Assessment Results
Nasikabatrachus bhupathi
Order:
Anura
Family:
Nasikabatrachidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
31 Dec 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
107
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 > 100 | |
| 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 frog is only known from the type locality at Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, in the eastern slopes of the Tamil Nadu State, India (Janani et al. 2017). It may occur more widely, but further study is required (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). It has been reported at an elevation of 200 m asl (Janani et al. 2017). |
| 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 | Protected habitats are available for the species (K. Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 2020). |
| 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 of Srivilliputhur Grizzled Giant Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary (Janani et al. 2017). |
| 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 recommended conservation measures include species protection, and habitat protection and restoration (Janani et al. 2017). |
| 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 is required on its distribution, population size, and the effects of Bd and climate change (Janani et al. 2017, K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). 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? | Threats are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | The main threats to this taxon are water abstraction for domestic and agricultural uses, pollution from agriculture (pesticides that may affect their prey species) and human disturbance due to tourism/pilgrimage (Janani et al. 2017, K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). Small check dams are also a threat to this species, and can cause flooding of its habitat which will be a problem when it surfaces to breed; along with the creation of artificial water channels that form barriers that this species will have difficulty to cross, which will affect their ability to breed successfully (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). Any species disturbance from humans (including walking and vehicles) will interfere with their acoustic communication and affect their breeding activity (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). Furthermore, any threat to its prey species of termites will have a knock-on effect to the population of this species (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat as any changes in rainfall, monsoon season and cyclonic wind could disrupt the breeding pattern of this species; as well as causing the drying of its breeding sites or excessive rainfall resulting in the mortality of tadpoles and loss of egg clutches (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). Observations of mouth abnormalities in N. sahyadrensis have been recorded (Vasudevan 2010 - cite paper from Karthik in email), which could be indicative of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) although the exact cause has not be confirmed and further study is required (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). With these observations in its congener, Bd could be a problem for this species (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 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 | At type locality, it is considered to exist in good numbers due to observations of tadpoles and from acoustic records of males calling (K. Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 2020). Due to ongoing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat, the population is inferred to be decreasing. |
| 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 | This species exhibits subterranean vocalisation and has a narrow window of breeding (3 days) in a locality annually (K. Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 2020). The species has very important morphological adaptations (K. Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 2020). |
| 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? | Yes | Members of the genus are easily recognizable and are associated with historic tectonic events that have shaped continents such as, Asia and Africa (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). |
| 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 | Uperodon systoma could be an analog species for size and for breeding aggregation (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). For tadpoles Amolops is the closest analog, but tadpoles can be easily reared even otherwise (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). |
| 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 | Could be a husbandry analog for or N. sahyadrensis (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 2020). |
| 21 | Captive breeding | Has this species been successfully bred and/or maintained in captivity? | Not held in captivity to date | Tadpoles have been reared by Raj et al 2012. |
| 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 | The popularity of the species makes it known to many, and so It could be used as an educational ambassador (K. Vasudevan pers. comm. December 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:
Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Nasikabatrachus bhupathi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5591
Accessed 19 May 2024
