The Action Plan for Australian Frogs
By
Michael J. Tyler
with the assistance of the Editorial Advisory Committee
Wildlife Australia, April 1997
ISBN 0 642 21400 X
Appendix 4 Postulated causes of decline and likely threats**
| Species |
Urban devlpt
|
Wetland destr. / degradn
|
Stream flow disturb
|
Seepage change
|
Native forest logging
|
Water / soil pollum
|
UV radiation
|
Disease
|
Alpine devlpt
|
Recreational damage
|
Cattle Damage
|
Drought
|
Introduced predators
|
Not Known
|
Other
|
| Litoria aurea |
*
|
*
|
*
|
||||||||||||
| Litoria castanea |
?
|
*
|
(basking)b
|
||||||||||||
| Litoria lorica |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Litoria nannotis |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Litoria Nyakalensis |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Litoria olongburensis |
*
|
*
|
*
|
sand mining, pine plantation establishment, agriculture, competition?, mosquito control?
|
|||||||||||
| Litoria Piperata |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Litoria Raniformis |
*
|
*
|
*
|
?
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
(basking)b
|
||||||
| Litoria Rheocola |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Litoria Spenceri |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
weeds, eductor dredging, fire
|
||||||||
| Litoria verreauxii alpina |
*
|
*
|
*
|
||||||||||||
| Nyctimystes dayi |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Gen. nov. sp. nova.a |
*
|
*
|
peat burning
|
||||||||||||
| Geocrinia alba |
*
|
land clearance
|
|||||||||||||
| Geocrinia vitellina |
*c
|
*
|
inappropriate burning?
|
||||||||||||
| Mixophyes balbus |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Mixophyes Fleayi |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Mixophyes iteratus |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Philoria frosti |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
climate change introd. plants
|
||||||
| Pseudophrynene corroboree |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
|||||||
| Rheobatrachus silus |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Rheobatrachus vitellinus |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Taudactylus acutirostris |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Taudactylus diurnus |
?
|
*
|
|||||||||||||
| Taudactylus eungellensis |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Taudactylus pleionea |
*
|
||||||||||||||
| Taudactylus rheophilus |
?
|
*
|
Notes
** Postulated causes summarised from the species recovery outlines.
The vast majority of causal agents and threats remain to be confirmed, and for the purposes of this table have been simplified. Those that are particularly speculative are indicated with a question mark. A threatening process usually entails associated impacts: eg. seepage change: includes localised changes to water content of soils, bogs, or watertable; native forest logging includes roading, siltation, altered flow, changed ground water characteristics, possibly altered water chemistry, turbidity, etc; alpine development (includes sub-alpine) includes construction, roading, walking trails, slope grooming, with associated impacts of habitat destruction, degradation, fragmentation, changed drainage patterns, pollution, trampling , noise etc; cattle damage includes trampling, compaction, grazing, drainage and ground water changes, destruction of vegetation (eating or damage), associated burning and nutrient changes (fertilisers, excreta).
- decline not confirmed
- species which are known to bask in the sun are noted as this seems to be a characteristic common to several species in decline.
- pigs are considered a potential threat to Geocrinia vitellina if they proliferate in the forest habitat of this species.
