Assessment Results
Raorchestes luteolus
Blue-eyed Yellow Bush Frog, Coorg Yellow Bush Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus luteolus, Philautus sp. nov. 'Tholpetti Forest', Pseudophilautus luteolus, Philautus neelanethrus
Assessed for:
India
on:
18 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Gururaja, K.V., Sanjay Molur and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
16.78476517
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 collected at Madenadu, and from Kirundadu, which are both near Madikeri in Kodagu District. It has also been collected from Malleshwaram in Kudrumukh, in Chikmagalur District. These sites are in the Western Ghats of the southern part of Karnataka State, India. It also occurs in Jog Falls, Mavingundi, Sakleshpur, Kempholay, Mercara, and Muthodi (Biju and Bossuyt 2009), Sirsi-Honnavara in Uttara Kannada District (Kumara et al. 2008), Aagumbe Rainforest Research Station in Agumbe Reserve forest (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), Sharavathi Wildlife Sanctuary in Shimoga (Dinesh et al. 2011), Sharavathi, Bedti and Aghanashini river basins in Uttara Kannada (Ramachandra 2012), Rajiv Gandhi National Park, Nagarahole (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), Bygoor and Rashigudda Wildlife Sanctuary in Chickmagalur (Dinesh et al. 2013), Makonahalli in Mudigere (Sachi and Dinesh 2015), and Honey Valley, Coorg District (Badrinath 2015), all of them in Karnataka State. It is possible that this species occurs in Kudrumkh National Park, as the collection site coordinates indicate that its range falls within this protected area. It is present in several protected areas such as Agumbe Reserve forest (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), Sharavathi Wildlife Sanctuary (Dinesh et al. 2011), Rajiv Gandhi National Park (Krishna and Sreepada 2012), and Rashigudda Wildlife Sanctuary (Dinesh et al. 2013). The altitudinal range of this species is 532-1,250m asl (Gururaja, K.V., 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 | This species occurs in a number of 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, and education of locals on the biology of this species may be useful to reduce the removal of leaf litter from its habitat (Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 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 is required on to determine its complete distribution, and the potential impact of Bd on this species (Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 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 | It is now known to predominantly inhabit disturbed habitats near coffee estates next to secondary forests or wayside vegetation (Biju and Bossuyt 2009). While it can tolerate some habitat disturbance, it is unlikely to tolerate the complete opening up of its habitat (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. August 2020). The threats to this species at the specific collection localities are not known. There is an ongoing loss of natural habitats due to anthropic disturbance over much of the Western Ghats, and this might be a threat. Conversion to ginger plantations is a threat for all members of the genus. The conversion of land to any plantation results in the removal of the understorey vegetation, and within organic coffee farming the removal of leaf litter causes the loss of breeding sites and causes disturbance to breeding sites (Sanjay Molur and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 2020). Encroachment of agriculture into the habitat is slowly increasing each year (Sanjay Molur, pers. comm. August 2020). The development of roads and road widening is causing habitat loss within this species range. The unsustainable harvesting of kokum trees (Garcinia spp.) 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 (Gururaja K.V., Sanjay Molur and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is present in this species range, and may be a potential threat to this species however further studies are required to confirm this (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, 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 | Not currently in the trade. |
| 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 locally common (Gururaja K.V., Sanjay Molur and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 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? | Yes | Suitable as a husbandry analog for other Rhacophorids (e.g. R. travancoricus). |
| 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 (local community), 4 (tourist), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). The species has a unique call. This is a very attractive species and is often photographed. It is also a small nocturnal species. There is good potential for use of this species in trails and forests, but not so much in zoos. |
| 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:
Gururaja, K.V., Sanjay Molur and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes luteolus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/6761
Accessed 21 May 2024
