Assessment Results
Craugastor cruzi
Cruz Robber Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Eleutherodactylus cruzi
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
13 Mar 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.00211102
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
The option of a captive-breeding programme might also need to be explored for this species should a subpopulation be detected in the wild (Honduras Red List 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) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Yes / probably | A landslide destroyed the stream where the two known type specimens were collected. Visits to the area in 1995 and 1996 turned up no additional specimens. Surveys to determine whether or not there are surviving populations of this species are needed. It is possible this species is already extinct, however more surveys are needed in high elevation areas needs more survey (J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019) since there is possible suitable habitat. McCranie et al 2018 cited this species is probably extinct in the wild. |
| 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 - 50 | |
| 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 known only from the type locality, the Cordillera Nombre de Dios on the Atlantic slope south of La Ceiba in northern Honduras. The type locality of this species is within Parque Nacional Pico Bonito, however legal protection of the land is limited (McCranie, J. R. Personal Comm). In 1998 a landside destroyed the stream where the two type specimens were collected. |
| 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 still suitable habitat for the species, especially in higher areas from type locality |
| 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.)? | Yes / probably | Improved enforcement and management of the national parks and the elimination of incentives to convert forest (e.g., Decreto 37-2016) is urgently needed to halt anthropogenic land use change in the national parks and reserves of Honduras (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Surveys are needed to determine whether or not there is a surviving population (J. Townsend, L. Herrera and J. Kolby pers. comm. March 2019). |
| 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 | The area from which this species was recorded is subject to extensive landslides; these often severely impact the species habitat. Additional major threats include deforestation as a result of agricultural and livestock encroachment, human settlements, selective logging, and fires. Additionally, it is noteworthy to mention that by 1996 that most, if not all, streamside Craugastor species known to occur above 900 m asl were thought to have disappeared in Honduras, even in pristine habitats (Wilson and McCranie 1998). Reasons for the disappearances of this species remains unclear, although infection with chytridiomycosis together with the alteration of its habitat due to extensive landslides is a strong possibility (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). In 2008, two streamside Craugastor species (C. campbelli and C. from this range were rediscovered, although they remain rare (McCranie et al 2010), and it is it is unclear if these species are simply cryptic or are making a resurgence following a remitted threat or increased resistance to a threat. Given the threat of chytridiomycosis, surviving individuals might need to form the basis for the establishment of an ex-situ population. Good habitat probable still available in higher area from type locality. While certain parts of Parque Nacional Pico Bonito, the area from which this species was recorded is subject to extensive landslides; these often severely result in significant modification of the streams and streamside environment. Additional major threats include deforestation as a result of agricultural and livestock encroachment, human settlements, selective logging of hardwoods, and human-induced fires (Honduras Red List Assessment Workshop March 2019). Highland amphibians are adapted to inhabit a narrow climatic envelope. Changes in climate are expected to reduce the available suitable habitat and required microclimates. Rapid shifts in the climatic conditions required by these species would not allow sufficient opportunity for adaptation, especially in light of the limited possibility for elevational migration. Tropical Montane Cloud Forest (>1,000 m asl) has been demonstrated to be negatively affected by climatic changes to a greater extent than other habitats (Foden et al. 2013, Wicaksono et al. 2017, Lyra et al. 2017, Neate-Clegg et al. 2018). An increase in high rainfall events is being observed throughout this species' range, as well as an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events (hurricanes and droughts) in the Caribbean, destroying the riparian habitat required by stream-dwelling and stream-associated amphibian species (Honduras Amphibian Red List Workshop March 2019). Climate change is therefore considered to be both a current and future threat to all amphibian species in this habitat type. Furthermore, amphibians globally are at an increased risk of disease (e.g. chytridiomycosis) and a decline in fecundity due to such changes (Pounds et al. 2006, Blaustein et al. 2010). |
| 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? | No / unlikely | Pretty common in the early 80's. Last observed in 1980, Visits on 1995 - 1996 (McCranie and Catañeda 1997). Between 1980 and 2005 at least 10 visits/surveys to the area found no additional specimens. Also in 2008 - 2009 visits to lower elevations turned up finding no new individuals (J. Townsend pers. comm.). High elevation areas needs more survey (J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019) since there is possible suitable habitat. |
| 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? | ||
| 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:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor cruzi, Honduras.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4674
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
