Biodiversity

Species Profile and Threats Database


For information to assist proponents in referral, environmental assessments and compliance issues, refer to the Policy Statements and Guidelines (where available), the Conservation Advice (where available) or the Listing Advice (where available).
 
In addition, proponents and land managers should refer to the Recovery Plan (where available) or the Conservation Advice (where available) for recovery, mitigation and conservation information.

EPBC Act Listing Status Listed as Endangered as Mixophyes iteratus
Recovery Plan Decision Recovery Plan required, this species had a recovery plan in force at the time the legislation provided for the Minister to decide whether or not to have a recovery plan (19/2/2007).
 
Adopted/Made Recovery Plans Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan] as Mixophyes iteratus.
 
Other EPBC Act Plans Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis (Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2006o) [Threat Abatement Plan].
 
Policy Statements and Guidelines Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Frogs. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.3 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), 2010h) [Admin Guideline].
 
Federal Register of
    Legislative Instruments
Declaration under s178, s181, and s183 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - List of threatened species, List of threatened ecological communities and List of threatening processes (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000) [Legislative Instrument] as Mixophyes iteratus.
 
State Government
    Documents and Websites
NSW:Giant Barred Frog - endangered species listing. NSW Scientific Committee - final determination (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 1999g) [Internet].
NSW:Giant Barred Frog - profile (NSW Department of the Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC), 2005) [Internet].
QLD:Giant Barred Frog (Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld DERM), 2005) [Information Sheet].
State Listing Status
NSW: Listed as Endangered (Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales): December 2013) as Mixophyes iteratus
QLD: Listed as Endangered (Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland): July 2012) as Mixophyes iteratus
Non-statutory Listing Status
IUCN: Listed as Endangered (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: 2011.2)
Scientific name Mixophyes iteratus [1944]
Family Myobatrachidae:Anura:Amphibia:Chordata:Animalia
Species author Straughan,1968
Infraspecies author  
Reference  
Other names Mixophyes iterates [84752]
Distribution map Species Distribution Map

This is an indicative distribution map of the present distribution of the species based on best available knowledge. See map caveat for more information.

Illustrations Google Images

Scientific name: Mixophyes iteratus

Common name: Southern Barred Frog

Other names: Giant Barred Frog, Gold-eyed Barred Frog

The Southern Barred Frog is a large, dark-olive green to black coloured frog that grows to 115 mm. It has a pointed snout and a broad lateral band of dark spots dividing the dark dorsal surface from the white, or pale yellow, ventral surface (underside). The limbs have dark crossbars. The hind side of the thighs are black with large yellow spots. Two joints of the fourth toe are free of web (Cogger 2000). The skin is finely granular above but smooth below (QLD DERM 2005).

The call of the male Southern Barred Frog is a deep guttural grunt (Barker et al. 1995; Robinson 1993).

Southern Barred Frog tadpoles are large, growing to over 100 mm in length. They are deep-bodied and ovoid, with a tail length twice that of the body. The tadpole's eyes are dorsolateral. The tadpoles are coloured yellow-brown above with dark spots and a dark patch at the base of tail. The underside is silver-white. The intestinal mass is obscured but the heart and lungs are visible from below (except near metamorphosis). The tail is thick and muscular. Fins are low and opaque with dark flecking (except the anterior half of the ventral fin) (Meyer et al. 2001b).

The Southern Barred Frog is distributed from Belli Creek near Eumundi, south-east Queensland, south to Warrimoo, mid-eastern NSW (Hines et al. 1999). The Southern Barred Frog is currently known from mid to low altitudes below 610 m asl (Hines et al. 2004).

The extent of occurrence of the Southern Barred Frog is approximately 110 000 kmē (Hines et al. 1999).

In south-east Queensland, the Giant Barred Frog is currently known from scattered locations in the Mary River catchment downstream to Kenilworth, the Upper Stanley River, Caboolture River and Coomera River (Hines et al. 1999). A survey between Cooroy and Curra (Cooroy Creek, Six Mile Creek and Skyring Creek) detected the species at 11 of 19 surveyed sites targeted multiple times in 2011–12 (Aland & Wood 2013).

In the mid-east of NSW, the species is currently only known from five populations in the Watagan Mountain area (White 2000). In far north-east NSW this species is known from three broad areas (Mebbin, Nightcap Range and Richmond Range) (Goldingay et al. 1999). A population was located in the southern Nambucca River catchment (NSW NPWS 1994c). There is a large population in the Dorrigo-Coffs Harbour area, North Washpool and Bungawalbin State Forest (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002). There are no recent records from the Blue Mountains (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002). There was a report that the Southern Barred Frog is found as far south as Narooma (Cogger 1996) but there are no specimens or other records to substantiate this statement (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002).

In NSW, the Southern Barred Frog has suffered major declines in the southern portion of its range in the Sydney Basin Bioregion (Hines et al. 1999; White 2000) where in the 1990s extant populations were recorded at only two of the 14 historical sites surveyed. There are no recent records from the Blue Mountains and the species is currently only known from five populations in the Watagan Mountain area (White 2000).

The density of the northern NSW populations is relatively low with an average abundance of 4.2 individuals per 100 m of stream transect in 1997–98 and an average of 3.4 individuals over the same transects in 1999 (Goldingay et al. 1999).

During the early 1980s the Southern Barred Frog declined and disappeared from at least two streams in the Conondale Range, Queensland (Corben n.d. cited in McDonald 1991). The Bunya Mountains and Cunningham's Gap (Straughan 1966) previously supported this species but these and nearby sites have been the subject of targeted surveys and intensive monitoring, without locating the species (Hines et al. 1999).

Assessing the extent of the known decline of the Southern Barred Frog population is difficult because of the lack of baseline distribution and abundance data (Hines et al. 1999).

In Queensland the Southern Barred Frog is known from the following reserves: Conondale, Lamington and Main Range National Parks; Ingelbar, Kenilworth, Spicer's Gap and Blackall State Forests (J-M. Hero 2001 pers. comm.; Tyler 1997).

In NSW, the Southern Barred Frog is know from the following reserves: Gibraltar Range, Guy Fawkes River, Nightcap, Bril Bril, Ingelba, Maria River, McPherson, Mount Boss, Watagan, Wyong (F. Lemckert 2001, pers. comm.), Mebbin, Mount Warning and the Richmond Range National Parks, Wild Cattle Creek, Kangaroo River, Orara West, Orara East (Tyler 1997), Clouds Creek, Doubleduke, Ewingar (K. McCray 2001, pers. comm.), Whian Whian (Goldingay et al. 1999), Upper Allyn River, Middle Brother, Bungawalbin, Washpool (Hines et al. 1999) and Olney State Forests (White 2000).

The Southern Barred Frog occurs in uplands and lowlands in rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest, including farmland (Ingram & McDonald 1993). Populations have been found in disturbed areas with vegetated riparian strips on cattle farms and in regenerated logged areas (Hero & Shoo n.d., cited in Hines et al. 2004). Many sites where the Southern Barred Frog is known to occur are the lower reaches of streams which have been affected by major disturbances such as clearing, timber harvesting and urban development in their headwaters (Hines et al. 1999).

The Southern Barred Frog is a stream breeding species. Eggs are deposited out of the water, under overhanging banks or on steep banks of large pools. The stream microhabitats used by the species for oviposition are limited (Knowles et al. 1998). Hero and Fickling (1996) and Morrison and Hero (2002) reported clutch sizes for the species as 4184 (one clutch counted) and 1343–3471 (13 clutches counted) respectively. Egg diameter ranges between 1.7–1.8 mm (five clutches measured) (Morrison & Hero 2002).

Streatfeild (1999) monitored the spatial movements of four male and four female Southern Barred Frogs at Coomera River, south-east Queensland. Over six weeks, the average area used by females and males was 622 m² and 403 m², respectively. Individuals moved a maximum distance of 268 m along the stream and 50 m away from the stream. Displacement distances between diurnal refuges, after a night of activity, were small which suggests a high degree of fidelity to the previous day's shelter. Similar patterns of movement were observed by Lemckert and Brassil (2000) although less perpendicular movement away from the stream was observed. Individuals tracked for two to five days made nightly movements from 0 m to over 100 m, and all were within a 20 m wide band either side of the stream (Lemckert & Brassil 2000).

A study by Koch and Hero (2007), along the Coomera River, Queensland, in 2000, suggested that there is a relationship between the distance that males moved away from streams and the amount of rainfall, with animals tending to move further away during high rainfall events. It has been proposed that this behaviour may be due to the increased chance of streams rising during high rainfall events and subsequent desiccation of eggs when the stream level returned to base flow (Magnusson et al. 1999, cited in Koch & Hero 2007). Frogs would alternatively participate in other activities, such as feeding, rather than breeding, which may occur further from the stream. In the absence of flooding events however, Fukuyama and Kusano (1992, cited in Koch & Hero 2007) found that the observed density of frogs did not significantly change during rainfall.

Several studies (Salvador & Carrascal 1990, Fukuyama & Kusano 1992, cited in Koch & Hero 2007) suggest that temperature, out of all the environmental variables, has the greatest influence on the relative density of amphibian populations. Koch and Hero (2007) found that most adult males were above ground when temperatures were above 18 °C, and that densities were lower on cooler nights, suggesting that frogs were burying themselves under the leaf litter.

The methods that have successfully been used in the past to survey the Southern Barred Frog are visual encounter surveys, call surveys, egg mass surveys and larval sampling (UC 2003).

Call surveys should be conducted during the known calling period of the Southern Barred Frog, between September and May (Goldingay et al. 1999; Mahony et al. 1997c). Males are known to call from the ground near streams (Anstis 2002).

Egg mass surveys may be effective, as this species' eggs are conspicuously deposited out of the water on steep banks of larger pools and under overhanging banks or rocks. The tadpoles drop into the water when hatched (NSW DEC 2005). The larval period of the Southern Barred Frog is from September to May (Goldingay et al. 1999; Mahony et al. 1997c). Tadpoles have been recorded as bottom dwellers in still or slowly flowing pools or at the sides of streams (Anstis 2002).

The Recovery Plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002) specifically states that surveys should involve at least five samples from each of the major populations.

Upstream clearing, changes in water flow regimes, degradation of water quality, disturbance to riparian vegetation, feral animals, domestic stock and weed invasion have been identified as potential threats to the Southern Barred Frog (Hines et al. 1999; Hines & SEQTFRT 2002).

Disturbance to riparian vegetation is particularly important as many populations of the Southern Barred Frog in south-east Queensland, and some populations in north-east NSW, such as the Tweed Valley, occur along narrow remnant riparian vegetation on private lands (H. Hines 2001, pers. comm.) which are readily exposed to such disturbances. Lemckert (1999) found that the Southern Barred Frog decreased in abundance in recently-logged areas and at sites where little undisturbed forest was available. Damage from Feral Pigs (Sus scrofa) increased greatly in the Conondale Range (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002) and possibly in other areas occupied by the species (H. Hines 2001, pers. comm.). While there is potential for direct predation by pigs, the greatest impact is likely to be from increased silt on embryos and tadpoles (H. Hines 2001, pers. comm.). Similarly, trampling by domestic stock is also likely to have deleterious impacts on oviposition sites of the species (Knowles et al. 1998).

Chytridiomycosis (a chytrid fungus) is an infectious disease affecting amphibians worldwide. The disease has been recorded in four regions of Australia, namely the east coast, south-west Western Australia, Adelaide and Tasmania. This highly virulent pathogen of amphibians is capable, at the minimum, of causing sporadic deaths in some populations, and 100% mortality in other populations (AGDEH 2006o). Chytrid fungus has been identified in individuals of the Southern Barred Frog (Speare & Berger 2000). The role played by chytrid fungus in the decline of the species is addressed in the Species Recovery Plan (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002).

Individuals of the Southern Barred Frog have sometimes been killed in the mistaken belief that they are the introduced Cane Toad (Bufo marinus) (Hines & SEQTFRT 2002).

Populations of the Southern Barred Frog now exist in small, isolated patches of forest. The effect that this may have on genetic variation within populations, the general health of individuals and the species' response to identified threats is unknown (J-M. Hero 2001, pers. comm.).

During surveys in the Cooroy to Curra area of south-east Queensland, the Giant Barred Frog were observed to prefer a closed canopy with relatively light vegetation at ground level (Aland & Wood 2013). Thus, selection of revegetation plant species should favour those that rapidly provide canopy (e.g. Macaranga spp.) and use of dense groundcover species (e.g. Lomandra spp.) should be kept to a minimum (Aland & Wood 2013).
The following projects have received Commonwealth Government funding grants for conservation and recovery work benefiting the Southern Barred Frog:

  • Barung Landcare Association (Queensland) received $35 000 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2000–01, part of which was for the enhancement of the long-term health of 646 ha of significant Council and State forest reserves (utilised by the Southern Barred Frog) through establishment of buffer zones and linkage of remnant patches using local indigenous plants.

  • The Mary River Catchment Co-ordinating Committee received $15 000 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002–03, part of which was for the survey and mapping of threatened species in rainforest areas of the upper Mary River catchment and the identification, revegetation and rehabilitation of strategic corridor linkages and gaps to reconnect habitat.

  • The Upper Clarence Combined Landcare Inc. received $4480 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2002–03, part of which was for the reduction of predation by the European Fox (Vulpes vulpes) on this species through co-ordinated on-ground action to educate landholders, and also to raise community awareness and initiate partnerships between stakeholders.

  • The North Coast Herpetology Group Inc. received $4100 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2003–04 for the creation of a wildlife refuge for this species and to better understand its habits and habitat by re-establishing habitat and any corridor that has been demolished through logging.

  • The Maroochy River Catchment Network Waterwatch Inc. received $17 700 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2004–05, part of which was for the restoration of habitat for the Southern Barred Frog, the monitoring of frog species in the region, community education workshops, and the development of a local recovery plan.

  • Barung Landcare Association Inc. received $20 490 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2005–06, part of which was for the restoration and enhancement of 3.75 ha of key habitat for the Southern Barred Frog on public and private land.

  • Wetland Care Australia Pty Ltd (Queensland) received $18 182 through the Threatened Species Network Community Grants in 2008–09 for the Southern Barred Frog Habitat Restoration project. The project undertook bush regeneration/weed control work and surveyed endangered populations of Southern Barred Frog in a section of the Numinbah Valley.

The Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridomycosis (AGDEH 2006o) aims to:

  • Prevent amphibian populations or regions that are currently chytridiomycosis-free from becoming infected by preventing further spread of the amphibian chytrid within Australia.
  • Decrease the impact of infection with the amphibian chytrid fungus on populations that are currently infected.

The following table lists known and perceived threats to this species. Threats are based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) threat classification version 1.1.

Threat Class Threatening Species References
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Agriculture and Aquaculture:Land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Agriculture and Aquaculture:Livestock Farming and Grazing:Grazing pressures and associated habitat changes An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Biological Resource Use:Logging and Wood Harvesting:Habitat disturbance due to foresty activities An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Biological Resource Use:Logging and Wood Harvesting:Habitat loss, modification and degradation due to timber harvesting Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Climate Change and Severe Weather:Climate Change and Severe Weather:Climate change altering atmosphere/hydrosphere temperatures, rainfall patterns and/or frequency of severe weather events Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Climate Change and Severe Weather:Habitat Shifting and Alteration:Habitat loss, modification and/or degradation Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Ecosystem/Community Stresses:Indirect Ecosystem Effects:Loss and/or fragmentation of habitat and/or subpopulations Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Human Intrusions and Disturbance:Human Intrusions and Disturbance:Human induced disturbance due to unspecified activities Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Competition and/or habitat degradation by weeds Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive Non-Native/Alien Species:Grazing, tramping, competition and/or habitat degradation Sus scrofa (Pig) The threat posed by pest animals to biodiversity in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith, A.J., P.S. Mahon, M. Letnic & P.O. Downey, 2007) [Management Plan].
Personal Communication (Hines, H., 2001) [Personal Communication].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Predation, competition, habitat degradation and/or spread of pathogens by introduced species Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Presence of pathogens and resulting disease An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Invasive and Other Problematic Species and Genes:Problematic Native Species:Competition, grazing, predation and/or habitat degradation by rats Personal Communication (Hines, H., 2001) [Personal Communication].
Natural System Modifications:Dams and Water Management/Use:Alteration of hydrological regimes and water quality An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Fire and Fire Suppression:Inappropriate and/or changed fire regimes (frequency, timing, intensity) Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Natural System Modifications:Other Ecosystem Modifications:Habitat dieback associated with bell miners Manorina melanophrys (Bell Miner) Border Ranges Rainforest Biodiversity Management Plan - NSW & Queensland (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010n) [State Recovery Plan].
Pollution:Pollution:Deterioration of water and soil quality (contamination and pollution) Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan (NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW DECCW), 2010p) [State Recovery Plan].
Residential and Commercial Development:Housing and Urban Areas:Habitat loss, modification and fragmentation due to urban development An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. (Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald, 1999) [Book].
Uncategorised:Uncategorised:threats not specified Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005 (Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT), 2002) [Recovery Plan].

Aland, K. & P. Wood (2013). Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) Baseline Survey. Bruce Highway (Cooroy to Curra) Upgrade Section A - (Cooroy southern interchange to Sankeys Road). EPBC Referral 2011/6024. Report Prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads. Future-Plus Environmental.

Anstis, M. (2002). Tadpoles of South-eastern Australia. A guide with keys. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland.

Barker, J., G.C. Grigg. & M.J. Tyler (1995). A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Chipping Norton, NSW: Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Cogger, H.G. (1996). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Chatswood, NSW: Reed Books.

Cogger, H.G. (2000). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia - 6th edition. Sydney, NSW: Reed New Holland.

Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006o). Threat Abatement Plan for infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis. [Online]. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/chytrid.html.

Goldingay, R., D. Newell & M. Graham (1999). The status of Rainforest Stream Frogs in north-eastern New South Wales: decline or recovery?. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 64-71. Canberra: Environment Australia.

Hero, J-M. (2001). Personal Communication.

Hero, J.-M. & S. Fickling (1996). Reproductive characteristics of female frogs from mesic habitats in Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 39:306.

Hines, H. (2001). Personal Communication.

Hines, H., D. Newell, J. Clarke, J-M. Hero & Meyer, E. (2004). Mixophyes iteratus. IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. [Online]. viewed on 25 January 2010. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/13598/0.

Hines, H., M. Mahony & K. McDonald (1999). An assessment of frog declines in wet subtropical Australia. In: Campbell, A., ed. Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Page(s) 44-63. [Online]. Canberra: Environment Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/frogs.html.

Hines, H.B. & South-east Queensland Threatened Frogs Recovery Team (SEQTFRT) (2002). Recovery plan for Stream Frogs of South-east Queensland 2001–2005. [Online]. Report to Environment Australia, Canberra. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/stream-frogs/index.html.

Ingram, G.J. & K.R. McDonald (1993). An update on the decline of Queenslands frogs. In: Lunney, D. & D. Ayers, eds. Herpetology in Australia: a diverse discipline. Page(s) 297-303. Sydney, NSW: Royal Zoological Society of NSW.

Knowles, R., H.B. Hines, K. Thum, M. Mahony & M. Cunningham (1998). Oviposition of the barred-frogs (Mixophyes species) in southeastern Australia with implications for management.

Koch, A.J. & J-M. Hero (2007). The relationship between environmental conditions and activity of the giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus) on the Coomera River, south-east Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology. 55:89–95. CSIRO Publishing.

Lemckert, F. (1999). Impacts of selective logging on frogs in a forested area of northern New South Wales. Biological Conservation. 89:321-328.

Lemckert, F. (2001). Personal Communication.

Lemckert, F. & T. Brassil (2000). Movements and habitat use of the endangered Giant Barred River Frog (Mixophyes iteratus) and the implications for its conservation in timber production forests. Biological Conservation. 96:177-184.

Mahony, M., R. Knowles & L. Pattinson (1997c). Gold-eyed Barred Frog, Mixophyes iteratus. In: Ehmann, H., ed. Threatened Frogs of New South Wales: Habitats, Status and Conservation. Page(s) 78-83. Sydney, NSW: Frog & Tadpole Study Group of NSW.

McCray, K. (2001). Personal Communication.

McDonald, K.R. (1991). Report of a workshop on declining frog populations in Queensland. Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service: unpub. report.

Meyer, E., H. Hines & J-M. Hero (2001b). Giant Barred-Frog, Mixophyes iteratus. In: Wet Forest Frogs of South-east Queensland. Page(s) 30-31. Gold Coast, Queensland: Griffith University.

Morrison, C. & J.-M. Hero (2002). Geographic variation in life history characteristics of amphibians in mid-eastern Australia: reproductive traits. In: R. Nattrass, ed. Frogs in the Community - Proceedings of the Brisbane Conference 13-14 Feb 1999. Queensland Museum.

NSW Department of the Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC) (2005). Giant Barred Frog - profile. [Online]. Viewed on 25 January 2010. Available from: http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10538.

NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (NSW NPWS) (1994c). Fauna of North-east NSW Forests. North-east Forests Biodiversity Study Report No. 3. Hurtsville, NSW: unpub. report NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (Qld DERM) (2005). Giant Barred Frog. [Online]. Available from: http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/endangered/giant_barredfrog.html.

Robinson, M. (1993). A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Chatswood, NSW: Reed.

Speare, R & L. Berger (2000). Chytridiomycosis in amphibians in Australia. [Online]. Townsville, Queensland: Rainforest CRC & School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University. Available from: http://www.jcu.edu.au/school/phtm/PHTM/frogs/chyspec.htm.

Straughan, I.R. (1966). An analysis of species recognition and species isolation in certain Queensland frogs. Ph.D. Thesis. Brisbane, Queensland: University of Queensland.

Streatfeild, C. (1999). Spatial movements of Mixophyes iteratus and M. fasciolatus in southeast Queensland. Hons. Thesis. Brisbane, Queensland; Griffith University.

Tyler, M.J. (1997). The Action Plan for Australian Frogs. [Online]. Wildlife Australia. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/frogs/index.html.

White, A. (2000). The status of the Barred River Frogs Mixophyes balbus and Mixophyes iteratus in the Sydney Basin Region of New South Wales 1999-2000. Report for NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

EPBC Act email updates can be received via the Communities for Communities newsletter and the EPBC Act newsletter.

This database is designed to provide statutory, biological and ecological information on species and ecological communities, migratory species, marine species, and species and species products subject to international trade and commercial use protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). It has been compiled from a range of sources including listing advice, recovery plans, published literature and individual experts. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, no guarantee is given, nor responsibility taken, by the Commonwealth for its accuracy, currency or completeness. The Commonwealth does not accept any responsibility for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in this database. The information contained in this database does not necessarily represent the views of the Commonwealth. This database is not intended to be a complete source of information on the matters it deals with. Individuals and organisations should consider all the available information, including that available from other sources, in deciding whether there is a need to make a referral or apply for a permit or exemption under the EPBC Act.

Citation: Department of the Environment (2014). Mixophyes iteratus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:01:30 +1000.