Assessment Results
Incilius porteri
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Bufo porteri
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
19 May 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
J. Townsend
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
7.945225297
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
This is a poorly known species, studies on the population status of this species are needed, little is known about its natural history, and its possible threats. Studies are required to determine the effects of chytridiomycosis on this species (J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019).
| 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 | |
| 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 | This species was previously only known from the Montañas de Comayagua region in the departments of Comayagua, Francisco Morazán, and La Paz, in south-central Honduras. It is now also known from Isla del Tigre, Gulf of Fonseca, Honduras (Firneno et al. 2017); and it has been recorded from Cerro Cacahuite, Morazan in El Salvador at 1,275 m asl (Moran 2016), which is the first country record for this species. Furthermore, following genetic analysis, subpopulations previously assigned to Incilius ibarrai from the western ranges of the Southern Cordillera Region in the departments of Intibuca, Lempira and Ocotepeque in Honduras have now been assigned to this species (T. Firneno and J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019). In Honduras, it is known from National Park Cerro Azul Meambar, Biological Reserve Guajiquiro, and the Biological Reserve Yerbabuena. It occurs between 1,584-2,100 m asl. |
| 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 | It tolerates habitat disturbance and occurs in a range of habitats including artificial pools (including in gardens) (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 | Chytridiomycosis might be a major threat to this species, as is true for other montane amphibian species (J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019). Habitat loss (given the drastic declines of the presumed sister species, B. ibarrai, in Guatemala). While there are threats to the habitat in Parque Nacional Cerro Azul Meambar in Honduras, this species is thought to be able to tolerate habitat disturbance and it is not thought to be to be a problem for them. |
| 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 Honduras it is considered to be locally abundant and common (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 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)? | Yes | This species has been separated from Incilius coccifer by Mendelson et al. (2005), although McCranie and Wilson (2002) dispute this. |
Citation:
J. Townsend 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Incilius porteri, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4665
Accessed 17 May 2024
