Moved frogs don’t settle: Evaluating the impact of translocation on the movement behaviour of a threatened frog

On the fence: reevaluating the use of temporary amphibian exclusion fencing

“…Temporary exclusion fencing may inadvertently cut‐off or isolate populations or key habitat features by preventing individuals from moving through habitat now excluded onsite. We hypothesize that this occurred when we detected a decline in abundance of a refuge pond for the threatened green and golden bell frog ( Litoria aurea ) that became isolated by an exclusion fence (Gould et al 2023 b ).…”

“…Individuals detected onsite after fencing has been installed will need to be translocated. Yet, amphibians are known to have strong homing ability and have been detected returning to fenced areas post‐translocation (Gould et al 2023 b ). The implication of fencing is that returning individuals are prevented from gaining access to the habitat they are homing toward, instead becoming exposed to sub‐optimal conditions around the fenceline, leading to an increased risk of mortality.…”

“…This process would only be appropriate if there was habitat in the vicinity that could act as a surrogate and compensate for any temporary or permanent loss of resources onsite. This would allow individuals to naturally migrate to refuges, akin to natural movements recorded during drought (Fellers & Kleeman 2007), increasing the chance of individuals resetting their homing instinct and curbing attempts to return (Fellers & Kleeman 2007; Gould et al 2023 b ).…”