Assessment Results
Micrixalus elegans
Elegant Dancing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Philautus elegans
Assessed for:
India
on:
05 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak, Madhushri Mudke, S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.8216461
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.] | Vulnerable (VU) | New information on its distribution, population, ecology and threats has allowed this species to be moved from Data Deficient to Vulnerable, under criterion B. |
| 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 was previously only known from its type locality, "Kempholey, Hassan" (Rao 1937), Karnataka, in the Western Ghats of India. It now also occurs at Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary in Kannur District (Biju et al. 2014), Yavakapady and Bhagamandala in Kodagu District, also in Karnataka State (Biju et al. 2014) and Brahmagiris in Wayanad and Thollayiram Kandi in Meppady Wayanad in Kerala State (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). There are no records of this species in Kerala further south of Wayanad district (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It may occur more widely (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 200 m asl (Rao 1937) and 1,500 m asl (Biju et al. 2014, Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It has been erroneously reported from Anamada in the Nelliyampathy Hills of Palakkad District in Kerala State by Afthab et al. (2018), with the photograph presented with this record of a species belonging to the Nyctibatrachus genus (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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? | No / unlikely | This species was previously only known from its type locality, "Kempholey, Hassan" (Rao 1937), in the Western Ghats of India, at around 200 m asl. It now also occurs at Aralam in Kannur District (Biju et al. 2014) and Anamada in the Nelliyampathy Hills of Palakkad District in Kerala State (Afthab et al. 2018), as well as, Yavakapady and Bhagamandala in Kodagu District in Karnataka State (Biju et al. 2014). It ranges between 200 m asl (Rao 1937) and 1,187 m asl (Biju et al. 2014). It is likely to occur more widely (Madhushri Mudke. pers. comm. October 2020). Current habitats not very well protected and all species inhabiting primary streams threatened due to river joining projects (M. Mudke. pers. comm. October 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 | It is present in the protected area of Brahmagiri National Park and Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary. It may be present in other protected areas (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 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 | Improved habitat protection is required, and regulations/guidelines should be developed for tourists and their photography to reduce their species disturbance behaviours (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 research is required on distribution, population trends, natural history and threat posed by climate change and Bd (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Population monitoring is also recommended (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | In Meppady it has been recorded in cardamom plantations, but is found in lower numbers than those seen in Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). The area where it was collected, and might possibly still occur, is threatened by clearance for agricultural use (including coffee cultivation). Pesticide use is probably a threat as pesticide use is not well regulated (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Species in this genus are probably unable to cope with habitat degradation, loss or disturbance due to specific microhabitat requirements (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). There is a lot of disturbance from ecotourists and wildlife photographers in important habitats (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Current habitats are not very well protected and all species inhabiting primary streams are threatened due to river linking projects and water management in general such as pollution, water diversion and potentially bunds or check dams (small temporary dams) which is prevalent across the Western Ghats landscape (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat to the species due to the specific microhabitat requirements and unpredictability of climate, which could cause flooding to increases as well as unpredictability in rainfall (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been found in other species of the genus, so chytridiomycosis may be a potential threat for this species but further research is required (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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? | Yes / probably | There is no information on its population status at this time. However there is some confusion between this species, Micrixalus candidus and M. niluvasei, which may lead to taxonomic identification problems in the field (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. November 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? | Unknown | |
| 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? | Yes | Would make a good analog for M. candidus (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. November 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 | Beautiful diurnal dancing frog that could feature in nature tours (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | The holotype of this species is lost, and the designation of a neotype is necessary if this proves to be a valid species. Rao (1937) originally described this species as Philautus elegans, but Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) transferred it from the genus Philautus to Micrixalus. But species validity confirmed (Madhushri Mudke. pers. comm. October 2020). |
Citation:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak, Madhushri Mudke, S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus elegans, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5525
Accessed 18 May 2024
