Assessment Results
Ambystoma mexicanum
Axolotl
Ajolote
Order:
Caudata
Family:
Ambystomatidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Mexico
on:
25 Apr 2020
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Mexico
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.06052403
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Se conoce el cultivo en cautiverio y sus amenazas. Falta de alimento para crías y larvas es una amenaza importante. Se requiere eliminar peces introducidos. Se están manejando las amenzas del hábitat. Solo 4 especies Paedomórficas.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 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 | It is now only known from three sites in the southern part of Mexico City in central Mexico, at ca. 2,240 m asl: the canals at Xochimilco, Chalco lake, and Chapultepec Lake (records from Chapultepec Lake that were previously reported to have been uncertain have now been confirmed to belong to this species) (G. Parra-Olea pers. comm. 2014, Contreras et al. 2009, Recuero et al. 2010). |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | Yes, but unsuccessfully | Re-population has been attempted by introducing close to 10,000 individuals in 2012. |
| 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 | Conservation action is also focusing on raising the profile of Lake Xochimilco through conservation education and a nature tourism initiative, coupled with work on habitat restoration and bio-remediation. |
| 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 | Habitat management and restoration before any other measure such as reintroduction. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Habitat quality and availability, ecology of Xochimilco lake |
| 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 | The desiccation and pollution of the canal system and lakes in Xochimilco and Chalco, as a result of urbanization, as well as the traditional consumption of the species by local people, is threatening the survival of this species. Increased tourist activity is poorly regulated and adds further pollution (Zambrano 2006). Introduced fishes (tilapia and carp) have increased to high abundances (a recent study collected 600 kg of tilapia in one small channel using a 100 m net) and have also impacted axolotls through competition and predation. |
| 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 | There was a local illegal trade in wild-caught animals for human consumption, medicinal uses and pets. However, the population is now so small that any national trade is likely to be of individuals belonging to related species or captive-bred individuals (A. Calzada, V. Jiménez, and G. Para-Olea pers. comm. October 2019). |
| 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? | Unknown | The population has experienced a dramatic reduction due to habitat transformation (Zambrano et al. 2007) and the surviving wild population is very small. Although subpopulations are difficult to assess, surveys covering almost all of its known distribution range have usually captured fewer than 100 individuals (e.g. during 2002 and 2003, more than 1,800 net casts were made along Xochimilco canals covering 39,173 m² which resulted in a catch of only 42 specimens; and only 2 individuals were captured in 2013). In a study covering a span of six years (from 1998 to 2004), Axolotl density had reduced from 0.006-org/ m2 to 0.001-org/ m2, although it is thought that this reduction could also be due to its own population dynamics (Zambrano 2006). Previous population density estimates for this species have been reported low, but alarming declines have been observed: from 6000 ind/km2 estimated in 1998 to 1000 in 2004 (Zambrano et al. 2007) to 100 in 2008 (unpubl. data in Contreras et al. 2009), 60-fold reduction between 1998-2008. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | Yes - completed | PROGRAMA DE ACCION PARA LA CONSERVACIÓN DE LAS ESPECIES: AMBYSTOMA spp. (SEMARNAT, 2018. Programa de Acción para la Conservación de las Especies Ambystoma spp, SEMARNAT/CONANational Park, México) |
| 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? | Yes | It has been recognized as part of the culture since ancient era (Aztecs) |
| 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? | Research dependent upon 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.) | Yes / probably | Cibica, UNAM, Chapultepec Zoo maintain this species for conservation purposes. |
| 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? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Yes, bred to F2 | Many institutions around the world |
| 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 | A species that people recognize easily and identify with it. |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ambystoma mexicanum, Mexico.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/42
Accessed 21 Feb 2025
