Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 June 2026 | 18(6): 29098–29105
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10116.18.6.29098-29105
#10116 | Received 28 August 2025 | Final received 04 March 2026| Finally
accepted 02 May 2026
Evidence for the local
extirpation of the Dehradun Stream Frog Amolops
chakrataensis Ray, 1992 from the type locality, Chakrata in western Himalaya, India, and associated
threats: a call for urgent conservation action
Vishal Kumar Prasad 1 , Kumudani Bala Gautam 2,
Devendra Singh 3, Amit Badola 4,
Abhilasha Shrivastava 5 , K.P. Dinesh 6 & Amaël Borzée 7
1,5,7 Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Conservation, College of Life Sciences,
Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, People’s Republic of China.
1,3 Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.
1,7 IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist
Group, Gland, Rue Mauverney 281196, Switzerland.
2 Zoological Survey of India, Reptilia Section, FPS Building, Indian Museum complex,
Kolkata, West Bengal 700016, India.
3,4 Biodiversity Research and
Conservation Foundation, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India.
3 Department of Zoology,
SRT Campus, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna
Garhwal University, Srinagar Garhwal,
Uttarakhand 246174, India.
6 Zoological Survey of India,
Western Regional Centre, Pune, Maharashtra 411044, India.
7 Department of Zoology and General
Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Fergana State University, Fergana 150100,
Uzbekistan.
1 vishalprasad.wildlife@gmail.com, 2
balakumudani@gmail.com, 3 devurawatdr@gmail.com, 4 amitbadola99@gmail.com,
5 abhilashahwc@gmail.com, 6 kpdineshzsi2@gmail.com, 7
amaelborzee@gmail.com (corresponding author)
Abstract: The current occurrence status of
the ‘Critically Endangered’ Dehradun Stream Frog Amolops
chakrataensis was assessed at its type locality in
the Chakrata landscape in Dehradun District,
Uttarakhand in the western Himalaya, India. Daytime and nighttime visual
encounter and aural surveys were conducted for 39 survey days between 2023 and
2024, across multiple stream systems and seasons. Despite extensive effort, no
individuals of A. chakrataensis were detected.
This study identifies two additional ongoing threats under the IUCN Red List
Threats Classification Scheme: pollution and residential & commercial
development. Discrepancies in the current IUCN Red List distribution map were
also detected, and an updated preliminary estimate of the indigenous range (sensu IUCN) was provided prior to putative local
extirpation. These findings suggest a putative local extirpation at the type
locality and highlight the urgent need for targeted monitoring and habitat
conservation.
Keywords: Anthropogenic pressure,
conservation monitoring, Critically Endangered amphibian, habitat degradation,
Himalayan biodiversity, local extinction, stream habitat, pollution, type
locality reassessment, unsustainable tourism.
Editor: S.R. Ganesh, Kalinga Foundation, Agumbe, India.
Date of publication: 26
June 2026 (online & print)
Citation: Prasad, V.K., K.B. Gautam, D. Singh, A. Badola, A. Shrivastava, K.P. Dinesh & A. Borzée (2026). Evidence for the local extirpation of
the Dehradun Stream Frog Amolops chakrataensis Ray, 1992 from the type locality, Chakrata in western Himalaya, India, and associated
threats: a call for urgent conservation action. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(6): 29098–29105. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.10116.18.6.29098-29105
Copyright: © Prasad et al. 2026. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: This project was supported by grants awarded to VKP by the Rufford Small Grants Foundation (Projects 49530-B [Booster], 35454-1, and 43132-2; London, United Kingdom), the Indianapolis Zoo Wild Futures Conservation Grants (2025.WF.1), and the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund (Project 240534319; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates) for conducting field research in the Uttarakhand Himalaya. AB is funded by the Research Fund for International Scientists (RFIS) of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC; W2432021).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Vishal Kumar Prasad is a research affiliate at the Wildlife Institute of India, a secretariat member of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group at Switzerland, and is affiliated with the Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Conservation at Nanjing Forestry University, China. His research focuses on animal behaviour and ecology. Kumudani Bala Gautam is a genetics researcher and research associate in the Reptilia Section of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. Devendra Singh belongs to a local community in Uttarakhand and is a researcher at the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. Amit Badola is a researcher at the Biodiversity Research and Conservation Foundation, Dehradun, India. Abhilasha Shrivastava is a researcher at the Laboratory of Animal Behaviour and Conservation, Nanjing Forestry University, working on the conservation of Asian amphibians. K.P. Dinesh is an amphibian taxonomist and scientist at the Zoological Survey of India. Amaël Borzée is the Co-Chair of the IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, Switzerland and a Professor at Nanjing Forestry University, China
Author contribution: VKP and AB conceived and designed the study. VKP obtained funding for the research. VKP, KBG, and KPD obtained the necessary permissions to conduct the study in Uttarakhand. VKP and KBG coordinated logistics and communication with local government authorities and local communities. VKP, KBG, DS, ABadola, and AS conducted fieldwork and collected data. VKP performed the analyses and prepared the initial manuscript draft. AB and KPD revised the manuscript and provided guidance on study design, data analysis, and interpretation of the results. AB also assisted with editing and improving the manuscript. AB and KPD contributed to the overall structure and organisation of the paper. VKP led the writing of the manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments: We thank the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and the Chief
Wildlife Warden of the Uttarakhand State Forest Department for granting permission to conduct this research (permit numbers: 1014/5-6 and 2701/5-6). We also thank Gaurav Sharma, Officer-in-Charge, Northern Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Dehradun, for permitting the examination of amphibian type specimens. We are grateful to the Dean and Director of the Wildlife Institute of India for their support. KPD thanks the director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, the Officer-in-Charge, Western Regional Centre, Pune, and the Officer-in-Charge, Northern Regional Centre, Dehradun, for their support. We thank S.K. Gupta for his assistance at the Wildlife Institute of India. Our sincere thanks also go to the staff of the Biodiversity Research and Conservation Foundation, Dehradun, for their assistance during fieldwork.
Introduction
Dehradun Stream Frog Amolops chakrataensis,
Ray, 1992, is a CR amphibian found in Uttarakhand, in the western Indian
Himalaya (IUCN 2023; Image 1). This status is
primarily due to its extremely limited extent of occurrence (EOO) and the
severe decline in both the quality and extent of its habitat at its type
locality in the Chakrata Hills (Ray 1992). According
to the IUCN Red List assessment, habitat degradation and modifications of the
flow of streams caused by the construction of dams are the major threats to
this species (IUCN 2023). This species was collected by Dr.
Ray of Zoological Survey of India, Dehradun, from a stream along the Tuni road, approximately 14 km north-west of Chakrata Town, in 1985. Since then, there have not been
confirmed records of this species.
Amolops chakrataensis
can be easily
distinguished from its congeners by distinct yellowish dorsolateral glandular
folds. It is a medium-sized frog with females having a snout-vent length of
approximately 55 mm. Its head is wider than long. The posterior of its thighs
is blotched dark brown and creamy yellow. The dorsum is ashy brown, with the
lateral sides below the dorsolateral glandular folds appearing dark green. The
dorsolateral glandular folds exhibit a golden yellowish color (Ray 1999). The
ecology, breeding, and behaviour of the species are
also poorly known except for depositing eggs under boulders (IUCN 2023).
To determine the current status
and to identify the key threats to A. chakrataensis
at the type locality and surrounding area, the research team, including the
first five authors, conducted multiple daytime and night-time visual encounter
surveys and acoustic surveys (Borzée et al. 2016;
Prasad et al. 2020; Nowakowski et al. 2024) across
streams in the Chakrata landscape, including the type
locality of A. chakrataensis. Surveys were
conducted by a team of
experienced field herpetologists with prior expertise in Himalayan amphibian
identification for a total
of 39 days across different seasons between 2023 and 2024 (Table 1), with
efforts including two researchers for seven days in February 2023, three
researchers for six days in April 2023, three researchers for nine days in June
2024, three researchers for six days in September 2024, and two researchers for
11 days in October 2024. A standard search effort across sites was applied, spending 2 h
surveying each approximately 500 m stream and riparian section to allow careful
inspection of available microhabitats. On each survey day or night, 5h and 30
min of active surveying were conducted. The surveys were conducted in
Tuna Forest, Masak, Jadi, Kanaser, Lokhandi, Moila, Gvasa, Tiger waterfall,
and Dava, at altitudes ranging from approximately
1,050–2,700 m in the Chakrata landscape in Dehradun
District of Uttarakhand (Image 2). Each site was surveyed at least three times
to maximize the probability of detection. Sampling was conducted during
night-time (1800–2330 h) using headlamps and torches and daytime (1030–1600 h),
searching through stream banks, pools, leaf litter, roadside moist habitats,
and surrounding vegetation within the stream channel and immediate riparian
zone, corresponding to the expected detection distance for stream-dwelling
anurans. To detect the
presence of any calling males of A. chakrataensis,
a 5 min assessment of calling activity at each site prior to initiating visual
encounter surveys during night-time visits (Borzee et
al. 2016), with observers actively listening for calls while slowly walking
along stream sections.
In the absence of finding adult
individuals of A. chakrataensis, tadpoles were
sampled to confirm its presence. Based on 16S mtDNA
barcoding, the six sampled tadpoles were identified as belonging to the A. formosus (n = 1), A. jaunsari
(n = 1), Nanorana vicina
(n = 2), and N. minica (n = 2), with no
evidence of A. chakrataensis. DNA was
extracted from the clipped tail tissue of tadpoles using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (QIAGEN), following the
manufacturer’s protocol. A fragment of the mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene was
amplified with universal primers under standard PCR conditions. Amplicons were
purified, sequenced bidirectionally, and the resulting sequences were edited
and assembled in Geneious. Bayesian phylogenetic
analyses were conducted to confirm species identity, following established
protocols (Wang et al. 2023). Detailed laboratory protocols and full barcoding
analyses will be presented in a separate manuscript. Despite the
extensive efforts, no individuals of A. chakrataensis
were recorded during the surveys.
In addition, data on the threats
to A. chakrataensis were collected during the
field surveys using visual observations of habitat, photographic documentation
and taking field notes on mobile devices.
Information
on local land-use practices and perceived threats was further gathered through
informal interviews with local villagers and tribal communities. During the surveys, it was
observed that the streams in the type locality of A. chakrataensis
were polluted with plastic waste, directly disposed into the streams. Items
such as food wrappers, plastic bottles, bottle caps, grocery bags, straws, and
stirrers stemming from excessive tourism are regularly thrown into the
streams by tourists and hotel owners. During informal interviews in Jadi, local villagers told us that this plastic waste is
increasing primarily due to unsustainable tourism (Luo et al. 2018; Ziegler et
al. 2023) in the Chakrata landscape. It was also
observed that some parts of the streams were affected by algal bloom, most
likely caused due to agricultural pesticide runoff from surrounding fields in
nearby villages in the Chakrata landscape. Such pollution is known to alter
water quality and microhabitat structure and affect the functioning of
Himalayan Freshwater ecosystems (Peng 2019; Talukdar et al. 2023), which may
have negative consequences for stream-dependent amphibians, particularly during
aquatic life stages (Gill et al. 2025). This study identifies two
additional threats to A. chakrataensis under
the IUCN Red List Threats Classification Scheme (Version 3.3): pollution
(sub-categories–garbage and solid waste, and agricultural and forestry
effluents) and residential and commercial development (sub-category–tourism and recreation areas),
alongside the previously recognized threats of natural system modifications and
invasive and other problematic species, genes, and diseases. These threats are
ongoing and are most likely to impact all populations of A. chakrataensis in Chakrata.
Waste dumping in streams presents
a significant threat to the amphibians (Rahman et al. 2024), including A. chakrataensis and other sympatric anurans such as Amolops formosus, A.
jaunsari¸ Duttaphrynus
himalayanus, Nanorana
minica and N. vicina.
While garbage dumps may provide a constant source of food to animals, they also
expose wildlife to risks of pathogen infection and toxic substances, which can
have dire consequences for wildlife health and population viability
(Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021). Garbage
dumps act as ecological hotspots that attract invasive and toxic species,
posing serious risks to environmental health (Sangkachai
et al. 2024). Invasive amphibians, such as Duttaphrynus
melanostictus, can exploit these sites for
abundant food resources and potential breeding habitats, thereby enabling their
establishment and spread into native ecosystems (Penerbit
2019; Dufresnes et al. 2025). This process can
intensify competition and toxicity pressures, further threatening native
amphibian populations (Plaza & Lambertucci 2017).
Plastic pollution poses a lethal
threat to amphibians in freshwater ecosystems, affecting several species of
amphibians (Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021). Plastic pollution poses significant
risks to amphibians as the microplastics accumulate in the organs, causing
external morphological changes, mutagenic effects, and cytotoxic damage, which
severely affect the health and development of amphibians (da Costa Araújo et
al. 2020). Large freshwater amphibians also face entanglement in fishing nets
(Azevedo-Santos et al. 2021). The trend of threat from plastic waste to
amphibians in Chakrata is most likely similar; this
needs a detailed assessment (Image 3).
Despite extensive surveys between
2024 and 2025, no individuals of Amolops chakrataensis were detected, which is concerning. Since
its original description, there have been no confirmed records of this elusive
and rare species. Non-detection does not necessarily indicate extirpation and
may reflect low detectability associated with rarity, small population size,
cryptic behaviour, seasonal variability or sampling efforts (Button & Borzée 2024). This absence may also partly reflect
historical limitations, including a lack of targeted surveys, limited
scientific exploration, and the absence of long-term monitoring. Therefore, a
putative extirpation was referred to the type locality, pending further targeted
assessments. Additionally, the IUCN Red List reports the presence of A. chakrataensis in the Bhagirathi River basin (IUCN
2023); this record is not supported by published literature and is also not
represented in the IUCN Red List range map. Hence, it warrants verification.
This site was sampled in October 2024, but did not detect the species. Moreover, this
locality lies approximately 65 km (straight-line distance) from Chakrata. In addition, the current IUCN Red List
distribution map appears inaccurate, as it excludes the type locality and
places the range approximately 5 km away from the locality reported by Ray
(1992, 1999). Based on the field surveys, an updated preliminary range map for A.
chakrataensis (Image 2) is provided, estimating
an extent of occurrence of 52.79 km², compared to the 4 km² currently depicted
in the IUCN Red List range polygon. The area was calculated in ArcGIS Pro (version 3.1.5)
using the calculate geometry attributes tool. This revised range map can
serve as a baseline for future targeted surveys, resampling efforts, and
conservation assessments.
It is recommended to conduct
targeted seasonal surveys during peak breeding periods to improve
detectability. The collection of live individuals as vouchers should be
strictly prohibited for this species to prevent further population decline (Minteer et al. 2014). Environmental DNA (eDNA) surveys
may serve as a sensitive, non-invasive tool for assessing the presence of
species in low-density populations. Surveys should also extend beyond the type
locality to evaluate the potential persistence of the species in adjacent
stream systems. Habitat restoration measures, including removing accumulated
plastic waste, reducing agricultural runoff, and maintaining natural stream
flow regimes, should be implemented to enhance microhabitat quality for this
stream-dependent amphibian. On a broader scale, engaging with district-level
policy frameworks, along with actively involving local communities in amphibian
conservation initiatives in Uttarakhand, is essential to integrate freshwater
biodiversity considerations into tourism regulation, waste management planning,
and watershed conservation strategies. Implementing these measures would
establish baseline ecological conditions necessary for future monitoring,
reassessment, and potential recovery initiatives for A. chakrataensis.
It is concluded that the ‘Critically
Endangered’ A. chakrataensis has become an
extremely rare amphibian and is likely on the verge of extinction, given the
absence of confirmed sightings or collections since its original description
based on a single holotype. This indicates a high risk of range-wide extinction
and highlights the urgent need for immediate conservation action. The putative
local extirpation of A. chakrataensis from its
type locality, Chakrata, highlights the critical
necessity of prioritizing amphibian conservation in the western Himalaya (Lötters et al. 2023; Luedtke et al. 2023; Wren et al.
2024). Consistent with recent global amphibian synthesis, targeted habitat
protection, improved monitoring including eDNA sampling, and integration of
site-based conservation frameworks are essential to halt further declines and
prevent irreversible biodiversity loss (Borzée et al.
2025). Rapid and coordinated interventions can help ensure that other amphibian
species in this fragile Himalayan ecosystem do not follow similar extirpation
trajectories.
Table 1. Details of sampling
sites surveyed for Amolops
chakrataensis in the Chakrata landscape (Dehradun District) and the Bhagirathi
River basin (Uttarkashi District), Uttarakhand, India, between 2023–2025. The table summarises geographic location, elevation, survey effort, seasonal coverage, habitat characteristics,
observed associated threats, and other
amphibian species detected at each
site. Coordinates are provided
in decimal degrees (WGS84), and
altitude is in metres. Sampling
seasons are as I = Spring (February–March), II = Summer (April–May),
III = Pre-monsoon (June), and IV = Post-monsoon (September–October).
|
Sites |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Altitude (m) |
Number of observers |
Sampling season |
Target species |
Other amphibians |
Habitat type |
Observed associated threats |
|
Tuna Forest |
30.7825 |
77.8375 |
1,936 |
2 |
I, II, III, IV |
Absent |
Duttaphrynus himalayanus, Nanorana minica, N. vicina |
Deodar–pine forest streams |
Plastic pollution |
|
Masak |
30.7698 |
77.8223 |
2,330 |
2 |
I, II, III |
Absent |
D. himalayanus,
N. minica, N. vicina |
Deodar forest streams |
Plastic pollution |
|
Jadi village |
30.7465 |
77.8505 |
2,246 |
3 |
I, II, III, IV |
Absent |
N. minica,
N. vicina |
Mixed forest–urban interface |
Road widening, urbanization,
plastic pollution, algal blooms |
|
Kanaser |
30.7127 |
77.8662 |
2,029 |
3 |
I, II, IV |
Absent |
N. minica,
N. vicina |
Deodar forest streams |
Plastic pollution |
|
Lokhandi village |
30.7586 |
77.8109 |
2,415 |
3 |
I, II, IV |
Absent |
N. minica,
N. vicina |
Deodar forest streams |
Road widening, urbanization,
tourism pressure |
|
Moila forest |
30.7765 |
77.7883 |
n/a |
2 |
II, III, IV |
Absent |
N. minica,
N. vicina |
Deodar–pine forest streams |
Household wastewater, plastic
pollution |
|
Gvasa forest |
30.7229 |
77.8786 |
1,819 |
3 |
I, II, III |
Absent |
D. himalayanus,
Amolops formosus, N. minica |
Forest streams near settlements |
Plastic pollution, tourism
pressure |
|
Tiger waterfall |
30.7046 |
77.894 |
1,524 |
2 |
II, III, IV |
Absent |
A. formosus,
A. jaunsari, D. himalayanus, N. minica |
Open stream, semi-urban |
Tourism pressure, urbanization |
|
Dava |
30.7336 |
77.8933 |
1,776 |
2 |
I, II, III |
Absent |
D. himalayanus,
N. minica |
Agricultural land with oak
patches |
Agricultural disturbance |
|
Dabri Khadd |
30.7701 |
77.8475 |
1,882 |
2 |
I, II, III |
Absent |
D. himalayanus |
Agricultural land with oak
patches |
Agricultural disturbance |
|
Sahiya |
30.6241 |
77.8663 |
1,096 |
3 |
I, II, IV |
Absent |
A. jaunsari,
D. himalayanus, D. melanosticus,
N. minica, Minervarya sp. |
Wide stream/river system |
Urbanization, tourism pressure |
|
Bhagirathi River basin (Maneri) 1 |
30.7283 |
78.5314 |
1,321 |
2 |
IV |
Absent |
A. formosus,
A. jaunsari, N. minica |
Stream bordered by forest and
paddy fields |
Agriculture, dam influence |
|
Bhagirathi River basin (Maneri) 2 |
30.7668 |
78.591 |
1,409 |
2 |
IV |
Absent |
A. formosus,
A. jaunsari, N. minica |
Stream bordered by forest and
paddy fields |
Agriculture, dam influence |
For
images - - click here for full pdf
References
Azevedo-Santos,
V.M., M.F. Brito, P.S. Manoel, J.F. Perroca, J.L. Rodrigues-Filho, L.R. Paschoal,
G.R. Gonçalves, M.R. Wolf, M.C. Blettler, M.C.
Andrade & A.B. Nobile (2021). Plastic pollution: a focus on freshwater
biodiversity. Ambio 50(7): 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01496-5
Borzée, A., J.Y. Kim & Y. Jang (2016). Asymmetric
competition over calling sites in two closely related treefrog species. Scientific
Reports 6(1): 32569. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32569
Borzée, A., V.K. Prasad, K. Neam, J. Tarrant, T.A. Kosch,
I.M. Barata, M. Rais, D.
Bickford, L.F.M. da Fonte, J. Wilcken, D. Ghosh, M. Mindje, H. Naik, J. Chanson & S. Wren (2025). Conservation priorities for
global amphibian biodiversity. Nature Reviews Biodiversity 1:
754–771. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00101-5
Button, S.
& A. Borzée (2024). Estimates of the number of
undescribed species should account for sampling effort. Nature Ecology &
Evolution 8(4): 637–640. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02312-5
Dufresnes, C., D. Jablonski, J. Ambu, V.K. Prasad, K.B. Gautam, R.G. Kamei, S. Mahony, S.
Hofmann, R. Masroor, B. Alard,
A. Crottini, D. Edmonds, A. Ohler,
J. Jiang, J.R. Khatiwada, S.K. Gupta, A. Borzée, L.J. Borkin, D.V. Skorinov, D.A. Melnikov, K.D. Milto,
E.L. Konstantinov, S. Künzel,
T. Suchan, D.V. Arkhipov,
A.V. Trofimets, T.V. Nguyen, C. Suwannapoom,
S.N. Litvinchuk & N.A. Poyarkov (2025). Speciation and historical
invasions of the Asian Black-spined Toad Duttaphrynus melanostictus.
Nature Communications 16: 298. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-54933-4
da Costa
Araújo, A.P., N.F.S. de Melo, A.G. de Oliveira Junior, F.P. Rodrigues, T.
Fernandes, J.E de A. Vieira, T.L. Rocha & G. Malafaia
(2020). How much are
microplastics harmful to the health of amphibians? A study with pristine
polyethylene microplastics and Physalaemus cuvieri. Journal of Hazardous Materials 382:
121066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121066
Gill, S., F.
Gill, M. Kashaf & M. Rais
(2025). Himalayan
endemic frogs threatened by pollution and degradation of natural water systems
in Murree-Kotli Sattian-Kahuta
National Park, Pakistan. FrogLog 126: 41–44. https://www.iucn-amphibians.org/resources/froglog/froglog/archives/
IUCN SSC
Amphibian Specialist Group (2023). Amolops chakrataensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
2023: e.T58203A166098755. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2023-1.RLTS.T58203A166098755.en.
Accessed on 24.xi.2024.
Lötters, S., A. Plewnia,
A. Catenazzi, K. Neam, A.R.
Acosta-Galvis, Y.A. Vela, J.P. Allen, J.O.A. Segundo,
A. de L.A. Cabezas, G.A. Barboza, K.R. Alves-Silva,
M. Anganoy-Criollo, E.A. Ortiz, J.D.A. Lojano, A. Arteaga, O. Ballestas,
D.B. Moscoso, J.D. Barros-Castañeda,
A. Batista, M.H. Bernal, E. Betancourt, Y.O. da C. Bitar,
P. Böning, L. Bravo-Valencia, J.F.C. Andrade, D. Cadenas, J.C.C. Auza, G.A.
Chaves-Portilla, G. Chávez, L.A. Coloma, C.F.
Cortez-Fernandez, E.A. Courtois, J. Culebras, I.D. la
Riva, V. Diaz, L.C.E. Lara, R. Ernst, S.V. Flechas,
T. Foch, A. Fouquet, C.Z.G. Méndez, J.E. García-Pérez, D.A. Gómez-Hoyos, S.C. Gomides, J. Guerrel, B. Gratwicke, J.M. Guayasamin, E. Griffith, V. Herrera-Alva, R. Ibáñez, C.I. Idrovo, A.J. Monge, R.F. Jorge, A. Jung, B. Klocke, M. Lampo, E. Lehr, C.H.R.
Lewis, E.D. Lindquist, Y.R. López-Perilla, G. Mazepa,
G.F. Medina-Rangel, A.M. Viteri, K. Mulder, M.
Pacheco-Suarez, A. Pereira-Muñoz, J.L. Pérez-González, M.A.P. Erazo, A.G.P. Florez, M. Ponce,
V. Poole, A.B.Q. Riera, A.J. Quiroz, M.
Quiroz-Espinoza, A.R. Guerra, J.P. Ramírez, S. Reichle,
H. Reizine, M. Rivera-Correa, B.R.-R. Ross, A. Rocha-Usuga, M.T. Rodrigues, S.R. Montaño,
D.C. Rößler, L.A.R. Solano, C. Señaris,
A. Shepack, F.R.S. Pesántez,
A. Sorokin, A. Terán-Valdez, G. Torres-Ccasani, P.C. Tovar-Siso, L.M.
Valencia, D.A. Velásquez-Trujillo, M. Veith, P.J. Venegas, J. Villalba-Fuentes,
R. von May, J.F.W. Bernal & E. La Marca (2023). Ongoing harlequin toad declines
suggest the amphibian extinction crisis is still an emergency. Communications
Earth & Environment 4(1): 412. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01069-w
Luedtke,
J.A., J. Chanson, K. Neam, L. Hobin,
A.O. Maciel, A. Catenazzi,
A. Borzée, A. Hamidy, A. Aowphol, A. Jean, Á. Sosa-Bartuano,
G.A. Fong, A. de Silva, A. Fouquet, A. Angulo, A.A. Kidov,
A. Muñoz Saravia, A.C. Diesmos, A. Tominaga, B. Shrestha, B. Gratwicke,
B. Tjaturadi, C.C.M. Rivera, C.R. Vásquez Almazán, C. Señaris, S.R. Chandramouli, C. Strüssmann,
C.F.C. Fernández, C. Azat, C.J. Hoskin, C. Hilton-Taylor,
D.L. Whyte, D.J. Gower, D.H. Olson, D.F. Cisneros-Heredia, D.J. Santana, E. Nagombi, E. Najafi-Majd, E.S.H.
Quah, F. Bolaños, F. Xie, F. Brusquetti,
F.S. Álvarez, F. Andreone, F. Glaw,
F.E. Castañeda, F. Kraus, G. Parra-Olea, G. Chaves,
G.F. Medina-Rangel, G. González-Durán, H.M. Ortega-Andrade, I.F. Machado, I.
Das, I.R. Dias, J.N. Urbina-Cardona, J. Crnobrnja-Isailović,
J.-H. Yang, J. Jianping, J.T. Wangya,
J.J.L. Rowley, J. Measey, K. Vasudevan, K.O. Chan,
K.V. Gururaja, K. Ovaska,
L.C. Warr, L. Canseco-Márquez, L.F. Toledo, L.M.
Díaz, M.M.H. Khan, M. Meegaskumbura, M.E. Acevedo,
M.F. Napoli, M.A. Ponce, M. Vaira, M. Lampo, M.H. Yánez-Muñoz, M.D. Scherz, M.-O. Rödel, M. Matsui, M. Fildor, M.D.
Kusrini, M.F. Ahmed, M. Rais,
N.G. Kouamé, N. García, N.L. Gonwouo,
P.A. Burrowes, P.Y. Imbun,
P. Wagner, P.J.R. Kok, R.L. Joglar,
R.J. Auguste, R.A. Brandão, R. Ibáñez, R. von May,
S.B. Hedges, S.D. Biju, S.R. Ganesh, S. Wren, S. Das, S.V. Flechas,
S.L. Ashpole, S.J. Robleto-Hernández,
S.P. Loader, S.J. Incháustegui, S. Garg, S. Phimmachak, S.J. Richards, T. Slimani,
T.O. Naikatini, T.P.F. Abreu-Jardim, T.H. Condez, T.R. de Carvalho, T.P. Cutajar,
T.W. Pierson, T.Q. Nguyen, U. Kaya, Z. Yuan, B. Long, P. Langhammer
& S.N. Stuart (2023). Ongoing declines for the
world’s amphibians in the face of emerging threats. Nature 622(7982): 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06578-4
Luo, Q., Y. Song, X. Hu, S. Zhu, H. Wang & H. Ji (2018). Effects of tourism disturbance on habitat quality and population size of the Chinese giant salamander (Andrias
davidianus). Wildlife Research 45(5): 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17092
Minteer, B.A., J.P. Collins, K.E. Love
& R. Puschendorf (2014). Avoiding (Re)extinction. Science
344(6181): 260–261. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250953
Nowakowski, A.J., J.L. Deichmann,
G. Connette, I.M. Barata,
E.W. Basham, D.S. Bower, M.W.N. Lau & D.H. Olson (2024). Survey and monitoring: challenges
in an age of rapid declines and discoveries, pp. 239–263. In: Wren, S., A. Borzée, R. Marcec-Greaves &
A. Angulo (eds.). Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP): A Status Review
and Roadmap for Global Amphibian Conservation. IUCN Species Survival
Commission (SSC), Amphibian Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. xiii + 336
pp. https://doi.org/10.2305/QWVH2717
Peng, W.
(2019). Waste on the
roof of the world. Science 365(6458): 1090–1090. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz1710
Plaza, P.I.
& S.A Lambertucci (2017). How are garbage dumps impacting
vertebrate demography, health, and conservation? Global Ecology and
Conservation 12: 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.08.002
Prasad, V.K.,
K.B. Gautam, S.K. Gupta, R.S. Murthy, K. Ramesh, A.D. Shinde & A. Das
(2020).
Identification of anuran species diversity of the Panna Tiger Reserve, central
India, using an integrated approach. Zootaxa
4851(3): 450–476. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4851.3.2
Ray, P.
(1992). Two new hill-stream
frogs of the genus Amolops Cope (Amphibia: Anura: Ranidae) from Uttar
Pradesh (India). Indian Journal of Forestry 15: 346–350.
Ray, P.
(1999). Systematic
Studies on the Amphibian Fauna of the District Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh, India. Memoirs
of Zoological Survey of India 18(3): 18–21.
Rahman, M.M.,
E.-S. Kim, H.-C. Sung (2024). Microplastics as an emerging threat to amphibians:
Current status and future perspectives. Heliyon
10(7): e28220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28220
Sangkachai, N., B. Gummow,
O. Hayakijkosol, S. Suwanpakdee
& A. Wiratsudakul (2024). A review of risk factors at the
human-animal-environmental interface of garbage dumps that are driving current
and emerging zoonotic diseases. One Health 19: 100915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2024.100915
Talukdar, A.,
S. Bhattacharya, A. Bandyopadhyay & A. Dey
(2023). Microplastic
pollution in the Himalayas: Occurrence, distribution, accumulation and
environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment 874:
162495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162495
Wang, Z.,
S.N. Othman, Z. Qiu, Y. Lu, V.K. Prasad, Y. Dong,
C.H. Lu & A. Borzée (2023). An isolated and deeply divergent
Hynobius species from Fujian, China. Animals
13(10): 1661.
Wren, S., A.
Angulo, J. Kielgast, P.J. Bishop, R. Marcec-Greaves, J. Luedtke, J. Chanson, V.K. Prasad &
A. Borzée (2024). Overview of Amphibians and Their
Conservation, pp. 89–113. In: Wren, S., A. Borzée,
R. Marcec-Greaves & A. Angulo (eds.). Amphibian
Conservation Action Plan (ACAP): A Status Review and Roadmap for Global
Amphibian Conservation. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Amphibian
Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.2305/QWVH2717
Ziegler, A.D., R.J. Wasson, Y. Sundriyal, P. Srivastava, G. Sasges,
S.J. Ramchunder, C.E. Ong, S.K. Nepal, B.G. McAdoo,
J. Gillen & D. Bishwokarma (2023). A call for reducing tourism risk
to environmental hazards in the Himalaya. Environmental Hazards 22(1):
1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2021.1984196