Assessment Results
Limnonectes tweediei
Tweedie's Wart Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
16 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.35592913
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment compiled by M.A. Muin, D. Belabut, N. Ahmad, S. Anuar, K.O. Chan and E. Quah.
Improved protection measures to safeguard the ecological integrity of Templer's Park and the Ulu Gombak Forest Reserve in Malaysia and Lembah Anai Natural Reserve in Sumatra.
Further taxonomic work is needed to resolve the identity of the specimen from Sumatra (D. Iskandar pers. comm. May 2017). More information is needed on this species' distribution, population status, life history and ecology, and threats.
| 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 - 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? | Yes / probably | This species is known from Perak, Selangor, Terengganu and Pahang states in Peninsular Malaysia. It is expected to occur more widely (K.O. Chan pers. comm. January 2018). Surveys of existing protected areas might be appropriate, as would improved protection measures to safeguard the ecological integrity of Templer Park Recreational Forest and the Gombak Valley in Malaysia. Templer's Park and Ulu Gombak Forest Reserve subpopulations does not appear to be entirely secure (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). |
| 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.). | ||
| 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.)? | ||
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | ||
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species is effectively protected | The most likely significant threats to this species outside of protected areas are pollution, and extensive habitat degradation through clear cutting and conversion of forest to plantations. It has been found in disturbed forests. In Peninsular Malaysia, granite quarrying is also a threat in the south of the Ulu Gombak National Park, and this is continuing to expand within the park (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). |
| 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 previously reported to be common in Malaysia in the 2004 assessment. In appropriate habitat in Malaysia, this species is now considered to be uncommon and rare (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). However the difference in these observations is not thought to be due to a population decline, but taxonomic identification confusion between this species and Limnonectes nitidus (K.O. Chan pers. comm. September 2018). In Sumatra it is also considered to be rare. Due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat, the population is suspected to be decreasing. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | ||
| 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? | Yes | |
| 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.) | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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)? | No / unlikely | Note that permit approval is challenging, permit is required for each specimen and is expensive. |
| 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 | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. This species was considered by Kiew (1975) to be a synonym of Limnonectes nitidus, but we retain it as a valid species. It is considered to be a species complex (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Limnonectes tweediei, Malaysia.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/1488
Accessed 24 Jan 2025
