Assessment Results
Polypedates teraiensis
Terai Tree Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Rhacophorus leucomystax ssp. teraiensis, Polypedates leucomystax
Assessed for:
India
on:
08 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed and Prudhvi Raj Gunturu
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
15.59575435
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | Listed as Least Concern in view of its wide distribution, and its presumed large population. |
| 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? | Unknown | This tree frog is present in Myanmar (Purkayastha et al. 2019), India (Ao et al. 2003, Ningombam and Bordoloi 2007, Purkayastha et al. 2019), Bhutan (Tshewang and Letro 2018), Nepal, and possibly into adjacent China (Frost 2020). In India, it has been recorded from the states of Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, Tripura, and West Bengal. In Assam State, it is known from Assam University Silchar Campus in the Cachar District (Roy and Dey 2015), the Wetlands of Bongaigaon District (Chetia et al. 2014), Guwahati (Purkayastha et al. 2019), Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary (Purkayastha et al. 2020). In Nagaland State, it was found in Medziphema and Kohima (Ao et al. 2003). In Manipur State, it has been recorded from Loktar Lake (Ningombam and Bordoloi 2007). In Arunachal Pradesh, it has been reported from Dihang-Dibang Biosphere Reserve (Bordoloi et al. 2002), Tippi, Tirap, Ziro, Hapoli (Ohler et al. 2018), Nizamghat and Chisindo (Roy et al. 2018). In West Bengal, it was reported from Neora Valley National Park (Bhattacharya et al. 2014), and Gorumara National Park, Jaldapara National Park, Kodalbasti forest, Mendabari, and Mahananda Wildlife Sanctuary forest in Jalpaiguri District (Deuti et al. 2017). In Meghalaya State, it was observed in the BSI Botanical Garden at Umiam (Saikia et al. 2018). In Sikkim State, it is known from East District (Alley et al. 2013). In Tripura State, it occurs in Unakoti and Udaipur (Majumder et al. 2012). It is also known from Baripada in Orissa (Prudhvi Raj pers. comm. August 2020). It is not known whether it will occur more widely. The range for this species will start from north Orissa and West Bengal. It ranges between 8.5 (Rana and Selim 2016) and 795 m asl (Roy 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 several protected areas such as Dibang Biosphere Reserve (Bordoloi et al. 2002), Neora Valley National Park (Bhattacharya et al. 2014) and Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary in India (Purkayastha et al. 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 work is needed to clarify the relationship between this species and Polypedates leucomystax particularly in India, Nepal and Bhutan. |
| 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 | It inhabits a variety of habitats, including the vicinity of human settlements (Ao et al. 2003), lowland areas, temporary and permanent water bodies, paddy fields, shallow pools in forests (Roy et al. 2018), near terraced paddy fields (Alley et al. 2013), disturbed areas such as stagnant water bodies such as construction water tanks, ponds, and water in ephemeral pools near roads (Roy and Dey 2015). There are no major threats; it is a widespread species with large areas of suitable habitat remaining. |
| 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? | Unknown | Consumed as food in Nagaland (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers, comm. October 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 | It is considered very common in the Duars area of West Bengal (Deuti et al. 2017). It is a very widespread species. |
| 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? | Yes | Consumed as food in Nagaland (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers, comm. October 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 | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. This is a split from the broader concept of Polypedates leucomystax, although the split has not been well documented (Frost 2019). |
Citation:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed and Prudhvi Raj Gunturu 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Polypedates teraiensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5647
Accessed 18 May 2024
