Assessment Results
Stumpffia psologlossa
Madagascar Stump-toed Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Rhombophryne psologlossa
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
04 Aug 2015
by:
Angelica Crottini
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22.49116
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
This taxon is in need of a taxonomic revision aiming at clarifing its precise distributional record. There are some unconfirmed record from Montagne d'Ambre that it is highly probable do not correspond to this species. S. psologlossa is reliably known only from Nosy Be, Benavony and Manongarivo.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Endangered (EN) | Changed to EN,as per Rakotoarison et al (2017) : Four TDLs, at least one of which is protected. EOO < 5000 km2, but probably more widespread than currently known. Anthropogenic pressure is high throughout range. EN EN S. pygmaea B1ab(iii) One TDL, which is a protected area. |
| 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 - 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? | Yes / probably | It occurs in the Réserve Naturelle Intégrale de Lokobe and the Réserve Spéciale de Manongarivo. Four TDLs, at least one of which is protected. EOO < 5000 km2, but probably more widespread than currently known. |
| 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 | It lives in the leaf-litter of both primary and degraded rainforest, as well as and in coffee plantations, it is therefore an abaptable species as long as ufficient humid leaf littre is available. |
| 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? | Threats are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | In Nosy Be this species is threathened by growing human population and expansion of sugarcane coulivation. In teh mainland stis species soffer of the same threats but alo by subsistence agriculture, timber extraction, charcoal manufacture, invasive spread of eucalyptus, livestock grazing and fire. Anthropogenic pressure is high throughout range. |
| 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 | In Nosy Be is abundant (and adaptable), less is known from the populations from the mainland. |
| 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 | Its breeding biology is unknown, but is likely to have terrestrial nests that contain non-feeding larvae. |
| 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 | This species' conservation depend on suitable habitat availability |
| 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 | Its breeding biology is still unkown, other species of Stumpffia should be preferred. |
| 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 | this is a too small and too unconspicously coloured frog species for such a role. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | the species in Nosy Be is 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)? | Yes | No strong genetic differences exist among populations from Nosy Be and the mainland. |
Citation:
Angelica Crottini. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Stumpffia psologlossa, Madagascar.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/2518
Accessed 18 May 2024
