Nomination no.
844
FLORA AND FAUNA GUARANTEE - SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
FINAL RECOMMENDATION ON A NOMINATION FOR LISTING
Uperoleia martini (Davies and Littlejohn, 1986) – Martin’s Toadlet
Date of receipt of nomination:
30 April 2013
Date of preliminary recommendation: 16 October 2013
Date of final recommendation:
29 January 2014
Validity:
The nomination is for a valid item.
Prescribed Information:
The prescribed information was provided.
File No.: FF/54/3508
Name of the Nominator is adequately provided.
Name of the item is adequately provided.
The nominated taxon is accepted by the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) as a valid taxon because it has been
formally described and is accepted as a valid taxon by Museum Victoria.
Uperoleia martini, Martin’s Toadlet, is a small to moderate sized brown or grey-brown frog with numerous pale yellow flecks
or patches (Cogger 1996, Hero et al. 1991). The throat is dark grey with remainder of the ventral surface dark brown and
peppered with white flecks (Cogger 1996). This species has bright yellow ‘flash’ colouration on the upper thigh, which is
exposed when threatened to advertise the poisonous nature of the frog (R. Catullo pers. comm. 29 April 2013). Martin’s
Toadlet’s have a pronounced parotoid gland, roughened dorsal skin, and unwebbed toes. Males attain an approximate length
of 23 mm, females reach 33 mm (Barker et al. 1995). This species, along with the sympatric and congeneric species Tyler’s
Toadlet U. tyleri, is unusual in possessing teeth (Barker et al. 1995). It may be distinguished from another congeneric species,
the Smooth Toadlet U. laevigata, by its pronounced parotoid gland – this gland is ‘only moderately developed’ in the Smooth
Toadlet (Tyler and Knight 2011). Martin’s Toadlet can only be distinguished from Tyler’s Toadlet, whose distribution in
Victoria overlaps that of Martin’s Toadlet, by its call. A full description of Martin’s Toadlet can be found in Cogger (1996)
and Barker et al. (1995).
Martin’s Toadlet is endemic to Australia and occurs on the coastal side of the Great Dividing Range in East Gippsland and
adjacent areas of New South Wales. Victorian records extend from close to the border of NSW in the far east, to near Yarram
in South Gippsland in the west. Martin’s Toadlet has been recorded from dry forest, woodlands, shrublands, grasslands and
disturbed areas. It is usually found near still water (Anstis 2002), but can be found in dry depressions that later flood (Hero et
al. 1991). Eggs are laid singly, attached to grass stems or other submerged material (Anstis 2002). Tadpoles occur near the
bottom of still water bodies, typically amongst litter (Anstis 2002).
Eligibility for listing as a taxon under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee
The nominated item satisfies at least one criterion of the set of criteria prepared and maintained under Section 11 of the Flora
and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, and stated in Schedule 1 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Regulations 2011.
Based on the evidence that Martin’s Toadlet is of very limited distribution in Victoria, has declined significantly in numbers in
recent years due to processes that are still present and likely to increase in the future, the SAC believes that its nomination
meets at least two criteria for listing under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, viz:
Evidence that criteria are satisfied:
Criterion 1.1 The taxon is in a demonstrable state of decline which is likely to result in extinction.
Evidence:
Two recent, independent surveys of Martin’s Toadlets across the distribution of historic records in Victoria detected the
species at only a single locality (the same locality during both surveys) (G. Gillespie pers. comm. as per N. Clemann
pers. comm. 12 April 2013). Whilst other surveys have detected this species in recent years (2008 – 2012) at places
such as Dutson Downs and Holey Plains (Bilney 2013), failure to detect this species at the majority of historic locations
suggests that a large decline in area of occurrence is likely to have occurred.
Criterion 1.2 The taxon is significantly prone to future threats which are likely to result in extinction
Evidence:
Future threats which are likely to result in extinction including disease (Chytridiomycosis), habitat loss and degradation,
drought and exotic predators
NOMINATION NO. 844
Sub-criterion 1.2.1 The taxon is very rare in terms of abundance or distribution
Evidence:
There are currently 38 records of Martin’s Toadlet in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas across 14 separate sites. No
records for Martin’s Toadlet have been recorded in the Victorian Biodiversity Database since 2001 (VBA Database
2013). In addition, Martin’s Toadlet is currently classified as ‘Critically Endangered’ in Victoria (DSE 2013). Martin’s
Toadlet has a restricted distribution in Victoria, and is believed to have undergone significant declines (N. Clemann
pers. comm. 12 April 2013).
A study conducted in 2012 by Bilney (2013) at Dutson Downs (20 km south-east of Sale) found a total of 140
individual frogs across eight species. Eight individuals were Martin’s Toadlet, and it was the second least recorded frog
species in the survey. Two recent, independent surveys of Martin’s Toadlets across the distribution of historic records in
Victoria detected the species at only a single locality (the same locality during both surveys) (G. Gillespie pers. comm.
as per N. Clemann pers. comm. 12 April 2013). Whilst other surveys have detected this species in recent years (2008 –
2012) at places such as Dutson Downs and Holey Plains (Bilney 2013), failure to detect this species at the majority of
historic locations suggests that a large decline in area of occurrence is likely to have occurred.
The current status of these populations is uncertain, but they seem to have declined considerably. In the opinion of the
SAC, the data presented on distribution and abundance are the result of reasonable surveys and provide clear evidence
that the taxon is rare in terms of abundance and distribution.
Sub-criterion 1.2.2 The threat is currently operating and is expected to operate at a level in the future which is likely to result
in the extinction of the taxon.
Evidence:
Although the factors responsible for the decline of the species are not completely understood, there are a number of key
threats that are known or believe to be implicated in the decline of Martin’s Toadlet across its Victorian range. These
threats, disease (Chytridiomycosis), habitat loss and degradation, drought and exotic predators are expected to operate
at a level likely to result in extinction of the taxon. Chytridiomycosis, caused by the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus
Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis that has caused declines and losses of amphibians throughout the world (Berger et al.
1998, Bosch et al. 2001, Muths et al. 2003, Skerratt et al. 2007), has been strongly implicated in severe declines and
losses of a number of Australian frog species on the eastern seaboard in the last three decades (Osborne et al. 1999,
Speare et al. 2001, Hero et al. 2006, Clemann et al. 2009, Hunter et al. 2010, Clemann and Gillespie 2011, Gillespie
and Clemann 2011). The fungus is widespread across temperate, montane and wet tropical parts of Australia (Berger et
al. 2009). Chytrid Fungus has been detected on individuals of this species in Victoria (Speare and Berger 2005) and in
a recent survey by Bilney (2013) in Dutson Downs (20 km south-east of Sale), and so is a plausible threat to this
species. Loss and degradation of habitat is recognised as one of the primary drivers of declines and losses of amphibians
(e.g. Lehtinen et al. 1999, Stuart et al. 2004, Cushman 2006, Norris 2007) and conversion of land from native
vegetation to agricultural and rural residential land has been extensive throughout the range of Martin’s Toadlet in
Victoria. Experts believe this has almost certainly resulted in loss of habitat for this species, and fragmentation of
populations (N. Clemann pers. comm. 12 April 2013). Under projected future climate scenarios, both the frequency and
severity of drought in south-eastern Australia are predicted to increase (Dai 2011, Kirono et al. 2011). Because the
larval phase of Martin’s Toadlet is dependent on free water (Anstis 2002), previous drought is a plausible factor in
declines of this species in Victoria, and future drought represents a likely threat. Finally both terrestrial (cats and foxes)
and aquatic (Mosquito Fish) exotic predators represent a threat to different life history stages of Martin’s Toadlet.
Terrestrial predators may take adult frogs, and exotic fish may prey on eggs and tadpoles. Exotic predators exist in the
range of Martin’s Toadlet in Victoria, and are therefore a plausible threat to population numbers.
These threatening processes continue to operate, and are likely to continue to have harmful impacts on populations of
Martin’s Toadlets in the future.
Documentation
The published information cited has been assessed. Based on the evidence available to it, the SAC believes that the data
presented are not the subject of scientific dispute and the inferences drawn are reasonable and well supported.
Advertisement for public comment
In accordance with the requirements of Section 14 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, the preliminary
recommendation was advertised for a period of at least 30 days.
The preliminary recommendation was advertised in:
‘The Herald Sun - on 6 November 2013
‘The Weekly Times’ - on 6 November 2013
‘The Bairnsdale Advertiser’ - on 6 November 2013
The Government Gazette - on 7 November 2013
Submissions closed on 13 December 2013.
2
NOMINATION NO. 844
Further evidence provided:
One submission was received by the Scientific Advisory Committee on the Preliminary Recommendation, although no
evidence was provided to warrant a review of the Committee's preliminary recommendation that the species is eligible for
listing.
Final Recommendation of the Scientific Advisory Committee
The Scientific Advisory Committee concludes that on the evidence available the nominated item is eligible for listing in
accordance with Section 11(1) of the Act because primary criteria 1.1 and 1.2 and sub-criteria 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 of the Flora and
Fauna Guarantee Regulations 2011 have been satisfied. The SAC therefore makes a final recommendation that the nominated
item be supported for listing under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.
References:
Anstis, M. (2002) Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia: A guide with keys. Reed New Holland, Sydney.
Barker, J., Grigg, G. C. and Tyler, M. J. (1995) A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.
Berger, L., Speare, R., Daszak, P., Green, E., Cunningham, A. A., Goggin, C.L., Slocombe, R., Ragan, M. A., Hyatt, A. D.,
McDonald, K. R., Hines, H. B., Lips, K. R., Marantelli, G. & Parkes, H. (1998) Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian
mortality associated with population declines in the rainforests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 95: 9031–9036.
Bilney, R. (2013) Surveys for the amphibian Chytrid fungus at Dutson Downs: Report Prepared for Gippsland Water, Wildlife
Unlimited Pty. Ltd. Bairnsdale.
Bosch, J., Martinez-Solano, I. & Garcia-Paris, M. (2001) Evidence of a chytrid fungus infection involved in the decline of the
common midwife toad (Alytes obstetricans) in protected areas of central Spain. Biological Conservation 97: 331-337.
Clemann, N. & Gillespie, G. (2011) Draft National Recovery Plan for the Alpine Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii alpina.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Clemann, N., Hunter, D., Scroggie, M., Pietsch, R. and Hollis, G. (2009) Vanishing frogs: prevalence of the Amphibian
Chytrid Fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in key populations of frog species in the Australian Alps. Unpublished
report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Cogger, H. (1996) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney.
Cushman, S. A. (2006) Effects of habitat loss on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128: 231-240.
Dai, A. (2011) Drought under global warming; a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2: 45–65.
Davies, M. & Littlejohn, M.J. (1986). Frogs of the genus Uperoleia Gray (Anura: Leptodactylidae) in south-eastern Australia.
Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 109: 111-143.
DSE (2013) Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2012. Department of Sustainability and Environment,
East Melbourne. URL: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au
Gillespie, G. & Clemann, N. (2011) Revised draft National Recovery Plan for the Spotted Tree Frog Litoria spenceri.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Hero, J.-M., Morrison, C., Gillespie, G. R., Roberts, J. D., Newell, D., Myer, E. McDonald, K., Lemckert, F., Mahony, M.,
Osborne, W., Hines, H., Richards, S., Hoskins, C., Clarke, J., Doak, N., & Shoo, L. (2006) Overview of the conservation
status of Australian frogs. Pacific Conservation Biology 12: 314-320.
Hero, J-M, Littlejohn. M & Marantelli, G. (1991) Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian Frogs. Department of Conservation and
Environment, East Melbourne.
Hunter, D., Speare, R., Marantelli, G., Mendez, D., Pietsch, R. & Osborne, W. (2010) Presence of the amphibian chytrid
fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in threatened corroboree frog populations in the Australian Alps. Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms 92 (2-3): 209-216.
Kirono, D. G. C., Kent, D. M., Hennessy, K. J. & Mpelasoka, F. (2011) Characteristics of Australian droughts under enhanced
greenhouse conditions: Results from 14 global climate models. Journal of Arid Environments 76: 566-575.
Lehtinen, R. M., Galatowitsch, S. M. & Tester, J. R. (1999) Consequences of habitat loss and fragmentation for wetland
amphibian assemblages. Wetlands 19: 1-12.
Muths, E., Corn, P. S., Pessier, A. P. & Green D. E. (2003) Evidence for disease-related amphibian decline in Colorado.
Biological Conservation 110: 380-383.
3
NOMINATION NO. 844
Norris, S. (2007) Ghosts in our midst: Coming to terms with amphibian extinctions. Bioscience 57: 311-316.
Osborne, W., Hunter, D. and Hollis, G. (1999) Population declines and range contraction in Australian alpine frogs. In:
Campbell, A. (ed.). Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Skerratt, L. F., Berger, L., Speare, R., Cashins, S., McDonald, K. R., Phillott, A. D., Hines, H. B. and Kenyon, N. (2007).
Spread of Chytridiomycosis has caused the rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. EcoHealth 4(2): 125-134.
Speare, R., Berger, L. Chytridiomycosis in amphibians in Australia.
http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/chyspec.htm (26 January 2005).
Speare, R. and Core Working Group of ‘Getting the Jump on Amphibian Disease’ (2001) Nominations for listing of
Amphibian chytridiomycosis as a key threatening process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999. In: R. Speare and Steering Committee of ‘Getting the Jump! On Amphibian Disease’ (Eds.) Developing
Management Strategies to Control Amphibian Diseases: Decreasing the Risks due to Communicable Diseases. School of
Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, pp. 186-208.
Stuart, S. N., Chanson, J. S., Cox, N. A., Young, B. E., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Fischman, D. L. & Waller, R. W. (2004) Status
and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.
Tyler, M. J. & Knight, F. (2011) Field Guide to the Frogs of Australia. Revised Edition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
VBA Database (2013) Victorian Biodiversity Atlas.
Industries, Melbourne.
Flora and fauna database, Department of Environment & Primary
Personal communications
N. Clemann (2013) - herpetologist Arthur Rylah Institute, Melbourne.
G. Gillespie (2013) - herpetologist, Melbourne
Endorsement by the Convenor of the Scientific Advisory Committee
Date
05/02/2014
SIGNED BY
____________________________
Assoc. Prof David Morgan
Convenor
4