Assessment Results
Pseudophilautus wynaadensis
Dark-eared Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Phyllomedusa wynaadensis, Philautus wynaadensis
Assessed for:
India
on:
09 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Akshay Gawade, Krishna Komanduri, Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak and Seshadri K.S.
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
7.714789159
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? | 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 restricted to tropical forests in the vicinity of Coorg in Karnataka, and Wayanad in Kerala, in the southern Western Ghats of India. It is also known from Karnataka State in Kathalekan, Siddapur taluk (Chandran et al. 2010), Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary and Anshi National Park in Uttara Kannada District (Gururaja and Ramachandra 2012), and Rajiv Gandhi National Park in Nagarahole (Krishna and Sreepada 2012); Kerala State in Anamada in the Nelliyampathy Hills in Palakkad District (Afthab et al. 2018), and Thrissur District (Syamili and Nameer 2018); Tamil Nadu State in Mangalore taluk in Dakshina Kannada District (Nair and Kumar 2013), Mudumalai Tiger Reserve in Nilgiris District (Princy et al. 2017), Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018), and Valparai Plateau in the Anamalai Hills (Harikrishnan et al. 2018). It has also been found in Tillari Conservation Reserve (Krishna and Gayathri). It has also been found in Sangameshwar in Ratnagiri district; and in Vaibhavwadi, Kankavli, Malvan and Dodamarg in Sindhudurg district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). This taxon was previously recorded from Sirumalai (Vanak et al. 2001, Ganesh and Arumugam 2016). It may occur more widely than is currently known (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Records from the Ponmudi Hills are likely to be mis-identifications of Pseudophilautus kani (Seshadri KS, pers. comm. October 2020). It has been recorded at elevations between 50-1,200 m asl. |
| 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 has been recorded in the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala, Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary and Anshi National Park (Gururaja and Ramachandra 2012), Rajiv Gandhi National Park (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), Mudumalai Tiger Reserve in Nilgiris District (Princy et al. 2017), and Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018). |
| 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 | |
| 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 is needed to determine the current distribution and population status of this species, and the effects of Bd. 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 | It is present in secondary forest, home gardens and cultivated land (including tea, cardamom, cashew, coconut, rubber and coffee plantations e.g. Syamili and Nameer 2018), provided that these are not managed too intensively. It can tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance as long as the understory vegetation is not removed (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). This species is not considered to be majorly threatened, however if agricultural practices intensify then this may be a problem to this species. Conversion of native forest to intensively cultivated areas (including tea, coffee and other non-timber plantations) is a minor threat (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Linear development (roads and railways) are a threat to this species, and road mortalities are a problem, especially to females who migrate across roads (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). Noise pollution may be an issue for this species and interfere with their acoustic activity (Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 2020). Bd has been confirmed in Pseudophilautus amboli, so may be a problem for this species but further studies are required to investigate the full effect on this species (Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 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 | This species is common and is commonly encountered during surveys (Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 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 | Probably don't need a husbandry analog, but if one is needed, Pseudophilautus kani is Least Concern, and could be used (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 | Suggested as a potential husbandry analog for Raorchestes blandus. |
| 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 | It is a small frog and considered to be very shiny and attractive (Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm, October 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 | This species was recently revalidated (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001). It was previously considered to be a synonym of Philautus variabilis. Specimens recorded as P. temporalis and P. leucorhinus from the Western Ghats of India are now correctly assigned to this species (Bossuyt and Dubious 2001). |
Citation:
Akshay Gawade, Krishna Komanduri, Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak and Seshadri K.S. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Pseudophilautus wynaadensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5650
Accessed 19 May 2024
