Assessment Results
Nanorana gammii
Gammii Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Rana gammii, Paa gammii, Nanorana gammeii
Assessed for:
India
on:
22 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Basundhara Chettri, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, Annemarie Ohler and Jayanta Roy
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India, Nepal
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
11.93417586
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 occurs in the states of West Bengal, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh in India (Alley et al. 2014). In West Bengal, it has been recorded in the Darjeeling region (Anderson 1871). In Arunachal Pradesh, it is known from East Kameng (Ohler et al. 2018). In Sikkim, it was found in Fambong Lho Wildlife Sanctuary (Alley et al. 2014). It is also widely distributed all over Sikkim in fast-flowing streams at mid-high elevations (800-1,800m asl) (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). It is also found in Singhalila National Park, West Bengal (Kaushik Deuti, pers. comm, September 2020) and Kanchendzonga National Park (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). Recently it has been recorded from Sikkim at many localities and is considered widespread within the state (Basundhara pers. comm. 2020). The Singhalila National Park connects Nepal and Sikkim populations (Kaushik Deuti, pers. comm, September 2020). It has also been recorded from Dzongu (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). It ranges between 500 and 2,000 m asl (Ohler et al. 2018). |
| 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 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 | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Unknown | |
| 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 requires canopy forest over streams, and would probably not tolerate disturbed habitat (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). Road construction would be a problem to the long-term stability of this species as it blocks the rivers and causes siltation (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). Hydroelectric construction could possibly be a problem for this species, causing drying up of streams, Over-harvesting is also a threat to the species (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd is a potential threat to this species (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? | Yes / probably | Extensive hunting for food and considered to be a delicacy among the locals (Subba et al. 2017). If this level of increased collection continues during the breeding seasons into the future, it would put pressure on the population (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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 | This is an abundant species in fast-flowing streams (Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020) and in other regions (Annemarie Ohler, 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 | |
| 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 | This is a valid species, however it was previously named Nanorana (Paa) sikimensis (Annemarie Ohler and Basundhara Chettri, pers. comm. September 2020). |
Citation:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Basundhara Chettri, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, Annemarie Ohler and Jayanta Roy 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Nanorana gammii, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5587
Accessed 19 May 2024
