Assessment Results
Minervarya gomantaki
Goan Fejervarya
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Fejervarya gomantaki
Assessed for:
India
on:
23 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Akshay Gawade, Ninad Gosavi, 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:
18.8323707
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 is only known from northern Western Ghats region in India, where it has been recorded from Virdi and Chorla Ghat in the Maharashtra state, Chigule Village in the Karnataka state, Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary, Codal Village, Surla, Keri, Honda and Vagheri in the Goa state (Dinesh et al. 2015) and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary (Katwate et al. 2013). It is also known spread throughout the west coast of Maharashtra State and in Amba Ghat which occurs between Wildlife Sanctuary and Sehyadri Tiger Reserve (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020), Gaganbawda in Kolhapur District (Ninad Gosavi, pers. comm. September 2020), and Tillari Conservation Reserve (Krishna K, pers. comm. September 2020). It has been found in Kudal in the Sindhudurg district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). Similar looking species have been observed in Gaganbawda in Kolhapur District, but this requires confirmation (Ninad Gosavi, pers. comm. September 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 50-800 m asl (Dinesh et al. 2015, Dr. Anand Padhye, 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 | It is found in a number of protected areas. |
| 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 its distribution, ecology, and the effects of Bd and climate change is required. Population monitoring is also 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? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | It inhabits stagnant mud pools, artificial ponds, ephemeral ponds, roadside puddles, paddy fields and grassland within forests (Dinesh et al. 2015, India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). It has also been found in cashew plantations (Krishna K, pers. comm. September 2020). Although this species is able to tolerate a degree of habitat conversion, pesticide use is a localized threat to this species, which is affecting less than 10% of the entire population (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). 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 Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd may be a threat to this species, but further studies are required (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | |
| 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 | Dinesh et al. (2015) consider this taxon to be locally abundant. In Kudal, 2-3 individuals were recorded so the subpopulation at that locality is relatively unknown (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 | It has a very distinctive call. |
| 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:
Akshay Gawade, Ninad Gosavi, Krishna K, Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Minervarya gomantaki, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5565
Accessed 14 May 2024
