Summary1. Altered global climates in the 21st century pose serious threats for biological systems and practical actions are needed to mount a response for species at risk. 2. We identify management actions from across the world and from diverse disciplines that are applicable to minimizing loss of amphibian biodiversity under climate change. Actions were grouped under three thematic areas of intervention: (i) installation of microclimate and microhabitat refuges; (ii) enhancement and restoration of breeding sites; and (iii) manipulation of hydroperiod or water levels at breeding sites. 3. Synthesis and applications. There are currently few meaningful management actions that will tangibly impact the pervasive threat of climate change on amphibians. A host of potentially useful but poorly tested actions could be incorporated into local or regional management plans, programmes and activities for amphibians. Examples include: installation of irrigation sprayers to manipulate water potentials at breeding sites; retention or supplementation of natural and artificial shelters (e.g. logs, cover boards) to reduce desiccation and thermal stress; manipulation of canopy cover over ponds to reduce water temperature; and, creation of hydrologoically diverse wetland habitats capable of supporting larval development under variable rainfall

1. Threats to biodiversity and the integrity of ecological systems are escalating globally, both within and outside of protected areas. Decision makers have inadequate resources to manage all threats and typically lack information on the likely outcomes and cost-effectiveness of possible management strategies. Priority Threat Management (PTM) is an emerging approach designed to address this challenge, by defining and appraising cost-effective strategies for mitigating threats to biodiversity across regions. The scientific and practical impacts of PTM are increasing, with a growing number of case study applications across the globe.2. Here, we provide guidance and resource material for conducting the PTM process based on our experience delivering six large-scale projects across Australia and Canada. Our handbook describes the four stages of PTM: scoping and planning; defining and collecting key elements; analysing the cost-effectiveness of strategies; and communicating and integrating recommendations. We summarise critical tips, strengths, and limitations and scope for possible enhancements of the approach. Priority Threat Management harnesses scientific and expert-derived informationto prioritise management strategies based on their benefit to biodiversity, management costs and feasibility. The approach involves collaboration with key experts and stakeholders in a region to improve knowledge sharing and conservation support. The PTM approach identifies sets of regional level strategies that together provide the greatest benefits for multiple species under a limited budget, which can be used to inform existing processes for decision-making. 4. The PTM approach applies some generalisations in management strategies and resolution, in order to address complex challenges. Further developments of the approach include testing in a greater range of socioecological systems with adaptations that cater for multiobjective decisions. 482 | Journal of Applied Ecology CARWARDINE Et Al.5. Synthesis and applications. Priority Threat Management is a decision science approach that brings people together to define and prioritise strategies for managing threats to biodiversity across broad regions. It delivers a prospectus for investment in the biodiversity of a region that is transparent, repeatable, participatory, and based on the best available information. Our handbook provides the necessary guidance and resources for expanding the Priority Threat Management approach to new locations, contexts, and challenges. K E Y W O R D S biodiversity conservation, cost-effectiveness analysis, expert elicitation, extinction, Prioritising Threat Management, return on investment, structured decision-making, threatened species | 483 Journal of Applied Ecology CARWARDINE Et Al.

No abstract

Numerous methods have been developed to support the assessment of environmental flow requirements for rivers. Most methods are based around models of hydrologic time series rather than models of the ecological endpoints of interest. Important limitations that arise from this include (1) an inability to represent the state dependency of response to future conditions (i.e. the effects of current ecosystem condition on future condition), (2) the inability to predict ecological states through time under alternative flow regimes and (3) limited sensitivity to compare the differences between flow regimes with similar return intervals of ecologically important events, but different sequencing of those events. Here we outline a simple state‐and‐transition modelling approach to assess differences in ecological responses to alternative sequences of floodplain inundation events in a lowland river system. Our approach explicitly incorporates the state dependency of biotic response to flooding, thereby representing the influences of both antecedent conditions and current condition (in this case population state; good > medium > poor > critical). Our approach thus captures the influence of the entire historical sequence of flow events via a first‐order Markov chain process. We use prior data and expert opinion to determine state transitions for a broad suite of ecological indicators. Despite being implemented with deterministic transitions, and drawing heavily on expert opinion, this approach greatly improves on existing methods used in environmental flows planning, particularly when comparing scenarios with the different sequencing of ecologically relevant flow events. The outputs from these models are testable, and the approach is readily extensible to incorporate probabilistic state transitions and uncertainty, mechanistic links (via increased model complexity) and quantitative measures of population state (e.g. measures of abundance or tree condition). Most importantly, the adoption of such a framework represents a fundamental shift to modelling ecological endpoints rather than relying on just quantifying hydrologic surrogates to compare environmental flow scenarios.

The strong association between amphibian activity, breeding and recruitment with local environmental conditions raises concerns regarding how changes in climate may affect the persistence of species populations into the future. Additionally, in a highly diverse assemblage of anurans, competition for breeding sites affects the time and duration of activity, as species compete for limited resources such as water. Meteorological conditions are strong drivers of amphibian activity, so we assessed whether temperature, rainfall, atmospheric pressure and humidity were associated with the calling phenology of an assemblage of anurans in South East Queensland, Australia. We performed calling surveys and collected digital recordings at 45 ponds in an area known for high anuran diversity. We performed detection analyses to investigate the influence of 10 meteorological variables in detection of calling activity in 19 amphibian species. Our results suggest four breeding strategies in the assemblage: explosive summer breeders, prolonged breeders, opportunistic breeders and a winter breeder. Classifying these species into associations provides a framework for understanding how species respond to environmental conditions. Explosive breeders (i.e. species demonstrating short and highly synchronised breeding periods) were particularly responsive to temperature. Our findings help elucidate the breeding phenology of frogs and provide valuable information on their mating systems in native Australian forests. This study highlights the difficulties of surveying even common anurans. We highlight the importance of predictability and stability in climate and the vulnerability of species for which reproduction appears to require highly specific environmental cues.