Assessment Results
Raorchestes tuberohumerus
Kudremukh Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus tuberohumerus, Pseudophilautus tuberohumerus
Assessed for:
India
on:
21 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawade, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye, Seshadri KS and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.03955585
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.] | Data Deficient (DD) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species has been found in primary evergreen forest and extremely disturbed areas (Biju and Bossuyt 2009, India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). It inhabits moist forest patches, and wayside vegetation near disturbed secondary forests (Biju and Bossuyt 2009) suggesting that it is tolerant to habitat disturbance. This species has been collected at Kirundadu (near Madikeri: 12° 29'N; 75° 47'E), in Kodagu District, and also from Malleshwaram in Kudreumukh in Chikmagalur District (13° 12'N; 75° 16'E). Both known sites are in the Western Ghats of the southern part of Karnataka State, India. It now also occurs in Chikmagalur, Kudremukh-Malleshwaram, Sakleshpur, Kempholay, Mercara, Someshwar-Agumbae in Karnataka, and Muthanga in Kerala (Biju and Bossuyt 2009). This taxon has also been recorded from Dandeli Anshi Tiger Reserve (Department of forest Government of Karnataka and Energy and Wetlands Research Group 2009), Sharavathi, Aghanashini, Kali (Ramachandra et al. 2012), and Bedhi river basins in Uttara Kannada (Gururaja et al. 2008), Bygoor in Chickmagalur and Agumbe in Shimoga (Dinesh et al. 2013), Honey Valley in Coorg District, (Badrinath 2015), and Shankaraghatta, Bhadravathi taluk in Shivamogga District in Karnataka State (Narayan et al. 2017). It has also been found in Sangameshwar, Khed and Mandangad in Ratnagiri district; and in Kudal in Sindhudurg district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020).It is present in protected areas such as Wayanad National Sanctuary, and Kudremukh National Park (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 500 and 1,100 m asl (Biju and Bossuyt 2009, Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020). |
| 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 present in protected areas such as Dandeli Anshi Tiger Reserve, Wayanad National Sanctuary, and Kudremukh National Park (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). |
| 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 | More information is needed on this species' distribution and natural history, and the effects of climate change and Bd. 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 | Although this species is fairly adaptable it requires understorey vegetation and moist ground (leaflitters and mosses for eggs), therefore the major threat to this species is wholesale clearance of vegetation due to residential and tourism development throughout its distribution. 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 (K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. August 2020), small-scale plantations, illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species. As well as small-scale plantations causing habitat loss and degradation, the change in agriculture type from coffee to ginger plantations is causing the opening up of the habitat which is detrimental to this species (S. Molur pers. comm. August 2020). The conversion of land to any plantation results in the removal of the understorey vegetation, and traditional farming practices (Soppinabetta) in the area causes the removal of leaf litter which results in the loss of breeding sites and causes disturbance to breeding activity (S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). The unsustainable harvesting of kokum trees (Garcinia sps.) and there is illegal encroachment of cash crop plantations which are extending in size on an annual basis which is causing further habitat loss in the species range (K.V. Gururaja, S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). The use of pesticide and chemical fertilizers will also be a problem. Road mortalities are a problem, especially for the females of the species (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat and is likely to affect its breeding habitats with drier conditions (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). Bd has been confirmed within the family and other species in the genus, but further studies are required to investigate effects on this species. |
| 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 considered to be common (Dr. Anand Padhye and Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 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.)? | Aspect of biology shared with < 6 other species | It has a humeral tubercle in its humeral bone, and there are only 3 species which have this (Dr. Anand Padhye and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. September 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? | 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? | Yes | This would be a good potential husbandry analog species for more threatened related species (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020). |
| 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 | This is a very small frog and it is a very useful species for education. It has a very interesting call (Dr. Anand Padhye and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. September 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:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawade, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye, Seshadri KS and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes tuberohumerus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5704
Accessed 17 May 2024
