Assessment Results
Micrixalus gadgili
Gadgil's Dancing Frog, Gadgil's Torrent Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
06 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das and Madhushri Mudke
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
23.8216461
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? | Yes / probably | This species was previously known from Sabarigiri in the Periyar Tiger Reserve (Pillai and Pattabiraman 1990) in Kerala in the southern Western Ghats of India. It is now also known from the Anamalai Hills at Nemmara (Kumar et al. 2002), Idukki District at Thekkady, Sabarimala, Pathanamthitta District at Gavi, and Palakkad District at Kesavapara (Biju et al. 2014). Kuttikanam, Vagamon, and the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Idukki District (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). It ranges between 700 -1,200 m asl (Biju et al. 2014, Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Records from Ponmudi (Andrews et al. 2005) have now been assigned Micrixalus sali, and records from Siruvani in Tamil Nadu State have been assigned to M. thampii (Biju et al. 2014). Records reported from Kudremukh National Park (Krishnamurthy 2003) and Sharavathi River basin in Uttara Kannada District (Gururaja et al. 2008) do not belong to this species (check with Gururaja K.V.). |
| 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 | Its range includes the Periyar Tiger Reserve, and it is protected by national legislation. |
| 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 on distribution, and the effects of Bd and climate change. Population monitoring is also recommended (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 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 not yet known from secondary forests. It is thought to require some form of canopy cover, so is unlikely to tolerate major habitat loss or disturbance (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Outside of protected areas, the primary threat to this species is the loss of forest habitat through development of human settlements and tourist resorts and road development. In the Sabarimalai area in Kerala, within 10km2 of the type locality, a mass pilgrimage of millions of people occurs on an annual basis which causes pollution to the streams and terrestrial habitat, species disturbance (including eggs) and potentially causes tadpoles mortalities (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Siltation of streams resulting from deforestation are also a threat, along with water irrigation systems and pollution from agricultural runoff (including pesticide use), and the development of small check dams (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Road mortalities may be a threat, but this has not yet been confirmed (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Climate change is likely to be a potential future threat as increased rains and monsoons will increase the risk of flooding (Madhushri Mudke and Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been found in other species of the genus, so chytridiomycosis may be a potential threat for this species but further research is required (Madhushri Mudke and Sandeep Das, 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? | Unknown | It is locally uncommon. |
| 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? | 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 | Would be a good husbandry analog for all smaller Micrixalus (M. sali, M. thampii and M. nudis) (Sandeep Das, 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 | Potential flagship ranking: 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). This is one of the dancing frog species, which have a unique habit of waving their feet to attract females during the breeding season, or for defense (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 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:
Sandeep Das and Madhushri Mudke 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus gadgili, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5527
Accessed 19 Apr 2025
