Assessment Results
Minervarya rufescens
Malabar Wart Frog, Reddish Burrowing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Fejervarya rufescens
Assessed for:
India
on:
30 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Akshay Gawade, Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Least Concern (LC)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
17.48845933
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? | Unknown | This species is widespread throughout the Western Ghats of India. This taxon is restricted to the state of Karnataka and adjoining regions of the state of Kerala, north of Palghat Gap in the Western Ghats of southern India. In Karnataka, it is present in Manipal and Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary in Udupi District, and Guddekere, Agumbe Reserve Forest in Shimoga District, and, in Kerala, it occurs in Peruvannamuzhi and Pozhuthana in Wayanad District (Garg and Biju 2017). It also occurs in Sangameshwar, Khed, Mandangad in Ratnagiri District, Kudal in Sindhudurg District, and Alibaug in Raigad District (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It is present in the protected areas of Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary and Agumbe Reserve Forest (Garg and Biju 2017). Records outside Karnataka and northern Kerala are not unconfirmed (Garg and Biju 2017). It ranges between 26 and 670 m asl (Garg and Biju 2017). It ranges between 26 and 670 m asl (Garg and Biju 2017). |
| 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? | ||
| 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 found in the Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary and Agumbe Reserve Forest (Garg and Biju 2017). |
| 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.)? | Unknown | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Unknown | |
| 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 associated with riparian and forest edge habitats, in open and lightly degraded tropical moist semi-evergreen forest. Grasslands (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). General loss of riparian and forest edge habitat by localized agriculture (small scale farming) is a major threat. Morphological abnormalities, presumably due to chemical contamination, have been found in some frogs inhabiting agroecosystems in the central Western Ghats (Gurushankara et al. 2007). Bauxite mining and stone quarrying are major threats to this species. Lateritic plateaus and meadows have been designated as wastelands, and these habitats are targeted and easily converted for tourism development (Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye, 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 | It is a locally common species. There are no quantitative population data available. |
| 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 probably be the best Minervarya species to act as a husbandry analog for all others (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 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? | 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 | When the first assessment for this species was published (in 2004) it was under the generic name Fejervarya. In 2009, the species was transferred it to the genus Zakerana. Zakerana is now recognized as a junior synonym of Fejervarya (Dinesh et al. 2015), hence the species has been returned to the genus Fejervarya. This taxon has been moved to the genus Minervarya (Sanchez et al. 2018). |
Citation:
Akshay Gawade, Nikhil Modak, Dr. Anand Padhye and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Minervarya rufescens, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://www.conservationneeds.org/assessment/6827
Accessed 18 May 2024
