Assessment Results
Craugastor epochthidius
Order:
Anura
Family:
Craugastoridae
Synonym(s):
Eleutherodactylus epochthidius
Assessed for:
Honduras
on:
10 May 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gustavo Cruz, Larry David Wilson.
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Honduras
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.00211102
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
In view of the threat of chytridiomycosis, the status of this species should be closely monitored, and ex-situ populations should be established.
Conservation actions needed: 1 Land/water protection; 1.2 Resource & habitat protection; 2 Land/water management; 2.1 Site/area management; 3 Species management; 3.4 Ex-situ conservation; 3.4.1 Captive breeding/artificial propagation.
| 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 - 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 can be found in Sierra Punta Piedra in the department of Colon, and historically in Sierra de Agalta in the department of Olancho, in east-central and north-eastern Honduras. It has been collected within the Reserve de la Biosfera Río Platano and on the edge of Parque Nacional Agalta. |
| 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 | Río Plátano Reserve |
| 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 | Substantial habitat has been lost in recent years. The major threat is habitat loss due to agriculture, primarily of crops and cattle ranching, logging, human settlement, and forest fires. However, since the observed species decline has also taken place in suitable habitat this could be suggestive of chytridiomycosis as a significant threat. It should be noted that in 2002, it was postulated that all streamside Craugastor known to occur above 900m asl had disappeared in Honduras. Reasons for the disappearances of these species remain unclear, although infection with chytridiomycosis is a possibility. The main threats to the species stem from forest fires and extended dry seasons. The fires are generally in the surrounding area, however, these still represent a threat to the species. There is continuing habitat loss in the area, through high pressure for conversion of land to subsistence agricultural use and coffee plantations. The reform to the Ley de Proteccion a la actividad caficultora y cacaotera (Decreto 37-2016; Acticulos I, V y VI) has incentivized and increased habitat alteration in primary montane cloud forest in national lands including the core zones of protected areas primarily for coffee cultivation (Honduras Assessment Workshop, March 2019). The native pine beetle has devastated the pine forests of the region where this species occurs, which encourages widespread harvesting of the dying timber for energy production, intentional fires to eliminate the excess biomass (Honduras Assessment Workshop, 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 | Formerly, this species was relatively common, but apparently experienced drastic population declines. In 1999, one individual found at Quebrada Machín (J. Townsend pers. comm. March 2019) Substantial habitat has been lost in the past coupe of decades. Two nights of survey in 1997 and 1998 along a stream in the Salta de Agalta location resulted in no encounters of the species (McCranie and Wilson 2002). In 2006, extensive surveys were conducted in Sierra de Agalta but no specimen were found (F. castañeda pers. comm, 2019) This species has apparently disappear from Parque Nacional Sierra de Agalta (F. Castañeda and McCranie. 2007). Short surveys of the area of Río Plátano in 2018 did not record the species (J. Ramos Galdámez, pers. comm. March 2019). Intensive surveys in Río Catacomb in Sierra de Agalta in 2015 did not turn up any individual (J. Ramos Galdámez, pers. comm. March 2019). The status of the population at other sites remains unknown (F. Castañeda and J.M. Solís, 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? | ||
| 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:
Gustavo Cruz, Larry David Wilson. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Craugastor epochthidius, Honduras
(AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4677
Accessed 31 Jan 2025
