Assessment Results
Ingerana borealis
Boreal Floating Frog, Northern Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Micrixalus borealis, Occidozyga borealis
Assessed for:
India
on:
13 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Annemarie Ohler and Saibal Sengupta
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.87202988
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at: Manipur Zoological Park, Imphal.
| 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 species was previously known from northeastern India (including the Provinces of Arunachal Pradesh [Bordoloi et al. 2002], Nagaland [Ao et al. 2003] and Meghalaya as Micrixalus borealis [Mathew and Sen 2003]), the Rangamati Hill District in Bangladesh (Asmat et al. 2003), and Bhutan, although its distribution in Bhutan was unclear. It is now known from lower elevations along the southern slopes of the eastern Himalayas in southeastern Xizang Province (Luolong and Yanbang of southern Medog) in China, where it has been recorded at an elevation of 400 m asl (J. JiaNational Parking pers. comm. June 2019) and eastern Nepal. It is also known to occur in Manipur (Devi and Shamungou 2006), West Bengal, Sikkim (although this is in question - Subba et al. 2016), and Mizoram Provinces in India (Sailo et al. 2009), Sitakunda in Chittagong, Bangladesh (Sarker and Lovlu 2014), the states of Chin and Rakhine in Myanmar (Wogan et al. 2008). Specimens from Kaptai in Chittagong Division, Bangladesh are morphologically similar to this species and are currently known as Ingerana cf. borealis, however it is suspected that this is a species complex (Mahony et al. 2009). This species has been recorded from many protected areas including Mouling, Aru, and Nameri National Parks and Dihang-Dibang Biosphere Reserves in India. It has also been found in Mizoram at Aizawl district, Mizoram University Campus, Tamdil National Wetland, Durlui, Kolasib district, Tuitun stream and Zanlawntlang Reserved Forest (Annemarie Ohler, pers. comm. October 2020), and in Tippi (at 500m asl) (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). This species occupies elevations between 0-1,000 m asl (Sailo et al. 2009). |
| 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 | This species has been recorded from many protected areas including Mouling, Aru, and Nameri National Parks and Dihang-Dibang Biosphere Reserves in India. It is protected by national legislation in India. |
| 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 | Continuation of rigorous management of the existing parks is the best guarantee for the conservation of this species. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | More information is needed on this species' distribution, population status, ecology and threats. |
| 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 unknown | Water pollution due to agrochemicals is the principal threat to this species, although habitat loss and degradation due to small-scale agriculture and wood collection is also a threat. There are no major threats known 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 | |
| 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 is considered to be rare. In China, its population size is small (Fei et al. 2012). In 2010, it was considered to be common in northern, central and southern Assam (Sengupta et al. 2010). This species is difficult to find in India (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? | 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? | 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 Saibal Sengupta 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ingerana borealis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5481
Accessed 15 May 2024
