Assessment Results
Xenopus gilli
Gill's Platanna, Cape Platanna
Order:
Anura
Family:
Pipidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
South Africa
on:
17 Dec 2024
by:
AArk/ASG Southern Africa Workshop
Authors:
John Measey, Keir Lynch, Josh Weeber, Krystal Tolley
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
South Africa
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19.4402752
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 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 | Most of species range is not protected. Species occurs in Cape Peninsula National Park and Agulhas National Park, both of which are relatively well managed--although there is a need to control the spread of invasive plants within these 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 | Species occurs in Cape Peninsula National Park and Agulhas National Park, both of which are relatively well managed--although there is a need to control the spread of invasive plants within these areas. |
| 6 | Previous reintroductions | Have reintroduction or translocation attempts been made in the past for this species? | Yes, but outcome is unknown | Introduced to novel environments to avoid introgression with X. laevis in the 1980s (F1 hybrids). No actual introgression is occurring in the wild even though this can happen in lab. |
| 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 | The presence of Xenopus laevis represents another threat to X. gilli via competition, predation, and hybridization. Removing X. laevis at the Cape of Good Hope Section of the Table Mountain National Park (CoGH) is part of the Annual Plan of Operations for the South African National Parks (SANParks), and negotiation for a formal arrangement for Kleinmond site is ongoing (de Villiers et al. 2016). |
| 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 | Creation and maintenance of temporary wetland areas would benefit X. gilli and other lowland amphibians. Continued control of invasive species and X. laevis will be necessary. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Studies on its life history and ecology, population size, distribution and trends, including estimating dispersal capabilities, identification of management units and monitoring population size are needed. Individuals of this species can be easily identified using their unique belly patterns and this should form the basis to monitor population size in localities where populations appear small and precarious (e.g. Kenilworth Race Course and Rondevlei). |
| 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 being managed - conservation dependant | |
| 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 | In the past this species was traded along with Xenopus laevis, but there are currently no records of this species being utilized. It is kept in some labs overseas and is possibly traded between labs. |
| 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 | |
| 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 | Not this species specifically, but the genus is considered to be a symbol of fertility in coastal tribes. |
| 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 | Not currently. See "Conservation introduction of the Cape platanna within the Western Cape, South Africa" by Measey & de Villiers 2011 for details on past translocation/reintroduction efforts. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | Husbandry protocols have already been well established with Xenopus laevis (African clawed frog). |
| 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? | Yes, bred to F2 | Yes, in Jersey Zoo (island of Jersey in the English Channel), the US, Switzerland (multiple generations). |
| 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 | Charismatic and with attractive coloration (striped back and orange belly). |
| 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:
John Measey, Keir Lynch, Josh Weeber, Krystal Tolley 2024. Conservation Needs Assessment for Xenopus gilli, South Africa
(AArk/ASG Southern Africa Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/7004
Accessed 30 Jan 2025
