Biodiversity

Species Profile and Threats Database


For information to assist proponents in referral, environmental assessments and compliance issues, refer to the Policy Statements and Guidelines (where available), the Conservation Advice (where available) or the Listing Advice (where available).
 
In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.

EPBC Act Listing Status Listed as Endangered
Recovery Plan Decision Recovery Plan required, this species had a recovery plan in force at the time the legislation provided for the Minister to decide whether or not to have a recovery plan (19/2/2007).
 
Adopted/Made Recovery Plans Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
 
Other EPBC Act Plans Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2006o) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Threat abatement advice for predation, habitat degradation,competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (2013) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014p) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Policy Statements and Guidelines Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Frogs. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.3 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2010h) [Admin Guideline].
 
Federal Register of
    Legislative Instruments
Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) [Legislative Instrument].
 
State Listing Status
WA: Listed as Critically Endangered (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia): September 2013 list)
Non-statutory Listing Status
IUCN: Listed as Critically Endangered (Global Status: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2013.1 list)
Scientific name Geocrinia alba [26181]
Family Myobatrachidae:Anura:Amphibia:Chordata:Animalia
Species author Wardell-Johnson and Roberts,1989
Infraspecies author  
Reference  
Distribution map Species Distribution Map

This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.

Illustrations Google Images

Scientific name: Geocrinia alba

Common name: White-bellied Frog or Creek Frog

Geocrinia alba is a member of the Geocrinia rosea frog complex (Anura: Myobatrachidae), which includes four allopatric (geographically separated) species. The other species in the complex are G. vitellina, G. rosea and G. lutea (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1993).

The White-bellied Frog is similar to Geocrinia lutea, Geocrinia rosea and Geocrinia vitellina. The White-bellied Frog grows to 25 mm and has a distinguishing white belly (Cogger 2000).

The distribution of the White-bellied Frog is extremely restricted and fragmented and is contained within an area north and west of the Blackwood River between Margaret River and Augusta in the extreme south-west of Western Australia (Roberts et al. 1999).

The extent of occurrence of the species is approximately 130 km². There has been a probable decline of over 70 % of the range of the White-bellied Frog. This species was not heard at six sites in 1991, where it had previously been heard between 1983 and 1989 (Roberts et al. 1999).

The area of occupancy for the White-bellied Frog is less than 2.5 km² (Roberts et al. 1999). Wardell-Johnson et al. (1995) reports that 81 percent of the extent of occurrence and 82 percent of the area of occupancy of the White-bellied Frog exists on private land.

Most of the known subpopulations of the White-bellied Frog are small, with 48 of the 61 extant populations numbering 50 adult individuals or less (Driscoll 1999).

Long term population monitoring data, based on calling males, is available for three populations for the period 1992-1997. Populations varied in size over this period (Roberts et al. 1999) with a maximum of 121 calling males captured in 1994 at Forest Grove (Driscoll 1998).

Three of the known White-bellied Frog sites are in a National Park (Leeuwin-Naturaliste), nine are located in State Forest (including Forest Grove and Witchcliffe) and two in vacant Crown Land (Roberts et al. 1999; Tyler 1997; Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

Three of the known White-bellied Frog sites are in a National Park (Leeuwin-Naturaliste), nine are located in State Forest (including Forest Grove and Witchcliffe) and two in vacant Crown Land (Roberts et al. 1999; Tyler 1997; Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

The White-bellied Frog occurs in permanently moist sites in relatively dry and seasonal climatic zones. The White-bellied Frog inhabits broad U-shaped drainage depressions with swampy floors within undulating to hilly country on Leeuwin Block granite and narrow V-shaped valleys on laterized Perth Basin sediments (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1991).

The area of suitable habitat of the White-bellied Frog was estimated, in 1986, to be 193.2 ha or approximately three percent of the species extent of occurrence (Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1991). However this may be an overestimate, as not all potential sites support populations of the White-bellied Frog (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

Male White-bellied Frogs call from small depressions in clay under dense vegetation cover. Eggs are deposited in small depressions and are often associated with calling males. Eggs hatch and the tadpoles develop in a jelly mass with no free swimming or feeding stage (Roberts et al. 1990).

Genetic studies (allozyme electrophoresis) show very limited gene flow between populations indicating extremely low levels of dispersal even among adjacent populations. The genetic differences throughout the range of the species are very large, especially given the small distances between populations (maxima 18 km) (Driscoll 1998). While a precise value for the rate of dispersal cannot be calculated, the conclusion that individuals do not disperse far from their natal swamp is consistent with a mark-recapture study of White-bellied Frogs and G. vitellina (Driscoll 1997). Driscoll (1997) found that 90% of adult male frogs were displaced less than 20 m over one year, while the maximum displacement was 40 m. Migration rates between populations are so low that any local extinctions are unlikely to be countered in the short term by recolonisation (Driscoll 1998).

The methods that have successfully been used in the past to survey the White-bellied Frog are: call surveys and egg mass surveys (UC 2003).

Call surveys should be conducted during the known calling period of the White-bellied Frog, between September and December (Driscoll 1998; Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1991).

Egg mass surveys may be effective, as this species has clearly visible eggs. The larval period of the White-bellied Frog is from October to January (Driscoll 1998; Wardell-Johnson & Roberts 1991). Breeding locations for this species are in depressions in clay, and under vegetation (Roberts et al. 1990).

To date, monitoring for this species has principally taken place in quadrats within suitable habitat. However in the long term there is likely to be an impact on the riparian vegetation created by the observer's presence. Indeed the reduced numbers of calling males of the White-bellied Frog in some quadrats since 1983 may already indicate that such an effect has occurred. Thus two different levels of monitoring have been proposed depending on the size of population, the width of the riparian vegetation and the level of information required at each site. These monitoring and survey techniques are reported in the Recovery Plan for this species (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995). See below;

1. The establishment of two 20 m long board-walk transects parallel to one another and 5 m apart. The numbers of calling males are counted 2.5 meters either side of each transect. Capture data shows that this is an accurate estimate of the number of calling males at that time. Recapture data can be used to calibrate these counts to estimate the total male population and the total population size assuming a 1:1 sex ratio. Experience with capturing frogs under a variety of weather conditions suggests that such conditions have little influence on the number of White-bellied Frogs calling. Repeated surveys throughout the night suggest that any time of night is suitable for conducting these surveys.

2. A point count is used where either the total number of calling males is small (less than 5) or if only a quick estimate of the population size is required. This method involves recording the total number of calling males heard from a fixed position adjacent to the riparian zone. Where the total number of individuals is large (greater than 5), population sizes are estimated within categories (i.e. 6-10, 11-20, 21-100, greater than 100).

All monitoring transects are permanently established in the field at all sites so they can be readily repeated in subsequent years (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

This species is of major concern as populations are disappearing at an alarming rate. The likely causes of decline are isolation of populations due to land clearing and associated small population sizes exacerbated by low natural dispersal (Roberts et al. 1999).

Land clearing and habitat loss are the main threats to the White-bellied Frog. The species is presumed to have been more extensive prior to land clearing, the geographic range of the species is extremely small and is now severely fragmented (Roberts et al. 1999). Wardell-Johnson & Roberts (1993) estimate that 70% of creek systems suitable for breeding have been cleared since European settlement. Clearing of riparian habitat has led to the loss of White-bellied Frog populations. However this species can persist if the riparian vegetation remains intact following the loss of the adjacent upland vegetation (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995). Approximately 18% of the species geographic range is on public land (Tyler 1997) with the remaining majority occurring on privately owned land (Roberts et al. 1999). However, much of the private land in this species range has been cleared for agriculture. Of the six sites where this species is known to occur, five are private property. Although these private properties have retained some native riparian vegetation, all of these sites have been degraded (Wardell & Johnson et al. 1995).

Of the 75 sub-populations known from 1983-1996, 23 (nearly 31%) have become extinct. In most cases the cause of decline was not obvious and extinctions were equally common on private and public lands. Extinctions were more common at sites with adjacent cleared land which may be associated with changed hydrology, fertiliser run-off and stock grazing (Roberts et al. 1999).

A dramatic reduction in population size at one location has been associated with a low intensity, fuel reduction burn (Roberts et al. 1999). The observed population decline of 60% less than pre-fire estimates is consistent with average effects reported by Driscoll & Roberts (1997) for the related species G. lutea. Fuel-reduction burning in spring has been associated with a significant decline in the number of calling males of G. lutea. Populations had not recovered two years after fire and the short-term impact of spring fuel-reduction burns may pose a serious threat of extinction for very small populations. From the information available on recruitment and age at maturity for the White-bellied Frog, it is expected that populations may not begin to stabilise until four years after the fire, and recovery may take substantially longer (Driscoll & Roberts 1997).

As there are large genetic differences between populations, many populations will need to be conserved in order to maintain genetic variation in the long term. Maintaining many small populations is an effective way of preventing loss of genetic variation from the species as a whole, it is likely to be more effective than conserving a smaller number of large populations provided that small populations do not become extinct, which would result in loss of unique genetic variants. The likely biogeographic history of the White-bellied Frog suggests that contractions and expansions of geographic range may be a natural phenomenon, and that they play an important role in the evolution of the species (Driscoll 1998). Therefore, if evolutionary processes are to be maintained, range changes need to be accommodated in the long term (Driscoll 1998).

Chytridiomycosis is an infectious disease affecting amphibians worldwide. The disease has been recorded in four regions of Australia, namely the east coast, south-west Western Australia, Adelaide, and more recently Tasmania. This highly virulent fungal pathogen of amphibians is capable at the minimum of causing sporadic deaths in some populations, and 100 per cent mortality in other populations (DEH 2006). It is unlikely though, that declines in the White-bellied Frog populations, at sites that are considered to be at high risk for the accidental introduction of disease such as major monitoring sites, can be solely attributed to the introduction of novel disease.

Feral pigs occur throughout south-west Western Australia and are capable of causing severe localised soil disturbance. Pigs pose the greatest threat to Geocrinia habitat during summer when they concentrate their activity within riparian zones (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

The following information has been reproduced from the Orange-bellied and White-bellied Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001 (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995).

The conservation of the White-bellied Frog requires the protection of its riparian habitat. The impact of adjacent land management practices on these remnant riparian zones is likely to be critical to the long term survival of these populations.

Other recovery actions include:

  • Detailed distribution mapping to determine the species extent of occurrence,
  • Studies of the species biology (e.g. habitat requirements),
  • Community education to encourage local awareness and support for the species' conservation,
  • Regular monitoring,
  • Major fencing programs to protect White-bellied Frog habitat and
  • Fire management (protecting some creeks from fire).

Extensive and frequent fires in the area of occurrence of the White-bellied Frog and its unusual breeding biology indicate that specific fire management will be required. Monitoring of particular fire events as well as research of specific management regimes will be required. It will be necessary to research their fire ecology to determine the most appropriate fire regimes. Where possible, fire should be excluded from swamp habitat, while surrounding land should include a variety of fire regimes. Where prescribed burning is necessary in the forest blocks surrounding the habitat of the White-bellied Frog, it should be carried out in early Spring using prescriptions that account for seasonal conditions and to lessen the likelihood of burning the microhabitat. Preliminary results suggest that fire in Autumn can burn the substrate of its calling sites. One moderate intensity summer fire led to a severe reduction in numbers of the White-bellied Frog at the Davis Road site.

Fire exclusion is recommended on White-bellied Frog sites on private land, because of the risk of weed invasion and the decline in habitat quality that follows from fire in small remnants. Whilst all landowners surveyed indicated that they would not burn gully vegetation during the frog's breeding season, they also felt that fire should not be excluded permanently (Sutton 1990). Burning of riparian vegetation is likely to facilitate weed invasion where riparian habitat adjoins pasture, and provide easier access to cattle. Microclimatic variables within riparian habitat adjoining cleared land are likely to differ from those where riparian habitat is adjoined by forest. This difference may become further pronounced when the vegetation cover is removed by fire. Firebreaks along fenced riparian habitat will help reduce the risk of fire.

In addition, altering surface or sub-surface water flow may lead to desiccation or flooding of habitat. Clearing, logging and plantations can all alter upland vegetation which may affect streamflow. The construction of dams and roads can impede the flow of surface water, and may represent a major threat to the White-bellied Frog. Only six percent of landowners intended damming creeks on their property, while 75 percent indicated that they would ensure the natural flow of water along creeklines (Sutton 1990). Roads and bridges will need to be carefully designed and installed to ensure that hydrological patterns are not disrupted. The habitat of these species should be taken into account in all proposed and existing roads. Reconstruction of some existing roads across creeklines will thus be necessary. Road or bridge construction on private land should occur concurrently with fencing.

Recently the state and federal governments have agreed to purchase a major block of uncleared private land ('Location 83') that contains a large number of important populations. While this radically improves the prospects of this species it is still considered to be in a precarious position (Roberts 2001, pers. comm.).

The Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001 (Wardell-Johnson et al. 1995) has been prepared to guide threat abatement and management strategies.

The Department of the Environment and Heritage has developed a threat abatement plan which aims to :

  • Prevent amphibian populations or regions that are currently chytridiomycosis-free from becoming infected by preventing further spread of the amphibian chytrid within Australia,
  • Decrease the impact of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected.

The Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis can be found at http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid/index.html

The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.

Threat Class Threatening Species References
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Fertiliser application Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Grazing pressures and associated habitat changes Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Habitat alteration (vegetation, soil, hydrology) due to trampling and grazing by livestock Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Habitat loss and modification due to clearance of native vegetation and pasture improvements The Implications of Climate Change for Land-based Nature Conservation Strategies (Pouliquen-Young, O. & P. Newman, 1999) [Report].
Biological Resource Use:Logging and Wood Harvesting:Habitat disturbance due to foresty activities Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Restricted geographical distribution (area of occupancy and extent of occurrence) Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis in Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) database (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2006abg) [Internet].
Human Intrusions and Disturbance:Recreational Activities:Disturbance, especially from human recreational activities and development Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or habitat degradation by weeds Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Grazing, tramping, competition and/or habitat degradation Sus scrofa (Pig) Commonwealth Listing Advice on Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2001ab) [Listing Advice].
Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Vegetation and habitat loss caused by dieback Phytophthora cinnamomi Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Problematic Native Species:Competition, grazing, predation and/or habitat degradation by rats Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Alteration of hydrological regimes and water quality Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Changes to hydrology including construction of dams/barriers Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Salinity Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate and/or changed fire regimes (frequency, timing, intensity) Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate prescribed regimes and/or vegetation management to control fire regimes Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Pollution:Agricultural Effluents:Environmental impacts due to application of fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Pollution:Agricultural Effluents:Pesticide application Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. (Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams, 1995) [Recovery Plan].
Species Stresses:Indirect Species Effects:Low numbers of individuals Scaturiginichthys vermeilipinnis in Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) database (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2006abg) [Internet].
Conservation status of frogs in Western Australia. In: A. Campbell, ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 177-184. (Roberts, D., S. Conroy & K. Williams, 1999) [Book].

Cogger, H.G. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia - 6th edition. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland.

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006o). Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html.

Driscoll, D. (2001). Personal communication.

Driscoll, D.A. (1997). Mobility and metapopulation structure of Geocrinia alba and Geocrinia vitellina, two endangered frog species from southwestern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 22:185-195.

Driscoll, D.A. (1998). Genetic structure, metapopulation processes and evolution influence the conservation strategies for two endangered frog species. Biological Conservation. 83:43-54.

Driscoll, D.A. (1999). Genetic neighbourhood and effective population size for two endangered frogs. Biological Conservation. 88:221-229.

Driscoll, D.A. & J.D. Roberts (1997). Impact of fuel reduction burning on the frog Geocrinia lutea in south-west Western Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 22:334-339.

Roberts, D. (2001). Personal communication.

Roberts, D., S. Conroy & K. Williams (1999). Conservation status of frogs in Western Australia. In: A. Campbell, ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 177-184. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Roberts, J.D., G. Wardell-Johnson & W. Barendse (1990). Extended descriptions of Geocrinia vitellina and Geocrinia alba (Anura: Myobatrachidae) from south-western Australia, with comments on the status of G. lutea. Records of the Western Australian Museum. 14:427-437.

Tyler, M.J. (1997). The Action Plan for Australian Frogs. [Online]. Wildlife Australia. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/frogs/index.html.

University of Canberra (UC) - Applied Ecology Research Group (2003). Survey Standards for Australian Frogs. Canberra, Australia.

Wardell-Johnson, G. & J.D. Roberts (1991). The survival status of the Geocrinia rosea (Anura: Myobatrachidae) complex in riparian corridors: biogeographical implications. In: Saunders & R.J. Hobbs, eds. Nature Conservation 2: the Role of Corridors. Page(s) 167-175. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, Aust.

Wardell-Johnson, G. & J.D. Roberts (1993). Biogeographic barriers in a subdued landscape: the distribution of Geocrinia rosea (Anura: Myobatrachidae) complex in south western Australia. Journal of Biogeography. 20:95-108.

Wardell-Johnson, G., J.D. Roberts, D. Driscoll & K. Williams (1995). Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan - 1992 - 2001. Wildlife Management Program No. 19. [Online]. CALM, Perth. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/frogs/index.html.

EPBC Act email updates can be received via the Communities for Communities newsletter and the EPBC Act newsletter.

This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.

Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Geocrinia alba in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 19 Sep 2014 08:44:43 +1000.