Assessment Results
Rhacophorus calcadensis
Langbian Flying Frog, Kalakkad Tree Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Rhacophoridae
Synonym(s):
Rhacophorus beddomii
Assessed for:
India
on:
02 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak, Rajkumar K.P., Seshadri K.S., Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
15.93758665
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? | 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 species was previously only known from southern Western Ghats of India in Kerala (Neyyar, Peppara, Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary of Agasthyamalai biosphere Reserve and Munnar) and Tamil Nadu (Kakachi, Upper Kodayar and Kannikatti, inside Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and Indira Gandhi National Park). It is now also present in Kerala State at Shekkalmudi in Parambikulam Tiger Reserve (Jobin and Nameer 2012) and Tamil Nadu State in Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018), and across Valparai, Anamalai Hills (Harikrishnan et al. 2018, Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. October 2020), Bonaccaud (Nikhil Modak and Nameer, pers. comm. October 2020), Nelliyampathy Reserve Forests and Mathikettan Shola National Park (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It is also known from Periyar Tiger Reserve (Sandeep Das and Rajkumar KP, pers. comm. October 2020). It occurs between 700-1,438 m, asl (Jobin and Nameer 2012, Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). It may be found between its known localities, but is thought to be restricted to its known range. It occurs between 700 - 1,438 m, asl (Jobin and Nameer 2012). |
| 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 has been recorded from Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and Indira Gandhi National Park, both in Tamil Nadu, and Neyar Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. It was also present in Meghamalai Wildlife Sanctuary (Chaitanya et al. 2018). Recent investigations into the ecology and breeding biology of this species have been undertaken by S.D. Biju (1999-2001). |
| 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 research is required on its distribution and the effects of Bd and climate change (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Population monitoring is also recommended. |
| 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 | It is generally found along streams in montane tropical moist forest, and is not present in degraded habitats. It was also recorded among bushes near a water hole between an evergreen forest and tea plantation (Jobin and Nameer 2012), and breeding in dammed pools with overhanging vegetation (Harikrishnan et al. 2018). They are known to survive well in cardamom plantations (Vishnupriya Sankararaman, pers. comm. October 2020). The major threat is habitat loss following the conversion of forest to agricultural land (including eucalyptus, acacia and tea plantations), which cause loss of the riparian habitat (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Stream diversion for agricultural irrigation systems by farmers and pesticide use (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Road development and small-scale harvesting of trees are considered to be moderate threats (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020), with road mortality being a minor threat (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Boiga ceylonensis is known to predate on the adults in the breeding sites (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change may be a potential future threat as reduced rainfall in monsoon will affect breeding pools. |
| 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 an uncommon species, but considered to be locally abundant (Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Nikhil Modak pers. comm. October 2020). It is one of the most common species in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (Seshadri K.S., pers. comm. October 2020). Populations of this frog is patchy and they are usually spotted only on breeding sites, where several males are seen (Karthikeyan Vasudevan, 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 | It has less webbing than other Rhacophorid species. There is a distinct difference in coloration between the juveniles and the adults (Seshadri KS, pers. comm. October 2020). |
| 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 | 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? | 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, Nikhil Modak, Rajkumar K.P., Seshadri K.S., Vishnupriya Sankararaman and Karthikeyan Vasudevan 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Rhacophorus calcadensis, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5707
Accessed 23 Jan 2025
