Assessment Results
Capensibufo rosei
Rose’s Mountain Toadlet
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
South Africa
on:
29 Apr 2024
by:
AArk/ASG Southern Africa Workshop
Authors:
Krystal Tolley, Josh Weeber, Francois Becker, Andrew Turner, John Measey, Oliver Angus
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
South Africa
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
13.29705784
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
| 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) | CR based on latest Red Listing workshop (April 2024). |
| 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 | This species is only found in Table Mountain National Park, with a very restricted area of occupancy--recent surveys have only found individuals in 2 breeding areas that are 22km apart. However, the protected status of the park can be problematic, as this species relies on fires to keep the vegetation levels low around shallow accumulations of water--park managers actively suppress fires and are extremely reluctant to start prescribed fires. |
| 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 | Probably. The necessary breeding habitat is well understood and if given permission, could be facilitated with management. |
| 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.). | Yes / probably | This species has been monitored annually since 2007 for population demographics, sizes, etc. Predator enclosures were used to mitigate egg consumption in one site in 2012 (which has shown promising results thus far). Besides some signs for hikers to avoid certain areas during breeding season (which are often ignored). Researchers have asked managers to implement some conservation strategies with limited success (e.g., continued fires suppression). |
| 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 | This species relies on shallow accumulations of water caused by degradation (fires, grazing by herbivores), but fire suppression, lack of herbivores, and invasive plant encroachment eliminates these shallow ponds. Management is necessary to ensure that these shallow water bodies continue to exist, especially through prescribed fires, elimination of invasive species, introduction of herbivores, etc. Cutting of vegetation around these water bodies would also be helpful. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | No | A lot is known about this species in the field--over 10 papers have been published on its ecology, population, 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | One catastrophic event could wipe out this species, since it occurs in such a small area. Vegetation (such as the invasive Pampas Grass; genus Cortaderia) encroachment could completely wipe out breeding habitat in a couple of years. Fire suppression worsens the situation. There are also military developments and associated helicopter crashes that have created a development footprint, even though the habitat is technically in a protected area. Hikers in the National Park have also trampled breeding sites, despite warning signs asking hikers to avoid certain areas. Climate change is also a future threat for this species, as it occurs in isolated montane habitat patches that are maintained by surrounding oceanic climate systems. If rainfall or temperature patterns change substantially, current habitat patches may become unsuitable for this species. 3 of the 5 known subpopulations have already been lost. |
| 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 | Populations experience boom and bust cycles based on fire. |
| 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 | Much is already known about this species and its natural history, habitat needs, etc. |
| 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 | Since this species is extremely threatened, developing a program with an analog species first would be recommended. Potential analog species include Capensibufo magistratus or selenophos. |
| 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 | This is a very threatened species that needs its own analog. |
| 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? | Yes | Recommended by Kristal Tolley (IUCN SCC Amphibian Specialist Group, co-facilitator of Red Listing workshop), South African National Biodiversity Institute, Kirstenbosch Research Centre, Cape Town, South Africa. One catastrophic event would wipe out the species completely, so an ex situ program is a necessary safeguarding measure, especially until certain management actions are approved. |
| 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:
Krystal Tolley, Josh Weeber, Francois Becker, Andrew Turner, John Measey, Oliver Angus 2024. Conservation Needs Assessment for Capensibufo rosei, South Africa
(AArk/ASG Southern Africa Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/7003
Accessed 24 Jan 2025
