Since European settlement, Australia has a worse extinction record than any other nation on Earth. In addition, Australia has the highest number of threatened reptile and amphibian species in the world. In response to the serious threats posed to indigenous herpetofauna, Zoos Victoria (ZV) has embarked on a series of conservation campaigns to preserve some of the country's most endangered species. These include the Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti), southern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree), northern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne pengilleyi), spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri), stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus), grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla), alpine she-oak skink (Cylodomorphus praealtus), and Guthega skink (Liopholis guthega). The aims of this article are to outline the main threats that have resulted in the decline of these species and the measures that ZV is undertaking in order to fight their extinction.

Unlike any other time in human history, the threats to the continued existence of Earth's biodiversity have never been greater. The anthropogenic pressures of ever-increasing urbanization have placed non-sustainable demands on wildlife, resulting in environmental degradation and overutilization of habitats and resources. The effects of climate change, pathogen pollution, and introduced predators have been significant, culminating in habitat fragmentation, shifts in distribution of animals and plants, and in extreme circumstances extirpation and extinction of entire species (Pounds and Puschendorf, 2004; Thomas et al., 2004).

The effects of these seismic shifts in ecology have been most profound in Australia. In 200 yr of European settlement, 126 species of plants and animals have become extinct. This is the worst extinction rate of any nation on Earth (Bridgewater and Walker, 1992; Commonwealth of Australia, 1996, 1998; Burbidge, 2008). Of 219 threatened non-fish vertebrates in Australia, 52 of these are reptiles (6.5% of total reptile species) and 15 are amphibians (7% of total amphibian species) (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998). According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Animals (IUCN, 2014), Australia has the highest number of threatened reptile and amphibian species in the world.

In response to the serious threats posed to native Australian herpetofauna, Zoos Victoria (ZV) has embarked on a series of zoo-based conservation programs to ensure the continued survival of some of the country's most endangered species. The aim of this article is to highlight the plight of threatened reptile and amphibian species in these programs and to outline the strategies that ZV is taking to fight extinction.

Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti): The Baw Baw frog is a small, dark-brown frog with scattered dorsal tubercles and prominent parotid glands. They reach a maximum length of 45 mm (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 1). The Baw Baw frog is a montane to sub-alpine species existing at elevations between 900 and 1,564 m, and their distribution is limited to an area of just 135 km2 (Hollis, 2004). The Baw Baw frog is restricted entirely to the Baw Baw Plateau and adjacent escarpment, located in the Central Highlands in Victoria approximately 120 km east of Melbourne (Hollis, 2004). The species is listed as threatened under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) and the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) and as critically endangered on Victoria's Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna (Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE], 2013).

Figure 1.

Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti) (Photo courtesy Claire Keely).

Figure 1.

Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti) (Photo courtesy Claire Keely).

Close modal

Systematic surveys of Baw Baw frog populations have been conducted since 1983 and have revealed a 98% decline in adult male frogs at sub-alpine elevations (>1,300 m) (Hollis, 2004). Currently, greater than 90% of the remaining population of Baw Baw frogs is confined to montane habitats on the south-western escarpment of the Baw Baw Plateau between 900 and 1,300 m elevation (Hollis, 2013). Following the dramatic population crash of sub-alpine animals, numbers of Baw Baw frogs have now declined considerably in montane areas since 2008, with a reduction of approximately 82% of this population (Hollis, 2013). In 2004, the adult male Baw Baw frog population was estimated to be 7,000 individuals; however, survey work conducted in 2011 indicated that there were as few as 1,300 calling males (Hollis, 2013). Given the recent rate of decline, it is likely that this is an underestimation of the current population (Banks, personal communication), and the threat of extinction in the wild is imminent (Hollis, 2013).

A number of factors have been implicated as possible causes for the reduction of the Baw Baw frog population including introduced pathogens, climate change, increased ultraviolet B radiation, atmospheric pollution, and habitat loss (Hollis, 2004). The presence of chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) within the remaining population of Baw Baw frogs was confirmed in 2008 (Hunter et al., 2009b) and, coupled with climate change, these are now considered to be the key threatening processes for this species (Hollis, 2013).

ZV's strategies to combat declines of the Baw Baw frog include development of husbandry techniques to enable release of captive-bred frogs should that be needed in the future. This was identified as a major objective in the recovery plan for this species (Hollis, 2011). Currently, 60 frogs are held in captivity, all housed at Melbourne Zoo (MZ), and to date no eggs have been produced. In addition to this, ZV is providing 50% of the costs for reinstatement of field surveys in 2014 to allow for further assessment of population status–trends. There are no other captive-based organizations supporting work on this species.

Southern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree): The southern corroboree frog is a small, terrestrial myobatrachid frog easily recognized by its vivid dorsal yellow- and blackstriped markings. Adults reach a maximum length of between 25 and 30 mm (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 2). The southern corroboree frog is restricted to the Kosciuszko National Park in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, where it was historically known to occur across an area of 400 km2 at altitudes of 1,300–1,760 m (Osborne, 1989). Its preferred habitat is ephemeral pools within sphagnum bogs or wet tussock grasslands along watercourses (Hunter et al., 2009a).

Figure 2.

Southern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) (Photo courtesy John Lane).

Figure 2.

Southern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) (Photo courtesy John Lane).

Close modal

Southern corroboree frog numbers have declined at an alarming rate since the mid-1980s, likely as a result of chytridiomycosis (Hunter et al., 2009c). It is estimated that there are fewer than 50 individuals left in the wild, making it one of Australia's most endangered vertebrate species (Hunter et al., 2007). Due to its tenuous in situ existence, ZV's engagement with this species is critical to its survival.

At present, there are approximately 1,250 animals in captivity, spread across four zoo properties in southeastern Australia. ZV's strategies to combat declines of southern corroboree frogs include captive-breeding to produce eggs and frogs for wild release in an experimental reintroduction framework as well as producing eggs for chytrid research. The success of captive breeding efforts from 2010–2012 has allowed the reintroduction of 1,060 captive-produced eggs into specially designed in situ exclusion tanks in the Kosciuszko National Park (McFadden et al., 2013).

Northern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne pengilleyi): Superficially, the northern corroboree frog is similar in appearance to the southern corroboree frog in that its dorsum is marked by a random pattern of yellow and black stripes. However, subtle differences in the shade of yellow (lime-yellow) distinguish this species from its close relative, the southern corroboree frog (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 3). Northern corroboree frogs are small (23–27 mm) terrestrial frogs that occupy a habitat similar to that of southern corroboree frogs. Their distribution is restricted to montane and sub-alpine forests of southeastern NSW (Scheele et al., 2012). The northern corroboree frog is listed as endangered under the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2014), with fewer than 100 individuals estimated to be remaining in the wild (Banks, personal communication).

Figure 3.

Northern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne pengilleyi) (Photo courtesy Michelle Cooper).

Figure 3.

Northern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne pengilleyi) (Photo courtesy Michelle Cooper).

Close modal

Like southern corroboree frogs, northern corroboree frog numbers have declined significantly since the 1980s (Scheele et al., 2012). Factors that have been implicated in their demise include anthropogenic climate change, resulting in severe prolonged drought and a subsequent decrease in suitable habitat (Scheele et al., 2012), and also the presence of chytrid fungus within the population (Hunter et al., 2009c).

ZV's strategies to arrest the rapid decline of northern corroboree frogs includes captive breeding to produce eggs and frogs with wild release in an experimental reintroduction framework similar to southern corroboree frogs. Currently, there are approximately 800 frogs in captivity spread across four zoological institutions in south-eastern Australia.

Spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri): The spotted tree frog is grey to olive-green with irregular dark mottling or marbling. It is a small species (45 mm) whose preferred habitat is boulders or debris in or beside fast-flowing mountain streams at an elevation of 280 to 1,100 m (Gillespie, 2001; Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 4). The spotted tree frog has a limited distribution, confined predominately to the northwest fall of the Southern Highlands of the Great Dividing Range, from central Victoria to Mount Kosciuszko in NSW (Gillespie, 2001). Since the 1990s it has been recognized that the population of spotted tree frogs has been in decline and that frogs now only persist in 13 different streams within their range (Gillespie, 2001). It is unknown precisely how many wild animals remain, but it is estimated that they number in the thousands (Banks, personal communication). The spotted tree frog is listed as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2014).

Figure 4.

Spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) (Photo courtesy Trent Browning).

Figure 4.

Spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) (Photo courtesy Trent Browning).

Close modal

The major causes that have been associated with the decline of spotted tree frogs are diverse but typically center around disturbances to streams and catchment areas. These include clearing of adjacent stream-side vegetation, recreation activity in streams, development of roads and other infrastructure, timber harvesting, eductor dredging, and gold mining (Gillespie, 2001). Other factors such as chytrid fungus and predation of larval frogs by introduced salmonids, the brown trout (Salmo trutta) and the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), have placed further pressures on an already unstable population (Gillespie, 2001).

ZV has funded production of frogs for release and research to assess the status of wild populations and the impacts of trout and chytrid fungus on wild frogs. The results of this research are being collated with analysis of data expected to be completed by early 2015. ZV is currently waiting on further advice from the Spotted Tree Frog Recovery Team before further actions can be implemented. At present there are approximately 30 frogs in captivity at Healesville Sanctuary (HS).

Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus): The stuttering frog is a moderately large (80 mm), terrestrial myobatrachid frog characterized by a yellow-grey dorsum with narrow, dark cross bars that hatch the limbs (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 5). They are restricted to the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range, from the Cann River catchment in far East Gippsland, Victoria, north to tributaries of the Timbarra River near Drake, northern NSW (Banks et al., 2014). Genetic analysis of stuttering frogs have revealed that the species can be subdivided into two distinct clades; the northern and southern clades. There is overlap between the two groups within their range (Donnellan, 2008).

Figure 5.

Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) (Photo courtesy Damian Goodall).

Figure 5.

Stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) (Photo courtesy Damian Goodall).

Close modal

In NSW the stuttering frog is listed as Endangered under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). In Victoria it is registered as Threatened in the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act of 1988 and Critically Endangered in the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2013 (DSE, 2013). Nationally, the stuttering frog is listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). It is not known how many animals remain in the wild (likely to be in the thousands); however, the southern clade is far less numerous (Banks, personal communication). It is currently considered extirpated in Victoria (Gillespie, 2011). Major threats to the stuttering frog are expected to include chytrid fungus, climate change, and localized habitat loss and disturbance (Banks, personal communication).

ZV's strategies to combat declines initially consisted of development of husbandry techniques for the species in the event that animals needed to be collected from the wild to augment reintroduction programs of locally extant populations (Banks et al., 2014). Husbandry and breeding of stuttering frogs has been straightforward, and current captive numbers consist of approximately 60 animals comprising 30 southern clade frogs and 30 northern clade frogs, all housed at MZ. Future plans for the stuttering frog now include development of an experimental release program using southern NSW frogs for release in eastern Victoria. This has broad support from the recovery team but requires approval from Victorian and NSW agencies.

Grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla): The grassland earless dragon is a small (55 mm snout–vent length [SVL]), terrestrial agamid identifiable by its grey, fawn, or rich-brown color with a broad, pale, vertebral stripe, a pair of narrow, pale, dorso-lateral stripes, and a series of dark-brown blotches on the dorsum which form cross-bars along the back (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 6). The genus Tympanocryptis is endemic to Australia and most of its members are characterized by the absence of external ear structures, with the tympanic region being covered by scaly skin (Cogger, 2014).

Figure 6.

Grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) (Photo courtesy Mike Swan).

Figure 6.

Grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) (Photo courtesy Mike Swan).

Close modal

The grassland earless dragon was once widely distributed from southern Victoria to NSW and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). However, the species has undergone considerable decline and is now only known from Cooma in NSW and a small number of scattered sites in the ACT. It has not been confirmed in Victoria since 1967 (Dimond et al., 2012). The grassland earless dragon is now considered endangered nationally (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999) and at a state level in the ACT, NSW, and Victoria (Robertson and Cooper, unpublished report). Exact wild numbers are unknown but there are possibly around 100 animals in total (Banks, personal communication). Most importantly, the grassland earless dragon is in grave danger of becoming the first reptile species to be confirmed extinct in Australia since European settlement (Dimond et al., 2012).

The major causes for grassland earless dragon declines have not been fully elucidated but are thought to be primarily related to habitat degradation (Dimond et al., 2012). Overgrazing by pastoralists, resulting in exotic weed invasion, and urban development of suitable habitat have both been identified as potential threats for this species (Dimond et al., 2012). Furthermore, climate change and associated drought conditions are also believed to have adversely affected populations of grassland earless dragons (Dimond et al., 2012).

ZV's strategies to combat declines include funding field surveys in Victoria as a first step in trying to improve knowledge of their status in this state. A contingency protocol has been developed with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) to secure any lizards found during habitat clearance for residential developments and transfer them to captivity at ZV. There are approximately 30 animals currently in captivity at the University of Canberra (none in zoological institutions), and ZV is planning to obtain a small number of these lizards for display and education purposes.

Alpine she-oak skink (Cylodomorphus praealtus): The alpine she-oak skink is a diurnal medium-sized skink (160 mm SVL), with smooth overlapping scales and four distinct but short limbs (Cogger, 2014) (Fig. 7). This species is endemic to NSW and Victoria and is restricted to elevations above 1,500 m. The maximum area of potential habitat for the alpine she-oak skink has been estimated to be no more than 400 km2 (Environmental Resources Information Network [ERIN], 2009) in the alpine and sub-alpine grasslands from Omeo Plain in the south to Kiandra in the north (Swan et al., 2004).

Figure 7.

Alpine she-oak skink (Cylodomorphus praealtus) (Photo courtesy Steve Wilson).

Figure 7.

Alpine she-oak skink (Cylodomorphus praealtus) (Photo courtesy Steve Wilson).

Close modal

The species distribution is severely fragmented, and all known populations are isolated on mountain tops that are separated by distances that exceed the presumed dispersal capacity of the species (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [DSEWPC], 2010). Each of the four known populations is limited to specific ‘sky islands’ and there is no current interpopulation gene flow. Therefore, each population is considered to be an ‘evolutionary significant unit’ (DSEWPC, 2010). Exact wild numbers are unknown but are likely to be in the thousands (Banks, personal communication.). The species is currently listed as Endangered in NSW (Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995) and Threatened in Victoria (Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988).

A range of threatening processes are believed to be negatively affecting this species including climate change, loss and degradation of habitat (due to a range of processes including several intense fires in the last decade, construction and maintenance of resort infrastructure and roads, grazing and trampling by exotic herbivores, and recreational activities), and predation by exotic carnivores (Clemann, 2011).

ZV strategies to combat declines include developing captive management and breeding techniques and release protocols in the event that these are needed following wildfire. Currently, there are seven animals in captivity, all at HS, and no young have as yet been produced. There are no other captive populations of this species.

Guthega skink (Liopholis guthega): The Guthega skink is a diurnal, medium-sized skink (95 mm SVL) found in the Snowy Mountains of NSW and the Bogong High Plains in Victoria (Chapple, 2003) (Fig. 8). They inhabit one of the coldest and wettest regions on mainland Australia and only occur at altitudes of 1,600 m above sea level (Donnellan et al., 2002). As such, they are one of Australia's highest living lizard species but are restricted to an estimated geographic distribution of less than 5,000 km2 (Threatened Species Scientific Committee [TSSC], 2014). Guthega skinks are known to be colonial and live in extensive warren systems dug beneath boulders or shrubs (Michael and Lindenmeyer, 2010).

Figure 8.

Guthega skink (Liopholis guthega) (Photos courtesy Mike Swan).

Figure 8.

Guthega skink (Liopholis guthega) (Photos courtesy Mike Swan).

Close modal

The Guthega skink has been listed as critically endangered under the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment advisory list of threatened fauna (TSSC, 2014). These skinks are considered particularly vulnerable to extinction due to their isolation and restricted distribution (TSSC, 2014). Wild numbers are unknown but are likely to be in the thousands across five fragmented populations in Victoria and NSW. Major threats to the existence of Guthega skinks are similar to those of the alpine she-oak skinks.

Similar to the alpine she-oak skink, ZV's strategies to combat declines are to develop captive management and breeding techniques as well as release protocols in the event that these are needed following wildfire. There are currently five animals in captivity, all at HS, and no young have as yet been produced. No other facility holds Guthega skinks.

The ultimate aim of the ZV fighting extinction strategy is to secure Victorian species at risk of extinction before it is too late. The herpetofauna species listed as threatened in this document were prioritized on the likelihood of their extinction in the wild over the next 10 yr. This assessment was based on four key criteria: 1) small population size, 2) declining population trend, 3) restricted distribution, and 4) key threatening processes.

To deliver on this commitment, ZV aims to secure priority species within our care by providing a safe-haven, establishing insurance populations (ensuring genetic, demographic, and behavioral fitness), supporting recovery programs that release captive bred animals into the wild and monitor their success, and to raise awareness and inspire the community to join us in our efforts to fight extinction. However, this strategy does not mean that ZV will bring all species into captivity for captive breeding and release, as that is not necessary nor appropriate for all species. In some instances, partnerships with additional organizations that have a major focus on in situ rather than ex situ management have been established. Ex situ management is implemented where it is identified as necessary for the conservation of the species or where it will help answer key conservation questions. For example, the alpine She-oak skink and the Guthega skink have been brought into captivity in order to develop captive management and breeding expertise should that be necessary in the event of a major wild fire impacting these lizards' habitat. The program for these species is not conserving the species in the wild but rather developing the husbandry skills should that be required. In some instances, both in situ and ex situ management are required for a particular species. Such plans are devised by reviewing species-specific Strategic Plans (that have been developed in close consultation with the relevant wildlife agency managers and other key stakeholders) and consulting with the respective recovery teams where they exist. These are reviewed annually. A key thrust of these is that the ex situ population is to serve and support the wild population and not exist in isolation.

A common issue for amphibian recovery projects is the continued threat of chytridiomycosis in release animals. Each of the frog programs at ZV is different, but all have strong research components focusing on understanding chytrid fungus and the species ability to cope in the presence of disease. More specifically, southern and northern corroboree frog eggs and metamorphs are produced for monitored release in the wild by the recovery team. This is done with concurrent continued surveillance of chytrid levels in sympatric species to assess the existing threat and to evaluate the capacity of the frogs to cope and thrive in the presence and absence of chytrid fungus. For the Baw Baw frog, the present objective is to develop captive management and breeding expertise, which is a 5–10 yr program. Release is not envisaged yet but will be as the captive program develops. This species is on an extinction trajectory in the wild, so a robust captive population is the highest priority. For spotted tree frogs, eggs and tadpoles have been produced for monitored release as part of collaborative research to assess survival in the presence of chytrid fungus and predation from trout. This has been the main focus for this program for ZV over the last 5 yr; this work ceased in 2013 and results are being evaluated before any next steps are taken for this species. ZV also undertook fieldwork to assess the status of all wild populations in Victoria. Finally, in the case of the stuttering frog, from 2000–11 ZV's focus was to develop captive management and breeding expertise so that this was available should it be needed to support the wild population (Banks et al., 2014). Wild release was not an objective over that period. The next stage of work with this species is to develop a costed proposal for a translocation in eastern Victoria, which will include postrelease monitoring to evaluate survival in the possible presence of chytrid carried by other species. Work with other species in this genus suggest that these frogs are able to cope with a level of chytrid (Narayan et al., 2014; Banks, personal communication), so increased understanding of this has potential benefit for other amphibians.

Reptiles and amphibians are intrinsically linked to the development of modern human society. They are indelibly etched in the myths, legends, and fables of myriad cultures, often depicted as both evil and heroic. They are an important food resource and in recent years have gained popularity as companion animals. Most significantly though, their evolution was a pivotal moment in the history of life on Earth, and they now occupy important ecological niches and contribute remarkably to ecosystem diversity and health. However, many herpetofauna are considered among the most endangered species on the planet, and their loss would have considerable ecological and cultural ramifications. ZV has recognized the threats posed to herpetofauna in Australia and through a series of in situ and ex situ conservation programs, combined with research and community education, we aim to arrest these dramatic declines and preserve Australian reptile and amphibian biodiversity for future generations.

I wish to thank Chris Banks from the Wildlife Conservation and Science Department at Zoos Victoria for his assistance in preparation of this manuscript.

Banks
C
,
Traher
R
,
Hobbs
R.
2014
.
Captive management and breeding of the stuttering frog (Mixophyes balbus) at Melbourne Zoo
.
Herpetol Rev
,
45
(
1
):
43
49
.
Bridgewater
PW
,
Walker
BH.
1992
.
Scientific aspects of major environmental issues: biodiversity
.
Prime Minister's Science Council, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Commonwealth of Australia
.
Burbidge
AA.
2008
.
Conservation of Australian mammals
.
In
Van Dyck
S
,
Strahan
R
(
eds
):
The Mammals of Australia
. 3rd ed.
New Holland Publishers Pty. Ltd.
,
Sydney, Australia
:
26
27
.
Chapple
DG.
2003
.
Ecology, life-history, and behavior in the Australian scincid genus Egernia, with comments on the evolution of complex sociality in lizards
.
Herpetol Monographs
,
17
:
145
180
.
Clemann
N.
2011
.
Survey and monitoring of threatened Victorian alpine herpetofauna: annual report for the 2009–2010 season
.
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment
,
Heidelberg
.
Report to State-wide Services, Department of Sustainability and Environment
.
Cogger
H.
2014
.
Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia
. 7th ed.
CSIRO Publishing
,
Collingwood, Victoria, Australia
.
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
.
1999
.
The EPBC Act
.
Australian Government
.
Available from: https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A00485. Accessed XXXX Month xx
.
Commonwealth of Australia
.
1996
.
The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity
.
DEST
,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
.
Commonwealth of Australia
.
1998
.
Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, Revised January 1998
.
Environment Australia
,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
.
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE)
.
2012
.
Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria—2012
.
Department of Sustainability and Environment
,
Melbourne, Australia
.
Department of the Environment
.
2010
.
Cyclodomorphus praealtus
.
In
Species Profile and Threats Database [Internet]
.
Department of the Environment
,
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
. .
Dimond
WJ
,
Osborne
WS
,
Evans
MC
,
Gruber
B
,
Sarre
SD.
2012
.
Back to the brink: population decline of the endangered grassland earless dragon (Tympanocryptis pinguicolla) following its rediscovery
.
Herpetol Conserv Biol
,
7
(
2
):
132
149
.
Donnellan
S.
2008
.
Genetic analysis of Mixophyes balbas from the Sydney Basin to far northern NSW
.
Unpublished report for South Australian Museum, Adelaide, South Australia
.
Donnellan
SC
,
Hutchinson
MN
,
Dempsey
P
,
Osborne
WS.
2002
.
Systematics of the Egernia whitii species group (Lacertilia: Scincidae) in south-eastern Australia
.
Aust J Zool
,
50
:
439
459
.
DSE
.
2013
.
Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria—2013
.
Department of Sustainability and Environment
,
Melbourne, Australia
.
Environmental Resources Information Network
.
2009
.
Mapping data
.
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
.
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
.
Gillespie
G.
2001
.
The role of introduced trout in the decline of the spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) in south-eastern Australia
.
Biol Conserv
,
100
:
187
198
.
Gillespie
GR.
2011
.
Survey for the southern barred frog Mixophyes balbus in Victoria
.
Unpublished report to the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Orbost, Victoria, Australia
.
Hollis
GJ.
2004
.
Ecology and Conservation Biology of the Baw Baw Frog Philoria frosti (Anura: Myobatrachidae): Distribution, Abundance, Autoecology and Demography
.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Melbourne, Australia
.
Hollis
GJ.
2011
.
National Recovery Plan for the Baw Baw Frog Philoria frosti
.
Department of Sustainability and Environment
,
Melbourne, Australia
.
Hollis
GJ.
2013
.
Entry of Baw Baw frog (Philoria frosti) survey data (2009–2011), assessment of population trends and monitoring program review
.
Project commissioned by the Department of Sustainability and Environment
,
Melbourne, Australia
.
Hunter
D
,
Osborne
W
,
Smith
M
,
McDougall
K.
2009a
.
Breeding habitat use and the future management of the critically endangered southern corroboree frog
.
Ecolog Manage Restoration
,
10
:
S103
S109
.
Hunter
D
,
Pietsch
R
,
Clemann
N
,
Scroggie
M
,
Hollis
G
,
Marantelli
G.
2009b
.
Prevalence of the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in the Australian Alps
.
Unpublished report to the Australian Alps Liaison Committee: June 2009
.
Hunter
D
,
Pietsch
R
,
Marantelli
G.
2007
.
Recovery actions for the southern and northern corroboree frogs (Pseudophryne corroboree and Pseudophryne pengilleyi): annual report and recommendations
.
Unpublished report to the Corroboree Frog Recovery Team
.
Hunter
DA
,
Speare
R
,
Marantelli
G
,
Mendez
D
,
Pietsch
R
,
Osborne
W.
2009c
.
Presence of the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the threatened corroboree frog populations in the Australian Alps
.
Dis Aq Organ
,
92
:
209
216
.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
.
2014
.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [Internet]
.
Available from: www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2014 July xx
.
McFadden
M
,
Hobbs
R
,
Marantelli
G
,
Harlow
P
,
Banks
C
,
Hunter
D.
2013
.
Captive management and breeding of the critically endangered southern corroboree frog (Pseudophryne corroboree) (More 1953) at Taronga and Melbourne Zoos
.
Amphib Reptile Conserv
,
5
(
3-4
):
70
87
.
Michael
D
,
Lindenmeyer
D.
2010
.
Reptiles of the NSW Murray Catchment. A Guide to Their Identification, Ecology, and Conservation
.
CSIRO Publishing
,
Collingwood, Victoria, Australia
.
Narayan
EJ
,
Graham
C
,
McCallum
H
,
Hero
J.
2014
.
Overwintering tadpoles of Mixophyes fasciolatus act as reservoir host for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis
.
PLoS One
,
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0092499
.
Osborne
WS.
1989
.
Distribution, relative abundance and conservation status of corroboree frogs Pseudophryne corroboree Moore (Anura: Myobatrachidae)
.
Aust Wildl Res
,
16
(
5
):
537
547
.
Pounds
JA
,
Puschendorf
R.
2004
.
Clouded futures
.
Nature
,
427
:
107
109
.
Scheele
BC
,
Driscoll
DA
,
Fischer
J
,
Hunter
DA.
2012
.
Decline of an endangered amphibian during an extreme climatic event
.
Ecosphere
,
3
(
10
):
1
15
.
Swan
G
,
Shea
G
,
Sadlier
R.
2004
.
A Field Guide to the Reptiles of New South Wales
.
Reed New Holland Sydney
,
New South Wales, Australia
.
Thomas
CD
,
Cameron
A
,
Green
RE
,
Bakkenes
M
,
Beaumont
LJ
,
Collingham
YC
,
Erasmus
BFN
,
de Siqueira
,
Grainger
A
,
Hannah
L
,
Hughes
L
,
Huntley
B
,
van Jaarsveld
AS
,
Midgley
GF
,
Miles
L
,
Ortegua-Huerta
MA
,
Peterson
AT
,
Phillips
OL
,
Williams
SE.
2004
.
Extinction risk from climate change
.
Nature
,
427
:
145
148
.
Threatened Species Conservation Act
.
1995
.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC)
.
2014
.
Commonwealth Listing Advice on Liopholis guthega (Guthega skink)
.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
.
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
. .
Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act
.
1988
.