Assessment Results
Philautus mjobergi
Murud Bubble-nest Frog
Katak-jangkrik Mjoberg
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
29 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
17.16162909
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment partially completed by P. Yambun, Y.M. Pui and I. Das (2018).
Additional taxonomic research is needed to resolve its taxonomic status and to verify whether any specimens from Kinabalu National Park belong to this species.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Near Threatened (NT) | |
| 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 | The species is known from montane forests in north-western Borneo, from 1,500 to 3,000m asl. Following the split of P. nephophilus, in which records from Kinabalu National Park were assigned to P. nephophilus, it is uncertain whether this species still occurs in Kinabalu National Park or whether it is restricted to Sarawak and Kalimantan. Further taxonomic research is required. |
| 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? | ||
| 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 depends on areas of undisturbed forest habitat. The extent and quality of its habitat is declining. There are no threats to the species at present as most of the logging in Borneo is occurring at lower altitudes than this species occurs. Higher elevations of Gunung Penrissen have been converted for recreational use, including a resort, 18-hole golf course, and a 25 acre area of 'flower garden and theme parks' (Mohd-Azlan et al. 2016), however there is still some suitable habitat available and this species is occurring at elevations above this habitat alteration. The subpopulation in Sarawak is within Gunung Mulu National Park, which is well protected and not threatened at present (Y.M. Pui and I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). |
| 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 | Estimates of the population from the calls of isolated males suggest that it is locally abundant. In Sarawak, this species is considered to be common (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). |
| 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? | ||
| 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 | Estimates of the population from the calls of isolated males suggest that it is locally abundant. |
| 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. Following the split of P. nephophilus, in which records from Kinabalu National Park were assigned to P. nephophilus, it is uncertain whether this species still occurs in Kinabalu National Park or whether it is restricted to Sarawak and Kalimantan. Further taxonomic research is required. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus mjobergi, Malaysia.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/1952
Accessed 16 May 2024
