Assessment Results
Stumpffia tridactyla
Guibe's Stump-toed Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Rhombophryne tridactyla
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
23 Jul 2015
by:
Miguel Vences
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19.8990465335466
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 | Data Deficient (DD) | According to extensive assessments (partly unpublished own data) it seems to be clear that this species is microendemic to higher elevations in Marojejy National Park, and specimens from other sites belong to genetically highly distinct undescribed species. Although higher elevation rainforests at Marojejy are still relatively save, due to increased rosewood exploitation in the Marojejy area, it might well be that also this species is suffering from habitat loss, and a threat status of VU is warranted. Changed to DD as per Rakotoarison et al (2017): One TDL, which is poorly protected. EOO < 300 km2. Abundant in forest and secondary habitat, but suspected to be declining from anthropogenic activity. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | The species appears to be endemic to Marojejy National Park. One TDL, which is poorly protected. EOO < 300 km2 |
| 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 | mid-elevational rainforests potentially suitable for this species occur elsewhere, but is either occupied by other Stumpffia or by populations of S. tridactyla. |
| 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 | Habitat protection |
| 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 |
| 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 | The species is as far as known mainly potentially suffering from habitat degradation, and this can be reversed by strictly enforcing conservation of forests in Marojejy National Park, and potentially by reforestation. Abundant in forest and secondary habitat, but suspected to be declining from anthropogenic activity. |
| 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 | Abundant in forest and secondary habitat, |
| 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.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | This is one of the most strongly miniaturized species of frogs in Madagascar and in the world, with many striking morphological and probably physiological features related to this miniaturization. |
| 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 | The life history and breeding biology of this and most other Stumpffia is largely unknown, and exceedingly difficult to study in the wild. Setting up a breeding colony of this or other relatedStumpffia could clarify many aspect of its biology that would be helpful in conservation management. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Yes | Probably most of the tiny Stumpffia species are each other's analogs. |
| 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 | |
| 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 | Given that the species (ensu tricto) only occurs in a National Park, a special permit would be needed to colelct specimens for ex situ breeding (and obtaining sufficient speciemens, especially females, would be extremely difficult). |
| 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)? | Yes | All Stumpffia are in need of taxonomic revision, but S. tridactyla sensu stricto is comparatively well delimited. See Rakotoarison et al. 2017 |
Citation:
Miguel Vences. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Stumpffia tridactyla, Madagascar.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/2523
Accessed 18 May 2024
