Assessment Results
Craugastor merendonensis
San Pedro Robber Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Eleutherodactylus merendonensis
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
12 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Wilson, D., Cruz, G., Herrera, L., Townsend, J.H., Kolby, J. & Solís Ramos, M., Cruz, G. & Wilson, D.
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.00211102
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
The option of a captive-breeding programme might need to be explored for this species should a subpopulation be detected in the wild (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019).
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | It appears to have undergone drastic declines between the 1970s and 1980s, the cause of which is still not understood, however it is consistent with the wave of chytrid in the area (J. Kolby, pers. comm. March 2019). Further survey work is required to determine the current population status of this species (including whether or not it even still survives in the wild), and particularly to establish the reasons for its decline. It may still exist in some sites, where surveys have not yet been undertake, for safety reasons. |
| 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 endemic species from Honduras is found in low elevations on the Atlantic slope near San Pedro Sula, Cortés in the northwest of the country. This species does not occur in any protected areas, and is only known from the type locality. |
| 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? | ||
| 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.? | Yes | Further survey work in similar streams in the vicinity of the type locality is required to determine the current population status of this species (including whether or not it even still survives in the wild), and to establish the reasons for its historical decline (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). Surveys are recommended to determine the presence of chytrid fungus in the watershed where this species occurs (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 unknown | Since the range of this species is well protected 250m asl and above, from obvious human disturbance (the area from which it is known has been managed and protected for the last 30 years), the cause of its decline is unclear. 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, pers. comm. March 2019). Habitat loss due to agriculture and livestock are main threats to this species. In the 1970s and 80s urbanization intensified in the vicinity of the type location below 250m asl (L. Herrera, 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 | The range of this species is well protected from obvious human disturbance |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species is only known from the type series which was collected in 1933. In 2016, 2017 and 2018, surveys were conducted and the species was not observed (L. Herrera 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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:
Wilson, D., Cruz, G., Herrera, L., Townsend, J.H., Kolby, J. & Solís Ramos, M., Cruz, G. & Wilson, D. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor merendonensis, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4682
Accessed 13 May 2024
