Assessment Results
Raorchestes tinniens
Spotted Bush Frog, Nilgiri Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Phyllomedusa ? tinniens, Ixalus montanus, Ixalus punctatus, Philautus melanensis, Philautus tinniens, Pseudophilautus tinniens
Assessed for:
India
on:
19 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Nikhil Modak, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
14.41935185
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) | Listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 984 km2, it occurs in five or fewer threat-defined locations, and there is continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat. |
| 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 only known only from Ooty and its surroundings in the Nilgiri Hills in the Western Ghats of Tamil Nadu, India. It is now known from the surrounding areas of Nilgiri Hills in Coonoor, Kothagiri, Naduvattam, Avalanche, Parsons Valley (Biju and Bossuyt 2009), Udhagamandalam (Princy and Kannan 2015), Ooty, Emerald, and Mukurthi National Park (Princy et al. 2017, Siva 2020). It is present in the protected area of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (Princy and Kannan 2015). It ranges between 1,780 and 2,465 m (Bossuyt and Dubois 2001, Biju and Bossuyt 2009, Princy et al. 2017). |
| 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 has been recorded from a number of protected areas in the Nilgiri Hills, including Mukkurthi National Park. It is present in the protected area of Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (Princy and Kannan 2015). |
| 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 | The recommended conservation measures are to implement a long term management project, and public awareness programs to prevent killing (Princy and Kannan 2015). Management of habitat is needed both within and outside of the the protected areas. In particular, the regulation of domestic animals and livestock is needed to decrease their impact on the species and its habitat (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 life history, population size, distribution, and trends, and the effects of Bd, climate change and into the deformities that have been observed in this species is required. 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 | The species has been recorded in rural gardens, but this is marginal habitat used for foraging (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). It is therefore thought to tolerate only a degree of habitat modification (India RLA/CNA workshop, November 2020). Habitat destruction and degradation is a major threat caused by conversion to eucalyptus, wattle, and pine plantations for timber; the cutting of fire lines to manage fire events in grasslands; the expansion of human settlements; cattle grazing; and agricultural expansion; and pollution from pesticides and herbicides associated with agricultural activities which affect its ability to reproduce (Princy and Kannan 2015). Plastic pollution from tourism is an additional threat. Finally, the proximity of human habitation to the species' grassland habitat has also introduced domestic, feral cats which have been observed preying upon this species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. 2020). In Mukurthi National Park, the creation of fire lines is also a threat to the species and its habitat (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm. November 2020). In the Nilgiri Hills, the temperature is has increased in the last decade which has affected the shola forest habitat and allowed the encroachment of invasive plant plantations (eucalyptus, lantana, acacia,wattle, pinewoods) which has reduced the level of the water table, as well as causing changes in the rainfall patterns (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. November 2020). Climate change is also likely to cause habitat shifting, and subpopulations that already exist in higher elevations may be lost as they have no habitat to migrate to. Deformities and malformations have been recorded due to causes that are unknown at present, although are similar to cases in other species in different regions of the world that are caused by increased UV levels (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. November 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, November 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | The range is continuous and it is one of the most common species in the Nilgiri hills (Biju 2001). However, the population is generally believed to be declining. |
| 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? | Unknown | |
| 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: 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). |
| 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:
Nikhil Modak, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes tinniens, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5702
Accessed 19 May 2024
