The Green and Golden Bell FrogLitoria aurea— from riches to ruins: conservation of a formerly common species

9 Pages·1996·0.51 MB·English

by  Ross Goldingay

-
The Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea
from riches to ruins: conservation
of a formerly common species
Ross L. Goldingay
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522.
Present Address: Faculty of Resource Science and Management, Southern Cross University,
Lismore, New South Wales 2480.
ABSTRACT
The Green and Golden Bell Frog Mods aurea was considered a common hog in New South
Wales about 20-30 years ago but it has suffered a major contraction in geographic range and a decline
in abundance, indicating it is vulnerable to extinction. It is presently listed as Threatened in New South
Wales where protection by the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 (now the Threatened
Species Conservation Act 1995) has required surveys of its distribution and abundance and some
research in order to prepare management plans for development sites that it occupies. Its listing in
New South Wales has stimulated other research and monitoring that are not related to development
consent. Given its threatened status in New South Wales where the majorii of its historic range
occurs, it is deserving of protection by the Australian Endangered Spcies Protection Act 1992. This
paper presents a preliminary recovery plan that directs further research and describes a strategy for
managing populatmns of the species. This stratsgy requires conservation of several L. aurea popula-
tions in each region throughout its geographic range. This recognizes the importance of maintaining
any existing genetic diversity that may be present among populatmns but also recognizes the need
for several viable populations within a region to minimize the threat of catastrophes extinguishing the
small populations that are now characteristic of L aurea.
INTRODUCTION status (Threatened) when Schedule 12 was
further revised (gazetted on 12 December 1992).
A critical component of any conservation
It has maintained its status on the recently
programme is the preparation of a recovery
(December 1995) enacted Threatened Species
plan for each species that is listed as
Conservation Act 1995 that has replaced the
endangered. Recovery plans describe the tasks
interim Act in New South Wales. Despite this
that are considered necessary to halt a species'
conservation status in New South Wales, where
decline and encourage recovery to the extent
more than 80% of its geographic range occurs
that a listed species can be delisted (ANCA 1994;
(see Cogger 1992), there has been no recognition
Caughley and Gunn 1995; Tear et al. 1995).
of this species' vulnerable situation from the
Recovery plans require detailed information on
Commonwealth Government.
the biology of endangered species in order to be
effective. However, few such species have been The aims of this paper are to review the cou-
adequately studied when they are first listed servation status of L. aurea, consider whether it
(Tear et al. 1995). Thus, often a considerable deserves federal listing as an endangered species
amount of time and money is required to obtain and to describe the issues that are relevant to a
information that is pertinent to a species' recovery plan.
recovery. In the USA it takes an average of nine
years to formulate recovery plans for federally- DISTRIBUTION AND ECOLCGICAL
listed endangered vertebrates, by which time REQUIREMENTS
these species are at a greater risk of extinction
The historic geographic range of L. aurea
than at the time of their listing (Tear el al. 1995).
extended from East Gippsland in Victoria, north
This suggests that an outline of tasks tailored to
to approximately Byron Bay in northeastern
the recovery of a particular species should be
New South Wales (Cogger 1992) and west to
articulated as early as possible to facilitate the
Bathurst and Tumut (Moore 1961). It has been
process.
introduced to New Zealand, New Caledonia and
The Green and Golden Bell Frog Litaria aurea the New Hebrides (Tyler 1979).T his species was
was listed on the revised Schedule 12 (the formerly described as a common frog (Cogger
endangered species list) of the New South 1960; Barker and Grigg 1977; Tyler 1992) but
Wales National Parks and Wildlfe Act 1974 recent surveys in New South Wales have shown
following enactment of the New South Wales a substantial contraction of its range and an
Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991 associated decline in its abundance (see White
and retained the highest conservation category and Pyke 1996). In contrast, recent surveys in
248 Australian Zoologist 30(2)
Victoria suggest that there has been no apparent among vegetation or litter to hibernate. Where
change in population size or distribution suitable habitat occurs in close proximity to
(Gillespie 1996). houses, L, aurea may shelter in garden vegeta-
tion close to small ornamental ponds (Cogger et
The preferred habitat of L. aurea has been
al. 1993a; Goldingay, pers. obs.). Despite the
described as vegetation besides permanent water
need for much more detailed incormation on
such as streams, swamps, lagoons, farm dams
the use of habitat by L. aurea there is sufficient
and ornamental ponds (Barker and Grigg 1977;
information now on the habitat requirements of
Cogger 1992). Recent observations in Sydney
L. aurea to begin managing its populations (see
have shown that artificial habitats are quite
Fanning and White 1994; Pyke and White
important and have been responsible for thc
1996).
persistence of this species in many areas (Greer
1994; Cogger 1993a; White and Pyke 1996).
Ephemeral ponds that are free of predatory fish PLANNING POLICIES AND
appear essential for successful breeding (Pyke ENDANGERED SPECIES LEGISLATION
and White 1996) because fish are significant
In New South Wales, there are two Stale
predators on the eggs and tadpoles of L. aurea
Envimnmenlal Planning Po1icie.r (SEPP) that have
(Morgan 1996; T.v an de Mortel, pers. comm.;
provided various degrees of protection to the
A. White, pers, comm.).
habitat of L. aurea. Nominated coastal wetlands
It appears that the decline of L. aurea in New are protected under SEPP 14 and such areas may
South Wales is an indicator of the destruction contain L. aurea. An example of the ineffective-
articular
and degradation of a ecosystem or ness or this State policy to protect a population
habitat type in eastern New South Wales. Pyke of L. aurea is discussed by Daly (1996). Nominated
and White (1996) suggest that the habitat areas of urban bushland in the Sydney and Lake
requirements of L. aurea in New South Wales Macquarie regions are protected under SEPP
and Victoria differ due to the use of disturbed 19. One example where this policy has provided
sites and breeding largely in ephemeral ponds some protection to a population of L. aurea is
in New South Wales, compared to the use of that at Roberts Road, Greenacre, in Sydney's
sites with little human disturbance and commonly south-west (see White 1993). Here, remnant
breeding in permanent ponds as well as bushland covering approximately 1.7 ha
ephemeral ponds in Victoria. However, White has been listed under SEPP 19 and contains
and Pyke (1996) document the degradation of cumbungi habitat along two water channels, in
many natural sites that were occupied historically addition to dense stands of Paperhark Melaleuca
by L. aurea. It appears that the frequent use now spp. In short, both policies have provided
of artificial or disturbed sites is because this is all limited protection to the habitat of L. aurea and
that remains of its former breeding habitat or are unlikely to be more effective because many
that is not occupied by predatory fish. areas where L, aurea occurs are not worthy for
Many sites where L, aurea occurs are characrer- nomination under either policy.
ized by the presence of ephemeral ponds with
The Endangered Faum (Interim Protection) Acl
an abundance of Cumbungi Typha spp. and a
1991 (EF Act) in New South Wales has provided
surrounding area of grass (Pyke and White
important short-term protcction for endangered
1996; Goldingay, pers. ohs.). Cumbungi may not
fauna such as L. aurea. The introduction of the
be a requisite habitat component (e.g., Cogger
EF Act resulted in complementary changes to
et al. 1993a); ponds may occasionally contain
the National Parkr and iVildli/e Act 1974 (NPM'
other aquatic vegetation such as Eleochaeris,
Act) and the Environmenhl Planning and Assessment
Juncur and Phragmites (Pyke and White 1996; W.
Act 1979 (EPA Act). These changes necessitated
Osborne, pen. comm.). Cumbungi may be
a review of the endangered fauna species listed
preferred because it provides a suitable diurnal
by the NPW Act which led to the inclusion of
refuge and foraging area for frogs. Non-emergent
L. aurea. Due to the EF Act, it is now standard
aquatic plants may be required for deposition of
procedure to determine whe~here ndangel-ed
eggs during spawning (G. Daly, pers. comm.;
fauna are likely to be present at development
T. van de Mortel, pers. comm.) and may provide
sites when development applications are to be
some refuge for tadpoles from fish (Daly 1995;
lodged with a local council. If such fauna are
Goldingay, pers. obs.). Grassy areas may be used
present, then a determination is required of
for foraging and shelter by metamorphlings and
whether the proposed development is likely to
juvenile frogs (Goldingay, pers. obs.).
significantly affect (previously defined in the
Sites with L. aurea often contain additional EPA Act but now defined in the Threatened Specie5
refuge sites such as piles of rubble (Cogger el al. Cmuemalion Act 1995) their environment. If it will,
1993a; Greer 1994) which may be used for then a Fauna Impact Statement (FIS) (previously
hibernation. Frogs may use areas of natural defined in the NPW Act but now defined in the
bushland for foraging when it occurs in close Threatened Species Cmerudwn Act 1995 as a Species
proximity to wet habitat and may seek shelter Impact Statement) is to be prepared. In short, this
Australian Zoologist 30(2) 249
leads to the preparation and implementation of A fourth FIS considered the impact on L.
a management plan for the development site. aurea of proposed activities associated with
Occasionally, this may also provide important extending a colliery in the Hunter Valley
research and monitoring of the endangered (Threatened Species Unit 1995). This develop-
fauna. ment was approved subject to: 1. further surveys
to identify all sites of potential habitat; 2. enhance-
Several FIS's that deal primarily with L. aurea
ment of potential habitat; and 3. creation of
have been prepared for proposed developments
artificial habitat. Disturbance of an occupied site
in Sydney. The FIS for a proposed development
will not he permitted if artificial habitat cannot
at Rosebery concluded that the frog population
be shown to be self-sustaining for at least three
could not be maintained on site in the long-term
years (Threatened Species Unit 1995).
due to low numbers and low genetic variability
(Cogger et al. 1993a; Threatened Species Unit For each of the above developments, the NSW
1994a). It was considered desirable to use National Parks and Wildlife Service has issued
animals from this site for captive breeding permits that allowed the developments to
purposes so that they could be later used in a proceed. Translocation of L. aurea from the
relocation programme. A management plan has subject site was approved in two cases. At Rose-
been prepared for this population that includes bery, the population was assessed to be too
interim on-site management, description of the small to he viable while at Homebush Bay,
captive breeding programme that has been sufficient land was available to create habitat
initiated at Taronga Zoo with animals derived away from the specific development site.
from the Rosebery site, and a description of the Further research and monitoring will occur at
relocation programme (Fanning and White three of the sites (Threatened Species Unit
1994). Considerable progress has been made to 1994b,c, 1995).
implement this management plan (Cunninah An assessment at the site of a proposed housing
1995a).T wo sites within 10 km of Rosebery have development near Port Kembla in Wollongong
been selected for frog relocation and rehabilita- containing L. aurea concluded that a FIS was not
tion of existing habitat at these sites has required (Mills and Associates 1994). Such a
commenced (Gunninah 1995b). The latter has conclusion is in stark contrast to the preparation
involved the construction of ponds specifically of an FIS at other development sites where L.
for L. aurea at one site. At the other site, aurea has been found, although a small quany
rotenone will be used to eliminate mosquito fish occupied by L. aurea at Port Kembla (2 km from
from existing ponds. the other site) was recently (late 1995) filled in
without any formal assessment of the site. A
Another FIS (White 1993) considered a
management plan for the housing development
development proposal for land adjacent to the
site was prepared that provides protection to frog
remnant bushland at Greenacre (see above).
habitat on-site and requires further monitoring
This FIS provided recommendations that
of the frog population at the completion of the
should protect the water quality at this site and
development. In this instance there may be little
increase the area of cumbungi habitat. The
incentive for these recommendations to be
development approval for this site requested the
implemented because they are not governed by
preparation of a long-term management plan
the formal FIS procedure.
that would include research on the population
ecology of the local population and some It is important to note that the above protection
documentation of the use of habitat away from of L. aurea habitat, introduction of site-specific
the water channel (Threatened Species Unit management plans and funded research and
1994b). monitoring, would not have occurred in the
absence of the EF Act. Moreover, legislation by the
The presence of L. aurea at the Sydney Olympic
Federal Government and other state governments
development site (Homebush Bay) required an
to protect endangered species do not provide
FIS (Greer 1994) which proposed the following
equivalent short-term protection (e.g., Wilson
studies: 1. detailed ecological studies including
and Clark 1995). One reason for this is that the
assessment of the habitat requirements of the
definition of "take" (i.e., an activity directed
present population, 2. continued monitoring of
towards an endangered species that is prohibited
the distribution and abundance of frogs in the
under most endangered species Acts) in the EF
local area, 3. creation of habitat away from the
Act includes habitat modification. This is not
development site to replace that which would
included in other Acts that protect endangered
eventually be destroyed and, 4. a genetic study
fauna in Australia but whose emphasis is on the
of the species from a variety of sites. The first
preparation of long-term management (i.e.,
three studies were included in the devclopment
recovery) plans for endangered species.
approval for the site (Threatened Species Unit
1994c) while the fourth was included with Recovery plans will be constrained by available
another study and has been completed funding and priorities given to listed species
(Threatened Species Unit 1994a; Colgan 1996). based on their perceived vulnerability or public
250 Auslraiian Zoologist 30(2)
appeal. This is a major criticism of the should documc~ltt he following: 1. assessment
implementation of the Enda7i.gered Species Act of habitat use for feeding, breeding, shelter and
1973 in the USA (Rohlf 1991). The requil-cment hibernation; 2. assessment of the movement of
under the NPW Act (brought in with the EF individual fi-ogs as it relates to feeding, breeding
Act) Ibr the prepal-atiun of an FIS, places the and dispersal; and 3. habitat requirements of
onus of preparing (and funding) a management metamorphlings and juvenile frogs.
plan on the developer of a site (see T~I-eatened
Species Unit 1994a, b, c, 1995) and does not Distribution and Abundance
assign priority ranking to any listed species. Further surveys are required to adequately
Therefore, short-term protection is provided to describe the distribution of this species. White
all species until a more carefully considered and Pyke (1996) have provided a comprehensive
management plan or I-ecovery plan can he account of the present distribution of this
prepared for each species. species but additional locatiolls arc being
discor~erede ach year. Surveys should therefore
1% ensure appropriate long-term PI-otection
be concentl-ated in areas of apparently suitable
L. rrurea should be listed as vulnerable by the
habitat xvhel-e the species has not been found.
Australian Commonu~ealth'sE ndar~gered Species
This will be useful in identifying areas that are
Proteclion Act 1992. A species is defined as
vulnerable by this legislation "if; within the next suitable 1111- habitat rehabilitation and reintro-
duction (see below).
25 ycal-s, the species is likely to become
endangered unless the circumstances and The development of a standard methodology
factors threatening its abundance, survi\,al or (e.g., Heyer el ul. 1994) to describe the abundance
evolutionary development cease to opcratc" and determine the presence of L. aurea at
(ANCA 1994). Species listed as endangered are occupied sites (e.g., a minimum of three noctul-nal
considered in immediate danger of extinction. counts of calling malcs at sites on warm nights
Liloriu uureu has declined throughout 80% of its after heavy rain) should bc attempted. This is
range in the last 20-30 years. A species that has an important consideration given that surveys
declined so prccipitously rnust he considered for this species may often pro\,ide negative
vulnerable if not endangered, unless the I-esults at sites where it is known to occur (Whitc
threatening factors have been fully identified 1993). Failure to develop such a methodology
and neutralized. For L. aurea, this is not the case will hamper population studies that are needed
(see below) so it must be considered a suitahle to assess population viability (see below).
candidate for becoming endangered "within the
next 25 years". It would be naive to believe that Threats to Recovery
the threatening factors operating in Nerv South
Identifying the causes of decline for an
Wales will not spread into Victoria where
endangered or threatened species is possibly the
populations of L. aurea apparently have not
most important step to be taken in conserving
shown any decline.
such species and an experimental approach is
strongly advocated (Caughley 1994; Caughley
RECOVERY PLANNING and Gunn 1995). Although all factors responsible
for the decline of L, aurea have not been
Recovery plans describe the actions that must
identified, two major factors have been identified:
be followed to achieve the recovery of
predation by the introduced Mosquito Fish
endangered species. For many species, this
Gambusiu holbruuki and loss of suitable habitat.
involves a plea for detailed research to be
There is very good evidence now implicating the
conducted into their ecological requirements,
mosquito fish in the disappearance of L. aurea.
for a thorough assessment of their distribution
in many areas. Experiments in the lab and in
and abundance, and for the need to presel-ire
the field have shown that these fish readily feed
viable populations of each species (e.g., Cogger
on the eggs and tadpoles of L. uurea (Morgan
el al. 1993b; Webster et al. 1995). For L. uurerc,
and Buttemer 1996; -1'. van de Mortel, pers.
it is possible to provide a much more detailed
comm.; A. White, pen. comm.). Also, assess-
account of specific actions that should he
ment of sites with L. aurea has shown a greater
followed in order to prepare a recovery plan.
frequency of breeding in ponds where predatory
fish (mostly G. holbrooki) were absent (Pyke and
Ecological Requirements
White 1996). Studies in the USA and Europe
Much information has been collected on the have also shown that there is a highly significant
ecological requirements of L. aurea in the last negative association between the presence of
few years (see above) but much more is required predatory fish and the ponds and lakes used by
for long-term conservation of this species. For frogs for breeding (Bradford 1989; Bradford el
example, adult L. uurea may occur at a distance al. 1993; Bronmark and Edenhamn 1994).
away from wet habitats (White 1993; Murphy Further field studies at sites occupied by
1995) but the reasons for this are not clear. Mosquito Fish where L. aurea continues to hreed
Future studies into the ecology of L. aurea may provide management insights.
Australian Zoologist 30(2) 251
Controlling the impacts of Mosquito Fish Preservation of Viable Populations
predation is desirable to safeguard many
Too little is known about the population
remaining populations and to allow recoloniza-
ecology of L. aurea to be able to make any assess-
tion of apparently suitable habitat. At present,
ment of what would constitute a viable popula-
there are several ways to achieve this: 1. builders
tion. Censuses of numerous populations show
lime (which will be toxic for approximately one
that most are characterized by very small adult
month) can be used to poison mosquito fish
population sizes (<20 individuals) (White and
(Barlow et al. 1990) present in ponds at a time
Pyke 1996). This is intriguing given the
when L. aurea is not present (e.g., during winter);
extremely high fecundity of L. aurea (see van de
and, 2. ponds can be constructed (see also Pyke
Mortel and Buttemer 1996). Further monitoring
and White 1996) that will dry out during part of
of several populations is required to better
the year (by limiting the depth of the pond) and
understand the dynamics of L. aurea popula-
therefore should not be colonized by the
tions. Information on population structure
Mosquito Fish which is a live-breeder that will
(number of males, females, adults, subadults)
not survive desiccation.
and on mortality rates at several sites is required.
The loss of suitable breeding habitat will Such information will be critical to conducting a
continue to be a problem for L. aurea because Population Viability Analysis (PVA) for L. aurea.
many suitable breeding sites occur in areas that This will be an important part of the recovery
are now desired for development in Sydney and planning to ensure that viable populations are
Wollongong and presumably elsewhere in coastal secured.
New South Wales (see above). This highlights a Despite this lack of information to define a
need to begin managing occupied sites more viable population at present, it is known that
purposefully for L. aurea but also to begin to viability of vertebrate populations is related to
identify sites of suitable but presently unoccupied population size (e.g., Berger 1990) so efforts
habitat. should be directed at preserving the largest
populations of L. aurea that are known, as well
The habitat of L. aurea may be rendered
as giving consideration to increasing the available
unsuitable by factors such as water pollution.
habitat at other sites to allow populations to
Many occupied sites in New South Wales occur
increase. Many of the existing populations in
in dose proximity to housing or industry and
Sydney have only small areas of habitat available
are therefore potentially subject to wastes that
to them. This may be due to the presence of the
may alter the quality of the water. Management
Mosquito Fish in larger habitat areas. Removal
of these sites will require close attention to
or elimination of fish from large habitat areas is
ensure that the existing water quality does not
one way to ensure much larger population sizes
decline. Research should examine the effects of
of L. aurea than have currently been observed.
changed water quality on tadpole and adult
This may be difficult to achieve and a more
survival.
realistic goal may be to construct ephemeral
The disappearance of L. aurea from some ponds close to large habitat areas to provide suit-
locations where Mosquito Fish are absent (e.g., able breeding sites. This should enable adult
the southern tablelands: Osbome el al. 1996) frogs and metamorphlings to use aquatic vegeta-
indicates the presence of other threatening tion around large ponds for foraging and
factors that have not been identified. Van de shelter.
Mortel and Buttemer (1996) provide compelling
evidence that UV-B radiation is not responsible. Translocation
One possible threat to the recovery of L. aurea
The transfer of endangered fauna from one
is predation by cats and foxes. Domestic cats are
site to another has been widely practised in
known to feed on frogs (Paton 1990) and given
Australia in recent years to resolve conservation
the location of many L. aurea populations within
PI-oblernsb ut there are no cases involving frogs
urban areas, cat predation could potentially
(see Serena 1994). Amphibian translocation in
pose a threat. Foxes have been reported taking
North America has been reviewed by several
L. aurea (Daly 1995) and may pose a significant
authors recently. Dodd and Seigel (1991)
threat to many frog populations outside of
suggested a lack of success based on one
Sydney. The impact of these predators requires
example while Burke (1991) and Reinert (1991)
investigation. If cats and foxes are significant
cite several examples to counter the argument.
predators on L. aurea, then education of cat
For L. aurea, deliberate introduction to New
owners close to frog populations may be needed
Zealand, New Caledonia and the New Hebrides
but in areas where foxes are a problem, a baiting
(Tyler 1979) demonstrates that translocation
programme may be necessary. Given the apparent
can be successful for this species.
small size of most L. aurea populations (White
and Pyke 1996), road mortality (see Daly 1995) Litoria aurea is a very suitable candidate for
could present problems for recovery in some translocation; it has a high fecundity and spawn
instances. masses can be collected (see van de Mortel and
252 Australian Zoologist 30(2)
Buttemer 1996) and tadpoles readily raised to a The distribution of L. azrrea in Nerv South
metamorphling stage. These small frogs (or Wales can be divided into the follolving regional
even large tadpoles) can be easily dispatched to units for management: Far North Coast,
sites with suitable but unoccupied habitat. This Newcastle-Central Coast, Sydney North (north
can be used to increase local population sizes by of the Parramatta River and Sydney Harbour),
introduction to either unoccupied existing or Sydney South (south of the Parramatta River
constructed habitat, providing that the potential and Sydney Harbour), Wollongong-Shoalhaven,
impact of fish predation is under control. Batemans Bay and Far South Coast. These
seven regions could be delineated on the basis
Translocation is a practice that should not be ol' their local government boundaries or based
contemplated without due consideration to the on geographic boundaries. This will require
genetic consequences of moving animals that further consideration to determine the number
may be adapted to specific locations (Burke and size of the regional units that are most
1991; Reinert 1991; Driscoll et al. 1994; Greer appropriate for management. Any populations
1996). This calls for detailed genetic studies that may still occur on the Southern Tablelands
prior to attempts to translocate individuals over and Northern Tablelands should be managed
large distances. Despite this concern, there are as additional units because these populations are
many occasions when translocation is necessary likely to be genetically distinct.
to guard against catastrophe (e.g., disease,
wildfire, drought) by increasing the number of The specific aim of the regional planning
occupied sites. should be to preserve at least three fully isolated
but viable populations per region. This number
The concern about local adaptation can be is arbitrary because no PVA has been conducted
overcome by limiting the distance over which to assess this. However, it is generally accepted
frogs should be translocated until further that preserving several viable populations is
information is available on the genetic structure superior to a single viable population (Burke
of different populations. In many instances, it et al. 1991). Because these regional units are
may be possible to construct suitable habitat for quite large and may include genetically distinct
L. aurea within 1-2 km of occupied areas (e.g., ppulatious (see Colgan 1996), the populations
Greer 1994). Adult L. uurea are known to move designated as viable lor management should be
distances of several hundred metres away from widely dispersed through the region if possible
breeding areas (G. Daly, pers. comm.; Murphy and could be determined by genetic studies.
1995; A. White, pers. comm.) and several However, it should be emphasized that demo-
hundred metres between breeding sites (White graphic and environmental influences pose a far
and Yyke 1996) but it is not known whether they greater threat to small populations than does
will colonize habitat over greater distances. genetic malfunction (see Caughley 1994) so an
Although it is desirable to find this out, in some emphasis should be placed on managing sites
instances populations may be too small to with the potential to contain the largest popula-
take this risk and translocation (of tadpoles tion sizes.
and/or metamorphs) would be appropriate.
Conserving L. aurea presents a different
Experimental studies should investigate this
perspective to that for many endangered species
because it may be useful for long-term manage- because it will occupy highly disturbed sites
ment of L. aurea. Given the contraction in the
where small areas of habitat are available for
range of L. aurea, translocation is recommended
breeding. This trait can be used to increase the
because many formerly occupied sites are now
number of occupied sites in a region. For
isolated (White and Pyke 1996) and may never
example, L. aurea will readily use dams on golf
be recolonized.
courses and presently occupies several in Sydney
(A. White, pers. comm.). This situation could be
Regional Planning put to advantage it' golf course managers could
be persuaded to retain some fish-free dams that
An important consideration for endangered could be colonized by or used as translocation
species is to ensure that viable populations are sites for L. aurea. There is considerable potential
preserved throughout their geographic range here; Sydney alone contains 98 golf courses
(e.g., Murphy and Noon 1992). This is for two (UBD 1994). There are also areas of artificial
important reasons: i) to preserve genetically and natural wetlands managed by municipal
differentiated populations and, ii) to guard council's that contain apparently suitable habitat
against catastrophic events eliminating popula- but which are typically inhabited by Mosquito
tions. A regional approach is recommended for Fish. Management within each regional unit
widespread species such as L. aurea where should include the identification and mapping
recovery should be attempted throughout the of as many areas of suitable habitat as possible
range rather than at a subset of sites that may and approaches made to the managers of such
be chosen due to non-biological Sactors as much areas to determine those that may be sympathetic
as to biological ones. to the conservation needs of L, aurea.
Australian Zoologist 30(2) 253
Action Groups of genetic structure of populations; and
9. formation of an action group to co-ordinate
It will require a considerable amount of
recovery planning.
organization, as well as time and money, to
conserve L. aurea across approximately seven Because of the need for conservation to
regional areas. This will require a group of operate at a regional scale, it is possible that
interested people to he able to co-ordinate the regional recovery plans could be prepared by
consenration effort. It was proposed at the interested individuals or groups and which
Green and Golden Bell Frog Conference that a could later feed into an overall recovery plan
Bell Frog Action Group he formed with an that applies throughout the species' range. This
interested person nominated from each of would enable conservation actions within a
several regions to keep track of activities in their region to begin when adequate information is
region that involve L, aurea. Information on available for that region, without relying on the
such activities would be sent to a central co- necessity for an overall recovery plan to be
ordinator who would keep the members of the finalized before action can he taken.
Action Group apprised of developments in
Current legislation in New South Wales has
other regions. This group should be involved
prevented the destruction of this species' habitat
with o-ordinatins surveys for new locations,
at many locations and is likely to have prevented
providing census data for population sizes,
local extinction at several sites. However, it may
providing recommendations for management
require recognition by the Australian
actions required at specific sites and providing
Enhngered Species Protection Act 1992 to provide
nominations for sites to be managed as viable
funding for the implementation of a recovery
populations. The involvement of local community
plan and to raise the profile of the conservation
groups (e.g., Webster et al. 1995) is likely to be
needs of this formerly common frog. The
necessary to assist with research and monitoring
dramatic decline of the Green and Golden Bell
of particular L. aurea populations and to prevent
Frog throughout New South Wales indicates
adverse human impacts.
that it is vulnerable to extinction.
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
heeRne cporveeprayr epdl afonrs seavnedr aal rcatiroen a nsdta gteemogernatpsh ihcaavlley L)i,.t u. ,c.~ ' c,ns w~th' l'ht:~ V;III clc hlol-trl, Garl-v
1):11\ :~nd)% ill I%III~CIInI~c,Ir.r nittt:d IIIV (li~till:i~i<~n
restricted frogs in southern Australia (e.g.,
of several of the ideas presented in this paper. I
Osborne 1991; Watson et al. 1991; Llewellyn
thank Will Osborne, Bill Buttemer, Graham
and Osborne 1992; CNR 1993, 1994) but L.
Pyke and several anonymous reviewers for many
aurea is the first broadly distributed frog requiring
useful comments on an earlier draft of this
similar attention. Litoria aurea is unusual among
paper. This is contribution No. 137 from the
endangered species because it exhibits traits that
Ecology and Genetics Group at the University
are more suggestive of a species that should he
of Wollongong.
abundant; it has a very high fecundity (among
the highest of any Litorin), it often occupies
REFERENCES
disturbed and human-constructed habitats
(disused brickpits, farm dams, golf course dams, ANCA, 1994. Endangered Spe- P70LectiOn Arl1992: An Out-
industrial sites) and has an extensive geographic line. Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra.
range. Despite these traits, L. aurea has gone
Barker, J. and Grigg, C., 1977. A Field Guide to Amtmlinn
from being common in the 1960s and 1970s to Frogs. Rigby: Sydney.
residing in a substantially reduced number of
Barlow, C., Reynolds, L. F. and Bock, K., 1990. Fish in farm
formerly occupied sites with low abundance
dams. New South Wales. Dept, of Agriculture. A&&
(White and Pyke 1996). This has led to formal F3.1.1.
recognition as a threatened species (i.e., with the
Berger, J., 1990. Persistence of different-sized populations:
highest conservation status) in New South
an empirical assessment of rapid extinctions in bighorn
Wales. sheep. Cm~erjB.t ol. 4: 91-98.
The present study has identified further Bradford, D. F., 1989. Allotapic distribution of native frogs
actions that are required for a detailed recovery and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of
California: implication of the negarive effect of Fish
plan on L. aurea. These include: 1. further study
introductions. Copeia 1989: 175-78.
of habitat preference and habitat use; 2. further
surveys of potential habitat; 3. studies to Bradford, D. F., Tabatabai, F. and Craber, D. M., 1993.
Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog,
describe population dynamics; 4. experimental
Ram muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings
studies that aim to control the impacts of exotic
Canyon National Park, California. Comm. Biol. 7:
fish predators; 5. a population viability analysis; 882-88.
6. assessment of the role of translocation in the
Bronmark, C. and Edenhamn, P., 1994. Does the presence
management of L. aurea; 7. conservation of L.
of fish affect the dist"budon of tree frogs (Hylaorborca)?
aurea at a regional scale; 8. further assessment Conrm. Biol. 8: 84145.
254 Australian Zoologist 30(2)
Burke, R. L., 1991. Keloarions, repatriations, and trans- Gunninah Consoltanrs, 199% The reen onrl golden brllfvox
locations of amphibians and reptiles: taking a broader Liroria aurea: Rrlnrofion siles, /,rogrc5s rrl,orl.
vie~r.H elpelologico 47: 350-57.
Heyer. \V. R., Donnelly. M. A,, McDiarmid, K. W., Hayek,
Burke, R. I.., Tasse, I., Badglcy, C., lones, S. R., Firhbein. L. C. and Foster. M. S. (eds), 1991. rllua~~~anndg
N.. Phillips. S. and Soule, hl. E., 1991. Conservation of ~Woniloring Biologicnl Diurr.~ify: Sln,rdonl Methoh fir
the Srephens' kangaroo rat (Dipado,n)s stephermi): Anzphibimu. Smithrunian lnsritution Press: Washington,
planning for persistence. Ball. Sth CnlifDrnkr Acrrd. Sri. D.C.
90: 1040.
Ller\,ellyn, L. C. anrl Osborne, 14'. S., 1992. Lh<$ marragernen1
Canghley, G.. 1994. Directions in conservation biology. J. plan/or- tire co,mborc~.fer og (Pseudophryne corroboree) iz
A,!ir,i. Ecol. 63: 21514. l\'ew So,tth It/oler. Species dmfr nlanagelnent plan
numhcr 8. NS\\' National Parks and \l'ildlife Service:
Canghley, G, and Gunn, A,, 1995. Consemnfio~B, i01o.g in Horstville.
Tlteoq (nnd Pr<zlice. Black\$,ell Science: Masrachurertr,
USA. hlills, K. and Associales, 1994. Fnunn arier.vr,rrrl: pent and
golrlen bell /,~qg, IWM hlelals h ~ dG,lo trcester Boalearrr<l,
CNR, 1993. Raw baw frog Philorin/r-o.rti. Action Statement Port Kmmhln. Prepared for MM bletals.
No. 55, Dept. of Conser~,ariona nd Natural Resources:
bloare. J. A,, 1961. The fmgs of caster,, New Sourh \Vales.
Mrlboun~e.
Bnll. Amo. l\lrl,~. ,Vrrt. Hul. 121: 149486.
CNK, 1994. Gianr burro~ringf rog Hel~iaponlrn uslmlinorr.
Morgan, 1.. A. and Buttcmer, I+'. A,, 1996. Predation by the
Action Statement No. 61. Drpt. of Conservation and
non-nativc fish. Gnrrrhtuirr holbliloki on small Litorio nzrrea
Natural Resources: Melbourne.
and L. drrrlnln tadpoles. Allst. Zoul. 30(2): 14319.
Cogger, 1-1. G., 1960. Frogs o/,Vcw South M'riles. Australian klurphy, U. D, artrl Noon, B. K., 1992. Integrating scienrific
hluseum: Sydney. melhods with habirat co~lservationp lanning: reselve
design for norrhel-n spotterl owls. Ecol, Apfil. 2: 3-1i.
Cogger,,l-1. G.. 1992. Refilile~n ,zd Am/,hil,io,,s rf Aurtralro.
Revised edition. Kecrl Rooks: Clramwood. Murphy, M. J., 1995. A captureirecapture study of the
endangered hylid img Liforin rrrrren. Herpeto/nrina 25:
Cogger. H. G., Cameron, E. and Sarllier, R., 1993a. Fatran
19-21.
Itnpod Slntrs~~tz.tp:u n nnd golden hcll/rag (Litoria aurea)
occu~nkgo n property nt the corner ofDalrne,~yS amt and Osborne, W. S., 1991. Thp bioloa arrd t?la,ingcme,tt o/ the
Kimberly Grots, I!orebev. Prepared for Slate Aurhol-irier col-roborurftq (Pseudoplrrync corrohorce) in iVeir, Sozrlb
Superannuation Board. I~Voirr. Species management irpol-1 nrumher 8. NSW
PaUonal Parks and Wildlife Service: Hurstville.
Cogger. H. G., Cameron. E. E., Sadlier, R. A. and Eggler,
P., 199% The Aclio~zP lan /or A.<utrulia,t Ileptilts. Austra- Oshol-ne, \\I. S., I.iulujohn, AI. J. andihumsun, S. i\, 1996.
lean Nature Conservation Agency, Car,brr.a. Fornmer disrl-ihucion and appal-ern disappearance of the
Litor-ia arum complex from rhe Southcrn Tablelands of
Colgan. D.: 1996. Elrcrrophuretic variation in the Green and New South \\'ales and rhe Ausrralian Capital Territory.
Golden Bell Frog Litaria OlL7?0. Ausl. Zonl. 30(2): 170-76. A,c\t. Zool. 30(2): 190-98.
Daly, G., 1995. Obsewations on the green and golden bell- Paton, D. C.. 1990. Domestic cars and wildlife. Btvl Oh.~e,~,tr-
frog Litonrr ntrren (Anura: Hylirlae). HnpeIojat~7ta2 5: 2-9. 696: 34-3:i.
Daly, D., 1996. Some prohlems in rhe rnanagemrnt of the Pyke, G. H. anrl White, 21. W., 1996. Habirat requirements
(;reen and Golden Bell Frog Litoria nnrea (Anura: for rhe Green and Golden Bell Frog Litorin ntr,eo
tlylidae) at Coumonderry Swamp on the Sourh Coast (Anora: I-lylidae). rlut. Zool. 30(2): 22.1-32.
of New South \$'ales. ilwf. Zoul. 30(2): 233-36.
Reincrt, H. K.. 1991. Translocation as a conservation
Dodd, C. K. and Seigel, R. A,. 1991. Kclocalion, repatriation, srrategg for amphibians and i-epriles: some rolnrncnts,
anrl translocation of amphibians and repriles: are they concerns. and observation. Hrr/~~tnlng-ic4n7 : 35743.
conserralion srraregies thar work. He~petologicn 47:
33650. Rohlf, D. 1.. 1991. Six biological reasons r%,l~). the
Endangered Species Acr does nor work - and what to
Driscoll, D., \l'ardell.Johnson, G. and Roberts, J. D., 1994.
do about ir. Co,~.~i!,vU. ml. 5: 273-X2.
Gencric srrucruring and distribution patterns in rarc
southwesrern Australian frogs: implications fr~rtr ans- Serena, &I. (ed). 1991. Reirrt,arl?trtiorr Biology ,fA~,,~tr,~lior,ini d
location progt-ammes. Pp. 8>90 in Ruinfmdirctiou Biolog). ~Vezo Z~olondF naan. Surrey Bearry & Sons: Chipping
of Auslralian and Aknn Zeal.rrin,td Fmi,,o ed by M. Srrrna. Norto,,.
Surrey Realty & Sons: Chipping Norton.
'real-, '1'. I-I., Scott, J. hi., Hayward, P. H. and Griflith, 6..
Fanning, F. D. and White, A. W., 1991. TI&,qeen andgolden 1995. Keco~eryp lans and the Endangered Species Arr:
bellfrog Litoria aurea: morrligemenf plan /or Ihe Rosebcq are criticisms supported by data. CO~ITP~fliIoIl . 9:
po(mlnlio,,. Gunninah Consultants. 182-9.5.
Gillerpie, G. K., 1996. Distribution, habiwt and conservation Threatened Species Unir. 1994a. Reiideirnfinl der,clo/,rnunl nl
rratus of the Gveerr and Golden Bell Frog Litnria nuren thc corner of Dnlmr,~)i Anr rrrd Kimbrrley 61-or*, Ros~huq:
(Anura: Hylidae) in Victoria. Awl. Zool. 30(2): 199-207. endangoed forom lirewcr o/,plicafivn riccisior~ i-epol-t.
Greer, A. E., 1994. Fmma h@cf Stalumer~Lforf hr proposed National Parks and Wildlile Service: Horsrville.
rleiiel~~pmenwl ork of the Homrhult Bay b~ichp it. Prepared
Threatened Species Unir, 1994h. Warelroror dewlo/,a~nt,
for Property Services Croup.
77-91 Roberts Road Gruolncre: evrIo,tgerud /nrr,zo licence
Greer, A. E., 1996. Why Green and Golden Bell Frogs Litona opf~lirnliond fcisiorr repo,l Narional Parks and Wildlife
"urea should not be translocared - a personal opinion. Senice: Hurstville.
Aful. Zool. 30(2): 257-.5X.
Threatened Species Unit. 1994~.H ornubush Hay brick pil:
Gunninah Consultanu, 1995a. The reen and golden beilfiog endangered fnur~o licence appiicntim, duoision report.
Litoria aurea: Roreber). populnlina, poFess report 05. National Parks and Wildlife Service: Ilul-sr\,ille.
May 1996 Australian Zoologist 30pJ 255
Threatened Species Unit, 1995. Thc prDposcd extnutm o/fhe Websier, A. G., Humphries, R. K. and Robertson, P., 1995.
Mt Owen Collinv. near Rou-d. New Safh Wah: The striped legless lizard Delrwn impor. case study of a
endangered fau& lizme aPPliznrrbn &cision reporf. threatened species recovery programme. Pp. 29-34 in
National Parks and Wildlife Service: Hurstville. People and Nature Consdim: Perspcckcr on Priuote
rond Use and Endangmed Spcirs Rc~rmqe d by A.
Tyler, M. J., 1979. The impact of European man upon Bennett, G. Backhouse and T. Clark. Transactions of
Australasian amphibians. Pp. 177-84 in Thc Slalur of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales.
Endangered Aushnh WiIdIFc ed by M. J. Tyler. Royal Surrey Beatry & Sons: Chipping Nonon.
Zoological Society of South Australia: Northfield.
White, A,. 1993. F n uI~mp ncl Slalmunt: proposed deuclopmPn1
Tyler, M. J., 1992. Encyclopedia of Aurhalinn Anid: Frogs. oj Tebca site a1 R ORoa~d, Gr cma~P~re~p.a red for
Angus and Robertson: Sydney. Strathfield Municipal Council.
LIBD, 1994. Streel Directmy, Sydney. Universal Press: White, A. W, and Pyke, G. H., 1996.Distribution and con-
Macquarie Park. servation status of the Green and Golden Bell Frog
Litoria aurea in New South Wales. Aurt. Zool. 30(2):
van de Mortel, T. F. and Buttemer, W. A,, 1996. Are Litmia 17749.
ourea eggs more sensitive to Ultraviolet-B radiation than
eggs of symparric L. Woni or L. d&tn? Aurl. Zool. Wilson, B. A. and Clark, T. W., 1995. The Victorian Flora
30(2): 150-57. and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988: a five-year review of its
implementation. Pp. 87-103 in People and Nature Conser-
Watson, G. F.. Littlejohn, M. J., Hero, J-M. and Robertson, uatwn: Per~ecfincro n Prim* Lnnd Use and Endangered
P.. 1991. Conservation status, ecology and management Specie Recouny ed by A. Bennett, G. Backhouse and T.
of the soaited tree fmc /&ria sbpnLm.1. Arthur Rvlah Clark. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of
lnstitut; for ~nvironmzntaRl esearch ~echnicaRl e&n New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons: Chipping
Series No. 116. Norion.
256 Australian Zoologisf 30(2)