Assessment Results
Oreophryne ezra
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Papua New Guinea
on:
25 Jul 2019
by:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Papua New Guinea
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.53184482
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessors: A. Allison, F. Kraus, S. Clulow
| 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 | |
| 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 | Known only from the upper elevations of Mt. Rio, Sudest Island, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. This is the only peak on Sudest of such an elevation; the species was not found or heard below 630 m, and its range is almost certainly restricted to this rather small area. (Kraus & Allison, 2009.) Oreophryne ezra is apparently confined to a single small patch of cloud forest from 630–800 m perched on the top of Mt. Rio. Judging from topographical maps, this forest comprises less than 1 km2 in total extent. Two very small peaks that rise to greater than 600 m elevation occur just to the east of Mt. Rio, and they too might possibly contain the frog, but each contains only a few hectares in the appropriate elevational range. 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | The species is not known from any protected areas and no conservation measures are in place. |
| 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 | Ongoing efforts are needed to ensure the forest patch where this species occurs is protected into the future (A. Allison, pers. comm. 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 | Further research is required on its population status. |
| 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | The small areal extent of this cloud forest makes the frog highly vulnerable to any destruction of its habitat. Direct human conversion of this forest patch appears extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future: population density on Sudest Island is low, population is concentrated in small villages along the coast, most of the island is forested, a pre-existing trail did not access the top of Mt. Rio, and inhabitants rarely venture toward the peak because they consider it sacred. However, the threat posed to the habitat of O. ezra by climate change would appear more significant. Predictions of habitat shifts at such a localized scale cannot be made with confidence at present, but broader trends toward climatic warming (and possible attendant reductions in rainfall or cloud cover) could be sufficient to push the 200 m of cloud forest off the top of Mt. Rio. Should climatic patterns in the Louisiade Archipelago change to such an extent, O. ezra will be one of several endemic species potentially threatened with extinction due to loss of its habitat. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This is a commonly found species, with population size likely to be between 1,000-2,000 mature individuals in an area of less than 1 km2 (A. Allison, pers. comm. 2019). |
| 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.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | There is a color change between juveniles and adults (A. Allison, pers. comm. 2019). |
| 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? | Yes | This species should probably be considered for an insurance population in case of any potential stochastic events (F. Kraus, S. Clulow, pers. comm. 2019). |
| 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? | Yes | Color change might make this a good display species. |
| 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? | 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)? | Yes |
Citation:
AArk/ASG Assessment Workshop. 2019. Conservation Needs Assessment for Oreophryne ezra, Papua New Guinea.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/4979
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
