Assessment Results
Raorchestes nerostagona
Kalpatta Yellow Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus nerostagona, Pseudophilautus nerostagona
Assessed for:
India
on:
28 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri K.S.
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19.31056845
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) | |
| 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 only known in the region between Sultanbathery, Kalpatta, and Mananthavady at an altitude of around 1,000m asl, Wayanad District, Kerala State, in the Western Ghats of India. It is now also known in Shakkalmudi in Parambikulam Tiger Reserve and Thoothanpaara estate in Palghat District (Jobin and Nameer 2012). In Karnataka, it is present in Agumbe Rainforest Research Station in Agumbe (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), and in the higher elevation of Coorg and Kudremukh National Park, Kudremukh (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. October 2020). It also occurs in Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary, Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary and Brahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary, with at least 50% of the population occurring in these areas (Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri KS, pers. comm. October 2020). It is likely to occur between its known localities, with surveys outside of the range having not produced any records to date (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 800- 1,200 m asl (Biju and Bossuyt 2009). |
| 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 | In Parabikulam Tiger Reserve. |
| 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 in a range of 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 | There remains a need for improved protection of remaining tropical forest habitat. |
| 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, breeding ecology, and the effects of Bd and climate change. Population monitoring is also recommended (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | This species is unlikely to tolerate habitat disturbance and loss. Subpopulations appear to be declining in altered habitats. There is an ongoing loss of natural habitats due to anthropogenic disturbance over much of the Western Ghats. This is caused by the development of roads and road widening (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. October 2020), small-scale plantations, illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species. The major threat is habitat loss due to conversion to cultivated lands, plantations (eucalyptus, coffee, tea), and hydroelectric reservoirs. Climate change is a potential future threat as it could cause habitat shifting and drying of habitat, which would be problematic for the subpopulations that occur at higher elevation (Gururaja K.V. and 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 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 appears to be common within its limited range. |
| 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 | Its call sounds like water droplets (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 beddomii or Raorchestes ponmudi would make good husbandry analogs for this species (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? | 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 | Potential flagship ranking: 3 (tourist), 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). This is a colorful species, camouflaging, but as nocturnal, high canopy species, it would be difficult to exhibit (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 |
Citation:
Gururaja K.V. and Seshadri K.S. 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes nerostagona, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5688
Accessed 20 May 2024
