Assessment Results
Cophixalus daymani
Dayman Rainforest Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Papua New Guinea
on:
25 Jul 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Papua New Guinea
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
25.80767466
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: Allison, A., Kraus, F., Zweifel, R.G., 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 microhylids 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, 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 2019).
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 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 only from Mount Dayman in Milne Bay Province, south-eastern Papua New Guinea, at 2,230 m asl (Zweifel 1956). It is unknown whether it is likely to occur more widely. It is not known from any protected habitats. |
| 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 | There are large tracts of suitable habitat available on Mount Dayman. |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | More information is needed on this species' distribution, population status, ecology, and threats. |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | Threats are known threats to this species (A. Allison, pers. comm. 2019). The species occurs in a vast area of undisturbed forest habitat, but the higher elevations are grassland habitats which are expanding in part due to human activities (e.g. occasional burning) (F. Kraus pers. comm. August 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 | The original collection contained 78 specimens. There have been recent surveys of the species' known range but results of these surveys are not yet available (A. Allison pers. comm.). Apart from this, there is no recent information on this species' population status. |
| 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 (Aphantophryne pansa or Cophixalus melanops would be good analogs for this 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 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? | 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? | 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:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Cophixalus daymani, Papua New Guinea.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4874
Accessed 14 May 2024
