Assessment Results
Raorchestes charius
Karnataka Bubble-nest Frog, Chari's Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus charius, Pseudophilautus charius
Assessed for:
India
on:
16 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja K.V., Priti Hebbar, Seshadri K.S., Nikhil Modak, Rajkumar K.P., S.R. Ganesh, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
14.91108131
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? | Yes / probably | This species was previously thought to be restricted to Chickmangalur (where it is known from three localities), in Karnataka State, in the southern Western Ghats of India. However it now occurs in southwestern India in the Western Ghats states of Kerala, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. It is present in Kudremukh National Park (Krishnamurthy 2003), Chickmangalur, Muthodi, Mercara, Kottigehara (Biju and Bossuyt 2009), Rajiv Gandhi National Park in Nagarahole (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), and Mangalore Taluk in Dakshina Kannada District in Karnataka State (Nair and Kumar 2013), Coorg in Karnataka (Priti Hebbar, pers. comm. October 2020) and Kalakkad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Tamil Nadu - Kakkachi and Kannikatti (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 2020). It is found in Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Pushapagiri Wildlife Sanctuary and Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. October 2020). Records from Cardamom Hills in Theni and Virudunagar districts (Chandramouli and Ganesh 2010), and Emerald Avalanche in Nilgiris District in Tamil Nadu State (Princy et al. 2017) likely refer to R. honnametti (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Records from south of Palghat distribution is likely to be of a different species and not R. charius (Gururaja KV, Seshadri KS and SR Ganesh, pers. comm. October 2020). It is found between 800 and 1,200m 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 is found in a range of protected areas. It is part of ongoing regional field studies by S.D. Biju. |
| 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 | Further research is required on its distribution, natural history, ecology, effects of Bd and climate change. Taxonomic research is also required to determine the true distributions of this species and R. griet, between which there is often to identification confusion (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). 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 arboreal bush dweller lives both in disturbed and undisturbed habitats (Krishnamurthy 2003), and it is found in grassland and primary and secondary forest patches (Karthikeyan Vasudevan and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. October 2020) and is well-adapted to coffee plantations (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. October 2020). The major threat is habitat loss due to the conversion of native forest to intensively cultivated areas. Construction of roads and new tourism developments are threats to the species (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. October 2020). Grasslands are not protected, and so are vulnerable to habitat conversion, and fires are a threat in Karnataka and Kerala as the Forest Department and locals burn grasses as a fire control mechanism which if unregulated could destroy the habitat (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). Pesticide use is a threat to the species in Coorg due to its presence near coffee plantations, but this needs to be confirmed (Priti Hebbar, pers. comm. October 2020, Rathod et al. 2013). Climate change is a likely future threat, which could cause habitat shifting, drying of habitats from increased temperatures, and changes in rainfall, which could lead to loss of population in higher elevations, (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been confirmed in the genus, but further studies are required to investigate the full effects on this species (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 difficult to find, but it is common when found (Priti Hebbar, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 2020). It is generally only detected at night when it is calling (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, 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 | |
| 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 | It is a high elevation direct developing frog and it occurs in grasslands, making it a useful species for educationpurposes (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. October 2020). It is also found in an area which is popular with tourists (Priti Hebbar, 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 | Specimens of Philautus charius recorded from Ponmudi Hills and surroundings and Wayanad were assessed separately as new undescribed species Philautus sp. nov. "Kalpatta" (S.D. Biju pers. comm.). This species was subsequently described as P. anili (Biju and Bossuyt, 2006). |
Citation:
Gururaja K.V., Priti Hebbar, Seshadri K.S., Nikhil Modak, Rajkumar K.P., S.R. Ganesh, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes charius, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5660
Accessed 18 May 2024
