66 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
In summary, this stocktake clearly highlights that current monitoring efforts are
inadequate, with species performing poorly across most evaluation metrics. We
suggest that at a minimum, all species listed as Endangered or Critically Endangered
receive monitoring that can provide timely and accurate information on population
trajectories, which will require increased allocation of resources and personnel to
frog monitoring. We also suggest that the recent and ongoing reduction in
monitoring efforts for other threatened frogs should be immediately curtailed.
Lessons learned
● (^) Monitoring efforts for threatened frogs in Australia are inadequate, with nearly
a quarter of all nationally threatened species receiving no monitoring.
● (^) Across the nine metrics, monitoring programs for many species scored poorly
in the categories of design quality and collection of information on
demographic parameters. Poor scores for these metrics equate to limited ability
to detect changes in species abundance or distribution, which likely inhibits
conservation efforts to prevent further frog declines and extinctions in
Australia.
● (^) Resources are the primary constraint impeding monitoring efforts. However,
even when resources are adequate, low detectability and the potential for large
natural variation in frog abundance can make monitoring challenging.
● (^) To improve monitoring, design optimisation is important: the type of
monitoring appropriate for a given species should be informed by the purpose
of the monitoring, the level of sensitivity required, the degree of difficulty in
obtaining information, and the resources available. For example, for Critically
Endangered species with active recovery programs and targeted management,
robust capture–mark–recapture monitoring may be required. In contrast, for
less threatened species not receiving active management, monitoring
occupancy, or numbers of calling males may be more achievable with limited
resources.
● (^) A commitment to long-term monitoring is needed to discern natural
f luctuations from true declines or recoveries.
Acknowledgements
We thank everyone who contributed their time to make this assessment possible.
In particular, Rohan Bilney, Nick Clemann, Phil Craven, Geoff Heard, Harry
Hines, Conrad Hoskin, David Hunter, Janine Liddelow, Michael Mahony, Dave
Newell, Kim Williams and Stephen Williams. Nicki Mitchell and Sarah Legge
provide helpful comments that greatly improved this chapter. This research was
supported by funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental
Science Programme through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub.