Assessment Results
Ghatophryne ornata
Ornate Stream Toad, Black Torrent Toad
Order:
Anura
Family:
Bufonidae
Synonym(s):
Ansonia ornata, Bufo pulcher
Assessed for:
India
on:
06 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Nikhil Modak, Sandeep Das, Vishnupriya Sankararaman, Madhushri Mudke, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
24.73251466
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.] | Endangered (EN) | |
| 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? | Unknown | This species was previously only known with certainty only from the type locality of "Brumagherries (Brahmagiri Hills)" and adjoining areas of Coorg, Karnataka, in the southern Western Ghats (Günther 1876, Reddy et al. 2003). It is know also known from Kudremukh National Park (Krishnamurthy 2003) and Bisale Reserve Forest in Karnataka State (Krishna et al. 2005) and Kurichiyarmala in Wayanad District in Kerala State (Biju et al. 2009). This species is also known from Sakleshpur (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. September 2020) and in Malabar Wildlife Sanctuary (including Kakkayam, Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020), and Kozhikode Forest Division and Thamarassery (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 2020). There are records reported from Wayanad areas including Banasuramala in Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve, Wayanad District (Easa 1998) and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, however further research is required to confirm whether they belong to this species or G. rubigina (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 2020). Apart from the reported uncertain records, it is likely to be restricted to its known range (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). It ranges between 780 m asl (Krishna et al. 2005) and 1,400 m asl (Biju et al. 2009). |
| 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 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 | Strengthened and expanded protection of the remaining forest habitat in this region of the Western Ghats is necessary. It is included as part of ongoing field studies begun in 1998 (S.D. Biju pers. comm.) . |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | There are unpublished reports of this species from Kudremukh National Park in Karnataka, and Silent Valley National Park and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala (Ravi Kumar 2002). However, further survey work is needed to confirm that the species does occur at these sites (S.D. Biju pers comm.). Research required on population size and trends, threats, and the effect of Bd. |
| 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 torrent toad is restricted to clear unpolluted perennial streams within evergreen forests (Daniels 1991). The main threat to this species is continuing deforestation (mainly for the cultivation of coffee) in the Coorg area and surroundings (S.D. Biju pers comm.). Water abstraction and diversion that is occurring for the irrigation systems for these plantations (Vishnupriya). Tourism is causing species disturbance and pollution of streams (plastic and liquor bottles) throughout its range, including within multiple protected areas (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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. October 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 (Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 2020). Threats are well recognised and growing, unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent future decline. Bd is present with this species' range, and may be a threat but further studies are required (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 | It is a locally common species in appropriate habitat (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 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 | Colour is very distinct (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? | 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? | Yes | Potential flagship ranking: 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). Colorful species that people like to see (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? | Yes / probably | Potentially difficult but possible. |
| 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. Research into species validity of G. rubigina needs to be prioritised but G. ornata is considered a valid species (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 2020). Populations from Wayanad may represent an undescribed species (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. September 2020). |
Citation:
Nikhil Modak, Sandeep Das, Vishnupriya Sankararaman, Madhushri Mudke, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Ghatophryne ornata, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5441
Accessed 06 Feb 2025
