Assessment Results
Micrixalus kottigeharensis
Ramaswami's Torrent Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Philautus kottigeharensis, Micrixalus swamianus, Micrixalus narainensis
Assessed for:
India
on:
05 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das and Madhushri Mudke
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
22.39553688
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.] | Vulnerable (VU) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species wass previously known only from the type locality "Kottigehar, Kadur", and from a recently discovered population at Bhadrea, in Chicamangalore District, Karnataka, in the Western Ghats of India. It now also occurs in Kemmanagundi, Kottigehara and Muthodi in Chikmagalur District, Charmadi Ghats in Dakshina Kannada District, Sakleshpur in Hassan District, Kathlekan, and Unchalli Falls and Waddighat in Uttara Kannada District (Biju et al. 2014) and Agumbe in Shimoga District, Karnataka (Madhushri Mudke, pers comm, October 2020). It is widely distributed throughout the Karnataka State but is thought to be restricted to the north of Palghat Gap and south of Goa Gap (Biju et al. 2014, Madhushri Mudke, pers comm, October 2020). It appears to have a very small distribution. This species is found in a number of community reserves, which have a mixed level of protection (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). It ranges between 411 and 1,100 m asl (Biju et al. 2014). |
| 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 | This species is found in a number of community reserves, which have a mixed level of protection (Madhushri Mudke, 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 | Improved habitat protection is required, and regulations/guidelines should be developed for tourists to reduce their species disturbance behaviours (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 distribution, population trends, natural history, threats posed by climate change and the effect of Bd (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 | Current known habitats are not very well protected and all species inhabiting primary streams threatened due to river linking projects and water management in general such as pollution, water diversion and potentially bunds or check dams (small temporary dams) which is prevalent across the Western Ghats landscape (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). It is threatened by clearance for agricultural use (including coffee cultivation, Areca nut and cashew). Pesticide use is probably a threat as pesticide use is not well regulated (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Species in this genus are probably unable to cope with habitat degradation, loss or disturbance due to specific microhabitat requirements (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). There is a lot of disturbance from ecotourists and wildlife photographers walking through streams in important habitats, with this species particularly popular for photography (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is a potential future threat to the species due to the specific microhabitat requirements and unpredictability of climate (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). Bd has been detected in other Micrixalus species, 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 | It is relatively abundant at all the collection localities (Biju et al. 2014, 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 | |
| 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? | Yes / probably | Micrixalus saxicola or M. fuscus would probably be the better potential husbandry analogs for all Micrixalus spp. (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020), if needed, although M. niluvasei could also be used as it is one of the more commonly encountered Micrixalus species (Madhushri Mudke, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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? | Yes | Already very popular, beautiful diurnal dancing frog that could feature in nature tours (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? | No / unlikely | |
| 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 | Rao (1937) originally described this taxon as Philautus kottigeharensis based on a single specimen from Kottigehar. Bossuyt and Dubois (2001) transferred the species from Philautusto Micrixalus. The holotype was lost and recently Bossuyt and Milinkovitch (2001) relocated the species from Bhadrea in Chicamangalore District very near to the type locality. Formal designation of the neotype is under way (S.D. Biju, pers. comm.). |
Citation:
Sandeep Das and Madhushri Mudke 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus kottigeharensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5530
Accessed 31 Mar 2025
