Assessment Results
Thoropa lutzi
Lutz's River Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Cycloramphidae
Synonym(s):
Eupsophus lutzi
Assessed for:
Brazil
on:
21 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop
Authors:
A.M.P. T. Carvalho-e-Silva, A.F. Sabbag, C.A. Brasileiro, C.L. Assis, L.F. Toledo, R.B. Ferreira and S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Brazil
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
21.90235624
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | The species was abundant in the type locality until 1981, after that, it disappeared. Co-occurred with Thoropa miliaris that continues to occur in the region (L.F. Toledo and S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva, pers. comm. 2020). The last specimen deposited in scientific collection is from 1979 (A.F. Sabbag, pers. comm. 2020). In 2002, the species was possibly found in the State of Espírito Santo (Feio, R.N., J.L. Gasparini e J.P. Pombal-JR. 2002. Reencontro de Thoropa lutzi (Cochran, 1937) (Anura, Leptodactylidae).Itajaí, Resumos do XXIV Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia. p.408.), however, now is know that this record is a new species (C.L. Assis, pers. comm. 2020). In 2018, the research group of Jane de Oliveira found three specimens in the municipality of Mimoso do Sul (ES), but probably is the same of the new species. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | Almost the entire population of this species originally occurred in the Parque Nacional da Tijuca and Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos (RJ). There are citations for Recreio dos Bandeirantes, but with no specific location to identify if it was within a protected area. |
| 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 | Parque Nacional da Tijuca and Parque Nacional da Serra dos Órgãos (RJ). |
| 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 is needed on survey to find individuals (in the area of occurrence) or new populations (in Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca) throughout active search (visual and acoustic), pitfall traps, environmental DNA, citizen science and/or automated acoustic recorder. |
| 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 unknown | The threats to this species are unknown, but the Atlantic Forest, the morphoclimatic domain where it occurred, for years it has been undergoing a strong change in the environment due to forestry, extraction of native wood, urban expansion, tourist activity and fires. However, the most probable cause for its disappearence or even extinction was the chytridiomycosis (Carvalho T, Becker CG, Toledo LF. 2017. Historical amphibian declines and extinctions in Brazil linked to chytridiomycosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284: 20162254.). |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | There is no specific plan for this species, but it is part of two National Action Plans: "Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação da Herpetofauna Ameaçada da Mata Atlântica da Região Sudeste do Brasil (PAN Herpetofauna do Sudeste)" and "Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação das Espécies Aquáticas Ameaçadas de Extinção da Bacia do Rio Paraíba do Sul " |
| 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 | If individuals are found, a captive breeding program will be important. |
| 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 | Thoropa aff. lutzi (new species in description by C.L. Assis et al.) |
| 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 | There is no information for Thoropa lutzi in captivity, however, two males and one female of the new species (Thoropa aff. lutzi), was kept by C.L. Assis for about 1 year (between 2017 and 2018). This new species occurs in anthropized areas. |
| 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 | Could be used as a flagship species to talk about extinction in the Parque Nacional da Tijuca, where tourism is constant. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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:
A.M.P. T. Carvalho-e-Silva, A.F. Sabbag, C.A. Brasileiro, C.L. Assis, L.F. Toledo, R.B. Ferreira and S.P. Carvalho-e-Silva
2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Thoropa lutzi, Brazil
(AArk/ASG Brazil Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/2580
Accessed 31 Jan 2025
