Assessment Results
Mantella laevigata
Arboreal Mantella, Green-backed Mantella
Order:
Anura
Family:
Mantellidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
21 Jun 2015
by:
Philip-Sebastian Gehring
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
14.44292722
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) | Changed from NT to LC based on current IUCN Red List September 2019 - D. Edmonds |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Popultaions from protected areas of Nosy Mangabe, Masoala, Makira and Marojejy. |
| 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 | Lowland Rainforests around Masoala, Makira and Marojejy. |
| 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.)? | Yes / probably | Protection of habitat; continued regulation of trade |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Population size and trends; impacts of trade |
| 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 being managed - conservation dependant | Habitat destruction is the main threat to the species and potentially could be reversed in time to prevent extinction, however, local populations likely may go extinct in meantime while threats are being addressed. Occurs within several protected areas, though the species survival depends on their 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 | CITES II. Is collected in low numbers for the pet trade. See Rabemananjara, F., et al. 2008. Malagasy poison frogs in the pet trade: a survey of levels of exploitation of species in the genus Mantella. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 5(1): 3-16 |
| 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 | Mantella laevigata is a unique member of the genus, being semi-arboreal. This is obvious not only from their behavior, but also from the presence of enlarged toe pads which help them climb.An interesting breeding method is employed by M. laevigata, different from all other Mantella species. They breed in water-filled holes above ground, often cavities within a broken piece of bamboo or tree. Tadpoles are deposited in these tiny reservoirs, and as they develop, the female returns to deposit infertile eggs for them to feed on. This form of parental care is also preformed by other species of frogs, most notably certain neotropical poison dart frogs (Dendrobatids). |
| 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 | The species is maintained by the zoological community outside Madagascar but not in a formal conservation breeding program and mostly for educational 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? | 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? | Yes, bred to F2 | Information on breeding conditions of M. laevigata: Glaw, F., M. Vences & K. Schmidt (2000): Nachzucht, Juvenilfärbung und Oophagie von Mantella laevigata im Vergleich zu anderen Arten der Gattung (Amphibia: Ranidae). – Salamandra 36 (1): 1-24. Staniszewski, Marc. Mantellas. Frankfurt, Germany: Chimaira, 2001. Vences, M., F. Glaw & W. Böhme. 1999. A review of the genus Mantella (Anura, Ranidae, Mantellinae): taxonomy, distribution and conservation of Malagasy poison frogs. – Alytes 17 (1-2): 3-72. Glaw, F. & M. Vences (1992): Zur Biologie, Biometrie und Färbung bei Mantella laevigata Methuen & Hewitt, 1913. – Sauria 14 (4): 25-29. http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Reptile-Magazines/Reptiles-Magazine/October-2008/Mantellas/ |
| 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 | Diurnal, colorful, easily observed and useful for raising awareness of other threatened species in the genus other than M. aurantiaca. |
| 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 | The Sahonagasy Action Plan is ratified by the Malagasy government and states support for ex situ initiatives for all amphibian species in Madagascar. |
| 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:
Philip-Sebastian Gehring. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Mantella laevigata, Madagascar.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/1581
Accessed 30 Jan 2025
