the species’ status, and this conclusion should be considered to be tentative at this stage, as it may be changed as a result of responses to this consultation process.

Adequacy of survey

The survey effort has been considered adequate and there is sufficient scientific evidence to support the assessment.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 34 Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog) Conservation Advice

© Commonwealth of Australia 2020 Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth). Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence except content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms. Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be emailed to [email protected]. Cataloguing data This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Department of Agriculture, Water and the

Environment 2020, Conservation advice for Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog), Canberra.

This publication is available at the SPRAT profile for Taudactylus rheophilus (Tinkling Frog). Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone 1800 900 090 Web awe.gov.au The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Version history table

Document type Title Date [dd mm yyyy] Conservation advice Taudactylus rheophilus Tinkling Frog 13/07/2017

Threatened Species Scientific Committee 35