Assessment Results
Indirana chiravasi
Amboli Leaping Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
25 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Akshay Gawade, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Gayathri Sreedharan and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
30.48731417
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 - 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 leaping frog is known only from the Western Ghats region of India, where it has been recorded in Kitawade Plateau in the Maharashtra state, Tamhini Wildlife Sanctuary (Dahanukar et al. 2016), Amboli in the Sindhudurg district, Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary in the Raigad district and Sahyadri Tiger Reserve which occurs over the Satara and Kolhapur districts in Maharashtra (Padhye et al. 2014, Garg and Biju 2016, Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). It also occurs in Kali Tiger Reserve, Karnataka (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020) and Tillari Conservation Reserve (Krishna K, pers. comm. September 2020). It has been found in Sangameshwar, Khed and Mandangadthe the Ratnagiri district, in Kudal in the Sindhudurg district, and in Alibaug in the Raigad district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It may occur more within northern Karnataka, but otherwise it will be restricted to that area (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). It ranges between 80 and 998 m asl (Garg and Biju 2016). |
| 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. |
| 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 | Research on distribution and the effects of Bd is required. Population and habitat monitoring is also recommended. |
| 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 occasionally been found in paddy fields in the Ratnagiri District (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). Road widening and construction is also considered a threat, causing road mortalities (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). Breeding habitats are threatened due to 'Chira' (a laterite) stone quarrying (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). Bauxite mining and stone quarrying are major threats, as is habitat destruction, small-scale plantations (cashews), illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). A shift in breeding season has been observed due to the shift in the monsoon pattern, related to climate change (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd has not yet been detected in this species, despite swabs being taken, and it being detected in other species of the genus in Amboli (Nikhil Modak and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. September 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). Lateritic plateaus and meadows have been designated as wastelands, and these habitats are targeted and easily converted for tourism development (Nikhil Modak and A. 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 | This species is common where they are found (Nikhil Modak, Akshay Gawade and Gayathri Sreedharan, pers. comm. September 2020). It is probably the most abundant terrestrial frog in its distribution (Karthikeyan Vasudevan and Gayathri Sreedharan, 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 | This species has semi-aquatic tadpoles, which develop outside of water bodies on wet rocks and mosses (Gururaja KV and Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. August 2020). They also have long tails and their hind legs develop earlier compared to other anuran species (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? | Yes | It has some cultural value in its type locality of Amboli, after which it was named (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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 be a good husbandry analog for I. salelkari. |
| 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 | Could be useful for conservation education as it has semi-aquatic development and it is quite common (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020). 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? | 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 |
Citation:
Akshay Gawade, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Gayathri Sreedharan and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Indirana chiravasi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5458
Accessed 12 Mar 2025
