|Scientific Name:||Sclerophrys pantherina (Smith, 1828)|
Amietophrynus pantherinus (Smith, 1828)
Bufo pantherinus Smith, 1828
|Taxonomic Source(s):||Frost, D.R. 2016. Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (31 March 2016). New York, USA. Available at: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html.|
|Taxonomic Notes:||Reports of this species occurring between Agulhas and Wilderness, the westernmost record of Sclerophrys pardalis (Minter et al. 2004) remain unconfirmed.
This species was under the generic name Amietophrynus but is now treated under Sclerophrys (Frost 2016).
|Red List Category & Criteria:||Endangered B1ab(ii,iii,iv)+2ab(ii,iii,iv) ver 3.1|
|Assessor(s):||IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA-FRoG)|
|Contributor(s):||Channing, A., Rebelo, A., Turner, A.A., de Villiers, A., Harvey, J., Tarrant, J., Measey, J., Becker, F., Tolley, K., Minter, L., du Preez, L., Burger, M., Cunningham, M., Baptista, N., Davies, S., Hopkins, R., Conradie, W. & Chapeta, Y.|
|Facilitator/Compiler(s):||Rebelo, A., Measey, J. & Neam, K.|
Listed as Endangered because of its extent of occurrence of 3,824 km2, its area of occupancy is 405 km2, its population considered to be severely fragmented, and there is a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat and area of occupancy due to increased urbanisation and agricultural expansion throughout its range.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
|Range Description:||This species is known only from the Western Cape Province in South Africa, ranging from the Cape Peninsula eastward to the westernmost part of Agulhas National Park. The southern-most known sites are Fish Hoek valley and Kommetjie (A. Rebelo pers. comm. August 2016). It is only known to breed at low elevations, within 25 km of the sea, but adults have been found ranging in the mountains up to 500 m asl. It is known from more than 10 threat-defined locations, its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 3,824 km2, and its area of occupancy (405 km2) is continually being reduced by ongoing development and habitat loss within the City of Cape Town and Overstrand. Subpopulations from the City of Cape Town have been shown to be genetically distinct from those in the eastern area of this species' distribution and their disjunction is not believed to have been caused by anthropogenic effects. There are no recent records of this species from the central parts of its distribution, including Kleinmond, Betty's Bay and Pringle Bay, where it is now thought to be extinct (Measey and Tolley 2011).|
Native:South Africa (Western Cape)
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||It is locally common and easily seen during breeding in August. Within the last 20 years it has undergone drastic declines from urban areas where it was once abundant, although no quantitative data are available. Collection of quantitative data is ongoing with which it is hoped to provide population data in the future. There is a historic record (1980) from the edge of Cape Point Natural Reserve at Klaarsjagersberg, however the species is possibly extinct at this location. There have been no records in the last 20-30 years, however this could be due to the lack of surveys effort focused in the area (A. Rebelo pers. comm. August 2016). |
The population is considered to be severely fragmented because no one site holds >50% of individuals and the distances between subpopulations are considered to be too great for dispersal within one generation. More than half of the occupied habitat is in small and isolated patches and >50% of subpopulations are considered non-viable without continued conservation.
|Current Population Trend:||Unknown|
|Habitat and Ecology:||Within the Cape Metropolitan area, the sites this species inhabits are almost entirely urbanised, while east of the Cape Flats the habitat is far less disturbed (Measey and Tolley 2011). It forages in fynbos heathland, farmland, suburban gardens, and urban open areas, although always in close proximity to freshwater habitats. Mass breeding events take place annually, during July–September, in large wetlands, vleis, dams, and sluggish water in lowland fynbos heathland, as well as, in altered habitats with permanent waterbodies, and occasionally temporary waterbodies that retain water well into summer. They are known to breed in the same water bodies each year and once breeding is completed, they return to their foraging areas, many of which are private gardens within a 2 km radius of breeding sites (Measey et al. 2014). Females have been reported to lay nearly 25,000 eggs. There is an ongoing decline in the quantity and quality of suitable habitat for both foraging and breeding.|
|Continuing decline in area, extent and/or quality of habitat:||Yes|
|Generation Length (years):||2.5|
|Movement patterns:||Not a Migrant|
|Congregatory:||Congregatory (and dispersive)|
|Use and Trade:||
There are no reports of this species being utilized.
|Major Threat(s):||Although it is tolerant of habitat alteration, it is being negatively impacted by increased urbanisation and agricultural expansion in its entire range. Road kills, urban design, alien vegetation and introduced fish are all thought to be important factors. Even in areas with active conservation from citizen scientists, large numbers of toads (average of 20.47% of 2,384 toads over six breeding seasons) are still being killed on peri-urban roads (Kruger 2014). Within the Cape Metropolitan area, the sites this species inhabits are surrounded by canalised rivers and channels, major roads and residential dwellings, while the habitat is far less disturbed east of the Cape Flats, although even this area has undergone considerable urbanisation and agricultural expansion in the last 20 years (Measey and Tolley 2011). A recent introduction and rapid expansion of Sclerophrys gutturalis into the City of Cape Town poses threats of competition for breeding habitat (Measey et al. 2014). This species is known to test positive for the amphibian chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, albeit low infection intensity and prevalence (Tarrant et al. 2013).|
It occurs on the western fringe of Agulhas National Park, Table Mountain National Park, as well as in various City of Cape Town reserves. It is legally protected by the Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974, and from certain environmental threats by the National Environmental Management Act No. 22 of 2009 (NEMA). In 2008, the CAPE Invasive Alien Animal Working Group (CAPE-IAA) launched a campaign to eradicate Sclerophrys gutturalis from the Western Cape (Measey et al. 2014), however the ongoing work is challenging, as almost all of the breeding sites are garden ponds on private property in a low density, high income residential area (Measey and Davies 2011). The Western Leopard Toad Conservation Committee (WLT-CC) is a multi-stakeholder group (including volunteer groups, SANParks, City of Cape Town, CapeNature and SANBI) which overseas the conservation of this species (Turner et al. 2011).
A Biodiversity Management Plan (under NEMBA) is required to underpin Memoranda of Understanding between multiple stakeholders. A concerted effort is needed in Agulhas National Park, where there is great potential to significantly improve the status of this species through conservation planning and control of threats posed by alien species (including fish, Guttural toads and plants). Much of its remaining habitat, however, is made up of urban gardens and is unprotected, which requires significant public education to make any conservation measure a success.
Research is needed to determine population trends and the importance of perceived threats. Population monitoring is required at known breeding sites to determine their efficacy, especially in the eastern range.
Channing, A. 2001. Amphibians of Central and Southern Africa. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.
Channing, A., Rödel, M.-O. and Channing, J. 2012. Tadpoles of Africa. The Biology and Identification of All Known Tadpoles of Sub-Saharan Africa. Frankfurt Contributions of Natural History 35.
Cherry, M. I. 1992. Body size, age and reproduction in the leopard toad, Bufo pardalis. Journal of Zoology, London 228: 41-50.
Cherry, M.I. 1992. Sexual selection in the leopard toad, Bufo pardalis. Behavior 120: 164-176.
Cunningham, M. and Cherry, M.I. 2000. Mitochondrial DNA divergence in southern African Bufonids: are species equivalent entities? African Journal of Herpetology 49: 9-22.
du Preez, L. and Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to the Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town.
Eick, B.N., Harley, E.H. and Cherry, M.I. 2001. Molecular analyses supports specific status of Bufo pardalis and Bufo pantherinus. Journal of Herpetology 35: 113-114.
IUCN. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-3. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org. (Accessed: 07 December 2016).
Katerere, D.R., Dawood, A., Esterhuyse, A.J., Vismer, H.F. and Govender, T. 2013. Antifungal activity of epithelial secretions from selected frog species of South Africa. African Journal of Biotechnology 12(45): 6411-6418.
Kruger, D.J.D. 2014. Frogs about town: aspects of the ecology and conservation of frogs in urban habitats of South Africa. Zoology, North-West University.
Measey, G.J. 2011. Ensuring a future for South Africa’s frogs: a strategy for conservation research. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.
Measey, G.J. and Davies, S.J. 2011. Struggling against domestic exotics at the southern end of Africa. FrogLog 97: 28–30.
Measey, G.J. and Tolley, K.A. 2011. Investigating the cause of the disjunct distribution of Amietophrynus pantherinus, the Endangered South African western leopard toad. Conservation Genetics 12: 61-70.
Measey, G.J., Annecke, W., Davies, S.J., Dorse, C., Stafford, L., Tolley, K.A. and Turner, A. 2014. Cape collaborations for amphibian solutions. FrogLog 109: 46–47.
Minter, L.R., Burger, M., Harrison, J.A., Braack, H.H., Bishop, P.J. and Knoepfer, D. 2004. Atlas and Red Data Book of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SI/MAB Series No. 9, Washington, D.C.
Ohler, A. and Dubois, A. 2016. The identity of the South African toad Sclerophrys capensis Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Anura). PeerJ 4(e1553): 1-13.
Passmore, N.I. and Carruthers, V.C. 1995. South African Frogs, 2nd Edition. Southern Book Publishers and Witwatersrand University Press, Johannesburg.
Poynton, J.C. and Lambiris, A.J.L. 1988. On Bufo pantherinus A. Smith, 1828 (Anura: Bufonidae), the leopard toad of the southwestern Cape, South Africa, with the designation of a neotype. African Journal of Herpetology 47: 3-12.
Rose, W. 1929. Veld & Vlei. Speciality Press, Cape Town.
Tandy, M. and Keith, R. 1972. African Bufo. In: W.F. Blair (ed.), Evolution in the Genus Bufo, pp. 119-170. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
Tarrant, J., Cilliers, D., du Preez, L.H. and Weldon, C. 2013. Spatial assessment of amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in South Africa confirms endemic and widespread infection. PLoS ONE 8(7): e69591. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0069591.
Turner, A., de Villiers, A. and Measey, J. 2011. Frog Monitoring in the Western Cape. FrogLog 97: 31–33.
|Citation:||IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & South African Frog Re-assessment Group (SA-FRoG). 2016. Sclerophrys pantherina. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T54723A77159333.Downloaded on 11 December 2017.|
|Feedback:||If you see any errors or have any questions or suggestions on what is shown on this page, please provide us with feedback so that we can correct or extend the information provided|