Assessment Results
Raorchestes primarrumpfi
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Assessed for:
India
on:
19 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
S.R. Ganesh, Chandramouli S.R. and Nikhil Modak
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
18.03724571
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.] | Critically Endangered (CR) | Due to EOO and number of locations and projected ongoing decline of populations. |
| 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? | Yes / probably | This bush frog is only known from Avalanche zone, at very high elevations in the western edge of the Nilgiri Massif, Nilgiris District (Vijayakumar et al. 2014, Princy et al. 2017), in the Western Ghats state of Tamil Nadu in India, at elevations between 2,212 and 2,359 m asl (Vijayakumar et al. 2014, Princy et al. 2017). It is not present in protected areas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 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? | No / unlikely | This bush frog is known from Avalanche zone; Emerald in the Western Catchment; and Upper Bhavani (SR Ganesh and SR Chandramouli pers comm 2020), at very high elevations in the western edge of the Nilgiri Massif, Nilgiris District (Vijayakumar et al. 2014, Princy et al. 2017), in the Western Ghats state of Tamil Nadu in India, at elevations between 2,212 and 2,359 m asl (Vijayakumar et al. 2014, Princy et al. 2017). Further surveys may record the species higher upslope within the current known distribution (SR Ganesh and SR Chandramouli pers. comm. 2020). |
| 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.). | No / unlikely | It is not present in protected areas (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 | Population monitoring, habitat protection (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. October 2020), inclusion of high elevation grasslands into legislation. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Research on distribution is recommended (Vijayakumar et al. 2014); impact of burning grassland should be prioritised (Nikhil Modak, 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 unlikely to be reversed in time to prevent further decline / extinction | The major threat to this high-elevation species is climate change, as shifts in monsoon patterns risk changing the temperature and humidity it requires, and can also result in landslides that can affect large areas. Habitat destruction and degradation is also a major threat caused by conversion to eucalyptus, wattle, and pine plantations for timber; and the cutting of fire lines to manage fire events in grasslands. Plastic pollution from tourism in the buffer zones of the national park is an additional threat. Finally, the proximity of human habitation to the species' grassland habitat has also introduced domestic, feral cats which have been observed preying upon this species (SR Ganesh and SR Chandramouli pers. comm. 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? | Unknown | |
| 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 | This frog is uncommon across its patchy distribution, and is difficult to detect owing to its small size (SR Ganesh and SR Chandramouli pers. comm. 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 | Raorchestes beddomii or R. ponmudi could be potential husbandry analogs for this species, if needed (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. December 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? | No | |
| 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? | Unknown | Research into availability of founders needs to be prioritised. |
| 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:
S.R. Ganesh, Chandramouli S.R. and Nikhil Modak 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes primarrumpfi, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5691
Accessed 08 Feb 2025
