Assessment Results
Hyla meridionalis
Mediterranean Tree Frog, Stripeless Tree Frog
Rainette Meridionale, Ranita Meridional
Order:
Anura
Family:
Hylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Morocco
on:
16 Apr 2026
by:
Devin Edmonds
Authors:
Abdellah Bouazza, Aziza Lansari, Benjamin Tapley, Olivier Marquis, Gerardo García
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Algeria, France, Gibraltar, Italy, Monaco, Morocco, Portugal, Spain, Tunisia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.13282974
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 | The species is widespread across the northern half of Morocco |
| 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 | It occurs in many protected area such as National Parks. Likely 20–50% of all individuals occur in a protected 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? | Yes / probably | Reintroductions would be feasible in a range of modified landscapes such as urban pools, golf courses, and greenhouse systems because the species readily persists wherever clean water, vegetation, and stable microhabitats are available. However, much of the Middle Atlas and Morocco’s coastal zone has lost wetlands and green areas to agriculture and urbanization, so improving water availability and restoring vegetated habitat patches would be essential. Since the species does not appear to naturally recolonize suitable habitat on its own, any reintroduction effort would require actively placing individuals into restored or managed sites. With these interventions, numerous human-modified environments could function as viable release sites given the species’ demonstrated ability to persist once introduced. |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | No | No conservation translocations in Morocco. However, individuals of diverse Moroccan origins have been introduced and have expanded throughout the Iberian Peninsula, southern France and northern Italy (Liguria), but also on the Canary and Balearic archipelagos (Mateo et al, 2011, Recuero et al. 2007; Dufresnes et al. 2019) |
| 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 | However, all amphibian species are legally protected under national legislation, specifically Loi n° 29-05. |
| 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 | Mitigate habitat alteration |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Surveillance is needed to understand the causes behind the regional population decline |
| 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 | Primary threats (habitat loss and road kills) are considered reversible through active management |
| 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 | |
| 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 | However, it is the only tree frog in the region and is distinct regionally for this reason |
| 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 | But it serves as a good evolutionary model for studying reproductive plasticity (In Morocco, the breeding season starts in November and extends until May or July in the High Atlas) |
| 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 | Husbandry protocols for Mediterranean hylids are well-established |
| 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? | Yes | Could potentially serve as a model for the closely related and more restricted Hyla carthaginiensis (RL Near Threatened) |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Yes, bred to F1 | The species is known to breed easily in controlled environments |
| 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 | Morphology : Its bright coloration, interesting climbing behavior, and presence in parks/gardens make it a ambassador for conservation |
| 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 | Widespread and locally common across its Moroccan range |
| 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 | Native to North Africa, has been introduced to several regions in south-western Europe and various Mediterranean and oceanic islands . While some debate remains regarding the natural versus human-mediated status of certain populations, most North African ranges are considered naturalized or invasive due to historical and contemporary human activities |
Citation:
Abdellah Bouazza, Aziza Lansari, Benjamin Tapley, Olivier Marquis, Gerardo García 2026. Conservation Needs Assessment for Hyla meridionalis, Morocco
(Devin Edmonds).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/7331
Accessed 27 Apr 2026
