Assessment Results
Anomaloglossus tepequem
Order:
Anura
Family:
Aromobatidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Brazil
on:
19 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop
Authors:
F.P. Werneck, M. Gordo and P.L.V. Peloso
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Brazil
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
If the species is found again, it may be part of a captivity breeding program.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Not Evaluated (NE) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | Although there were collection efforts directed to this species by specialists in 2011 and 2013, since the years 1986 and 1992 there have been no more records of Anomaloglossus tepequem in the type locality. This is probably one of the species that was extinct before its description (Fouquet et al. 2015). Fouquet, A.; Souza, S. M.; Nunes, P. M. S. ; Kok, P. J. R.; Curcio, F. F.; De Carvalho, C. M.; Grant, T. & Rodrigues, M. T. 2015. Two new endangered species of Anomaloglossus (Anura: Aromobatidae) from Roraima State, northern Brazil. Zootaxa, 3926: p.191–210. |
| 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 was only registered in Serra do Tepequém (Roraima), an unprotected 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? | No / unlikely | Still has well-preserved habitat but outside protected areas. |
| 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.)? | Unknown | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research is needed on survey to find individuals in the area of occurrence and new populations around, throughout active search (visual and acoustic), pitfal traps, environmental DNA, citizen science and/or automated acoustic recorder. It’s also necessary to understand the causes for the species' disappearance. |
| 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 | Fouquet et al. (2015) report that between 1985 and 1990 there was intense mining activity for gold extraction that reached up to the top of the Serra de Tepequém, strongly impacting the species' habitat, and that this activity may be responsible for the species decline. However, perhaps this is not the real reason. |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | There is not enough knowledge of the biology of the species to predict an analog. |
| 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 | If the species is rediscovered, it can be used as a symbol of the place and target of environmental conservation actions, motivating Environmental Education campaigns |
| 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:
F.P. Werneck, M. Gordo and P.L.V. Peloso 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Anomaloglossus tepequem, Brazil
(AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/6777
Accessed 19 May 2024
