Assessment Results
Cornufer nexipus
Baining Wrinkled Ground Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ceratobatrachidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Papua New Guinea
on:
25 Jul 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Papua New Guinea
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.53283582
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: Allison, A., Kraus, F., Clulow, S. & Richards, S.
Presently, there are no records of infectious amphibian chytrid fungi (Batrachochytrium spp.) on New Guinea (Bower et al. 2017, 2019). There is a risk that human activities may introduce these fungi to the island. While there is no known significant impact on closely-related ceratobatrachids in Australia, there are records of declines caused by chytridiomycosis on direct-developing species in other families. Therefore, should chytrids be detected on New Guinea and the surrounding islands, this species should be re-assessed as a matter of urgency as it could be at risk of infection and decline (Melanesia Red List Assessment Workshop July 2019).
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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 endemic to New Britain in the Bismarck Archipelago, Papua New Guinea. Brown et al. (2006) reported the species from three sites: St. Paul in the Baining Mountains, Gazelle Peninsula, East New Britain Province, at 100–400 m asl; the ridge between the Ivule and Sigole Rivers, in the Nakanai Mountains, West New Britain Province, between 900–1,200 m asl; and Wanui Camp, Wanui River Valley (near Wide Bay), East New Britain Province, at 310 m asl. Further records are known from two additional sites: near 8-11 km NNW at Marmar (F. Kraus unpubl. data 2005) and a nearby site (S. Richards unpubl. data 2009). It probably occurs more widely on New Britain at suitable elevations. Its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 16,738 km2. This species occurs in Klampun Wildlife Management Area. |
| 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 | |
| 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.). | Yes / probably | It occurs in Klampun Wildlife Management Area, where only low impact human activities are taking place (S. Richards pers. comm. June 2019). |
| 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 | This species would likely benefit from improved habitat protection and management at sites where it is known to occur. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | The distribution, habitat requirements and current population status of this species need to be documented. |
| 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 species may be threatened by the spreading of large-scale logging and deforestation for large-scale oil palm plantations at lower elevations (S. Richards pers. comm. July 2019). About 70% of the lowland forest on New Britain has already been lost, and oil palm and balsa wood plantations are expanding up the slopes of the mountains (A. Allison pers. comm. July 2019; Shearman et al. - State of the Forest book). |
| 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 | This species is relatively common species and is regularly heard calling in the canopy (S. Richards pers. comm. July 2019). Due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat, the population is suspected to be decreasing. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 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.) | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Declines due to the arrival of chytrids are known to be rapid and severe. Therefore, a common analog species should be identified (Cornufer nakanaiorum would be a good analog species) and the capacity for ex-situ conservation (e.g. captive assurance populations and genome banking) should be developed in country. There is a high risk that the introduction of chytrids could be caused by human activities, “enforcing quarantine measures through policy changes, investing in compliance, promoting education, and minimizing risks, including transportation of infected sources” (Bower et al. 2019) is strongly recommended (Melanesia Red List Assessment Workshop July 2019). |
| 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 | Potential analog for large lowland, arboreal, direct developing species. |
| 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:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Cornufer nexipus, Papua New Guinea.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4774
Accessed 17 May 2024
