Assessment Results
Craugastor gutschei
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
10 May 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group.
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20
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) | B1ab(iii) |
| 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 leeward and windward slopes of Texiguat Reserve in the Cordillera Nombre de Dios (CND) in Yoro and Atlantida Departments, Honduras (McCranie 2018). It is also known from the eastern slopes of Montaña Pico Pijol and to the east on Montaña Macuzal near Portillo Grande in Yoro Department, Honduras, and also Montañas de Matador. This species occurs in two protected areas of Honduras, Texiguat Reserve and Montaña de Pijol. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | Proposed conservation actions should focus on further habitat protection, education, awareness, compliance and enforcement of the law and policy. |
| 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 | The main threat is habitat destruction that has occurred since 1991 on the Yoro side of Texiguat Reserve, and was likely exacerbated by the effects of Hurricane Mitch (October 1998) on the gallery forests and those on the adjacent slopes where the holotype was collected. In Parque Nacional Pico Pijol As of 2016, a native boring pine beetle has devastated the pine forests of the region where this species occurs, which encourages widespread harvesting of the dying timber for energy production; increased intentional fires to eliminate the excess biomass; and subsequent conversion of burned areas to cropland. The destruction of the forests by the beetle have ceased as of 2019, however another outbreak will likely occur in the future during the next El Niño cycle (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). 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). There is a proposal to shift the core part of the refuge (which currently is at 1,250 m asl) upslope, which would create a much larger buffer zone where habitat conversion can progress unabated (C. Antúnez and J. Ramos Galdámez 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? | Unknown | As this species was described last year (2018), there are no population studies yet. In Mezapa, Texiguat it is relatively common (J. Ramos Galdámez pers. comm. March 2019). In February 2019, 11 individuals were founding Mezapa during the day. In 2018, 5 individuals were recorded in La Liberation, Texiguat (C. Antúnex pers. comm. March 2019). Its population status in other localities remains unknown. |
| 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? | Yes | |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor gutschei, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4679
Accessed 18 May 2024
