Assessment Results
Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Endangered (EN) | |
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? | No / unlikely | Distribution unclear. Found so far outside of protected areas, but near Vohimana Reserve and Vohidrazana (part of CAZ protected area). Also possibly in Betampona, a protected area further east. |
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 | Vohimana, Vohidrazana, gallery forests around Ambavaniasy village could be suitable. |
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.)? | Yes / probably | Habitat protection and improved management |
9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Distribution, population status, natural history |
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 | Poorly known species, known with certainty from only a few individuals. Threats are not well understood, though habitat loss is clearly an issue around Ambavaniasy. |
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 | Not in trade. |
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 | Probably wild population is large enough, but actual population size unknown and it is not clear if the species is declining, increasing, or stable. |
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.)? | No aspect of biology known to be exceptional | Not biologically distinct. |
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 | Not culturally important. |
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 | Not known to be scientifically important. |
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 | Ex situ research would help to better understand life history and behavior, but conservation not dependent on it. |
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? | No | |
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 | Not especially active or colorful. |
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 | The Sahonagasy Action Plan is ratified by the Malagasy government and states support for ex situ initiatives for all amphibian species in Madagascar. |
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 | Potentially yes, but may be difficult to detect since so few individuals thus far are known. |
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 | The population at Ambavaniasy is clear and could serve as a single conservation unit. Frogs with similar coloration but a red tinge to the eyes are known from several km further south in Vohidrazana but their taxonomic status is unclear. Entire Boophis mandraka-complex still in need of work. |
Citation:
Devin Edmonds. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Boophis solomaso, Madagascar.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/312
Accessed 19 May 2024