review of the threat abatement plan for infection of ... web viewchytrid. fungus resulting in ....

Item 12.1.3

Review of the Threat Abatement Plan for Infection of Amphibians with

Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis (2006)

July 2012

1 of 91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

101112131415

1617

Item 12.1.3

1. Executive summary

The Threat Abatement Plan for Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis has been reviewed as required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The actions that have been undertaken to abate the threat from the disease as identified through the actions, goals and objectives of the threat abatement plan have been assessed.

The review found that, while some of the actions had been undertaken and many partially undertaken (for instance, there are now established protocols for field hygiene procedures), the two goals of the threat abatement plan have largely not been achieved. That is, the further spread of amphibian chytrid fungus within Australia has been slowed to some extent but it has not been prevented from reaching almost all climatically suitable areas in Australia; and the impact of infection with amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected has only been somewhat decreased.

Appropriate hygiene protocols have been developed and a national disease strategy will soon be available. A number of different research projects have studied amphibian chytrid fungus but there are still critical gaps in knowledge regarding the fungus, such as the apparent immunity of some amphibian species and potential non-amphibian reservoir species. The majority of the research work to date has been supported by funding from independent sources and its completion and implementation requires further funding and resources.

The stakeholder working group identified the following priority actions still needing to be undertaken: improved data collection to facilitate the identification of the population level of threat in wild populations; establish a genome bank for the cryopreservation of threatened species; continued research into the most effective methods of mitigating and suppressing the disease in wild amphibian populations; and continued improvement in communication on the disease.

The threat abatement plan identified the need to undertake coordinated national surveillance of wild amphibian populations. This has not occurred to any extent, probably because of the high level of resources that would be required to undertake such a task. The threat abatement plan also identifies the need for identification and implementation of management actions for amphibian chytrid in the listed threatened species. Some actions under this goal have been undertaken through recovery planning for each species, although the degree to which the disease is identified in the relevant recovery plans for each of the species ranges from the chytrid fungus being identified as a threat to not being mentioned. The funding provided to the listed threatened species through Caring for our Country was assessed and it has been concluded that there is limited on-ground action supporting the review of this program to directly abate the threat from amphibian chytrid fungus. Only two of the 17 project summaries identified chytrid fungus as an action to be addressed.

The threat abatement plan is at a stage where eight of the 68 actions in the plan have been completed and a further 39 actions are partially complete. It is concluded that there are still actions outstanding that may be able to contribute to abating the threat but that the current threat abatement plan requires a new direction to refocus the threat abatement actions. This conclusion was supported by the stakeholders. Further, because the key threatening process of Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis is still valid, there remains a need for threat abatement.

2 of 91

181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768

Item 12.1.3

A separate options paper will explore the options available to the Minister to assist in abating the key threatening process of infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis.

3 of 91

69707172

Item 12.1.3

Table of Contents

1. Executive summary..........................................................................................................2Table of Contents........................................................................................................................42. Purpose of review............................................................................................................6

2.1 Review..........................................................................................................................62.2 Approach......................................................................................................................6

3. Background......................................................................................................................73.1 Purpose of the plan.......................................................................................................8

4. Assessment of actions undertaken against objectives......................................................84.1 Objective 1: Prevention of pathogen spread................................................................9

4.1.1 Action group 1.1 – Limit national spread...................................................................9 4.1.1.1 Specified actions...................................................................................................9 4.1.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................15 4.1.2 Action group 1.2 – Reduce risk at source.................................................................15 4.1.2.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................15 4.1.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................20 4.1.3 Action group 1.3 – Reduce risk at destination..........................................................20 4.1.3.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................20 4.1.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat.................................................23 4.1.4 Action group 1.4 – Develop, implement and promote hygiene protocols................23 4.1.4.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................23 4.1.4.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat.................................................27 4.1.5 Action group 1.5 – Prevent release of B. dendrobatidis from laboratories..............27 4.1.5.1Specified actions..................................................................................................27 4.1.5.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................28

4.2 Objective 2: Recovery of listed threatened species....................................................28 4.2.1 Action group 2.1 – Manage threatened amphibians to minimise the threat from chytridiomycosis.......................................................................................................................28 4.2.1.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................28 4.2.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................38

4.3 Objective 3: Research and monitoring.......................................................................39 4.3.1 Action group 3.1 – Develop diagnostic tools............................................................39 4.3.1.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................39 4.3.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................44 4.3.2 Action group 3.2 – Research epidemiology, transmission and dispersal.................45 4.3.2.1 Specified actions................................................................................................45 4.3.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat.................................................48 4.3.3 Action group 3.3 – Research pathogenesis...............................................................48 4.3.3.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................48 4.3.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................51 4.3.4 Action group 3.4 – Assess effectiveness of management strategies.........................52 4.3.4.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................52 4.3.4.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................55

4.4 Objective 4: Stakeholder communication on TAP objectives...................................56 4.4.1 Action group 4.1 – Establish communication pathways and share information.......56 4.4.1.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................56 4.4.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................61

4.5 Objective 5: Coordination of management activities.................................................62 4.5.1 Action group 5.1 – Establish communication pathways and share information.......62 4.5.1.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................62

4 of 91

7374

75767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899

100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123

Item 12.1.3

4.5.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................63 4.5.2 Action group 5.2 – Use regional management plans................................................64 4.5.2.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................64 4.5.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................68 4.5.3 Action group 5.3 – Undertake national coordination................................................68 4.5.3.1 Specified actions.................................................................................................68 4.5.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat..................................................705. Funding and implementation of TAP............................................................................716. Conclusions....................................................................................................................72

6.1 Completion of TAP actions........................................................................................726.2 TAP action contribution to goals and objectives.......................................................726.3 TAP goals..................................................................................................................736.4 Outstanding issues......................................................................................................73

Reference list – cited and considered........................................................................................75Attachment A: amphibian chytrid fungus websites..................................................................80Attachment B: Map of the distribution of chytridiomycosis (with dates of first detection).....83Attachment C – Critical gaps in knowledge about chytrid fungus...........................................84Attachment D: Recovery plans and other advices....................................................................85Attachment E: Caring for our Country projects targeting threatened amphibian species identified in the TAP.................................................................................................................89

5 of 91

124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144

Item 12.1.3

2. Purpose of review

Under section 279 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) the Minister must review each threat abatement plan at intervals of not longer than five years. The Threat Abatement Plan for Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis (the TAP) was made by the Minister in 2006. Under section 279 this plan is due for review. Reviewing threat abatement plans, at least every five years, allows for an assessment of whether the threat has been abated or, if not, what progress has been made towards abating the threat. It is acknowledged that some key actions listed in threat abatement plans may take longer than five years to achieve, such as improving re-introduction methodologies to establish sustainable wild populations of threatened amphibian species. The review of a threat abatement plan assesses progress and effectiveness of progress across all actions in the threat abatement plan. It also considers progress towards threat abatement in associated ways, such as work related to chytrid fungus done through recovery plans for specific species. Finally it also considers if the threatened species are still being threatened by the key threatening process.

The review of a threat abatement plan provides an opinion on whether a threat abatement plan is still a feasible, effective and efficient means to abate a threat (s. 279A) and alternative options for the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to consider and advise the Minister.

2.1 ReviewThe primary purpose of the review of the TAP is to assess the progress and effectiveness of the TAP in reducing the impact of amphibian chytrid fungus on nationally listed amphibians and preventing further amphibians from becoming threatened.

The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) has undertaken the review in consultation with a working group comprised of key stakeholders (researchers and state agency representatives), established to advise on action to be undertaken under the TAP.

2.2 ApproachA meeting of the stakeholder working group in May 2012 reviewed the state of knowledge and research around amphibian chytrid fungus. The department has drawn on this knowledge as well as published scientific literature, grey literature, and reports to the Australian Government to review each specific action in the threat abatement plan.

The key stakeholders (including the working group members) were invited in February 2012 to comment on the departmental assessment of progress and to provide comment on potential future work that might be required to help abate the threat. Responses were received from many stakeholders including representatives from each jurisdiction, non-government organisations and key scientific researchers.

6 of 91

145146

147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167

168

169170171172173174175176177

178

179180181182183184185186187188189

190

Item 12.1.3

3. Background

‘Infection of Amphibians with Chytrid Fungus Resulting in Chytridiomycosis’ was listed in July 2002 as a key threatening species under the EPBC Act. The Minister determined under section 270A of the EPBC Act that having a threat abatement plan was a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the impact of chytrid fungus on threatened Australian amphibians.

Australia’s native amphibians are threatened by a pathogenic fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (B. dendrobatidis), known either as the amphibian chytrid or the amphibian chytrid fungus, which causes the infection known as chytridiomycosis. This infection affects amphibians worldwide. This highly virulent fungal pathogen of amphibians is capable at the minimum of causing sporadic deaths in some populations, and 100 per cent mortality in other populations. Some species are resistant to mortality and serve as disease reservoirs and carriers.

In Australia (see map at Attachment B), chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis has been found in all states and the Australian Capital Territory, but not in the Northern Territory. Chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis may have been introduced into Australia via the port of Brisbane around 1978 and spread northward and southward. It did not appear to arrive in Western Australia until 1985. The earliest records from South Australia and Tasmania are from 1995 and 2004, respectively. There are some pockets of free areas within infected regions due to the isolated nature of some amphibian populations. The disease does not currently occur in Cape York Peninsula in Queensland and most of the World Heritage Area in western Tasmania. A few isolated populations in NSW and Victoria are currently free of infection.

Chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis has caused the decline and extinction of several hundred amphibian species globally. In Australia it has caused the extinction of at least four species (all from Queensland), and the dramatic decline of at least 10 more. Many persisting species remain at lower abundance and smaller distributions than pre-disease, some are continuing to decline and significant mortality from chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis is ongoing.

Currently there are no proven methods to control the disease in the wild. For currently endangered frog species, emergency measures are needed to increase population sizes through captive assurance colonies. As chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis is now widely distributed in Australia, control efforts should be aimed at protecting uninfected areas - this is the opposite focus to standard emergency responses. Naive areas exist containing endemic frogs that are at high risk. As strains vary in virulence, reducing the risk of spread between infected areas is also important. Research to improve mitigation of the impact of the disease in infected wild populations is ongoing and further work is urgently required.

Chytridiomycosis/B. dendrobatidis is listed as a notifiable disease in Australia’s National List of Reportable Diseases of Aquatic Animals1 and by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE, formerly Office International des Epizooties) in the Aquatic Animal Health Code.2

3.1 Purpose of the planWhile eradication of a widespread and continuously present disease is not possible in wild amphibians, an array of well targeted actions combined with well developed management 1 http://www.daff.gov.au/animal-plant-health/aquatic/reporting/reportable-diseases2 http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/fcode/fcode2006_back/en_sommaire.htm

7 of 91

191192

193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235

236

237238

12

Item 12.1.3

plans based on current knowledge can assist in reducing the impact of the disease on threatened amphibian populations, particularly those presently in captive breeding programs and for any future captive breeding of endangered species.

The threat abatement plan, therefore, had two goals:1. to prevent amphibian populations or regions that are currently chytridiomycosis-free from

becoming infected by preventing further spread of the amphibian chytrid within Australia; and

2. to decrease the impact of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected.

4. Assessment of actions undertaken against objectivesThe threat abatement plan’s objectives were:1. prevent the spread of B. dendrobatidis into areas where it may impact on threatened

amphibian species or may lead to amphibian species becoming threatened;2. promote the recovery of nationally listed threatened amphibian species that are known or

perceived to be threatened by infection with B. dendrobatidis;3. improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of infection with amphibian

chytrid through appropriate research and monitoring programmes;4. share information with Australian, state and territory government management agencies,

researchers and other academics, landholders, relevant industries and the public about the threat abatement plan’s actions and their outcomes; and

5. coordinate management activities effectively.

The implementation of the TAP was seeking to consolidate and coordinate the process of managing chytrid fungus impacts on native amphibians, and acknowledged that control programs will have to be ongoing and the costs of these could be considerable. As such, the threat abatement plan established a framework to allow for the best possible use of available resources.

Below is the assessment of progress against each of the specified actions.

8 of 91

239240241242243244245246247248249250

251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271

Item 12.1.3

4.1 Objective 1: Prevention of pathogen spreadTo prevent the spread of B. dendrobatidis into areas where it may impact on threatened amphibian species or may lead to amphibian species becoming threatened.Performance indicator: Appropriate quarantine and management strategies are implemented that prevent transmission of B. dendrobatidis from areas with chytridiomycosis to areas that are chytrid-free.

4.1.1 Action group 1.1 – Limit national spread

4.1.1.1 Specified actionsTable 4.1 shows the actions under objective 1 - action group 1.1, the activities that have occurred in the jurisdictions under each of the actions and the effectiveness of the action. At the end of the table an assessment has been made of the contribution of achievements to the abatement of the threat posed by chytrid fungus to the species under threat. This assessment, together with those for the following objectives, has subsequently been used to provide the overarching conclusions to this review in section six.

Table 4.1 Summary of actions to limit national spread.Actions Key stakeholder comments Achievement

Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of Action1.1.1: Update the status of chytridiomycosis-free states and territories, and regions within infected states and territories, after the national survey (see action 1.1.2) and on a regular basis as other reliable results become available. This information is most effectively published on the internet and the most suitable location is the Amphibian Disease Home Page:

The Anton Breinl Centre (ABC)3 at James Cook University (JCU) collated results from widespread Australian surveys for Batrachochytrim dendrobatidis (Bd) (>10,000 test records) into a large Bd database and detailed map (Murray et al. 2010b). This shows that Bd has spread into most areas that are predicted to contain suitable climate based on climatic modelling (Murray et al. 2011d). The major negative areas that are at risk of becoming infected are in south west Tasmania and Cape York Peninsula. Unknown whether chytrid free areas exist within lowland areas in the ACT.

Atlas of Living Australia has made the data available at http://collections.ala.org.au/public/show/dr642. The database has also been included in ‘Bdmaps’ (http://www.bd-maps.net/), a global Bd mapping project website.Need a system for reporting/updating the database on the distribution of Bd.Most stakeholders identified this action as useful but only partially achieved and therefore moderately effective.

There is currently no system for reporting/updating data on Bd distribution in a current and accessible database. The Amphibian Disease Home Page (http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/ampdis.htm) has not been updated since at least 2008. The Atlas of Living Australia may be an option, but there are costs for membership and restricted user rights. There should be a careful assessment before this is made as the only site for collation of information. Any independent website would need to address issues of ongoing funding, ownership of intellectual property (IP) and sharing rights.The distribution of chytrid free areas is not complete,

3The ABC is an internationally recognised centre of excellence for tropical medicine and a constituent discipline of the School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Sciences at James Cook University

9 of 91

272

273274275276

277

278

279280281282283284

34

Item 12.1.3

Actions Key stakeholder comments AchievementJurisdiction situation Effectiveness of Action

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/ampdis.htm (Category 1).

The Bd status of most of Vic. remains unclear. Some studies have been conducted which have identified Mount Bullfight Nature Conservation Reserve as likely Bd free – more work required.Annual surveys have been conducted in Tas. but some sites cannot be accessedVery little is known about the status of the disease in SA – further work required.

with many areas untested or inaccessible and significant biases may exist in current data set. This action has been partially met and has provided valuable information about some Bd free areas, but needs to be re-assessed in order to be effective in the future.The communication strategy outlined in Objective 4 would contribute to the coordination and knowledge sharing and therefore the future achievement of this action. However, the Amphibian Disease Homepage would no longer be the most appropriate location for the information.

1.1.2: Undertake a coordinated national survey of frog populations in chytridiomycosis-free regions using standardised sampling protocols and diagnostic techniques to determine the distribution of the chytrid fungus and the affected amphibian species. The priority regions and populations for this survey are Gulf Country, Northern Territory, western Queensland, western New South Wales, northern South Australia, the coast along the Great Australian Bight, northwest Western Australia and western Victoria (Category 2).

A survey protocol was developed (Skerratt et al. 2008) and trialled (Skerratt et al. 2010). The trial targeted possible Bd free regions adjacent to known Bd infected regions. However sampling was limited in terms of taxa, spatial and geographic spread. Results were consistent with the predicted distribution of Bd (Murray et al. 2011d) based on climate and other environmental variables – Bd does not grow in the arid inland areas. Therefore priorities for surveillance are areas that have tested as negative within the predicted favourable distribution of chytridiomycosis such as south west Tas., Cape York, isolated negative areas in NSW, Mt Bullfight and any unidentified negative areas in Vic.Only a very small area of NSW has been surveyed – much more work is required.Study by Hunter et al. (2007) in the Australian Alps (including the ACT) identified chytrid fungus in all areas sampled in the ACT. There are no known chytrid-free areas in the ACT. However it is unknown whether all frog populations are susceptible and their infection

JCU (Murray et al.2011d) have also produced a number of predictive models that seek to integrate current information to 1) predict distribution of Bd given incomplete data (includes dataset and maps), 2) predict natural wild host species for Bd (shortlists most likely species to be infected in the wild) and 3) predict which species are likely to decline/ are declining as a result of Bd infection and a range of other threats. These predictive studies are useful for informing a national research, surveillance and management agenda (e.g. species prioritisations).National coordination towards agreed objectives (in terms of areas, species, populations and habitats for surveillance) is required. For example it appears in terms of limiting spread of chytrid that we should focus on negative areas and species where incursion of Bd could cause extirpation and extinction. This has occurred in

No national survey of frog populations in chytrid free areas has been undertaken, to provide the necessary confidence that these regions are free of chytrid and its impacts. Without intervention, the ongoing monitoring of these populations would be required to ensure they remain chytrid free, which may be difficult due to funding and access to some of the priority areas.As the absence of chytrid is not reported in the same way as is presence, a national survey may be necessary to have a complete starting point for a relatively emerging disease. Limiting survey areas from the start may result in the distribution of Bd being an artefact of experimental design.Some of the priority areas may need to be removed, i.e. the Great Australian Bight where there are no frogs, or areas where environmental factors do not favour chytrid, in areas with warmer climates like savannah regions, semi arid or arid regions. On the other hand, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) in the southwest of Tas. may need to be included as a priority area, as while it is currently chytrid free, modelling predicts the high likelihood of the pathogen occurring. This action has

10 of 91

Item 12.1.3


rates.Vast majority of Vic. has not been tested. Some threatened species not tested. Surveys and mapping in Tas. showed that chytrid is widespread except for a large negative area in the south west World Heritage Area, where there are endemic frogs -Tasmanian tree frog and moss froglet (Litoria burrowsae and Bryobatrachus nimbus) (Pauza et al. 2010). Monthly Bd surveys and Tasmanian tree frog call surveys being conducted at two sites adjacent to infected sites to determine species response to Bd invasion.In SA a pilot survey on the distribution of Bd on the southern bell frog has been conducted in two bioregions in South Australia: the Murray-Darling Basin and south-eastern SA. Further work is required in SASurveys conducted in WA at Yanchep NP were positive for chytrid however surveys on Rottnest Is were negative. Surveys on 15 populations of the quacking frog or red thighed froglet (Crinia georgian ) were all positive for chytrid. The Kimberley remains negative for chytrid.

Tas. and NSW but not in Qld, Vic. or WA or at a national level in terms of a formal risk assessment frameworkThe Action in the TAP included the coast along the Great Australian Bight. However, there are no frogs found in this region. The only species would be Sudell's frog or painted burrowing frog (Neobatrachus sudelli), and there are no records from the Nullarbor plain close to the bight [Pers. Comm. Michael Mahony, 28/2/2012]. This section of the action should be removed or tightened to indicate species at the eastern and western boundaries of the bight. Most stakeholders identified this action as effective but only partially carried out – national coordination needed.

been effective in bringing together information on the distribution of the disease in various regions, but priority areas need to be re-assessed based on new information since the 2006 TAP, and a national survey designed, looking specifically at how presence /absence is recorded.

1.1.3: Prepare a model action plan (written along the lines of AusVetPlan — http://www.aahc.com.au/ausvetplan/) for chytridiomycosis- free populations based on a risk management approach, setting out the steps of a coordinated response if infection with

Not yet implemented at a national level. However, JCU has prepared a national disease strategy manual for the Department which will soon be made available to stakeholders for comment and input. The developing national disease strategy will inform action plans for Tas. and NSW. Action plans are needed for other states. Many knowledge gaps make a quantitative approach to risk assessment challenging. Include species susceptibility, species ecology,

The national disease strategy meets the requirements for the national “model action plan” which is the goal of this action. This strategy will soon be made publically available. In the meantime, efforts have been made by the jurisdictions to “protect areas that are chytridiomycosis-free” via various mechanisms, such as hygiene protocols.Knowledge on how best to integrate

This action has been partially achieved in that various documents now exist regarding mitigating the risk of chytrid. However, some states have action plans, some states use other jurisdictional action plans and some have no action plans.The disease strategy prepared by JCU for the department is a national strategy, based on current best practices and the most recent research on Bd. It has been developed on the AQUAVETPLAN template and is a compilation of relevant material in one publication, soon to be published and available to

11 of 91

Item 12.1.3


chytridiomycosis is detected (Category 2). The model action plan will be based on a risk management approach using quantitative risk analysis where possible and will be able to be modified to become area-specific or population-specific. The plan could be implemented in the face of new outbreaks in chytridiomycosis-free areas or in chytridiomycosis-free populations. Individual jurisdictions can modify the model action plan as a preventative strategy or at least have it available as the framework for a response plan if needed. This will help ensure national consistency in responses to any new outbreaks. For threatened species, the action plan should inform relevant species recovery plans. Infrastructure, protocols, responsibilities and funding sources should be identified in this action plan, using the approach used in AusVetPlan. To protect areas that are chytridiomycosis-free, an underlying principle should be that amphibians with

changes in host distribution in understudied species.The Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan includes an action plan to outline the response to Bd invasion of key naive amphibian populations.Data for WA shows a lot of frog species co-existing with chytrid and no evidence of chytrid induced decline in any frog species.

national strategies with state and territory strategies is needed. Workshops are possibly the best vehicle but need funding.Most stakeholders identified this action as useful and effective but only partially carried out – further coordination needed.

a wider audience. Its possible inclusion as a manual under AQUAVETPLAN is being explored.Risk management needs to be fluid and able to incorporate new research /strategies to mitigate and manage the risk of chytrid as issues come to light. Once a model risk management plan is approved, it may be hard to change and update the content, and it is important that mechanisms should be devised to overcome this before the plan is implemented. This action is extremely in-depth, and a broader action should be developed that can be interpreted in the light of current knowledge to achieve the best outcomes.

12 of 91

Item 12.1.3


chytridiomycosis are not transported into chytridiomycosis-free areas. Actions to reduce transmission into chytridiomycosis-free areas should aim for reduction of risk at source, and prevention of dissemination of B. dendrobatidis at destination.1.1.4: Using current evidence that the Northern Territory is chytridiomycosis-free, the jurisdiction should develop and implement strategies to prevent the accidental introduction of amphibian chytrid (Category 4).

It appears that conditions in the NT are generally unfavourable for chytridiomycosis and there is low risk of an incursion there.However, the NT still has pre-emptive strategies in place to minimise the accidental introduction of chytrid. NT government does not allow amphibian imports to the NT. Berrimah Laboratory have developed an information sheet (April 2010) regarding the requirements for health certification of frogs for import or export to and from the Northern Territory. Cases requesting import permits for research or under special circumstances are assessed on a case by case basis. The last permit to import amphibians was in 2006, and if another application was made, the previous process would be reviewed in light of new and relevant information. As part of the regulations and requirements relating to the taking, keeping and importing of frogs in the NT, apart from the required permit, health testing and certification by a veterinarian are required prior to the import or export and this certification must accompany each batch of imported/exported amphibians.

This action has been effective but assumes no area in the NT will ever have chytrid. For example, knowledge on some niche habitats in the NT should be increased, as highly evaporative pools in the desert may be conducive to chytridiomycosis due to their lower temperatures compared with surrounding environments.

As Bd spreads throughout Australia, affected by environmental conditions influenced by climate change from both anthropogenic and natural causes, this action may have more relevance in the future.This action has been achieved although it is unclear which would have the most effect on the accidental introduction of chytrid, the strategies put in place by the NT government or climatic conditions.

13 of 91

Item 12.1.3


1.1.5: Current evidence is that Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia have regions and populations of frogs infected with the amphibian chytrid. These jurisdictions should develop and implement strategies to prevent transmission to the Northern Territory and chytridiomycosis-free areas within their own and other states (Category 4).

The ABC has published an example strategy for herpetologists (Phillott et al. 2010) and developed guidelines and protocols that provide the basis for developing strategies. They have also completed the federally (SEWPaC) funded: 1) Guidelines for captive breeding, raising and restocking programs; and 2) Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs (Murray et al. 2011b, c). ABC has also developed and published predictive models and survey protocols that enable risk to be assessed and prioritised in order to better target biosecurity strategies and for cost efficient surveillance to take place.No specific strategies have been developed in Queensland (Qld). Hygiene protocols exist for frog researchers in Qld, ACT, NSW and Vic., however other people such as tourists, bushwalkers, hydrologists, fishers, land managers etc. have no protocol or restrictions. WA appears to have no specific strategies but the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) website makes generic reference to NSW protocols.It is thought that the chytrid fungus may have reached its environmental limits in Qld.Strategies to prevent the transmission of Bd have not been considered in NSW. Three mainland green and golden bell frog populations found to be infected. One offshore island (Broughton Island) found to possibly be uninfected.In Tas. biosecurity and hygiene measures are outlined in the Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan. These strategies are currently being implemented by collaborator NRM South under

Most stakeholders stated that there is very little data available on the translocation of frogs within their states or interstate but expect that any such movements would be minimal.It was identified that research on transmission (both ‘natural’ and anthropogenic) and effectiveness of hygiene measures is urgently needed. Also need to determine effectiveness and cost efficiency of strategies to mitigate the risk of disease spread to better inform management (linked to effectiveness of biosecurity actions in 3.4).

Most stakeholders considered that this action had only partially been implemented but would be effective if carried out.

This action has been met in that a National Disease Strategy has been developed, but is not yet available to a wider audience. This manual is in essence a set of guidelines compiled from recent information on best practices to prevent the transmission of Bd. This information can be applied to prevent the transmission of Bd to chytrid free areas, but there is no legislative power with the manual.While some jurisdictions have linked this information to licensing arrangements, once licences have been issued, imports/exports between states is likely to be more regulated than translocation of frogs between and within jurisdictions. More research is required on the effectiveness of hygiene measures in non-laboratory conditions by a wider range of user groups in the field.

14 of 91

Item 12.1.3


the Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity Program. This program will provide infrastructure such as boot and vehicle washdown units, and deliver an education program (outlining hygiene measures / biosecurity) to land managers, recreational park users, researchers etc. Its aim is to minimise the spread of pests, weeds and pathogens (including Bd) into the TWWHA.

4.1.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatThe actions in this action group have been partially achieved through the development of a national disease strategy and various other strategies by the states. However, one of the key actions, a coordinated national survey, has not been carried out.Some of the actions under this action group are no longer relevant, as aside from through in few isolated areas, for example the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA), it is no longer appropriate to prevent the large-scale spread of chytrid as the disease is now endemic in most of the climatically suitable areas in Australia. Despite this, considerable effort has been expended to protect the few remaining isolated uninfected amphibian populations. Various policy documents now exist in the jurisdictions that contain strategies to limit the risk of spreading chytrid. However, there has been little coordination between the states in either policy development or surveying efforts for the presence and spread of chytrid. A national disease strategy has been prepared based on current best practices and the most recent research on chytrid fungus. Its possible inclusion as a manual under AQUAVETPLAN is being explored.

4.1.2 Action group 1.2 – Reduce risk at source


15 of 91

285

286287288289290291292293294295

296

297

298299300301

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.2 Summary of actions towards the reduction of risk at source.Actions Key stakeholder comments Achievement

Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of Action1.2.1: Develop and implement a minimum set of disease control standards for individuals, firms or organisations that send amphibians to others, or release amphibians to the wild, to prevent amphibian stock becoming infected with chytridiomycosis. The standards should address:• quarantine of amphibians entering the facility;• prevention of transmission between tanks;• isolation and management of ill animals;• disinfection of all water and waste prior to discharge or disposal;• disinfection of reusable tanks and equipment;• postmortem examination of dead amphibians;• monitoring of stock for chytridiomycosis; and• treatment protocol for amphibians prior to release or dispatch from the facility (Category 1).

The following work has been performed:

Disease control standards and monitoring in facilities

The ABC has now completed the development of the federally funded 1) Guidelines for captive breeding, raising and restocking programs and 2) Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs (Murray et al. 2011b, c)

Disinfection

Additional disinfectants were tested against Bd. At the request of Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), JCU tested Bd against Phytoclean (used for Phytophthora sp. control) which was effective against Bd.

Post mortemFrog post mortem technique described by Karrie Rose in Wildlife Health Investigation Manual, 2007. Australian Registry of Wildlife Health - www. arwh.org

Treatment

The review of antifungal treatment by JCU (Berger et al. 2010) shows

Gaps in knowledge still exist in key areas such as: the effectiveness of treatments across many species; and how to demonstrate that (1) individuals, and (2) groups, are completely free of infection.Most stakeholders have found this action highly effective at reducing risk of chytridiomycosis escaping from captive populations and also minimising the transmission of chytrid, both within and among sites, as a result of field research on frogs.

This action has largely been completed and has the potential to be very effective.The Commonwealth has funded the development by JCU of the 1) Guidelines for captive breeding, raising and restocking programs and 2) Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs (Murray et al. 2011b, c). These reports are publicly available on the departments’ website.These standards for disease control will only be effective if implemented. It is important to note that the implementation of the minimum set of disease standards refers to individuals, as well as organisations. Thus promoting a greater awareness of the existence and purpose of these standards is essential for this action to be effective.The effectiveness of promising treatments for the disease should be further investigated by the states and ACT, followed by broad promotion of the outcomes.

16 of 91

302

Item 12.1.3


that there are few proven treatments. Heat has been tested successfully on a few species but is not broadly applicable. The current widespread treatment protocol with itraconazole has not been adequately tested. Optimizing and validating itraconazole treatment is a priority. The JCU pathogenesis study (Voyles et al. 2009) showed that supplementing with electrolytes can improve clinical signs in sick frogs. Sam Young trialled this in combination with antifungals in three severely ill frogs and the success of this protocol demonstrates that this holds promise for intensive treatment of valuable individuals (Young et al. in press).Approval for scientific licences for research and management of frogs in NSW requires strict adherence to hygiene protocols.No releases to the wild are currently permitted in ACT except for threatened species reintroduction under licence. Captive populations and releases must conform to Amphibian Ark guidelines (Pessier and Mendelson 2010). The only releases so far have been captive-bred northern corroboree frogs in 2011, which were screened for chytrid fungus prior to release. Release site known to have chytrid present but

17 of 91

Item 12.1.3


there were no suitable chytrid-free alternatives.No state-wide standards have been developed for Vic. Frog breeding facilities, such as the Amphibian Research Centre (ARC), located at Werribee, and Zoos Victoria, apply their own standards. Any captive to wild releases of frogs requires animal ethics committee approval, Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Translocation Evaluation Panel approval and a DSE research permit. In SA captive to wild releases of frogs require approval from animal ethics committee and research permit from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).In Tas. one pilot assurance colony for the Tasmanian tree frog has been established at Bonorong Wildlife Park aiming to determine husbandry and captive breeding requirements for this species. They follow principles outlined in ‘A Manual for Control of Infectious Diseases in Amphibian Survival Assurance Colonies and Reintroduction Programs’.

1.2.2: Establish an accreditation system for commercial facilities that sell amphibians to certify chytridiomycosis-free status after meeting criteria

This action has not been undertaken in any jurisdiction.

Not effective -very little benefit to be gained from this action

The value of this action to amphibian conservation would possibly not justify the effort required to implement it. However, with increasing awareness in biosecurity and disease control, accreditation may be a marketing advantage for commercial facilities. In addition, as more facilities become accredited as chytrid

18 of 91

Item 12.1.3


based on the points in Action 1.2.1 (Category 1).

free, could provide more awareness across a broader base. A cost benefit analysis may be useful before deciding that this action has no merit.Currently this action has not been achieved and therefore was not effective. Stakeholders see this action as potentially useful but a lower priority due to limited resourcing.

1.2.3: For areas with chytridiomycosis, the same protocol to manage accidentally translocated amphibians should be implemented as listed for areas that are chytridiomycosis-free (Category 2) (see Action 1.4.1).

Most jurisdictions have no specific protocol to deal with accidentally translocated amphibians but the incidence of this occurring was considered by most stakeholders to be quite low and has mostly been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, Vic. reports a significant number of accidentally translocated frogs.The ACT reported that no accidentally translocated amphibians in the ACT have been released.

Very little known about this action and very little comment was received. Therefore it is considered to have not been effective.Victoria expressed concerns that the incidence of accidental translocations may actually be higher than what has been reported - due to lack of public awareness.

If protocols are to be developed to manage translocated amphibians, they could cover both chytrid free and chytrid-infected areas as a matter of course. Managing translocated amphibians requires a degree of knowledge on what defines a translocated amphibian and what to do about it. Given that the incidence of translocation has been reported by most stakeholders to be relatively low, this action may not be a high priority. However, concerns were raised by some stakeholders regarding the risks posed to threatened populations from even a low number of translocations of infected frogs.Some stakeholders saw no further requirement for this action, however others (Vic. in particular) would like to see this action remain a priority.

1.2.4: Assist industries that pose the greatest risk of accidental translocation of amphibians (including tadpoles) to develop protocols to prevent amphibians entering produce nursery or other material prior to movement. Strategies used in the banana industry at Tully, Qld could provide a good model for other industries (Category 3).

Some work towards this action has been undertaken by the Qld government who performed extensive sampling of frogs in banana plantations in North Qld with the aim of understanding the risks posed through accidental translocation of frogs in bananas (and other horticultural produce and plant nursery material). Only one frog in a large sample was found to have chytrid fungus.JCU has provided some advice to the banana industry to mitigate risks. None of the other jurisdictions have

Limited comments received indicate that this action could be effective. However, it was thought that the limited value of this action to amphibian conservation would not justify the effort required to implement such a strategy and it relies heavily on effective communication with industry to incorporate protocols into standard operating procedures.

If chytrid poses no threat to an industry, asking them to implement an additional procedure would be an extra cost in the form of staff and time, which would essentially not benefit them.If preventing the accidental translocation of amphibians as far as is practicable was mandatory, i.e. linked to a licence or export permit, there would more incentive to carry this action out.The magnitude of risk regarding translocation issues for various industries in different areas needs to be quantified, so that the requirement for action can be prioritised. For example, the banana industry carries a high level of risk of accidental translocations. While the degree to which translocation occurs remains unknown or not-reported, this action cannot be effective.

19 of 91

Item 12.1.3


implemented this action except for Tas., who has addressed accidental translocation of amphibians via activities such as extracting pond water for fire-fighting or road spraying in the Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity Program. Mitigation measures and associated SOPs will be developed.

Many stakeholders see no further requirement for this action; however Vic. in particular would like to see this action remain a priority as to not progress it poses an ongoing risk.

4.1.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatThis objective of this action group has been partially met by the development of the two reports: “Guidelines for captive breeding, raising and restocking programs” and “Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs”, which are publicly available on the departments’ website (see list at Attachment C). However, these standards for disease control will require ongoing implementation to be effective. It is also essential to promote a greater awareness of the existence and purpose of these standards amongst the general public and industry as the level of awareness of the risks posed by translocated amphibians is currently very low.

The other actions in this group were not achieved to any great extent. The incidence of accidental translocation of frogs over the last six years was reported by most stakeholders to be relatively low, with the notable exception of Victoria. However, concerns remain that even a relatively small number of accidental translocations of infected amphibians posed a very high risk to threatened populations.

4.1.3 Action group 1.3 – Reduce risk at destination


20 of 91

303

304305306307308309310311312313

314

315

316317318319

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.3 Summary of actions towards the reduction of risk at destination.

Actions Key stakeholder comments Achievement Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of Action

1.3.1: Prevent the release of amphibians taken from areas with chytridiomycosis into chytridiomycosis free areas. Their captive-bred progeny may, however, be released into chytridiomycosis-free areas if sourced from a chytridiomycosis-free accredited facility (Category 4).

The ABC has provided advice in the form of guidelines and protocols (Murray et al. 2011b, c).Approval for amphibian translocation programs in NSW requires demonstration that released individuals will be free from chytrid infection.No known chytrid-free areas in the ACT. However, captive populations and releases are according to Pessier and Mendelson (2010), which also meet guidelines for this TAP.

In Vic., areas that are “chytrid-free” are protected via various mechanisms, including strict hygiene protocols for researchers and pre-release testing for chytrid prior to any captive to wild movement of frogs (e.g., reintroduction following captive breeding). A recently discovered population of the threatened Alpine Tree Frog is believed to occur in a chytrid-free area (see refs); this site is subject to very stringent hygiene protocols.Frog researchers in Vic. are also making considerable efforts to educate colleagues and relevant organisations (e.g., Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water, CMAs), about chytridiomycosis and hygiene protocols.Tas. will incorporate this action into any future translocation plan

Limited comments received indicate that this action could be considered effective but further information would be useful.

Issues around enforcing this action so that it is effective include: what groups are releasing amphibians, who certifies it and who polices it on the ground. Without national coordination, the variation in the aforementioned processes across the many jurisdictions has the potential to render this action ineffective at a national level.

21 of 91

320

Item 12.1.3


1.3.2: Prevent release of amphibians derived from areas with chytridiomycosis into chytrid contaminated areas. However, release can be permitted if these amphibians are:• sourced from a chytridiomycosis-free accredited facility; and• tested and shown to be chytridiomycosis-free prior to release (Category 4).If tadpoles are originally sourced from the release site, release can be permitted if the amphibians have been treated prior to release with a technique with very high efficacy against chytridiomycosis and a sample has been tested and shown to be chytridiomycosis-free prior to release.

As above for NSW, ACT, Tas. and Vic.WA commented that this action is bad management for population genetics.Comments were received from Qld suggesting that this action is not practical as it makes no distinction between (a) animals derived from chytrid -positive areas being released into different chytrid-positive areas and (b) animals from chytrid-positive areas being released back at their site of origin.

Limited stakeholder comments were received, those that were submitted indicate that this action has been effective in minimising the spread of chytrid among sites.

There are a lot of ‘ifs’ that need to be adhered to for release of amphibians to be carried out according to this action. This action disregards population genetic issues in attempting to control the spread if chytrid through release programs.This action has only been partially effective in that controls for chytrid need to be in place before any releases occur, but requires close examination of what conservation outcomes it is trying to achieve, given that many of the ‘ifs’ are not cost effective or accessible to a wide variety of people and organisations.

1.3.3: Subject any amphibians that are accidentally translocated in agricultural produce or nursery material into chytridiomycosis-free areas to quarantine, and

None of the jurisdictions has a formal policy to deal with accidentally translocated frogs. However, the ACT and NSW appear to have implemented this action wherever possible via various methods.In SA, accidentally translocated cane

Potentially effective but difficult to implement as it is impractical due to the large scope

This action could in essence be effective, but it needs to be implemented, supported and promoted at national and state levels to engage people on the ground, who acquire goods with accidentally translocated amphibians.Community groups supporting frogs may have a key role in implementing this action, as they have more of an accessible presence than government agencies. If unaware of issues

22 of 91

Item 12.1.3


either painless destruction or treatment and testing for chytridiomycosis, prior to dissemination for permanent housing in collections from which the specimens cannot be released to the wild (Category 4).

toads will be destroyed regardless of whether infected with Bd or not.

around chytrid, the public may contribute to accidental translocation of amphibians through the release of frogs in any goods they have acquired. This action has only been as effective as the knowledge of the person who finds translocated frogs, thus unquantified and unable to be assessed at this point, other than to say that there is no national strategy or policy to put this action into place.

4.1.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat

This action group could in essence be effective, but it needs to be implemented, supported and promoted at national and state levels to engage people on the ground. None of the jurisdictions has a formal policy to deal with accidentally translocated frogs so therefore the goals of this action group were not achieved. As mentioned for the previous action group the level of risk to threatened populations posed by any translocations could be quite high.

4.1.4 Action group 1.4 – Develop, implement and promote hygiene protocols


23 of 91

321

322

323324325326

327

328

329330331332333334335336337338

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.4 Summary of actions towards the development and implementation of hygiene protocols.


1.4.1: Use existing state protocols for quarantine and handling amphibians in chytridiomycosis-free areas as a basis to develop a national protocol (Category 1). This could potentially be modelled on the Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Disease in Frogs prepared and implemented by New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and informed by research results from Action 3.4.3 and experience

The ABC has developed a hygiene protocol for field work that includes modification of the stringency of disinfection methods needed after calculating the risk for each frog population, type of work and people involved (Phillott et al. 2010). They then developed hygiene protocols for Australian amphibians which were submitted as a report to the Australian Government (Murray et al. 2011b, c).Most jurisdictions have been using the NSW Hygiene Protocol or Hygiene guidelines developed by Phillott et al. (2010) as the basis for their procedures.Procedure used in ACT is consistent with NSW guidelines and Skerratt et al. (2010)Vic. does not have any existing state protocols; however they have previously used the NSW guidelines or Phillott et al. (2010).Tas. has hygiene and handling protocols which incorporate the same principles as NSW hygiene protocols.

This action was seen as generally effective but the protocols are currently based on in vitro laboratory trials and theory and have not been tested under field conditions. Modes of anthropogenic transmission also require research.

This is a key action that has largely been implemented. There seems to be substantial work on protocols and strategies around hygiene and quarantine, but more work on evaluating the effect of these strategies in the field is required, before any effective national strategy can be developed. The hygiene protocols for Australian amphibians report has been developed by JCU and made available on the departments’ website.

1.4.2: Implement field hygiene protocols that aim to prevent transmission of amphibian chytrid fungus, that are not so rigorous as to discourage or prevent research on or study of amphibian populations, and that realistically assess risks associated with all users of water catchments

The ABC provided advice based on research outcomes to the Tas. and Qld governments on implementation of hygiene protocols (Please see http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/pdf2010/keepingitcleanweb.pdf andhttp://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02905aa.pdf )

This TAP action has been quite well addressed and comments received indicate that it has likely been effective at minimising the transmission of chytrid, both within and among sites, as a result of field research on frogs.

A lot of work on hygiene protocols has been carried out since the 2006 TAP. Jurisdictional field protocols may consist of a combination of documents, which could be a replication of material and are more than likely in various stages of relevance depending on subsequent work published after them, such as Phillott et al. (2010). Given the cost and time to get such protocols to press and disseminated to field workers, the way in which

24 of 91

339

Item 12.1.3


(Category 4). In Qld a technical manual "Hygiene protocol for handling amphibians" (see column 6) has been prepared to minimise the risk of spread of Bd and other pathogens through various activities that the QLD government controls/ authorises. This protocol needs to be updated to include additional information in Phillott et al. (2010)Procedures used in NSW and ACT are consistent with NSW guidelines and Skerratt et al. (2010).Vic. advocate the use of the Hygiene Guidelines developed by Phillott et al. (2010).Tas. is aiming is to minimise the spread of pests, weeds and pathogens (including Bd) into the TWWHA by the use of biosecurity / hygiene principles based on ‘Keeping it Clean: A Tasmanian field hygiene manual to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens’.Hygiene protocols used in SA are adopted from a paper by Hyatt et al (2007).

new material is incorporated in existing best practise documents should be seen as critical to facilitating the effectiveness of this action. This action has been partially met through most jurisdictions implementing or advocating some form of hygiene protocol. However, the variable approaches have resulted in the action being only partially effective. Some national coordination may be of benefit.This is a key action that requires the implementation by the states and territories of the protocols that have been developed in the previous action.

1.4.3: Ensure licences and permits for wildlife or flora studies or other activities that have the potential to transmit amphibian chytrid fungus into chytridiomycosis-free areas, include conditions that require the use of appropriate disinfection strategies between sites using techniques other than drying as listed in Table 3 of the

This action is very difficult to enforce with regards to tourists, bushwalkers etc.With regards to research activities most jurisdictions have procedures for including conditions on appropriate hygiene protocols.In Qld the technical manual "Hygiene protocol for handling amphibians" provides protocols to minimise the risk of spread of Bd and other pathogens through various activities that the QLD

This action was generally seen by stakeholders as being effective if properly implemented and complied with. However, the actual adherence by field operators to the conditions is not known.

This action is about ensuring that the appropriate information has been developed for target audiences and is disseminated with licences or other appropriate forums. In some cases, manuals may not be the most appropriate information to disseminate, as they are quite comprehensive and involved, and depending on the person, may not be utilised to the full.Partially met, as manual and information exists, but only effective only if properly implemented (most likely by government agencies) with good compliance.This action appears to have been implemented by most

25 of 91

Item 12.1.3


background document (Category 4).

government controls/authorises. This protocol needs to be updated to include additional information in Phillott et al. (2010). Additionally the ABC has provided advice on hygiene requirements for scientific permit holders.In NSW each licence application must adhere to the NSW protocols and is also considered as to whether additional protocols are required.In ACT procedures are consistent with NSW guidelines and Skerratt et al. (2010) and licence conditions request researchers to follow correct hygiene protocol in areas that have threatened species.The Vic. research permit system, various animal ethics committees and the DSE Translocation Evaluation Panel direct compliance with this action by people working with frogs. However, it is not routinely considered in all research permits and there are inadequate resources to ensure actual compliance in the field.Tas. biological research permits require the adoption of hygiene protocols. These are based on ‘Keeping it Clean: A Tasmanian field hygiene manual to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens’.WA has not had any requirements for several years.

of the jurisdictions, with the exception of WA and possibly SA. The actual compliance by the field operators is outside this action but clearly relevant to its effectiveness.

26 of 91

Item 12.1.3

4.1.4.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatA lot of work on improving hygiene protocols has been carried out since 2006. The Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian Frogs (Murray et al 2011c) report has been developed by leading researchers at James Cook University and made available on the departments’ website.

This is a key action group that requires the implementation by the states and territories of the protocols that have been developed. Most jurisdictions are implementing or advocating some form of hygiene protocol, but the variable approaches taken to date have resulted in the action being only partially effective. It is also difficult to verify that protocols are adhered to in field situations. Further national coordination may be of benefit.

4.1.5 Action group 1.5 – Prevent release of B. dendrobatidis from laboratories


Table 4.5 Summary of actions to prevent release of B. Dendrobatidis from laboratories.


1.5.1: Laboratories experimenting with B. dendrobatidis to follow PC2 (see glossary) protocols including sterilisation or disinfection of cultures, contaminated water or equipment (by one of the techniques listed in Table 3 of the background document). Drying should not be used as the sole technique (Category 4).

The only laboratories that claim to have complied with this action are JCU, University of Newcastle and those in Tas.The situation is unknown for all other jurisdictions.

Not possible to determine the general effectiveness of action on the limited information provided.

This action has been reported by a limited number of stakeholders to be effective and as having no significant additional cost on top of experimental procedures. Issues rose at the workshop regarding PC24 procedures being too restrictive for most researchers. This may need to be considered in the future.

4 Refers to standard of certification for laboratories - Physical Containment Level 2

27 of 91

340

341342343344345346

347

348

349350351352

353

5

Item 12.1.3

4.1.5.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatThis action was determined to have been partially met as it was not possible to comprehensively determine the degree of implementation but most stakeholders indicated compliance with the action.

4.1.6 Conclusion of assessment of contribution to change of threat from Objective 1It is concluded that while there has been some useful progress towards achieving the goals of Objective 1, Prevention of pathogen spread overall; there has been limited contribution to the change of threat through this objective. Some of the actions were found to be no longer relevant, in part due to new knowledge about the disease and in part due to the almost complete spread of the disease to all climatically suitable areas throughout Australia. The stakeholders commented that at this point in time it would be much more useful to change the focus of the TAP from containing the disease to suppressing and mitigating the effects of the disease on threatened amphibian species.

4.2 Objective 2: Recovery of listed threatened speciesTo promote the recovery of nationally listed threatened amphibian species that are known or perceived to be threatened by infection with B. dendrobatidis.Performance indicator: Strategies, protocols and actions to limit the impact of infection for each species are included in recovery actions, including threatened species recovery plans.

4.2.1 Action group 2.1 – Manage threatened amphibians to minimise the threat from chytridiomycosis


28 of 91

354

355356357358359

360361362363364365366

367

368369370371

372

373

374375376377378379380381382

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.6 Summary of actions to manage threatened amphibians to minimise the threat from chytridiomycosis


2.1.1: Coordinate captive breeding, captive husbandry and restocking programs across states and territories to maximise effectiveness of activities and knowledge in producing high quality outcomes (Category 1).

There is currently no up-to-date resource identifying all captive breeding and reintroduction programs in Australia and their progress to date. The closest to a current web-accessible list is the Amphibian Ark site, though this is not up to date nor detailed.Captive breeding programs are being undertaken at a number of institutions, in collaboration with the relevant state wildlife authorities. The current programs occurring in Australia are listed below.Taronga Zoosouthern corroboree frognorthern corroboree froggreen and golden bell frogyellow-spotted bell frogBooroolong frogAlpine tree frog

Amphibian Research Centresouthern corroboree frogspotted tree frogBooroolong frog

Melbourne Zoosouthern corroboree frogsouthern barred frogBaw Baw frog

Healesville Sanctuarysouthern corroboree frognorthern corroboree frogspotted tree frog

This action has been shown to be potentially effective with some positive results (e.g. preventing the extinction of the southern corroboree frog). However, to date little national co-ordination has occurred and there is limited understanding of how self-sustaining populations in the wild can be achieved (e.g. facilitating selection for resistance, manipulating habitat, assisted colonisation to new areas).

Currently there is no mechanism for organisations to coordinate and share information regarding issues in this action. Any repository for captive breeding data, husbandry info and restocking programs would need to be accessible (establish who these people/ groups are) and be updated with current info very regularly. However, many of the organisations involved in captive breeding programs are members of Zoo and Aquarium Australia (ZAA), an organisation who have a team working on keeping their website up to date. Conservation of species through studbook programs is part of ZAA’s core business and there may be opportunity to coordinate and share captive breeding programs through this already established database/ website. A data sharing arrangement would need to be investigated and what benefits and access to data each group had, and how non-members would access and input data.The communication strategy outlined in Objective 4 would contribute to the coordination and knowledge sharing and therefore the future achievement of this action.Translocation could be an issue in restocking programs, and potential issues regarding translocation have been raised in addressing various actions in Objective 1.This is a priority action that is still ongoing.

29 of 91

383

Item 12.1.3


Tidbinbilla Nature Reservenorthern corroboree frog

Perth Zooorange-bellied frogwhite-bellied frogsunset frog

Currumbin SanctuaryEungella tinker frog

Bonorong Wildlife ParkTasmanian tree frog

The ABC has been conducting research on using immunity to chytridiomycosis to improve the success of restocking programs. This has been in collaboration with major reintroduction programs conducted by NSW government, Taronga Conservation Society and the Amphibian Research Centre.

2.1.2: Establish national guidelines to standardise techniques for, and approaches to, captive breeding, raising and restocking programs (Category 2).

There are currently no guidelines to standardise rearing techniques for captive breeding and rearing of offspring. This is largely due to the vast differences in the biology of the species housed requiring often quite different techniques and approaches to captive breeding. Steps have been made in recent years to bring together current knowledge of amphibian husbandry. The American Zoological Association authored a manual on husbandry guidelines.The ABC has developed captive husbandry guidelines for Australian amphibians which addressed disease control standards (please see Action 1.2.1). These were submitted as a report

This action would be expected to effectively improve captive husbandry – the report prepared by JCU for the department should at least partly address this action, however many questions seem to remain about whether or not approaches to captive breeding, raising and restocking programs can actually be standardised between species.

The ABC has developed a captive husbandry manual, which addresses disease control (Murray et al. 2011b,c), which is an important component of captive breeding programs. However, it has been suggested that due to the large biological differences between amphibian species, quite often different techniques and approaches to captive breeding are necessary.This action has been effective at dealing with some single elements that may be generic to all amphibians, such as captive husbandry, methods of isolation, water circulation and sterilization. However, the action has not been met in establishing national guidelines. This action may not need any further work due to the differences in techniques required for individual species.

30 of 91

Item 12.1.3


to the Australian Government (Murray et al. 2011b, c).ACT has adopted best practice guidelines for its northern corroboree frog breeding program, consistent with Pessier and Mendelson (2010), and Young et al. (2007), and incorporates new information as it becomes available.

2.1.3: Expand knowledge of, and infrastructure for, captive breeding of amphibians, particularly with respect to species that are threatened or particularly vulnerable to chytridiomycosis (Category 2).

Captive husbandry has not been encouraged by the QLD government. However, Griffith University in conjunction with Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary have commenced a captive husbandry project for the Eungella tinker frog also known as the Liem's frog or Liem's tinker frog (Taudactylus liemi).Research undertaken by ABC (Shaw et al. accepted) on poor health in captive collections of endangered NZ frogs led to findings of broad relevance to maintaining frogs in captivity, including improved nutritional status and non-fluoridated water.Since the adoption of the Chytrid TAP, the following husbandry institutions have increased their capacity for facilitating conservation of frogs threatened by chytrid: Taronga Zoo, Zoos Vic., Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve and Currumbin Sanctuary.In NSW, captive breeding of the threatened Green and golden bell frog has been conducted at Newcastle University.ACT Government has established a captive breeding and release program for northern corroboree frogs. Northern corroboree frogs sent to Taronga Zoo and Healesville Sanctuary.Zoos Vic. has established specialised captive breeding facilities at Healesville Sanctuary and Melbourne Zoo for four species: spotted tree

This action is considered to be effective, and has resulted in improving captive husbandry and providing captive assurance colonies in south-eastern mainland Australia. However it has only been partially implemented and little is still known about many of the threatened species, some of which are in imminent danger of extinction. Any information that increases the efficiency of captive breeding programs will be of significant value.Capacity building required in several states such as Tas. and Qld.

This action has the potential to be very effective but requires further work to fully implement it. The sharing of knowledge should be a priority, as this would effectively reduce the work that needs to be done by jurisdictions where the knowledge already exists, and allow the limited funding for research in this field to be put to more strategic use.The communication strategy outlined in Objective 4 would contribute to the coordination and knowledge sharing and therefore the future achievement of this action.

31 of 91

Item 12.1.3


frog, southern corroboree frog, stuttering frog or southern barred frog, and Baw Baw frog.In Tas. one pilot assurance colony for the Tasmanian tree frog has been established at Bonorong Wildlife Park.In WA, Perth Zoo with University of Western Australia sponsored two PhD students working on improved reproduction in frogs.

2.1.4: Monitor threatened species of amphibians to determine changes in distribution and abundance, prevalence and deaths due to chytridiomycosis (Category 2).

Very little monitoring of amphibian populations is currently occurring in Qld. There is some monitoring of threatened amphibian populations by universities but this information is not stored centrally.JCU has conducted population monitoring in north and south-east Qld. Extensive investigations of disease ecology in both frogs and tadpoles have shown that: survivorship of infected frogs is reduced; Bd continues to severely impact amphibian populations where it is endemic although the effects are not obvious unless intensive population studies are conducted; and there is evidence for selection for innate immunity/tolerance within species.Monitoring in NSW and Qld has shown seasonal changes in prevalence and infection load. When climatic conditions are optimal then prevalence and intensity of infection of Bd can be very high and chytridiomycosis can cause significant morbidity and mortality where endemic.The following species threatened by chytrid are the focus of monitoring programs in south-east NSW: southern and northern corroboree frogs, spotted tree frog, Alpine tree frog, yellow spotted bell frog.Annual monitoring program for northern

This action is potentially effective and has shown benefits from its limited implementation. However, in virtually all jurisdictions there are currently many threatened species about which little is known regarding their distribution.Monitoring programs were identified by all stakeholders as critical for informing conservation programs for the preservation of threatened species.

It has been proposed that an accurate understanding of any species’ current distribution is essential for implementing an effective monitoring program, especially for frogs species threatened by chytrid, as well as being very resource intensive to do it properly and relate it to chytrid.This action could be effective at helping prioritise species of concern that need assistance to prevent extinction and promote recovery. However, the threatened species that have the same level of risk from chytrid need to be recognised so that appropriate action can be undertaken.None of the threatened frog species listed at the time of the making of the TAP in 2006 have decreased in their threatened status. However, four species have increased in their threatened status since 2006, including one species being added to the threatened list. In many cases, there has been insufficient monitoring and evaluation of the species to understand the population dynamics and there may also be other significant threats to those species, such as habitat loss, meaning that the species has not had a chance to recover. It is also not possible to determine whether chytrid fungus is likely to become a key threatening process to amphibians that are currently not threatened.

32 of 91

Item 12.1.3


corroboree frogs in the ACT since 1985.In Vic. there are various specific programs for monitoring some threatened frog species. Funding is limited and the two long term monitoring programs (spotted tree frog and Baw Baw frog) have persisted due to the dedication of individual researchers. Other monitoring programs target Booroolong frogs, Alpine tree frogs and growling grass frogs.Tas. has monitoring programs for its two threatened amphibian species, green and gold frog and the striped marsh frog. The current and historic distribution of both species has been modelled.Pilot survey on the distribution of Bd on the southern bell frog has been conducted in two bioregions in South Australia: the Murray-Darling Basin and south-eastern SA.The WA government has monitoring protocols for population size of three threatened frog species but no specific chytrid monitoring protocols.

2.1.5: Use cryopreservation for Australian amphibian species, with priority on threatened species, in such a manner as to allow cloning in the future or have gametes preserved to allow artificial breeding (Category 2).

This action has not been implemented by the states as a conservation measure. There is an unpublished report “Cryopreservation and Reconstitution Technologies: A Proposal to Establish A Genome Resource Bank For Threatened Australian Amphibians” (compiled by Mahony & Clulow, unpublished report) that was used by JCU in the preparation of their reports: guidelines for captive breeding and hygiene protocols (Murray et al. 2011b, c).Some significant research has been conducted at several institutions and an effective international collaboration for genome banking and assisted

No effective actions have taken place as a direct result of the TAP.None of the seven “presumed extinct species” of Australian frogs has a national repository of frozen tissues despite the technology for the cryopreservation of cells (including spermatozoa), tissue and cell culture lines being well established.No national approach to genome banking has been established.

Preliminary work on cryopreservation has been undertaken (Mahony & Clulow, unpublished). This has not been a top priority for promoting conservation in the past, but may be important and have very real benefits now that large declines of many frog species and populations have occurred in such a short timeframe.Once cryopreservation techniques have been successfully developed for threatened species, progeny must be able to be restocked into the environment (maintaining population genetics) and be able to survive chytrid, the strains and distribution that exist at that time. This action has not been met and further work is

33 of 91

Item 12.1.3


reproductive technologies is operating. Sperm storage is now reasonably well established. Guidelines are necessary for strategies and management of genome resource banks.

required.

2.1.6: Restock species that are under severe threat from infection with chytridiomycosis using captive-raised and captive-bred stock. Implement this under an adaptive management framework that heeds relevant state, national and international (IUCN) standards on translocations and monitor the outcome (Category 3).

This action has not been undertaken in Qld. The ABC has been conducting research on using immunity to chytridiomycosis to improve the success of restocking programs. This has been in collaboration with major reintroduction programs conducted by the NSW government, Taronga Conservation Society and the Amphibian Research Centre.Preliminary investigations being carried out at JCU with respect to possible restocking and translocations of the armoured mistfrog.In NSW, restocking/reintroduction programs are currently being undertaken in south-eastern NSW for: southern and northern corroboree frog and spotted tree frog. While these programs have demonstrated the capacity to effectively reintroduce captive bred/reared individuals back to the wild, self-sustaining populations have not been achieved. Several restocking (translocation) projects involving the green and golden bell frog have occurred in NSW. The projects have followed the international (IUCN) and state guidelines on translocation. The outcomes have been closely monitored and some outcomes have been reported in the scientific literature, others await publication.Two large industry sponsored programs that involve a large captive breeding program, habitat restoration and reintroduction of the threatened green and golden bell frog are currently underway in NSW. Mitigation against

Most stakeholders see this is a critical action to ensure the short-term survival of some of the most threatened species.However, more work is required on understanding the interactions between chytrid and frog survival in reintroduction programs and techniques to achieve self-sustaining populations in the wild need to be developed.

While threatened frog species exist in captivity, it would be a waste of resources to re-introduce them into an environment where there is a significant risk to their survival from chytrid. This action is critical, but a balanced and perhaps conservative approach needs to be considered to ensure the limited resources available for captive breeding produce the best conservation outcomes.This action has been partially effective in that captive breeding and re-stocking programs have progressed with improved success. However, the progress of restocking programs needs to be monitored over years (perhaps outside the time frame of the TAP) in order to really assess the value and effectiveness of this action. Identified as a high priority.

34 of 91

Item 12.1.3


chytrid is a key component.Reintroduction program undertaken in ACT for northern corroboree frog.Re-stocking programs have occurred for spotted tree frogs in Buffalo National Park, and for Booroolong frogs in north-eastern Vic.No amphibian reintroductions or translocation have occurred in Tas. or SA to date.In WA the white-bellied frog or creek frog and sunset frog both had releases of captive bred stocks in 2011.

2.1.7: Include strategies to limit the impact of infection with the amphibian chytrid in infected species as a component of threatened species recovery plans and relevant regional and local management plans (Category 4).

Recovery plans for Queensland's threatened frogs are out of date. However, work is proceeding at JCU to develop strategies to limit the impact of chytrid.Conservation planning for all threatened frog species in NSW considers management of chytrid impacts. Experimental reintroduction was funded as a component of the green and golden bell frog recovery plan.ACT has identified strategies but it is unclear as to whether this is a part of the relevant recovery plan.Issues surrounding chytridiomycosis are now routinely included in most relevant documents produced in Victoria.Strategies to minimise impact of growling grass frog (also known as Southern bell frog, Southern bell frog, green and golden frog, warty swamp frog) included in Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan.SA has included relevant objectives and actions in its green and golden bell frog recovery plan.In WA a new recovery plan is under consideration for both threatened amphibian species.

Generally seen as potentially effective but hasn’t been implemented and needs to be adopted across states and territories.

It should be noted that incorporating similar strategies in many recovery plans may not be an optimal way to limit the impact of chytrid, especially if frequent updating is required.This action is important and needs to be incorporated into relevant recovery plans, and regional and local management plans.

35 of 91

Item 12.1.3


2.1.8: Monitor species that are currently chytridiomycosis-free (and are shown to be resistant to chytridiomycosis by the standard laboratory experimental model in Action 3.3.3) at a lower level than species that are susceptible (Category 4).

In Qld, there is some monitoring of populations of the Wallum sedge frog by the QLD government but no information is available on the status of Bd. Populations of this species have also been recently monitored by Griffith University.Research by K. Hauselberger (Ph.D. thesis JCU) has established that microhylid frogs in the Wet Tropics are (1) largely free from infection by Bd in the field; (2) susceptible to infection by Bd in the laboratory, but the one species tested, Ornate nursery frog (Cophixalus ornatus), rapidly clears infections and does not develop signs of chytridiomycosis; (3) at least some populations appear to have been stable at high abundances since the mid-1990s despite being in regions where extensive declines have occurred in hylid frogs (Hauselberger thesis, Hauselberger, K., & Alford, R. (2005)).In NSW, some work has been done on susceptibility differences between co-occurring species with different decline patterns. This has shown that the non-declining striped marsh frog or brown striped frog (Limnodynastes peronii) possesses a mechanism to inhibit and reverse the progression of infection. In south-east NSW, only species perceived highly threatened by chytrid are the focus of targeted monitoring programs so little information is available on less susceptible species.This action has not been progressed in ACT.Resistance has not been established for Vic. species. There are no monitoring programs for species that are considered to be resistant.In Tas. current research targeting highly

Most stakeholders consider this action reasonably effective, particularly in prioritising species for biosecurity and emergency response.This action is generally conducted as part of field surveys for threatened species. However, there is currently no mechanism to share this information.WA considers this action very risky for their situation – if the Skerratt et al. protocols were followed in WA no frogs would be monitored as just about all breed in temporary ponds.

This action is currently being undertaken by most states and the ACT. However, modification to the action may be required to consider the situation in WA.Models predicting distribution of chytrid may not predict necessarily how a species / population will be affected, it may just provide an indication as to where positive detections will be found but not necessarily declines or disease (e.g. WA)

36 of 91

Item 12.1.3


susceptible Tasmanian tree frog and secondarily another endemic species of unknown susceptibility, the Tasmanian froglet (Crinia tasmaniensis). Chytrid status at same sites also monitored. Reservoir resistant species monitored at the same sites as endemic susceptible species as they probably play an important role in transmission.Eastern Australian data suggest chytrid is rare or non-existent in species in temporary water bodies; however chytrid has been detected in frog species associated with ephemeral water bodies in WA.

2.1.9: Apply more stringent quarantine and hygiene protocols, than those specified in Actions 1.4.2, 1.4.3 and 1.5.1 to populations of amphibians that are identified as being particularly vulnerable to extinction (Category 4).

Qld has found it difficult to enforce Restricted Access Areas in protected areas to protect vulnerable populations from non-essential visits. R. Puschendorf, R. Alford, and others are attempting to establish quarantine protocols for the armoured mistfrog, which was discovered in a single population in 2008.An area in Kosciuszko National Park that has been identified as chytrid-free, has the additional quarantine procedures: Visiting this site does not follow visits to other frog sites on any particular fieldtrip; all clothing and equipment taken to the site must be sterilised prior to entering the site.ACT has strict protocols adopted, consistent with this action.In Tas. ‘Keeping it Clean; A Tasmanian field hygiene manual to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens’ provides general hygiene protocols and also a risk assessment approach to increase level of hygiene in high risk areas.Only one threatened frog species in SA the

This action is generally considered effective as it identifies that it is not possible or necessary to adopt the highest level of quarantine across all frog sites

This action has been met where necessary.

37 of 91

Item 12.1.3


growling grass frog, (southern bell frog, green and golden frog, warty swamp frog) and both populations coexist with chytrid fungus.All three threatened species in WA co-exist with chytrid – no new protocol is likely to have any impact on risk.

4.2.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatSome key components of this important action group and objective have been partially achieved: Researchers at the James Cook University (Murray et al. 2011b,c) developed a captive husbandry manual that addresses disease control, but

national guidelines have not been established. Additionally, due to the large biological differences between amphibian species, quite often different techniques and approaches to captive breeding are necessary.

Currently there is no mechanism for stakeholders to coordinate and share information on captive breeding of amphibians but the proposed communication strategy outlined in Objective 4 would be expected to contribute to the future achievement of this goal.

Captive breeding and re-stocking programs have progressed with improved success. However, more work is required on understanding of the interactions between chytrid and frog survival in reintroduction programs and also techniques to achieve self-sustaining populations in the wild need to be developed. Most stakeholders see this is a high priority to ensure the short-term survival of some of the most threatened species.

Many other actions under this objective were not achieved. Monitoring programs were identified by all stakeholders as critical for informing conservation programs for the preservation of threatened

species. However, in virtually all jurisdictions there are currently many threatened species about which little is known regarding their distribution, mainly due to resource constraints.

There has been no cryopreservation of threatened amphibian species in Australia and no national approach to genome banking has been established.

4.2.2 Conclusion of assessment of contribution to change of threat from Objective 2

In conclusion, under Objective 2: Recovery of listed threatened species there has been important work undertaken to minimise the threat to and improve the recovery of listed threatened amphibian species but there is still much to be done. Priorities include: coordinated monitoring and surveillance programs; captive breeding and reintroduction protocols; and the establishment of a genome bank. The majority of the work to date has been supported by funding from independent sources and its completion and implementation requires further funding and resources. When assessing

38 of 91

384

385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

402403404405406407

Item 12.1.3

actions taken under this objective the conclusion is that the actions have made a very limited contribution to threat abatement. There has been no evidence to suggest an improvement in the status of any of the identified threatened amphibians. None of the threatened frog species listed at the time of the making of the TAP in 2006 have decreased in their threatened status. However, four species have increased in their threatened status since 2006, including one species being added to the threatened list. In many cases, there has been insufficient monitoring and evaluation of the species to understand the population dynamics and there may also be other significant threats to those species, such as habitat loss, meaning that the species has not had a chance to recover. It is also not possible to determine whether chytrid fungus is likely to become a key threatening process to amphibians that are currently not threatened.

4.3 Objective 3: Research and monitoringTo improve the effectiveness and efficiency or the management of infection with amphibian chytrid through appropriate research and monitoring programmes.Performance indicators: 1. Standardised diagnostic tools are used to inform an understanding of the national distribution and prevalence of the disease. 2. Management strategies are informed of emerging information provided through research.

The amphibian chytrid was first identified in 1998. While significant progress has been made in understanding the disease, its biology in the environment is virtually unknown. This is a major obstacle to developing evidence-based control measures. Control strategies can be proposed with our current knowledge, but the poor understanding of how B. dendrobatidis behaves in the environment needs to be remedied. Ensuring that field experience and research are used to further improve management programs is an important element of this plan. Adaptive management approaches, which experimentally test existing and new management techniques, will be encouraged. By measuring the effectiveness of different management techniques in achieving the recovery of threatened species, we will improve our ability to combat the threat posed by infection with the amphibian chytrid.

4.3.1 Action group 3.1 – Develop diagnostic tools


39 of 91

408409410411412413414

415

416417418419420421422423424425426427

428

429

430431432433434435436

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.7 Summary of actions towards the development of diagnostic tools.


Action 3.1.1: Trial the real-time PCR test for chytridiomycosis in a field situation and compare for sensitivity against the histological examination of toe clips (Category 1).

Progress has been achieved towards this objective (Kriger et al. 2006, Hyatt et al. 2007, Garland et al. 2011, and Skerratt et al. 2011). Kriger et al. (2006) initiated work comparing histology with real-time PCR. Hyatt et al. (2007) further developed a sampling and detection strategy and Skerratt et al. (2011) validated the diagnostic tests in wild amphibian populations. Skerratt et al. (2011) found that the Taqman real-time PCR (qPCR) test was three times as sensitive (72 per cent) as histology (26.5 per cent) in wild amphibian populations because qPCR is able to detect lower intensity infection compared with histology. Other work carried out to achieve more sensitive results using real-time PCR include storing and transporting samples to minimise cross contamination (Skerratt et al. 2011) and minimise the effect of temperatures on the amount of DNA in the sample (Van Sluys et al. 2008).

This action has been effective, as research has been carried out comparing qPCR vs. histology (Skerratt et al. 2011), and further comparing conventional PCR with qPCR (Garland et al. 2011). Skerratt et al. (2011) recommend that the accuracy of PCR tests should be further investigated in laboratories and wild populations different to those of this study and the laboratory studies of Hyatt et al. (2007) as diagnostic tests results will differ where chytridiomycosis has been introduced into a naive population compared with relatively immune or recovering populations.

Real-time PCR is now the preferred test for amphibian populations, although the acquisition and operational costs are more expensive than alternatives. Garland et al. (2011) found that conventional PCR, using amplification combined with assays other than Taqman, was a sensitive cost effective alternative to real-time PCR. Although histology of toe clips is less sensitive, it can still be useful to diagnose infection, the severity of the infection and/or the pathology in the skin (Skerratt et al. 2011). Both tests have a role to play, but given that PCR can detect chytrid at lower levels, issues such as cost effectiveness, contamination and skilled testers are important for this test to be readily available. This action has been effective and achieved - in that comparison of sensitivity between histology and PCR have been conducted. However further comparisons carried out under a wider variety of conditions would undoubtedly continue to validate the sensitivity results already achieved.

Action 3.1.2: Evaluate pooling samples as a cost effective technique for surveying large numbers of animals using the real-time PCR test, with subsequent testing of individual samples in positive pools (Category 1).

Many jurisdictions have not undertaken work on this action. No work on this action has been undertaken in Vic. and ACT. Tas. reported that testing animals from positive pools has not proven to be cost effective. They either analyse swabs individually or pool samples in groups of three to minimise the loss of sensitivity. JCU reported on recent research. Pooling samples for testing with subsequent testing of individual samples in positive pools lowered the sensitivity of the qPCR when only one swab of the five in the batch was positive at a very low intensity of infection in Fleay’s frog (Skerratt et

The qPCR test is widely used to test presence/ absence and prevalence of chytrid for management purposes, such as surveillance and monitoring, in research and advising industry, but the expense of the method may outweigh the benefits.However, pooling samples with subsequent testing of individual samples from positive pools is thought to be cost effective, but only if chytridiomycosis is at lower prevalence and the possibility of false

This is an important action, given the progress made with qPCR testing since implementation of the last TAP in 2006. As qPCR testing is expensive to set up due to initial capital expenditure, the efficiency of pooling samples has relevance, given limited funding to conduct such work. However, it appears that more work needs to be done to minimise the occurrence of false negatives in pooled samples, in order for pooling of samples to be accurate and cost effective. This action has been partially completed.

40 of 91

437

Item 12.1.3


al. 2010a). It is also likely that samples from this species had a high level of inhibition of the qPCR. Approximately 70 per cent of samples from this species had inhibition based on subsequent testing with an internal positive control, which would have contributed to the low levels of Bd detected by the qPCR (Hines 2007). Hyatt et al. (2007) said that the maximum number of samples that could be pooled without lowering the sensitivity of the Taqman assay was five, which in essence could provide some cost efficiencies. However, they also reported an incidence of false negative in a pool of five field samples that returned a negative result, one low level (11 zoospore equivalents) positive was detected when samples were reanalysed individually. JCU suggested that it is possible to concentrate samples to overcome the dilution effect of pooling samples, but no further information was provided. They also cited Garland et al. (unpublished findings) in reporting that pooling samples with subsequent testing of individual samples in positive pools is only cost effective if chytridiomycosis is at low prevalence and lower sensitivity is acceptable.

negatives are acceptable (Garland et al. Unpublished - JCU submission).

3.1.3: Determine the sensitivity of using tadpoles for surveying for chytridiomycosis and compare with surveys using adults and juveniles in the same population (Category 1).

Limited work has been carried out for this action and thus limited information is available. Results from several projects suggest that tadpoles do not provide a reliable indication of chytrid presence in an area, such as in species from north-eastern Victoria (Hunter et al. 2009, Clemann et al. 2010, Howard et al. 2011) and two species in Kosciuszko National Park, where adults were found to be more sensitive to

Currently there is no consensus on whether tadpoles provide reliable data for determining the distribution of chytrid, despite them being routinely used in surveys for chytrid. Using juveniles is thought to be useful a useful way to develop survey techniques, providing some cost effective benefits for surveillance and

The limited work on this action has raised further questions about the sensitivity of using tadpoles. A strategic experimental design is still needed to address issues of whether species, landscape and ecosystem have an important part in determining the reliability of data from tadpoles. This may be of benefit nationally, in terms of cost effective surveillance and monitoring methods in the future.This action has partially been achieved.

41 of 91

Item 12.1.3


chytrid. However, tadpoles may be more sensitive for some ecological groups such as torrent adapted tadpoles, suggesting that tadpole sensitivity to chytrid may be species, or landscape, or ecosystem specific.

monitoring that should not be overlooked.

3.1.4: Develop an effective tool for studying B. dendrobatidis in the environment to improve the understanding of the biology and occurrence of the amphibian chytrid in the environment. The most promising is the real-time PCR test currently being developed by AAHL (Category 1).

Qld, NSW and Tas. have conducted several studies on Bd in the environment. Qld specifically looking at various environmental sampling methods such as swabbing, water filtration, DNA extraction protocols and the real-time PCR test (Skerratt et al. 2010b, Cashins 2010, PhD Thesis), and Tas. focused on detection of DNA in samples (Ficetola et al. 2008). Methods of concentrating water for qPCR testing, including centrifugation, freeze drying and filtering, have been investigated (Hunter 2009, Honours thesis). While centrifugation looks the most promising, work is still ongoing (Uni of Newcastle). ACT reported that no work has been undertaken, and other jurisdictions did not comment.

Further laboratory and field experiments are required to provide a sensitive and usable test for the presence of chytrid in water bodies. In addition, refining water testing using filtration or PCR so that large volumes are not needed is also important. Controlled tests concentrating zoospores by various methods have produced results that cannot be applied with confidence to the field as yet. It has been suggested that chytrid survey protocols need to be tailored specifically for the target system. Hence relevant protocols would need to be included in the survey techniques for different systems.

Such a tool has a potentially important role in informing biosecurity and large scale landscape testing for chytrid. Given the progression of the qPCR test to detect chytrid with a high degree of sensitivity, further work needs to be done to concentrate chytrid in water/environmental samples so tests are practicable and the sensitivity of qPCR tests is not compromised due to how environmental samples are processed. Through a federally funded project the Taronga Conservation Society (Phalen et al 2011) has developed a promising new technique to detect chytrid fungus. The Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification test (LAMP test), is a new diagnostic test for use in the field. It is six times more sensitive than the polymerase chain reaction (PCR test). The abstract is currently available on the departments’ website. The paper will be published after further verification of the technique is undertaken.A lot of effort and resources have been concentrated on this action and much has been achieved. However, further work is required to complete this important action.

3.1.5: Develop criteria for a wide-scale survey protocol applicable at the national level and carry out a survey in chytridiomycosis-free and chytrid contaminated areas (Category 1).

Skerratt et al. (2008) designed a survey protocol to provide a simple and standard method for sampling all wild frog populations in Australia for infection with Bd. It aims to provide priorities for surveillance and justification for the extrapolation of results to minimise the number of populations that need to be surveyed. Skerratt et al. (2008) suggest that splitting the continent into regions and allocating frogs to

A survey protocol has been developed. However, there is contention as to whether the surveying element of the objective has been achieved, as areas outside its known spatial and temporal distribution have not been adequately surveyed. The current accepted distribution of chytrid has not been

The most current information regarding the distribution of chytrid is from Murray et al. (2010). The data represent the compilation of all available/ accessible data on the occurrence of Bd in Australia as of 2008. This is a very good starting point, as the data are continent wide, from 821 sites in Australia, including 10183 records from over 80 contributors, from 1956-2007.However, if areas outside of the known chytrid zones

42 of 91

Item 12.1.3


groups based on their risk to Bd can reduce the size of the task while providing good results to assist with management. This protocol is designed to be used for a variety of groups from professional and animal herpetologists, conservation groups and other institutions. Skerratt et al. (2010) suggest that the protocol is feasible and flexible, and that results derived from the survey protocol agreed with previously collected opportunistic data.

tested, as a national systematic and coordinated survey has not been carried out. Skerratt et al. (2008) acknowledge that this protocol is not static, and that it should be adjusted as new research on chytridiomycosis and its distribution comes to light. They also suggest that crucial information on the distribution of chytrid is lacking in some species and groups, thus a more targeted approach for these groups would help fill in the distribution gap initially.Studies have suggested an iterative process in modelling distribution, whereby the models can be used to identify surveillance and monitoring priorities. This includes the potential to tailor the allocation of resources to areas where knowledge gaps exist, but this depends entirely on whether we are interested in 1) identifying new hosts, 2) reducing sampling bias, 3) elucidating distribution patterns more accurately? Or other priorities?

have not been systematically surveyed and archived specimens remain untested, the national distribution and the story of its spread may be incomplete. A systematic and coordinated national survey of the distribution of chytrid, in conjunction with its historic rise to epidemic status, is critical in order to manage its further spread and preserve biodiversity through protecting highly vulnerable species and areas. Any national distribution survey should consider the alternative questions discussed in the column to the left.Therefore, this action has been completed for the development of a survey protocol but the action to undertake a systematic survey of Bd free and Bd contaminated areas has not been done.

3.1.6: Develop a rapid in-field test to detect chytridiomycosis in amphibians at a high specificity and sensitivity for use in surveys to determine distribution of chytridiomycosis (Category 3).

The Australian Government commissioned the development of a rapid field test in 2011. The work is currently being published, and a summary is available on the environment.gov.au website.

In summary, Phalen et al. (2011) developed a rapid test to detect the chytrid fungus B. dendrobatidis at a high specificity and sensitivity. They demonstrated that this test was more sensitive at detecting the chytrid fungus in environmental water samples compared with conventional species-specific PCR techniques. The benefits of LAMP include that it

This action has been achieved, but the full work of Phalen et al. (2011) has not yet been published due to the need for further verification of the method, therefore the methodology for the LAMP rapid field test is not yet available to field workers. Publication is dependent on availability of funding for the further testing of the method.

43 of 91

Item 12.1.3


is less prone to the presence of irrelevant DNA than PCR; it amplifies DNA with a high efficiency, is highly specific for the target sequence and is quick and easy to perform using only a heat block or a water bath (Notomi et al. 2000).

3.1.7: Establish a national quality accredited laboratory dedicated to the diagnosis of chytridiomycosis to facilitate the rapid detection of B. dendrobatidis using PCR (Category 4).

The CSIRO’s Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) was identified by the OIE as the international (and thus national) quality accredited laboratory dedicated to the diagnosis of chytridiomycosis. However, due to severe financial constraints the AAHL has been unable to continue with their chytrid research or diagnostic work. To date, no laboratory has been nationally accredited to replace AAHL, although the ABC at JCU also provides a quality assured diagnostic service for Bd researchers working with JCU in Tas., Vic., NSW, Qld and WA. They have also assisted several other laboratories such as the DPIPWE pathology laboratory in Launceston develop capacity. The Ecogene laboratory in NZ also do PCR analysis.

This action has been identified as important by many jurisdictions, potentially enabling managers and researchers to address many actions in the TAP. However, AAHL has suspended their chytrid diagnostic and research work because sustained funding for ongoing operational costs is required - as there are no funds to replace the necessary supplies of reagents and standard solutions. The limited supplies remaining at AAHL cannot meet the high demand nationally and internationally.

This action had been thought to have been achieved by the accreditation of AAHL, but due to AAHL suspending their chytrid diagnostic and research work because of severe funding constraints, the achievement of this action now appears to be in limbo. This action is critically important for the national management of chytrid into the future, and is a matter that needs to be assessed urgently.

4.3.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatSome important progress has been made in the development of diagnostic tools for amphibian chytrid fungus, but limited funding and resources are restricting the achievement of many of the actions in this group and under the research and monitoring objective. For example, the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL) was identified by the OIE as the international (and thus national) quality accredited laboratory dedicated to the diagnosis of chytridiomycosis. But due to severe financial constraints the AAHL has been unable to continue with their chytrid research or diagnostic work. They have no capacity To date, no laboratory has been nationally accredited to replace AAHL. It is critically important for the

44 of 91

438

439

440441442443444

Item 12.1.3

national management of chytrid into the future that funding be provided for chytrid diagnostic work at AAHL or an alternative laboratory(ies) be accredited and funded to continue this work.

4.3.2 Action group 3.2 – Research epidemiology, transmission and dispersal


Table 4.8 Summary of the progress on actions regarding the research of epidemiology, transmission and dispersal.


3.2.1: Undertake research to answer questions about B. dendrobatidis in the environment with priority on the questions below (Category 1): • Does B. dendrobatidis exist as a free-living organism in suitable habitats, particularly natural water bodies and moist substrate?• Can detection of B. dendrobatidis be used as a technique to map contaminated and chytridiomycosis-free areas?• How do environmental characteristics of natural

Generally jurisdictions have not undertaken this research independently on a large scale. Overall, this action has been addressed by two reports undertaking research to answer Bd in the environment (funded by the Australian government). These are “Experimental research to obtain a better understanding of the epidemiology, transmission and dispersal of amphibian chytrid fungus in Australian ecosystems” (Skerratt et al. 2010b) and “Experimental research to obtain a better understanding of the pathogenesis of chytridiomycosis, and the susceptibility and resistance of key amphibian species to chytridiomycosis in Australia” (Alford et al. 2010)

Overall this action can be seen to be effective in answering many biological questions about chytrid. However, some questions still remain unanswered, and/or need technical break throughs. In addition, many of the questions addressed in this action are about conventional chytrid. It has been suggested that in WA, chytrid is widespread in very atypical habitats and well outside the expected physiological tolerances.

It appears that the biology aspects have been addressed, but that more work is needed regarding the transmission and possible vectors.The impacts of chytrid in South West WA are reported to vary markedly to those experienced in the eastern states – only one species (white-bellied frog, or creek frog) is being seriously affected by the disease, while other species are showing few effects. The disease pattern in WA doesn’t fit the seasonal occurrence pattern seen in the eastern states either - chytrid fungus is occurring all year and at high temperatures. This apparent anomaly needs exploration.

45 of 91

445446447

448

449

450451452453454455

Item 12.1.3


water bodies (pH, pO2, ion content, nitrate, organic content) and weather (temperature, rainfall) affect the biology and survival of B. dendrobatidis?• What density of zoospores in natural water bodies can infect susceptible species of amphibians? Does the density of zoospores in natural water bodies correlate with intensity of infection of amphibian populations living in those water bodies, and with the level of clinical chytridiomycosis? Can the density of zoospores in natural water bodies be used to predict periods of high risk for amphibian populations?

• How does B. dendrobatidis spread between water bodies?

• Are there non-amphibian vectors of B. dendrobatidis?

• Can B. dendrobatidis be eradicated from ponds or small standing water bodies?

46 of 91

Item 12.1.3


3.2.2: Develop and implement effective strategies to reduce the accidental translocation of amphibians with agricultural produce and nursery materials. Surveys should be performed, particularly in chytridiomycosis free areas, to identify the number and origin of translocated amphibians detected at markets, wholesalers and nurseries and the prevalence of chytridiomycosis in these amphibians (Category 3).

Few jurisdictions have clear and effective strategies in place to deal with accidental importation. Tas. swab all accidentally imported amphibians for chytrid and then euthanase them, as well as educating produce and nursery importers through visiting them at their establishments. Victorian Department of Primary Industries responds on an ad hoc basis when translocated amphibians are reported, through immediate containment and eradication. The ABC has provided some research and advice to the banana industry to help mitigate the risk of translocation of amphibians, as well as the Amphibian Research Centre to implement this action more broadly. Strategies have not been developed in NSW or ACT, with ACT commenting that accidental translocation is not an issue for their territory (the reason behind this statement is unclear). Where chytrid free areas occur, the introduction of new strains of chytrid is of concern.

Information provided on this action was limited, but showed both proactive and reactive strategies in place in some areas. This action was thought effective by one jurisdiction, which worked closely with industry on this action. Another jurisdiction did not comment on the effectiveness, but implied it was important, as they stated mitigation of the risk at the source is fundamental to reducing accidental translocation. In relation to this action, it has been suggested that the limited value of the action would not justify the resources required to effectively implement this action.

It would be worthwhile for strategies to reduce accidental translocation to be implemented by states and territories. The limited value attributed to this action may be due to inefficient or non-existent monitoring and reporting systems focusing on accidental translocation. Currently no widespread systematic approaches appear to be in place, thus there is no way of really knowing what has slipped through, how effective these strategies are, and thus how effective this action has been.This action has been partially met with some states and territories having effective strategies in place but others still require development.Further comments regarding the accidental translocation of amphibians can be found in Table 4.2 under actions 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 and in Table 4.3 under action 1.3.3.

Action 3.2.3: Evaluate, through field surveys and ex situ experimentation, the likelihood of cane toads introducing chytridiomycosis into chytridiomycosis-free areas, particularly in areas of Northern Territory, Western Australia and Tasmania (Category 3).

Limited work has been done by individual jurisdictions. In Tas, the likelihood of introducing Bd with cane toads has not been assessed, but the introduction of cane toads themselves is considered catastrophic. Vic. reports that that cane toads are detected periodically (e.g. one cane toad was picked up by quarantine in a shipping container in 2011) and could easily provide a source of chytrid infection; however Vic. is currently not considered climatically suitable for the establishment of cane toads. Cane toads arrive occasionally in SA and are

Limited response regarding this actions effectiveness was received. The one jurisdiction that commented on effectiveness thought unlikely to be effective, while another reiterated that vigilance on quarantine, particularly in detecting the introduction of cane toad is still very important.

There are questions about the need for a focus on the cane toad as a potential transmitter of Bd.This action has not been undertaken.

47 of 91

Item 12.1.3


destroyed immediately. It is considered unlikely that cane toads would introduce chytrid fungus into these areas (NT, WA and Tas.) given the resistance of cane toads to infection with Bd and also the low risk of establishment of chytridiomycosis in these areas. While attempts were made to survey cane toads in chytrid infected areas, insufficient numbers were found to make testing feasible.

4.3.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatIt would be a fair evaluation to note that there has been important research undertaken to better understand the disease and the management of the disease but there is still much to be done. The majority of this work has been supported by funding from independent sources and its completion and implementation requires further commitment of funds.

Overall this action group has been effective in answering many biological questions about chytrid. However, questions still remain unanswered regarding the transmission, reservoirs and possible vectors of the disease, and these require further research to be answered. In addition, the atypical disease pattern being observed in frog species in WA requires further investigation.

Regarding accidental translocation, currently no widespread systematic approaches appear to be in place, thus there is no way of really knowing what or how many individual translocations have occurred, how effective the jurisdictional strategies are, and thus how effective this action has been.

4.3.3 Action group 3.3 – Research pathogenesis


48 of 91

456

457458459460461462463

464465466467

468

469

470471472473474

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.9 Summary of the progress on actions regarding the research of pathogenesis.


Action 3.3.1: Determine the pathogenesis of chytridiomycosis including the host and environmental factors that determine the ultimate outcome of infection, i.e. death, persistent infection with no obvious effect, and cure (Category 1).

Overall this action has been addressed by some key work carried out since the implementation of the 2006 TAP. These issues are addressed in Alford et al. (2010) and Skerratt et al. (2010a), funded by the Australian Government. In addition, research undertaken at Taronga Zoo, in collaboration with JCU and NSW government is seeking to understand why some species/ populations appear resilient/ immune to this pathogen. ACT reported that they not have undertaken any work towards this action.

The TAP has been particularly effective in developing new knowledge in this action. In great part this is because there were many observations of amphibian species surviving with chytrid infections, which was an unforseen outcome when the TAP was written. This outcome has raised the large question as to whether some species were immune or immunity was selected for and the nature of that immunity, whether some habitats protected the species that occurred in them because the habitat was alien to chytrid (habitat facilitation – e.g. warm environments), or whether the disease organism had become less virulent.While the two key reports are a starting point for understanding these issues around chytridiomycosis, it has been suggested that research targeting these issues is in its early days, and there is currently still a knowledge gap, and ongoing research may assist development of efficient management strategies.

This action has been critical for developing effective management actions for species in an ongoing state of decline due to chytrid infection. However, approaches to using the new knowledge in adaptive management remain a large challenge. Continued research would undoubtedly provide more insight into the pathogenesis including the mechanisms that underlie amphibian species resistance/ immunity to chytrid and factors affecting the virulence of chytrid under various environmental conditions.This action has been partially met with more research needed.

Action 3.3.2: Investigate surviving robust populations of species that have undergone widespread decline and determine whether management interventions

Significant work has been undertaken by many jurisdictions on this action, highlighting the importance of this action. Qld cited Alford et al. (2010), Skerratt et al. (2010a), Puschendorf et al. (2011), NSW cited Stockwell (2011, PhD) and collaborative work underway at Taronga Zoo. Tas. reported on

This action has received considerable attention because of the desire to understand why some species that have experienced widespread declines have recovered or persist with some robust populations. The effectiveness of this action ranges from partially to very

While this action is addressed in Alford et al. (2010) and Skerratt et al. (2010a) and associated publications such as Puschendorf et al. (2011), other work is currently being undertaken, and is likely to provide critical information for the management of species that continue to decline due to chytrid. Without such information, management

49 of 91

475476477

Item 12.1.3


can reproduce the factors that maintain these populations (Category 1).

current research determining the occupancy status for theTasmanian tree frog and Tasmanian froglets, western Tasmania, within and around the TWWHA. ACT stated that work had not been undertaken by the ACT Government but was considered important, and a PhD study has begun at ANU investigating aspects of this action in alpine tree frogs. This action has not been carried out in Vic. in detail due to a lack of funding; however some populations of threatened frogs that have persisted are being monitored.

effective. Work on this action has the potential to protect remnant populations of species, and thus has been very effective. However, another view is that it has only been partially effective, as the reasons why some populations of susceptible species survive while many other populations disappear are far from clear. It has been put forward that it is too early to determine whether current research will leave important knowledge gaps.

interventions to maintain these populations cannot be determined. This action is important and while it may seem ineffective at this point, this may be an artefact of the TAP timeframe, and over a longer period may prove effective.

Action 3.3.3: Determine the susceptibility and resistance of key amphibian species to chytridiomycosis using a standard laboratory model that relates to risk in the wild, particularly for species that are currently chytridiomycosis-free (Category 1).

This has not been done in Vic. due to a lack of funding and was deemed not applicable in NSW and ACT, as no large chytrid free areas exist in NSW and no chytrid free areas exist in ACT. Tas., with the assistance of JCU, established the susceptibility of key amphibian species in laboratory infection trials. Murray and Skerratt (2012) developed a model to predict whether host and environmental characteristics could inform which species were most likely to be infected with Bd. The question as to whether this action has been conducted for key species that are of conservation significance was raised, and given the work conducted in Tas. (Voyles et al. unpublished), better communication about research work from leading agencies may be warranted.

As some work has been carried out in the laboratory, indicating this action has been partially met, the measure of effectiveness may in fact be relating laboratory results to susceptibility in situ, which has not been achieved yet.This action was considered effective for prioritisation of species and populations for management for one jurisdiction, but from another, the question about whether it was a real priority was raised, due to there being no indication of decline in some species of conservation significance.

This action is limited because of the few threatened amphibians that have not been exposed to the Bd. Tas. is the exception to this and has undertaken work for their key species.This action has been partially met.

Action 3.3.4: Perform research for evidence of resistance (and techniques to increase resistance) in at-risk species, including captive breeding and

The ABC is currently conducting research aiming to identify immune mechanisms via molecular studies to aid selection in captive breeding and reintroduction programs. Preliminary results indicate that resistance varies within and among surviving populations

This action has been partially effective, as it has increased the knowledge about the extent to which previously susceptible frog species have evolved a robust immune response to chytrid. However, current knowledge remains

Research that has been undertaken to date has improved knowledge on the resistance to Bd. However, due to the longer term nature of this research, more needs to be done.This action has been partially met.

50 of 91

Item 12.1.3


selection for restocking (Category 1).

of the alpine tree frog. This has been in collaboration with major reintroduction programs conducted by NSWOEH (New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage), Taronga Conservation Society and the Amphibian Research Centre. Results to date will be provided to the department as a final report in 2012 for a grant from the Australian Biosecurity CRC.

insufficient to develop strategic management strategies, important in successful reintroductions and to provide long term threat abatement. It still remains a high priority, as research is required to determine the genetics/ mechanism underpinning resistance to chytrid, and whether species that continue to be susceptible have the potential to evolve this resistance via selective breeding.

Action 3.3.5: Assess the effect of management activities, designed to improve environmental suitability or general amphibian well-being, on the morbidity and mortality due to chytridiomycosis in chronically infected amphibian populations (Category 2).

Work has been conducted investigating the importance of protecting natural environmental refugia from chytridiomycosis (Puschendorf et al. 2011), considering strategies that may help amphibians fight chytridiomycosis during periods of rapid climate change (Shoo et al. 2011), as well as the effects of salinity on chytridiomycosis (Stockwell 2011). NSW is currently investigating the effectiveness of releasing southern corroboree frogs into artificial pools to ensure they reach metamorphosis without becoming infected with chytrid, as a possible reintroduction strategy. ANU has a PhD student (Ben Scheele) who is looking at the effectiveness of controlling reservoir species and identifying environmental factors that may mitigate the impact of chytridiomycosis.

The perception of how effective this action has been is divided, and limited feedback was provided for the TAP review. The priority of this action was high across the board, but effectiveness ranged from undemonstrated to very effective, even within the same jurisdiction. Where refugia are preserved to protect chytrid free areas and therefore remnant populations of species, the TAP was seen to be effective. However, a contrasting view on the effectiveness of this action acknowledges the critical importance of this action to mitigate this pathogen, but stated that the effect of management activities has not been demonstrated yet.

There appears to be varying opinions, even within jurisdictions, on the effectiveness of the TAP in achieving this action. However, all jurisdictions stated that this action is critical and a high priority. Work regarding this issue has been the focus of some research recently, and it may be that an ecological response through management activities may be the best option for mitigating the pathogen on a large scale. More work is needed, and a current NERP grant (2011-2014) has been approved to explore chytrid distribution in ecotonal areas on the western side of the Great Dividing Range.This action may have been met in part but further time is required to be able to assess. It is agreed that this action is incomplete with further work underway.

4.3.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatThe goals of this action group have been partially achieved and further research is underway, but further funding and time is required to be able to complete the work.

51 of 91

478

479480481

Item 12.1.3

Work on this action group has the potential to protect important remnant populations of threatened amphibian species, and other work is currently being undertaken to provide critical information for the management of species that continue to decline due to chytrid fungus. Without such information, management interventions to maintain these populations cannot be determined.

There are still some critical gaps in knowledge about amphibian chytrid fungus including some of the characteristics of the disease and how it infects frogs, the apparent immunity that some species demonstrate, the transmission host factors, how population dynamics are affected, and other species as reservoirs to infect the threatened species that are the subject of this TAP. Attachment C outlines the critical gaps in knowledge about amphibian chytrid fungus as identified by the key stakeholder group in 2012.

4.3.4 Action group 3.4 – Assess effectiveness of management strategies


Table 4.10 Summary of actions to assess the effectiveness of management strategiesActions Key stakeholder comments Achievement

Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of ActionAction 3.4.1: Evaluate the effectiveness of various hygiene protocol options, using sensitive tools able to detect viable B. dendrobatidis in environmental samples, to inform hygiene protocols in the field that allow research and other activities at an acceptable level of feasibility (Category 1).

Limited responses were submitted by jurisdictions, which may or may not be indicative of the work carried out towards this action. ACT reported no action has been taken and Tas. is currently monitoring the entry points into the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area to assess the effectiveness of the biosecurity/ hygiene actions.

Given that limited work has been performed evaluating hygiene protocols, this action appears to have been ineffective. However, the importance placed on evaluating the effectiveness of hygiene protocols was high, despite not being carried out to date, or only in a limited capacity. The reasons why limited work was carried out despite agreement of its high priority status was not reported.

It is unclear whether the lack of response from stakeholders is indicative of the priority or effectiveness of this action. While no formal evaluation of hygiene protocols has been reported on, the ‘Keeping it Clean: A Tasmanian field hygiene manual to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens’.was published in 2010, and is a good starting point with regards to hygiene protocols in the field. Work still needs to be carried out to evaluate whether these protocols are

52 of 91

482483484485486487488489

490

491

492493494495496497498

Item 12.1.3


effective and can be transferred broadly across many freshwater environments in Australia, specifically in relation to chytrid.This action has not been completed.

Action 3.4.2: Perform studies to determine whether populations that have recovered after chytrid-associated decline are susceptible to future severe effects from chytridiomycosis (Category 1).

Studies addressing this action are limited, as few populations in Vic. could be described as ‘recovered’, but rather ‘persistent’ after a decline caused by chytrid. NSW reported a subsequent decline in a re-established population of the spotted tree frog in Kosciuszko National Park (no reference provided), which occurred in similar way to the initial decline from chytrid.In the absence of formal studies, variable forms of monitoring have been cited addressing this action. Vic. reported that some populations are subject to intensive demographic monitoring e.g. some populations of spotted tree frogs, while other species, such as the Alpine tree frog, are subject to ‘surveillance’ monitoring for the continued presence of frogs, while sampling for chytrid. Tas. reports that current research aims to determine whether chytrid-associated declines are occurring.The Alford group from JCU, Qld has identified this action as major gap, and has submitted a research proposal to investigate this action (currently under consideration for an Australian Research Council discovery grant).

This action seems to only have been partly carried out, but it is very important for positive outcomes from re-introduction work and recovery from chytrid declines. Further work is required in determining the mechanism of resistance in the species where recovery has been identified after an initial impact on the population from chytrid. In addition, expectations need to be clarified based on what is actually feasible, in terms of generations/time taken to attain greater resistance through selection, and whether selection for individual resistance has actually occurred, and will thus afford population level resistance.

Monitoring of recovered/ persistent populations is likely to be occurring in most states and territories in a variety of forms, even though many jurisdictions have not reported here. It appears that more work is required to understand the mechanism underlying individual resistance to chytrid, the effect across species and its role in allowing populations to persist and even recover from the impact of chytrid. For this to occur, ongoing and widespread funding is necessary.This action is incomplete with further work underway.

53 of 91

Item 12.1.3


Action 3.4.3: Assess the value of reintroduction programs for threatened species over significant periods of time, in terms of increased abundance and expansion of range of amphibians, mortality and prevalence of chytridiomycosis (Category 2).

Captive breeding and reintroduction programs are said to be essential to the recovery of populations effected by chytrid. Reintroduction programs are currently being carried out for spotted tree frog, southern corroboree frog, and northern corroboree in NSW, and Booroolong frogs in Vic. Work on this action has not been undertaken in Tas. and Qld deferred comments on this action to the work carried out in NSW. In ACT, the reintroduction program for corroboree frogs has not had sufficient time to investigate these questions – first reintroduction was in 2011 – but the program aims to eventually help answer these questions. However, the ACT government has funded ecological modelling work to help determine feasibility of planned restocking of wild populations under range of chytrid mortality and demographic scenarios (McCarthy 2008).

This action has not been achieved in that, while frog species have been reintroduced, not enough time has passed to be able to determine the success of these programs. In addition, where the introduction of individuals have been subject to extreme climatic conditions, more time may be needed to block out the background ‘environmental noise’ in order to accurately assess the initial stages of reintroduction. At this stage, there is still a gap in how reintroduction programs may facilitate selection for resistance, or whether this is a feasible expectation.

Work necessary to achieve this action is still in the early phase, not really allowing the effectiveness of this action to be assessed at this time. Whether the future timeframe for the TAP will allow ‘significant time’ in order to be able to assess the effectiveness and value of captive breeding and reintroduction programs remains to be seen, especially in light of the potential masking effect other factors, such as environmental extremes, may have on these programs. The modelling work in the ACT may act as a strategic indicator for more effective reintroduction programs, but at this stage has not been implemented alongside physical reintroduction programs to validate it.Good work is being undertaken towards this action but it is too soon to make an assessment on the outcome.

Action 3.4.4: Develop effective and safe treatment protocols that are suitable for all Australian species of amphibians (Category 2).

Vic. and ACT have not undertaken work. There is work currently underway in Qld at Currumbin Sanctuary and in Tas., but results are not yet available. Research in this area is urgently needed (Berger et al. 2010). Various studies since the implementation of the last TAP have looked at the effectiveness and safety of different treatments which include, but are not limited to, Chatfield et al. 2011, Garner et al. 2009, Berger et al. 2009 [a or b TBC], Young et al. in press, Young et al. unpublished, Stice & Briggs 2010, Harris et al. 2009.

This action has been partially effective, in that research has been carried out. However, results have not been developed into a set of protocols that can be used nationally for all amphibian species. A review of the various ‘failed methods’ has been conducted (Woodhams et al. 2012), providing valuable direction for future research into safe and effective treatment protocols that are suitable for all Australian amphibian species. The variety of methods investigated can still be seen to be useful in captive breeding and emergency responses.

This action has not been achieved and therefore not fully effective during the lifespan of the current TAP, but it was identified as important and it is generally agreed that more research is needed.

54 of 91

Item 12.1.3


Action 3.4.5: Use specimens from archived frogs to perform historical surveys where knowledge of the relationship of the arrival of the amphibian chytrid fungus to declines in the species would assist in risk assessment and preparation of frog recovery plans (Category 3).

The historical surveys conducted by JCU and published in Murray et al. (2010b) present the status of present day distribution of Bd. Testing of archived specimens has been informative about the decline of corroboree frogs, providing evidence to refute or support the many and varied hypotheses about their decline, indicating chytrid as the major cause of decline for two species (Hunter et al. 2010). In Tas., archived specimens have been tested, but the timeframe for when Bd was introduced remains unknown as all specimens were negative. Work in Vic. and WA has been done, although references of relevant publications or data were not provided, and ACT has not done any work on this action.

This action is considered useful and only somewhat effective. JCU state that it is useful in determining the risk pathways for spread, but that more needs to be known about molecular epidemiology to progress this. Alford supports the current distribution of Bd provided by Murray et al. (2010b), but suggests that the ‘story’ of its spread is not supported by published historical data and that a broad scale historical survey should be undertaken. This is possible now that reasonably reliable techniques to detect Bd in DNA of preserved specimens have been developed, which would potentially determine how the pathogen entered the continent and how fast it spread. Such a broad scale survey would require funding, and given that Bd is widespread in Australia, risk assessment may only be required for some specific habitats and locations (e.g. southwest Tas.).

While a broad survey of archived specimens may contribute to a better understanding of the pathways that facilitated the spread of chytrid, the complete picture may be dependent on whether or not enough specimens were collected from the point of entry at the time they arrived, not just that all archived specimens are tested.This action has been met.

4.3.4.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatParts of this action group were achieved, for example historical survey results were published in 2010 by James Cook University and work undertaken in NSW and ACT indicates that chytrid was the major cause of the drastic decline of the corroboree frog species. Good work has also been undertaken on improving re-introduction methodologies to establish sustainable wild populations of threatened amphibian species but it is too soon to make an assessment on the outcome.

Other actions in this group were only partially achieved as only limited work has been performed, such as the evaluation of hygiene protocols and the development of treatment protocols. Much more work is also required to understand the mechanism underlying individual resistance to chytrid, the effect across species and its role in allowing populations in the wild to persist and even recover from the impact of chytrid. For this to occur, ongoing funding is needed.

55 of 91

499

500501502503

504505506507508509

Item 12.1.3


Some important progress has been made in achieving the goals of Objective 3: Research and monitoring through the development of diagnostic tools and management techniques for species that continue to decline due to chytrid fungus, but limited funding and resources are restricting the achievement of many of the actions under this objective. For example, it is critically important for the national management of chytrid into the future that Australia have well resourced national quality accredited diagnostic laboratory facility(ies) such as AAHL.

Therefore, it is concluded that overall there has been limited contribution to the change of threat through the actions under this objective.

4.4 Objective 4: Stakeholder communication on TAP objectivesTo share information with Australian, state and territory government management agencies, researchers and other academics, landholders, relevant industries and the public about the Threat Abatement Plan’s actions and their outcomes.Performance indicator: Stakeholders apply best management practice to implement the plan, based upon access to, and awareness of, existing and new information and data.

4.4.1 Action group 4.1 – Establish communication pathways and share information


Table 4.11 Summary of the actions to establish communication pathways and share information.


Action 4.1.1: Inform the community about basic disease management for chytridiomycosis and the risks of transporting

A range of responses were submitted for action. NSW reported that a targeted program to achieve this end had not been developed, while in Tas. community education has been delivered under the Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity

The TAP action was thought to be effective, although only a small number of stakeholders provided feedback. Further comment included that informing communities needed to be

While this action has been partially achieved, it is a somewhat ad hoc approach, and it is unclear as to whether requests for information were initiated by communities or research, government or media organisations, or a combination of both.Also, not feeding key research results back to the wider

56 of 91

510511512513514515516517

518

519520521522

523

524

525526527528529530

Item 12.1.3


potentially infected amphibians, water and other transmitting agents, as they are identified (Category 2).

Program. A number of avenues for information dissemination to the community have also been pursued, such as through media including press, radio and websites. ACT government reported on providing information sheets on disease management. Various presentations have been given to community groups, such as the Queensland Frog Society and Queensland Naturalists Club.

comprehensive and systematic rather than ad hoc, which appeared to be the current approach. It was suggested that for this action to be effective, state-wide personnel needed to be appointed to take responsibility for advocacy and awareness. Where no personnel are appointed and a systematic approach not implemented, it may seem like information dissemination to communities is not a priority. In addition, the level of uptake and the effect of information are not known, nor are their measures in place to evaluate this.

community is an ineffective use of the limited funds available. The public and interested communities have an important role to play in implementing on the ground actions to minimise the spread of chytrid, due to their numbers and large scale access to areas infected with chytrid.Refer to potential communication strategy described in Action 4.1.7This action has only been partially met.

Action 4.1.2: Educate the community to ensure support for, and compliance with, existing legislation and regulations, targeting groups at higher risk of spreading the fungus e.g. pet trade, researchers, schools, wildlife carers, as well as campers, bushwalkers, the tourist industry, and other recreational users in contact with fresh water (Category 2).

This action has been undertaken by government jurisdictions in a number of ways, through understanding the key user groups and the avenues in which the extra legislation and regulations can be provided.The NSW government has untaken this action via a statement of intent ‘Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid causing the disease chytridiomycosis’, as well as the NSW hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs. Guidelines to reduce the spread of disease are provided to researchers through the permits system in Vic. and ACT. Representatives of the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) in Vic. have been provided with limited advice regarding the disease and fungus so that they may in turn inform wildlife carers about the disease. The public in the ACT are provided information via the community program

There is general support from researchers and those members of the public who are aware of the guidelines, in adhering to actions as set out by government agencies. This action is thought to have been effective at reducing both the spread of chytrid both within and among amphibian populations, but still remains an ongoing high priority. It has been recommended by scientists that no amphibians be released in Vic. by wildlife carers.

The initial work of developing the communication materials regarding hygiene protocols to reduce the spread of chytridiomycosis has been undertaken. There has been some limited distribution of these materials through some key stakeholder groups. However, the broader target groups such as campers, schools etc who are high risk groups are unlikely to have received sufficient information.Therefore, this action is only partially met.

57 of 91

Item 12.1.3


‘Frogwatch’, while in Tas. information is provided through the Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity Program.

Action 4.1.3: Use proactive strategies to inform and motivate key groups within the community, in particular members of frog naturalists groups, wildlife carers and veterinarians (Category 2).

Various presentations have been given to and by key groups within the community, e.g. specialists speaking to community groups, zoo staff and government staff informing a variety of groups on various aspects of chytrid. It is not known what constitutes regular, and who generally initiated the idea of the communication, i.e. specialist side or governing body or public. This is important as this action does not specify ‘who’ should inform the key user groups, and while it is mainly top down approach, it may be that some groups may present as well as receive information from other user groups.

This action has been thought to be effective in promoting broader community awareness surrounding the impacts of chytrid. However, frog naturalist groups already have a high awareness of chytrid.The effect/outcomes of the uptake of info has not been measured, and thus the effect of the proactive strategies implemented are subjective, as in some states this has not been done and many jurisdictions provided no comment.

While this action is no doubt important, a co-ordinated national approach to strategies and information disseminated may provide a more solid foundation from which key community groups conduct their business. The Department has made information such as reports and guidelines on chytrid publically available on the website environment.gov.au.This action has been undertaken by individuals or groups as they have seen appropriate. The action is, necessarily, ongoing.

Action 4.1.5: The organisation identified in Action 4.1.4 to collate, analyse, interpret and disseminate data on chytridiomycosis occurrence and prevalence to wildlife managers, researchers and the public (Category 2).

JCU information has been disseminated through an international conference, ACT through media releases, from government departments to government researchers and vets. In Tas. specific people are responsible for the dissemination of information e.g. Wildlife Health Officer DPIPWE. In Vic. there is not funding for this and in NSW it is not the specific focus of the program.

This action has been somewhat effective, as information has been collated, analysed, interpreted and disseminated to a wide variety of groups. However, the approach is thought to be ad hoc and a more comprehensive and systematic approach is required.

Given that no organisation has been established as specified in Action 4.1.4, this action, while important, has not been achieved in any coordinated way. While information has been disseminated for specific purposes, it appears that content may vary between audiences. In addition, the motivation underlying the type of information released for dissemination may be influenced by the person/group providing the information.

Action 4.1.6: Encourage coordination of research on infection with the amphibian chytrid,

Limited action from jurisdictions has been carried out in relation to this action. There have been reports of no progress or no funding to carry it out, through to it being the responsibility of a specific officer, through to a large scale conference. While

Two stakeholders suggest this action has been effective, but do not specify reasons.

It appears that this action has been ineffective, since the specified website in the action has not been updated since 2008. In addition, an alternative has not been proposed, and a central repository of research priorities and contacts is currently not available nationally in one place.

58 of 91

Item 12.1.3


chytridiomycosis and its control. Make available an online database, at the Amphibian Diseases Home Page (www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/ampdis), of past and current research projects and contacts for researchers (Category 2).

the Amphibian Diseases Home Page has been proposed as the central point to co-ordinate research projects and contacts for researchers, this website has not been updated at all since 2008.

Co-ordination of a data repository, such as the website, is needed. In addition, maintenance of data costs money, so the costs of achieving this action need to be addressed.Refer to potential communication strategy described in Action 4.1.7This action has not been effective.

Action 4.1.7: Publish the list of research priorities listed under Objective 3 online at the Amphibian Diseases Home Page (Category 4).

Very limited feedback was provided on the progress of this action, with ACT saying no work was done and Vic. saying there was no funding available to do the work. The Amphibian Diseases Home Page has not been updated since 2 January 2008, with other key sections within this website not being updated since before the adoption of the 2006 TAP.

No comments were provided by any jurisdictions on the effectiveness of this action.

The Amphibian Diseases Home Page website is hosted by JCU. This action was initiated after the approval of the 2006 TAP. However, the website has not been updated since 2008, so has only been implemented to a limited extent. As this action has not been completed, it has not been effective.While the TAP has not been effective in achieving this action, this outcome does not necessarily reflect the importance of this action. Methods to achieve this action should be investigated and costed, as it has potential flow on effects in co-ordinating other activities such as disseminating information and informing a variety of groups.The stakeholders considered this issue at the workshop in May 2012 and developed a potential strategy to progress this objective and facilitate improved communication. The Australian Registry of Wildlife Health has an existing public website which could be utilised to provide publicly available information. The current content of the Amphibian Disease Home Page would be moved across to this site and updated as required. The Australian Biosecurity Intelligence Network offered to host a secure community space on

59 of 91

Item 12.1.3


their website for stakeholders and researchers to utilise to share information and establish communication pathways. The Australian Wildlife Health Network provides a way of reporting diseases listed as key threatening processes and at the workshop in May 2012 they offered a strategy to circulate relevant information to stakeholders via a “chytrid digest”. This strategy is an excellent step forward with this objective but will rely on all contributors to the network posting information as it is produced.

Action 4.1.8: Encourage collaborative research on chytridiomycosis and its impact on amphibian populations across disciplines and institutions, including joint supervision of research students across disciplines and institutions (Category 4).

This has currently been done in many jurisdictions, between a variety of organisations and jurisdictions, which occur in many combinations. However, there is more potential to strengthen relationships between experts, disciplines and institutions.

This action has been somewhat effective, and is important in maximising the use of existing knowledge. However, it can only be effective to the extent to which collaborative networks are developed and utilised, which need to be adopted on a wider basis.

It is clear that strong collaborative networks exist within local areas and/or institutions. But the notion of collaborative research may need to be embraced by the wider research community in order for this action to become more effective.This action has been met but requires ongoing attention.

Action 4.1.9: Establish a national database of names, locations, activities and contact details of organisations and individuals breeding and carrying out captive husbandry of native Australian frogs and made publicly available on the internet (Category

Very little comment was provided on this action, implying it was not carried out. No feedback was given on whether or not this was considered important and what the value of such a database would be.

No comment was provided on the effectiveness of this action, except NSW who said it was not completed.

This action potentially benefits community groups, industry, researchers, local, and state and territory governments as well, but would require a central co-coordinator, as it would only be as valuable as the most current data contained within the database. Alternative methods for contacting specialists may already exist and these should be investigated further before completing this action.Refer to potential communication strategy described in Action 4.1.7

60 of 91

Item 12.1.3


4).

Action 4.1.10: Place signage at entrances to national parks, forestry reserves, and other areas containing water bodies controlled by state and territory departments that have had cases of chytridiomycosis, to inform the public that the water catchment is chytrid positive and giving details on simple strategies to be followed to reduce the likelihood of the amphibian chytrid being taken from the site (Category 4).

The co-ordination of information appears to be lacking somewhat within jurisdictions. In NSW, there was some inconsistency in the reporting of this action. It was reported as not undertaken as well as being addressed in a limited way e.g. Nightcap Range for Fleay’s frog and Sydney Olympic Parklands for the green and golden bell frog. In ACT, it was not undertaken as all areas have chytrid. In Qld, there is no signage on protected estate areas, but some interpretative signage has been placed at national parks discussing frog declines and the role of Bd. Similarly in Tas., signage at associated boot, vehicle and helicopter wash down areas at the entry points of TWWHA is being installed by NRM South under Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity Program.

Limited comment was provided on the effectiveness of this action, with only two areas in NSW mentioned where this action has been addressed.

As the implementation of signage in key areas has not been adopted across the nation and with a high sense of priority by all jurisdictions, this action has been ineffective. The potential for important information to be presented to large user groups within areas where chytrid is an issue has not be utilized to its full extent.

4.4.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threat

The key stakeholder group, which met in May 2012, indicated there is a sufficient level of cooperation but insufficient communication between the range of interested groups. The stakeholders commented that reporting and information sharing is not undertaken in any formal or structured way and due to lack of resources the information on the website specified in Actions 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 (the Amphibian Disease Home Page) has not been updated since 2008, therefore it does not provide a good picture of the current situation. The stakeholders considered this issue at the workshop in May 2012 and developed a strategy to progress this objective and facilitate improved communication. The Australian Registry of Wildlife Health has an existing public website which could be utilised to provide publicly available information. The current content of the Amphibian Disease Home Page would be moved across to this site and updated as required. The Australian Biosecurity Intelligence Network offered to host a secure community space on their website for stakeholders and researchers to utilise to share

61 of 91

531

532533534535

536537538539

Item 12.1.3

information and establish communication pathways. The Australian Wildlife Health Network provides a way of reporting diseases listed as key threatening processes and at the workshop in May 2012 they offered a strategy to circulate relevant information to stakeholders via a “chytrid digest”. This strategy is an excellent step forward with this objective but will rely on all contributors to the network posting information as it is produced.

There is a reasonable level of awareness of chytridiomycosis in the general community in Australia. Some public information is available through factsheets and internet websites (examples at Attachment A) but should be coordinated, kept up to date and made more easily accessible. It is also clear that some aspects of the disease are still poorly understood by members of the public. Therefore, continuing education is important.


The review concludes that overall there has been limited contribution to the change of threat through the actions under Objective 4: Stakeholder communication on TAP objectives. Important ongoing work implementing the proposed communication strategy is required to enable progress on this objective.

4.5 Objective 5: Coordination of management activitiesTo coordinate management activities effectivelyPerformance indicator: Stakeholders are engaged in implementation of the plan, with actions reflected in recovery plans, and local and regional management plans.

4.5.1 Action group 5.1 – Establish communication pathways and share information


62 of 91

540541542543544545546547548

549550551552553554

555

556557558

559

560

561562563564565566567568

Item 12.1.3

Table 4.12 Summary of coordination actions to establish communication pathways and share information.Actions Key stakeholder comments Achievement

Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of ActionAction 5.1.1: Ensure strategies to manage chytridiomycosis are addressed in frog recovery plans and include: assessing species vulnerability to chytridiomycosis; monitoring and detection of chytridiomycosis; and identifying actions to address the arrival of the amphibian chytrid in the case of chytridiomycosis-free populations or population decline for chytridiomycosis-positive populations (Category 4).

Strategies to manage chytridiomycosis in frog recovery plans are outlined in the Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan (Phillips et al. 2010), the focus of recovery plans in NSW & SA. Existing frog recovery plans in Qld have not been revised since 2006, nor have any new plans been developed since then. Recovery Plans in ACT outline strategies to manage chytridiomycosis, despite no known chytrid free areas. In Vic., key recovery plans for frogs such as the growling grass frog and Alpine tree frog have taken a long time to gain state and federal approval (e.g. 8 years). While it has suggested that they may be out of date once approved, periodic updates during the approval process have started to include strategies to manage chytridiomycosis.

This action is included and consistent with recovery plans in the ACT and NSW, and Qld suggests it is a key action in enabling preceding actions. It remains a high priority, and requires adequate resources in order to be effective.

Twenty-nine frog species are currently listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. Four species are listed as extinct. Since the adoption of the 2006 TAP, none of the threatened frog species have decreased in their threatened status, with four species increasing in their threatened status, including one species being added to the threatened list. Chytrid fungus has been identified as a possible threat for a number of amphibian species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. However, chytrid is not listed in isolation from other threats, such as habitat loss and degradation. The role of chytrid in the decline of amphibian species ranges from known to unknown/unquantified and as it does not affect all frog species and populations in the same way, specific management actions for individual species may only be possible on a longer term basis. This action has been partially met.

4.5.1.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatTwenty-nine frog species are currently listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. Four species are listed as extinct. Of the 29 listed threatened species, only 20 of the species have recovery plans. Within these 20 recovery plans, 15 plans mention chytrid fungus as a contributing factor in the decline of frog populations, whilst five recovery plans do not mention chytrid fungus in the plan at all. All of the plans addressed other possible threats which contribute to frog population decline.

The 15 species that have recovery plans mentioning the potential threat from chytrid fungus are the armoured mistfrog, mountain mistfrog, Kroombit Tinker Frog, waterfall frog, common mistfrog, spotted tree frog, Fleay’s frog, giant barred frog, lace-eyed tree frog, Baw Baw frog, southern corroboree frog, Eungella day frog, Tinkling frog, Wallum Sedge frog and the stuttering frog. Determining the degree of threat from chytrid fungus

63 of 91

569570571

572

573574575576577578579580

Item 12.1.3

has been identified as an action item in each of these recovery plans. It is also useful to know for what species chytrid fungus is not having a threatening impact. For example, most recovery plans state that chytrid is a major cause for the decline in species population whilst some recovery plans mentioned that chytrid fungus could be a potential threat but other factors posed a more likely threat, such as feral animals, UV-B radiation, chemical pollutants, or the introduction of exotic fish and mammals.

While this review has been able to identify where researchers are concerned about the threat of the chytrid fungus to the threatened species through actions identified in recovery plans, the actual action on the ground and abatement of the threat is much more difficult to measure. This may be in part due to a lack of resources to undertake sufficient surveillance of all of the threatened species or a focus of recovery teams on other priorities (e.g. habitat loss). It should be noted that the resources required undertaking comprehensive surveillance would be very expensive. Recovery plans can provide a focus for recovery teams or community groups to seek funding for actions through government funding. Appendix C provides details on funding provided through the Australian Government Caring for our Country program for the management of the 29 threatened frog species identified in the TAP.. Only two project summaries identify specific actions targeting the problem of chytrid fungus in the species.

4.5.2 Action group 5.2 – Use regional management plansRegional management plans, agreed by governments and the community, set out the means for identifying and achieving a region’s natural resource management targets. They detail catchment-wide activities including land and water management, biodiversity and agricultural practices.


Table 4.13 Summary of actions towards the use of regional management plans Actions Key stakeholder comments Achievement

Jurisdiction situation Effectiveness of ActionAction 5.2.1: Include a strategic overview of the threat posed by chytridiomycosis to threatened species and amphibian communities that have high

Comments from jurisdictions regarding this action were few. In Qld, frogs susceptible to chytridiomycosis are listed as low priority due to NRM bodies using the threatened species prioritisation process ‘back on track’ when preparing their NRM plans. As a result, most plans

Many jurisdictions did not comment on the effectiveness of this TAP action. The impact of chytrid is mentioned in some NSW regional management plans, but no strategic overview provided in regional NRM plans. SA report that this action was effective, as

This action has not been met. It should be possible to identify the threat of chytrid on threatened amphibian populations within relevant regional management plans.

64 of 91

581582583584585586587588589590591592

593

594595

596

597598599600601602

Item 12.1.3


conservation value in regional management plans (Category 4).

do not include amphibian species threatened by chytridiomycosis, therefore no strategic overview included in regional NRM plans. The definition of ‘regional’ was again raised as unclear as to whether it relates to Regional Land Management Plans or Frog Management Plans.

chytridiomycosis identified as a threat in the Recovery Plan for the Golden Bell Frog, Litoria raniformis in the South Australian River Murray Corridor (Turner et al. 2011).

Action 5.2.2: Identify current and proposed local management plans, which address the control and/or prevention of spread of B. dendrobatidis for regions, in regional management plans (Category 4).

Comments from jurisdictions were lacking regarding this action. ACT reported that no progress was made towards this action, but that it may not have been appropriate due to no known chytrid free areas. It was also pointed out that the meaning of local and regional management plans did not clearly indicate whether the TAP was referring to NRM plans or frog management plans.No current or proposed local management plans, whether NRM or frog plans, were mentioned by stakeholders within the context of regional management, either to control and/or prevent the spread of chytrid.

Only one jurisdiction (NSW) commented on the effectiveness of this action, stating that the TAP was not effective.

As no local management plans, current and/or proposed, were mentioned, it seems that no regional initiatives are being carried out on the ground at a local level, in a strategic and coordinated way, thus rendering this action ineffective.

Action 5.2.3: Identify in regional management plans how local management plans will address Objectives 1, 2, 3 and 4 (Category 4).

Comments from jurisdictions were lacking regarding this action. This action was not seen as a priority in ACT, as no known chytrid free areas occur. The lack of clarity on the definition of regional/local and whether the plans refer to land management or frog management was raised again.


This action has not been undertaken.

Action 5.2.4: Regional management plans to include guidance for integration of chytridiomycosis planning into existing regional and

Comments from jurisdictions were lacking regarding this action. This action was not seen as a priority in ACT, as no known chytrid free areas occur. The lack of clarity on the definition of regional/local and whether the plans refer to land


This action has not been implemented, but has the potential to be effective if raised to a higher priority by regions and integrated into their management plans.

65 of 91

Item 12.1.3


local land and biodiversity management plans (Category 4).

management or frog management was raised again.Qld reported that for this action to be carried out, chytridiomycosis needs to be seen as a threat to biodiversity. However, when many regional NRM plans in Qld were developed frog species susceptible to chytridiomycosis were listed as a low priority. Subsequently, they do not include actions to abate the threat posed to amphibian species by chytridiomycosis, for regional and local land and into biodiversity management plans.

Action 5.2.5: Identify in regional management plans, areas that were part of the former range of threatened species for potential later re-introduction (Category 4).

ACT reports that recovery plans and action plans are consistent with this action. In Vic., the former range of some species is well known, such as key threatened Vic. frogs including spotted tree frogs, Alpine tree frogs and Baw Baw Frogs. However, less is known about other species, such as the stuttering frog, (also known as the southern barred frog). The implications are that where distributions of threatened species are less well understood, the potential for re-introduction in the future as part of a recovery plan may not be realistic, even if such an option is outlined clearly in regional management plans.

One stakeholder from NSW commented that this action was not effective, while all other stakeholders representing other jurisdictions did not comment.

Recovery plans often cover this issue, as re-introduction may be an option in order to increase populations and species numbers. However, areas outside their former range may be more suitable to reintroduction of threatened species, as chytrid may be unable to compete in atypical environments.Given that research and monitoring has shown that chytrid does not affect all species the same, and can affect the same species differently under various climatic and environmental conditions, this action may not be a priority or effective in abating the threat of chytridiomycosis.

Action 5.2.6: Support regional organisations, community and industry groups and land management agencies in collaboratively developing and implementing regional management

Limited comment was provided by stakeholders regarding this action. ACT reported that no progress had been made towards this action, while Tas. reported that the Chytrid Management Plan and other support was freely given to community groups, industry groups and land management agencies. From the

No comment provided by stakeholders, except one stakeholder in NSW, who said this TAP action was not effective. The definition of ‘regional management’ needs clarification as to whether it means land management or frog management, and such a difference in scale may affect the

With the limited information provided, we are unable to ascertain how much support has been provided to regional organisations and land management agencies, community and industry groups, in order to collaboratively develop and implement regional management plans.

66 of 91

Item 12.1.3


plans (Category 4). feedback, we are unable to tell whether support is given when asked, or a proactive approach to dissemination of information used for priority groups.

perception of whether this action was effective or not.

Action 5.2.7: Where possible, management on public and private lands is integrated with other regional biodiversity conservation measures through the development of regional partnerships or utilisation of appropriate existing structures (Category 4).

In Tas., partnerships with land management agencies and private landholders have been developed through collaborator NRM South under Caring for our Country TWWHA Biosecurity Program, which aims to reduce the spread of pathogens, weeds and pests into the TWWHA. No other partnerships utilising existing structures were reported by stakeholders.

The action was reported as not effective by one stakeholder, with no comment on its effectiveness provided by the other stakeholders. Funding was identified as necessary to ensure collaboration through regional partnerships was developed and existing structures utilised.

This action was not implemented or achieved.

Action 5.2.8: Develop model prototype regional management plans for chytridiomycosis-free and chytrid-contaminated areas (Category 4).

Largely no comment was provided by all stakeholders, with the exceptions of Vic., where funding appeared to be the limiting factor, and ACT, where the action was not progressed due to no known chytrid free-areas.

NSW stated that this action was not effective, while SA said it had not been done, but provided no comment on the importance of the action. The TAP has the potential to be effective in addressing this action, but in developing a model regional plan, complex cross jurisdictional issues with varying levels of priority may need to be addressed. As well any model regional plan would need to be developed collaboratively between various sections of the department, including Environmental Biosecurity, recovery planning, threatened species etc., in order to ensure that the plan is effective across various scales and where cross jurisdictional boundaries occur within the one region. Due to limited resources, both human and

Such a model could potentially guide regional and local management plans, and be a source of additional guidance material relevant to chytridiomycosis-free and chytrid-contaminated areas. In considering or developing regional management plans, regions need to be defined as either species distribution zones or state/territory jurisdictions. If regions comprise species distribution zones and they cross jurisdictional borders, management of such regional areas would potentially be affected by regional and local management priorities. Regions of significance that cross state and territory borders need to be managed with the same level of priority, resources and with the same end in mind, in a cooperative manner to ensure the best outcome. If there are no links between regions and how regional management plans are being implemented, work may not be as effective on a broader scale and thus render the model ineffective.

67 of 91

Item 12.1.3


financial, co-ordination would be very important when developing such a model.

4.5.2.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatStakeholders report that regional and local management plans have in general failed to address the issue of chytrid fungus. Recovery plans for individual threatened amphibian species have often included chytrid fungus as a risk factor when considering reintroduction to the wild as an option in order to increase populations and species numbers.

The review considers that the objectives of this action group have not been achieved.

4.5.3 Action group 5.3 – Undertake national coordinationThe department (i.e. DSEWPaC) will provide support to the Amphibian Diseases Threat Abatement Committee (the committee) to assist and monitor implementation of the plan, including reviewing the actions and broad priorities for funding, and highlighting gaps. The development of education and extension material would be assisted by the involvement of the committee, which could also assess the potential for broader application of management methods or approaches developed through local management plans.


Table 4.14 Summary of national coordination actions.


Action 5.3.1: Convene an Amphibian Diseases Threat Abatement Committee that includes people with technical

While a national group was thought to be a good idea, many jurisdictions thought this had not occurred. It was proposed that such a group should

Through initiating the chytrid TAP review, identification of key stakeholders from all states and territories was paramount in requesting

A stakeholder working group was brought together at a workshop held in May 2012 to consider and advise the review of the TAP review. This group consisted of a broad selection of people representing all states and territories,

68 of 91

603

604605606607608

609

610611612613

614

615616617618619620

Item 12.1.3


and practical experience in chytridiomycosis and amphibian management and research, to assist implementing this plan (Category 1).

include people who had worked on chytrid under different seasonal conditions, in different habitat types, and who have worked on threatened frog species outside of the context of chytrid management.

feedback on the effectiveness of the TAP. Through this process, stakeholders were asked to indicate their interest in being part of a working group to facilitate the review of the TAP.

from both state and federal government agencies, as well as leading researchers. It is proposed that this group will be called the ‘National Chytrid Group’ and take on the role and responsibilities of the proposed Amphibian Diseases Threat Abatement Committee. This action has been partially met.

Action 5.3.2: The Committee to ensure each action is costed, its duration estimated, and given a ranking in terms of priority for implementation and lead organisation and person(s) responsible for the Action identified (Category 2).

Largely no comment was provided on this action. Vic. thought it was not relevant to them, while a representative from Qld thought it seemed essential but to their knowledge thought it had not occurred.

No comment was provided on the effectiveness of this action by stakeholders. Given that a committee has not been developed yet, this action could be seen as ineffective for the current TAP.

Implementation of this action could be considered in a revision of the TAP.

Action 5.3.3: Revise relevant sections of the National Action Plan for Australian Frogs to include an evaluation of the current status of the knowledge of the ecology of all Australian amphibian species and to recommend appropriate management actions to prevent infection with the amphibian chytrid resulting in chytridiomycosis or to decrease its impact (Category 3).

Largely no comment was provided on this action. However, the National Action Plan for Australian Frogs was suggested to be out of date, due to it being written prior to a comprehensive understanding of the role of chytrid fungus. This action was seen as essential, and while it was not known to have occurred, the plan being re-written was proposed instead of just a revision.

The National Action Plan is in need of revision, as it predates the understanding of the role of the disease. While this is still considered essential, given that no attempts to revise the National Action Plan are evident, this action has been ineffective.

The National Action Plan for Australian Frogs has not been revised.

Action 5.3.4: The Committee to establish clear links with state-based Chytridiomycosis Threat Abatement Teams (or their equivalent), and with relevant regional and local bodies that are responsible for management

There are no state –based Chytridiomycosis Threat Abatement teams or their equivalent. ACT reported that due to the small size of the jurisdiction, communication lines are well established and clear between land managers and wildlife

While communication lines are clear and present in ACT, the large body of knowledge and management tools developed separately within each jurisdiction may be underutilised due to a lack of links between relevant bodies. Without well established pathways and

The establishment of such links is undoubtedly essential to an informed national co-ordination of chytrid management. Given that much of the information is available, there may be no/low cost of identifying key players to act as channels (so people are the key points of contacts/areas) so that information flow can start to better inform management decisions on all levels from state to

69 of 91

Item 12.1.3


of infection with the amphibian chytrid, to ensure that clear lines of communication are established that promote and manage best practice in on-ground actions (Category 4).

researchers. links between states/regions and local groups, the lack of information flow indicates this action must be ineffective.

local.The proposed communication strategy and the formation of the National Chytrid Group would also expect to contribute to the achievement of this action.

4.5.3.2 Assessment of contribution to change of threatThe objectives of this action group have not yet been met. However, a stakeholder working group consisting of a broad selection of people representing all states and territories, from both state and federal government agencies, as well as leading researchers, was formed at the May 2012 workshop. It is proposed that this group will be called the National Chytrid Group and take on the role and responsibilities of the proposed Amphibian Diseases Threat Abatement Committee.

The formation of this stakeholder working group has provided some progress towards the actions of this group being met in the future. The Commonwealth would be expected to support this group and have an ongoing coordination role in the actions under this objective.4.5.4 Conclusion of assessment of contribution to change of threat from Objective 5

In conclusion, this review has found that overall Objective 5: Coordination of management activities has achieved little towards a change of threat since the TAP was made in 2006. Many of the actions under this objective require implementation at the regional and state level but coordination efforts are needed at the national level.

70 of 91

621

622623624625626627628629630631632633

Item 12.1.3

5. Funding and implementation of TAP

The Australian Government funded, through EPBC Act appropriation, the following seven projects targeted specifically to key TAP actions:

1. “Emerging Amphibian Diseases and Disease Surveillance in Queensland – Stage 1 (January 2006 – January 2007 2010). James Cook University. $50,000 (2005-06).

2. “Emerging Amphibian Diseases and Disease Surveillance in Queensland – Stage 2 (February 2007 – April 2010). James Cook University. $41,400 (2006-07).

3. Experimental research to obtain a better understanding of the potential presence and impact of new amphibian diseases in the Wet Tropics, Australia - Stage 1. CSIRO. $385,371 (2006-07)

4. “Amphibian chytrid related research”. Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre. $128,130 (2008-09).

5. “Development and validation of a rapid field test to detect the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis at a high specificity and sensitivity, for use in surveys to determine the distribution of chytridiomycosis”. Taronga Conservation Society Australia. $38,038 (2010-11).

6. “Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs” and “Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs”. James Cook University. $34,978 (2010-11).

7. Preparation of a disease strategy manual for amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. James Cook University. $44,000 (2011-12).

The Australian Government Caring for our Country program has funded ten projects targeting the recovery of threatened frogs and amphibians. These projects total $718,009. Two of the projects specifically identify chytrid in their project summaries and the others include general actions to assist in the recovery of the threatened species. This includes feral animal and weed control, revegetation and other actions to improve water quality in wetlands etc. A further seven projects that generally improve habitat for native Australian frogs have also been funded, with a total value of $124,645. A summary of all of these projects is at Attachment E.

The majority of funding specifically directed toward chytrid fungus research and development has been obtained by universities through grants such as those provided by the Australian Research Council.

A workshop of key stakeholders and experts held in May 2012 considered the issue of chytrid fungus and the actions identified in the threat abatement plan. At that workshop the key actions still to be undertaken were identified as: improved data collection to facilitate the identification of the population level of threat in wild populations; a genome bank for the cryopreservation of threatened species; continued research into the most effective methods of mitigating and suppressing the disease in wild amphibian populations; and continued improvement in communication on the disease. These actions will require significant funding and resources to be achieved.

71 of 91

634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676677678679680

Item 12.1.3

6. Conclusions

6.1 Completion of TAP actionsThis TAP comprises 68 actions listed under five objectives. Of these it is considered that eight actions have been completed, 39 actions have been completed in part, and 21 actions not completed. Where the actions have been identified as being completed in part, this is typically because the action relates to something that needs to be done across all the threatened species, all of the states or because only a portion of the research has been undertaken to date.

6.2 TAP action contribution to goals and objectivesThe implementation of actions in this TAP has occurred in varying degrees across all of the objectives.

The first objective focuses on the prevention of pathogen spread. Some of the actions under this objective were found to be no longer relevant, in part due to new knowledge about the disease and in part due to the almost complete spread of the disease to all climatically suitable areas throughout Australia. The stakeholders commented that at this point in time it would be much more useful to change the focus of this objective from trying to contain the disease (the opportunity to achieve this has passed) to suppressing and mitigating the effects of the disease on threatened amphibian populations. However, some good work has been achieved under this objective, such as the development of hygiene protocols and a national disease strategy.

The second objective focuses on recovery of listed threatened species. There has been important work undertaken during the life of this TAP to minimise the threat to and improve the recovery of listed threatened amphibian species, mainly through the development of captive breeding programs, but there is still much to be done. Priorities to be addressed include: coordinated monitoring and surveillance programs; captive breeding and reintroduction protocols for individual species; and the establishment of a genome bank. The majority of the work to date has been supported by funding from independent sources and its completion and implementation requires further funding and resources. When assessing actions taken under this objective the conclusion is that the actions have made a very limited contribution to threat abatement. There is no evidence to suggest an improvement in the status of any of the identified threatened amphibians. None of the threatened frog species listed at the time of the making of the TAP in 2006 have decreased in their threatened status. However, four species have increased in their threatened status since 2006, including one species being added to the threatened list. In many cases, there has been insufficient monitoring and evaluation of the species to understand the population dynamics and there may also be other significant threats to those species, such as habitat loss, meaning that the species has not had a chance to recover. It is also not possible to determine whether chytrid fungus is likely to become a key threatening process to amphibians that are currently not threatened.

The third objective focuses on the research and monitoring required to further increase our knowledge of chytrid fungus. Overall the review concludes that we now understand more about the disease, including through the development of diagnostic tools and management techniques for species that continue to decline due to chytrid fungus, but limited funding and resources are restricting the achievement of many of the actions under this objective. For example, it is critically important for the national management of chytrid fungus into the future that Australia have a national quality accredited laboratory facility(ies) such as AAHL. Additional answers are needed regarding the transmission, reservoirs and possible vectors of

72 of 91

681

682

683684685686687688

689

690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723724725726727728729

Item 12.1.3

the disease and also the apparent resistance that some individuals demonstrate. The conclusion for this objective is that some progress has been made during the life of the TAP but further action is critical.

The fourth objective of stakeholder communication has not been met. Stakeholders report that reporting and information sharing is not undertaken in any formal or structured way and due to lack of resources the information on the central website specified in the objective has not been updated since 2008. However, during the review process the stakeholders met and developed a potential communication strategy to progress this objective and facilitate improved communication. This has the potential to provide a central website for public information and also an essential conduit between all stakeholders.

The fifth objective focuses on coordination of management actions and strategies. The review found that little has been achieved under this objective since the TAP was made in 2006. Many of the actions under this objective require implementation at the regional and state level but coordination efforts are needed at the national level.

6.3 TAP goalsThe TAP has two goals of to prevent amphibian populations or regions that are currently chytridiomycosis-free from becoming infected by preventing further spread of the amphibian chytrid within Australia; and to decrease the impact of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected.

While there has been progress made on some of the actions identified in the TAP, such as the development of hygiene protocols, a rapid field test to detect the chytrid fungus and some research undertaken into the disease, it cannot be concluded that either of the two goals have been met. The amphibian chytrid fungus has spread to almost all of the climatically suitable areas in Australia, aside from a few isolated areas, for example the TWWHA. There is no evidence to suggest an improvement in the status of any of the identified threatened amphibians. None of the threatened frog species listed at the time of the making of the TAP in 2006 have decreased in their threatened status. However, four species have increased in their threatened status since 2006, including one species being added to the threatened list. In many cases, there has been insufficient monitoring and evaluation of the species to understand the population dynamics and there may also be other significant threats to those species, such as habitat loss, meaning that the species has not had a chance to recover.

In conclusion, the assessment of the review, as to whether the TAP has abated the threat from chytrid fungus to threatened amphibian species, is that the threat is still current and has not abated.

6.4 Outstanding issuesThe key outstanding actions required under the TAP are: improved data collection to facilitate the identification of the population level of threat in wild populations; a genome bank for the cryopreservation of threatened species; continued research into the most effective methods of mitigating and suppressing the disease in wild amphibian populations; and improvement in communication on the disease. These actions were identified by the key stakeholders during the consultation phase of the review process. There are other actions that were also identified as warranting attention.

On the research side there are still significant gaps in our knowledge about the virus characteristics, apparent immunity of some frog species and populations, and transmission

73 of 91

730731732733734735736737738739740741742743744745

746

747748749750751752753754755756757758759760761762763764765766767

768

769770771772773774775776777778

Item 12.1.3

factors including host factors, environment factors, population dynamics and other species as reservoirs of the virus.

A lack of funding is severely limiting the implementation of many threat abatement actions required under the TAP. For example, it is critically important for the national management of chytrid into the future that Australia has a well funded, fully resourced national quality accredited laboratory facility(ies) such as AAHL. The coordination of management actions and strategies is also required.

As for recovery planning there are still gaps for some species in knowing whether chytrid fungus is a significant threat and, for other species, what the impact is on a population level relative to other threats. Even for those species where chytrid has been identified as a threat, there is insufficient on-ground action to counter the threat.

There is some limited communication and information exchange occurring on chytrid fungus. However, the review identified that this has been very ad hoc, should be better coordinated nationally and needs to be considered in the future management of chytrid fungus. There will be an ongoing challenge to ensure good communication continues with many other issues demanding the time of those people interested in abating the threat of chytrid fungus.

74 of 91

779780781782783784785786787788789790791792793794795796797798

Item 12.1.3

Reference list – cited and consideredAlford RA, Skerratt LF, Berger L, Speare R, Bell S, Kenyon N, Rowley JJL, Hauselberger K,

Young S, Voyles J, Puschendorf R, Cashins S, Webb R, Campbell R and Mendez D (2010). Final Report to Department of the Environment and Heritage on work completed for RFT 43/2004, “Experimental research to obtain a better understanding of the pathogenesis of chytridiomycosis, and the susceptibility and resistance of key amphibian species to chytridiomycosis in Australia”. Accessed Sept 2011. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/pathogenesis-of-chytridiomycosis.pdf

Allan K and Gartenstein S (2010). Keeping it clean: A Tasmanian field hygiene manual to prevent the spread of freshwater pests and pathogens. Published by Natural Resource Management South, Tasmania.

Berger L, Longcore J, Speare R, Hyatt A, Skerratt LF (2009a). Fungal Diseases in Amphibians. Pp 2986-3052 in: Amphibian Biology, Volume 8 Amphibian Decline: Disease, Parasites, Maladies, and Pollution. Edited by H Heatwole and JW Wilkinson, Surrey Beatty & Sons. NSW.

Berger L, Speare R, Marantelli G, Skerratt LF (2009b). A technique to evaluate the activity of antifungal compounds against Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and unsuccessful treatment of experimentally infected green tree frogs (Litoria caerulea) by fluconazole and benzalkonium chloride. Research in Veterinary Science, 87: 106-110.

Berger L, Speare R, Pessier A, Voyles J, Skerratt LF. (2010). Treatment of chytridiomycosis requires urgent clinical trials. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 02: 165-174.

Cashins (2010), PhD Thesis

Chatfield MWH. et al. (2011) Elevated temperature as a treatment for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infection in captive frogs. Diseases of aquatic organisms 94, no. 3

Clemann N, Hunter D, Scroggie M, Pietsch R and Hollis G. (2009/10). Vanishing frogs: prevalence of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in populations of key species in the Australian Alps. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Ficetola GF, Miaud C, Pompanon F& Taberlet P. (2008) Species detection using environmental DNA from water samples. Biology Letters, 4, 423-425

Garland et al. unpublished-JCU submission

Garland S, Wood J, Skerratt LF. (2011). Comparison of sensitivity between the real-time detection of a TaqMan assay for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and conventional detection. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 94: 101-105.

Garner TWJ. et al. (2009). Using itraconazole to clear Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infection, and subsequent depigmentation of Alytes muletensis tadpoles. Diseases of aquatic organisms 83, no. 3

Harris R N, Lauer A, Simon M A, Banning J L, and Alford R A. (2009). Addition of antifungal skin bacteria to salamanders ameliorates the effects of chytridiomycosis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 83:11–16. doi: 10.3354/dao02004

Hauselberger K. Ph.D. thesis JCU75 of 91

799

800801802803804805806807

808809810811812813814815816817818819820

821822

823

824825826827828829830831

832833

834

835836837

838839840

841842843

844

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/pathogenesis-of-chytridiomycosis.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/pathogenesis-of-chytridiomycosis.pdf

Item 12.1.3

Hauselberger K & Alford R. (2005)

Heard GW, Scroggie MP & Clemann N (2012). Correlates and consequences of chytridiomycosis for populations of the Growling Grass Frog in peri-urban Melbourne. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Unpublished Report to DSE Port Phillip Region, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria [Draft]

Howard K, Antrobus J & Clemann N. (2010). The status of the threatened Alpine Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii alpina after the Black Saturday fires at Lake Mountain and Mount Bullfight Nature Conservation Reserve. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria

Hunter (2009) Developing a protocol for the detection and quantification of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in the environment. Honours Thesis, University of Newcastle

Hunter DA, 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 Australia Alps. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 2010 doi: 10.3354/dao02118.

Hunter D, Pietsch R, Clemann N, Scroggie M, Hollis G, & Marantelli G (2009). Prevalence of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in the Australian Alps. Unpublished Report to the Australian Alps Liaison Committee: January 2009. Pp 1-22.

Hyatt 1,* D G Boyle1, V Olsen1, D B Boyle1, L Berger2, D Obendorf3, A Dalton4, K Kriger5, M Hero5, H Hines6, R Phillott7, R Campbell7, G Marantelli8, F Gleason9, A Colling (2007) Diagnostic assays and sampling protocols for the detection of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis A D DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Vol. 73: 175–192

Kriger KM, Hines HB, Hyatt AD, Boyle D G & Hero J-M (2006). Techniques for detecting chytridiomycosis in wild frogs: comparing histology with real-time Taqman PCR. DISEASES OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS Vol. 71: 141–148.

Lips K R, Brem F, Brenes R, Reeve JD, Alford R A, Voyles J, Carey C, Livo L, Pessier A P, and Collins J P (2006). Emerging infectious disease and the loss of biodiversity in a Neotropical amphibian community. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America 103:3165–3170. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506889103.

Mahony & Clulow (unpublished report) Cryopreservation and Reconstitution Technologies: A Proposal to Establish A Genome Resource Bank For Threatened Australian Amphibians.

McCarthy M (2008). Ecological modelling for the corroboree frog captive breeding and reintroduction program. Unpublished report to the ACT Government. School of Botany, University of Melbourne

McDonald KR, Bolitho E, Dennis A, Simpson N and Winter JW (2000). Recovery plan for the magnificent broodfrog Pseudophryne covacevichae 2000-2004. Unpublished report to Environment Australia, Canberra.

76 of 91

845846847848849850851852853854855856

857858859

860861862863

864865866867

868869870871872

873874875

876877878879880

881882883

884885886

887888889

Item 12.1.3

Murray KA, Skerratt LF, Speare R, McCallum H(2009). Impact and dynamics of disease in species threatened by the amphibian chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Conservation Biology 23: 1242-1252.

Murray KA, Skerratt LF, Speare R, McCallum H (2010a). Evidence of effects of endemic chytridiomycosis on host survival, behavior, and emigration: reply to Schmidt. Conservation Biology 24: 900-902.

Murray KA, Retallick R, McDonald KR, Mendez D, Aplin K, Kirkpatrick P, Berger L, Hunter D, Hines HB, Campbell R, Pauza M, Driessen M, Speare R, Richards SJ, Mahony M, Freeman A, Phillott AD, Hero J-M, Driscoll D, Puschendorf R, Skerratt LF. (2010b). The distribution and host range of the pandemic disease chytridiomycosis in Australia spanning surveys from 1956 to 2007. Ecology 91: 1557.

Murray KA, Rosauer D, McCallum H, Skerratt LF (2011a). Integrating species traits with extrinsic threats: closing the gap between predicting and preventing species declines. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 278: 1515-1523.

Murray KA, Skerratt LF, Garland S, Kriticos DJ, McCallum H. in review. Whether (and how) the weather drives patterns of endemic amphibian chytridiomycosis: a pathogen proliferation approach.

Murray KA, Skerratt L, Marantelli G, Berger L, Hunter D, Mahony M and Hines H (2011b). Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Murray KA, Skerratt LF, Marantelli G, Berger L, Hunter D, Mahony M, Hines H (2011c). Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/frogs-hygiene-protocols.pdf. Report no.

Murray KA, Retallick RWR, Puschendorf R, Skerratt LF, Rosauer D, McCallum H, Berger L, Speare R, VanDerWal J (2011d). Assessing spatial patterns of disease risk to biodiversity: implications for the management of the amphibian pathogen, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 163-173.

Murray KA, Retallick RWR, Puschendorf R, Skerratt LF, Rosauer D, McCallum H, Berger L, Speare R, VanDerWal J (2011e). Issues with modelling the current and future distribution of invasive pathogens. Journal of Applied Ecology 48: 177-180.

Murray KA and Skerratt LF (2012). Predicting wild hosts for amphibian chytridiomycosis: integrating host life-history traits with pathogen environmental requirements. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 18: 200-224

Notomi et al. (2000)

North, S And Alford R, (2008). Infection intensity and sampling locality affect Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis distribution among body regions on green-eyed tree frogs Litoria genimaculata. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 81, 177-188.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2001). Yellow-spotted Bell Frog (Litoria castanea) and Peppered Tree Frog (Litoria piperata) recovery plan. NPWS, Hurstville, NSW.

Phalen D, Slapeta J, King J, Rose K (2011). Development and validation of a rapid field test to detect the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis at a high specificity and sensitivity, for use in surveys to determine the distribution of Chytridiomycosis.

77 of 91

890891892

893894895

896897898899900

901902903

904905906

907908909910

911912913914

915916917918

919920921

922923924925926927928929930

931932933

934935936

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/frogs-hygiene-protocols.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/frogs-hygiene-protocols.pdf

Item 12.1.3

Australian Registry of Wildlife Health, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Mosman New South Wales. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Phillips A, Voyles, J, Wilson D and Driessen M (2010). Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan. Published by Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania.

Pessier AP and JR Mendelson (eds.) (2010). A Manual for Control of Infectious Diseases in Amphibian Survival Assurance Colonies and Reintroduction Programs. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group: Apple Valley, MN.

Puschendorf R, Hoskin CJ, Cashins SD, McDonald KR, Skerratt LF, Vanderwal J, Alford RA (2011). Environmental refuge from disease-driven amphibian extinction. Conservation Biology 25:956-964.

Skerratt LF, Berger L, Hines HB, McDonald KR, Mendez D, Speare R (2008). Survey protocol for detecting chytridiomycosis in all Australian frog populations. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 80: 85-94.

Skerratt LF, McDonald KR, Hines HB, Berger L, Mendez D, Phillott A, Cashins SD, Murray KA, Speare R (2010a). Validation of the mapping protocol for Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Queensland, Australia Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92: 117-129.

Skerratt LF, Phillott AD, Cashins SD, Webb R, Puschendorf R, Windmiller, B, James R, Robbins A, Berger L, Voyles J, Speare R, Alford RA, McDonald K, Mendez D, VanDerWal J and Garland S (2010b). Final report to Department of the Environment and Heritage on RFT 42/2004 Experimental research to obtain a better understanding of the epidemiology, transmission and dispersal of amphibian chytrid fungus in Australian ecosystems Accessed Sept 2011. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/amphibian-chytrid-fungus.pdf

Skerratt LF, Mendez D, McDonald K, Garland S, Livingstone J, Berger L, Speare R (2011). Validation of diagnostic tests in wildlife: the case of chytridiomycosis in wild amphibians. Journal of Herpetology 45: 444-450.

Shoo LP, Olson DH, McMenamin SK, Murray KA, Van Sluys M, Donnelly MA, Stratford D, Terhivuo J, Merino-Viteri A, Herbert SM, Bishop PJ, Corn PS, Dovey L, Griffiths RA, Lowe K, Mahony M, McCallum H, Shuker JD, Simpkins C, Skerratt LF, Williams SE, Hero J-M. (2011). Engineering a future for amphibians under climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01942.x.

Stice MJ and BriggsCJ (2010). Immunization is ineffective at preventing infection and mortality due to the amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 46(1): 70-77.

Stockwell M (2011) PhD Thesis - Impact and mitigation of the emerging infectious disease chytridiomycosis on the endangered green and golden bell frog. The University of Newcastle.

Turner R, Suitor L and Marsland K (2011). Southern Bell Frog (Litoria raniformis) Census and Community Engagement Project in the Lower River Murray, South Australia. A Report for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board, Murray Bridge.

78 of 91

937938939

940941942

943944945

946947948

949950951

952953954

955956957958959960961962

963964965

966967968969970

971972973

974975976977978979980981

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/amphibian-chytrid-fungus.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/pubs/amphibian-chytrid-fungus.pdf

Item 12.1.3

Van Sluys M, Kriger KM, Phillott AD, Campbell R, Skerratt LF, Hero JM (2008). Storage of samples at high temperatures reduces the amount of amphibian chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis DNA detectable by PCR assay. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 81, 93-97.

Woodhams DC et al (2012). Treatment of amphibians infected with chytrid fungus: learning from failed trials with itraconazole, antimicrobial peptides, bacteria, and heat therapy. Diseases of aquatic organisms 98, no. 1

79 of 91

982983984985986987988989

Item 12.1.3

Attachment A: amphibian chytrid fungus websites

Australian Government website resources:

Threat Abatement Plan: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html

Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs:http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-hygiene-protocols.html

Guidelines for minimising disease risks associated with captive breeding, raising and restocking programs for Australian frogs:http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-captive-breeding.html

Development and validation of a rapid field test to detect the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis at a high specificity and sensitivity, for use in surveys to determine the distribution of Chytridiomycosis:http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/chytrid-fungus-field-test.html

Further information on amphibian chytrid fungus: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/frog-fungus.html

Emerging amphibian diseases and disease surveillance in Queensland - Stage 2 (February 2007 – April 2010): http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/60776-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

Emerging amphibian diseases and disease surveillance in Queensland - Stage 1 (January 2006 - January 2007):http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/threat-abatement-projects/cerf-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

Poster: http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/index-posters.html#invasive

State and territory government website information:Government Information

availableWebsite link

ACT Factsheet http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/158200/MR256_0709_Corroboree_frog_breeding_prograVm.pdf (accessed 17/7/2012)

NSW Statement of Intent;

Key threatening process listing

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/09479soi2chytrid.pdf (accessed 17/7/2012)

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/

80 of 91

990991992993994995996997998999

10001001100210031004100510061007100810091010101110121013101410151016101710181019102010211022102310241025102610271028

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/amphibianchytridktplisting.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/09479soi2chytrid.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/09479soi2chytrid.pdf

http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/158200/MR256_0709_Corroboree_frog_breeding_prograVm.pdf



http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/index-posters.html#invasive

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/threat-abatement-projects/cerf-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/threat-abatement-projects/cerf-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/60776-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/60776-emerging-amphibian-diseases.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/frog-fungus.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/chytrid-fungus-field-test.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/chytrid-fungus-field-test.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-captive-breeding.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-captive-breeding.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-hygiene-protocols.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/frogs-hygiene-protocols.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html

Item 12.1.3

amphibianchytridktplisting.htm (accessed 17/7/2012)

NT Listed as a threat to green tree frog on website

http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/animals/native/common/frog (accessed 17/7/2012)

Qld Northern Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (NQTFRT), 2001) [State Recovery Plan];

Individual frog species fact sheets

Recovery Plan for the stream-dwelling rainforest frogs of the wet tropics biogeographic region of north-east Queensland 2000 - 2004 (accessed 17/7/2012)

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/factsfigures/FloraAndFauna/Species/litoria-rheocola.html (1 example of the factsheets - accessed 17/7/2012)

SA Various recovery plans

Unable to obtain link to pdf documents

Tas. Tasmanian Chytrid Management Plan;

Listed as a threat to wildlife on website;

Report on Amphibian Chytrid Fungus in the TWWHA

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Publications/LJEM-8887EH?open (accessed 17/7/2012)

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-673V89?open (accessed 17/7/2012)

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LJEM-7BY3CR?open (accessed 17/7/2012

Vic. Guidelines for managing Growling Grass Frog;Action Statement for Booroolong Frog;Media release – Spotted Tree Frogs

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128902/ARI-Technical-Series-GGF-guidelines-2010.pdf (accessed 17/7/2012)

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/103199/118_Booroolong_Frog_2001.pdf (accessed 17/7/2012)http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/about-dse/media-releases/spotted-tree-frogs-hop-back-to-top-spot (accessed 17/7/2012)

WA Assessment of chytrid fungus in frogs Ord River Irrigation Area Report (2005)

http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/HLA_(2005c)_Chytrid_Fungus_report.pdf (accessed 17/7/2012)

81 of 91

10291030

http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/HLA_(2005c)_Chytrid_Fungus_report.pdf

http://www.dsd.wa.gov.au/documents/HLA_(2005c)_Chytrid_Fungus_report.pdf

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/about-dse/media-releases/spotted-tree-frogs-hop-back-to-top-spot

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/about-dse/media-releases/spotted-tree-frogs-hop-back-to-top-spot

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/103199/118_Booroolong_Frog_2001.pdf

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/103199/118_Booroolong_Frog_2001.pdf

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/128902/ARI-Technical-Series-GGF-guidelines-2010.pdf



http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LJEM-7BY3CR?open

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LJEM-7BY3CR?open

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-673V89?open

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LJEM-673V89?open

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Publications/LJEM-8887EH?open

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Publications/LJEM-8887EH?open

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/factsfigures/FloraAndFauna/Species/litoria-rheocola.html

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/factsfigures/FloraAndFauna/Species/litoria-rheocola.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/rainforest-frogs/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/rainforest-frogs/index.html

http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/animals/native/common/frog

http://www.nretas.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/animals/native/common/frog

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/amphibianchytridktplisting.htm

Item 12.1.3

Other websites with information about amphibian chytrid fungus. Note that this list is not exhaustive but is illustrative of the interested parties in Australia.

Australian Wildlife Health Network:Chytrid factsheet: http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN_Admin/ManageWebsite/FactSheets/UploadedFiles/120/Chytridiomycosis%208%20Aug%202009%20(2.1).pdf (accessed 17/7/2012).

Bulletin Board: http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN/Forum/ListPosting.aspx?TopicID=48 (accessed 17/7/2012).

Frogs Australia:http://www.frogsaustralia.net.au/conservation/disease.cfm (accessed 17/7/2012).

Amphibian Research Centrehttp://frogs.org.au/arc/ (accessed 17/7/2012).

Victorian Frog Group:http://frogs.org.au/vfg/features/fungus2001.html (accessed 17/7/2012).

Amphibian Diseases Home Pagehttp://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/ampdis.htm (accessed 17/7/2012).

Frogwatch – ACThttp://www.ginninderralandcare.org.au/frogwatch (accessed 17/7/2012).

James Cook University:http://www.jcu.edu.au/ (too many reports and links to list – see reference list of this review report)

82 of 91

1031103210331034103510361037103810391040104110421043104410451046104710481049105010511052105310541055105610571058105910601061

http://www.jcu.edu.au/

http://www.ginninderralandcare.org.au/frogwatch

http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/ampdis.htm

http://frogs.org.au/vfg/features/fungus2001.html

http://www.frogsaustralia.net.au/conservation/disease.cfm

http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN/Forum/ListPosting.aspx?TopicID=48

http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN/Forum/ListPosting.aspx?TopicID=48

http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN_Admin/ManageWebsite/FactSheets/UploadedFiles/120/Chytridiomycosis%208%20Aug%202009%20(2.1).pdf

http://www.wildlifehealth.org.au/AWHN_Admin/ManageWebsite/FactSheets/UploadedFiles/120/Chytridiomycosis%208%20Aug%202009%20(2.1).pdf

Item 12.1.3

Attachment B: Map of the distribution of chytridiomycosis (with dates of first detection)

From Murray et al (2010)

83 of 91

1062

1063

10641065

Item 12.1.3

Attachment C – Critical gaps in knowledge about chytrid fungus

Fungus characteristics/infection Trigger points required to establish infection and/or cause extinction of a population Role of probiotics Differences between strains of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Role of skin bacteria in resistance to infection Role of temperature, heavy metals and salinity to reduce infection

Immunity Levels of acquired and innate immunity is extremely variable – why? Why are naive populations naive? Understand ‘secure’ populations within infected areas

TransmissionHost factors

Presence of clinically normal carriers and their role in disseminating the zoospores

Environment Rates of persistence of fungal spores in different environments Why is the situation in WA so different

Population dynamics Effects of endemic chytrid infection on population viability analyses Effects of endemic infection on survivorship in common species and how this might change in

fragmented populations or endangered species Spatial and landscape dynamics of infection Minimum population size required to initiate and maintain infection - influence of spatial,

temporal and landscape effects

Reservoir species/other species Reservoir species - do they exist naturally and what is the effect? Can non-amphibian species carry/disseminate infection? Cross-species transmission - rates, virulence, dynamics of infection, the interplay between

different populations and species

Survival assurance strategies Develop protocols for captive bred populations of at risk species Pilot programs for successful reintroduction – habitat modification, bio-augmentation Evaluate risks and benefits of translocations and reintroductions

84 of 91

1066106710681069107010711072107310741075107610771078107910801081108210831084108510861087108810891090109110921093109410951096109710981099110011011102110311041105

Item 12.1.3

Attachment D: Recovery plans and other advicesTAP Species Listing

advice exists

Listing advice mentions

Conservation advice exists

Conservation advice mentions

Recovery plan exists

Recovery plan mentions

State or territory plan exists

State or territory plan mentions

Rheobatrachus silussoutherngastric- brooding frog (EX)

x x Major cause of decline and an objective of the recovery plan

x

Rheobatrachus vitellinusnorthern gastric- brooding frog/Eungella gastric – brooding frog (EX)

x x Investigation of Chytrid is an action under this plan

x

Taudactylus acutirostris sharp-snouted day fog/ sharp- snouted torrent frog (EX)

x x Most likely cause of some declines and an action under this plan

x

Taudactylus diurnussouthern day frog/ Mt Glorious torrent frog (EX)


x

Litoria loricaarmoured mistfrog (CE)

Chytrid main cause of decline

Chytrid main cause of decline

Most likely cause of some declines and an action under this plan

x

Litoria nyakalensismountain mistfrog (CE)

Chytrid contributed to the decline


Most likely cause of some declines and an action under this plan

x

Taudactylus pleioneKroombit tinker frog/ Pleione’s torrent frog (CE)


x Major cause of decline and an objective of the recovery plan

QLD Undetermined(fault in website)

Geocrinia alba x x No mention x

85 of 91

1106

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1889



Item 12.1.3

white-bellied frog/creek frog (E)Litoria booroolongensisBooroolong frog (E)



Only Chytrid TAP

NSW & VIC

Chytrid potential cause factor for declines in frogs

Litoria castaneayellow-spotted tree frog/ yellow-spotted bell frog (E)

x x Mentions disease but not chytrid specifically

NSW Chytrid potential cause factor for declines in frogs

Litoria myolaKuranda tree frog (E)

Potential threat

Potential threat Only Chytrid TAP

x

Litoria nannotiswaterfall frog/ torrent tree frog (E)


x

Litoria rheocolacommon mistfrog (E)


x

Litoria spencerispotted tree frog (E)

x x Severity is not yet determined. More as a opportunistic pathogen. To be investigated.

NSW & VIC mentioned

Mixophyes fleayiFleay’s frog (E)


NSW mentioned

Mixophyes iteratusgiant barred frog/ southern barred frog (E)


NSW &QLD Not mentioned (fault in website)

Nyctimystes dayilace-eyed tree frog/ Australian lacelid


x

Philoria frostiBaw Baw Frog (E)

x x Significance is unknown but an action in the plan

VIC Not mentioned

Pseudophryne x x Could be a cause but NSW Mentioned

86 of 91

Item 12.1.3

corroboreesouthern corroboree frog (E)

not yet determined it will be an action under this plan

Spicospina flammocaeruleasunset frog (E)

x x x WA Not mentioned

Taudactylus eungellensisEungella day frog (E)

Investigation of Chytrid is a action under this plan

x Could be a cause but not yet determined it will be an action under this plan

x

Taudactylus rheophilusTinkling frog (E)


x

Geocrinia vitellinaorange-bellied frog (V)

x x Not mentioned x

Heleioporus australiacusgiant burrowing frog (V)

x x x NSW & VIC mentioned

Litoria aureagreen and golden bell frog (V)

x x x NSW mentioned

Litoria littlejohniLittlejohn’s tree frog/ Heath frog (V)

x Considered a threat

x NSW mentioned

Litoria olongburensisWallum Sedge frog (V)

x x Potential threat considered and considered as a action plan

NSW mentioned

Litoria piperatapeppered tree frog (V)

x x Disease is mentioned but not actually chytrid

NSW mentioned

Litoria raniformisgrowling grass frog/southern bell frog/ green and

x x x NSW &SA & TAS & VIC

mentioned

87 of 91









Item 12.1.3

golden frog/ warty swamp frog (V)Litoria verreauxii alpinaAlpine tree frog/ Verreaux’s Alpine tree frog (V)

x x x NSW mentioned

Mixophyes balbusstuttering frog/southern barred frog (In Vic. only) (V)


NSW mentioned

Pseudophryne covacevichaemagnificent brood frog (V)

x x Not mentioned x

Pseudophryne pengilleyinorthern corroboree frog (V)

x x x ACT & NSW Mentioned

88 of 91

1107








Item 12.1.3

Attachment E: Caring for our Country projects targeting threatened amphibian species identified in the TAP.Grant Proponent State Title Project description Value

*2010-2011

OC11-01420

Southern Regional Natural Resource Management Association

TAS TWWHA BiosecurityProgram - TacklingChytrid, Mucor and SimilarBiosecurity Risks

This project will deliver an integrated approach to minimise the spread of chytrid, platypus mucor and other key freshwater and terrestrial pests and pathogens in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

$599 615

* 2007/2008

68276

NRM VIC Vanishing Frogs - Chytrid fungus

This project will survey frog species across the Australian Alps for the amphibian chytridiomycosis fungus. Surveys will be undertaken for new populations of the Alpine Tree Frog and the Common Froglet to better understand the distribution and relationship of these species. Appropriate linkages with the Glenelg Hopkins CMA project on chytrid fungus (see GH0607.09.13 Innovations and Future Directions – Innovation) should be developed.

$48,137

2012-2013OC13-00525

Murray CatchmentManagement Authority

NSW Threatened AquaticSpecies Recovery in theUpper Murray

Droughts, flooding, Carp invasion and Willow infestation have caused major declines in populations of Southern Pygmy Perch and Booroolong Frogs in the Upper Murray Catchment and across NSW. This project will enhance recovery of the populations in Coppabella Creek by addressing critical threats to remnant populations and restoring key habitat areas.

$189,332

2011-2012

OC12-00326

Lachlan Catchment Management Authority

NSW Fish, Frogs n Hollow Logs - Nurturing Threatened Aquatic Species in the Lachlan

Blakney Creek has been identified as a hotspot for endangered aquatic species, including the recently found yellow spotted bell frog. The resilience of these endangered aquatic species will be increased through the rehabilitation and conservation of suitable habitat that will link isolated populations. An engagement strategy will support farm planning and a monitoring program will demonstrate successes.

$242,00

2011/2012

CAG-726524-660

Albury Conservation Co LtdWoolshed/Thurgoona Landcare Group

NSW Supporting the special biodiversity of Thurgoona/ Woolshed Creek

This project contributes to the long term protection and enhancement of biodiversity in the Thurgoona/Woolshed area as Albury continues to expand into farmland. The area is special: The Thurgoona Threatened Species Conservation Strategy (2005) lists 118 native birds, six of which are listed as threatened, as well as good populations of the threatened squirrel glider. Recently the vulnerable (NSW) sloane’s froglet has also been identified in some farm dams and wetlands around Thurgoona but distribution is patchy. As well as environmental outcomes there is opportunity for biodiversity protection and enhancement to catalyse continued and growing cooperation between urban, peri-urban

$19,400

2011/2012

CAG-723012-570 Application Software Engineering Pty Ltd

NSW OPS Frog Ponds and Waterways weed eradication and revegetation programme.

This project aims to halt degradation of lowland rainforest (an Endangered Ecological Community) focussing on the waterway. This waterway contains a series of established frog ponds currently being invaded by a number of Weeds of National Significance e.g. gleditsia. We will employ professional bush regenerators to train and oversee groups of community volunteers in land management activities and revegetation. These activities will improve the habitat for the 20 known species of frogs (including the green and golden bell frog and green-thighed tree frog) which have been recorded in this waterway. This project will culminate in a field day to promote the project's land management achievements and to further raise environmental awareness amongst the wider community.

$17,730

2011/2012

CAG-720071-354

VFF Farm Tree & Landcare Association Inc

VIC VFF Farm Tree & Landcare Association Inc

This project aims to protect and enhance native habitat in the Lismore Landcare network area of the Victorian Volcanic Plains, including threatened species habitat protection and enhancement for Corangamite water skink, growling grass frog (green and gold bell frog), striped legless lizard and brolga. Protective fencing of remnant native grassland vegetation, natural wetlands and stony barriers will enhance native habitat value by separating significant areas from more cultivated areas of farms. This project will also involve weed control and additional planting of

$17,830

89 of 91

1108

Item 12.1.3

Grant Proponent State Title Project description Value

indigenous species (where appropriate).

2011/2012

CAG-719549-305

Holbrook Landcare Group

NSW Frogs and Fertiliser This project will provide research results and extension to improve riparian condition and habitat. The project will focus on threatened and endangered fish and amphibians, in the upper reaches of the Murray Darling Basin, target species are great bio indicators of healthy waterways. The project will add to existing local CSIRO research on the impact of revegetation work on remnant threatened woodlands and land based fauna. Information on the value of riparian plantings for aquatic ecosystems will add significantly to the landscape picture. Community engagement will reinforce the importance of fragile riparian ecosystems. The project will compliment a strategic fertiliser project to limit nutrient loss into the air and water

$20,000

2011/2012

CAG-729280-913

Northern Midlands Council

TAS Longford Mill Dam Riparian and Conservation Reconstruction Project

The aim of this project is to improve bank and flood plain stability along a section of the lower South Esk River in Northern Tasmania to reduce sediment deposition downstream. Works will include planting native shrubs and trees, grasses and sedges. Also filling and direct seeding strips along the banks which were scoured during recent successive floods. These works will in the long term support multiple outcomes of improved water quality (beneficial for all) and habitat value outcomes for species including the green and gold frog.

$13,620

2010/2011

CAG10‐00780

NoosaIntegratedCatchmentAssociation Inc

QLD Re-establish ecological habitat and biodiversity of Seaview Creek Reserve, a wildlife corridor and habitat of vulnerable acid frogs, by weeding revegetation and rehabilitation

The project will re‐establish habitat and biodiversity by weeding, revegetation and rehabilitation in the Seaview Creek Reserve. This reserve is the only permanent water and wildlife corridor, linking the Noosa National Park and dune foreshore for seven kilometres. Weeds smothering the riparian vegetation inhibit wildlife passage and excess nutrients inhibit wallum froglet breeding. Due to the sensitive nature of the aquatic ecosystem, contractors and volunteers will weed by hand with minimal use of herbicides. Local provenance plants will be propagated, planted and maintained by volunteers and Landcare members. The community will be engaged through leaflets, word of mouth and meetings that address invasive weeds and their safe removal. The local council will remove rubbish and Noosa Water Watch will monitor water quality. Volunteers will maintain rehabilitated areas. Signage at the lower creek, boardwalk and beach shower will be installed to promote awareness of vulnerable acid frogs, wildlife, clean water, weed removal, and the impact of plastic bags and rubbish.

$9,995

2011/2012

CAG-733862-1007

Village Community Co-Operative Ltd

SAWeed Control in Regeneration Area

Improvement of rare remnant and regenerated ecosystem. Red gum woodland with rich diverse understorey including creek floodplain and wetland. The area contains prostrate blue devil (Eryngium vesiculosum) listed rare and poorly known, fen sedge (Carex gaudichaudiana) and long purpleflag (Patersonia occidentalis) listed as uncommon and is host to rich animal and birdlife including several species of frog, seasonal habitat for ibis, heron, grebe and much more. Specific assistance sought to remove invasive weed species, lessening threat and increasing area for regeneration and planting.

$5,600

2011/2012 Westbury Working Together Inc.

TAS Westbury Town Common Habitat

The project involves the creation of a natural wetland reserve in the area known currently as the Westbury Town Common. This community area is 12.13 hectares in size and is located on the banks and flood plain of Quamby

90 of 91

Item 12.1.3


CAG-720166-366 Diversification Brook. The area is largely cleared and grassed with minimal native vegetation. The Westbury Working Together Committee are seeking to re-establish the natural riparian vegetation and wetlands on the site and provide appropriate native habitat for birds, frogs and other animals as well as nurseries for fish. A diversity of habitats will result - floodplain grasslands, billabongs, paperbark groves, shrubby forest elements, aquatic plantings and shade over the brook. Five threatened species will be protected

$10,950

2010/2011

CAG10‐00198

NoosaIntegratedCatchmentAssociation Inc

QLD Stage three ofRiparianRestorationProject withinHeritage Park

The project will focus on rehabilitating a permanent freshwater lagoon vital for survival of turtles, several waterbird species, frogs and reptiles. The lagoon is being invaded and choked by para grass. The project will engage students from the University of the Sunshine Coast in a one week research project to study and report on the success of regeneration projects for wildlife habitat. A community engagement process will be undertaken to raise awareness of the value of natural environments in general and this particular area specifically. Contractors will be engaged to rehabilitate the lagoon, halt the weed infestation and improve water quality at a rate that will not endanger the water dependant fauna species inhabiting the lagoon. Woody weeds including lantana, camphor laurel, Easter cassia and others will be removed to help rehabilitate the wildlife corridor from Tewantin National Park, through Heritage Park to the Great Sandy National Park. Volunteers will continue to monitor and maintain targeted areas.

$19,895

2011/2012

CAG-722101-525Torquay Landcare Group Inc

VIC Bowman Wildlife Corridor Stage One

This project protects and ensures the biodiversity of the tidal reach of the Spring Creek corridor, specifically along Bowman's Track. The preparatory work involves removal of weeds (serrated tussock, a Weed of National Significance) followed by ecological restoration and revegetation (including degraded areas) with indigenous species (threatened Moonahs Ecological Vegetation Classes 858 endangered). The project evolves from a cultural survey and Ecological Vegetation Classes Assessment 2009 (potential gain of 1.66 hectares). Torquay Landcare Group will consult with the Surf Coast Shire. The project includes the installation of information and interpretation boards outlining the Indigenous history, local flora and fauna (including aquatic), weed control, the creek, adjacent frog ponds, and Who is John Bowman (Landcare legend).

$19,800

2010/2011

CAG10‐00678

KimberleyToadbustersInc

WA Frontlinecommunityeducation

As the cane toad moves across Northern Australia, there has been misidentification of both cane toads and native frogs. This project will mitigate the impacts of cane toads on biodiversity through community engagement, including knowledge and skills on how to indentify cane toads and ways to control them. Information sessions will be held at local schools, in Indigenous communities, and at mine and construction sites. A website will be developed, brochures will be distributed at tourist information centres and educational advertorials placed in local newspapers.

$20,000

2010/201

CAG10‐00860

Wilson InletCatchmentCommittee Inc

WA Wilson InletCatchmentCommunitySupport andEngagement

The project will raise awareness and increase the appreciation of the unique biodiversity within the Wilson Inlet catchment by holding field days, workshops and practical activities to engage the community. The local media will promote the activities to be undertaken. Awareness raising events will be held on relevant subjects such as sub sustainable farming planning, nutrient management, and fauna identification including birds, frogs and nocturnal marsupials. Activities will also include feral animal and weed control. Community appreciation for the natural environment will be enhanced to encourage protection of remnant vegetation and the creation of wildlife corridors. The project will lead to increased productivity and sustainable agriculture while balancing the need for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity.

$19,400

2011/2012

CAG-721755-501

FrogWatch Nth Inc NT FrogWatch Nth Inc The proposal is to protect the biodiversity, particularly the reptiles, of the coastal fringe of Darwin from Vesteys Beach through to Lee Point by implementing a cane toad management strategy, combined with other habitat management, to minimise the impact of cane toads in the area, and especially to minimise cane toad breeding. We also propose to begin a monitoring process which will allow us to document the success of the management

91 of 91

Item 12.1.3


strategy, especially in relation to the endangered species Varanus panoptes. Observations show that we still have species present in these areas that have vanished from other locations in the top end. We believe this to be largely due to the success of the Community Cane Toad Control Initiative $20,000

92 of 91

1109

review of the threat abatement plan for infection of ... web viewchytrid. fungus resulting in ....

Documents