Assessment Results
Micrixalus nelliyampathi
Nelliyampathi Dancing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
06 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh, S.R. Chandramouli, Madhushri Mudke and Vishnupriya Sankararaman
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
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) | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This dancing frog occurs in the Western Ghats states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India, between the Palghat Gap and the Shencottah Gap (Biju et al. 2014). In Kerala State, it has been recorded from Palakkad District in Poopara and Sheikalmudi in Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Sholayar in Vazhachal Forest Division (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020), and in Kesavapara, Nelliyampathy. In Tamil Nadu, it was reported from Coimbatore District in Grass Hills, and in Valparai at Andiparai shola (Biju et al. 2014), Murugalli-Sholaya in Vazhachal Forest Division, Candura and Murugalli-Black Bridge (Harikrishnan et al. 2018) and Kodaikanal Wildlife Sanctuary, Dindigul District (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 600 and 1,900 m asl (Biju et al. 2014, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. 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? | 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 | It is present in the protected areas Eravikulam National Park, Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Amalai Tiger Reserve and Kodaikanal Wildlife Sanctuary (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, 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 including existing legal protection through the protected areas and improved management practices which are needed to better manage and protect the quality of streams required by this species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). Regulations/guidelines should be developed for tourists to reduce their species disturbance behaviours (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 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 on ecology and breeding habitats, distribution, and the effects of Bd and climate change are required. Population monitoring is also recommended (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 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 | Frequently recorded in forested streams, coffee and cardamom plantations. Sometimes seen in tea plantations when there are nearby forest fragments (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. October 2020). Similar to the other species in the genus, this species is highly habitat-specific requiring clear flowing water with sufficient canopy cover, and is therefore not adaptable to the opening up of its habitat (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). The alteration of water courses for irrigation and the construction of small dams for agriculture and drinking water is the major threat to the species. Water pollution caused by the application of pesticides and chemical fertilizers is a related threat. In areas were tourism is taking place, plastic pollution is a potential threat as it degrades the water quality. Degradation and and destruction of riparian forests do not seem to be a threat at present. In addition, the relatively high elevation of this species' distribution could mean that potential changes in stream water temperature and quality caused by future climatic change could decrease the breeding success of this species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). Rod mortalities are a threat at the type locality (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 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 (Madhushri Mudke and Sandeep Das, 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? | Yes / probably | It is considered relatively abundant at all the collection sites (Biju et al. 2014, S.R. Chandramouli, S.R. Ganesh, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Sandeep Das, 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? | Yes | Would possibly make a good husbandry analog for other Micrixalus species (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020), even though this species is listed as Vulnerable. |
| 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 | This is one of the dancing frog species, which have a unique habit of waving their feet to attract females during the breeding season, or for defense (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? | 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:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh, S.R. Chandramouli, Madhushri Mudke and Vishnupriya Sankararaman 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus nelliyampathi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5533
Accessed 18 May 2024
