Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
International Union for Conservation of Nature wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
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™