Assessment Results
Rhinella chrysophora
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Atelophryniscus chrysophorus
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
13 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Mora, J., Townsend, J.
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
9.220120484
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
A captive-breeding program is recommended should individuals of this species be found (J. Townsend, pers. comm. 2019).
Research is urgently needed to determine whether or not this species has been affected by chytridiomycosis. Further populations surveys are required at both sites to determine whether the species is surviving in those areas (Honduras Assessment Workshop March 2019).
| 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) | Changed from Endangered to Critically Endangered, due to it likely being extinct, despite regular surveys.. |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | It is uncommon, and the population has been decreasing over the last 23 years. According to McCranie and Castañeda (2007), the last species of the type locality were observed in February 1995, while the tadpoles were last observed in the year 1996. It is thought that this species is extinct as it has not been found despite surveys in all suitable locations and elevations, in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018 and 2019 (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 upper elevations in the central Cordillera Nombre de Dios have been protected in Parque Nacional Pico Bonito since 1988 and also in Refugio de Vida Silvestre Texiguat. It has only been collected at two sites. |
| 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 | |
| 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 are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | Major threats to this species include landslides in the upper reaches of streams (due to strong storms and human activities) and slash-and-burn agriculture. As a montane stream-breeding species, declines could also be linked to chytridiomycosis (McCranie and Castañeda 2007). It is not tolerant of habitat disturbance. Chytrid is potentially responsible for the decrease in population (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). Te entire type location has been destroyed by a landslide (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 | It is uncommon and populations have been decreasing over the last 23 years. The species was previously abundant at both sites prior to 1989. Tadpoles were last observed in 1996. It is thought that chytrid was responsible for the dramatic decline (J. Townsend, pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 | |
| 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)? | 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 prioritized. There is an ongoing debate about the genus placement of this species, which needs to be resolved if the species is found again. |
Citation:
Kolby, J., Marcec, R., Mora, J., Townsend, J. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Rhinella chrysophora, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4666
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
