Assessment Results
Microhyla sholigari
Sholiga Narrow-mouthed Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Microhylidae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
14 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Dr Anand Padhy, N.A. Aravind, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Harshil Patel, Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Seshadri K.S., Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
19.64826712
Recommended Conservation Actions:
Additional Comments:
The Central Zoo Authority of the Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change of India identified this taxon as a target amphibian species in 2013 (Gupta 2015). Given the latest information that species is locally abundant and present in well protected areas there is no ex situ conservation need (Aravind NA pers. comm. September 2020).
| 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 | |
| 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? | Unknown | This species is known from Biligirirangan Hills (Karnataka) and Wayanad (Kerala) (Biju 2001) in the southern Western Ghats at elevations ranging between 600 and 1,800m asl. It is also known from the outskirts of the city of Bengaluru, Shivanalli (Seshadri et al. 2016), Bhagamandala, Gundalpetta, and Shimoga in Karnataka State (Garg et al. 2019), and Masinagudi in Tamil Nadu. It is known to occur in the Bilgiris Rangaswamy Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka, and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. It may occur between its known localities (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). |
| 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 | Population at the type locality has the highest level of protection as it is a Tiger Reserve (Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Tiger Reserve). |
| 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 known to occur in many protected areas, including the Bilgiris Rangaswamy Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka, and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. |
| 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 survey work is needed to determine the current population status of this species, and to investigate further its breeding biology. There is a need for further systematic surveys to better understand the natural history of this taxon (Seshadri et al. 2016). |
| 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 | The major threat to this species is habitat loss through conversion to agricultural land (cultivated fields) and the extraction of wood from tropical forests. Habitat loss due to urbanization in the region is now the main threat. It has been recorded from lightly disturbed forest fringes. This frog inhabits near human settlements, in open areas of forests, in ponds (Seshadri et al. 2016), and close to water bodies under wayside vegetation or waterlogged areas within secondary forest patches (Garg et al. 2019). Herbicide and pesticide use is also a major threat (Aravind NA pers. comm. September 2020) Road mortality is also a minor threat (Seshadri KS and Aravind NA pers. comm. August 2020). It can tolerate a degree of habitat disturbance (Kotambylu Vasudeva Gururaja pers. comm. August 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 considered locally abundant (> 50 calling male individuals/100 m2 were observed at Bisle, BRTTR and Shivanalli). Limited information is available on population size, fluctuation and trends, population size or generation length (Seshadri et al. 2016). |
| 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? | Yes | It is named after a local tribal community (India RLA/CNA workshop, 2020). |
| 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? | 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 | Potential flagship ranking: 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). |
| 23 | Mandate | Is there an existing conservation mandate recommending the ex situ conservation of this taxon? | Yes | The Central Zoo Authority of the Ministry of Environmental, Forest and Climate Change of India identifies this taxon as a target amphibian species in 2013 (Gupta 2015). Given the latest information that species is locally abundant and present in well protected areas there is no ex situ conservation need (Aravind NA pers. comm. September 2020). |
| 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 Padhy, N.A. Aravind, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.R. Ganesh, Harshil Patel, Gururaja K.V., Krishna Komanduri, Nikhil Dandekar, Prudhvi Raj Gunturu, Seshadri K.S., Shauri Sulakhe and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Microhyla sholigari, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5555
Accessed 27 Jan 2025
