Assessment Results
Ghatixalus variabilis
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Rhacophorus parkeri, Rhacophorus variabilis, Polypedates variabilis, Polypedates pleurostictus
Assessed for:
India
on:
21 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh and Keerthi Krutha
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
35.56013568
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 - 50 | |
| 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 | This species is known from at least five highland localities in the Nilgiri hills, Tamil Nadu District, Tamil Nadu, India (Jerdon 1853, Biju et al. 2001, Bossuyt and Dubois 2001, Biju et al. 2008). It is also known from Upper Bhavani Dam in Avalanche Forest (Siva 2010), Ooty, Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Mukurthi National Park, and Emerald in Tamil Nadu State (Princy et al. 2017), Silent Valley National Park, South Wayanad Forest Division, Karimpuzha Wildlife Sanctuary, Thollayiramkandi and Chembra Peak in Wayanad district, Kerala (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 925 m asl (Princy et al. 2017) and 2,630 m asl (Biju et al. 2008). It is may be found in adjacent areas west and south of its known range (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). It ranges between 925 m asl (Princy et al. 2017) and 2,630 m asl (Biju et al. 2008). |
| 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 | |
| 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 | It has been recorded from a number of protected areas. |
| 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 | Further habitat protection is required, as well as raising awareness with tourists to reduce their littering and species disturbance behaviours (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Tourism regulation would also be useful (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Further research is required on its distribution, natural history, and the effects of climate change and Bd. Population monitoring is also recommended (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | This species seems to be restricted to disturbed evergreen sholas (isolated montane forest patches) (Biju et al. 2008), and it has also been recorded in tea and cardamom plantations (S.R. Ganesh and Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It is likely to tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance and loss, but it is found in lower numbers in tea plantations (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). This species' forest habitat is subject to severe fragmentation due to the scale of agricultural, livestock farming and logging activities, and rural and/or urban development (S.D. Biju, pers. comm. October 2009). Species disturbance and littering (plastic and glass bottles in streams) will be a threat to metamorphosing tadpoles in unprotected areas throughout its range (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat which may result in the shifting of habitat, and subpopulations that already exist in higher elevations may be lost as they have no habitat to migrate to (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 | This species can be locally abundant, although it is not uniformly common throughout its range (S.D. Biju pers. comm. 2009, Siva 2010). They are common where they are found (Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 2020). |
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | Ghatixalus asterops could be a good potential husbandry analog (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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? | 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? | Yes | Potential flagship ranking: 2 (local community), 2 (tourist), 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). It is a Large, colorful and iconic species (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 | This taxon was recently reallocated to the new genus Ghatixalus and is considered to be the sister species of Ghatixalus asterops (Biju et al. 2008). |
Citation:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh and Keerthi Krutha 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ghatixalus variabilis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5440
Accessed 19 May 2024
