Assessment Results
Pseudoeurycea gadovii
Gadow's False Brook Salamander, Gadow's Salamander
Order:
Caudata
Family:
Plethodontidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Mexico
on:
06 Sep 2018
by:
Todd Pierson
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Mexico
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
8.657872197
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Completed by T.W. Pierson in September 2018.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Vulnerable (VU) | The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) changed the listing for this species to Vulnerable. The justification is as follows: "its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 6,139 km2, its area of occupancy (AOO) is 1,851 km2, it occurs in fewer than 10 threat-defined locations, and there is a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its forest habitat in Mexico." |
| 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 | The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) states that this species is found in Pico de Orizaba National Park, Cofre de Perote National Park (although the identity of these specimens is questionable), and in La Malinche National Park. However, most records in VertNet appear to be outside of protected areas. It falls under the "Special Protection" category of Mexican law. |
| 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 | The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) reports that at high elevations, the habitat for this species may be better preserved. It seems likely that in the protected areas where this species is found, suitable habitat exists for a future potential reintroduction. |
| 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? | Threats unknown | I am deferring to the evaluation here of the AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop assessment in 2008. The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) reports that agriculture, logging, and development threaten the habitat of this species. |
| 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? | Unknown | The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) reports that this species is "increasingly rare". |
| 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 | |
| 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? | No | |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | I could find no record of this species in captivity. |
| 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)? | ||
| 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)? | Unknown | This species has been included in several molecular phylogenetic studies (e.g., Parra-Olea 2002; Wiens et al. 2007). The IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group (2016) describes some taxonomic uncertainty in populations of this species. |
Citation:
Todd Pierson. 2018. Conservation Needs Assessment for Pseudoeurycea gadovii, Mexico.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4644
Accessed 23 Jan 2025
