Assessment Results
Leptopelis karissimbensis
Karissimbi Tree Frog, Karissimbi Forest Treefrog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Arthroleptidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
Uganda
on:
09 May 2020
by:
Mathias Behangana
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
Endangered (EN)
Distribution:
Burundi, Congo, The Democratic Republic of the, Rwanda, Uganda
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
16.86885194
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
The species has also been recorded in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. For Uganda, the species is Nationally listed as Endangered (EN)
| 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 | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | The specimens recorded in Uganda were inside Mgahinga Gorilla National Park. |
| 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 | An adult was found calling from vegetation around a swamp and a tadpole in small pool near a marsh in the primary bamboo forest inside Mgahinga Gorilla National Park in Uganda, indicating availability of safe natural habitats inside a protected area, from where the species can be trans located from or restored. |
| 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.). | Unknown | |
| 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.)? | Unknown | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Only two specimens were recorded in two days of the surveys in Maghinga Gorilla National Park. More days should be spent in the field surveying the distribution and status of the species in the Protected Area and surrounding areas outside, covering both the dry and wet seasons. |
| 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 most serious threats affecting the species are - habitat loss outside the protected areas through agriculture and deforestation. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | numbers recorded in Uganda is too small to use for answering this question. First, more surveys need to be done in the select protected areas to determine the population in the wild, before implementing other conservation actions. |
| 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? | Yes | The species in this family together with Hyperolids are identified as being unpalatable/toxic to domestic animals such as cows and goats, causing them to vomit if eaten in grass. The species of this family and hyperolids are also potential for pet-trade |
| 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 | The species in this family together with Hyperolids are identified as being unpalatable/toxic to domestic animals such as cows and goats, causing them to vomit if eaten in grass. This implies the toxic contents of the skins of such frogs could be scientifically studied for their importance in the fields of medicine. |
| 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 | The ex situ research could increase the numbers that are needed to be re-introduced back to the wild. |
| 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 | Leptopelis kivuensis is the potential husbandry analog species. |
| 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 | Leptopelis kivuensis has often been confused with Leptopelis karissimbesis species. Both are found in highlands of western Rwanda and southwestern Uganda and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. L.. karissimbesis is relatively smaller and found at higher altitudes and less that L.. kivuensis which though found at lower altitude is more common. |
| 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 | The species is nocturnally active and colourful. It could be an ideal candidate in zoos or aquariums or terraria in peoples homes |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
Mathias Behangana. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Leptopelis karissimbensis, Uganda.
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5361
Accessed 24 Jan 2025
