Assessment Results
Walkerana muduga
Muduga Mountain Leaping Frog
Order:
Anura
Family:
Ranixalidae
Synonym(s):
Sallywalkerana muduga
Assessed for:
India
on:
19 Oct 2020
by:
AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop
Authors:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak and S.R. Chandramouli
IUCN Global Red List:
Not Evaluated (NE)
National Red List:
(not assessed)
Distribution:
India
Evolutionary Distinctiveness score:
34
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.] | Data Deficient (DD) | Listed as Data Deficient in view of the absence of sufficient information on its extent of occurrence, status and ecological requirements. |
| 2 | Possibly extinct | Is there a strong possibility that this species might be extinct in the wild? | Unknown | |
| 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 leaping frog is known from the type locality in Muthikulam in the Elivalmala/Elivalmalaat Hill Range (Dinesh et al. 2020), as well as nearby at Siruvani and Keralamedu, all of which are in the Mannarkad Reserve Forests although these areas are not designated to protect species but they do protect the habitat (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020), north of the Palghat Gap in Kerala State, India (Dinesh et al. 2020). The species is thought to be fairly well protected (S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). It is likely to occur more widely than is currently known, particularly in to Tamil Nadu (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 2020). This species occurs at elevations ranging between 800- 1,900 m asl. |
| 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 | All known localities are in the Mannarkad Reserve Forests (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. October 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 | Only present in the Mannarkad Reserve Forests (Sandeep Das, pers. comm. 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 | Additional 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 into distribution, population, threats, impacts of Bd and climate change, as well as natural history is required. |
| 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 unknown | Elivalmala Mountain is well-protected and there are not thought to be ongoing threats. Tourism activities are taking place in the area, but at elevations below the species' distribution. The species is dependent on wet rocks for larval development sites, climate change and impacts on rainfall patterns could be detrimental to the breeding sites. Climatic change could alter the temperature and humidity levels required by the species, as well as the possible increase in the frequency and severity of forest fires that could impact the grassland habitat of this species (S.R. Chandramouli, pers. comm. October 2020). Climate change is particularly problematic for this species as it occurs at high altitudes, so a potential future shift in habitat may result in the loss of subpopulations that occur at the highest elevations as they will have no habitat to migrate to (India RLA/CNA workshop, October 2020). Bd has been detected in the genus but clinical signs of disease have not been observed. It is unknown if this species can tolerate any habitat disturbance although congeneric species have been observed in cardamom plantations (Sandeep Das and Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. 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? | Unknown | There is no information on population status for this species, as this species was described from just two specimens and no systematic surveys have been done for this species (S.R. Chandramouli, 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 | The only member of the genus to be found north of the Palghat Gap (India RLA/CNA workshop, Octobber 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 | It has been named after the Mudugar people; a local indigenous group (India RLA/CNA workshop, Octobber 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? | Unknown | Walkerana leptodactyla would possibly make a good husbandry analog species (Nikhil Modak, pers. comm. 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 | |
| 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)? | No | Research into species validity needs to be prioritised. |
Citation:
Sandeep Das, Nikhil Modak and S.R. Chandramouli 2020. Conservation Needs Assessment for Walkerana muduga, India
(AArk/ASG India Assessment Workshop).
https://conservationneeds.org/assessment/5741
Accessed 02 Feb 2025
