Download assessment

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™
ISSN 2307-8235 (online)
IUCN 2008: T55196A11257471
Oophaga pumilio, Strawberry Poison Frog
Assessment by: Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Jaramillo, C., Chaves, G., Savage, J., Köhler,
G. & Cox, N.A.
View on www.iucnredlist.org
Citation: Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Jaramillo, C., Chaves, G., Savage, J., Köhler, G. & Cox, N.A. 2010.
Oophaga pumilio. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T55196A11257471.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
Copyright: © 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written
permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale, reposting or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission from the copyright holder. For further details see Terms of Use.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species Programme, the IUCN
Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN Red List Partners are: BirdLife
International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown in this document, please provide us with
feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™
Taxonomy
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Animalia
Chordata
Amphibia
Anura
Dendrobatidae
Taxon Name: Oophaga pumilio (Schmidt, 1857)
Synonym(s):
• Dendrobates galindoi Trapido, 1953
• Dendrobates ignitus Cope, 1874
• Dendrobates pumilio
• Dendrobates typographicus Oertter, 1951
• Dendrobates typographus Keferstein, 1867
• Hylaplesia ignita (Cope, 1874)
• Hylaplesia pumilio (Schmidt, 1857)
• Hylaplesia typographa (Keferstein, 1867)
Common Name(s):
• English:
Strawberry Poison Frog, Flaming Poison-arrow Frog, Flaming Poison Frog, Red-and-blue
Poison Frog, Strawberry Poison-dart Frog
Taxonomic Source(s):
Frost, D.R. 2015. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0. New York, USA.
Available at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.
Assessment Information
Red List Category & Criteria:
Least Concern ver 3.1
Year Published:
2010
Date Assessed:
December 23, 2008
Justification:
Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, tolerance of a degree of habitat modification,
presumed large population, and because it is unlikely to be declining fast enough to qualify for listing in
a more threatened category.
Previously Published Red List Assessments
2004 – Least Concern (LC)
2004 – Least Concern (LC)
Geographic Range
Range Description:
This species' geographic range is the Atlantic versant, humid lowlands, and premontane slopes in
eastern central Nicaragua (0-940m asl) south through the lowlands of Costa Rica and northwestern
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
1
Panama (including many islands in Bocas del Toro), from 1-495m asl (Savage, 2002).
Country Occurrence:
Native: Costa Rica; Nicaragua; Panama
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
2
Distribution Map
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
3
Population
This is a common species throughout its range. The species exhibits significant colour and pattern
polymorphism especially among populations in the Bocas del Toro archipelago of Panama (Summers et
al., 1997). Populations in forest habitat at La Selva, Costa Rica, seem to have experienced a decline
(Whitfield et al., 2007).
Current Population Trend: Decreasing
Habitat and Ecology (see Appendix for additional information)
A diurnal and mostly terrestrial frog of humid lowland and premontane forest, cacao plantations, and
abandoned forest clearings. Males appear to be fiercely territorial; individual territories have been
estimated at 2.5 m2 (Donnelly, 1983). Observations concerning mating behaviour suggest that some O.
pumilio are at times polygynous (McVey et al., 1981; Donnelly, 1989; Zimmermann and Zimmermann,
1994). Females lay a clutch of three to nine eggs in moist leaf-litter; clutch sizes in captive specimens of
six to 16 eggs have been recorded (Limerick, 1980; Silverstone, 1975). There appears to be no
information on the number of clutches laid annually. O. pumilio eggs hatch approximately seven days
after oviposition, adults then carry the developed tadpoles from the forest floor to water filled
bromeliads (Limerick, 1980). O. pumilio tadpoles have a very specialized oophagous diet, feeding solely
on food eggs supplied by the female (Heselhaus, 1992; McVey et al.; 1981, Zimmermann and
Zimmermann, 1994). There is little available information on wild larval development; Heselhaus (1992)
reports that captive tadpoles fed an artificial diet ‘grow slowly, taking four to six months, a third longer
than with natural feeding, to reach metamorphosis’. Sexual maturity is reached at a minimum size of
19mm (approximately 10 months). There are few data on longevity; Donnelly (1983) concluded that the
population at Finca La Selva, Costa Rica was mostly comprised of ‘long-lived’ adults; Zimmermann and
Zimmermann (1994) gave longevity of 4 years for captive O. pumilio.
Systems: Terrestrial
Threats (see Appendix for additional information)
Habitat loss and over-collection for the pet trade are the principal threats to this species. It is believed
that the species is currently being unsustainably collected, and because of the apparently low fecundity
of this species, the possibility exists that over-harvesting might lead to localized population declines.
Distinct island forms are particularly susceptible to both over-collection, and the development of islands
for tourism purposes. The great majority of reported trade over the period 1991 to 1996 was in live
animals, presumably by the herpetological pet market. The largest overall exporter of O. pumilio
between 1991 and 1996 was Nicaragua (>95% of exports); the USA consistently accounted for over 80%
of recorded live O. pumilio imports from Nicaragua during this period. Current export levels from range
states are not known. Museum specimens of this species have been found to have chytrid fungi, the
current impact of this pathogen on O. pumilio is not known. At La Selva, declines seem to be driven by
climate-driven reductions in quantity of standing leaf litter (Whitfield et al., 2007).
Conservation Actions (see Appendix for additional information)
This species is listed on Appendix II of CITES and is found in several protected areas within its range. A
well-studied population of O. pumilio is present in the Finca La Selva Biological Reserve, northeastern
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
4
Costa Rica (Donnelly, 1989; Limerick, 1980; McVey, 1981; Pröhl, 1997); populations are suspected to
occur in Braulio Carrillo National Park, Corcovado National Park, and Tortuguero National Park, Costa
Rica. Within Panama the species is present in a number of protected areas including Isla Bastimentos
National Marine Park within the Bocas del Toro archipelago (Summers et al., 1997). Nicaragua has
established a CITES 2001 export quota of 3,450 specimens for this species.
Credits
Assessor(s):
Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Jaramillo, C., Chaves, G., Savage, J., Köhler, G. & Cox, N.A.
Reviewer(s):
Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A. & Young, B.E.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
5
Bibliography
Donnelly, M.A. 1989. Reproductive phenology and age structure of Dendrobates pumilio in northeastern
Costa Rica. Journal of Herpetology: 362-367.
Heselhaus, R. 1992. Poison-arrow frogs: their natural history and care in captivity. Blandford, London.
Ibáñez, R., Solís, F., Jaramillo, C. and Rand, S. 2000. An overview of the herpetology of Panama. In: J.D.
Johnson, R.G. Webb and O.A. Flores-Villela (eds), Mesoamerican Herpetology: Systematics,
Zoogeography and Conservation, pp. 159-170. The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas.
IUCN. 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (ver. 2010.2). Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.
(Accessed: 29 June 2010).
Kitasako, J.T. 1967. Observations on the biology of Dendrobates pumilio Schmidt and Dendrobates
auratus Girard. M.S. Thesis, University of Southern California.
Limerick, S. 1980. Courtship behaviour and oviposition of the poison-arrow frog Dendrobates pumilio.
Herpetologica: 69-71.
McVey, M.E., Zahary, R.G., Perry, D. and MacDougal, J. 1981. Territoriality and homing behaviour in the
poison dart frog (Dendrobates pumilio). Copeia: 1-8.
Pröhl, H. 1997. Territorial behaviour of the strawberry poison-dart frog, Dendrobates pumilio. AmphibiaReptilia: 437-442.
Savage, J.M. 2002. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Costa Rica: A Herpetofauna between two Continents,
between two Seas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Silverstone, P.A. 1975. A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Dendrobates Wagler. Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Bulletin: 1-55.
Summers, K., Bermingham, E., Weigt, L., McCafferty, S. and Dahlstrom, L. 1997. Phenotypic and genetic
divergence in three species of dart-poison frogs with contrasting parental behaviour. Journal of Heredity:
8-13.
Whitfield, S.M., Bell, K.E., Philippi, T., Sasa, M., Bolaños, F., Chaves, G., Savage, J.M. and Donnelly, M.A.
2007. Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences doi:10.1073/pnas.0611256104.
Young, B., Sedaghatkish, G., Roca, E. and Fuenmayor, Q. 1999. El Estatus de la Conservación de la
Herpetofauna de Panamá: Resumen del Primer Taller Internacional sobre la Herpetofauna de Panamá.
The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Zimmermann, E. and Zimmermann, H. 1994. Reproductive strategies, breeding, and conservation of
tropical frogs: dart-poison frogs and Malagasy poison frogs. In: Murphy, J.B., Adler, K. and Collins, J.T.
(eds), Captive management and conservation of amphibians and reptiles, pp. 255-266. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca (New York). Contributions to Herpetology volume 11.
Citation
Solís, F., Ibáñez, R., Jaramillo, C., Chaves, G., Savage, J., Köhler, G. & Cox, N.A. 2010. Oophaga pumilio.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T55196A11257471.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
6
Disclaimer
To make use of this information, please check the Terms of Use.
External Resources
For Images and External Links to Additional Information, please see the Red List website.
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
7
Appendix
Habitats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Habitat
Season
Suitability
Major
Importance?
1. Forest -> 1.6. Forest - Subtropical/Tropical Moist Lowland
-
Suitable
Yes
14. Artificial/Terrestrial -> 14.3. Artificial/Terrestrial - Plantations
-
Marginal
-
Use and Trade
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
End Use
Local
National
International
Pets/display animals, horticulture
No
No
Yes
Threats
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Threat
Timing
Scope
Severity
Impact Score
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1.
Housing & urban areas
Ongoing
-
-
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
2. Species Stresses -> 2.1. Species mortality
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.3.
Tourism & recreation areas
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual &
perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry
farming
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.3. Livestock farming
& ranching -> 2.3.3. Agro-industry grazing, ranching
or farming
5. Biological resource use -> 5.1. Hunting & trapping
terrestrial animals -> 5.1.1. Intentional use (species is
the target)
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8
5. Biological resource use -> 5.3. Logging & wood
harvesting -> 5.3.5. Motivation
Unknown/Unrecorded
7. Natural system modifications -> 7.2. Dams & water
management/use -> 7.2.11. Dams (size unknown)
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.5. Other
impacts
Ongoing
-
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Future
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.1. Ecosystem conversion
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
Ongoing
-
Stresses:
1. Ecosystem stresses -> 1.2. Ecosystem degradation
-
-
-
-
-
Conservation Actions in Place
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions in Place
In-Place Land/Water Protection and Management
Conservation sites identified: Yes, over entire range
Occur in at least one PA: Yes
In-Place Education
Subject to any international management/trade controls: Yes
Conservation Actions Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Conservation Actions Needed
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.1. Harvest management
3. Species management -> 3.1. Species management -> 3.1.2. Trade management
5. Law & policy -> 5.1. Legislation -> 5.1.2. National level
Research Needed
(http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes)
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1. Research -> 1.3. Life history & ecology
1. Research -> 1.5. Threats
1. Research -> 1.6. Actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
9
Additional Data Fields
Distribution
Lower elevation limit (m): 0
Upper elevation limit (m): 940
Population
Population severely fragmented: No
© The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Oophaga pumilio – published in 2010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-2.RLTS.T55196A11257471.en
10
The IUCN Red List Partnership
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ is produced and managed by the IUCN Global Species
Programme, the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) and The IUCN Red List Partnership. The IUCN
Red List Partners are: BirdLife International; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Conservation
International; Microsoft; NatureServe; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Sapienza University of Rome; Texas
A&M University; Wildscreen; and Zoological Society of London.
THE IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES™