Assessment Results
Craugastor aurilegulus
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Eleutherodactylus aurilegulus
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
14 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Mora, J., Townsend, J.
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.00211102
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | No / unlikely | The lowland populations appear to be common, but higher elevation populations have been noted to be severely reduced above 900m asl. |
| 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 | Its distribution is severely fragmented, and the extent of its forest habitat, and the number of mature individuals, in northern and north-central Honduras is declining. This species was formerly only known from the Cordillera Nombre de Dios, the Montaña La Muralla, and Montaña Texiguat in the departments of Atlántida, Colón, Yoro and Olancho in north-central Honduras, at 50-1,550 m asl. It is now also known from Parque Nacional Pico Bonito and Capiro Calenturo in Honduras (Townsend and Wilson 2016). It could be found in the remaining habitat patches between known localities, but would be restricted to Cordillera Nombre de Dios (J. Townsend, pers. comm. 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | The major threats include deforestation as a result of agricultural and livestock encroachment, human settlements, logging, fires and landslides. In addition, chytrid infection has been reported for a lowland population (Puschendorf et al., 2006) but the direct effects of the infection in this species are yet unknown (Townsend and Wilson 2016). In 2002, it was postulated that all streamside Craugastor known to occur above 900m asl had disappeared in Honduras. Chytridiomycosis has been confirmed in this species and has been associated with their decline (J. Kolby, pers. comm.) A dying individual with a high chytrid infection was found in a stream in northern Parque Nacional Pico Bonito 2006 (Puschendorf et al., 2006). |
| 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 | The lowland sub-populations appear to be common, but higher elevation sub-populations (above 900 m asl) have been noted to be severely reduced, as have all stream-side Craugastor species above this elevation. Multiple surveys in 2010, 2011, 2017-2019 have not recorded this species in the higher elevations, but it is common and frequently encountered in the lower elevations (J. Townsend, M. Solís, J. Mora, 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? | Yes | Can be used as an analog for other more threatened Craugastor spp. (J. Kolby & J, Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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. This species was previously included in the genus Eleutherodactylus (Crawford and Smith 2005). This is some doubt as to the taxonomic assignment of the subpopulations from Yoro and Olancho Departments, based on differences in habitat and biogeographic patterns (J. Townsend and J.M. Solís pers. comm. March 2019). |
Citation:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Mora, J., Townsend, J. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor aurilegulus, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4669
Accessed 21 May 2024
