Assessment Results
Lithobates warszewitschii
Warszewitsch's Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Rana warszewitschii
Assessed for:
Costa Rica
on:
10 Feb 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
6.87841040229364
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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 | |
| 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 found in humid lowlands on the Atlantic versant from north-eastern Honduras, through Nicaragua to central Panama, both slopes of the cordilleras of Costa Rica and western Panama, the lowlands of south-western Costa Rica and eastern Panama , and gallery forests in non-peninsular north-western Costa Rica. Present in many protected areas such as: PN ARENAL, BRAULIO CARRILLO, CERRO LA CANGREJA, CORCOVADO, GUANACASTE, INTERNACIONAL LA AMISTAD, RINCON DE LA VIEJA |
| 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 | PN ARENAL, BRAULIO CARRILLO, CERRO LA CANGREJA, CORCOVADO, GUANACASTE, INTERNACIONAL LA AMISTAD, RINCON DE LA VIEJA |
| 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 | Comprehensive management of the areas where it inhabits |
| 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 population needs to be monitored carefully to establish whether or not the disappearances at higher altitudes was due to chytridiomycosis, and how the species is recolonizing these sites. |
| 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 | It is generally threatened by habitat loss resulting from agricultural development, logging, and development of human infrastructure. The disappearances at higher altitudes may have been due to chytridiomycosis, however animals are now recolonising these sites. |
| 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 | Once a common species, it initially declined in many montane areas of Costa Rica. It disappeared from Tapantí and the higher regions of Monteverde by the late 1980s, and disappeared at the same time from San Ramón Reserve but reappeared in 1994. It also appears to have declined at La Selva, a lowland site (Whitfield et al. 2007), but was present at La Selva and surrounding secondary forests in 2010 (Hilje and Mitchell Aide 2012). The species was found to be rare in San Vito in 2007 (Santos-Barrera et al. 2007). It has declined at Parque Nacional Braulio Carrillo (Puschendorf et al. 2006), but is still abundant at Guayacan (Kubicki 2008), and in Tinamascas (along the road from San Isidro to Dominical), Parque Nacional Corcovado, and Ciudad Colón. It has remained generally common at low elevations, and as of August 2007, the species was recolonizing areas from which it had previously declined. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | |
| 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. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Lithobates warszewitschii, Costa Rica.
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5255
Accessed 13 May 2024
