Assessment Results
Microhyla annectens
Larut Hills Rice Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
16 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Malaysia, Thailand
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
21.30272696
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment compiled by M.A. Muin, D. Belabut, N. Ahmad, S. Anuar, K.O. Chan and E. Quah.
Continued protection of Fraser’s Hill is necessary for the conservation of this species (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). Efforts to develop a National Red List for amphibians of Malaysia are needed to identify species in need of conservation efforts (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018).
Studies on its population size, distribution and trends, life history and ecology are needed
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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 has been recorded with certainty only from Cameron Highlands and Fraser's Hill Wildlife Reserve, and Gunung Benom in Pahang and the Genting Highlands in western Peninsular Malaysia. It may be found in other highland areas in the Titiwangsa range that have not yet been surveyed. Ensuring that the known highland populations in Peninsular Malaysia are included within protected areas is also important for its conservation. The records of this species from Endau-Rompin National Park reported by Belabut and Hashim (2004) was erroneously reported as belonging to this species, and a record from a cave near Kuala Lumpur reported by Manthey and Denzer (2014) was also made in error (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop 2018). The known altitudinal range of this species is 1,200-1,900 m asl. |
| 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 does not require conservation action at this time | There are some localized threats to this species, mainly relating to agricultural activities and the development of tourist and transport infrastructures, although the montane forests of Peninsular Malaysia are reasonably secure. In the Cameron Highlands, commercial agriculture (tea and fruit and vegetable plantations) is the biggest threat to habitat and is continuing to expand (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). In Genting Highlands, the continued construction of hotels and other developments represent a highly plausible near-future threat to species occurring within this area and is likely to affect the water quality of stream habitats (E. Quah pers. comm. January 2018). The subpopulation at Bukit Larut may be threatened in the future if the potential construction of a cable car system on the face of Banjaran Bintang to Bukit Larut occurs (E. Quah pers. comm. January 2018). Logging is occurring around 900 m asl in Batu Talam Forest Reserve and Tranum Forest Reserve which is c. 15 km away from Fraser’s Hill. It is possible that if it expands then it may encroach into this area, although The Association for the Protection of the Natural Heritage of Malaysia (PEKA) is an NGO which is very active in opposing the logging concession development (N. Ahmad pers. comm. January 2018). So it is not considered to be a major threat at present. Savage et al. (2011) report one individual of this species infected by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis from Bukit Fraser, Pahang, at 1,291 m asl, while 0/3 infected from Cameron Highlands, Pahang, at 1,418 m asl, but no mortalities or ill effects to the species have been observed. |
| 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 is considered to be a common species (Malaysia Red List Assessment Workshop January 2018). 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? | 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.) | ||
| 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? | Yes | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | There are no records for this species in the ZIMS database. |
| 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? | 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 | Verified records of this species come only from Peninsular Malaysia. Records from other countries are either misidentified or misattributed. Records from peninsular Thailand and Borneo are referrable to Microhyla perparva and M. petrigenea according to Manthey and Denzer (2014). |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Microhyla annectens, Malaysia.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/1669
Accessed 31 Jan 2025
