Assessment Results
Microhyla laterite
Laterite Narrow-mouthed Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
28 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Modak and Seshadri K.S.
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.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 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 present in the Western Ghats states of Karnataka and Kerala in India (Seshadri et al. 2016, Garg et al. 2019). In Karnataka State, it has been recorded from Manipal in Udupi District (Seshadri et al. 2016) and Mangalore in Dakshina Kannada District (Garg et al. 2019). In Kerala State, it is known from Madayipara in the Kannur District and Anakallu village in Kasargod District (Garg et al. 2019). It is not present in protected areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). It may occur between its known localities, and may occur more widely up to Goa, which would likely be its northernmost limit (Sheshadri K.S. and N.A. Aravind, pers. comm. September 2020). It occurs between 1-50 m asl (Seshadri et al. 2016, Garg et al. 2019). |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | It is not present in protected areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 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 main recommended conservation measures include habitat protection, specifically to set up a community-based conservation reserve (Seshadri et al. 2016) and research into species distribution (Sheshadri K.S., pers. comm. 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 | The main recommended conservation measures are distribution research (Seshadri et al. 2016). Further research is also required on the effects of climate change, pesticides and Bd. |
| 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 | It is unknown whether to what extent it will tolerate habitat disturbance (N.A. Aravind and Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. September 2020). Lateritic plateaus and meadows have been designated as wastelands, and these habitats are targeted and easily converted for tourism development (Nikhil Modak and A. Padhye pers. comm. September 2020). Vehicle washing in temporary streams could cause pollution of water; conversion of land to acacia plantations is also likely to be a threat (N.A. Aravind and Sheshadri K.S., pers. comm. September 2020). Stone quarrying for bricks is a major threat for this species (N.A. Aravind, pers. comm. September 2020). Within this species range, this is could be for various infrastructure development (India RLA/CNA workshop, November 2020). Conversion of land to small-scale Acacia plantations as part of the forestry schemes by the Forestry Department is also a major threat (N.A. Aravind and Seshadri K.S, pers. comm. September 2020). Dumping and burning of rubbish on a domestic and industrial scale is also a problem, especially in Manipal (N.A. Aravind and Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. September 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat which may result in sea level rises (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. September 2020). Mangalese mining is likely to be a threat if the species is present in Goa (N.A. Aravind, 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 | No records of utilization. |
| 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 a common species at type locality (Aravind NA pers. comm. September 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 | Not suitable as the breeding biology of this species is unknown (Sheshadri K.S., pers. comm. September 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? | No | Local conservation education potential to draw attention to the laterite habitat (Aravind NA, pers. comm. September 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 | This is a valid species. |
Citation:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Modak and Seshadri K.S. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Microhyla laterite, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5549
Accessed 18 May 2024
