Assessment Results
Philautus garo
Garo Hills Bubble-nest Frog, Garo Hills Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Ixalus garo, Rhacophorus garo
Assessed for:
India
on:
17 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Mohini Mohan Borah, Jayaditya Purkayastha, Jayanta Roy and Saibal Sengupta
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.39846223
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Unknown | |
| 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 | There is significant taxonomic confusion with this species and it can only be considered to occur at the type locality in Tura, Garo Hills, Meghalaya, India at present, because there is no good type material from the type specimen in order to compare to. However it is thought to most likely have a restricted range and occur only in Nokrek Ridge in Meghalaya. For the purpose of this assessment we are only considering the species to occur in the Nokrek Ridge from 500-800m asl. (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). All other localities should be considered uncertain and most likely another species. This species has been recorded from the Garo Hills in Assam and Meghalaya, and from Dzulake in Nagaland, India. It has been reported to occur near the type locality at ZSI Risa Colony, Shillong in Meghalaya (Mathew and Sen 2009), and in Sangmeiñ and Bañiun, Upper Shillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya (Kharkongor et al. 2016), however this requires confirmation. According to Mathew and Sen (2009), the records from Nagaland (Ao et al. 2003) require confirmation and, therefore, these have been excluded from the present assessment. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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.). | Unknown | It is not known whether or not it occurs in any protected areas, but it might occur Nokrek National Park (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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 | Improved habitat protection at sites at which this species is known to occur is needed. |
| 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 taxonomic review is required. Further survey work and research are needed, in particular to determine geographic range, habitat occupancy, population size, threats, ecology and life history (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). |
| 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 unknown | The type locality, Nokrek Ridge, in Meghalaya, is thought to currently be undisturbed, but nearby there are major threats. The distribution for this speices in within the watershed of the nearby town(s). Although the distribution of this species is unknown (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020), the major threats to this taxon are likely to be habitat loss due to commercial logging (clear-cutting), fragmentation, and degradation due to rapid urbanization, slash and burn agriculture, and other anthropogenic and developmental activities (Kharkongor et al. 2016). |
| 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? | Unknown | There is no information on the population of this species. This is only known from the holotype, which is in poor condition (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020), but there are a lot of records assigned to this species, which require confirmation, as it is the only Philautus described from the region (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). In the locality where the species is known for certainty (Nokrek Ridge), it is probably a moderately common species (Sengupta et al. 2010, Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, 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? | Unknown | |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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)? | Unknown | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. This is possibly a synonym of another species, and taxonomic resolution is definitely required to determine the validity of this species (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Jayaditya Purkayastha and Kaushik Deuti, pers. comm. September 2020). |
Citation:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, Dr. Tutul Bortamuli, Kaushik Deuti, H.T. Lalremsanga, Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Mohini Mohan Borah, Jayaditya Purkayastha, Jayanta Roy and Saibal Sengupta 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Philautus garo, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5633
Accessed 21 May 2024
