Fauna Spotters logo

Kimberley Froglet (Crinia fimbriata)

The Kimberley Froglet is a small frog known from the north-west Kimberley, where tadpoles have been found in rock pools. Its biology is poorly known, so works near suitable rocky pools warrant careful survey and precautionary handling. It is listed as Priority 3 on the WA priority fauna list, a DBCA priority category rather than a threatened species listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 3.

Seasonal knowledge and planning

Activity and breeding months have not been documented. The row below is a general planning prompt, not a species-specific activity period.

Breeding months: Not recorded.

Activity period: Not established.

Months are shown as a general planning prompt only, not as a prediction of presence or activity.

  • Consider survey and habitat checks throughout the year: Planning window only. Species-specific seasonal activity and breeding timing are not recorded.

Identification: Appearance and size

Use the combination of small size, dorsal colour and skin texture to guide identification. Confirm records carefully because field identification information is limited.

The back may be bluish grey-brown, yellow-brown or red, with distinctive dark brown variegations. Fine pale bluish-white tubercles stipple the entire dorsal surface.

Males have wide flanges on the fingers, a feature described as unusual among Crinia. The species account reports a greatest snout-to-vent length of 17.5 mm; the scientific description characterises it as smaller than the Bilingual Frog.

Identification: Similar species

The Kimberley Froglet is compared with the Bilingual Frog, Crinia bilingua. It is described as smaller, with longer legs and the distinctive dorsal features noted above.

Do not identify the species from colour alone. A complete field key and descriptions of all species that may occur alongside it are not available.

Identification: Field signs

Species-specific tracks, shelter signs and other field signs have not been described. The male advertisement call has not been recorded, so call identification is not available.

Distribution: Known range

The species is known from the Kimberley, with records placing it in the north-west of the region. Named survey sites have not been identified.

The species is reported from the high-rainfall zone of the north-west Kimberley, Western Australia. Atlas of Living Australia records show 16 Western Australian records from five distinct 0.1-degree locations, spanning latitude -15.8 to -14.8 and longitude 125.3 to 125.8.

These coordinate ranges are broad record bounds, not precise localities. Records outside Western Australia were excluded as likely errors.

Distribution: WA regions and status

The Kimberley is the WA region flagged for this species on the DBCA list. It is listed as Priority 3, meaning it is poorly known and known from several locations, but is not under imminent threat.

No national listing is identified.

Habitat: Recorded setting

Tadpoles have been recorded in rock pools. The full range of habitats used by adults is not known.

Tadpoles have been found in rock pools. Their large jaw sheaths may be an adaptation for scraping algae from those pools, but this proposed function is unconfirmed.

Habitat: Habitat gaps

Adult habitat, water conditions, vegetation, substrate beyond the reference to rock pools, and use of habitats away from water have not been described. Do not assume that all suitable habitat is limited to the pool itself.

Foraging habitat: Tadpole feeding clue

Tadpole jaw structure may provide a clue to feeding, but the species' diet has not been documented.

Tadpoles have large jaw sheaths, which may help them scrape algae from rock pools. This is a possible adaptation, not a confirmed dietary finding.

Foraging habitat: Unknown diet

Reliable species-specific information on adult or tadpole diet is not available. Avoid recording a presumed food source as a confirmed requirement.

Breeding habitat: Available evidence

Breeding habitat and timing are poorly known.

Tadpoles have been found in rock pools. This establishes use of pools by larvae, but does not confirm where or when eggs are laid.

Breeding habitat: Unrecorded details

The male advertisement call has not been recorded. Breeding months, egg placement, clutch size and development time have not been documented.

Sheltering habitat: Known shelter information

Specific shelter sites and resting behaviour have not been described.

Species-specific information on daytime refuges, burrows, crevices or shelter use is not available. Rock pools are recorded as habitat for tadpoles, not as confirmed adult shelter sites.

Sheltering habitat: Precaution at works sites

As general frog-handling practice, check rocky crevices, damp cover and pool margins carefully before disturbing them. Treat any frog found in these settings as potentially relevant until an appropriately qualified person has identified it.

Threats: Known status

Specific threats to the Kimberley Froglet have not been identified. Its DBCA Priority 3 status reflects that it is poorly known, not that it is listed as threatened.

The species has Priority 3 status in the Kimberley. It is known from several locations and is not under imminent threat.

Threats: Threat information gaps

Species-specific threats, population trends and responses to development have not been described. Avoid presenting general amphibian pressures as confirmed threats to this species.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Focus survey effort on suitable rocky pools, while recognising that the species' detectability and seasonal activity are not established.

Review the proposed disturbance footprint against available fauna records and identify rocky pools and associated habitat features for targeted checking. Treat broad coordinate bounds as regional guidance rather than precise site locations.

Survey methodology: 2. Field inspection

As general frog survey practice, inspect pool margins and accessible rocky features carefully, using a torch during suitable night-time searches and recording weather, water conditions and survey effort. Night searches may not be the only useful method for this species.

Survey methodology: 3. Identification and records

Photograph observed frogs where this can be done without unnecessary handling. Record the location, habitat, date and identification basis, and seek expert confirmation for uncertain records.

Do not rely on call surveys as a species-specific method: the male advertisement call has not been recorded.

Vegetation associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific vegetation association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Ecosystem associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific ecosystem association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Soil and substrate associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific soil association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Water and wetland associations

Source-checked associations and automatically indexed candidates are separated below. An association does not establish site presence, preference or dependence.

No species-specific water association has been indexed or source-checked in this evidence library. This is an evidence gap, not evidence of no association.

Fauna records and mapped habitat: Not yet analysed

Record locations can be overlaid with mapping, but record frequency alone does not measure habitat preference. No species is excluded from desktop assessments by this analysis.

No quality-controlled record-to-map analysis has been completed for this species. The existing generalised distribution dots and indicative range polygons have not been treated as precise occurrence coordinates.

A defensible run needs dated, independently attributable records, coordinate uncertainty, duplicate and captive-record checks, layer versions and regional scope. Preference and absence require additional survey-effort and detection evidence.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: No supported exclusion recorded

Not recorded is not the same as cannot occur. Low suitability, resident habitat, breeding habitat and occasional movement are different conclusions.

This library has not established a vegetation, ecosystem or soil-type exclusion for this species. This does not mean all habitat is suitable; the evidence needed to justify an exclusion has not been assembled.

Habitat limitations and contrary evidence: Before using a negative association

  • Confirm the taxon, geographic region, life stage and habitat function covered by the evidence.
  • Check survey methods, season, repeated effort and detectability before interpreting non-detection.
  • Investigate credible contradictory records and microhabitats absent from broad mapping.
  • Do not convert a missing map class, low record count or failed data request into species absence.

Before habitat disturbance: 1. Map habitat and records

Plan works around the limited distribution and habitat information, and resolve likely encounters before clearing begins.

Mark rock pools and rocky features within and next to the work area for pre-clearance inspection. Check available fauna records and consult a qualified ecologist where suitable habitat or prior records occur.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Set survey and work controls

Arrange a suitably timed fauna inspection before disturbance, with effort and conditions documented. Brief clearing crews on the species' appearance and the need to stop work and seek assistance if a frog is found.

A species-specific breeding season has not been established, so do not use an assumed seasonal window as the sole basis for scheduling.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Work carefully

Use staged, careful work around rocky pools and respond promptly to any frog encountered.

Keep machinery and vehicle movements out of marked pools and rocky features where practicable. Clear in a controlled sequence so that inspected areas remain distinct from areas yet to be checked.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Respond to finds

If a frog is found, pause work in the immediate area, avoid handling it unless necessary for safety, and contact the fauna spotter catcher or ecologist. Any capture or relocation should be carried out only by an appropriately authorised and competent person under applicable approvals and procedures.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Record outcomes

Close out encounter records and check that disturbance has not left avoidable impacts around pools.

Document sightings, captures, releases, unexpected habitat features and any changes to the work area. Include location, date, identification confidence and the actions taken.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Inspect the work area

As general site practice, check for damage or sediment movement affecting rocky pools and their margins, and address avoidable impacts under the project environmental controls. A species-specific post-disturbance monitoring period has not been defined.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Retain pool features

Rehabilitation should protect recorded pool habitat while avoiding assumptions about unconfirmed habitat requirements.

Where practicable, retain rock pools and their rocky margins, and prevent rehabilitation works from filling, draining or unnecessarily altering them. Pool dimensions and required water conditions have not been described.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and adapt

Record rehabilitation actions and inspect retained pool features after works for visible changes. Seek ecologist advice if a frog or tadpole is found; do not introduce animals or alter water features based on unsupported assumptions about the species.

Sources