Assessment Results
Philautus namdaphaensis
Namdapha Bush Frog, Tirap Bubble-nest Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
29 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:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India, Myanmar
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.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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 species was previously only known from two localities in the state of Arunachal Pradesh in north-eastern India: Tirap District, and Namdapha National Park. It is a lowland species that was collected at 350 m asl. It now also occurs in Daribokgre, Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, East Garo Hills district, Meghalaya State, (Mathew and Sen 2009), Dihing-Patkai-Joypur landscape in Assam State (Sengupta et al. 2010), and Ranijheel in Arunachal Pradesh State (Dinesh and Radhakrishnan 2019). It has also been found in Nengpui Wildlife Sanctuary in Mizoram State (Pawar and Birand, 2001). There are records from Daribokgre, Nokrek Biosphere Reserve, East Garo Hills district, Meghalaya State (Mathew and Sen 2009), but these require confirmation. It is possible that it also occurs in Myanmar but there have been no records yet. |
| 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.). | Yes / probably | It is known from localities within Namdapha National Park which is not well-protected, and Nengpui 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 | Additional protection is needed within the protected areas. |
| 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 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | It has only recorded from primary forest and is not expected to tolerate habitat disturbance. This species might be experiencing detrimental effects of the current management plan of Namdapha National Park, which is largely determined by the requirements of the large mammal fauna and not the protection of the habitat. Heavy logging is occurring and agriculture including livestock. is impacting the habitat in and outside of protected areas. Coal and oil mining is occurring within the distribution of the species outside of protected areas (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed pers. comm 2020). It might also possibly be threatened by invasive alien plant species (Mikania sp. and Lantana camara). |
| 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 | It is an uncommon 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? | 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 occurs in areas where visitors come and the species would be good to educate the visitors (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, 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:
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 namdaphaensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5637
Accessed 19 May 2024
