Assessment Results
Indirana brachytarsus
Guenther's Leaping Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Polypedates brachytarsus
Assessed for:
India
on:
09 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
K.V. Gururaja, Keerthi Krutha and Nikhil Modak
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
25.692846
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
Listed in Gupta et al (2015) as a species for husbandry capacity-building at: Pilikula Biological Park, Mangalore.
| 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 - 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 leaping frog is widely distributed throughout the Western Ghats states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India (Günther 1876, Azeez 1999, Kumar 2002, Reddy et al. 2002, Andrews et al. 2004, Andrews et al. 2005, Chandramouli and Ganesh 2010, Nair et al. 2011, Jose et al. 2014, Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014, Garg and Biju 2016, Dahanukar et al. 2016, Kiran et al. 2017, Chaitanya et al. 2018, Harikrishnan et al. 2018, Afthab et al. 2018). It is now restricted to south of Palghat Gap from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. , It was erroneously identified from Karnataka (Krishnamurthy 2003), and Maharastra (Sayyed 2016). It is present in several protected areas such as Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu (Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014), and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Andrews et al. 2005), Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala (Garg and Biju 2016), Anamalai Biosphere Reserve, and Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018). It is included in field studies by Ravichandran (1995-1997) and Biju (2000-present). It ranges between 1,000 and 1,508 m asl (Garg and Biju 2016, Nikhil Modak and Keerthi Krutha, 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 is present in several protected areas such as Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve in Tamil Nadu (Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014), and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary (Andrews et al. 2005), Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala (Garg and Biju 2016, and Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018). It is included in field studies by Ravichandran (1995-1997) and Biju (2000-present). |
| 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 | Improved habitat protection is required. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | |
| 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 | This species has been found in coffee, cardamom, rubber and tea plantations (Chandramouli and Ganesh 2010), heavily littered trek paths in tropical evergreen and semi-evergreen forests (Nair et al. 2011), and streams with large rocky substrates (Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014). It occurs both in disturbed and undisturbed habitats (Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014). It may tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance (Nikhil Modak and Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm. October 2020). The main threat to this species is the loss of forested areas following conversion to large-scale agricultural land (including tea plantations). Harvesting of wood and timber by local people for subsistence purposes is a minor threat. Other relevant current threats to this taxon are the construction of dams (Naniwadekar and Vasudevan 2014) and the fungal disease Chytridiomycosis (Nair et al. 2011, Dahanukar et al. 2013, Molur et al. 2015). Bd has been confirmed in the genus but further studies are required to investigate the full effects on this species (Nikhil Modak and Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm. October 2020). Linear infrastructure development is a major threat, along with he development of structures to prevent landslides, which will affect the rock crevices required by the species (Nikhil Modak and Keerthi Krutha, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat, which might cause habitat shifting and loss of subpopulations in higher elevations, as well as increased flooding risk (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). An annual pilgrimage takes place, involving hundreds of people per day during the month, which causes littering and firewood collection, and may be causing some species disturbance to its breeding activity (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 | |
| 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 considered one of the most commonly occurring frogs in the Western Ghats (Garg and Biju 2016). Quite common where they are found (Keerthi Krutha, 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 | This species has semi-aquatic tadpoles that develop outside of waterbodies on wet rocks and mosses, and have long tails and hindlimbs which develop earlier compared to other anuran species (Nikhil Modak and K.V. Gururaja 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? | Yes | Could be used as a husbandry analog for Indirana sarojamma (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 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 species has semi-aquatic tadpoles which develop outside of waterbodies on wet rocks and mosses, which have long tails and their hindlimbs develop earlier compared to other anuran species (Nikhil Modak and K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | Yes | The Central Zoo Authority of the Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change of India identifies this taxon as a target amphibian species for ex-situ management (Gupta et al. 2015) at Pilikula Biological Park in Mangalore (Gupta 2017). |
| 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 | A number of specimens referred to this species in the past are likely to have been misidentified (S.D. Biju pers. comm.). |
Citation:
K.V. Gururaja, Keerthi Krutha and Nikhil Modak 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Indirana brachytarsus, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5457
Accessed 27 Jan 2025
