Assessment Results
Sphaerotheca breviceps
Band Sand Frog, Indian Burrowing Frog, Short-headed Burrowing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Rana breviceps
Assessed for:
India
on:
28 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Dr Anand Padhy, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Harshil Patel, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu and Shauri Sulakhe
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
28.48012256
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species is now restricted to its type locality at Tharangambadi, India (Shauri Sulakhe, pers. comm. August 2020). This species is found in several protected areas within its range including Dudhwa National Park at the Indo-Nepal border in India (Hegde 2013). Other subpopulations in India have now been assigned to S. magadha (split) and S. pluvialis, which has been resurrected from synonymy this species. The identity of the Indian subpopulations in Central India, and in the southern parts of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telegana and Andra Pradesh needs further taxonomic work to confirm their identity; they may belong to S. pluvialis or S. paschima. It occurs at elevations from sea level to 10-15 m asl (Shauri Sulakhe, 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 protected by national legislation in India. It is not found in any 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.)? | No / unlikely | There are no conservation measures needed based on the current understanding of its distribution, taxonomy and population status. |
| 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 this species' distribution, population size and trends, ecology and taxonomy. |
| 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 unknown | Road mortality is a treat to this species, as well as the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers (Nikhil Dandekar, pers. comm. August 2020). Habitat loss as a result of infrastructure development is the main threat to this species. It is unknown if the species can tolerate habitat disturbance (Nikhil Dandekar, pers. comm. August 2020). It is unknown if the threat of urbanization is likely to cause large declines at this stage (Nikhil Dandekar, pers. comm. August 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 | This species is generally common throughout most of its range. At its type locality in India, this species is found in large numbers indicating a healthy population. The population is suspected to be stable. |
| 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? | 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? | No | |
| 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 | Sphaerotheca maskeyi and Sphaerotheca swani were synonymized under this species by Dubois (2004) but are now assessed separately as valid species. This species is now restricted to its type locality at Tharangambadi, India (Shauri Sulakhe, pers. comm. August 2020). Other subpopulations in India have now been assigned to S. magadha (split) and S. pluvialis, which has been resurrected from synonymy this species. The identity of the Indian subpopulations in Central India, and in the southern parts of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Telegana and Andra Pradesh needs further taxonomic work to confirm their identity; they may belong to S. pluvialis or S. paschima (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). |
Citation:
Dr Anand Padhy, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Harshil Patel, Krishna K., Nikhil Dandekar, Pratyush P. Mohapatra, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu and Shauri Sulakhe 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Sphaerotheca breviceps, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5714
Accessed 17 May 2024
