Assessment Results
Uperodon mormoratus
Mottled Globular Frog, Indian Dot Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Ramanella mormorata, Uperodon mormorata, Uperodon mormorata
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 K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22.04922416
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 was previously only known from three sites in the southern Western Ghats: Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary (in Goa); Sakleshpur, Hassan District (in Karnataka); and Amboli (a hill station in Maharashtra). It is now also known from Belgaum, Chikmagalur, Shimoga and Uttara Kannada Districts in Karnataka state. In Goa state, it occurs in North Goa District at Anjuna, in Gujarat state in Narmada District at Samot (Garg et al. 2018), and it has been recorded from Shirala and Walwa in Sangli District (Sajjan et al. 2017), and Radahanagari Wildlife Sanctuary, Kolhapur District in Maharashtra state (Yadav and Yankanchi 2014). It has also been found in Sangameshwar, Khed and Mandangad in Ratnagiri district; and in Vaibhavwadi, Kankavli, Malvan, Kudal and Sawantwadi in Sindhudurg district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It can be expected to occur somewhat more widely than these current records suggest, between known localities (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). It occurs between sea level up to 1,200 m asl. (Garg et al. 2018, Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 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 | This species occurs in many protected areas (Nikhil Danddekar, Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 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 | This species can be found in secondary forest although it is not its preferred habitat. It can tolerate habitat disturbance to some extent (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). The major threat is habitat loss following conversion to agricultural land (including plantations) and infrastructure development (for industry, tourism, and human settlement). Climate change is thought to be a likely future threat and cause problems through flooding and drier conditions which will affect the ephemeral pools and its breeding (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). In Maharashtra, the conversion of habitat to cashew nut, coconut and mango orchards is a particular problem for this species due to its reliance on understorey vegetation (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). Noted that climate change cannot be reversed but most of the other threats can be (India RLA/CNA workshop, September 2020). Bd has been confirmed with this species range and the family Microhylids, but further studies are required to investigate the full effects of 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 | It is a locally common species (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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.)? | 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? | Yes | It is a very beautiful frog (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | When the first assessment for this species was published (in 2004) it was under the generic name Ramanella. Ramanella Rao. This might be a species complex, which requires further investigation (Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). |
Citation:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawade, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye, Seshadri K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Uperodon mormoratus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/5728
Accessed 17 May 2024
