Assessment Results
Melanophryniscus cambaraensis
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Brazil
on:
17 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop
Authors:
C. Zank, I.F. Machado, L.F.M. Fonte, M. D. Freire, M. Borges-Martins and P. Colombo
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
Distribution:
Brazil
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.97812754
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.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 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 | There are two known populations, both within protected areas: one in Floresta Nacional (FLONA) de São Francisco de Paula and another in the Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra (population has not been registered for a long time in this location). The risks for both protected areas is there will be private concessions for some services, mainly on touristic services. |
| 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 | Apparently there are suitable environments within FLONA São Francisco de Paula and Parque Nacional Aparados da Serra, but those environments are not yet searched. |
| 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.). | Yes / probably | FLONA's Management Plan includes actions for this species, most related to study its population biology. |
| 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 | It is necessary to intensify the control of the invasive wild boar within the protected areas; special care and conservation actions for this species is necessary during the concession process. |
| 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 on taxonomy, natural history, migration and chemical defenses has been carried out. Additional research suggested: estimating population size, studying the possible effect of wild boars on the species and resolving the taxonomic issue of this species. |
| 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 | The modification of natural habitat of the species (grasslands and forests) is driven by the following main threats: agriculture and pine forests (silviculture); use of fire and climate change. Other possible threats include the presence of the invasive wild boar in the areas of occurrence and tourism in FLONA. The private concession of areas may bring new threats to the species, such as an increase in infrastructure and the circulation of people. |
| 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 | There is no specific plan to this species, but it is part of the National Action Plan "Plano de Ação Nacional para Conservação de Anfíbios e Répteis Ameaçados de Extinção da Região Sul do Brasil - PAN Herpetofauna do Sul" and of the Management Plan of FLONA São Francisco de Paula. |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Melanophryniscus tumifrons (or other species of the group) |
| 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 | This species is charismatic and it is necessary to develop conservation education in ecotourism activities. It 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Probable synonymy with Melanophryniscus macrogranulosus (Valentina Zaffaroni Caorsi, unpublished data). |
Citation:
C. Zank, I.F. Machado, L.F.M. Fonte, M. D. Freire, M. Borges-Martins and P. Colombo
2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Melanophryniscus cambaraensis, Brazil
(AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/1646
Accessed 28 Jan 2025
