Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities

5 – The extent and adequacy of monitoring for Australian threatened frog species^63

the last decade, with four monitoring programs discontinued as a direct
consequence of funding shortfalls. Limited resources were reported to inhibit the
robustness of monitoring (e.g. monitoring restricted to presence/absence surveys,
instead of capture–mark–recapture survey) and impaired sampling periodicity.

Discussion

Inadequate information on the population trajectories of threatened species can
result in poor conservation outcomes, potentially leading to preventable species
extinctions (Woinarski et al. 2016). This assessment of monitoring efforts for
threatened Australian frogs found that over a quarter of species receive no specific
monitoring. Furthermore, it revealed that for many species monitoring is
suboptimal. For example, only nine species scored either 4 or 5 for both
monitoring coverage and design quality, indicating that our capacity to reliably
assess species trajectories across their distributions is limited for most species.
Worryingly, resources for frog monitoring are increasingly limited and reductions
in resources are likely to threaten the robustness of these monitoring programs.
This divestment from monitoring – at a time when the number of threatened frogs
is increasing – is the opposite of what is needed.
Reliable information on the abundance and distribution of threatened species
is a basic requirement for understanding threatening processes and implementing
effective conservation actions. Some of the key consequences of suboptimal
monitoring are: unreliable assessments of species conservation status; an inability

Table 5.2. Variation among groupings of Australian threatened frogs in the adequacy of monitoring programs.

Values represent the sum of scores across the nine metrics of the monitoring evaluation framework given in Chapter 2, with scores potentially varying
from 0 (no monitoring) to 45 (optimal monitoring across all metrics). Variation among categories within a group was tested with Kruskal–Wallis one-way
analysis of variance.

Grouping Statistical significance Category (no. of species) Mean sum monitoring score

EPBC Act

conservation

status

H = 7.10, P = 0.06 Extinct (4) 12.5

Vulnerable (10) 16.7

Endangered (14) 26.7

Critically Endangered (5) 29.4

Recovery plan

status

H = 6.83, P = 0 .14 No plan (6) 18.6

No current plan, but plan

under development (2)

21.5

Lapsed plan (13) 17. 6

Current plan (12) 29.4

Chytrid-

impacted

H = 0.05, P = 0.81 Ye s (24) 22.6

No (9) 20.8