Assessment Results
Walkerana diplosticta
Spotted Leaping Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Indirana diplosticta, Sallywalkerana diplosticta
Assessed for:
India
on:
21 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Robin Suyesh
IUCN Global Red List:
Endangered (EN)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
35.58783
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) | Listed as Endangered because its extent of occurrence (EOO) is 1,049 km2, it occurs in five or fewer threat-defined locations, and there is continuing decline in the extent and quality of its habitat. |
| 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 - 50 | |
| 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 is endemic to the southern Western Ghats states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu of India, inside Agasthyamala Biosphere reserve. and occurs south of the Shencottah Gap (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). It is known from Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary, Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020); Upper Kodayar, Kakachi, Kannikatti and Nalmukh in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve and Shencottah (Dahanukar et al. 2016), all in Tamil Nadu. In Kerala, it is known in Athiramala (Biju et al. 2004), and Ponmudi (Inger et al. 1984, Nair et al. 2012, Dahanukar et al. 2016), and Ponkalapara in Thiruvananthapuram District. It occurs between 900-1,800 m asl. According to Dahanukar et al. (2016), records from Ranipuram (Andrews et al. 2005), Anamalai Hills (Boulenger 1920), Srivilliputtur (Daniel and Sekar 1989, Biju et al. 2004h), and Kochupamba (Nair et al. 2012b) need genetic confirmation. Records from Indira Ghandi National Park (Biju et al. 2004), Idukki Wildlife Sanctuary, Eravikulam National Park, Srivilliputtur (Daniel and Sekar 1989, Biju et al. 2004h), Grass Hills and Valparai in Coimbatore District, and Kodaikanal in Dindigul District (Garg and Biju 2016), Mattupetti and Munnar in Idukki District also need further verification. |
| 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 | This species occurs in the Kalakad Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary, Peppara Wildlife Sanctuary and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, all in Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 | Further habitat protection and management is required, as well as raising awareness with tourists to reduce their littering and species disturbance behaviours (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). |
| 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 natural history, and the effects of climate change and Bd. Population monitoring is also recommended (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 are likely to be reversible in time frame to prevent further decline / extinction | Tourism and the resulting pollution is thought to be the primary threat. An annual pilgrimage takes place in Kerala state, at Athirumala within the Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve. This pilgrimage involves hundreds of visitors per day during the months of January-March, which results in an increase in littering as well as localized stream pollution in that area (S. Das pers. comm. October 2020). Tourism in Ponmudi is also causing species disturbance, and is considered to be a minor threat (India Red List Assessment Workshop October 2020). While road construction was previously listed as a threat to this species, it is now thought that this is not likely happening in this species' range. However, road mortalities may be a minor threat to the species (India Red List Assessment Workshop October 2020). Climate change poses a potential future threat which may result in the shifting of habitat. This shift could cause a loss of subpopulations at higher elevations as they will have no habitat to migrate to (India Red List Assessment Workshop October 2020). Additionally, the temperature profile of the ground may alter and result in stream drying which would also be problematic for this species (K.S. Seshadri pers. comm. October 2020). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) has been confirmed in Ponmudi, but no records have been found in the genus and further research is required (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 variable across it range depending on leaf litter - common in some area, rare in others. Lower in number compared to other groups such as Raorchestes (India RLA/CNA workshop, 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 | One of the smaller members of the genus. |
| 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 | Walkerana leptodactyla could be a good husbandry analog for this species (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 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 | Potential flagship ranking: 4 (tourist), 2 (conservation practitioner), (Kanagavel et al. 2017). This species has semi-aquatic tadpoles which develop outside of waterbodies on wet rocks and mosses, which have long tails and their hindlimbs develop earlier compared to other anuran species (Nikhil Modak and Gururaja K.V., 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:
Sandeep Das, S.R. Ganesh, Nikhil Modak, Seshadri K.S. and Robin Suyesh 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Walkerana diplosticta, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5739
Accessed 05 Feb 2025
