Assessment Results
Mantella baroni
Baron's Mantella, Variegated Golden Frog, Harlequin Mantella
Order:
Anura
Family:
Mantellidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Madagascar
on:
17 Jul 2019
by:
Devin Edmonds
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Madagascar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.25885797
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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 | Found in a number of protected areas (Ranomafana National Park, Mantadia National Park, Andringtra National Park, CAZ, Vohimana, Ivohibe SR, Midongy du Sud, etc.), however, some of these sites are not reliably protected and the forests and forest fragments between protected sites also harbor populations of M. baroni, probably more than 50%. |
| 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 | Much of the central eastern rain forest corridor. Protected forests at Ranomafana and Mantadia National Parks. |
| 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 | Improved habitat management and monitoring of populations which are harvested for the pet trade |
| 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/trend, particularly at sites where collection for the pet trade occurs. |
| 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 | Habitat loss is the main threat and can be addressed through improved management in time to prevent extinction. Effects of trade can be addressed through further research and adjusting export quotas accordingly. |
| 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. Export quotas between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals per year between 2005 and 2015. Some research suggests trade is sustainable, though more thorough studies are needed. Probably local populations heavily targeted by collectors are at risk. |
| 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 large enough to be stable if threats are mitigated. |
| 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 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 | Economic value through trade and tourism. Culturally important to some extent in communities around Ranomafana and Mantadia National Parks where the species can be seen displayed in pictures or handicrafts as an icon of surrounding forests. |
| 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 | Reproductive biology, such as fecundity and age to sexual maturity, would be best studied in captivity and, similar to other heavily traded Mantella spp., could be used to better model effects of 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? | Yes | Possible analog for Mantella cowanii |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Yes, bred to F2 | Widely held in private collections and zoological institutions, and occasionally bred. Captive population sourced through pet trade from unknown localities and not properly managed. |
| 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 | Well suited for display - diurnal, colorful - and could be used to raise awareness of amphibians and amphibian conservation in Madagascar. On display at national zoo Parc Tsimbazaza as well as some private zoological parks in Madagascar, though individuals are sourced from the wild and not maintained well. |
| 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 | Sahonagasy Action Plan |
| 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 | Phenotypic differences between populations need to be considered and may warrant separate conservation units. See Rabemanananjara et al. 2007. Evidence for recent gene flow between north-eastern and south-eastern Madagascar poison frogs from a phylogeography of the Mantella cowani group. Frontiers in Zoology 4: 1-10. Mantella baroni, M. cowani, and M. nigricans all closely related. |
Citation:
Devin Edmonds. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Mantella baroni, Madagascar.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/3889
Accessed 27 Jan 2025
