Assessment Results
Megophrys robusta
Robust Horned Frog, Robust Horned Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Megophryidae
Synonym(s):
Megalophrys robusta, Xenophrys robusta
Assessed for:
India
on:
15 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Stephen Dutta, Annemarie Ohler and Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
China, India, Nepal
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19
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? | Unknown | |
| 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 species was previously restricted to four areas of north-eastern India: Mouling National Park, and northern West Siang District, both in Arunachal Pradesh; Darjeeling and Kalimpong in West Bengal; and the Garo Hills and Tura Hills in Meghalaya, between 1,100-2,000 m asl. It now also occurs from Darjeeling Hills east through Bhutan to at least the West Kameng District of western Arunachal Pradesh State, Sikkim State, as well as Ilam, Pachthar, and Taplejung Provinces of Nepal (Mahony et al. 2018). It has been found in Hapoli, Arunachal Pradesh (Ohler et al 2018). Its distribution is likely to extend north along river valleys into bordering southern Tibet and China (Mahony et al. 2018). Records from Meghalaya, Assam, and Nagaland in India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Vietnam require confirmation or are erroneous (Mahony et al. 2018). It probably occurs more widely than current records suggest, especially in areas between known sites. It may be found further east in Arunchal Pradesh, with the Brahmaputra River acting as the easternmost border for the species (Stephen Dutta, pers. comm. 2020) It ranges between 1,030 m asl (Mahony et al. 2018) to 2,400 m asl (Rai and Anders 2002). |
| 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 has been reported from Mouling National Park and Dihang-Dibang Biosphere Reserve, in Arunachal Pradesh. |
| 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 | Further research is required on its distribution and taxonomy of subpopulations in Arunchal Pradesh, and the harvesting of this species. Population 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 are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | This species is restricted to forest, and is unlikely to tolerate severe habitat disturbance and loss. In Arunachal Pradesh, development activities are considered to be threats (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). In Arunachal Pradesh, there are many large hydroelectric power plants in the planning or early development phase (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020), for example, Dibang and Etalin are two of the largest with a 3000 MW capacity. These projects require the construction of large dams that will result in habitat loss, and will remove water from the surrounding rivers and streams, substantially changing the hydrology of the region (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). This in turn is going to result in the displacement of the human population, which will result in the migration and further encroachment into the remaining habitat for development of human settlements (Stephen Dutta, pers. cmm. 2020). It is possible that this species could be eaten, due to being one of the larger members of the genus. Rock mining for construction in rivers and streams will also be a problem, and could result the loss of breeding sites for this species (Stephen Dutta, pers. comm. 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 | It is possibly eaten in parts of India, but this has not been confirmed (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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? | Unknown | In India this is considered to be a rare species (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). Due to their territorial nature they will not be found in high concentrations (Stephen Dutta, pers. comm. 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | It is not a common species (Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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:
Prof. Sabitry Choudhury Bordoloi, Stephen Dutta, Annemarie Ohler and Jigme Tshelthrim Wangyal 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Megophrys robusta, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5516
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
