Assessment Results
Indirana duboisi
Dubois's Leaping Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
14 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Dr. Anand Padhye, S.R. Ganesh, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Madhushri Mudke and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
17
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.] | Near Threatened (NT) | Due to increased knowledge of species and sufficient information to assess species. |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This leaping frog is only known from the Karnataka state of India, where it has been recorded from Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary and Kerekatte, Kudremukh National Park (Dahanukar et al. 2016), Agumbe in the Shimoga district, Bygoor and Charmadi Ghat in the Chikmagalur district, Gundia-Kempholey in the Dakshin Kannada district, Castle rock and Kathlekan in the Uttara Kannada district, Kempholey and Kottigehara in the Hassan district, (Garg and Biju 2016). It also occurs in Udupi town, Karnataka (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020) and within Someshwara Wildlife Sanctuary (S.R. Ganesh, pers. comm). It may occur more widely into Goa (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 80 and 1,042 m asl (Garg and Biju 2016). 50 / 50 split between presence in protected areas and outside protected areas. |
| 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 the protected areas of Kudremukh National Park and Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2020). It is likely present in Dandeli Anshi Tiger Reserve (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October, 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.)? | Yes / probably | Research into distribution and population monitoring. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Additional research on natural history, ecology and effects of Bd and climate change (Nikhil Modak and Madhushri Mudke pers. comm. October 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 are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | This species is found in acacia plantations, pesticide use is considered to be a possible threat (Nikhil Modak and (Madhushri Mudke pers. comm. October 2020). It is also found in Areca nut plantations (S.R. Ganesh, pers comm. October 2020). It is known to tolerate some habitat loss and disturbance as long as critical breeding sites remain (Nikhil Modak and (Madhushri Mudke pers. comm. October 2020). Desiccation of habitat associated with climate change may be a potential future threat (Nikhil Modak 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). Lateritic plateaus and meadows have been designated as wastelands, and these habitats are targeted and easily converted for tourism development (Nikhil Modak and Dr. Anand Padhye, pers. comm. September 2020). Bd has been detected in Indirana but no clinical signs of disease have been observed ((Madhushri Mudke. pers. comm. 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 | Locally common (Nikhil Modak and Madhushri Mudke, 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 Gururaja K.V. , 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 | This species is a suitable analog species for other threatened Indirana (Nikhil Modak and M. Mudke, 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 Gururaja K.V., 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:
Dr. Anand Padhye, S.R. Ganesh, Gururaja K.V., Keerthi Krutha, Nikhil Modak, Madhushri Mudke and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Indirana duboisi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5459
Accessed 11 Mar 2025
