Assessment Results
Pelophylax ridibundus
Eurasian Marsh Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Rana esculenta, Rana grafi, Rana ridibunda, Rana fortis
Assessed for:
Hungary
on:
24 May 2016
by:
Judit Vörös
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Afghanistan, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Belgium (Introduced), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, The former Yugoslav Republic of, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain (Introduced), Switzerland (Introduced), Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom (Introduced), Uzbekistan
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
7.762696198
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | Because of identification problems and lack of reliable country-wide surveys we have no sufficient information on distribution and population size. |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 unknown | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Previously collection for food was a real threat, present state is unknown. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | It features a distinctive reproductive mode with hybridogenesis between Pelophylax species. |
| 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 | It might appear as food in several restaurants, but real source of individuals is not studied. |
| 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? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Maintained but no successful breeding | Unsure of successful captive breeding efforts. In Europe held by Artis Zoo, Aqua Ferskvands Akvarium, Budapest Zoo, Wildwood Trust, Nordens Ark, Kalingrad Zoo, Kiev Zoo, Moscow Zoological Park, Zoologická a Botanická Zahrada Plzen, Riga Zoo, WWT Slimbridge and ZOO Wroclaw Sp z o.o.. In Asian region held by Haifa Educ.Zoo & Biological Institute and The Tisch Family Zoological Gardens. 93 individuals in captivity according to ZIMS with no breeding reported in the last 12 months. |
| 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)? | Yes / probably | In case of initiative the actual Hungarian government wildlife authorities should be contacted and permit must be applied for. All amphibian species are protected by law in Hungary, thus any research/conservation projects involving them must apply for official 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 | |
| 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 |
Citation:
Judit Vörös. 2016. Conservation Needs Assessment for Pelophylax ridibundus, Hungary.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/3964
Accessed 15 May 2024
