Assessment Results
Cornufer parkeri
Parker's Wrinkled Ground Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ceratobatrachidae
Synonym(s):
Cornufer parkeri parkeri, Cornufer parkeri bukanensis, Cornufer parkeri parkeri, Platymantis parkeri
Assessed for:
Papua New Guinea
on:
25 Jul 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Papua New Guinea
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.53283582
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: Parker, F. & Richards, S.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species was previously only known from the northern end of Bougainville Island and from Buka Island, Papua New Guinea at elevations below 100 m asl and only on uplifted coral. The species' range has now extended south to Mount Balbi on Bougainville Island (C. Austin unpubl. data 2005) and is known from an elevational range of 100-1,276 m asl. The Buka Island records have been confirmed as belonging to a subspecies of Cornufer parkeri; a record from Choiseul Island is confirmed to belong to an undescribed sister species; and the species is expected to occur more widely on Bougainville Island (S. Travers pers. comm. July 2019). It certainly does not occur further south in Bougainville due to the lack of uplifted coral landscapes. This species is not known from any protected areas. |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | Forest below 400 m asl has been heavily degraded or destroyed on Bougainville Island. Therefore, the protection of remaining forest above 400 m is required. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Further work is required to clarify the population size, distribution, and trends. |
| 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 primary threat to the species is ongoing habitat loss and degradation caused by small-scale subsistence and commercial logging, expanding human settlements, and subsistence agriculture in foothill and lowland areas. Logging could expand upslope into the mountains, but at present human communities in the mountains are believed to have a negligible impact on forest habitats because the population density is lower and people are migrating to coastal areas. Mining was a significant part of the economic activity on the Island before the civil war during 1988-1998, impacting montane regions through pollution of soil and streams, and causing deforestation due to expanding human settlements, road building, and mining activities. Mining ceased in the late 80s and there is discussion of resuming activities and could expand; however, this is dependent on the outcome of the current political situation (S. Travers pers. comm. July 2019). It is an adaptable species, but might be at risk from stochastic threatening processes, owing to its very small distribution. |
| 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 | Its abundance is very hard to determine, since it is a diminutive species and very hard to find. |
| 13 | Action plans | Does an Action Plan for the species already exist, or is one currently being developed? | No | |
| 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.) | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | |
| 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)? | Unknown | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Synonyms: Platymantis parkeri parkeri (Brown, 1965) from Bougainville; and Platymantis parkeri bukaensis (Brown, 1965) from Buka. |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Cornufer parkeri, Papua New Guinea.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4815
Accessed 22 Jan 2025
