Assessment Results
Raorchestes chalazodes
Chalazodes Bubble-nest Frog, Günther's Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Ixalus chalazodes, Philautus chalazodes, Pseudophilautus chalazodes
Assessed for:
India
on:
16 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri K.S.
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.03724571
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.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | |
| 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 species was previously thought to occur in Munnar, Kerala, on the south-western slopes of the Cardamom Hills, Kerala (S.D. Biju, pers. comm.), in India. The exact location of the type locality of Travancore is non-specific. It was collected at an altitude of 1,400m asl. Because of difficulties with identification, there is a need to reconfirm records of this species from outside the Cardomom Hills area. This includes records from the Parambikulum TIger Reserve in Kerala, and from the Anaimalai Hills in Tamil Nadu, all of which appear to be doubtful (S.D. Biju pers. comm.), along with records from Wayanad District at Kalpetta and Kurichemala, Palakkad District (Andrews et al. 2004), and Orukomban in Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary (Andrews et al. 2005) are dubious. It has been rediscovered in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in 2011 (S.D. Biju et al. pers. obs. 2011, Seshadri 2015), however there is uncertainty that this population belongs to this species and it may actually be a new, undescribed species. It was rediscovered between 1,200-1,600m asl (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). There are also some subpopulations in the neighbouring protected areas of Peppara, Neyar and Shendurny Wildlife Sanctuaries, and the areas between the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and these wildlife sanctuaries (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 500 and 1,500 m asl (Andrews et al. 2004). |
| 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.). | Unknown | It is not known with certainty from any protected areas. |
| 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 protection of remaining habitat in the range of this species is recommended. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Taxonomic research is required on the subpopulation in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Population surveys are urgently required to determine whether this species is still known from its 2004 range and still exists. |
| 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 unknown | The population in Kalakkad is specialized in inhabiting Ochlandra spp. bamboo (Seshadri 2015). It is associated with the understorey of tropical moist evergreen forest and it can also occur in disturbed habitats (where the bamboo has been cut) and alongside roads (Seshadri KS, pers. comm. October 2020). It will tolerate a degree of disturbance, but not the complete removal of its bamboo habitat. This species is threatened by the conversion of natural forest to intensively cultivated areas (including non-timber plantations). This species is reliant on holes made by the Nilgiri Palm Squirrel (Funambulus sublineatus) to inhabit the bamboo, and any declines in the the squirrel population will be detrimental to this species (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Bamboo harvesting is considered to be a minor threat within the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, but is more intensive outside of protected areas (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a likely future threat and may cause drying of habitat due to increased temperatures, changes in rainfall, and habitat shifting as the required habitat is not present in higher elevations (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Bd has been confirmed in the genus but it is not known if it is a threat (Seshadri K.S., 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 | In the 2004 assessment it was reported that the species was rediscovered after 125 years (Biju and Bossuyt 2003), and was considered to be locally common at its only known locality. However the uncertainty surrounding this species has continued, and a rediscovery in 2011 is also uncertain, as the population looks different to previous photographs and the morphological description is different (Seshadri KS, pers. comm. October 2020). The population is common and abundant in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). With this uncertainty around its taxonomy and records, it is unknown what the status of the true population of this species is (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | This species has parental care by the male, and they breed in bamboo, which is a novel anuran reproductive strategy (Seshadri et al 2015). |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This species requires holes in bamboo to breed in, and the holes are made by an endangered squirrel species (Nilgiri Palm Squirrel, Funambulus sublineatus) (Seshadri et al. 2018). But if needed, Raorchestes ochlandrae could be used as a husbandry analog as it shares a similar breeding biology, and is more widely distributed (Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. 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? | 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 | Potential flagship ranking: 1 (tourist), 1 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). Males exhibit parental care and they breed in bamboo (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | Yes | Identified as a target species for ex situ management (Gupta et al, 2015). |
| 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 | Females would be hard to find, but egg clutches would be easier to collect (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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. Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) suggested that this species could be a synonym of Ixalus beddomii Günther, 1876. However, recent studies indicate that both species are distinct (S.D. Biju pers. comm.). Taxonomic research is required on the subpopulation in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve as there is uncertainty that this population belongs to this species and it may actually be a new, undescribed species. |
Citation:
Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri K.S. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes chalazodes, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5659
Accessed 21 May 2024
