Assessment Results
Minervarya agricola
Granular Fejervarya
Order:
Anura
Family:
Dicroglossidae
Synonym(s):
Rana agricola, Fejervarya agricola, Minervarya granosa, Zakerana granosa, Fejervarya granosa
Assessed for:
India
on:
24 Aug 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Anand D. Padhye, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Seshadri K.S., Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Robin Suyesh, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
12.51428801
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? | Unknown | This widely distributed frog occurs across the Indian subcontinent from Sri Lanka in the south till the Gangetic plains in Nepal. It ranges from nearly sea level up to approximately 1,560 m asl (Chandramouli et al. 2019). It is present in many protected areas including Chitwan National Park (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). It ranges from nearly sea level up to approximately 1,560 m asl (Chandramouli et al. 2019). |
| 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 present in many protected areas including Chitwan National Park (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 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.)? | No / unlikely | |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | A key conservation measure recommended for this taxon is further distribution studies (Chandramouli et al. 2019). Further research into the effects of pollution are required. |
| 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 | There are no major threats to the entire population at this time. Some populations occur in modified habitats. Local extirpations are likely. No evidence of disappearance from modified habitats (Sumaithangi Rajagopalan Ganesh pers. comm., August 2020). Deformities are sometimes seen in this species, probably due to the use of herbicides and pesticides. Local declines may be occurring due to urbanisation. With the increasing human population in India, urbanisation could become a bigger problem for this species in the future with the increasing loss of wetland habitats and degradation caused by increasing levels of pollution (Kadaba Shamanna Seshadri and Chelmala Srinivasulu 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 taxon is considered common (Chandramouli et al. 2019). |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. |
Citation:
Anand D. Padhye, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Seshadri K.S., Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Robin Suyesh, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, S.R. Chandramouli and S.R. Ganesh
2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Minervarya agricola, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5559
Accessed 11 May 2024
