Assessment Results
Minervarya cepfi
CEPF Burrowing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Fejervarya cepfi
Assessed for:
India
on:
25 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Akshay Gawade, Ninad Gosavi, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Krishna K, Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
14
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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 was previously only known from the state of Maharashtra in the northern Western Ghats, India, where it has been recorded from Amboli in the Sindhudurg district. However the records from Amboli have now been reassigned to Xanthophryne tigerina (Biju, S.D.; Van Bocxlaer, Ines; Giri, Varad B.; Loader, Simon P.; Bossuyt, Franky (2009). It is now known from Sahyadri Tiger Reserve and Barki in Kolhapur District (Nikhil Danddekar and Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020) and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary in the Raigad district. It is also now known from Tillari Conservation Reserve (Krishna K and Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020), and it may occur in the Tamhini-Sudhagad Wildlife Sanctuary (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). It has been found in Sangameshwar, Khed and Mandangad in the Ratnagiri district, and in Alibaug in the Raigad district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It has been reported from Shirala in Sangli District, Maharashtra State (Sajjan et al. 2017), however there is uncertainty around this record as the locality does not include the specific habitat of this species, and so it is not included in the distribution map (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). It is likely to be restricted to its current range, and will not be found elsewhere (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It occurs between 100-1,200 m asl (Sajjan et al. 2017, Dr. Anand Padhye and Krishna K, pers. comm. September 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 | This taxon is present in the Sehyadri Tiger Reserve, Tillari Conservation Reserve, Tamhini-Sudhagad Wildlife Sanctuary and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary. |
| 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. |
| 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 the effect of Bd is required, and population and habitat monitoring are recommended. |
| 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 observed in cashew plantations (Krishna K, pers. comm. September 2020) and it has also been reported from rice and sugar cane agricultural fields (get more from habitats and ecology) (Sajjan et al. 2017). This species can tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance, however if the breeding pools are disturbed that will be a problem. Bauxite mining and stone quarrying are major threats to this species. Pesticide and insecticide use may be a major threat to the breeding of this species. Breeding habitats are being lost due to development for tourism and human settlements (farm houses) (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). Wind farm development is also a threat throughout this species range in higher elevation habitat (above 600 m asl). Climate change could be a possible future threat and if changes in the rainfall occur then it will affect the breeding activity and habitats (drying), along with sea level rises (Nikhil Modak and Anand). 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). |
| 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 | This species can camouflage against the lateritic plateau habitats. |
| 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 to be a common species in the breeding season (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020) and difficult to find outside the breeding season (Garg et al. 2017) due to its burrowing nature. It was not considered to be very common in the Ratnagiri and Raigad districts (Akshay Gawade, 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 | This species was named after the CEPF (Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund). |
| 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? | Yes | This species is well camouflaged with lateritic rock, and could be useful to educate about the lateritic plateaus, which have been designated as wastelands, and are targeted and easily converted for tourism development (Nikhil Modak and A. Padhye 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 |
Citation:
Akshay Gawade, Ninad Gosavi, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Krishna K, Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Minervarya cepfi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5562
Accessed 18 May 2024
