Progress of the Geocrinia alba program
at Perth Zoo

Species

Geocrinia alba

Common Name(s)

White-bellied Frog

Region where program is based

Oceania

Country where program is based

Australia

The authority that recommended this species for an ex situ program

Department of Conservation and Land Management

Has a genetic analysis been performed on wild populations to define the target taxon, i.e., verify that single, viable Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESU's) that are managed as separate populations, are not confounded by cryptic species or polymorphisms?

Yes

Name of the institution managing the ex situ population

Perth Zoo

Year the program started

2008

Is at least some portion of the captive population maintained in range country?

Yes

Are sufficient resources available to manage the ex situ population?

Yes

Are adequate numbers of skilled staff available with the appropriate ex situ amphibian experience?

Yes

Is sufficient space available for the required population size?

Yes

Additional Support required

Has a Taxon Management Coordinator for the ex situ population been appointed?

Yes

Taxon Management Coordinator

Kay Bradfield of Perth Zoo

Has a Taxon Management Group or Recovery Team been established?

Yes

Has a Taxon Management Plan, Recovery Plan or Species Action Statement been written?

Yes

Have Husbandry Guidelines been written?

Yes

Web link to Husbandry Management Guidelines

Have any knowledge gaps in the species biology or in their interaction with potential threats been identified that could benefit from research using the ex situ population?

Have founder needs been calculated using the AArk Amphibian Population Management Guidelines ?

No

Have sufficient potential founders been collected? ( AArk Amphibian Population Management Guidelines recommends a minimum of 20 pairs of found animals).

No

If sufficient founders have not been collected, is there an ongoing search for additional founders?

No

Is the ex situ population managed by nationals from the range country?

Yes

What tools are used to maximize retention of genetic diversity?

None

Has the population produced viable offspring?

Yes

Have the first generation captive-bred animals bred successfully?

Yes

Is the ex situ population housed in permanent isolation from other populations occurring outside its range?

Yes

Is work being supported to study and mitigate threats to the species in the wild, either by the institution or by a regional wildlife agency?

Yes

Have captive-bred or captive-reared animals been released into the wild?

Yes

If releases were undertaken, have disease screening protocols or veterinary health checks been conducted prior to releases to the wild?

Yes

Is follow-up work being carried out to monitor progress of the released animals?

Yes

Is the taxon again secure in the wild, even if it might still require some ongoing in situ management? i.e. has the need for a captive assurance population been obviated such that we can call this a successfully terminated captive rescue program?

No

Comments

October 2016: This is largely a head-starting program; captive breeding is a minor component at this stage, although we are working to identify the conditions and triggers necessary for reliable reproduction in captivity (successful reproduction occurred in 2011 & 2016). A total of 406 G. alba have been released to the wild at three sites since 2010, and the results of post-release monitoring to date are positive in terms of estimated numbers of animals surviving to sexual maturity and breeding activity. Another 163 juvenile frogs have been released where they were collected to minimise the impact of collecting egg masses on the source populations.
Dbeba6f8 cf46 4c1c 917b 4265c2d524e9