Assessment Results
Raorchestes kakachi
Kakachi Shrub Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
12 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Seshadri K.S., Robin Suyesh and Rajkumar K.P.
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
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.] | Near Threatened (NT) | Listed as Near Threatened because the continued survival of this species is entirely dependent on the protection and rigorous management of its habitat provided by the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve within the Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve. Without this level of protection, it is very likely that the species’ habitat would be degraded and fragmented resulting in significant population declines, which would warrant an immediate uplisting. |
| 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 shrub frog occurs in Kakachi Tea Estate, and Upper Kodayar within Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, in the Agastyamalai hill range of the southern Western Ghats state of Tamil Nadu in India (Seshadri et al. 2012, Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). It might also be found in Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary and Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary within the Agastyamalai Biosphere Reserve, and is likely to be restricted to this area (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 1,285 and 1,300 m asl (Seshadri et al. 2012). |
| 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 | This species occurs at least through most of its range in the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger reserve (the reserve covers 895km2). |
| 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.)? | Unknown | Status of species dependent on well managed protected areas. Continued maintenance of protected areas where it exists. |
| 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, effects of climate change and Bd. |
| 10 | Threat mitigation | Are the threats facing the taxon, including any new and emerging threats not considered in the IUCN Red List, potentially reversible? | Species is effectively protected | Given this species' presence in a well-protected area, it is not considered to be majorly threatened. There are no known threats to this taxon. It is not thought to tolerate habitat disturbance (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat which may result in the shifting of habitat, such that subpopulations occurring at the higher elevations available within its range may be lost as there would be no suitable habitat to which the species can migrate (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been found in other species of the genus, so chytridiomycosis may be a potential threat for this species, although it is not known if it is a threat in Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, and further research is required (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 | Four specimens of this taxon are known at present, two of them observed during a survey conducted on 24 January 2011, and two on 24 May 2011 (Seshadri et al. 2012). This species is moderately considered common within its reported range (Seshadri K.S., 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? | Yes / probably | Raorchestes graminirupes would make a good analog for this species (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? | No | Named after the type locality (Seshadri K.S., 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 | Females difficult to find (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)? | Yes |
Citation:
Seshadri K.S., Robin Suyesh and Rajkumar K.P. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes kakachi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5680
Accessed 14 May 2024
