Fauna Spotters logo

Kimberley Marbled Toadlet (Uperoleia marmorata)

The Kimberley Marbled Toadlet is a poorly known Uperoleia frog from the Kimberley region. It is known only from its historic type specimen, and its habitat and ecology are not established. It is listed as DBCA Priority 1 in Western Australia, a DBCA priority category rather than a listing under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Use precautionary survey and clearing practices for works in the region.

Conservation status

Western Australia, WA Threatened and Priority Fauna List: Priority 1.

Seasonal planning

Seasonal activity, breeding and movement have not been established for this species. Use the row below as a general planning window, not as a species-specific activity calendar.

Seasonal knowledge: No species-specific months for activity, breeding or movement are known.

Season codes indicate a general planning window only. They do not represent documented months of activity for this species.

  • Survey and clearing precautions: Year-round planning window only. No species-specific seasonal timing is known, so assess the site and apply precautions whenever works are proposed.

Identification: Appearance and size

Identification information is sparse. Treat the historic colour description as a clue, not a complete field diagnosis.

A historic description of the type specimen reports black-and-green marbling, a triangular greenish spot on the forehead and a lead-coloured underside.

No reliable body size or modern diagnostic description is established for this species.

Identification: Similar species

No confirmed species-level comparison is available to reliably separate this toadlet from other Uperoleia in the field.

Do not identify a frog as this species from colour pattern alone. Record photographs, location and any call or habitat observations for expert review.

Identification: Field signs

No species-specific call, track, egg or tadpole description is known.

Uperoleia calls are generally simple rasps or clicks, but this is not a confirmed call description for the Kimberley Marbled Toadlet.

Distribution: Known range

Distribution is poorly documented and should not be treated as a complete range map.

The historic type specimen was collected in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The species is known only from that specimen.

A paper on Kimberley Uperoleia includes U. marmorata among species occurring in the northwest Kimberley. No precise site is given for this record.

Distribution: WA region and status

The DBCA priority list flags the Kimberley region. Priority 1 means the species is poorly known and known from few locations, with none on conservation lands.

No national listing is recorded.

Distribution: Records and confidence

Atlas of Living Australia records show no public Western Australian coordinates for this taxon. No precise locality coordinates are available.

Do not assume the species is absent because no record is mapped or because it is not detected during a site survey.

Habitat: Known habitat

Species-specific habitat has not been documented.

There is no established association with particular landforms, soils, vegetation or water bodies.

Habitat: Site assessment

For planning, check the full works footprint and nearby areas for wet ground, drainage lines and water bodies as general amphibian survey practice. These features are not confirmed habitat for this species.

Do not rule out potential occurrence because a particular habitat feature is absent.

Foraging habitat: Diet and feeding

The species' diet and foraging locations have not been documented.

No food items or feeding behaviour are known.

Foraging habitat: Precaution on site

Do not assume disturbed ground or areas without visible water are unimportant to the species. Where works may affect potential amphibian habitat, record ground conditions and any frog activity for the project ecologist.

Breeding habitat: Species-specific information

Species-specific breeding sites and timing are not known.

Breeding locations, eggs, tadpoles and reproductive behaviour have not been documented for this species.

Breeding habitat: Genus-level context

Uperoleia reproduction is described at genus level as aquatic, with small pigmented eggs and free-swimming larvae. These details are not confirmed for U. marmorata.

Sheltering habitat: Known shelter

Sheltering sites and resting behaviour have not been documented for this species.

No refuges, daytime shelter, burrows or seasonal sheltering behaviour are known.

Sheltering habitat: Practical precaution

As a general amphibian precaution, check ground cover and other potential refuges carefully before disturbance rather than assuming they are unoccupied. This is general guidance, not a confirmed shelter association for this species.

Threats: Known pressures

Species-specific threats have not been identified.

Population trends and causes of decline have not been documented for the Kimberley Marbled Toadlet.

Threats: Works-site implications

Priority 1 status reflects poor knowledge and few known locations. Apply precaution because distribution and ecological information are limited.

Record potential impacts and any frog observations, and refer identification or management questions to the project ecologist.

Survey methodology: 1. Desktop assessment

Species-specific survey methods and detectability are not known. Use a cautious, documented amphibian survey approach.

Review the project footprint against Kimberley regional information and the limited records. Seek advice from a suitably qualified ecologist where potential occurrence could affect works planning.

Do not infer that a site is outside the species' range because Atlas of Living Australia records show no public coordinates.

Survey methodology: 2. Field inspection

As general frog survey practice, inspect the footprint and adjacent areas for frog activity and potentially relevant wet places, including drainage features and water bodies. These are not confirmed habitat for this species.

Use visual observation and listening where conditions permit. The species' call and survey detectability are unknown, so a lack of calls or sightings is inconclusive.

Survey methodology: 3. Records and identification

Document the date, time, weather, exact observation location, photographs, call recordings if available, and surrounding ground conditions.

Do not handle or relocate frogs unless authorised and necessary under applicable project procedures. Refer uncertain records for expert identification.

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. Plan the footprint

Plan works with the species' limited records and unresolved habitat requirements in mind.

Confirm the clearing boundary and identify nearby drainage features, wet ground or water bodies for attention during assessment. These are precautionary checks, not confirmed habitat associations.

For proposed works in the Kimberley region, ensure the project ecologist has considered the species before clearing begins.

Before habitat disturbance: 2. Brief the crew

Explain that this is a poorly known Priority 1 frog and that reliable field identification and seasonal activity information are not established.

Set out how crews should pause work, protect an observed frog and notify the nominated fauna spotter catcher or ecologist.

During habitat disturbance: 1. Check before clearing

Use careful, staged work and respond conservatively to any frog found during clearing.

Have the fauna spotter catcher or ecologist inspect areas identified in the pre-clearance assessment. Proceed in a controlled manner and maintain the agreed exclusion areas.

Because sheltering behaviour is unknown, do not treat apparently bare ground or dry cover as proof that no frog is present.

During habitat disturbance: 2. Respond to a frog

Pause disturbance near any frog that may be this species. Protect it from machinery and allow the qualified fauna handler or ecologist to assess the situation under project approvals and procedures.

Record the observation and do not release an animal at a new location without appropriate authorisation and expert direction.

After habitat disturbance: 1. Record and report

Close out observations and check that agreed protections remain in place.

Document all sightings, call observations, handling decisions and unexpected habitat features. Share records with the project ecologist and relevant project contacts.

Submit suitable records to the relevant biodiversity recording process where appropriate, with precise coordinates and supporting evidence.

After habitat disturbance: 2. Review works

Check that exclusion areas, access controls and other agreed measures have been maintained. If a frog was found or an unexpected potential habitat feature was affected, review the remaining work with the project ecologist before proceeding.

Rehabilitation actions: 1. Restore disturbed ground

Rehabilitation objectives cannot be tailored to confirmed species requirements because its habitat needs are not documented.

Reinstate disturbed areas in accordance with the approved rehabilitation plan, avoiding unnecessary changes to drainage and ground conditions where practicable.

Do not create or remove water features on the assumption that they benefit this species. A species-specific association has not been established.

Rehabilitation actions: 2. Monitor and adapt

Record rehabilitation actions and any subsequent frog observations. Have the project ecologist review unexpected findings and adjust site management where required.

Use monitoring outcomes to improve future site planning, while treating habitat interpretations as unconfirmed unless supported by species-specific evidence.

Sources