Assessment Results
Pseudophilautus amboli
Amboli Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus amboli, Philautus sp. nov. 'Amboli Forest'
Assessed for:
India
on:
21 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawad, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye, Seshadri K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
9.244487613
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 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? | No / unlikely | This species is known from Amboli and Amba in Maharashtra, in the northern Western Ghats mountain range, from Mavingundi, in Shimoga district, and from Castle Rock, Londa, Jog Falls-Mavingundi, and Kudremukh-Malleshwaram in Karnataka, India (Biju and Bossuyt 2009). It also occurs in the Chorla Ghats, Molem National Park and Bondla, in Goa (K.P. Dinesh pers. comm. March 2011). There are also records from Sharavathi Wildlife Sanctuary in Shimoga District (Hedge 2012), Kadatoka (Dinesh et al. 2011), and the basins of the rivers Sharavathi, Bedti and Kali in Uttara Kannada District, Karnakata State (Ramachandra et al. 2012), Kuvempu University campus in Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Shivamogga District (Narayan et al. 2017), and Sharavathi Radhanagari Wildlife Sanctuary (Yadav and Yankanchi et al. 2014) and Shirala, Sangli District in Maharashtra State (Sajjan et al. 2017). It is thought to be restricted to Karnataka, Goa and Maharashthra (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It has also been found in Sangameshwar in Ratnagiri district; and in Vaibhavwadi, Kankavli and Kudal in Sindhudurg district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). An additional record from Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra State, was labeled as Pseudophilautus cf. amboli by Katwate et al. (2013), although its validity is unconfirmed. It has been found at elevations between 0-940 m asl (Biju and Bossuyt 2009, Kishwan and Venkataraman 2011, Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 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 | It is known to occur in Molem National Park and surroundings of Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary (K.P. Dinesh pers. comm. February 2011), where it is considered to be well protected. It is also present in Sharavathi Wildlife Sanctuary (Dinesh et al. 2011, Yadav and Yankanchi et al. 2014), and Bhadra Tiger Reserve (Narayan et al. 2017), and Kudremukh National Park (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020), Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020), and Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary, Goa (Dr. Trupti Jadhav, 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 is required. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | More information is needed on this species' distribution and natural history, and the effects of climate change. 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 | This species has been found in plantations and extremely disturbed habitats, however they still require suitable understorey vegetation. Moist soil and leaf litter is required (Nikhil Modak and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. September 2020). The major threat to this species is wholesale clearance of vegetation due to residential and tourism development throughout its distribution. Road mortalities are also a problem, especially for the females of the species (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). There is an ongoing loss of natural habitats due to anthropogenic disturbance over much of the Western Ghats. This is caused by the development of roads and road widening (K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. August 2020), small-scale plantations, illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species. As well as small-scale plantations causing habitat loss and degradation, the change in agriculture type from coffee to ginger plantations is causing the opening up of the habitat which is detrimental to this species (S. Molur pers. comm. August 2020). The conversion of land to any plantation results in the removal of the understorey vegetation, and traditional farming practices (Soppinabetta) in the area causes the removal of leaf litter which results in the loss of breeding sites and causes disturbance to breeding activity (S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). The unsustainable harvesting of kokum trees (Garcinia spp.) and there is illegal encroachment of cash crop plantations which are extending in size on an annual basis which is causing further habitat loss in the species range (K.V. Gururaja, S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). In Maharashtra, the conversion of habitat to cashew nut, coconut and mango orchards is a particular problem for this species due to its reliance on understorey vegetation (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). Bauxite mining is also a problem especially in higher elevations (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). The pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis is a threat to this taxon (Molur et al. 2015). Climate change is a potential future threat and is likely to affect its breeding habitats with drier conditions (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 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 | One of the most common bush frogs from the Chorla Ghats of Goa to Castle Rock in Karwar, Karnataka, but rare in the rest of its known localities (Biju and Bossuyt 2009, K.P. Dinesh pers. comm. February 2011, Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 2020). While it occurs in fragmented habitat patches, it is unknown whether the population itself is severely fragmented. Up to 100 individuals can be found at a time (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | It is one of the direct developing species found in the Western Ghats (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 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? | No | This species is named after a locality (Amboli) (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 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? | Yes | This would make a good husbandry analog for more threatened Raorchestes species (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). |
| 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 is a direct developer (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020) and would be a good flagship species for tourism, as it is a very photogenic species (Nikhil Modak, 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:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawad, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye, Seshadri K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Pseudophilautus amboli, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5648
Accessed 21 May 2024
