Assessment Results
Stumpffia be
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Rhombophryne be
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
28 Oct 2015
by:
Jörn Köhler
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
24.12763
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) | Probably restricted to small range (Ankarana). S. be occurs in an protected area. Nevertheless, habitat alteration in this areas is ongoing and has intensified in the last years. On the other hand, because of their specialization to karstic habitat and partly caves, these large-bodied Stumpffia are probably less affected by deforestation than other Malagasy frog species. However, species are prone to the effects of human activities or stochastic events, and are thus capable of becoming Critically Endangered or even Extinct in a very short time period. The species has a known area of occupancy of less than 20 km2 and appears to occur at only 1 location. We propose that this situation is best addressed by assigning a status of Vulnerable according to criterion D2 of the IUCN Red List (IUCN –World Conservation Union, 2001). KÖHLER, J., M. VENCES, N. D'CRUZE & F. GLAW (2010): Giant dwarfs: discovery of a radiation of large-bodied 'stump-toed frogs' from karstic cave environments of northern Madagascar. Journal of Zoology 282 (1): 21–38. Changed to EN from VU by D. Edmonds 8/29/19 based on IUCN Red List website |
| 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 | Currently included in Ankarana Reserve. |
| 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 | Suitable habitat should be available within the Ankarana Massiv, even if habitat alteration continues. |
| 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 | Improved habitat management of Ankarana Special Reserve |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Distribution, population size and trends, life history |
| 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 | Depends on the management of Ankarana. If properly done, the species is likely protected. |
| 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 | Not in trade. |
| 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 | Unknown, as there are no population data, but very likely yes. |
| 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 | At least partly cave-dwelling large-bodied species of Stumpffia. Reverse evolution of body size from small ancestors. Probably interesting reproductive biology. Changed from distinct to not exceptional by D. Edmonds 8/29/19. The distinct characteristics of the species are found in more than 6 other species in Anura. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | Probably yes, as it is related to other threatened cave-dwelling species in northern Madagascar. |
| 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? | 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. No population data available, but probably yes. |
| 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 | Identified by integrative taxonomic approach. Relationshipsm almost clear. KÖHLER, J., M. VENCES, N. D'CRUZE |
Citation:
Jörn Köhler. 2015. Conservation Needs Assessment for Stumpffia be, Madagascar.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/3858
Accessed 03 Feb 2025
