Assessment Results
Ghatixalus magnus
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
25 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Nikhil Modak, Sandeep Das, Vishnupriya Sankararaman, Sanjay Molur, Madhushri Mudke, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
35.56013568
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.] | Vulnerable (VU) | The species' extent of occurrence (EOO) is 7,792 km2, there is continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat, it occurs in at least six but no more than ten threat-defined locations, and there is ongoing decline in the quality and extent of its habitat. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This frog occurs in the highlands of the southern Western Ghats, where it has been recorded in Valparai and Parambikulam in the Anamalai Range, Kadalar in the High Ranges, Upper Manalar in the High Wavy Hills, and near Pandianthodu in the Pandalam Hills (Abraham et al. 2015). It is also found in Ervaikulam National Park (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. September 2020), Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary and Anamalai Tiger Reserve (Karthik Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020) and Devermala in Achankovil Reserve Forests and Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It is likely to be restricted to the western slopes of the Western Ghats (Karthik Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020), but may be found between its known localities (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). It ranges between 1,350 and 12,300 m asl (Abraham et al. 2015, Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 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 | It 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 | Despite the current management practices within the protected areas, improved habitat protection is required (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 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 | Research on distribution is recommended (Abraham et al. 2015) as well as impact on climate change and emerging infectious disease (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | This species has been found in coffee plantations, but these have been adjacent to forest habitats (V. Sankaraman pers. comm. September 2020). Outside of protected areas, habitat loss is a major threat for this species. This is caused by the development of roads and road widening (Gururaja K.V., pers. comm. August 2020), small-scale plantations, illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species. As well as small-scale plantations causing habitat loss and degradation, the change in agriculture type from coffee to ginger plantations is causing the opening up of the habitat which is detrimental to this species (Sanjay Molur, pers. comm. August 2020). The conversion of land to any plantation results in the removal of the understorey vegetation, and traditional farming practices (Soppinabetta) in the area causes the removal of leaf litter which results in the loss of breeding sites and causes disturbance to breeding activity (Sanjay Molur and (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 2020). 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). In the Anamalai Mountain Range, the conversion of forest to large-scale cash crop plantations (e.g. cardamom) is a major threat, along with water abstraction and diversion that is occurring for the irrigation systems for these plantations (Karthik Vasudevan and Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. September 2020). This species will also be more susceptible to edge effects with the presence of plantations occurring alongside the forest which will cause the drying of habitat (Karthik Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020). Climate change is also a potential future threat, with habitat shifting likely to be an issue with the lack of higher elevation habitat for this species to move into (Karthik Vasudevan and Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. September 2020). Unlikely to be able to mitigate threats to prevent further decline due to the nature of the threats (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd has been confirmed with this species, but no ill effects have yet been observed and further studies are required to confirm (Karthik Vasudevan, 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 | No records of utilization. |
| 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 | Uncommon but not rare (Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 2020). It is found in gushing torrents and they are about 5 frogs in 100 m stream in the best of habtiats (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 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 | Oral cavity is blue (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. September 2020) Largest species within genus (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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? | Unknown | Ghatixalus asterops could be a good potential husbandry analog (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 | Vocalisation is very interesting, could be of interest to ecotourists (Nikhil Modak, 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
Nikhil Modak, Sandeep Das, Vishnupriya Sankararaman, Sanjay Molur, Madhushri Mudke, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ghatixalus magnus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5439
Accessed 11 May 2024
