Assessment Results
Micrixalus nigraventris
Black-bellied Dancing Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Micrixalidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
06 Nov 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Chandramouli, S.R. Ganesh, Madhushri Mudke and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
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? | 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 - 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 dancing frog occurs in the Western Ghats states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India, between the Palghat gap and the Shencottah gap (Biju et al. 2014). In Kerala State, it has been recorded at Eravikulam National Park in Idukki District, and in Tamil Nadu State, it is known from Kodaikanal in Dindigul District (Biju et al. 2014). It is also known from Kodaikanal Wildlife Sanctuary, Anamudi Shola National Park, Pampadum Shola National Park, Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Munnar Reserve Forest and Munnar town (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). It may occur more widely in the Anamalai Hills, but it is likely to be restricted to this area and is replaced by its congeners (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). It ranges between 1,780 and 2,105 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 | It is present in a number of 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 | The management of the protected areas in which it occurs should aim to maintain intact shola forest containing stream headwaters to ensure the survival of this species (India RLA/CNA workshop, November 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 on its distribution, and the effects of Bd and climate change are required. 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 | Similar to the other species in the genus, this species is highly habitat-specific requiring clear flowing water with sufficient canopy cover, and is therefore not adaptable to the opening up of its habitat (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). Habitat disturbance in shola forest that affects the headwater streams is the major threat to this species. This disturbance is caused by the creation of fire lines to manage fire events, water pollution caused by recreational tourism. Stream diversion for irrigation systems and the development of small check dams may be a minor threat to this species (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. November 2020). This species requires low temperatures and high humidity for all life stages. Therefore, the high elevation of this species' distribution makes this species vulnerable to anticipated changes in stream water temperature and quality caused by climatic changes would eradicate the species (S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 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. October 2020) and habitat shifting (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 considered rare at all the collection sites (Biju et al. 2014, S.R. Ganesh and S.R. Chandramouli, 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 nelliyampathi or M. fuscus would probably be the better potential husbandry analogs for all Micrixalus spp. (Sandeep Das and (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. November 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 | 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, S.R. Chandramouli, S.R. Ganesh, Madhushri Mudke and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Micrixalus nigraventris, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5534
Accessed 07 Feb 2025
