Assessment Results
Pelophryne murudensis
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
17 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.8859152
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment compiled by M.A. Muin, D. Belabut, N. Ahmad, S. Anuar, K.O. Chan, I Das and E. Quah.
| 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? | Unknown | This species is currently only known from its type locality: Gunung Murud, Sarawak, East Malaysia (northwestern Borneo), within the realm of a proposed protected area, Pulong Tau National Park. |
| 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? | ||
| 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.). | Yes / probably | Gunung Murud is found in Pulong Tau National Park, which has only been recently gazetted and there is no current infrastructure or field staff in place, so it is not well protected at present (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). It is subject to subsistence logging. |
| 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 | Enforcement of the Park's boundaries is needed to address logging issues within the park. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Further research is needed into the life history and ecology of this species. |
| 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 | Even though its type locality is within the recently gazetted Pulong Tau National Park, it is subject to subsistence logging (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). The habitat in Pulong Tau National Park faces encroachment from logging companies, as it has only been recently gazetted (in the last 2-3 years) and there is no current infrastructure or field staff in place, so it is not well protected at present (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). Clear-felling and large-scale logging concessions are also happening within parts of the national park, although the type locality of this species lies just outside the range of commercial hardwoods (I. Das pers. comm. 2009). Climate change is likely to be a future threat (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). |
| 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 | It is a difficult species to detect due to its arboreal nature (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). Due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat, the population is suspected to be decreasing. |
| 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 | |
| 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? | ||
| 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 | |
| 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? | ||
| 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 | Note that permit approval is challenging, permit is required for each specimen and is expensive. |
| 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 | It is a locally common species (I. Das pers. comm. 2009). |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. The subpopulation in the same locality which was previously thought to belong to Pelophryne misera has now been assigned to this species (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). Further taxonomic review is required. It is a montane species that is thought to be endemic to Gunung Murud, likely from an area smaller than 5 km2 (I. Das pers. comm. March 2018). It occurs in one threat-defined location and its estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) is 10 km2. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Pelophryne murudensis, Malaysia.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4275
Accessed 23 Jan 2025
