Assessment Results
Leptobrachella khasiorum
Order:
Anura
Family:
Megophryidae
Synonym(s):
Leptolalax khasiorum
Assessed for:
India
on:
24 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohini Mohan Borah, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, HT Lalremsanga, Stephen Mahony, Annemarie Ohler, Jayaditya Purkayasth and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
16
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.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 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 frog is only known from its type locality at the sacred groves of Mawphlang, East Khasi Hills, in the northeastern state of Meghalaya in India, at an elevation of 1,813 m asl (Das et al. 2010). This species is present in the locally protected sacred groves of Mawphlang, where tree harvesting and biodiversity removal are prohibited (Das et al. 2010). This area is protected by the local community and is in varying degrees of degradation (Stephen Mahony and Jayaditya Purkayastha, pers. comm. September 2020). The protection of the forest relies on the protection of the local people that believe it is sacred, but this belief is lessening and the forest is increasingly under threat (Jayaditya Purkayastha, pers. comm, September 2020). It is likely to occur more widely, at least on the Shillong Plateau, but there is limited forest available (Stephen Mahony, pers. comm. September 2020). It is currently restricted to one forest patch of roughly 7x3km. It is not known from any officially-protected areas. |
| 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 | Yes, but it is likely to decrease in the future (Jayaditya Purkayastha, pers. comm, September 2020). |
| 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 is present in the locally protected sacred groves of Mawphlang, (Das et al. 2010). This area is protected by the local community and is in varying degrees of degradation (Stephen Mahony and Jayaditya Purkayastha, pers. comm. September 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 cause of whether detergent use in streams is responsible for causing malformations, or whether it is a result of natural parasite/viral infection or trauma should be further investigated (Mahony et al. 2013). |
| 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 survey work and research are needed, in particular to determine geographic range, habitat occupancy, population size, and threats (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | At Mawphlang and the lower Malki forest, the breeding streams are intensively used as clothes-washing areas and in such sections of the streams the rocks are covered with a grey slime from excessive detergent use and calling males are absent (Mahony et al. 2013). Whether detergent use in these streams is responsible for causing the malformations, or whether it is a result of natural parasite/viral infection or trauma should be further investigated (Mahony et al. 2013). The sacred groves of Mawphlang are increasingly under threat from development of tourism facilities (Jayaditya Purkayastha, pers. comm, September 2020). This is a relatively high elevation species and would be subject to the effects of climate change on the plateau (Stephen Mahony, pers. comm. September 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 | A total of seven specimens of this taxon were recorded when it was first described, found one day/evening at the type locality during a month-long biodiversity survey (Das et al. 2010). Additional specimens were recorded between 2009-2012 (Tron et al. 2015). |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Either Leptobrachella nokrekensis or L. tamdil would be good potential husbandry analogs (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 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? | 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
Mohini Mohan Borah, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, HT Lalremsanga, Stephen Mahony, Annemarie Ohler, Jayaditya Purkayasth and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Leptobrachella khasiorum, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5495
Accessed 01 May 2025
