Assessment Results
Megophrys zunhebotoensis
Zunheboto's Horned Toad
Order:
Anura
Family:
Megophryidae
Synonym(s):
Xenophrys zunhebotoensis
Assessed for:
India
on:
24 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Stephen Mahony, R. Mathew and Jayaditya Purkayastha
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19
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.] | Endangered (EN) | Listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 2,873 km2, its population is considered to be severely fragmented, and there is continuing decline in the area and quality of its habitat in northeastern India. |
| 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 was previously only known from a single site, Nguti (Sukhalu), in Zunheboto District, Nagaland State, northeastern India at 1,715 m asl (Mathew and Sen 2007). It is now also known from Nagaland and Manipur based on molecular data (Mahony 2020). It is likely to be restricted to the Naga Hills and not occur in neighbouring states. It is known from the Puliebadze Wildlife Sanctuary and is likely to also occur in Intanki Wildlife Sanctuary, as there are localities very close by near Kohima (Stephen Mahony, pers. comm. September 2020). It is likely to be restricted to the Naga Hills (Kaushik Deuti, pers. comm, September 2020). It presumably occurs more widely. Confirmed locations are between 810 m - 820 m asl (Stephen Mahony, pers. comm. September 2020). This species was previously thought to be known from a single site, Nguti (Sukhalu), in Zunheboto District, Nagaland State, northeastern India at 1,715 m asl (Mathew and Sen 2007); and then it was also thought to occur in the Mawbah area near Cherrapunjee, East Khasi Hills District in Meghalaya State, India (Saikia and Sen 2012, Kharkongor et al. 2018), Tura Peak of West Garo Hills in Meghalaya State (Sangma and Saikia 2015), and Midpu on Sagali Road, Papumpare in Arunachal Pradesh State (Saikia et al. 2017). All of these locations are now thought to be incorrect. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 is known from the Puliebadze Wildlife Sanctuary (Stephen Mahony, 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 | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Surveys are needed to determine this species' distribution, abundance, ecological requirements, threats and conservation needs. |
| 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 | It has been recorded in relatively intact secondary forest (Mahony et a. 2020). There is no direct information on threats to this species. In Zunheboto district, many people consume frogs and tadpoles, but this is a small species and so it is probably not directly targeted (R. Mathew pers. comm. September 2020). Water harvesting, slash and burn agriculture, agricultural expansionand deforestation are considered to be threats to this species (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 | In Zunheboto district, many people consume frogs and tadpoles, but this is a small species and so it is probably not directly targeted (R. Mathew pers. comm.). |
| 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 | The species is considered to be relatively abundant in small streams around the type locality (Stephen Mahony, pers. comm. September 2020). There is no information on the population size and trends of this species. |
| 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:
Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Stephen Mahony, R. Mathew and Jayaditya Purkayastha 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Megophrys zunhebotoensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5520
Accessed 17 May 2024
