Assessment Results
Polypedates occidentalis
Charpa Tree Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
21 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawade, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Surya Narayanan, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Data Deficient (DD)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
15.59575435
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.] | Least Concern (LC) | |
| 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? | No / unlikely | This species was previously only known from the Charpa Forest Range, in Vazhachal Forest Division, Thrissur District, Kerala State, southwestern India (Das and Dutta 2006). It now also occurs in in Knarnakata State in Kadatoka Village of Honavar Taluka in Uttara Kannada District (Hegde and Bhat 2011, Hedge 2012), Agumbe Reserve forest in Shimoga District (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), Sharavathi and Aghanashini river basins in Uttara Kannada District (Ramachandra 2012), and Pajiru and Konake in Mangalore Taluk, Nannada District (Nair and Kumar 2013), and in Kerala State in Malakkapara, in the buffer zone of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, 50 km north to the type locality in Palghat District (Jobin and Nameer 2012). It is also found within Bisle Reserve Forest (Seshadri KS and Gururaja KV, pers. comm. September 2020), and is also known from Wayanad area in Kerala (Surya Narayanan pers. obs.). It has also been found in Alibaug in Raigad district (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). The species has also been recorded within traditionally-protected areas (Akshay Gawade, pers. comm. October 2020). It is likely to occur between known localities. It ranges between approximately between 100 m asl (Nair and Kumar 2013) and 1,100 m asl (Dinesh et al. 2013). |
| 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 occurs in the Charpa Forest Range, in the Vazhachal Forest Division, but this probably does not provide much in the way of effective protection. It is present in the protected areas of Agumbe Reserve forest (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), Parambikulam Tiger Reserve (Jobin and Nameer 2012), and World Heritage Site (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 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. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Surveys are needed to determine its distribution, abundance, threats, taxonomy, and the effects of Bd and climate change. |
| 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 | It occurs in lowland forests (Purushotham and Tapley 2011), plantations, rural human habitations, secondary forests (Hedge 2012) and rural villages (Nair and Kumar 2013), and it is fairly adaptable. There is an ongoing loss of natural habitats due to anthropogenic disturbance over much of the Western Ghats. This is caused by the development of roads and road widening (K.V. Gururaja pers. comm. August 2020), small-scale plantations, illegal encroachment and unsustainable harvesting of tree species. As well as small-scale plantations causing habitat loss and degradation, the change in agriculture type from coffee to ginger plantations is causing the opening up of the habitat which is detrimental to this species (S. Molur pers. comm. August 2020). The conversion of land to any plantation results in the removal of the understorey vegetation, and traditional farming practices (Soppinabetta) in the area causes the removal of leaf litter which results in the loss of breeding sites and causes disturbance to breeding activity (S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). The unsustainable harvesting of kokum trees (Garcinia spp.) and there is illegal encroachment of cash crop plantations which are extending in size on an annual basis which is causing further habitat loss in the species range (K.V. Gururaja, S. Molur and K. Vasudevan pers. comm. August 2020). Road mortality is considered to be a minor threat (Seshadri KS, Yadav A, Gururaja KV, 2011) Climate change may be a potential future threat with changes in the monsoon season possibly affecting breeding activity. Bd has been confirmed within Rhacophorids, but further studies are required to investigate the full effects on this species. |
| 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 common where it is found (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 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? | Yes | This species is harvested locally for medicinal use to help with malnutrition in children (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 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 | It is one of the most common, large arboreal species, and has a very characteristic sound. Eggs are laid in a foam nest (Gururaja KV and Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. August 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. It is likely that this is a synonym, but further work is required to confirm this (Gururaja KV, pers. comm. August 2020). |
Citation:
N.A. Aravind, Nikhil Danddekar, Akshay Gawade, Priti Hebbar, Dr. Trupti Jadhav, Gururaja K.V., Surya Narayanan, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Polypedates occidentalis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5645
Accessed 23 Apr 2025
