Download assessment

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T16138A21944584
Parantechinus apicalis, Dibbler
Assessment by: Burbidge, A.A. & Woinarski, J.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Burbidge, A.A. & Woinarski, J. 2016. Parantechinus apicalis. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2016: e.T16138A21944584. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.20162.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State
University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe;
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Mammalia
Dasyuromorphia
Dasyuridae
Taxon Name: Parantechinus apicalis (Gray, 1842)
Common Name(s):
• English:
• French:
Dibbler, Southern Dibbler
Souris Marsupiale Mouchetée
Taxonomic Notes:
No subspecies are recognised.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Endangered B2ab(i,iii,iv,v) ver 3.1
Year Published:
2016
Date Assessed:
June 15, 2015
Justification:
The Dibbler has a very small Area of Occupation of substantially less than 500 km2. On the mainland
there are few, small, fragmented subpopulations that are inferred to be declining and require
management to survive. An ongoing continuing decline is demonstrated by the recent loss of several
subpopulations. It occurs naturally on two very small islands and, on the mainland, it survives naturally
only in Fitzgerald River National Park. It has been introduced (assisted colonisation) to another small
island, and has been reintroduced to one mainland location.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2008 – Endangered (EN) – http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T16138A5410795.en
1996 – Endangered (EN)
1994 – Endangered (E)
1990 – Indeterminate (I)
1988 – Indeterminate (I)
1986 – Indeterminate (I)
1982 – Indeterminate (I)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
The Dibbler once occurred widely with subfossil records suggesting a range from Dirk Hartog Island
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
1
(Shark Bay) and the Zuytdorp Cliffs north of Geraldton, near Jurien, to Peak Charles (130 km north east
of Esperance) and east to the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia. Early specimens, all from Western
Australia, came from Moore River (near today’s New Norcia), Wanneroo, near Kojonup, King George
Sound (Albany) and ‘Salt River’ (Pallinup River, 100 km north east of Albany) (Ride 1970; Maxwell et al.
1996; Friend 2004).
Long thought extinct, the Dibbler was rediscovered at Cheyne Beach, east of
Albany, in 1967 (Morcombe 1967). Since then specimens have come from Torndirrup National Park
(Smith 1990), Arpenteur Nature Reserve (Cheyne Beach), Waychinicup National Park, near Jerdacuttup
(Woolley 1977) and Fitzgerald River National Park (Muir 1985; Chapman and Newby 1995; Friend 2004;
Sanders et al. 2012). Currently, the only known natural mainland subpopulations are in Fitzgerald River
National Park. In 1985 it was discovered on Boullanger (31 ha) and Whitlock (5 ha) Islands in Jurien Bay
(Fuller and Burbidge 1987); genetic differentiation between these two island populations indicates that
there is little interchange between them (Mills et al. 2003) and they are regarded as separate
subpopulations. Dibblers were introduced to Escape Island (11 ha), Jurien Bay, in 1998-2000 (Moro
2003), and reintroduced to Peniup Nature Reserve (2001) and Stirling Range National Park (2004)
(Friend 2008). From 2010 there have been three releases into a 380 ha enclosure free of Red Foxes and
feral Cats in Waychinicup National Park (J. Friend pers. comm.).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Australia (Western Australia)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
2
Distribution Map
Parantechinus apicalis
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
3
Population
McCulloch (1998) estimated the total population of both Boullanger and Whitlock Islands to be c. 180
animals, but there has been considerable decline since then (J. Friend pers. comm.). Abundance data for
the mainland are not available, but the total number of mature individuals is likely to be <1000. The rate
of decline may have been reduced recently because of two successful translocations and intensive fire
and predator management at some mainland subpopulations, however the population size is likely still
to be decreasing because of diminishing habitat quality due to inappropriate fire regimes, Phytophthora
and predation at mainland locations (J. Friend pers. comm).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
Dibblers are semi-arboreal and mainly crepuscular. They once occupied a variety of habitats. Mainland
occurrences of Dibblers have been characterised by the presence of long-unburnt heathland. This
generalisation applies to records from Cheyne Beach, Torndirrup National Park and most records from
Fitzgerald River National Park. Typically, captures have been on sandy substrates although occasional
records are on laterite soils (Baczocha and Start 1996; Barrett 1998). Vegetation structure is the feature
providing most similarity between capture sites and Baczocha and Start (1997) suggested that Dibblers
‘...seem to prefer vegetation with a dense canopy >1 metre high which has been unburnt for at least 10
years’. Dense vegetation may be preferred because it supplies abundant invertebrate prey, or it may
provide protection from predation by foxes and cats, or both. In 1996, however, Dibblers were captured
in an area that had been burnt seven years previously, but this was in an area that had been baited for
foxes for several years (Friend 2004). Extensive fire has been a frequent occurrence in Fitzgerald River
National Park over the few decades and the subpopulations within the Park are small and fragmented.
A study of the habitat preferences of island Dibblers (Bencini et al. 2001) found that on Boullanger
Island there was no significant difference between trap success in low-closed heath, foredune heath,
open scrubland and sword sedge Lepidosperma sp. thicket. On Whitlock Island, significantly greater
capture rates were recorded in dunal scrubland and foredune heath than in succulent heath. On
Boullanger and Whitlock Islands, a study has shown that diet consisted of c. 20% plant material with the
remainder being invertebrates. Scat analysis showed that Dibblers consumed at least 10 orders of
invertebrates ranging in length from 0.1 mm to 25 mm with an average size of 4.5 ± 0.4 mm. The
Dibblers did not select for a particular size or taxon of prey, but fed on any invertebrates that were
readily available to them. This suggests that Dibblers are essentially insectivorous dietary generalists and
opportunists (Miller et al. 2003). Boullanger and Whitlock Islands have often-dense populations of the
introduced House Mouse Mus musculus. Boullanger Islands has a subpopulation of Sminthopsis
griseoventer (see conservation summary for the Boullanger Island Dunnart).
Concern that Mus was depressing Dibbler numbers led to their introduction to Escape Island (Moro
2003). A study of the feasibility of eradicating the mice has been carried out (Friend et al. 2009) and the
Dibbler Recovery Team is overseeing a project aimed at carrying out the eradication (J. Friend pers.
comm.). Mills et al. (2006) found that the Boullanger and Whitlock Island subpopulations had low levels
of heterozygosity and high levels of inbreeding compared with mainland populations. The Whitlock
Island Dibbler subpopulation appears to have been founded by animals from Boullanger Island, but
founder effects and isolation have resulted in two genetically distinct subpopulations. There is evidence
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
4
of some genetic exchange, but only as a rare event.
Systems: Terrestrial
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Introduced foxes and cats are known to prey on this species, and are found throughout its known
mainland range, though they are not present on the islands. The plant disease Phytophthora cinnamomi
is a threat to Dibblers, as it adversely alters their habitat. Introduced mice are also a potential threat on
Boullanger and Whitlock Islands, due to competition (Friend 2004). Because this species is dependent
on habitat that has not been recently burned, frequent and intense fire is a major threat.
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
A Recovery Plan (Friend 2004) includes the actions: ·
Monitor known populations ·
Protect
existing and reintroduced populations from threatening processes ·
Survey to locate further
populations ·
Maintain a captive-breeding colony to produce stock for translocation ·
Translocate captive-bred and/or wild stock to establish at least three further self-sustaining mainland
populations ·
Carry out genetic monitoring and management of reintroduced populations. This has
not commenced yet due to lack of funding ·
Encourage community involvement in Dibbler
conservation ·
Improve knowledge to underpin Dibbler recovery. Implementation of the recovery
plan is well advanced and is coordinated by the Dibbler Recovery Team. Monitoring at Peniup Nature
Reserve and on the Jurien Bay Islands is carried out as funding permits. Regular aerial baiting for fox
control is conducted in Fitzgerald River National Park as part of ‘Western Shield’. Aerial baiting is also
carried out at Waychinicup National Park. Operational feral Cat control is not yet possible. Boullanger
and Whitlock Islands are regularly visited and Escape Island sometimes visited by recreational boat users
from Jurien; educational information is provided at boat ramps and Department of Environment and
Conservation (DEC) staff check the islands regularly. Eradication of the House Mouse populations from
the islands is proposed. Fire management in Fitzgerald River National Park is carried under the Fitzgerald
River National Park Management Plan (Moore et al. 1991), which recognises the needs of Dibblers and
other threatened fauna requiring long-unburnt vegetation, including Western Bristlebirds Dasyornis
longirostris and Western Ground Parrots Pezoporus flaviventris. Fire management of Peniup is carried
out by DEC’s Albany District and is aimed at keeping most of the reserve in a long-unburnt state, while
recognising the concerns of neighbouring landholders. The Turquoise Coast Island Nature Reserves Draft
Management Plan 2004 (CALM 2004) prescribes total fire exclusion from the islands and lays out a rapid
response procedure to extinguish wildfire if it occurs. Fitzgerald River National Park has small areas of
infestation by Phytophthora and there is ongoing work to control it and prevent its spread. A captive
breeding colony is maintained at Perth Zoo and supplies >50 animals of mainland stock for translocation
each year. It is regularly supplemented with Dibblers from the wild. The large increase in young
produced in 2010 at Perth Zoo was due to a new pairing and weaning technique, which so far has
proven to increase the output of the colony whilst keeping husbandry costs constant. A translocation to
the Stirling Range National Park failed and a mainland translocation is under way to the 380 ha
Waychinicup National Park enclosure (mainland island) built for Gilbert’s Potoroos Potorous gilbertii.
The Malleefowl Preservation Group is involved in monitoring the subpopulation at Peniup and other
community volunteers assist with the monitoring of the Jurien Bay island subpopulations. There has
been considerable research carried out mainly through The University of Western Australia, elucidating
aspects of genetics and the ecology of the Dibbler and other vertebrates on the islands where it occurs.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
5
Since rediscovery in 1967, there have been numerous searches for Dibblers on the mainland, often
without success, even at locations where specimens had been obtained opportunistically (e.g. Woolley
and Valente 1982). Discovery of relatively abundant island subpopulations in 1985 led to several studies
on the species’ biology and ecology, captive breeding (Lambert and Mills 2006) and an introduction to
Escape Island, which is free from introduced mammals. Discovery in Fitzgerald River National Park in
1984 led to further studies, captive breeding and translocations. All areas where Dibblers are known to
occur are conservation reserves managed by the Western Australian Department of Environment and
Conservation, which conducts ongoing research and management of the Dibbler. In areas occupied by
Dibblers, management focuses on maintaining significant areas of long-unburnt habitat and preventing
the spread of Phytophthora dieback. Volunteers are involved in translocations and monitoring. Current
management aligns to actions in the Recovery Plan (Friend 2004).
Credits
Assessor(s):
Burbidge, A.A. & Woinarski, J.
Reviewer(s):
Johnson, C.N. & Hawkins, C.
Contributor(s):
Friend, T. & Moro, D.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
6
Bibliography
AnAge. 2012. The animal aging and longevity database. Available at:
http://genomics.senescence.info/species/.
Baczocha, N., and Start, A.N. 1997. Status and ecology of the dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis) in Western
Australia. 1996 Annual Report. Report to Environment Australia. Department of Conservation and Land
Management, Perth.
Barrett, S. 1998. A biological survey of mountains in southern Western Australia. Report on Project No.
AW03 to Australian Nature Conservation Agency National Reserves System Cooperative Program.
Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.
Bencini, R., McCulloch, C., Mills, H.R., and Start A. 2001. Habitat and diet of the dibbler (Parantechinus
apicalis) on two islands in Jurien Bay, Western Australia. Wildlife Research 28: 465-468.
Burbidge, A.A. and Manly, B.F.J. 2002. Mammal extinctions on Australian islands: causes and
conservation implications. Journal of Biogeography 29: 465-474.
Chapman, A., and Newbey, K. R. 2005. A biological survey of the Fitzgerald area, Western Australia.
CALMScience Supplement No 3: 1-258.
Department of Conservation and Land Management. 2004. Turquoise Coast Island Nature Reserves
Management Plan 2004. Management Plan No. 50. Department of Conservation and Land Management
and Conservation Commission of Western Australia, Perth.
Dickman, C. R., and Braithwaite, R. W. 1992. Postmating mortality of males in the dasyurid marsupials,
Dasyurus and Parantechinus. Journal of Mammalogy 73: 143-147.
Friend, J. A. 2004. Dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis) Recovery Plan: July 2003 - July 2013. Western
Australian Wildlife Management Program No. 38. Department of Conservation and Land Management,
Western Australia Threatened Species and Communities Unit, Albany, Western Australia.
Friend, J. A., and Collins, P. 2005. Male die-off in the dibbler: no evidence in mainland populations.
Australian Mammal Society Newsletter October 2005(39).
Friend, J. A., Bennison, C. H., Button, T. A., Bencini, R., Mills, H. R., and Lambert, C. 2009. Preliminary
assessment of non-target risk associated with poison baiting for introduced house mice on Boullanger
and Whitlock islands, Western Australia. Australian Mammal Society Newsletter October 2009(57).
Friend, T. 2008. Endangered! Dibbler. Landscope 24(1): 9.
Friend, T., Burbidge, A., and Morris, K. 2008. Parantechinus apicalis. In 'The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species'. Version 2012.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 12 September 2012).
Fuller, P. J., and Burbidge, A. A. 1987. Discovery of the dibbler, Parantechinus apicalis, on islands at
Jurien Bay. Western Australian Naturalist 16: 177-181.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 04 September 2016).
Lambert, C., and Mills, H. 2006. Husbandry and breeding of the Dibbler Parantechinus apicalis at Perth
Zoo. International Zoo Yearbook 40: 290-301.
Maxwell, S., Burbidge, A.A. and Morris, K. 1996. The 1996 Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and
Monotremes. Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme Specialist Group, IUCN Species Survival
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
7
Commission, Gland, Switzerland.
McCulloch, C. 1998. The demography and habitat use of the dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis) on two
islands in Jurien Bay, Western Australia. Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia.
Miller, S., Bencini, R., Mills, H., and Moro, D. 2003. Food availability for the dibbler (Parantechinus
apicalis) on Boullanger and Whitlock Islands, Western Australia. Wildlife Research 30: 649-654.
Mills, H. R., and Bencini, R. 2000. New evidence for facultative male die-off in island populations of
dibblers, Parantechinus apicalis. Australian Journal of Zoology 48: 501-510.
Mills, H. R., Moro, D., and Spencer, P. B. S. 2006. Conservation significance of island versus mainland
populations: a case study of dibblers (Parantechinus apicalis) in Western Australia. Animal Conservation
7: 387-395.
Moore, S., Cavana, M., Gillen, K., Hart, C., Hopper, S., Orr, K., and Schmidt, W. 1991. Fitzgerald River
National Park Management Plan, 1991 - 2001. Department of Conservation and Land Management,
Perth.
Morcombe, M. K. 1967. The rediscovery after 83 years of the dibbler Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia,
Dasyuridae). Western Australian Naturalist 10: 102-111.
Moro, D. 2003. Translocation of captive-bread dibblers Parantechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae)
to Escape Island, Western Australia. Biological Conservation 111: 305-315.
Muir, B. G. 1985. The dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis: Dasyuridae) found in Fitzgerald River National
Park, Western Australia. Western Australian Naturalist 16: 48-51.
Ride, W. D. L. 1970. A guide to the mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Sanders, A., Chapman, A., Teale, R.J. and Harold, G. 2012. Vertebrate fauna of the Fitzgerald Biosphere
Reserve, Western Australia. Western Australian Naturalist 28: 141-253.
Smith, V. W. 1990. The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of the Torndirrup National Park. Western Australian
Naturalist 18: 82-92.
Stewart, A. 2001. Does competition for food with house mice threaten the Dibbler? Faculty of
Agriculture, Perth.
Stewart, A. G. 2006. Dibblers on the Jurien islands: the influence of burrowing seabirds and the potential
for competition from other species. The University of Western Australia.
Wolfe, K. M., Mills, H. R., Garkaklis, M. J., and Bencini, R. 2004. Post-mating survival in a small marsupial
is associated with nutrient inputs from seabirds. Ecology 85: 1740-1746.
Woolley, P. A. 1971. Observations on the reproductive biology of the Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis
(Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 54: 99-102.
Woolley, P. A. 1977. In search of the Dibbler, Antechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Journal of
the Royal Society of Western Australia 59: 111-117.
Woolley, P. A. 1991. Reproductive behaviour of captive Boullanger Island Dibblers, Parantechinus apicalis
(Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Wildlife Research 18: 157-163.
Woolley, P. A. 2008. Dibbler, Parantechinus apicalis. In: S. Van Dyck and R. Strahan (eds), The mammals
of Australia. Third Edition, pp. 65-66. Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia.
Woolley, P. A., and Valente, A. 1982. The dibbler, Parantechinus apicalis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae):
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
8
failure to locate populations in four regions in the south of Western Australia. Australian Mammalogy 5:
241-245.
Citation
Burbidge, A.A. & Woinarski, J. 2016. Parantechinus apicalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2016: e.T16138A21944584. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
9
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
3. Shrubland -> 3.8. Shrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation
Breeding
Suitable
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire
suppression -> 7.1.3. Trend Unknown/Unrecorded
Ongoing
Majority (5090%)
Rapid declines
Medium
impact: 7
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.3. Indirect species effects ->
2.3.2. Competition
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Vulpes
vulpes)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
(Phytophthora cinnamomi)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species (Felis catus)
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes &
diseases -> 8.1. Invasive non-native/alien
species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Research, Monitoring and Planning
Action Recovery plan: Yes
Systematic monitoring scheme: Yes
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
10
Conservation Actions in Place
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
Percentage of population protected by PAs (0-100): 81-90
Invasive species control or prevention: Yes
In-Place Species Management
Successfully reintroduced or introduced beningly: Yes
Subject to ex-situ conservation: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.1. Site/area protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.1. Site/area management
2. Land/water management -> 2.2. Invasive/problematic species control
3. Species management -> 3.2. Species recovery
3. Species management -> 3.3. Species re-introduction -> 3.3.1. Reintroduction
3. Species management -> 3.4. Ex-situ conservation -> 3.4.1. Captive breeding/artificial propagation
4. Education & awareness -> 4.1. Formal education
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
2. Conservation Planning -> 2.2. Area-based Management Plan
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
Additional Data Fields
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
11
Distribution
Estimated area of occupancy (AOO) (km²): 50
Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO): No
Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) (km²): 20100
Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO): Yes
Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO): No
Number of Locations: 6
Continuing decline in number of locations: No
Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations: No
Population
Number of mature individuals: 700
Continuing decline of mature individuals: Yes
Population severely fragmented: Yes
No. of subpopulations: 6
Continuing decline in subpopulations: Yes
Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations: No
All individuals in one subpopulation: No
Habitats and Ecology
Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat: Yes
Generation Length (years): 1.5-2
Movement patterns: Not a Migrant
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Parantechinus apicalis – published in 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T16138A21944584.en
12
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership.
The IUCN Red List Partners are: Arizona State University; BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens
Conservation International; Conservation International; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew;
Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™