Assessment Results
Raorchestes glandulosus
Glandular Bush Frog, Southern Bubble-nest Frog, Rough-skinned Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Ixalis ? glandulosa, Ixalus glandulosus, Philautus glandulosus, Philautus noblei, Phylloderma tenniens, Pseudophilautus glandulosus
Assessed for:
India
on:
28 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Seshadri K.S.
IUCN Global Red List:
Vulnerable (VU)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.8638044
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.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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 - 50 | |
| 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 Indian species has been recorded from Kudremukh National Park, in the Western Ghats States of Kerala in Mananthavady and Sulthanbathery, and Karnataka in Mercara, southwestern India (Biju and Bossuyt 2009). It is also present in Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Nagarahole in Karnataka State (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), Honey Valley, Coorg, Karnataka, India (Badrinath 2015), and Bisle, Sakleshpur, Hassan district, Karnataka (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Records from Nilgiris, Anamalai Hills ranges and Maharashtra require further investigation to confirm that they belong to this species. Genetic work done by Vijayakuma et al. (2016) found that this species is found north of Pulghat Gap, which lends support to the validity of records from the Anamalai Hills and casts additional doubt on records from the Parabikulam and Periyar Tiger Reserves. It is likely to occur between its known localities. Records from Agasthyamala Hill are thought to be misidentifications based on acoustics, and actually belong to R. bobingeri (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). It occurs between 400-2,000 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 | Kudremuch National Park, Rajiv Gandhi National Park |
| 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 many 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 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 on its distribution, and the effects of Bd and climate change are required. Population monitoring is also recommended, as taxonomic research on the uncertain subpopulations (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 can occur in modified habitats such as coffee, tea and Acacia plantations, however It prefers canopy cover, and it is unknown to what extent it will tolerate habitat disturbance and loss (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). It is threatened by the conversion of native forest to intensively cultivated areas (including tea and coffee plantations) and timber plantations, but it is not known how much of the species range is being affected. The plantations (coffee) are not expanding but decreasing, and the species is find there. In tea plantations, pesticides could be a threat for the species (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Linear construction (roads and railways - in Uttara Kannada district) could be a threat pending the distribution of the northern range of the species, including the development of the proposed railway line in Uttara Kannada district, as well as dam development in Sakleshpur, Hassan district in Karnataka (Seshadri, K. S., and Ganesh T. (2013). Climate change is a potential future threat as it could cause habitat shifting and drying of leaf litter (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been found in other species of the genus, so chytridiomycosis may be a potential threat for this species but further research is required (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 | It is relatively common where it occurs. |
| 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? | 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)? | Yes | This species assessment is based on the recent taxonomic revision by Bossuyt and Dubois (2001). |
Citation:
Seshadri K.S. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes glandulosus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5670
Accessed 19 May 2024
