Assessment Results
Ischnocnema garciai
Order:
Anura
Family:
Brachycephalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Brazil
on:
20 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop
Authors:
C.L. Assis and D.J. Santana
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Brazil
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22
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.] | Not Evaluated (NE) | |
| 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 | The population of this species occurs 100% within a private protected area (RPPN Usina Coronel Domiciano or Usina da Fumaça) in the municipality of Muriaé (MG). |
| 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 | |
| 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 | Promote the creation of a protected area; forest fragment restoration; control of water management in dams; firebreak around the forest fragment; control of tourism and campfires within the fragment. It would be necessary to do a zoning for an adequate management between tourism and conservation of the species. |
| 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 natural history, reproduction, population size and trends, and the presence of diseases on the population. It is also necessary to prospect for distribution, since this species can be confused with Ischnocnema izecksohni, indistinguishable from I. oea; and to conduct studies of fragment connectivity to check if there are stable populations around. |
| 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | The main threats to this species are: expansion of bauxite mining activity; deforestation for agricultural activities; tourism activity on the area, which causes fire risk and garbage accumulation in the fragment. The fragment is located on the banks of a dammed area, and the dam gates are periodically opened, which directly affects part of the species' habitat, possibly reducing recruitment. |
| 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 | It is necessary to include it in the National Action Plans. |
| 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 | Possibly ecophysiological studies. |
| 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 | A captive population of this species would be indicated for conservation purposes. |
| 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 | Ischnocnema oea |
| 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? | Yes | Education and awareness in the area with tourists and owners. It is important to make divulgation with caution, as the great part of the money of the local population comes from tourism and the divulgation of this species in an erroneous way could increase fragmentation, besides other impacts. This species is also part of the DOTs Project, which aims to promote scientific communication and highlight conservation needs of the Brazilian threatened amphibians (https://www.projetodots.org). |
| 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:
C.L. Assis and D.J. Santana 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ischnocnema garciai, Brazil
(AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/6790
Accessed 02 May 2025
