Assessment Results
Hyla suweonensis
Suweon Treefrog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Hylidae
Synonym(s):
Dryophytes suweonensis, Dryophytes immaculatus
Assessed for:
Korea, Republic of
on:
09 Dec 2017
by:
Amaël Borzée
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of , Korea, Republic of
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.80337978
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed under Dryophytes suweonensis in the IUCN Red List
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Endangered (EN) | The IUCN red list does not include the newly described population in the South (see Borzee et al. 2017) but including this new population does not bring the extent of occurrence over 5000 Km2 and the species still qualifies as EN under B1(bc). Borzée, Amaël, Kyungmin Kim, Kyongman Heo, Piotr G. Jablonski, and Yikweon Jang. "Impact of land reclamation and agricultural water regime on the distribution and conservation status of the endangered Dryophytes suweonensis." PeerJ 5 (2017): e3872. |
| 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 | There is only one overlap between the edge of a site where the species is present and a protected area (see Borzee et al., 2017) for details. |
| 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 | No, in the way that all of the natural habitat of the species has been transformed in rice paddies (see Borzee & Jang 2015). It can be a potential yes as the species is actually breeding actively in some agricultural landscapes, and adequate management may allow the species to survive. Borzée, A., & Jang, Y. (2015). Description of a seminatural habitat of the endangered Suweon treefrog Hyla suweonensis. Animal Cells and Systems, 19(3), 216-220. |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | Yes, but unsuccessfully | The species was translocated at a specially terraformed site on an island within its range in 2015. The species bred the first year (tadpoles and froglets identified), but went extinct in 2017 because of management errors (publication in review). |
| 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? | Threats unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | The main threat is encroachment, which is very difficult to prevent as most populations are around Seoul or adjacent cities part of the metropolitan area. Four single-site populations at the edges of the range are not under direct threat (out of 14 populations made out of 123 independent sites) but they are now too isolated to be viable on the long term. |
| 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 | The population could bounce back if the threats are neutralised and connectivity restored. |
| 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.)? | ||
| 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 | The name of the species, the Suweon Treefrog, arises from the eponymous city of Suwon where it was described in 1980 by Pr. Kuramoto - it is a different romanisation of the name, but the same spelling in Korean. The city uses it as a flag species for environmental projects. Kuramoto, M. (1980). Mating calls of treefrogs (genus Hyla) in the Far East, with description of a new species from Korea. Copeia, 100-108. |
| 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 | The species is evolutionary significant for its XY karyotype (in comparison to the usual ZW karyotype of vertebrates) Dufresnes, C., Borzée, A., Horn, A., Stöck, M., Ostini, M., Sermier, R., ... & Jang, Y. (2015). Sex-chromosome homomorphy in Palearctic tree frogs results from both turnovers and X–Y recombination. Molecular biology and evolution, 32(9), 2328-2337. |
| 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 | In situ research for conservation is sufficient, at the moment |
| 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? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Maintained but no successful breeding | |
| 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 | The unusual breeding behaviour of the species (males holding vertically on vegetation) makes it very visible, and attractive for citizen science projects. |
| 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? | 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 |
Citation:
Amaël Borzée. 2017. Conservation Needs Assessment for Hyla suweonensis, Korea, Republic of .
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4267
Accessed 30 Jan 2025
