Surveys for the Green and Golden BellLitoria aureaby the State Forests of New South Wales

6 Pages·1996·0.28 MB·English

by  Francis Lemckert

Surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria a urea
the State Forests of New South Wales
by
Francis Lemckert
Research Division, State Forests of New South Wales, P.O. Box 100, Beecroft, New South Wales 2119.
ABSTRACT
Since 1992 State Forests of New South Wales have conducted 16 surveys which have included
the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea as a target species. The majority of these su~oysha ve
been concentrated in northeastern New South Wales, an area from which there are few records.
Despite the widespread coverage provided by the surveys, this species was not recorded. The
indications are that the species is rare in the forest environments which were the main target of the
SUNeyS. The survey results also suggest that L. aurea remains rare in other habitats within northern
New South Wales. Future surveys for this species need to be directed more towards non-forest areas,
palticularly on the coast, and there is a requirement for further survey work in southeastern New South
Wales.
INTRODUCTION also discusses the future directions SFNSW
should consider in surveying for this species.
The Green and Golden Bell Frog Litorin aurea
is a large, semi-aquatic frog noted to he
STUDY AREAS
associated with permanent and semi-permanent
water bodies (e.g., swamps, dams and streams) SFNSW has performed 16 surveys covering
through an apparently wide range of environ- lands within the known New South Wales range
ments (Courtice and Grigg 1975; Barker and of the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Fig. 1).
Grigg 1977; Cogger 1992). Its historical range These surveys have included two inland and one
covers the coast and adjacent ranges of south- coastal area of southern New South Wales, but
eastern Australia (Cogger 1992). In New South have been mainly concentrated in northern New
Wales, L. aurea has been recorded from Ocean South Wales (seven upland and six coastal).
Shores, near Brunswick Heads, to the Victorian The areas surveyed have encompassed a wide
border, but with relatively few records from altitudinal range and a variety of habitat types
north of Sydney, particularly above 100 m (see including rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll
White and Pyke 1996). forests, open woodlands, swamplands and lands
cleared for agriculture (Table 1).
The majority of the Green and Golden Bell
Frog's range in New South Wales is also con-
current within timber production management SURVEY METHODS
areas (MAS) of the State Forests of New South
The surveys were performed by environmental
Wales (SFNSW). Since 1992, there has been a
consultants contracted by the SFNSW (see
requirement under the National Parks and
Table 1). The methods employed were those
Waldlife Ad 1974, for the SFNSW to undertake described in York et al. (1992) and NPWSI
a programme of Fauna Impact Statements
SFNSW (1994). The surveys used two main
(FISs) to assess the impacts of forestry operations approaches rvhich specifically sampled frogs.
on any species of endangered fauna found
These are summarized below:
within areas to be significantly affected by forestry
activities (MAS).T he green and golden bell frog 1. Road transects - roads in the study area
is listed as endangered on the Revised (Interim) were traversed at night in order to locate
Schedule 12 of the Nalional Parks and Wildlife frogs crossing the road. Usually these transects
Act 1974, and so has been required to be were performed in a car (although some foot
addressed in FISs performed within its known searches were carried out) and preferentially
range. As part of the FIS process, SFNSW has they were undertaken after periods of rain-
undertaken a series of surveys targeting this (as fall. Road surveys were also used to locate
well as other) species to provide information on water bodies surveyed as in 2 below;
their distribution, abundance and habitat 2. Riparian searches - water bodies were
preferences within each of the areas subject to
surveyed for frogs by firstly listening for the
an FIS.
calls of male frogs (on average for five
This paper reports on the surveys performed minutes) followed by a foot inspection of the
for Green and Golden Bell Frogs by SFNSW. It site using a light. The riparian searches
208 Australian Zoologist 306') May 1996
SHORES
Fig I. Distribution of the FIS Survey Areas through New South Wales
Table I. Summary of the areas surveyed by the State Foresu of New South Wales since 1992
Surrey Altitude Habitats
Survey Area Monrhr (merres) Surveyed'
1. Casino C. Barker Dec., May 11W800 RF, DS, \Its
2. CoffslUrunga C. Barker Feb-Mar. 0-11 000 RF. WS, DS, HL
3. Domigo F. lrmckert Sept.-Fcb. 740-1 100 DS, WS, RF. CL
4. Glen Innes 6. Clancy and Sepr.-Nuv. 90w1 200 RF, WS, DS
P. Webbcr
A. Whire Wt-Dec. KF, WS, DS, KP 0 \\'hire 1994
C. Barker Dec-May KF.. WS.. DS 2 Smith elnl. 1994
M. Denny and Im.-Apr. RF, WS, DS, I Dermy I993
D. Read HI., CL
R. Wells and Jan.-blar. WS. DS, OW, 20 M'ellington and Wells
R. Wellington CL 1995
9. Mr. Royal G. Clancy Jan.-Mar. WS, RF 0 Shields elai. 1992
10. Murwillumbah A. Manning Apr.-.\lay RF, WS. DS, CL 1 A. Manning, onpuhl.
data
R. Goldingag and Oct.-Nor, OW, WS. DS, 0' (?EM 11194; Goldirlgay
G. Daly Ja". CL rl ni. 1995
F. Lecnckcrt Apr. DS, HI., CL 2 Lcrnckerr d nl. 1993
G. Daly and Feb. KF, WS, DS, CI. I Eanning I994
F. 1.emckerr
14. Tumor F. kmckert No,.., Feb.,
Mar.
15. Walcha P. Webber Jan.-Feh. KF, IVS, DS, CL
16. Win~ham G. Clancy Nov. RF, D$ WS, Cl.
'RF = Rainforest, WS = Wet Sclerophyll. DS = Dry Sclerophyll, OMi = Open Wuodland, HL = Heathland, CL = Cleared Lands
'Number of records of the Green and Golden Bell Frog known from the surrey areas prior to the surrey (inrormation ohrained horn the
identified reports, Courtice and Crigg 1975, and A. Mrhire, pers, comm.).
Whe iden~iotf~ t he species in the southern highland areas rernainr uncertain (S. Thornson, pers. cornm.).
May 1996 Australian Zoologist 30(2) 209
Table 2. Summary of Survey Effort for each F1S'
Breeding No. suitable Suirable sites
No. survey sites breeding in suitable No. pitfall No. species
Survev Area nights surveyed sites2 habitat3 trapdays recorded
I. Casino 5 10-15 ? ? 1 120 20
2. C6ffslUrunga 28 35 16 5 1680 15
3.D arrieo 22 212 118 37 0 29
4. Glen fnnes 8 15-20 >
5. Cloucesier 15 116 36
6. Crafton 5 10-15 ?
7 Kemnwu 5 27 15
9. Mt. Royal
10. Munvillumbah
I I. Queanbeyan
12. Tathra
13. Tenterfield
14. Turnut 13 173 117 117 0 I1
15. Walcha 6 24 17 10 3 780 13
Ifi Wineham 18 6 6 6 3 150 11
- - p~
'The accual number of nights of survey and sites surveyed were not always accurately recorded and the
figures listed represent only the minimum effort (and could have been much greater).
Z"Suirable''s ites were permanent or near-permanent still or slow mo\,ing water bodies.
3Represented by "suitable" sites within clearings or on cleared lands, or any large swamp.
varied in time, depending on the size and to (and did) catch some frogs, including species
shape of the water body, and could be as not collected by other methods.
short as five minutes or could take more than
an hour. Where possible, inspections of the RESULTS
area were carried out prior to the night No direct observations were made of Green
search to locate habitat particularly suitable and Golden Bell Frogs during these surveys
for the species being targeted during the which was disappointing given the degree of
survey. These sites were noted for aural and effort that was placed into surveys for this and
visual survey to maximize the opportunity to other amphibian species (see Table 2). Not all
locate species of particular interest. riparian sites surveyed would have been
appropriate for Green and Golden Bell Frogs,
The timing and extent of the survey for each
but at least 431 were considered to represent
species were determined by the consultant
suitable habitat for this species in being
contracted to undertake the survey. In general,
permanent or near permanent water bodies that
surveys were concentrated in the spring and
this species is supposedly associated with.
summer months, but some surveys were
Additionally, the road surveys traversed a
necessarily undertaken during other periods of
minimum of 5 000 km of roads which covered
the year (Table 1). The location, date and time
a broad diversity of habitats and conditions.
of survey were always recorded for each riparian
site and each road record, but the other The only information pertaining to green and
information noted depended on the surveyor golden bell frogs obtained through this time
involved. were two "old" observations provided by forestry
workers. Dewi Wright (per;. comm.) 'from the
In addition, 13 of these surveys also used pit-
Queanbeyan District indicated that during the
fall traps to sample fauna. The traps were 10 or
mid 1970s a large (8-10 cm) greenish frog was
20 litre plastic buckets (usually the latter) buried
common in the reeds present in streams leading
with their top flush with the ground and generally
into Lake Jindabyne and in the water courses
sheltered with a bitumen-coated aluminium
around Bombala. This description almost
sheet (York et al. 1991). In all except the
certainly refers to a species of Golden Bell Frog
Queanbeyan surveys, the bottom of these traps
which was common in the area at that time, but
were filled with formalin to kill and preserve the
which apparently disappeared in the late 1970s
trapped animals. These traps were placed along
(A. White, pers. comm.). It should be noted that
transects in forest types of specific interest (see
the identity of the species from this area is
York et al. 1991 for more details) and left open
uncertain and it may have been Litoria aurea,
for at least 14 days. These traps were not used
- - ~ - ~ ~ Litoria ranifomis or an undescribed species (S.
in combination with drift fences (except at
Thomson, pers. comm.).
Oueanbe-v,a n: see OEM. 1994) and were not
, - ,
expected t~ o catch large numbers of animals. Secondly, incidental talks with Allan Douch
They were however, open for a large number of (pers. comm.) from the Narooma District
trap nights (see Table 2) and so were expected indicated that a land holder on a property
210 Australian Zoologisf 30(2) May 7996
adjacent to Wallaga Lake (25 km south of and the drought may have suppressed breeding
Narooma) had repo~tedr egularly hearing and activity making the detection of frogs considerably
seeing this species on his property during the mol-e difficult. However, the surveys generally
early 1980s. The land holder, who had been detected a large number of species (see Table 2)
very familiar with these frogs, rvas quite certain and if drought rvas significantly reducing frog
they u7ere green and golden bell kogs and had activity the numbers of species recorded should
been very disappointed urhen the species had have been low. Additionallyl the Green and
disappeared. A survey of the site by Nal-ooma Golden Bell Frog is noted as a year-round
District Staff in January 1994 Failed to find any resident of areas of permanent water (Uankers
indications of the species at the site. 1977; Humphries 19'79). Even if hreeding was
curtailed, individual frogs should have been
actively foraging and still ~elativelye asy to locate
DISCUSSION
al-ound water bodies (F. Lemckel-t, pers. obs.).
That no direct records of Grecn and Golden
In regards to possible problems with
Bell Frogs were obtained during these surveys
pel-sonnel and techniques, both Yorket al. 1992,
was something of a surprise. Pre-survey records
and NPWSISFNSW, 1994, rely on the surveyor
were available for nine of the MAS in which
to locate suitable habitat for the surveys and to
surveys were held (Table I), including very
be able to personally recognize the target
recent records (post 1990) for the Morisset,
animal. If people inexperienced with Golden
GI-afton, Murwillumbah, Coffs Harbour and
Bell FI-ogs had performed the surveys it could
Tarhra areas (White and Pyke 1996). Therefore,
have resulted in a poor selection of riparian
some populations were expected to be located.
survey sites and even a failure to recognize a
The obvious question then is why were Green
Frog when seen or heard. However, herpetologists
and Golden Bell Frogs not recorded? Was this
known to be experienced with this species were
frog truly absent from the survey areas, or was
employed in 12 of the 16 studies (Table 1) and,
it a case of the surveys failing to locate the
in the other four surveys, the people were at
species? Answering this question has important
least experienced tiuna surveyors. In all cases it
implications as if the former is the case, then it
appears reasonable to assume that the surveyors
confirms the apparent decline or loss of the
should have recognized or been able to identify
Golden Bell Frog through part of its range; if it
any individuals of this species encountered, and
was the latter, then significant populations may
should have known how to locate this species
have gone undetected, and so left unprotected.
and the appropriate habitat to target. Certainly,
If the surveys failed to locate this species, even these workers managed to locate large numbers
though it was present, there are two obvious of species (Table 2) including other rarely
explanations as to why this may have occul-red. recorded species such as the Green-thighcd
Firstly, the surveys could have been poorly Frog Liloria breuipalmata and Fleay's Barred Frog
timed (performed in the wrong season or in Mixophyes Jeayi.
inappl-opl-Latec onditions) resulting in the frogs
Rather, the survey results support the recent
being very difficult to locate. Secondly, the
work 01 Pyke and White (1996) which indicates
survey methods or personnel used could have
that the Green and Golden Bell Frog is a species
been inappropriate, resulting in the frog being
rarely found within forested lands. The majority
overlooked when it was actually present.
of these surveys were constrained by time and
Both oi the above cases appear unlikely to funding and so there was a greater concentration
provide more than a partial explanation. Only of sun-ey effort into arms of forest (areas LO be
three surveys were performed outside ol the impacted) rathel- than into other habitats such
preferred calling season of August to January as heath and cleared lands (which remain
(Robinson 1993). Furthermore, both Robinson unaffected; see Table 2). The resultant lack of
(1993) and A. White (pers. comm.) indicate that success suggests that at least forests may not he
adulw can be located at other times and, in the preferred habitat of this species. This fact
particular,. juveniles can be detected around has not bee11 recorded in profiles of the species
water bod~esd uring cooler months (Fletcher by previous workers (e.g., Moore 1961; Courtice
1889; F. Lemckert, pers. obs.). This suggests and Grigg 1975; Cogger 1992), but the review
that the failure to locate Green and Golden Bell of the known recol-ds by Pyke and White (1996)
Frogs can not really be attributed to surveys shows fen, records to have come from within
being performed in inappropriate seasons. forests.
A factor more likely to be of importance in However, the complete absence of records still
terms of timing was that seven of the surveys remains as something of a surprise as the road
were undertaken during the dl-ought conditions surveys covered large areas of cleared larrd when
prevailing in 1992 and 1993. Frogs generally travelling to areas of forest (Green and Golden
require rainfall to stimulate reproduction Bell Frogs are relatively conspicuous when
(Salthe and Mecham 1974; Humphries 1979) CI-ossing roads; F. Lemckert, pcrs. obs.) and
some apparently appropriate sites on cleared Austeco, 1994. Urunga Target Survey. Unpublished report
for State Forests of New South Wales. Austeco Pty Ltd:
lands were targeted in the majority of surveys
Armidale, New South Wales.
(Table 2). Even if only three nights were spent
on surveys, information from both Caughley Barker,J. and Grigg, G. C., 1977. A Field Guide lo Auslralian
and Gall (1985) and Lemckert (1995a) indicates Frogs. Rigby: Adelaide.
that 75% of the species present and active at the Caughley, J. and Gall, B., 1985. Relevance of zoogeopphicll
time of the survey will be located, and this may transition to conservation of fauna: Amphibians and
be irrespective of the degree of rainfall repriles in the southwestern slopes of New South Wales.
Awt 2001. 21: 513-29.
(Lemckert 1995a). All of the surveys covered
three or more nights (and often many more) Clancy, G. P., 1992. Fauna survey, Wingham management
which a least suggests that Green and Golden area, Port Macquarie Region. Part 3 - Reptiles and
Amphibians. Forest Resource Series No. 21. Research
Bell Frogs were absent not just from the areas
Division, State Forests of New South Wales.
of forest, but from all habitats.
Cogger, H. G., 1992. Reptiles and Amphibiam o / Austral&
It is recognized that the results presented here (revised edition). Reed: Sydney.
pertain mainly to the situation in northern New
Courrice, G. P. and Grigg, C. C., 1975. A taxonomic revision
South Wales and provide relatively little informa-
of the Lil- area complex (Anura: Hylidae) in south-
tion on the status of the Green and Golden Bell eastern Australia. Amt. Zoo1 18: 14943.
Frog in the southern part of its range (where
Dankers, N. M. J. A,, 1977. The ecology of an anuran
few surveys have been conducted). Historically,
community. Unpublished PhD. Thesis. University of
this species is far less common on the north coast Sydney: New South Wales.
than it is on the south coast (White and Pyke
Denny, M., 1993. Fauna survey of the Kernpsey and
1996) or in coastal areas of Gippsland, Victoria
Wauchope forestry management area. Unpublished
(Gillespie 1996). If the Green and Golden Bell report for Stare Foresrs of New South Wales. MI. King
Frog remains common anywhere in New South Ecological Surveys: Oberon, New South \Vales.
Wales it is likely to be on the south coast,
Fanning, D., 1994. Native fauna of the Tenterfield manage-
particularly in the large coastal swamps which
ment area. Unpublished repon for State Forests of New
historically have supported large populations South Wales. Gunninah Consultants: Sydney, New
(A. White, pers. comrn.). Of the three surveys to South Wales.
the south of Sydney, only at Tathra was coastal
Fletcher, J. J., 1889. Obsen,adonr on the oviposiuon and
habitat surveyed and the timing of the surveys, habits of cemin Australian batrachians. Proc. Linn. Soc.
and the prevailing weather conditions, were not New So& Wales 4: 357-87.
appropriate for a confident survey (Lemckert et
Gillespie, G., 1996. Distribution, habiut and conservation
al. 1993). Clearly the south coast needs to be the sutus of the Green and Golden Bell Frog Litonh area
subject of more extensive surveys. It is likely that (Lesson 1829) (Anura: Hylidae) in Victoria. Awl. Zoal.
records of the species would be obtained from 30(2): 199-207.
within areas of state forest as, unlike in northern Goldingay, R., Daly, G. J. and Baker, J., 1995. Target
New South Wales, state forests occur right to surveys of the endangered fauna in the Queanbeyad
the coastline near Jervis Bay, Batemans Bay, Badja management area. Unpublished repon for
Queanbeyan District. Sute Forests of New South Wales.
Narooma and Eden (at Kioloa Green and Golden
Bell Frogs are known to occur in a swamp within Humphries, R. B., 1979. Dynamics of a breeding frog
forested land; F. Lemckert, pers. obs.) and appear community. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Australian
to include large coastal swamps. However, to National University: Canberra, ACT.
maximize survey results, future surveys need to Lemckert, F., Shields, J. and Kemmerer, E., 1993. Report
focus on non-forest areas as well as forested on the Flora and Fauna survey for the Proposed Kalaru
areas to demonstrate more conclusively that this Seed Orchard: Part A - Fauna. Unpublished repon
for Softwoods Region, State Forests of New South
species is not present within a survey area.
Wales.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lemckert, F. L., 1995a. Repon on the Dorrigo management
area amphibian survey. Forest Resource Series No. 27.
I must firstly acknowledge all the consultants Research Division. State Forests of New South Wales.
who performed the work for State Forests. I
Lemckert, F. L.. 1995b. Tumuflurnbarumba FIS fauna
would then thank Mark Chide1 and Traecey -
surveys frogs and reptiles. Unpublished Report for
Brassil for their assistance with this paper and Sute Forests of New South Wales. Research Division,
Arthur White and Graeme Gillespie for their Sute Forests of New South Wales.
discussions and information on this species. I Moore, J., 1961 The frogs of eastern New South Wales.
would also like to thank Doug Binns, Brad Law, Bull. Ancr. ~Mur.N ot. Hisf. 121: 149-386.
Will Osborne, Arthur White and Michael Mahony
NPWSISFNSW, 1994. Fauna 1mpactSutements-A standard
for their reviews of the document. methodology for surveying endangered species.
Unpublished joint report by the New South Wales
REFERENCES National Parks and Wildlife Service and New South
Wales Forestry Commission.
Austeco, 1993. Fauna Study Report for the Urunga-Coffsi
Harbour EIS Smdy Areas. Unpublished report for Pyke, G. H. and White, A. W., 1996. Habitat requirements
Sute Forests of New South Wales. Austeco Pty Ltd: of the Green and Golden Bell Frog Lit- ourea (Anura:
Armidale, New South Wales. Hylidae). .4wt. Zool. 30(2): 224-32.
212 Australian Zoologist 30(2) May 1996
QEM, 1994. Queanbeyan-Badja management area fauna Webber, P., 1994. Frogs of rhe Walcha management area,
surrey. Unpublished report for State Foresr;. of New State Forests of New South \\'ales. Unpublished report
Sourh \$'ales. QEM Pty Ltd: Fairy hleador\,. New Soourh for State Forests of New South \Vales. Wehber and
M'aler. Associates: Armidale, New Sourh Wales.
Salthe. S. N. and Mecham, J. S., 1974. Reproductive and Wells, R. and Wellington, R., 1994. Fauna survey of the
courrship parterns. Pp. 309-521 in Physiology of hlorisart Forestry District - Central Coast New South
Amphibza, Vol. 11 ed by R. Lofr;.. Academic Press: New Wales: Reptiles and Amphibians. Unpublished repon
York. for Stare Fol-esrs of New South Wales. Australian
Environmental Surreys: Gosford, New South Wales.
Shields, J. hl.. York, A. and Binns, D., 1992. Flora and fauna
survey, Mr. Royal lnanagemenr area, Nelrcastle Region. Whitc, A. W..1 995. Frog surrey Glo~tcestera nd Chichrster
Forest Resource Series No. 16. Research Division, State management areas. Urtpublishrd report for State
Forests of New South \$'ales. Foresrr of New South Wales. Biosphere Environmeoral
Consultants: Sydney.
Smitlr, A. P., hloore, D. M. and Andrrws, S. P., 1992.
Proposed forestry operations in the Glen lnnes manage- White, A. W. and Pyke, G. H., 1996. Distrtbution and con-
menr area - Fauna Impact Starcment. Unpublirhed servation status of the Green and Golden Bell Frog
reporr for State Forests of New Sourh Wales. Ausreco Lztona nlrreo irr New Sourh Wales. Atat. Zool. 30(2):
Pty Ltd: Armidale, Nett, South Wales. 17749.
Smith, A. P.. Andrews, S. P, and Moore, D. M.. 1994. York, A,, Hinns, L). and Shields, J., 1991. Flora and fauna
Terrestrial fauna of the Grafron and Casino State Forest assessment in New Sourh Wales. State Forests. Survey
management areas - Description and assessments of guidelines. Procedures for sampling flora and fauna for
forestry impacts. Unpublished Report for Stare Forests Environmental Impact Statements. Version 1.1.
of New South \$'ales. Austeco Pty I.rd: Armidale, New Research Division, State Foresu Net,, Sooth Wales.
Sourh Wales.
May 1996 Australian Zoologist 30(2) 213