Assessment Results
Philautus aurantium
Mendolong Bubble-nest Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
19 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
13.9346683
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment completed by P. Yambun.
Continued management of Crocker Range National Park and Kinabalu National Park in Sabah is necessary for the prolonged survival of this species.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Least Concern (LC) | Changed from Endangered as the situation has changed considerably since 2004 (logging has decreased and is no longer considered an active threat, and regeneration is occurring at lower elevations at Gunung Trusmadi), and the assessor feels that the status has genuinely changed and the species is more secure. |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This Bornean endemic is known only from western Sabah, Malaysia, at elevations of 750-1,800 m asl. It has been recorded from Mendolong, Sipitang District (type locality), Bundu Tuhan, several localities from within Kinabalu and Crocker Range National Parks, as well as, Mount Trus Madi (Inger 1989, Malkmus et al. 2002, P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). |
| 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? | Yes / probably | There is suitable habitat in protected areas where the species is currently found. |
| 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.)? | ||
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | ||
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species is effectively protected | This species occurs largely within two well-managed and well-protected national parks (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). The lowland forests (below 1,000 m asl) at Trus Madi were severely logged in the past, however logging activities have decreased since 2000, regrowth is occurring, and the species is no longer considered to be at risk there (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). This species likely occurs at higher elevations on Trus Madi, where forests still remain intact (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). The forests on lower elevations at Mendolong have been selectively logged for timber and the foothills have been converted into forest plantations in recent decades. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | It is common within protected areas, and outside protected areas, provided that there is suitable habitat (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). There may be declines in subpopulations occurring outside of protected areas, however the subpopulations inside protected areas are relatively stable. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | ||
| 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 | |
| 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? | No | |
| 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.) | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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 | There are no records for this species in the ZIMS database. |
| 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 | |
| 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)? | No / unlikely | It may be difficult and expensive to obtain the required collection permits. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. There is a need for taxonomic research into Philatus species occurring in Malaysian Borneo. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus aurantium, Malaysia.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/1940
Accessed 19 May 2024
