Assessment Results
Incilius leucomyos
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Bufo leucomyos
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
14 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Cruz, G. & Wilson, D.
IUCN Global Red List:
Near Threatened (NT)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
6.40821953
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.] | Near Threatened (NT) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | The population is apparently stable in appropriate habitat and the species is recorded on a regular basis. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Disjunct populations of this species occur on the Atlantic slope of north-central, in the departments of Francisco Morazan, Colon, Atlantida, Yoro, Comayagua, and Olancho, Honduras. Part of the range of this species is protected in La Muralla, Parque Nacional Nombre de Dios and Parque Nacional Pico Bonito, the Lancetilla Botanical Garden, and the Reserva de Vida Silvestre Texiguat. New populations in Rio Plátano, Parque Nacional Montaña de Botaderos, Paque Nacional Nombre de Dios, PN Cerro Azul Meámbar are in discussion about its taxonomic validity (J. Ramos Galdámez pers. comm. March 2019) |
| 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 | |
| 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 | A major threat to this species is the impact of landslides on upper clear water streams, as a result of strong storms and human activities taking place in the lower portions of the streams. Habitat loss due to slash-and-burn agriculture, smallholder farming, logging, and expanding human settlements is also a significant threat. This species apparently has not yet been affected by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, according to Puschendorf et al 2006, none of Incilius leucomyos were found to be infected. However one dying individual was recorded with skin lesions in 2016 at 1000 m all in Parque Nacional Pico Bonito (F. Castañeda pers. comm. March 2019) It appears to tolerate disturbance poorly, and is readily displaced by generalist species (Townsend et al 2012). Its distribution is severely fragmented, and there is continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat in Honduras. List of threats: 1 Residential & commercial development; 1.1 Housing & urban areas; 2 Agriculture & aquaculture; 2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops; 2.1.1 Shifting agriculture; 2.1.2 Small-holder farming; 2.3 Livestock farming & ranching; 2.3.1 Nomadic grazing; 2.3.2 Small-holder grazing, ranching or farming; 5 Biological resource use; 5.3 Logging & wood harvesting; 5.3.5 Motivation Unknown/Unrecorded; 7 Natural system modifications; 7.1 Fire & fire suppression; 7.1.3 Trend Unknown/Unrecorded; 9 Pollution; 9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents; 9.3.2 Soil erosion, sedimentation; 10.3 Avalanches/landslides; 11.4 Storms & flooding The area from which this species was recorded is subject to extensive landslides; these often severely impact the species habitat. Additional major threats include deforestation as a result of agricultural and large-scale livestock encroachment, human settlements, selective logging of hardwoods, and human-induced fires (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). Additionally, it is noteworthy to mention that by 1996 that all streamside Craugastor known to occur above 900 m asl were thought to have disappeared in Honduras (Froglog 1998 paper). Reasons for the disappearances of this species remains unclear, although infection with chytridiomycosis together with the alteration of its habitat due to extensive landslides is a strong possibility (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). There is a proposal to shift the core parts both the Parque Nacional Pico Bonito and Texiguat, which may create a much larger buffer zone where habitat conversion can progress unabated (C. Antúnez, J. Ramos Galdámez, J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019). Encroaching subsistence agriculture and livestock grazing activities are threats to the buffer zone of the national park (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). In Texiguat, the major threats to this species include high rates of deforestation and encroachment in the wildlife refuge for extensive cattle ranching and coffee plantations, agricultural crops (e.g., beans, avocado), including in the core area, illegal selective logging for hardwoods, followed by clear-cutting along the same access routes (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). Another threat includes the construction of several small-scale hydroelectric dams (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). Harvesting of palm plants that this species uses may represent an additional threat (J. Ramos Galdámez pers. comm. March 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 | |
| 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 Pico Bonito around Marc-April there is an augmentation of population, actives during the day, it seems that all post-metamorph come out at the same time (J. Ramos Galdámez 2019) |
| 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 | |
| 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)? | 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 | |
| 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 | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Research into species validity needs to be prioritized. It has been confused with I. campbell and I. valliceps. |
Citation:
Cruz, G. & Wilson, D. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Incilius leucomyos, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4664
Accessed 22 May 2024
