Assessment Results
Hoplobatrachus litoralis
Coastal Bullfrog
Upokulio Sona Bang, Bangladesher Upokulio Kola Bang
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
16 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Annemarie Ohler and Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
27.08428483
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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? | Unknown | This bullfrog is present in India, Bangladesh, and South Central Myanmar. In India, it is known from northern Tripura State (Purkayastha and Basak 2018), Khordanahala District in West Bengal State (Mondal et al. 2018), and Guwahati, Kamrup Metropolitan District, in Assam State (Bohra et al. 2019). It may be present in protected areas in the lowland areas of India, but this has not been confirmed (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 3 m asl (Hasan et al. 2012) and 80 m asl (Bohra et al. 2019). |
| 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.). | Unknown | It may be present in protected areas in the lowland areas of India, but this has not been confirmed (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | The recommended measures for this taxon are conservation planning and preservation of its natural breeding grounds and ecology (Hasan et al. 2017). In particular, for Fashiakhali Wildlife Sanctuary, there is a need to raise awareness among local inhabitants, and to enforce the already existing legislation (Hasan and Feeroz 2015). |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Unknown | |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | It has been recorded on a gravel roads surrounded by secondary vegetation, and it has also bee found in agricultural areas, including paddy fields (Annemarie Ohler and Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal, pers. comm. October 2020). Consumption of frog legs is a current threat to this taxon in Bangladesh (Hasan and Feeroz 2015), but not in India (Annemarie Ohler, pers. comm. 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 | Consumption of frog legs is a current threat to this taxon in Bangladesh (Hasan and Feeroz 2015), however it it is not thought to be eaten in India (Annemarie Ohler, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | Hasan et al. (2012) reported at least 26 specimens of this taxon during survey work conducted in 2011. In Bhutan it is considered to be a reasonably common species (Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal, pers. comm. October 2020). In India it is also considered to be reasonably common (Annemarie Ohler, 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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? | Yes | This species has already been bred in captivity on a very limited basis (Hasan et al. 2017). |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Yes, bred to F1 | Hasan et al. (2017) maintained this taxon in captivity during experiments to hybridize 3 species of Hoplobatrachus. |
| 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? | No | |
| 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:
Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Annemarie Ohler and Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Hoplobatrachus litoralis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5443
Accessed 17 May 2024
