Assessment Results
Phrynomedusa vanzolinii
Vanzolini's Leaf Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Hylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Brazil
on:
20 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop
Authors:
D. Baêta and J.L. Gasparini
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Brazil
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
27.53204369
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.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | The last collection in Boracéia (São Paulo) was in 1973 and in Teresópolis (Rio de Janeiro) was in 1983. Although there was a field effort directed to this species in these locations, it was no longer found (BAÊTA et al. 2016). (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309642763_Review_of_the_Rare_Genus_Phrynomedusa_Miranda-Ribeiro_1923_Anura_Phyllomedusidae_With_Description_of_a_New_Species) |
| 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 | All records are within protected areas: Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos and in the type locality Estação Biológica de Boracéia. |
| 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 | Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos and Estação Biológica de Boracéia. |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | |
| 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Extensive field surveys (active search and pitfall traps) have been carried out to find this species, including eDNA, which has not detected it (D.P. Baêta, pers. comm. 2020). Additional technologies, such as automated acoustic recorder and citizen science, are recommended to implement the search for individuals. It’s also necessary to understand the causes for the species' disappearance. |
| 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 unknown | The threats to this species are unknown, but the possible causes for its disappearence or even extinction over 30 years ago are climate change (strong frost occurred in 1983-84) and chytridiomycosis. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | There is no specific plan for this species, but it is part of the National Action Plan "Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação da Herpetofauna Ameaçada da Mata Atlântica da Região Sudeste do Brasil" (PAN Herpetofauna do Sudeste). |
| 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.) | 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? | Yes / probably | Phrynomedusa dryade |
| 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 | Carlos Cruz raised some tadpoles to imago, but they died. This is documented in the tadpole description paper of 1982. |
| 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? | Yes | Potential for citizen science. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 |
Citation:
D. Baêta and J.L. Gasparini
2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Phrynomedusa vanzolinii, Brazil
(AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/1979
Accessed 18 May 2024
