Assessment Results
Rhacophorus lateralis
Boulenger's Tree Frog, Small Gliding Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
02 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Vishnupriya Sankararaman
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
20.79898264
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) | |
| 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? | Unknown | This species occurs in central Western Ghats of India in Kerala (Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary and its surroundings) and Karnataka (Coorg and its surroundings). Since its previous assessment in 2004, additional records have been made in Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, India. In Karnataka State, it is present in Bhadra Tiger Reserve and Kudremukh National Park in Chikkamagaluru District (Dinesh et al. 2010), Sakleshpur, and Rajiv Gandhi National Park in Nagarahole (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), and Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). In Kerala State, it occurs in Kalpetta in Wyanad District (Biju 2000, Dinesh et al. 2010), and Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It Tamil Nadu State, it is found in Ovalley, Gudalur in Nilgiri District (Princy et al. 2017). It is likely found between its known localities, but restricted to its known range. It occurs between 800-1,600 m. asl (Sachi and Dinesh 2015, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). Records reported from Eravikulam National Park (Dinesh et al. 2010), Thekkady (Easa 2003), and Periyar in Idduki District (Biju 2000, Daniels 2005, Dinesh et al. 2010) are misidentifications and do not belong to this species (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 has been recorded from 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 surveys to determine the full range of this recently rediscovered tree frog are urgently required. Research on ecology is recommended (Sachi and Dinesh 2015), as well as the effects of Bd and climate change (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | It has been recorded secondary (disturbed) forests and disturbed habitats, and will tolerate a higher degree of habitat disturbance, although it still requires forest canopy. It is threatened by the conversion of forest areas to cultivated land (including eucalyptus and acacia plantations). If agriculture trends of coffee to tea occur in the future within this species' range, it will become a future problem. The increased use of pesticide is likely to become a threat (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Road development and unsustainable harvesting of trees are considered as minor threats (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Climate change may be a potential future threat - reduced rainfall in monsoon will affect breeding pools. It is considered that collectively, these threats are unlikely to be reversed before further species declines are seen (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 locally common. |
| 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 | Females of this species makes a purse nest from leaves of a particular shape and size, and although this has been observed in other species, this is the only species in India which displays this behaviour (Biju, SD 2009). |
| 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? | Yes | Potential flagship ranking: 1 (local community), 2 (tourist), 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). It is a very attractive species (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. October 2020). Females of this species make a purse nest from a leaves of particular shape and size, and although this has been observed in other species, this is the only species in India which displays this behaviour (Biju, SD 2009). |
| 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:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Vishnupriya Sankararaman 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Rhacophorus lateralis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5708
Accessed 13 May 2024
