Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

130 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

Table 9.1.

Summary of factors that affect the extent and adequacy of national mon

itoring for threatened species and ecological communities.

Information is drawn from Chapters 3–8.Comparisons

Mammals (terrestrial)

Birds

Frogs

Reptiles

Fish

Ecological communities (ECs)

Number of taxa/ecological communities

167 (EPBC, IUCN and MAP)

222 (EPBC and IUCN)

33 (EPBC)

69 (EPBC and IUCN)

57 (EPBC and ASFB)

80 (EPBC)

Taxa ecological communities with some monitoring

132 (79%)

generous categorisation

157 ( 71%)

24 (73%)

43 (62%)

31 (54%)

stringent categorisation

24 (30%)

generous categorisation

Taxa/ ecological communities with no monitoring

21%

29%

27%

38%

46%

70%

Mean score across 9 monitoring metrics

2 .10

2.44

2.48

0.73

1.68

Poor coverage, periodicity, design quality; few links to management; poor data availability, reporting; coordination.

Variables that affect the quality of monitoringEPBC-listed versus non-statutory listing

EPBC-listed species monitored better

Not compared

n/a

EPBC-listed species monitored better

EPBC-listed species monitored better

Not compared

Degree of endangerment (CR, EN, VU)

No difference

More endangered taxa better monitored

More endangered taxa better monitored

More endangered taxa better monitored

More endangered taxa better monitored

Not compared