Table Of ContentMemoirs ofthe Museum ofVictoria 56(2):605-609 (1997)
COMPILATION OF A LIST OF THREATENED INVERTEBRATES: THE TASMANIAN
EXPERIENCE.
Robert J. Taylor1 and Sally L. Bryant2
'Forestry Tasmania, GPO Box 207B, Hobart, Tas. 7000, Australia
'Parks and Wildlife Service, GPO Box 44A, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia
Abstract
Taylor, R.J. and Bryant, S.L., 1997. Compilation ofa list ofthreatened invertebrates: the
Tasmanian experience. Memoirs ofthe Museum ofVictoria 56: 605-609.
The InvertebrateAdvisoryCommitteewasconvened in 1992toproducealistofrareand
threatenednon-marineinvertebratesforTasmania.Theinterimlist,completed in 1994,was
prepared for inclusion in threatened species legislation and to ensure consideration was
given to invertebrates in forest harvestingoperations. 175 species from seven phyla, eight
classesand 25 orders were listed accordingto IUCN categories. In some casesentire taxo-
nomicgroupshadtobeignoredduetolackofinformation,hencetheinterimstatusofthelist
and the need forregularreview. Someoftheproblemsencounteredduringthecompilation
ofthe list are outlined. Lists ofthreatened species can be used as a tool to further other
habitat, ecosystem or multi-species approaches to invertebrate conservation.
Invertebrate Advisory Committee invertebrates. These groups of invertebrates
were allocated to membersofthe committee on
The InvertebrateAdvisory Committeewas con- the basis oftheir knowledge ofthe group whilst
venedbytheTasmanian Parksand WildlifeSer- tryingto equalise the work load. The paucity of
vice in August 1992 to compilea list ofrareand knowledge on some groups, for example mites
threatened terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates and nematodes, precluded their consideration.
for Tasmania. The stimulus for the production Each committee member was responsible for
of such a list was provided by the recommen- compiling data on the status of species in the
dation of the RAVES (Rare, Vulnerable and groups they were allocated. Information was
Endangered Species) WorkingGroup that legis- obtained from Australian and overseas special-
slapteicoinesbeoinntarllodluacnedd wtehniucrhesprointeTctaesdmatnhireaa.teTnheed uisntps,ubflriosmhepdubmlaitsehreidals.ouArlclesspeacnidesfrthoamtthhaeidrboewenn
Invertebrate Advisory Committee was com- listed as being rare or threatened in other com-
posed of eight representatives drawn from the pilations (Wells et al., 1983; Hill and Michaelis,
University of Tasmania, government depart- 1988; Smith, 1989) were targeted. Once the
ments, the two Tasmanian Museums and a pri- compilationofinformation foragrouphad been
vate consultant. Members were chosen for their completed it was presentedtothecommittee for
knowledge of Tasmania's native invertebrates itsconsideration.Thestatusofsomespecieswas
andtheirabilitytocriticallyevaluatetheconser- unanimously agreed upon whilst for others a
vation status ofa species. majority decision decided their categorisation.
The review process Assessing rarity
The Committee reviewed all native terrestrial The problem of deciding when to classify a
eaxncdludfirnegshMwaactqeruariincveIrstleabnrdat(edsueitno iTnassufmfainciiean,t sbpeefcoireesaasnyrarsepewcaisescownesriedecraetdegboyritsheed.CoTmwmiottcaete-
information). Marine invertebrates were not egoriesofrarity were devised as workingdefini-
included becausetheyaredefined undertheLiv- tions. The first included species that were wide-
ingMarineResourcesAct 1995andhencearethe spread, but never abundant, and possessed
responsibility ofthe Sea Fisheries section ofthe ecologicalcharacteristicswhichputthematrisk.
Departrment of Primary Industries and Fish- The second included species that were well
esreiveesr.alEagcrhoumpesmboefrinovfetrhteebcroamtemsitttoeeaswsaesss.giFvoenr r1eksemargcrhieddsaqnuadreksn.oTwhnetoleoveclcuorfirnes1e0arocrh fweowrekr
winhsoelctes,pohrydlearswweerreeatlhleocuantietdoffgorrotuhpeinrgewmhaeirneiansg wdehfiicnhitiwoanswcaosnsliedftereodpesnufftiociienntterfporrettahteiolnattbeyr
605
606 R.J. TAYLOR AND S.L. BRYANT
individual specialists based on their knowledge local endemism with very low ratesofgene flow
ofthegroupand itsecology. Aswork progressed between catchments. It was therefore likely that
it was found that the definitionsofrarity had to species exhibiting small distributions from the
be used flexibly in conjunction with an assess- work of Ponder et al. (1993) would not have
ment ofsurvey effort. The distribution and eco- their distributions increased substantially by
logical requirements ofsome species were well further survey work.
known and the two categories could be applied
easily. However, for most species some Unpublished information from experts
interpretation ofthe distribution data had tobe
madeinthelight ofsurveyeffort. Anexampleof Unpublished information and opinions on the
theknown locationsoffivespeciesofcaddisflies statusofspecieswassought from expertsonpar-
are shown in Fig. 1. Each species was known ticulargroups or species. However, opinions of
fromonlyoneortwo locations. However,access experts were not accepted outright. The data
into the area between the two locations (Cradle werealwaysassessed independentlybythecom-
Mountain and a tributary ofthe Gordon River) mittee. Taxonomicopinion wasalso requiredto
where Poecilochorema lepnevae was found was be assessed when it affected the status of a
difficult and most of this area had not been species. Thus one submission to the committee
tshaemrpelewda.sFogrotohdeoatchceerssspeacnidesairneaFsiga1r,ohuonwdevetrh,e baergiunecdlutdheatd aasceitrtwaaisn snyanmoendymspoeucsiewsitshhoaunlodthnoetr
known locations had been sampled. morewidely distributedspecies. Thecommittee
Foronegroup, thehydrobiid snails, therarity debated whether this information should be
category was accepted as being appropriate accepted without having gone through the nor-
despite the fact that the distributions ofspecies mal scientific review process. After further
were not known in detail. Work by Ponderet al. detailed reasoning was requested from the
(1994) on Wilsons Promontory in Victoria had expert the committee decided to accept his
shown that these snails showed high levels of opinion.
Risk codes
Thecommitteebeganassessingtheconservation
status of species 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
species which did not qualify in the higher cat-
egoriesofthreatbutwhosestatuswasofconcern
because ofa restricted range (typically less than
100 km) and/or being found at few locations
which rendered it prone to human disturbance.
TheCommitteeconsidered the'susceptible'cat-
egory as an ideal classification for many invert-
ebrate species which had small ranges but were
not obviously threatened. Many species pre-
viously classified as rare were therefore reclas-
sified as susceptible. However, in the next
revision of the IUCN categories (Mace and
Stuart, 1994),whichweresubsequentlyadopted
by the IUCN Species Survival Commission
(1994), the susceptible category was subsumed
intothe vulnerable category. However, because
the foreshadowed Tasmanian legislation
included a 'rare' category it was felt that in our
Figure I. Known locations for five species ofcaddis- listing these two categories should not be amal-
flies. Adapted from Neboiss (1977). gamated. Thus our rare category included
COMPILATION OF A LIST OF THREATENED INVERTEBRATES 607
species that were very uncommon but wide- To date the list has been used forthree major
spread and those with very small or restricted purposes. The first two relate to forest manage-
populations that were mostly contained within ment. Acompilation ofthe locationsofrareand
reserves.Thecriteriaforourvulnerablecategory threatened species associated with forest has
wereasforIUCN SpeciesSurvival Commission been produced as a manual by Forestry Tas-
(1994) with the exclusion of criteria D. Those mania (Jackson and Taylor, 1995). Released in
meetingthecriteriaDofthevulnerablecategory January 1995 the manual is now used widely by
of the new IUCN system and whose distri- Forestry officers to assess whether a rare or
butions where mostly outside of reserves were threatened species isknown orlikely tooccurin
classified as rare(susceptible) underoursystem. areas to be logged. By the end of October
The othercategories were the same as that used 1995 42 cases involving known or suspected
in IUCN Species Survival Commission locations for rare or threatened species were
(1994). reported from State forest and private land.
Nine species were involved with 69% of cases
relatedtotwospecies.Thebiodiversitycompon-
The list and its uses ent ofthe Comprehensive Regional Assessment
An interim list of rare and threatened invert- for Tasmania's Regional Forest Agreement
ebrates for Tasmania was published in August (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 1995) hasspecifi-
1994 (Invertebrate Advisory Committee,1994). cally targeted rare and threatened invertebrates
To our knowledge this is the first time that an associated with forest. Functional groups with
attempt has been made to comprehensively an obvious predominance on the list, such as
examine the conservation status of a state's burrowing crayfish, aquatic snails, troglobites
native invertebrates. The list was titled as and log dwelling beetles, have been targeted for
'interim' to emphasise the fact that only a the preparation of thematic management pre-
relatively small proportion ofTasmania's non- scriptions.
marineinvertebrateswereabletobeconsidered. The second purpose of the list has been to
Table 1 summarises the listed species according provide the basis of a schedule of rare and
to taxonomic groups. In total 175 species from threatened invertebrates included on Tas-
seven phyla, eight classes and 25 were mania's ThreatenedSpecies Protection Act pro-
included. claimed in November 1995. The Act, however,
Table 1. Summary ofrare and 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
TAYLOR AND BRYANT
608 R.J. S.L.
did not include the non-susceptible category of Single species versus multi-species or habitat
the rare speciesnorthe twenty-twoundescribed conservation
stopebceiepsoflirtoimcatllhyeainndte/roirmlleigsatlalsyiutnwwaissec.onAsiSdceireend- Tspheecileisstoifnginavnedrtreebcroavteersyhpalsabnepernocqeusesstfioornseidngblye
wtiiftichiAndtvhiesAocrtytCooomvmeristeteeteheislitstoinbgeanedstdaeblliissthiendg YineenffaecntdivNeegwiv(e1n99t5h)ebelcaarugesentuhmeybesreeoitfasinbveeirntg-
process. It is likely that upon appointment this ebrates which could potentially swamp such a
committee will review the complete list. It is system. They argue for a habitat or species
envisaged that the Invertebrate Advisory Com- assemblage approach. We agree that such
mittee will most likely continue the assessment broader strategies are extremely important.
and revision ofthe list and make recommenda- However,wewouldarguethatthebestwaytogo
tions to the Scientiific Advisory Committee. about achieving the political recognition ofthe
resPeraordcuh.ctAionspoifdetrheprliesvtihoausslaylrtehaoduyghsttimexutliantcetd, snienegdlefosrpescuiecsh.sTtrhaetegsiiensgliesstphercoiuegshatphperoliascthinghaosf
Pdleetsaiioltehdesleurfveenytownoi,rkhaosn tbheeenvelrveedtiswcoorvemreOdopaenrd- Abuesetnraalcicaenptsetadteas.ndIfltehgeisvliaetewdtfhoart'twheronuegehdoumtoralel
ipatellus 'crypius' and the snail Anoglypta laun- data' (e.g. see Yen and Butcher (1992) and
cestonsis, that was stimulated by the listing of
thesespecies, has leadtorecommendationsthat eGsrpeoeunsseldadeas(1t9h9e2)mfaojroarrewplayy),fisorcwoanrtdinutehdentowbee
these species be delisted (R. Mesibov and K.
believe invertebrate conservation will continue
Bonham, pers. comm.). Surveys of two log- tobeignored by fundingagencies. The listingof
dwellingbeetles (Lissotes menalcus, and Hoplo-
species in itselfdoesnot necessarily improvean
gonus simsoni) are currently being undertaken
invertebrate's chance of survival, as demon-
and have lead to interim protection measures
strated bytheexperiencewiththeUnited States
being implemented for the latter species.
Endangered Species Act 1973 (Losos, 1993).
However, such listings have been used success-
Value ofthe listing process
fully to achieve reservation of significant rem-
Tasmania's interim list of rare and threatened nant habitats in the US (Hafernik, 1992). Such
invertebrates represents a significant starting remnant habitats are sometimes too small to
point in highlighting the magnitude of invert- support viable populations of vertebrates but
ebrate biodiversity in Tasmania. Previously can be important refuges for invertebrates and
only high profile or 'glamour' invertebrates, plants (Main, 1987; Wilson, 1987).
such as the giant freshwater crayfish Astacopsis Intheshorttimesincethelistingofthreatened
gouldi and the butterfly Oreixenica ptunarra, invertebrates in Tasmania we have seen a dra-
had been used to increase awareness ofinvert- matic increase in theprofile and level ofconser-
ebrates in the community or to attract funding vation research carried out on thisgroup. Sofar
through the federal Recovery Plan process. The only those species that are listed have been the
listhashighlightedthediversityofinvertebrates focusofattention.However,becauseofthepres-
and. although short (0.6% ofa possible 30000 ence ofcertain groups ofspecies on the list, we
species, Greenslade, 1985), highlights the have been able to focus attention on to habitats
paucity ofinformation and the need for further thatseemtobe important forthreatened invert-
surveys and taxonomic research. To date very ebrates (e.g. decaying logs, caves) or functional
little funding has been provided by the groups that are particularly at risk (e.g. aquatic
Endangered Species Unit of the Australian snails, log-dwellingbeetles). A review ofthe US
Nature Conservation Agency for invertebrate experience lead to the recommendation that
conservation. However, productionoflistssuch more emphasis be placed on multi-species and
asthisshouldassistwithlobbyingtoremedythis ecosystem-level recovery plans (Tear et al.,
funding imbalance and assist in expediting the 1995). We believe that the pressure that is
inclusion ofinvertebratesonthescheduleofthe required to gain acceptance at a political level
national Endangered Species Protection Act for the need for such work will come from the
1992. fact that the case can be argued on the basis of
COMPILATION OF A LIST OF THREATENED INVERTEBRATES 609
species that are listed as threatened. Such lists Gulland, E.J., 1992.Thedevelopmentofnewcri-
arenot apanacea, however, and must beseen as teria for listing species on the IUCN Red List.
only one of many tools that should be used to Species 19: 16-22.
achieve the conservation ofinvertebrates. Mace, G.M. and Stuart, S.N.. 1994. Draft IUCN Red
List categories, version 2.2. Species 21-22: 13-
24.
Acknowledgements
Main,B.Y., 1987. Persistenceofinvertebratesinsmall
TheothermembersoftheInvertebrateAdvisory areas:CasestudiesoftrapdoorspidersinWestern
Committee were A. Richardson, R. Mesibov, P Australia. Pp. 29-39 in: Saunders, D.A., Arnold,
McQuillan, E. Turner, T. Kingston, S. Chilcott G.W., Burbidge, A.A. and Hopkins, A.J.M.(eds).
wpahpoer.allWperowvoiudleddlcikoemtmoetnhtasnkontheamdaranfyt opfeotphlies NeboiNvseasgt,eutraAet.i,coonn1.s9e7Sr7uv.rartAeiyontB:aextaohtentyormo&liecSoofanrnsed:mnzSaoynodtgnseeoyo.gfrnaapthiivce
who assisted the committee with the provision study of Tasmanian caddis-flies (Insecta: Tri-
ofdata and opinions on the conservation status choptera). Memoirs ofthe National Museum of
ofspecies. Victoria 38: 1-208.
Ponder, W.F., Clark, G.A., Miller, A.C. and Toluzzi,
References A., 1993. On a major radiation of freshwater
snails in Tasmania and eastern Victoria: a pre-
Commonwealth of Australia, 1995. Commonwealth liminaryoverviewoftheBeddomeiagroup(Mol-
environmental and heritage obligations and lusca Gastropoda Hydrobiidae). Invertebrate
: :
assessmentsrelevanttotheRegionalForestAgree- Taxonomy 7: 501-750.
ment process. Information Paper. Common- Ponder, W.F.,Colgan, D.J., Clark, G.A., Miller, A.C.
wealth ofAustralia: Canberra. and Terzis, T., 1994. Microgeographic, genetic
Greenslade, P., 1985. Conservation priorities in Tas- and mo—rphological differentiation of freshwater
manian non-marine invertebrates. Tasmanian snails thehydrobiidaeofWilsonsPromontory,
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart. Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Australian
Greenslade, P., 1992. Invertebrate action. Search 23: JournalojZoology 42: 557-678.
229. Smith, S., 1989.ConservationofTasmanian landani-
Hafernik,J.E., 1992.Threatstoinvertebratebiodiver- mals.Pp. 11-12in:Fensham,R.(ed.), Threatened
sity: implications forconservation strategies. Pp. species and habitats in Tasmania. Centre for
171-195 in: Fiedler, P.L. and Jain, S.K. (eds). Environmental Studies, University ofTasmania:
Conservation biology: the theory andpractice of Hobart.
nature conservation. Chapman and Hall: New Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P.H. and Griffith.
York. B., 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered
Hill,inLs.ecatnsdanMdichrealealtiesd,wFi.ldBl.i,fe.19A88N.PCWonSseOrcvcaatsiioonnaolf SCpoencsieersvaAtciton:Bairoelocgryit9i:ci1s8ms2-s1u9p5p.orted by data?
Paper. No. 13. Wilson, E.O., 1987. The little things that run the
Invertebrate Advisory Committee, 1994. Interim list world. Conservation Biology 1: 344-346
ofnativeinvertebrateswhicharerareorthreatened Yen, A.L. and Butcher, R., 1992. Practical conser-
in Tasmania. Parks and Wildlife Service: vation of non-marine invertebrates. Search 23:
Hobart. 103-105.
IUCN, 1990. 1990 IUCNRedList ofthreatenedani- Yen,A.L.andNew,T.R., 1995.Someproblemsaffect-
mals. IUCN: Gland. ing implementation ofrecovery programmes for
IUCN SpeciesSurvivalCommission 1994.IUCNRed threatened Australian non-marine invertebrates
List categories. IUCN: Gland. species. Pp. 9-14 in: Bennett, A.. Backhouse, G.
Jackson, J. and Taylor, R. J., 1995. Threatenedfauna and Clark, T. (eds), People and nature conser-
manualforproductionforests in Tasmania. For- vation. Perseclives on private land use and
estry Tasmania: Hobart. endangered species recovery. Royal Zoological
Losos, E. 1993. The future of the US Endangered Society ofNSW: Sydney.
Species Act. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: Wells, S.M., Pyle, R.M. and Collins, N.M. 1983. The
332-336. IUCN Invertebrate Red Data Book. IUCN:
Mace,G., Collar, N.,Cooke,J., Gaston. K.,Ginsberg, Gland.
J.,LeaderWilliams,N., Maunder,M.andMilner-
