Assessment Results
Indirana gundia
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Ranixalus gundia
Assessed for:
India
on:
14 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, S.R. Ganesh, Nikhil Modak, S.R. Chandramouli and Sandeep Das
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
30.48731417
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Assessed as a target species for ex situ management at a CZA workshop held in 2013 (Gupta et al., 2017). The authors of this assessment were unanimous in the opinion that this species should no longer be considered a target for ex situ management as it is not highly threatened or conservation dependent.
| Question # | Short Name | Question Text | Response | Comments |
| 1 | Extinction risk | Current IUCN Red List category. [Data obtained from the IUCN Red List.] | Near Threatened (NT) | Much more information on range available, was previously only known from type locality. |
| 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 only from the type locality: "Gundia, forêt de Kemphole, à l'ouest de Sakleshpur, Karnataka, Inde" in the Western Ghats of India. The type locality is at an elevation of around 200m asl. This leaping frog is present in the Western Ghats states of Kerala (Garg and Biju 2016) and Karnakata (Dubois 1986, Dutta 1997, Padhye et al. 2014, Dahanukar et al. 2016), north of Palghat gap, and in the state of Uttar Pradesh in the northern part of India (Kumar et al. 2012). In Karnataka State, it occurs at Gundia in Dakshin Kannada District (Dubois 1986, Dutta 1997, Padhye et al. 2014, Dahanukar et al. 2016), Kempholey Reserve Forest in Hassan District, Monnangeri in Kodagu District, Kudremukh in Udupi District (Garg and Biju 2016), Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Coorg, Kutta, Ranipuram Vested Forest, and Subramanya Sullya (Dahanukar et al. 2016). In Kerala State, it is present in Konnakkad, Kanamvayal (Jesmina and George 2015), and Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary in Kannur District (Jesmina and George 2015, Garg and Biju 2016). In Uttar Pradesh State, is known from the Bagad River, Gajraula town, in Nagar District (Kumar et al. 2012). This taxon is present in several protected areas, including the Western Ghats World Heritage Site (IUCN-WCMC 2010) Bhadra Tiger Reserve and Kudremukh National Park (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm, October 2020). It ranges between 66 m asl (Garg and Biju 2016) and 1,080 m asl (Dahanukar et al. 2016). Approximately 40% of the range is within the protected areas (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm, October 2020). |
| 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 | It is now known to occur more widely than previously known. |
| 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 | This taxon is present in several protected areas such as Kempholey Reserve Forest (Garg and Biju 2016), Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Ranipuram Vested Forest (Dahanukar et al. 2016), and the Western Ghats World Heritage Site (IUCN-WCMC 2010). |
| 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 | Ongoing and improved habitat protection is required. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research on distribution and the effects of Bd is required. Population monitoring is also recommended. |
| 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 is effectively protected | The species tolerates only moderate modifications of its habitat; it requires a degree of canopy cover and cannot tolerate the complete opening up of its habitat (Nikhil Modak, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh, pers comm. October 2020). The species is threatened by habitat loss caused by intensive livestock production, harvesting of wood and timber by local people, road construction, and the development of tourism facilities. It may survive in plantations if some canopy remains (Nikhil Modak and S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). Habitat decline due to expansion of coffee plantations and agriculture and touristic development are threats in Kodagu District (Ramachandra et al. 2019). The development of structures to prevent landslides which will affect the rock crevices habitats for this species (Nikhil Modak and Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm. October 2020). The presence of Bd is confirmed in the genus, but no clinical signs of disease have been observed, the impact of Bd on this species is not known. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Common where it is found and where there is suitable microhabitat (Nikhil Modak, 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 | This species has semi-aquatic tadpoles that develop outside of waterbodies on wet rocks and mosses, and have long tails and hindlimbs which develop earlier compared to other anuran species (Nikhil Modak and K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. September 2020). Noteworthy presence of femoral gland (S.R. Chandramouli, pers comm. October 2020). |
| 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? | No | Potentially good analog for Indirana beddomei and I. tysoni (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | This species has semi-aquatic tadpoles which develop outside of waterbodies on wet rocks and mosses, which have long tails and their hindlimbs develop earlier compared to other anuran species (Nikhil Modak and K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | Yes | The Central Zoo Authority of the Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change of India identifies this taxon as a target amphibian species for ex-situ management (Gupta 2017). |
| 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:
Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, S.R. Ganesh, Nikhil Modak, S.R. Chandramouli and Sandeep Das 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Indirana gundia, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5460
Accessed 17 May 2024
