Assessment Results
Cornufer aculeodactylus
Torokina Wrinkled Ground Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ceratobatrachidae
Synonym(s):
Platymantis aculeodactyla, Cornufer aculeodactylus
Assessed for:
Papua New Guinea
on:
25 Jul 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Near Threatened (NT)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.53283582
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: Parker, F. & Richards, S.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Near Threatened (NT) | |
| 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 Bougainville Island, Papua New Guinea and Choiseul and Isabel Islands, Solomon Islands. It has been recorded from sea level up to 500 m asl. This species does not occur in any protected areas. |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | This species does not occur in any protected areas. |
| 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 | Forest below 400 m asl has been heavily degraded or destroyed on Bougainville Island. Therefore, the protection of remaining forest above 400 m is required. Protection of remaining forest above 400 m asl should be a priority for conservation efforts in the Solomons Islands (S. Travers pers. comm. July 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 | Further work is required to clarify the population size, distribution, and trends. |
| 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 primary threat to the species on Bougainville Island is ongoing habitat loss and degradation caused by small-scale subsistence and commercial logging, expanding human settlements, and subsistence agriculture in foothill and lowland areas below 400 m asl. However, habitat loss and degradation could expand upslope into the mountains. Mining was a significant part of the economic activity on the Island before the civil war during 1988-1998, impacting montane regions through pollution of soil and streams, and causing deforestation due to expanding human settlements, road building, and mining activities. Mining ceased in the late 80s and there is discussion of resuming activities and could expand; however, this is dependent on the outcome of the current political situation (S. Travers pers. comm. July 2019). Logging and land clearing for agriculture are the two biggest threats to biodiversity on the Solomon Islands, along with the associated habitat degradation caused by siltation of waterways, increased erosion, and the increased frequency of forest fires (Morrison et al. 2007), along with the expansion of human settlements (S. Travers pers. comm. July 2019). This threat is greatest between sea level and 600 m asl, but these activities do extend further upslope (S. Travers pers. comm. July 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 | This species was abundant on Choiseul and Isabel Islands during May 2000 (S. Richards pers. obs. 2004), but was not considered common on Bougainville Island. It is likely a common species, and probably numbers in the millions. Its population is considered to be stable. |
| 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 | |
| 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 Cornufer aculeodactylus, Papua New Guinea.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/4997
Accessed 13 May 2024
