Assessment Results
Amolops formosus
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranidae
Synonym(s):
Polypedates formosus, Amolops gyirongensis
Assessed for:
India
on:
01 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Annemarie Ohler, Robin Suyesh, Naitik Patel, Saibal Sengupta and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
16.9208217
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 | |
| 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 recorded from India (Himanchal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur - (see Ningombam and Bordoloi 2007, Sen and Mathew 2008), northern Bangladesh and much of Nepal. It probably occurs more widely than current records suggest, especially in areas between known sites. It occurs between 800 (Shrestha and Gurung 2019, Naitik) and 2,800 m asl (Prudhvi). The northeast India subpopulations need to be verified due to the confusion that occurs between this species and A. himalayanus (Naitik). This species is found in Rupi Bhaba Wildlife Sanctuary, Binog Wildlife Sanctuary, Nandadevi National Park, Askot Wildlife Sanctuary (Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, pers. comm. September 2020) and Benog Wildlife Sanctuary (Naitik Patel 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 is found in many national parks and protected areas (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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.)? | ||
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Taxonomic research is required to fully delineate the species distribution. Research is also required for its life history, and the effects of the diversion of streams, Bd, and brown trout. |
| 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 | There is a continuing loss of suitable stream habitats, through both deforestation and changes in water management (dams). Both large and small dams are a major threat to this species, causing degredation and drying up of the streams, affecting flow stream morphology (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020). Water abstraction for domestic use and for agriculture is a problem within its Indian range (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). Bd may be a threat to this species, but further studies are required (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020). Tourism is also a problem as much of this species range occurs in popular tourist destinations causing littering and disturbance (Robin Suyesh, pers. comm. September 2020). Climate change is likely to be a future problem as it will affect the snowfall (decreasing) which will decrease the water availability for this species in their stream habitats (Naitik Patel, pers. comm. September 2020). Development and road expansion are a threat to this species (Naitik Patel and Robin Suyesh, pers. comm. September 2020). Trout fishing is causing indirect affects to the species by causing habitat degradation. Invasive trout species eating tadpoles might be a threat and this might effect need checking (Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, pers. comm. September 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 considered to be rare. It has a patchy distribution, however it is commonly encountered (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | This would be a good analog species for other more threatened Amolops species (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 beautiful species (Robin Suyesh, 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. We previously followed Dubois (1992) and Schleich and Kästle (2002) in considering Amolops himalayanus to be a synonym of A. formosus. However, Nidup et al. (2016) discuss the identification of A. formosus, with which A. himalayanus has been confused and clarify that they should be treated as two separate species. |
Citation:
Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Annemarie Ohler, Robin Suyesh, Naitik Patel, Saibal Sengupta and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Amolops formosus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/6809
Accessed 19 May 2024
