Assessment Results
Mantidactylus pauliani
Order:
Anura
Family:
Mantellidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
03 Aug 2015
by:
Angelica Crottini
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22.86160116
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | Thsi species has an extremely small Area of Occupancy (probably less than 10km2), all individuals belong to the same meta-population, and the extent and quality of its forest habitat on the Ankaratra Massif is severely declining. Together with the equally distributed Boophis williamsi this is probably the most threatened frog species of Madagascar. Bd has also been identified in the area with prevalences up to 100% |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | But we are not very far. In 2014 a visit to the site show strong sign of deforestation and the suitable habitat has reduced drastically in the last 5 years. Urgent actions are needed. |
| 3 | Phylogenetic significance | The taxon’s Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) score, as generated by the ZSL EDGE program. (These data are not editable by Assessors). | ED value 20 - 50 | |
| 4 | Protected habitat | Is a population of at least 50% of the individuals of the taxon included within a well-managed or reliably protected area or areas? | No / unlikely | There is a plan to include the distributional area of this species into a new Reserve (at Ankaratra), this process will be lead by the locally based VIF in partnership with Durrell Madagascar. If this process will not be implemented as soon as possible M. pauliani and Boophis williamsi might be the first known extinct frog species of Madagascar ^(after the big extinctions of the past). |
| 5 | Habitat for reintroduction, conservation translocation or supplementation | Does enough well-managed and reliably protected habitat exist, either within or outside of currently protected areas that is suitable for conservation translocation, including population restoration or conservation introduction? | No / unlikely | This species occurs in a single, small area at 2,200m asl on the Ankaratra Massif in central Madagascar. This site is within 443m of the highest Ankaratra summit (2,643m asl). In the last 20 years, it has only been recorded in a single stream, where it is known to be not very abunant. Despite recent intensive survey work, it has not been found at other locations on the Ankaratra Massif. Originally it lived in montane rainforest, but it is now known only in high-altitude grassland with forest remnants. It breeds in fast-flowing mountain streams. |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | No | |
| 7 | In situ conservation activities | Are any in situ conservation actions currently in place for this species? (Only required if a Red List Assessment has not been completed, or if new actions have been implemented since the last Red List Assessment. (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.). | ||
| 8 | In situ conservation activities | Are additional in situ conservation actions required to help conserve this species in the wild (e.g. habitat restoration and/or protection, control of invasive species, national legislation etc.)? | Yes / probably | Protection of Ankaratra Massif and remaining forest along these mountain streams |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Population size and trends; distribution elsewhere near Ankaratra; natural history |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Threats unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | This species is mainly threatened by habitat loss due to fire, overgrazing by livestock, and expanding potato farming. Water pollution and stream sedimentation as a result of agriculture and mining might also be threats. Potentially can also be threatened by the presence of Bd. |
| 11 | Over-collection from the wild | Is the taxon suffering from collection within its natural range, either for food, for the pet trade or for any other reason, which threatens the species’ continued persistence in the wild? | No / unlikely | |
| 12 | Population recovery | Is the known population of this species in the wild large enough to recover naturally, without ex situ intervention if threats are mitigated? | Unknown | In comparison with Boophis williamsi it is probably more abundant, but not many individuals remain of this species. Try to establish an ex-situ colony (before it is too late) should be a priority of the near future. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 14 | Biological distinctiveness | Does the taxon exhibit a distinctive reproductive mode, behaviour, aspect of morphology or physiology, within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.)? | No aspect of biology known to be exceptional | BUt in inhabit fast-slowing mountain streams. |
| 15 | Cultural/socio-economic importance | Does the taxon have a special human cultural value (e.g. as a national or regional symbol, in a historic context, featuring in traditional stories) or economic value (e.g. food, traditional medicine, tourism) within its natural range or in a wider global context? | No | |
| 16 | Scientific importance | Is the species vital to current or planned research other than species-specific ecology/biology/conservation within the Order to which it belongs (e.g. Anura, Passeriformes etc.) e.g. human medicine, climate change, environmental pollutants and conservation science? | No research dependent on this species | |
| 17 | Ex situ research | Does conserving this species (or closely related species) in situ depend upon research that can be most easily carried out ex situ? | Yes | THis species reproduce in fast-slowing mountain streams and this requirment might be difficult to be reproduced in captivity but it will be worth trying. |
| 18 | Ex situ conservation activities | Is any ex situ research or other ex situ conservation action currently in place for this species? (Information from the Conservation Actions section of the Red List assessment should be reviewed and considered when answering this question.) | No / unlikely | |
| 19 | Husbandry analog required | If an ex situ rescue program is recommended for this species, would an analog species be required to develop husbandry protocols first? | Unknown | |
| 20 | Husbandry analog | Do the biological and ecological attributes of this species make it suitable for developing husbandry regimes for more threatened related species? i.e. could this species be used in captivity to help to develop husbandry and breeding protocols which could be used for a similar, but more endangered species at a later stage? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | |
| 22 | Conservation education/ecotourism potential | Is the species especially diurnal, active or colourful, or is there an interesting or unusual aspect of its ecology that make it particularly suitable to be an educational ambassador for conservation of the species in the range country, either in zoos or aquariums or within ecotourism activities? | No | Although it is cute frog with big eyes and stout rounded snout, but it is not colorful and not particularly active during the day (generally during the day if found hidden under rocks along the mountain stream |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | No | |
| 24 | Range State approval | If an ex situ initiative was proposed for this species, would it be supported (and approved) by the range State (either within the range State or out-of-country ex situ)? | Yes / probably | |
| 25 | Founder specimens | Are sufficient animals of the taxon available or potentially available (from wild or captive sources) to initiate an ex situ program, if one was recommended? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. NOt much is known on the abundance of this species, it seems to be not very abundant and it seems to be distributed only aong one stream at Ankaratra Massif, but ex-situ conservation might be the only possibility to save this species from extinction (suitable habitat is reducing drastically). |
| 26 | Taxonomic status | Has a complete taxonomic analysis of the species in the wild been carried out, to fully understand the functional unit you wish to conserve (i.e. have species limits been determined)? | Yes | No wide genetic differentiation is known to occur across the unique known meta-population |
Citation:
Angelica Crottini. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Mantidactylus pauliani, Madagascar.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/1614
Accessed 19 May 2024
