Assessment Results
Meristogenys amoropalamus
Mountain Borneo Frog
Katak-borneo Gunung
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Malaysia
on:
23 Jan 2018
by:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Indonesia, Malaysia
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
13.48426784
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessment completed by P. Yambun and I. Das (2018).
Expansion of effective protection of submontane and montane forests is essential and continuation of rigorous management of the existing parks is the best guarantee for the conservation of this species.
Additional taxonomic research is recommended in light of the cryptic species present in this complex. Further research on this species' distribution, population size and trends is recommended.
| 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? | Yes / probably | This species is known only from northern Borneo in Sabah and north-eastern Sarawak (Malaysia), and north-eastern Kalimantan (Indonesia). It has been recorded from several protected areas, including Kinabalu and Crocker Range National Parks in Sabah. It possibly occurs a little more widely than current records suggest, especially in areas between known sites. Some specimens from KNational Park and CRNational Park have been assigned to M. dyscritus. In northern Sabah, M. dyscritus is distributed at altitudes lower than M. amoropalamus. This species is likely still a complex of cryptic species. |
| 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 | There is suitable habitat in protected areas where the species is currently found. |
| 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.)? | ||
| 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? | Species is effectively protected | In Malaysia, the species occurs in two well-protected and well-managed national parks and is not significantly threatened at present (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). It is collected for subsistence outside of protected areas, but this is not considered a threat to the population (P. Yambun pers. comm. January 2018). In Sarawak, 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). |
| 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 | The species is collected as food, but this is not thought to be a threat as it is only subsistence hunting and only occurs outside protected areas. |
| 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 | It was formally considered to be locally abundant, however the population status of this species is now unclear due to its cryptic taxonomic status (Shimada et al. 2011). Due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of habitat, the population is presently suspected to be decreasing. |
| 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.)? | 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 | Subsistence hunting only. |
| 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.) | ||
| 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? | Yes | If this species is a complex of cryptic species, one or more could be threatened. Depending how common this species is once the taxonomy is resolved, it may be suitable to use as an analogue species for any threatened congeners. |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | There are no records for this species in the ZIMS database. |
| 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 | It may be difficult and expensive to obtain the required collection permits. |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. This is a restricted concept of Meristogenys amoropalamus following the split of the broader concept into this and Meristogenys dyscritus (Shimada et al. 2011). Shimada et al. (2011) provided molecular evidence for at least three cryptic species in addition to nominal Meristogenys amoropalamus. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Malaysia Assessment Workshop. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Meristogenys amoropalamus, Malaysia.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4322
Accessed 02 Feb 2025
