Assessment Results
Polypedates maculatus
Himalayan Tree Frog, Indian Tree Frog, Spotted Tree Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Hyla maculata
Assessed for:
India
on:
22 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Basundhara Chettri, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
11.51091047
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at Arignar Anna Zoological Park, Vandalur, Chennai; Nandankanan Biological Park, Bhubaneshawar; Madras Crocodile Bank Trust, Mamallapuram; Rajiv Gandhi Zoological Park, Pune; Nehru Zoological Park, Hyderabad; National Zoological Park, Delhi; Tata Steel Zoological Park, Jamshedpur; Bhagwan Birsa Zoological Park, Ranchi; and Laboratory for Conservation of Endangered Species (LaCONES), Hyderabad.
| 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 species is found throughout most of India, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka, as well as western Bangladesh and Chittagong district in south-eastern Bangladesh. Records since the 2004 assessment include Bhutan (as Polypedates cf. himalayanus - Wangyal and Gurung 2012) and Sikkim in India (Subba et al. 2016). Records from the Northeast of India likely apply to Polypedates himalayensis following Gogol and Sengupta (2017). In West Bengal, the subpopulations now apply to Polypedates bengalensis, and there are likely to be more subpopulations that belong to new undescribed species in India (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | The species is known to occur in numerous protected areas in India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. |
| 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 | Continued and strengthened management of protected areas where this species occurs, and expanded protection of cloud forest elsewhere in its range 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 research is required to fully resolve the taxonomic status of the species. Further research on this species' distribution, population size, fluctuations and trends is recommended. Further survey work is needed to determine whether or not this species is experiencing a decline, or is undergoing natural population fluctuations. Further research is required to investigate the impact of climate change and the effect on the Caiusa fly, as well as the combined effects of the two, is required for this species (Pratyush P. Mohapatra pers. comm. August 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? | Species does not require conservation action at this time | In Sri Lanka, habitat pollution by agro-chemicals is the main threat to this species. This species has been recorded from a wide variety of habitat types including agricultural areas and close to human habitations. Caiusa fly is a major threat to the species in India, as it lays its eggs in the frog egg nest, so tadpoles do not develop. This is possibly responsible for population fluctuation in many parts of Eastern and Central India (Pratyush P. Mohapatra pers. comm. August 2020). Climate change might likely be a cause of the increase in the fly population (Pratyush P. Mohapatra pers. comm. August 2020). Otherwise, this species is not facing any significant threats. |
| 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 | This species is widely distributed, common, and commensal. Population fluctuations in the species need to be investigated. |
| 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 | This species is used in India for research into biology (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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? | Maintained but no successful breeding | This species may have been maintained to a limited degree in the past, but not in recent years (Chelmala Srinivasulu pers. comm. August 2020). Held in small numbers in Nandankanan Zoological Park in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India (ZIMS, 2020). |
| 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 restricted concept of Polypedates maculatus following the split of the broader concept into this and P. himalayensis (Gogol and Sengupta 2017). This is widely distributed species and further taxonomic revision is required. |
Citation:
Basundhara Chettri, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Polypedates maculatus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5643
Accessed 18 May 2024
