THREATENED THE

COMPILATION OF A LIST OF THREATENED INVERTEBRATES: THE TASMANIAN EXPERIENCE.

Robert J. Taylor¹ and Sally L. Bryant²

'ForestryTasmania, GPO Box 207B, Hobart,Tas. 7000, ^Australia 'Parksand Wildlife Service, GPOBox 44A, Hobart,Tas. 7001, Australia

Abstract

Taylor, R.J. andBryant,S.L., 1997.Compilation ofa list ofthreatened invertebrates: the

Tasmanianexperience. Memoirsof^theMuseum of^{Victoria 56: 605-609.}

TheInvertebrateAdvisoryCommittee was convenedin 1992toproducea^listofrareand threatenednon-marineinvertebrates forTasmania.Theinterimlist,completedin 1994,was prepared for inclusion in threatened species legislation and to ensure consideration was givento invertebratesin forestharvesting operations. 175 speciesfrom seven ^phyla,eight classesand 25 orders werelistedaccordingtoIUCNcategories. Insomecases entire taxo- nomicgroupshadtobe ignoreddueto lackofinformation,hencethe interimstatusof thelist

andtheneedforregular review.Someoftheproblems encountered during^thecompilation ofthe list are outlined. Lists of threatened speciescan be used as atool to further other habitat,ecosystem or multi-speciesapproaches to invertebrate conservation.

Invertebrate Advisory Committee TheInvertebrateAdvisoryCommitteewascon- vened bytheTasmanian^ParksandWildlife Ser- vice inAugust 1992 tocompilea listofrareand threatened terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates forTasmania. Thestimulus for the production of such a list was provided by the recommen- dation of the RAVES ^{(Rare, Vulnerable and}

Endangered Species)WorkingGroupthat legis- lationbe introducedwhichprotected threatened species on all land tenures ⁱⁿ Tasmania. The Invertebrate Advisory Committee ^was com- posed ofeight representatives drawn from the University of Tasmania, government ^depart- ments, the two Tasmanian Museums^{and a pri-}

vate consultant. Memberswere chosen ^fortheir knowledge ofTasmania's native invertebrates andtheirabilitytocriticallyevaluatethe conser- vation status ofa species.

invertebrates. These groups of invertebrates wereallocated tomembersofthecommittee on the basisoftheirknowledgeofthegroupwhilst trying to equalise theworkload. The paucityof knowledge on some groups, for example mites and nematodes, precluded theirconsideration.

Each committee memberwas responsiblefor compiling data on the status of species in the groups they were allocated. Information was obtained fromAustralian and overseasspecial- ists,from published sourcesand fromtheirown

unpublished material. All species that had been listed as beingrare or threatened ⁱⁿ othercom-

pilations(Wellsetal., 1983; HillandMichaelis, 1988; Smith, 1989) were targeted. Once the compilation of information^foragroup hadbeen completed^itwaspresentedto thecommitteefor itsconsideration.Thestatusofsomespecieswas unanimously agreed upon ^{whilst for others} a majority decision decided their categorisation.

The review process

The Committee ^{reviewed all native} terrestrial

and freshwater invertebrates ⁱⁿ Tasmania, excluding Macquaric ^{Island (due to} insufficient information). Marine invertebrates were ^not included because they^aredefinedunderthe Liv- ingMarineResources Act ¹995 and hence^{are the} responsibility of the SeaFisheries sectionofthe Departrment of Primary ^Industries and Fish- eries.Each member^{of the}committee was^given several groups ^of invertebrates to ^assess. For

insects,ordersweretheunitof groupingwhereas whole phyla were allocated for the remaining

Assessing^rarity

The problem of deciding when to classify a species as rarewasconsideredbytheCommittee before any ^{species were} categorised. Two cat- egoriesofrarityweredevisedasworkingdefini- tions.The ^first included species thatwerewide- spread, but never abundant, and possessed ecological characteristicswhichputthematrisk.

The second included species that were well researched and known to occur in 10 or fewer

1 km grid squares. The ^level ofresearch work which was considered ^sufficient for the latter definition was ^left open to interpretation by

605

https://doi.org/10.24199/j.mmv.1997.56.57

individual specialistsbasedon theirknowledge ofthegroup anditsecology. As workprogressed

itwas foundthat the definitionsofrarityhadto be used flexibly in conjunction with an assess-

ment of surveyeffort.The distributionand eco- logical requirements ofsome species were well

known andthe twocategories could be applied easily. However, for most species some

interpretationofthe distribution datahad tobe

madeinthelightof surveyeffort.Anexampleof theknownlocationsoffivespeciesofcaddisflies are shown in Fig. 1. Each species was known fromonlyoneortwolocations. However,access into the areabetween thetwolocations(Cradle Mountain andatributaryoftheGordon River) where Poecilochorema lepnevaewas found was

difficult and most of this area had not been sampled.FortheotherspeciesinFig1,however, there was good access and areas around the

known locations had been sampled.

For onegroup, thehydrobiidsnails,therarity category was accepted as being appropriate despite thefact that the distributionsofspecies werenotknown indetail.WorkbyPonderet al.

(1994)on Wilsons Promontory inVictoria had shown that these snails showed high levels of

Figure I. Known locations for fivespeciesofcaddis-

flies. Adapted from Neboiss(1977).

local endemismwith very lowratesofgeneflow betweencatchments. Itwasthereforelikelythat species exhibiting small distributions from the

work of Ponder et al. (1993) would not have

their distributions increased substantially by further survey work.

Unpublished information fromexperts Unpublished information and opinionson the statusofspecieswassoughtfromexpertsonpar- ticulargroupsorspecies. However, opinionsof experts were not accepted outright. The data were alwaysassessedindependentlyby^thecom-

mittee.Taxonomicopinionwasalsorequiredto be assessed when it affected the status of a species. Thusonesubmission tothe committee argued that a certain named species shouldnot be included asitwassynonymous with another morewidelydistributedspecies.Thecommittee debated whether this information should be accepted without having gone through the nor- mal scientific review process. After further detailed reasoning was requested from the expert the committee decided to accept his opinion.

Risk codes

Thecommitteebeganassessing theconservation status ofspecies according to the IUCN Red Datacategoriesfrom ¹990(i.e.rare,vulnerable, endangered, extinct). During this assessment process the IUCN released several discussion papers relating to a revision of threatened species categories. One of these (Mace et al.

1992) includedthenewcategory'susceptible' for specieswhich did not qualify inthe highercat- egoriesofthreat butwhosestatuswasof concern because ofarestricted range(typicallylessthan 100 km) and/or being found at few locations whichrendered itpronetohumandisturbance.

The Committeeconsideredthe'susceptible' cat- egoryasan ideal classification formanyinvert- ebrate specieswhich had small ranges but were not obviously threatened. Many species pre- viously classified as rare weretherefore reclas- sified as susceptible. However, in the next revision of the IUCN categories (Mace _and

Stuart, 1994),which weresubsequentlyadopted by the IUCN Species Survival Commission

(1994), the susceptible category was subsumed

intothevulnerable category.However, because the foreshadowed Tasmanian legislation included a'rare' category itwas felt that in our

listingthesetwocategoriesshould not be amal- gamated. Thus our rare category included

species that were very uncommon but wide- spread and those with very small or restricted populations that were mostly contained within reserves.Thecriteriaforourvulnerable category wereas forIUCNSpecies SurvivalCommission (1994) with the exclusion ofcriteria D. Those meetingthecriteriaD^ofthevulnerable category of the new IUCN system and whose distri- butions where mostly outside ofreserves were

classifiedas rare(susceptible)underour system.

Theothercategorieswerethesameasthat used in IUCN Species Survival Commission

(1994).

The^list and its uses

An interim list of rare and threatened invert- ebrates for Tasmania was published in August 1994(InvertebrateAdvisoryCommittee,1994).

To our knowledge this is the first time that an attempt has been made to comprehensively examine the conservation status of a state's native invertebrates. The list was titled as 'interim' to emphasise the fact that only a relatively small proportion ofTasmania's non- marineinvertebrateswereable tobe considered.

Table ¹ summarisesthelistedspeciesaccording totaxonomicgroups. In total 175 species from seven phyla, eight classes and 25 were included.

Todatethe listhasbeen used forthreemajor purposes. The firsttworelate to forest manage- ment.Acompilation ofthe locationsofrareand threatened species associated with forest has been produced as a manual by Forestry Tas- mania(Jackson andTaylor, 1995). Released in January 1995themanualisnowused widelyby Forestry officers to assess whether a rare or threatenedspeciesisknownorlikelytooccurin areas to be logged. By the end of October 1995 42 cases involving known or suspected locations for rare or threatened species were reported from State forest and private land.

Nine species were involved with 69% ofcases relatedtotwospecies.Thebiodiversitycompon-

entoftheComprehensiveRegional Assessment

for Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement (CommonwealthofAustralia, 1995) has^specifi- callytargeted rareandthreatened invertebrates associated with forest. Functional groups with an obvious predominance on the list, such as burrowing crayfish, aquatic ^snails, troglobites and logdwellingbeetles, havebeen targetedfor the preparation of thematic management pre- scriptions.

The second purpose of the list has been to provide the basis of a schedule of rare and threatened invertebrates included on Tas- mania's ThreatenedSpecies ProtectionActpro- claimed in November 1995. The Act, however,

Table ^1. Summary ofrareand threatened native invertebrates in Tasmania.

Group Extinct Endangered Vulnerable Rare(susceptible) Rare Total

Oligochaeta ^{1 - - - 1}

Arachnida ^{2 - - 5} 613

Malacostraca ^{- 1} 4 12 4 21

Mollusca

Terrestrial ^{1 -} 2 2 6 11

Aquatic ^{- - 2 41 7 50}

Onychophora ^{- 1 - 2 - 3}

Cestoda ^{- - 1 ~ 1}

Chilopoda ^{- - - 3 " 3}

Insecta

Coleoptera ^{1 1 5 3 1 11}

Lepidoptera ^{1 1} 4 3 2 11

Orthoptera ^{- 1 2 4 7}

Plecoptera ^{- - - 1} 4 5

Trichoptera ^{2 2 - 12 18} 34

Others ^{- " " 4 4}

Total ^{8 7 18} 86 56 175

did not includethenon-susceptible category of the rare speciesnorthetwenty-two undescribed speciesfromtheinterimlistasitwasconsidered to bepolitically and/orlegallyunwise. A^Scien-

tific Advisory Committee is to be established withintheActtooverseethelistinganddelisting process. Itislikely that upon appointment ^this committee will review the complete list. It is

envisaged that the InvertebrateAdvisoryCom-

mitteewillmost likelycontinue the assessment andrevisionofthelistand makerecommenda-

tions to the ScientiificAdvisory Committee.

Production ofthe list hasalready stimulated research. A spider previously thought extinct, Plesiothele fentoni, has been rediscovered and detailedsurveyworkonthe velvetworm Ooper- ipatellus 'crypius'andthesnailAnoglypta laun- cestonsis, that was stimulated by the listing of thesespecies,haslead torecommendationsthat these species be delisted (R. Mesibov and K.

Bonham, pers. comm.). Surveys of two log- dwellingbeetles (Lissotesmenalcus, andHoplo- gonussimsoni) are currently being undertaken and have lead to interim protection measures beingimplemented forthe latter species.

Valueof the listingprocess

Tasmania's interim list ofrare and threatened invertebrates represents a significant starting point in highlighting the magnitude ofinvert- ebrate biodiversity in Tasmania. Previously only high profile or 'glamour' invertebrates, suchas the giant freshwatercrayfishAstacopsis gouldi and the butterfly Oreixenica ptunarra, had been used to increase awareness ofinvert- ebratesin thecommunity orto attract funding throughthe federal RecoveryPlanprocess. The

listhashighlighted the diversityofinvertebrates and. although short (0.6% ofa possible 30000

species, Greenslade, 1985), highlights the paucityofinformationandthe need forfurther surveys and taxonomic research. To date very

little funding has been provided by the

Endangered Species Unit of the Australian Nature Conservation Agency for invertebrate conservation.However,production oflistssuch asthisshouldassistwithlobbyingtoremedythis funding imbalanceand assist in expeditingthe inclusionofinvertebratesontheschedule ofthe national Endangered Species Protection Act 1992.

Single species versus multi-species or habitat conservation

The listingand recovery plan processfor single speciesofinvertebrateshas been questioned by YenandNew(1995) because they^seeitasbeing ineffective given the large number of invert- ebrates which could potentially swamp such a system. They argue for a habitat or species assemblage approach. We agree that such broader strategies are extremely important.

However,wewouldarguethat the bestwaytogo about achieving thepolitical recognition ofthe needforsuchstrategies isthrough thelistingof single species. The single species approach has been accepted and legislated forthroughout all

Australianstates. Iftheview^that'weneedmore

data' (e.g. see Yen and Butcher (1992) and Greenslade(¹992)forareply),iscontinuedtobe espoused as the major way forward then we

believe invertebrate conservationwill continue tobe ignored by fundingagencies.Thelistingof speciesinitselfdoes notnecessarilyimprove an invertebrate's chance of survival, as demon-

strated by^theexperiencewiththeUnitedStates Endangered Species Act 1973 (Losos, 1993).

However, such listings havebeen used success- fully to achieve reservation ofsignificant rem- nant habitats inthe US (Hafernik, 1992). Such remnant habitats are sometimes too small to support viable populations of vertebrates but can be important refuges forinvertebrates and plants (Main, 1987; Wilson, 1987).

Intheshorttimesincethelistingof threatened invertebratesin Tasmaniawe have seen adra- matic increaseintheprofileandlevel ofconser- vation research carriedoutonthisgroup.Sofar only those species that are listed have been the focusofattention.However,because ofthe pres- ence ofcertaingroups ofspecieson the list,we have beenabletofocus attentiononto habitats thatseemtobeimportantforthreatenedinvert- ebrates(e.g. decayinglogs, caves) orfunctional groups that are particularlyat risk(e.g. aquatic snails, log-dwellingbeetles).Areview oftheUS

experience lead to the recommendation that

more emphasisbe placed on multi-species and ecosystem-level recovery plans (Tear et al.,

1995). We ^believe that the pressure that is

required to gain acceptance at a _{political level} forthe need for such work will come from the factthat the case can be argued on the basisof

species that are listed as threatened. Such lists arenotapanacea,however, and mustbe seenas only one ofmany tools that should be used to achievethe conservation ofinvertebrates.

Acknowledgements

Theothermembersofthe InvertebrateAdvisory CommitteewereA. Richardson, R. Mesibov, P McQuillan, E. Turner, T. Kingston, S. Chilcott

who all provided comments on a draft ofthis paper.Wewould liketothankthemany people

whoassisted the committee with the provision of dataandopinionson theconservation status ofspecies.

References

Commonwealth ofAustralia, 1995. Commonwealth environmental and heritage obligations and assessmentsrelevanttotheRegionalForestAgree- ment process. Information Paper. Common-

wealth ofAustralia: Canberra.

Greenslade, P., 1985. Conservationpriorities in Tas-

manian non-marine invertebrates. Tasmanian National ParksandWildlife Service, Hobart.

Greenslade, P., 1992. Invertebrate action.Search23:

229.

Hafernik,J.E., 1992.Threatsto invertebrate biodiver- sity:implicationsforconservationstrategies. Pp.

171-195 in: Fiedler, P.L. and Jain, S.K. (eds).

Conservation biology: the theory andpractice of nature conservation. Chapman and Hall: New

York.

Hill, L. and Michaelis, F.B., 1988. Conservation of insects and^{relatedwildlife.} ANPWS^Occasional

Paper.No. ^13.

InvertebrateAdvisoryCommittee, 1994. Interimlist

ofnative invertebrateswhichare rare orthreatened in Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service:

Hobart.

IUCN, 1990. 1990IUCNRedListof^{threatenedani-} mals. IUCN: Gland.

IUCNSpeciesSurvivalCommission 1994.IUCNRed

List categories. IUCN: Gland.

Jackson,J.andTaylor, R.J., 1995. Threatenedfauna manualforproductionforestsin Tasmania. For- estryTasmania: Hobart.

Losos, E. 1993. The future of the US Endangered SpeciesAct. Trendsin EcologyandEvolution 8:

332-336.

Mace,G., Collar, N.,Cooke,^J.,Gaston. K.,Ginsberg,

J.,LeaderWilliams,N.,Maunder,M. andMilner-

Gulland, E.J., 1992.Thedevelopmentofnewcri- teria for listing species on the IUCN Red ^List.

Species 19: 16-22.

Mace,G.M.andStuart,S.N.. 1994.DraftIUCN Red

List categories, version 2.2. Species 21-22: 13- 24.

Main,B.Y., 1987.Persistenceofinvertebratesinsmall areas:Case^studiesoftrapdoorspidersinWestern Australia. Pp. 29-39 in: Saunders,D.A.,Arnold, G.W.,Burbidge,A.A.andHopkins, A.J.M.(eds).

Natureconservation: theroleofremnantsof^native

vegetation. Surrey Beatty &Sons: Sydney.

Neboiss, A., 1977. A taxonomic and zoogeographic study of Tasmanian caddis-flies (Insecta: Tri- choptera). Memoirs oftheNational Museum of

Victoria38: 1-208.

Ponder, W.F., Clark, G.A., Miller,A.C. andToluzzi, A., 1993. On a major radiation of freshwater snails in Tasmania and eastern Victoria: a pre- liminaryoverview oftheBeddomeiagroup (Mol- lusca : Gastropoda ^: Hydrobiidae). Invertebrate

Taxonomy 7: 501-750.

Ponder,W.F.,Colgan,D.J.,Clark,G.A.,Miller,A.C.

and Terzis, T., 1994. Microgeographic, genetic and morphological differentiation offreshwater snails

—

Smith,S., 1989.Conservation ofTasmanianlandani- mals. Pp. ¹1-12in:Fensham,R.(ed.),Threatened species and habitats in Tasmania. Centre for Environmental Studies, UniversityofTasmania:

Hobart.

Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P.H. andGriffith.

B., 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act : are criticisms supported by data?

Conservation Biology9: 182-195.

Wilson, E.O., 1987. The ^{little things} that run the world. Conservation Biology 1: 344-346 Yen, A.L. and Butcher, R., 1992. Practical conser-

vation of non-marine invertebrates. Search 23:

103-105.

Yen,A.L.andNew,T.R., 1995.Someproblemsaffect- ingimplementation ofrecoveryprogrammesfor threatened Australian non-marine invertebrates species. Pp. 9-14in: Bennett, A.. Backhouse, G.

and Clark, T. (eds), People and nature conser- vation. Perseclives on private land use and endangered species recovery. Royal Zoological Society ofNSW: Sydney.

Wells, S.M., Pyle,R.M. and Collins,N.M. 1983. The

IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. IUCN:

Gland.