Assessment Results
Meristogenys maryatiae
Maryati’s Torrent Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
19 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
15.94467672
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment completed by P. Yambun (2018).
Surveys of potentially suitable areas of habitat in adjacent parts of Borneo are needed to determine whether or not this species might occur elsewhere, and also to help better understand its current population status.
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | This species is known from the western slope of the Crocker Range, Sabah, Malaysia. It has been recorded from Ulu Kimanis (the type locality), Papar; Sungai Terian, Penampang; Sungai Penataran, Sungai Tinuman, near Kampong Sayap, Sungai Wario, and Sayap Sub-Station, Kota Belud; Marak-Parak, Kota Marudu; Kampong Nalumad, Ranau (Matsui et al. 2010). It occurs from 155–1,000 m asl and the estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) of its known range is 3,680 km2. It is likely to occur more widely, including Mount Trus Madi and other forested areas in the region. |
| 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 | There is suitable protected habitat in Crocker Range National Park where the species is currently found. |
| 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? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | After its discovery, the area of Ulu Kimanis, including the type locality of this species, has been developed for the construction of a road across Crocker Range National Park (Matsui et al. 2010). Although the larvae of this species inhabit mainly wide rivers and would not be seriously damaged, except by occasional water pollution, logging undertaken nearby for the road construction and subsequent sedimentation must be having adverse effects on the terrestrial life of metamorphs (Matsui et al. 2010). There is some habitat loss caused by logging activities outside of Crocker Range; however the habitat of this species is not considered to be significantly threatened by anthropogenic activities (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). It is collected for subsistence outside the boundaries of Crocker Range, but is not considered a threat to the population (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). |
| 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 | The species is collected as food, but this is not viewed as a threat as it is subsistence hunting only, and collection only occurs outside protected areas. |
| 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 | It is common throughout its currently known range (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). The population is considered to be stable within protected areas (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018), however there are probably declines occurring in unprotected lowland areas. Therefore, the population is suspected to be decreasing due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat outside of protected areas. |
| 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 | |
| 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 | Subsistence hunting only. |
| 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? | 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 | It may be difficult and expensive to obtain the required collection 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)? | Yes |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Meristogenys maryatiae, Malaysia.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4393
Accessed 17 May 2024
