Assessment Results
Raorchestes shillongensis
Shillong Bush Frog, Shillong Bubble-nest Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Philautus shillongensis, Pseudophilautus shillongensis
Assessed for:
India
on:
29 Sep 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed and Jayaditya Purkayastha
IUCN Global Red List:
Critically Endangered (CR)
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.] | 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 | |
| 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 is restricted to a small area of forest, in and around Shilong, Meghalaya, in north-eastern India. This frog is known with certainty from the Khasi Hills, Meghalaya State in northeastern India (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). It has also been recorded from Mizoram State in northeastern India (Boruah et al. 2018, Saikia et al. 2018) but these records require further confirmation as there are often misidentifications of this genus in this region (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). It is present in several protected areas, including Mawlai Reserve Forest, Laitkor Reserve Forest, Mawpat Reserve Forest, and Upper Shillong Reserve Forest, along with some community conserved and semi-protected forests, such as Mawphlang Sacred Grove (Boruah et al. 2018), however most of these managed for forestry and are not well-protected areas (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). It has also been found in Nongkhyllem Wildlife Sanctuary (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). It is unlikely that this species occurs outside of the Kasi Hills (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). It ranges between 1,087 and 1,924 m asl in Mizoram (Boruah et al. 2018), and from about 1,000-1,600 m asl in the Kasi Hills (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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 | |
| 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 several protected areas, including Mawlai Reserve Forest, Laitkor Reserve Forest, Mawpat Reserve Forest, and Upper Shillong Reserve Forest, along with some community conserved and semi-protected forests, such as Mawphlang Sacred Grove (Boruah et al. 2018). |
| 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 | Habitat protection and maintenance are urgent priorities for this species. |
| 9 | In situ research | Is additional in situ research required to better understand the species, e.g. distribution, population trends, natural history etc.? | Yes | Additional survey work is necessary to assess its current population status. |
| 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 has been found in human settlements, gardens, roadside shrubs, stream sides and broadleaf forest areas. This species survives well around human habitation (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). Selective logging, the collection of wood for subsistence use, and urbanization, are all major threats to the species' habitat. Other main threats to this taxon are illegal deforestation, unregulated mining in protected and unprotected areas (Gilbert 2012), which may be especially relevant in the Shillong Plateau (Mahony et al. 2013, Boruah et al. 2018). Selective logging, the collection of wood for subsistence use, and urbanization, are all threats to the species' habitat, but this is an adaptable species so these are probably not major threats (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). Climate change is likely to be a potential threat in the future because of this species' elevational range, and lack of additional habitat within the range (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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 a common species in the Kasi Hills, within its elevational range (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 2020). The population was previously believed to have declined significantly (D. Roy pers. comm.), but since then it has now been found more widely throughout the Kasi Hills (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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? | 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 | This species occurs in a popular place for tourists, and so it could be used to educate visitors about amphibians and the environment (Mohammad Firoz Ahmed, pers. comm. September 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:
Mohammad Firoz Ahmed and Jayaditya Purkayastha 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Raorchestes shillongensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5696
Accessed 02 Feb 2025
