Assessment Results
Chiromantis simus
Annandale's Pigmy Tree Frog, Assam Asian Treefrog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Chirixalus simus
Assessed for:
India
on:
24 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Anand D. Padhye, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Seshadri K.S., Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Robin Suyesh, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.85079145
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at Assam State Zoo & Botanical Garden, Guwahati. This zoo is within the species' range.
| 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 | |
| 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 northeast India (West Bengal and Assam) and south-eastern Bangladesh (Chittagong and Rangamati Hill-district), and might occur more widely. It also occurs in the state of Mizoram in India (Ahmed et. al. 2009), and Sylhet Division (Ahmed et al. 2009), Madhupur National Park, Mymensingh Division, Tangail District (Hasan et al. 2010). It has been recorded from Nameri National Park and Orang National Park, and it is also present in the Dibru-Saikhowa biosphere Reserve in India (Joshi 2014). It is also known from Baripada district, Cuttak District and Balasore District, Bherampur district in Orissa state, Visakhapatnam district in Andhra Pradesh. Kolkata, in India (Prudhvi Raj Gunturu and Chemala pers. comm. August 2020- check chat for localities). Its presence in Sikkim State in India is uncertain (Subba et al. 2016). It is generally a lowland species found at elevations below 100 m asl, but has been found up to 200 m asl (Prudhvi Raj Gunturupers. comm., August 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 Nameri National Park and Orang National Park. It is also present in the protected areas of Madhupur National Park (Hasan et al. 2010), Lawachara National Park in Bangladesh (Rahman and Howlader 2011), and Dibru-Saikhowa biosphere Reserve in India (Joshi 2014). |
| 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 taxonomic research is required to delineate this species complex, and further research is required for its distribution. |
| 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 | There are no major threats to this species. |
| 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 | It is generally believed to be a reasonably abundant species. However, it is considered to be uncommon and patchy in western and southern Assam (Sengupta et al. 2010). The subpopulation in Dibru-Saikhowa Biosphere Reserve is decreasing (Joshi 2014). It is considered very common in the Duars area (Deuti et al. 2017). In the E. Ghats and Central India, it is patchy in distribution (Prudhvi Raj Gunturu pers. comm., August 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. Further taxonomic studies of this species are desirable, as it is thought to be a species complex. |
Citation:
Anand D. Padhye, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Seshadri K.S., Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Robin Suyesh, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh
2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Chiromantis simus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5483
Accessed 18 May 2024
