Archived: Reptiles (2017 AZE update consultation)

Please note that this 1st phase of the 2017 AZE consultation has now closed. Many thanks to everyone who contributed during July and August. The 2nd phase of the consultation, focusing on the spatial boundaries of the sites, is taking place on a different platform. Please follow this link to access it, and provide feedback using the links to Survey Monkey by the deadline of 12 November. Many thanks.

 

Please click on the link below to access an Excel spreadsheet listing all the proposed AZE sites triggered by selected reptile species. Please post any comments or feedback on these proposed sites on this page (rather than on any of the AZE pages for other taxa) by 31 July 2017. Comments indicating that you have looked through the data, but do not have any suggested amendments or more specific feedback, are also welcome. Many thanks in advance – BirdLife, IUCN and ABC

Reptiles

For a spreadsheet summarising the proposed delistings for reptiles – i.e. 2010 AZE trigger species which have been provisionally determined to longer meet the criteria – please see: Reptiles – proposed 2017 delistings.

This entry was posted in Archive, AZE (Alliance for Zero Extinction) and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Archived: Reptiles (2017 AZE update consultation)

  1. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Please note that an updated version of the spreadsheet has been posted today (11th July 2017) to include a column indicating, for each trigger species, whether it was also listed as a trigger species in the 2010 dataset or is a proposed new trigger species in 2017.

  2. Krystal Tolley says:

    I have looked through the continental African chameleon list and have a comment about one of the sites/species triggers:
    Regarding Bradypodion caeruleogula, I am not sure it is an appropriate trigger. The site is listed as the Ngoya coastal complex. Does this include Ngoya, Dlinza and Ntumeni forest patches? The species occurs in all three patches, and these are naturally fragmented forest patches (5-20km apart). If the AZE site is meant to be all three, then 100% of the species occurs there. If only Ngoya forest is the AZE site, then I would say that <50% of the species occurs in that one patch, meaning that this does not qualify under the Irreplaceability criterion. Given that it is in three patches anyway, I am not sure that it can even qualify at all as a trigger because from the definitions, it seems that an AZE site cannot be all three forest patches.

    I have no other comments regarding continental African chameleons as triggers, as they seem appropriate to me.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Many thanks for your comments on the chameleons.
      For the site “Ngoye coastal complex”, this is an existing KBA which does include the Ngoya, Dlinza and Ntumeni forest patches. If these patches are naturally fragmented, it may not be appropriate to consider them to be a discrete site for AZE purposes, however there have previously been other AZE which are fragmented sites, some of which may be expected to be naturally fragmented, so on the basis of the existing KBA I cautiously proposed the site – I will seek further input on whether or not we can consider this to be one site.
      Continued below regarding your other points.

  3. Krystal Tolley says:

    Actually I do have some other comments:
    1. Similar to the Bradypodion caeruleogula comment, the Rhampholeon viridis being a trigger for North and South Pare mountains also relates to two completely separate forests that are naturally fragmented. This does not seem to qualify under the criterion, unless somehow the forest patches are being treated as single unit.

    2. Regarding Kinyongia magomberae, it occurs in Magombera forest at the base of the Udzungwa Mountains, but this forest should once have been connected to the forests on the higher slopes of Udzungwa Mountains. So they really are not two different places as indicated in the excel document. It is just that the Udzungwa forest has been fragmented.

    3. Bradypodion caeruleogula: Should be ‘Ngoya’ forest, not ‘Ngoye forest’

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      1. Thanks for your input on this. For KBA purposes the North Pare Mountains and South Pare Mountains have been considered as separate sites, so it seems most appropriate to continue to do so. This would mean that Rhampholeon viridis does not qualify as a trigger species.
      2. Regarding the site “Udzungwa Mountains and Magombera”, this is a proposed extension of the existing KBA and AZE site “Udzungwa Mountain Range”, the boundaries of which currently exclude the Magombera forest, to also include this fragment. On the basis of your comments it would make sense to maintain the name “Udzungwa Mountain Range” for the edited site.
      3. The spelling “Ngoye” came from the KBA database, I will follow up to ascertain where this came from and how to arrange a correction.

  4. Stewart Macdonald says:

    There’s only one Australian site: AZE_29803, triggered by the Critically Endangered Western Swamp Turtle. The site is named Bullsbrook, but I’m unaware of any Western Swamp Turtles records from that site. You should check with Gerald Kuchling for the latest information on this species. You can email me for further details.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Many thanks for your comment on Western Swamp Turtle. This proposed site and trigger species is unchanged from the 2010 dataset, though it is of course possible that there was an error there which has now been propagated. Please would you be able to email me on janet.scott@iucn.org with contact information for Gerald Kuchling, as I do not have your email address.

  5. Richard Jenkins says:

    B. bonsi @ PN Namoroka – new AZE – OK
    B. desperata @ Montage d’Amnre – existing AZE – OK
    B. tristis @ Montagne Francais – new AZE – OK
    B. bekolosy @ Manongarivo SR – new AZE – OK
    B. karchei @ Marojejy NP – new AZE – OK
    B. decaryi @ Ankarantfantsika NP – existing AZE – Ok
    B. dentata @ Ankarantfantsika NP – existing AZE – Ok
    B. perarmata @ Bemaraha NP – new AZE – OK
    B. exarmata – does this species occur north of Bemaraha?
    B. valeriae – should this be a trigger for Manongarivo SR?
    C. hafahafa – Tsaratanana SNR – why is this not on the list?
    C. furcifer – only known from small of the SE of CAZ but questionable if this is a single management unit
    C. vencesi – proposed area can’t be managed as a single unit?
    C. vohibola – proposed area can’t be managed as a single unit?
    F. belalandaensis – only know from tiny area of Ranobe NPA. How to handle that?
    F. nicosiai – Bemaraha NP – new AZE – OK
    Nadzikambia mlanjensis – Mt. Mulanje – existing AZE – OK
    Rhampholeon acuminatus – new AZE – OK
    Kinyongia magomberae – as above – should AZE include Udzungwas?
    Rhampholeon viridis – can the two sites (Pare Mts) be counted as one?

  6. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Many thanks for your comments on the chameleons.
    Brookesia exarmata:
    According to the Red List assessment and map, the species is only found within the area of the current AZE “Tsingy de Bemaraha National Park and Strict Nature Reserve”, however if there is any information suggesting it occurs beyond this then I would be grateful to see it.
    Brookesia valeriae:
    According to the Red List assessment and map, the species is found beyond Manongarivo – from the Ramena River area. It therefore wouldn’t be a trigger for Manongarivo, unless there is data to suggest that the vast majority of the population is within Manongarivo?
    Calumma hafahafa:
    According to the Red List assessment, this species occurs in two distinct areas – one within the existing AZE “Bemanevika NPA / Tsaratanana massif” and the other substantially outside. Is this information up to date, and/or is the vast majority of the population likely to be in a single site?
    Calumma furcifer, Calumma vencesi, Calumma vohibola, Furcifer belalandaensis:
    We are hoping that questions as to whether the areas are correctly delineated and can be considered a single management unit will be resolved through the second consultation period, centred on sites rather than on species, but if “Anjanharibe-Sud – Marojejy – Makira” and “Ivoloina to Vohibola” can’t be considered to be discrete sites then they will not qualify.
    Kinyongia magomberae:
    My suggestion is to marginally expand the existing AZE “Udzungwa Mountain Range” to also include the Magombera forest fragment. This would result in Trioceros laterispinis and Kinyongia magomberae both being trigger species for this expanded site.
    Rhampholeon viridis:
    Based on Krystal’s feedback and the the fact that currently the two sites are separate KBAs, I agree that the two sites can’t be counted as one; Rhampholeon viridis will therefore not be an AZE trigger species in the absence of further information to the contrary.

  7. Could not see if all reptiles are included, but at least for Clarion Island in Mexico the Clarion Night Snake should be included after our rediscovery and genetic and morphological revision

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0097682

    Kind regards
    Juan Martínez

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Many thanks for your comment on Clarion Night Snake. As explained here https://globally-threatened-bird-forums.birdlife.org/2017/07/aze-consultation/ only the comprehensively assessed reptile groups – tortoises, turtles, crocodiles, iguanas, and chameleons – have been considered for AZE status within the scope of this project, and thus we can’t include potential sites triggered by a snake species. However, another output of the project in the later stages of the project will be a method for proposing AZE sites for the non comprehensively assessed groups, and this site could be proposed through that channel when this is in place.

  8. Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

    Comment from Chris banks via email:
    I had initially wondered about the Philippine Crocodile, Crocodylus mindorensis, as an AZE species, but I doubt that the population in northern Luzon (one of only two remaining in the wild) would qualify. Whilst this population is the only one subject to a meaningful conservation program, with very solid community involvement, the site does not hold >95% of the remaining global population. That said, providing a good estimate of the other population, in Mindanao Island, is problematic as the people working on the species there do not share information and safe access to the area is compromised by ongoing conflict. If these issues change, we may revisit a proposal for including C. mindorensis on AZE.

    • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

      Reply from Ian Burfield via email:
      Very interesting also about the crocodile – thanks for the info. Let’s hope that your and others’ efforts pay off, and it increases and spreads, rather than the opposite. But if not, it could certainly be considered for AZE listing in the future. Rather than the periodic updates to the AZE list that have happened to date (2005, 2010, 2017), the intention is that it becomes possible for AZEs (and indeed KBAs more widely) to be nominated at any time in future, from late 2018 on.

      • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

        Reply from Chris Banks via email:
        We’ll keep this in mind for mindorensis. How tight is the definition for an AZE site, as the single population of the crocodile in north-east Luzon is spread across 3-4 very small breeding localities, all of which are probably within an area of<10km² and on two river systems?

        • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

          Reply from Janet Scott via email:
          Considering the small size of the localities, their close proximity, and that they act as one population I would have considered the north-east Luzon area to qualify as a single site. However, even without a population estimate for the Mindanao Island population, we can’t consider the Luzon area to be the irreplaceable site (though I am sure in a sense they are both irreplaceable!) holding >95% of the population. We have several cases of species known from two sites but with a population estimate for only one site, or (even more commonly) no population estimate for either – and for these our decision was that unless there is some reason to suspect that the population at one site contains the vast majority of individuals, we haven’t counted them as AZE triggers. I also note that the map on the Red List website shows extant patches on a couple of additional small islands – Dalupiri and Siargao – is this no longer the case?

          • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

            Reply from Merlijn van Weerd via email:
            For Philippine crocodile I agree that San Mariano in Isabela Province in NE Luzon probably does not qualify based on the 95% criterion, as the Mindanao population probably has more than 5% of the remaining population; reliable counts and field validations from Mindanao are however lacking. San Mariano (west of the Sierra Madre Mountain Range in Cagayan Valley) currently has about 100 wild crocodiles. The geographically separated coastal area of Isabela (east of the Sierra Madre Mountain Range) has several surviving individuals as well, but the last count only yielded 2 animals; the main breeding area here was recently destroyed by the development of an airport; we have indications that the crocodiles were killed by the construction workers and we believe the population is no longer viable. Dalupiri only had 3 crocodiles at last count, there will be a follow up survey this September. The province of Abra in the western Cordillera Mountains (northwest Luzon) possibly has a small remaining wild population as well but this is based on the fact that there are captive animals on the grounds of the provincial capitol that are said to come from the wild in Abra. The continued presence of Philippine crocodiles in Abra has not been confirmed in the field with certainty although tracks were found in 2002 indicating that at time there was a surviving wild population. Reliable estimates from Mindanao are not available but the Philippine crocodile probably survives in rebel-controlled Liguasan Marsh where no field surveys have been carried out but where wild-caught crocodiles are sold at markets. Philippine crocodiles were confirmed present in Pulangui River (tributary of the Marsh), but no population estimate is available. Wild Philippine crocodiles were also confirmed present in lake Sebu on Mindanao in 2013. Captive-bred Philippine crocodiles were released on Siargao Island but that is outside the known natural distribution range of the Philippine crocodile.

            We estimated the total number of wild mature individuals at 92-137 during a red list assessment workshop in 2012. I attach the red list assessment here (published in 2016).

            Summarizing: currently the only confirmed reproducing population of the Philippine crocodile in the wild is found in the rivers of San Mariano in Isabela Province in NE Luzon but it is highly likely that this population does not comprise 95% or more of the total population as there have been recent confirmed sightings of the Philippine crocodile in two sites in Mindanao (Pulangui River and Lake Sebu), one site on Luzon (coastal Isabela) and there are possibly surviving Philippine crocodiles on Dalupiri Island and in the western Cordillera. The total population (including juveniles) in San Mariano is about 100 (counted), with 13 adults. The total wild mature population is estimated at 92-137 but I think that this is possibly an overestimation; with the lack of reliable information from Mindanao it is really very hard to estimate the remaining population and using the precautionary principle the total known population is lower than current estimates. With such a small population in San Mariano (100) it is highly likely that more than 5% (5 crocodiles) are still surviving outside San Mariano. If the wild population in San Mariano further increases (our conservation goal) then eventually it could numerically contain 95% of the total population. But unless reliable count information from Mindanao becomes available it will be very hard to tell when and if this happens.

          • Janet Scott (IUCN) says:

            Reply from Janet Scott via email (to Merlijn’s comments):
            Thank you all for your detailed and interested comments about the Philippine Crocodile. It sounds as though we are all in agreement that currently it does not qualify as an AZE trigger species, although this definitely sounds like one we should watch closely in case it does qualify in the future.

Comments are closed.