Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

9 – Summary: monitoring extent and adequacy for threatened biodiversity^131

Comparisons

Mammals (terrestrial)

Birds

Frogs

Reptiles

Fish

Ecological communities (ECs)

Recovery plans (RP) exist or not

Taxa with RP better monitored

Taxa with RP better monitored

Taxa with RP better monitored

Taxa with RP better monitored

Taxa with RP better monitored

Unclear: monitoring actions in recovery plans generic and vague; in management plans are of varying scope/quality. Development approvals lack requirements to make data available.

State endemics versus multi-jurisdictional taxa

Taxa in single jurisdictions (and with small distributions) better monitored

Taxa with small range better monitored

Not compared

Not compared

No difference

Not compared

Sub-group comparisons

Better monitoring for:Non-volant taxa;High-profile taxa (e.g. Tasmanian devil)

Better monitoring for:High-profile taxa (shorebirds, parrots);Non-migrants;mainland and oceanic islands taxa (

v.^

continental islands);Taxa with large pops;taxa in accessible areas

Taxa threatened by chytrid monitored similarly to those less threatened

Better monitoring for:High-profile taxa (e.g. marine turtles)

Better monitoring for:Tasmanian endemics better monitored

Not compared

Who monitors?

Government > NGOs > universities > Indigenous > consultants > NRM groups > zoos

Government > NGO > universities > private companies> Indigenous

Government > universities

Government > universities > Indigenous

Government > NGOs > universities

Government, Universities, NGOs, citizen groups, private companies (via developmental approval processes)