Assessment Results
Craugastor cyanochthebius
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
14 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Townsend, J.
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
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 | |
| 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 | This species is known from San Isidro, on the western flanks of Montaña del Cerro Azul, Sierra del Espíritu Santo, Departament of Copán, Honduras. This species' type locality is close (within 2 km) of Parque Nacional Cerro Azul (J.R. McCranie, pers. comm. 2008). The species is now also known from Parque Nacional Cusuco (J. Kolby, pers. comm. March 2019). It is knot know if it occurs more widely (J. Kolby, 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? | 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.)? | Yes / probably | Improved enforcement and management of the national parks and the elimination of incentives to convert forest (e.g., Decreto 37-2016) is urgently needed to halt anthropogenic land use change in the national parks and reserves of Honduras (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research is required to see whether the species is susceptible to chytridiomycosis (J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 original vegetation in the San Isidro area has been heavily denuded and is now largely taken over by coffee and crop fields. However, the rugged nature of the isolated karstic limestone areas in the region has allowed their associated vegetation to remain largely intact (McCranie and Smith 2006). The reform to the Ley de Protection de la Actividad Caficultora y Cacaotera (Decreto 37-2016; Articulos I, V, VI) has incentivised the cultivation of coffee in national lands, including the core zones of protected areas, which is increasing the alteration of primary forest (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). The cultivation of cardamom, coffee, and flowers is taking place within the boundaries of Parque Nacional Cusuco (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019), and associated pollution from herbicide and pesticide use, and water pollution from coffee harvesting processes [aguas mieles] (L. Herrera pers. comm. March 2019). Another major threat is an increase in intentional human-induced fires for clearing of habitat for agriculture (J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019). The building of roads in view of increasing hydroelectric development, increasing human settlements, and selective logging are causing habitat loss within the park (J. Kolby, F. Castañeda, J.M. Solís and L. Herrera pers. comm. March 2019). The trampling of leaf-litter, erosion of trails, and physical disturbance caused by high numbers of people through tourism activities and international research groups is an additional issue (J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019). Some other species of Craugastor that are associated with streams have undergone dramatic declines and disappearances, possibly due to chytridiomycosis, and so this might be a major threat to this species (J. Kolby, L. Herrera, J.M. Solis and J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019). It is not known for certain whether it occurs in Parque Nacional Cerro Azul Meambar, although it is found very close to the edge of the park (within 2km2). If confirmed, the following threats willbeaproblem at this locality. About 20% of its habitat in Parque Nacional Cerro Azul Meambar (NW part of the park around Los Pinos) is well-protected; however, stomping of the leaf-litter and erosion of trails from tourism activities could be a potential issue (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). In the southern portion of this park (Río Bonito and San José de los Planes) clear-cutting of the forest for small-holder crops is taking place (J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019). It is unlikely to be tolerant of habitat disturbance (J. Kolby, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 | It is considered to be common within its small range (J.R. McCranie, pers. comm. 2008). there have not been any targeted surveys to locate this species (J. Townsend & J. Kolby, pers. comm. March 2019).It is likely that the population is declining (J. Kolby, 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? | ||
| 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 |
Citation:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Townsend, J. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor cyanochthebius, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4675
Accessed 19 May 2024
