Assessment Results
Mantella milotympanum
Black-eared Golden Mantella, Black-eared Mantella
Order:
Anura
Family:
Mantellidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
16 Sep 2019
by:
Devin Edmonds
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
11.32437299
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.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | Occurs in CAZ (Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor) which receives some degree of legal protection but in reality the tiny area where M. milotympanum occurs is not reliably protected. |
| 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 | CAZ north of Mantadia National Park, though area is not well-managed or protected. Possibly also in the north of Mantadia National Park. |
| 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 | Habitat protection, population monitoring |
| 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 status and distribution |
| 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 | Habitat destruction is the main threat to Mantella milotympanum. Recent site visits (2014, unpublished, pers. obs.) have found the species in forest already cleared and being prepared for slash and burn agriculture. Existing forest along Ivohitra river where species is known is fragmented and interspersed with degraded habitat. |
| 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? | Unknown | CITES II quota 0 as of 2009, but prior to this year exported in large numbers for pet trade and mainly collected at one highly targeted site (Sahamarolambo). See Razafimahatratra, B. et al. 2009. The status of Mantella milotympanum in the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor, eastern Madagascar. Herpetology Notes 2: 207-213 and 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 | Population size in the wild unknown, but known from at least two dozen localities, most along the Ivohitra river and presumably here the population is large enough to recover naturally without ex situ intervention if threats are addressed. |
| 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 | Not known to be biologically distinct. |
| 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 | Socio-economic importance - pet trade. Sign promoting tourism featuring the species at the intermediate M. crocea / M. milotympanum populationat Ambohidray. |
| 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 | Not known to be scientifically important. |
| 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? | Yes | Population ecology and dynamics for sustainable trade |
| 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 | |
| 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 | Captive husbandry for Mantella species well understood. |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Yes, bred to F2 | Bred to F2 generation outside of range country in private collections and zoological institutions. Genetics of captive populations not managed, maintained informally as part of cosmopolitan collections. |
| 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 | Color, diurnal, charismatic and well-suited for environmental outreach and awareness activities. |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | Yes | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Unclear whether M. milotympanum is a color variant of M. crocea. The conservation unit of wild populations at different localities expressing different phenotypes not known. |
Citation:
Devin Edmonds. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Mantella milotympanum, Madagascar.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/1585
Accessed 27 Feb 2025
