Murung Raya Expedition 2010-11 Science Report by Heart of Borneo Project

MURUNG RAYA EXPEDITION S

2 010-2 011

A BIODIVERSITY SURVEY OF A LOWLAND RAINFOREST I N B U K I T B AT I K A P P R O T E C T I O N F O R E S T , CENTRAL KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA

VAN BERKEL, T.B.T. ROGERS, L.D. | KILBURN, H.J. | MUNIR, M. MORTIBOYS, D. | GOODCHILD, R.

Bukit Batikap Protection Forest

CREDITS SUGGESTED CITATION: van Berkel T.B.T., Rogers, L.D., Kilburn, H.J, Munir, M., Mortiboys, D.M. and Goodchild, R., 2012. A preliminary biodiversity survey of a lowland rainforest in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest, Central Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Murung Raya Expedition 2010-2011 Scientific Report. Heart of Borneo Project

ÂŠ 2012 Heart of Borneo Project

Front Cover: Rhacophorus harrissoni. Design and illustration by Stephanie Ayres, Artist in Residence

Heart of Borneo Project

A charity registered in England and Wales No. 1138860. PO Box 311, Falmouth, Cornwall, TR11 9BL

Email:

tvanberkel@heartofborneo.org

info@heartofborneo.org Website:

www.heartofborneo.org

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4 Ringkasan Eksekutif................................................................................................................................. 5 Expedition Team ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 7

Terrestrial vertebrates .................................................................................................................. 14

Mammal transects and observations ............................................................................................ 22

Small mammals ............................................................................................................................. 31

Hybrid gibbons .............................................................................................................................. 34

Avifauna ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Herpetofauna ................................................................................................................................ 49

Canopy Herpetofauna ................................................................................................................... 59

Epiphytes ....................................................................................................................................... 63

10. General discussion ........................................................................................................................ 65 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 67 Appendix 1 – List of Mammals .............................................................................................................. 74 Appendix 2 – List of Birds ...................................................................................................................... 76 Appendix 3 – Tree species .................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix 4 – Invertebrates................................................................................................................... 82

Acknowledgements We would never have been able to experience such a remote part of the world, working in a virtually undisturbed and beautiful rainforest and witnessing the intimate knowledge of the forest the local people possess without the help, advice and contribution of many. The foundation of the expeditionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success is based on their unconditional support and faith in a group of young and ambitious scientists and explorers. Without this we would never have been able to prepare and achieve such a successful expedition. Many thanks for the support of the following people and organisations (in no particular order): Les and Claire Halpin, Rupert Ridgeway, Shane Winser, Neville Shulman, Christopher and Catherine Foyle, Robin Hanbury-Tenison, Jamie Buchanon-Dunlop, Dr David Chivers, Dr George McGavin, Steve Oliver, Tristan and Sonja Wood, David Morgan, Lindsey Leyden, Steven Trotter, Godwin Limberg, Suzanne Bull, Chris Greenwood, Pak Yunting, Sophie Persey, Brendan Godley, Nigel Winser, Cathy Hookey, Dr Peter Smithers, Alasdair McMillan, Natalie Gibb, Graham Stokes, Emily Wilson, Melati Gray, Catherine Wolfgang, Paul Inman, Paul Beerling, Simon Thompson, Tim Turnbull, Sam Burrows, Charlotte Coales, Tony Scorah, Stuart Hughes, Kirsten Mack, Robert Knott, Matthew Oates, Noel Rowe, Nick Vansittart, Michelle Desilets, Adam Vaughan, and all of the students and volunteers who helped us plan, prepare, and fundraise. Thank you. Our special thanks to the people of Tumbang Naan and Tumbang Tohan, and of course our invaluable field assistants, Pak Wik, Pak Bobo, Pak Parman, Pak Lundun, Pak Muji and, above all Pak Aspor, and to our master chefs; Ibu Dewi and Ibu Wi. We are particularly grateful for the support of the Research Centre for Biology - Indonesian Institute of Sciences; Pusat Penelitian Biologi â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) and the University of Palangka Raya (UNPAR). Institutional Support, Trusts and Grants Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), Universitas Palangkaraya, the Royal Geographical Society with IBG, Project Barito Ulu, University of Exeter (in particular the Department of Alumni Relations) University College Falmouth, the Gilchrist Educational Trust, the Orangutan Land Trust, World Wildlife Fund, Heart of Borneo Initiative, Natural History Museum in London, Primate Conservation Inc., Mission Aviation Fellowship Palangkaraya, the Zoological Society of London, the Rainforest Club, Ministry of Science and Technology, the Indonesian Department of Forestry, Royal Botanical Gardens Kew, the Explorers Club, the Foyle Foundation, the Adrian Ashby Smith Memorial Trust, the Falmouth and Exeter Students Union, Fauna and Flora International, Skinners Brewery, Our Media Sponsors and Partners UCF Media Dept, Panasonic Toughbook, Livewire Digital, Lightfoot Solutions, AST-Systems, Digital Explorer, Guardian Online Our Kit Sponsors Treeworker, Teufelberger, Doro, Craghoppers, Marlow, AST, Lightfoot Solutions, WorkWare, Nikwax, Digital Explorer, DD Hammocks, Paramo Directional Clothing, Aquapac, Tupperware, AECOM 3

Executive Summary As part of the inaugural Heart of Borneo Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Murung Raya Expedition a preliminary biodiversity survey was carried out in and around Bukit Batikap Protection Forest from December 2010 to February 2011 to study the flora and fauna. A team of researchers of British, Indonesian and Dutch nationalities conducted surveys on mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and epiphytes, providing the first evidence of the species inhabiting this previously unstudied and remote rainforest in Central Kalimantan. Mammal diversity was studied by camera trapping and line transect surveys. Avifauna was recorded using line transects and point counts, while terrestrial birds were also recorded using camera traps. Reptiles and amphibians were recorded using diurnal and nocturnal line transects, pitfall traps and basking surveys. Canopy access techniques allowed the study of epiphytes in the higher canopy, which further aided placement of canopy camera traps and the study of arboreal herpetofauna. Additionally, a short expedition was undertaken in search for the western distribution boundary of the threatened hybrid gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis x H. muelleri), employing an auditory sampling technique along the Mohot and Joloi Rivers. A total of 47 terrestrial mammal and three bat species were recorded. Most notable mammal records are the Sunda otter-civet (Cynogale bennettii), proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus), whitefronted langur (Presbytis frontata) and Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi). The most notable absence was that of the orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus). The hybrid gibbon, previously believed to range no further than the Busang River, was located in the upper reaches of the Joloi River. This finding extends its distribution to a minimum estimated total of 3,300km2. A total 152 bird species were documented. Observations of importance include: Fairy pitta (Pitta nympha) which is the second ever record for Indonesia; Bornean peacock-pheasant (Polyplectron schleiermacheri); Bornean ground-cuckoo (Carpococcyx radiatus); blue-wattled bulbul (Pycnonotus nieuwenhuisii) and black partridge (Melanoperdix niger). We also list an extension of the breeding season of the rufous-crowned babbler (Malacopteron magnum). We documented 45 reptile species; 21 snakes, 22 lizards and 2 turtles. Here we provide the first record of the reed snake Pseudorabdion saravacense for Indonesia and the first Kalimantan record of the blue-throated skink (Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus). Since insufficient distribution data about the vast majority of reptiles exists, these observations constitute valuable records. Thirty-six amphibian species, including one caecilian were observed. Of the 35 anuran species, 25 represent significant range extensions. Most of these have only been recorded from the Northern parts of Borneo.

Ringkasan Eksekutif Sebagai bagian dari Heart of Borneo Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Murung Raya Expedition survei keanekaragaman hayati pendahuluan Dilakukan di dan di sekitar Hutan Lindung Bukit Batikap dari Desember 2010 sampai Februari 2011 untuk mempelajari flora dan fauna. Sebuah tim peneliti kebangsaan Inggris, Belanda dan Indonesia melakukan survey tentang mamalia, burung, reptil, amfibi dan epifit, dan memperoleh bukti pertama dari spesies yang menghuni hutan hujan terpencil di Kalimantan Tengah yang sebelumnya tidak diteliti. Keragaman mamalia dipelajari dengna perangkap kamera dan survei transek. Jenis burung direkam menggunakan jalur transek dan penghitungan titik, sementara burung tanah (terestrial) juga terekam dengan menggunakan perangkap kamera. Reptil dan amfibi dicatat menggunakan jalur transek diurnal dan nokturnal, perangkap jebak dan basking surveys. Teknik akses tajak memungkinkan studi epifit di kanopi yang lebih tinggi, yang selanjutnya dibantu dengan penempatan kanopi kamera perangkap dan studi tentang herpetofauna arboreal. Selain itu, sebuah ekspedisi pendek dilaksanakan untuk mencari batas distribusi barat owa-owa hibrida terancam punah (Hylobates muelleri x H. albibarbis), dengan menggunakan teknik sampling pendengaran suara di sepanjang Sungai Joloi dan Mohot. Sebanyak 47 spesies mamalia terestrial dicatat dan tiga jenis kelelawar. Catatan paling penting mamalia adalah musang air (Cynogale bennettii), bekantan (Nasalis larvatus), lutung dahi putih (Presbytis frontata) dan macan dahan Sunda (Neofelis diardi). Selain itu yang menonjol adalah bahwa tidak ditemukan orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus). Owa-owa hibrida, sebelumnya Diyakini tidak tersebar ke arah barat dari Sungai Busang, ternyata ditemukan di di hulu Sungai Joloi. Temuan ini memperluas distribusinya dengan total diperkirakan minimal 3.300 km2. Sebanyak 152 spesies burung didokumentasikan. Pengamatan penting meliputi: Paok bidadari / Fairy pitta (Pitta Nympha) yang merupakan catatan kedua untuk Indonesia, Kuau-kerdil Kalimantan / Bornean Peacock Pheasant (Polyplectron schleiermacheri); Tokhtor Sunda / Bornean Ground Cuckoo (Carpococcyx radiatus), Cucak gelambir-biru / Blue-wattled Bulbul (Pycnonotus nieuwenhuisii) dan Puyuh hitam (Melanoperdix niger). Kami juga merekam perpanjangan musim kawin dari Asi Besar / Rufous-crowned Babler (Malacopteron magnum). Kami mencatat 45 spesies reptil, 21 ular, 22 kadal dan dua kura-kura. Berikut Kami menghasilkan rekaman pertama dari Pseudorabdion saravacense untuk Indonesia dan catatan pertama untuk Kalimantan biru-tenggorokan skink Blue-throated Skink (Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus). Karena data tentang distribusi untuk sebagian besar jenis reptil tidak memadai , pengamatan ini merupakan catatan berharga. Tiga puluh enam spesies amfibi diamati termasuk satu spesies Caecilian. Dari 35 spesies anuran, 25 mewakili perluasan daerah penyebaran jenis yang signifikan. Sebagian besar hanya telah direkam dari bagian utara Kalimantan.

Expedition Team MAIN TEAM Martin Holland (UK) – Expedition Leader Tim van Berkel (Netherlands) – Chief Scientist, Terrestrial Vertebrates, Small Mammals, Birds Lara Rogers (UK) – Assistant Chief Scientist, Terrestrial Mammals, Primates Russell Goodchild (UK) - Invertebrates Misbahul Munir (Indonesia) - Birds, Reptiles, Amphibians Holli Kilburn (UK) – Canopy, Amphibians, Epiphytes Dale Mortiboys (UK) - Reptiles, Amphibians Ismail Agung (Indonesia) – Primates Ian Blessley (UK) – Base Camp Manager, Medic, Birds James Harwood (UK) – Photographer Dan Sargison (UK) - Technician, Communications

GUEST RESEARCHERS

RESEARCH ASSISTANTS AND GUIDES

Jan Beck (Germany) - Moths

Bapak Aspor (Head Guide)

Bapak Parman

Carsten Bruhl (Germany) - Ants

Bapak Wik

Bapak Lundung

Bapak Bobo

Bapak Muji

Ibu Wi (Chef)

Ibu Dewi (Chef)

1. Introduction BACKGROUND For centuries, the extensive forests of Borneo have captured the imagination of explorers and scientists alike. Today however, over half of the island’s forest cover has disappeared and deforestation continues to be amongst the highest in the world (Jukka et al., 2011). It has been projected that if business (in the form of timber extraction, oil palm plantation and coal and mineral extraction) continues at the current level less than a third of Borneo’s forest will remain by 2020 (WWF, 2005). The lowland dipterocarp forests (Holmes & Burton, 1987), in which it is estimated that more than 60% of Borneo’s rainforest species reside, face the greatest threats. They are the most commercially attractive and most heavily exploited habitats and are disappearing at alarming rate. Even Kalimantan’s protected areas do not provide the shelter one might expect. From 1985 to 2001 over 56% of the lowland forest situated in legally protected areas was logged or converted (Curran et al., 2004). With the rate of deforestation at an all-time high, the implementation of more effective conservation measurements is thus of utmost importance. Despite the continuing extensive forest conversion, Borneo’s central areas still harbour one of the largest continuous stretches of primary rainforest in Southeast Asia. To conserve the biodiversity in this vast region, the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei signed a declaration in 2007: “To cooperate in ensuring the effective management of forest resources and conservation of a network of protected areas, productive forests and other sustainable land-uses within an area which the three respective countries will designate as the “Heart of Borneo (HoB)” Although this is considered to be a historical agreement on a Map 1.1 – The island of Borneo, with the Heart of Borneo Initiative outline drawn in political level, looking at what is actually being implemented blue. The area within the red square on the ground, the reality paints a less optimistic picture: represents the study area as depicted on the inside of the cover Implementation of regulations is slow, illegal logging and corruption are still serious issues, and the establishment of new conservation areas is falling behind, despite Indonesia’s goodwill to protect its environment. The research carried out during the Heart of Borneo Project’s Murung Raya Expedition took place within the gazetted boundaries of the Heart of Borneo, in a remote primary lowland rainforest of Central Kalimantan, to help the conservation of this unique area.

RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Effective conservation management is not possible without knowledge of the species in the area. It is the knowledge of species occurrences and distribution patterns that form the basis for prioritisation of conservation areas. Obtaining species inventories is particularly important to identify high conservation value (HCV) areas; which require conservation priority over areas containing less biodiversity, those containing fewer endemic or threatened species or species that are not sufficiently covered in protected areas such as national parks and nature reserves. Very little is known about the biodiversity in Kalimantan, less even in the central parts of Borneo where considerable logistical effort is needed in order to be able to conduct research. It is however these parts of the island where most of the remaining forests are located and biodiversity can be expected to be high. We aim to further the conservation of the Bornean rainforests by obtaining the first biodiversity data for mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and epiphytes in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest (BBPF) in Central Kalimantan.

JUSTIFICATION The objectives of this expedition were to collect biodiversity data in the threatened and unstudied, primary lowland rainforests of Bukit Batikap Protection Forest (BBPF), located in the district of Murung Raya, Central Kalimantan. Research on the status of the biodiversity in this area is virtually absent, (McConkey & Chivers, 2004) and only one previous published account of the biodiversity in BBPF exist (Partomiharjo, 2005). To date, the vast majority of ecological research has been conducted in the northern parts of Borneo; Sabah and Sarawak, as well as the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more accessible coastal regions. In contrast, relatively little is known from the Indonesian interior of the island (Holmes & Burton, 1987; Kueh et al., 2004; McLeod, 2010; Beck et al., 2011), and where research in the Heart of Borneo is being conducted, new species continue to be discovered (WWF, 2010). So little is known about the interior forests of Kalimantan, it is argued that part of the considered higher animal biodiversity of the well-studied Northern parts of Borneo is in fact a result to larger sampling effort rather than a representation of actual biodiversity patterns (Gaston et al., 1995; Meijaard & Nijman, 2003; Slik et al., 2003; Kueh et al., 2004; Beck et al., 2010; McLeod, 2010). Exploring and documenting the unstudied and

Figure 1.1 - View on Bukit Batikap Protection Forest, showing the headwaters of the Joloi River, originating from the Schwaner Mountain Range as can be seen in the background. Photo taken during the reconnaissance trip in March 2010 ÂŠ Tim van Berkel

threatened areas in Kalimantan is important as it will undoubtedly provide additional species records which form the basis for augmented conservation effort and attention. Early in the planning process we established contact with Dr David Chivers and Rupert Ridgeway. Dr David Chivers is scientific director of Project Barito Ulu (PBU) and is based at the University of Cambridge, while Rupert Ridgeway is the Project Manager. PBU was established in 1985 and is the only research centre in the centre of Borneo. It combines studies on natural forest regeneration and the ecology of forest dynamics and is located approximately 60 km from this expedition’s base camp, Camp Foyle. David Chivers identified the need to locate the western boundary of the hybrid gibbon Hylobates albibarbis x H. muelleri, which is known to occur in the area. The Joloi headwaters were investigated for suitability during a five week recce trip by Martin Holland, Tim van Berkel and Rupert Ridgeway in February and March 2010. During the trip contact was established with various partners, such as the University of Palangka Raya and the Bornean Orangutan Survival Foundation (BOS) as well as with the villages of Tumbang Tohan (also known as Taja Bankang) and Tumbang Naan. The forests here are still relatively untouched, with only local disturbances occurring along the river edges in the form of regenerating cultivation sites, locally known as ladang. Although the area enjoys Hutan Lindung (Protection Forest) status, until now this has not guaranteed total protection. Illegal logging has occurred in BBPF and additional logging and mining concessions have been granted in BBPF and other Protection Forests in Central Kalimantan (MoFor, 2008), making the presence of conservation organisations and baseline biodiversity data in the area all the more important.

STUDY AREA Location The study area is part of BBPF (Map 1.2, page 12). It is located in the very north-west of the Indonesian province of Central Kalimantan; sub-district (kecamatan) Seribu Riam of the Murung Raya district. BBPF is made up of Bukit Batikap Blocks I, II and III, which have the official status of Protection Forest (hutan lindung) and together measure 7,404 km2 and is connected to Bukit Baka-Bukit Raya conservation area. Bukit Batikap Block I was proposed to become a Wildlife Reserve in the 1980’s but until now this has not been realised. Figure 1.2 – View on the Mohot River near Camp Foyle © Martin Holland

Camp Foyle (expedition basecamp) was constructed on the northern bank of the Mohot River (Figure 1.2) at latitude -0.0922 , longitude 113.4875 . The majority of the research was carried out here. Additional bird surveys were carried 9

out to the east of the Reserve along the Joloi River around the village of Tumbang Tohan at -0.0848°, 113.6183°.

Topography The topography is undulating with hills over 40 meters high, sloping from 5-60 % and ranging from 170 to 220 m a.s.l.. The hills are interspersed by shallow, fast running seasonal and perennial streams. The sampled area encompasses approximately 6 km2 and can be seen as a rough representation of the approximately 150 km2 of similar forest type and altitude in BBPF. To the north and west the study area is bordered by the Muller-Schwaner Mountain Range, with general elevations of >700 m a.s.l. and peaks reaching >1000 m a.s.l., separating Central from West Kalimantan, and in the south and east by the Mohot and Joloi Rivers respectively (see Map on inside cover).

Vegetation Three different vegetation types can be distinguished within the lowland dipterocarp floristic zone (<300 m a.s.l.) which makes up the study area: The largest forest extent constitutes of lowland mixed dipterocarp forest. Other forest types include heath forest (Kerangas), located towards the mountains along the Joloi River, and riverine forest, which can be found within 20m of the medium and larger rivers such as the Joloi, Mohot and Kalopu Rivers (Map on inside cover). Secondary vegetation is present in the form of regenerating slash-and-burn sites (ladang) and selectively logged forest. The former can be found scattered along the Joloi and lower Mohot Rivers. Farming now takes place along the banks of the Joloi to the south of the Mohot. Some ladang sites are reported to have been abandoned over 100 years ago, and are still readily recognised by the presence of Durio sp, Artocarpus ssp and other fruit trees which were then planted by the villagers. Selectively, illegally, logged forest is located south-east of the study area, bordering the Sungai Mohot and Joloi.

Climate The area hosts a tropical wet climate with temperatures (averages from 1950-2000) ranging from 21.3°C to 30.4°C with a mean of 25.6°C. Total precipitation equals 3695mm/year (ranging from 209 to 389mm/month) with the drier period occurring from the end of June to the beginning of October, although there is no pronounced dry season (Hijmans et al., 2005). The climate is influenced by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), causing extreme dry and wet years in a four year oscillation.

People Two villages are located 15 and 30km downstream along the Joloi. Tumbang Tohan, the village nearest to our research site (with which we had more contact) was originally located north of the Mohot, at the mouth of Sungai Tohan, but a cholera outbreak c.35 years ago killed a large proportion of the inhabitants, forcing the remaining population to move away. One of the village elders, Bapak Ajung, informed us that only ten of the original inhabitants still live in the newly built village, although we don’t know the percentage of the population who are descendants of the original inhabitants. Many of the current population are migrants, the majority from West

Kalimantan who have walked across the mountains in search of work and new beginnings. The word Tohan actually translates to transit, which is very apt for this frontier town. Tumbang Tohan is still very isolated; since a logging road was left to abandon by the operating company, the only means of transport is by boat which, due to price of fuel which has to be transported far upriver from Puruk Cahu, remains prohibitively expensive (Rp.25,000/litre instead of the government regulated price of Rp4,500/litre, and the actual price in Puruk Cahu of Rp.8,500/litre). The villages are financially very poor, and the economic situation very difficult. Over 90% rely on subsistence farming (rice and some vegetables such as cassava and water spinach) using swidden techniques. The average family farms an area of around 1ha, opening up a new area every 1-2 years, and leaving land fallow for 10-15 years. The clearing and burning of land and the sowing of the rice are communal activities: 30 people at a time work on one familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s farm in rotating shifts. Rice and the occasional vegetables are supplemented with fish and meat. Large fish have not been present in the river close to the village for some time now, and so fresh fish has risen to a cost of around Rp.30,000 (ÂŁ2) per kilo, because of the cost of fuel to reach places upstream where larger fish are still abundant. While in the forest collecting gaharu or birds nests the men will hunt to support themselves, but from conversation it seems that the younger men in the village are less inclined to go hunting to bring meat to the family meals. That said, there is still plenty of hunting activity in the area, with bearded pigs and the various deer species the main targets. Traps are set and these are apparently very successful, while rifles, hunting dogs, and spears are also used. A very small number of families are practicing pig and fish husbandry. The two major economic activities and additional sources of income are from the collection of gaharu, a valuable incense collected from the trees infected by a fungus, and the harvest of edible bird nests from caves. Both of these activities commonly involve spells of 1-2 months in the forest at a time, leaving the women to care for the children, and both women and children to care for the farms. This impacts on the schooling of the children who are often either to busy to attend or too tired to concentrate. Some people have begun planting rubber, while illegal gold mining of the river bed has taken off in recent years. Occasional manual labour can be found with the logging and mining companies that operate in the area. The villagers complain that this is only short-term contract work, given out by the companies until migrant workers can be employed, who are given long-term contracts.

Conservation status and human impact BBPF is designated as hutan lindung. Human impact is minimal, with subsistence hunting occurring mostly along the river edges. We found evidence that bearded pig (Sus barbatus), mouse deer (Tragulus sp.), barking deer (Muntjacus sp.) and sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) are target species. Mammals are hunted using rifles, some self-made, and with the assistance of hunting dogs. Gaharu collection takes place throughout BBPF. Gaharu, or agarwood, is a resin produced by certain trees of the Aquilaria genus. The aromatic resin is used as an incense which is very valuable on the Arabian market. Even though the trees are cut down during the harvesting, they still seem to be abundant. The caves which are located in the mountains and its foothills north and west of the study area provide home to large numbers of swiftlets (Aerodramus spp.) of which the edible nests are harvested by some of the local villagers. The nests are considered a delicacy by the Chinese and are a valuable trade. The influence on the study area consisted of the occasional passing of boats, primarily via the Joloi River. On a handful of occasions a boat with villagers passed the camp on the

Camp Foyle

Bukit Batikap Protection Forest

Map 1.2 - Central Kalimantan Spatial Plan 2010 (modified from {MoFor, 2009 #343}. Camp Foyle, the expedition's base camp, was located in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest

Mohot to go fishing upriver or collect bird nests. The forests near Tumbang Tohan are designated as forest concessions and are being selectively logged by various timber companies. Logging occurs in three areas: at a distance of 7km to the east, 9km to the south and 13km to the west of the study area. Illegal logging activities in the hutan lindung by those companies have recently been reported by local villagers and recent spatial planning maps show the intrusion of mining concessions into the Reserve. The influence of the village itself is also apparent through the presence of ladang sites which, instead of forest, now border the river banks near the village.

2. Terrestrial vertebrates Principal investigator: Tim van Berkel

INTRODUCTION Camera trapping is now widely used as a non-invasive method to study terrestrial vertebrates. It has the advantage of being able to detect elusive species such as felids and nocturnal animals which are difficult to observe with the more traditional techniques, such as transects. This study aimed to create an inventory and obtain abundances and activity patterns of the terrestrial mammal and bird community. Furthermore, the efficiency of two of the three camera trap types used was evaluated during the survey.

METHODS Camera trapping was conducted for 44 consecutive days from December 20th 2010 till February 1st 2011. Twenty five digital camera traps (14x Cuddeback Capture, 10x Bushnell Trophy Cam, 1x Bolyguard SG560) were used during the expedition. The Cuddeback and Bolyguard cameras took photos and used an incandescent flash if light conditions required, while the Bushnell cameras used infrared light. The Bushnells were set to record infrared and thus produced grey-scale videos ranging from 20 to 60 seconds. Eighteen cameras (the Cuddebacks, Bolyguard and five Bushnell cameras) were spaced at a 500m interval along two parallel trails of 4km length spaced 500m apart, which were cut to facilitate the other surveys. The remaining seven cameras were placed randomly along trails and locations frequented by animals, two were placed in the Figure 2.1 - Munir and Tim, setting up one of the upper tree canopy for three and four days each. Cuddeback Capture camera traps ÂŠ Ian Blessley

Each terrestrial camera was mounted on a tree approximately 30cm of the ground along animal trails to optimize capture rate and were operational 24h/day when functional. Delays between pictures and films were set to 30 seconds. After the first two weeks the sensitivity of the Bushnell cameras was set to normal as insects triggered the camera at the high setting, causing many false triggers and the batteries to drain quickly. Cameras were checked approximately every two weeks to change memory cards and batteries. In some cases cameras ran out of power before they were checked. In those cases the last picture or video taken is used as the last time the camera was active.

Photo and video analysis Animals were identified with the help of illustrations and descriptions of Payne (1985) and were updated to current and revised names and species. As both chevrotain species Tragulus napu and T. kanchil, both muntjac; Muntjacus atherodes and M. muntjak and both spiny rats Maxomys rajah and 14

M. surifer are morphologically similar and therefore difficult to distinguish from photographs or video, I grouped each pair and identified them to genus level only to facilitate analysis (Azlan & Lading, 2006). Photos and or videos of the same species taken from a single camera within 40 minutes of each other were taken to be the same individual and were considered a single capture event unless individual recognition was possible. Figure 2.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A pregnant female mouse deer (Tragulus sp.) photographed with a camera trap in Bukit Batikap Nature Reserve during the expedition (28 December 2010) ÂŠ Tim van Berkel

The data obtained from the two arboreal traps were not used in the analysis.

Data analysis In order to assess the level of completeness of the survey for studying medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals, the performance of six species diversity estimators were tested: the nonparametric abundance based estimators ACE and Chao 1 and the non-parametric incidence based estimators ICE, Chao 2, Jackknife 1 and Jackknife 2. Non-parametric species abundance estimators are related to capture-recapture models and assume that the community composition does not change over the time of the study (the population is closed). The Jackknife estimators also assume there is no temporal variation in capture probability for all species (Burnham, 1979; Chao, 2004) and are reported to give good results for camera trap surveys (Tobler et al., 2008). They are also used to calculate the Mh model which allows heterogeneity in capture probabilities (Otis et al., 1978). Small (< 1kg), arboreal, aquatic (otter spp.) and riverine species were excluded from the analysis. The estimates were compared to a regional species pool of medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals, which is estimated at 31 species. Since both Tragulus spp. and Muntiacus spp. were grouped to accommodate analysis, the total species pool was reflected to contain 29 species. The program Estimates v8.2.0 (Colwell, 2006) was used to calculate rarefaction curves and the various species richness estimators. Number of randomisation runs was set at 1000 and without sample replacement. Each survey day was treated as a sample, resulting in 27 samples. To test whether camera types varied in trap rates, and thus influence animal detectability, GLMM was used. The software program R, version 2.13.0 (R Development Core Team, 2011) was used to perform the analyses. All site occupancy estimates (Ď&#x2C6;) and detection probabilities (p) were calculated through the program PRESENCE v4.1 (MacKenzie, 2002) following a single-season occupancy design. Different models were fitted and models were ranked according to AIC. The two different camera types used remained in the same position for the entire survey. Camera type was thus incorporated as a site variable. We made sure all model assumptions were met: 1. The system is demographically closed, meaning there is no change in site occupancy during the sampling period, and that all individuals are identified correctly: Since the study was carried out over a period of two months I assume to have fulfilled this assumption. 15

2. A species that is not present is not detected. 3. Detection at one site is independent of detection at other sites: Only cameras which were placed at 500m intervals (N=17) were used in the analysis to avoid dependence. Rovero et al., (2010) suggest that occupancy models generally do not produce accurate results for species that show up in less than 10-20% of all camera traps and have capture probabilities of <0.1. Heeding these precautions, I refrained from calculating estimates for species to which both constraints apply. To reduce the effects of low detectability, five consecutive days were grouped and treated as a single observation sample. Standard errors of ψ were estimated using nonparametric bootstrap errors following (MacKenzie, 2002). We also provide the following species diversity indices: Fisher’s α, and Shannon and Simpson diversity indices.

RESULTS Capture Rate The Bushnell Trophy Cams captured on average 1.21 ± 0.24 events per day, significantly more than the 0.30 ± 0.14 events recorded by the Cuddeback cameras (X2 = 12.29, p < 0.001, df = 3). In addition, the Trophy Cams detected more small mammals (< 1 kg) then the Cuddeback cameras (X2 = 25.38, p < 0.001, df = 275).

Species richness and diversity A total of 24 mammal and five terrestrial bird species were recorded in 262 capture events consisting of 196 mammal and 66 terrestrial bird events. Total trapping effort amounted to 570 trapping days (camera traps x days), giving a mean active period of 22 days per camera (although camera activity period ranged from 3-43 days). Detailed results for terrestrial bird species can be found in Chapter 6: Avifauna Survey. The cameras recorded 20 of the 31 known medium and large terrestrial mammals potentially present in the area (IUCN, 2011) and that had a detection probability of >0, giving a survey completeness of 65%. As shown in Figure 2.3 on page 18, none of the species richness estimator curves have levelled off, indicating that the total number of species in the area has not been recorded. However, all estimators perform better than the actual species observed (Sobs) apart from the Jackknife 2 above a sampling effort of about 400 sampling days. The Jackknife 2 estimator provided the most accurate prediction up to a sampling effort of about 400 trap days but became increasingly unreliable for larger sample sizes, predicting the presence of an unrealistically high number of species. Species most commonly recorded were Southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina), both muntjac species, bearded pig (Sus barbatus) and both chevrotains. Eleven species were recorded only 1, 2 or 3 times (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 – Camera trapping results for mammals in Bukit Batikap National Reserve. Capture frequency is noted as

number of trap nights per number of captures Detection probability (p) ( ± SE)*

Occupancy estimates (ψ) (± SE)*

570

Three-striped ground squirrel

190

Maxomys rajah

Rajah sundaic maxomys

Hystrix brachyura

Malayan porcupine

0.13 (0.08)

0.54 (0.26)

Trichys fasciculata

Long-tailed porcupine

570

Hystrix crassispinis

Thick-spined porcupine

570

Manis javanica

Sunda pangolin

570

Ursidae

Helarctos malayanus

Malayan sun bear

285

Viverridae

Cynogale bennettii

Sunda otter-civet

285

Viverra tangalunga

Malay civet

Arctictis binturong

Binturong

570

Paradoxurus hermaphroditus

Common palm civet

570

Hemigalus derbyanus

Banded civet

143

Herpestes brachyurus

Short-tailed mongoose

285

Herpestes semitorquatus

Collared mongoose

285

Prionailurus bengalensis

Leopard cat

570

Suidae

Sus barbatus

Bearded pig

0.11 (0.06)

0.88 (0.39)

Tragulidae

Tragulus spp.

Chevrotains

0.29 (0.07)

0.65 (0.15)

Cervidae

Muntjacus spp.

Muntjacs

0.17 (0.06)

0.78 (0.21)

Rusa unicolor

Sambar

Southern pig-tailed macaque

0.16 (0.06)

0.95 (0.24)

No of Capture occasions Frequency

Scientific name

Common name

Tupaia dorsalis

Striped treeshrew

Tupaia longipes

Bornean treeshrew

Sciuridae

Lariscus insignus

Muridae Hystricidae

Scandentia Tupaiidae

Rodentia

Pholidota Manidae Carnivora

Felidae Artiodactyla

Primates Cercopithecidae Macaca nemestrina

*) Occupancy estimates and detection probabilities were only calculated from cameras spaced 500m apart (N=17)

Species number

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Sobs (Mao Tau) ACE ICE Chao 1 Jack 1 Jack 2 Bootstrap MMMeans 0

63 127 190 253 317 380 443 507 570 Trapping effort

Species pool

Figure 2.3 – Rarefied species accumulation curve comparison of different species richness estimators for medium- and large-sized terrestrial mammals. Sobs: number of species observed, ACE: Abundance-based Coverage Estimator, ICE: Incidence-based Coverage Estimator, Jack: Jackknife Esti-mators, MMMeans: Michaelis-Menten Estimator. Note Tragulus and Muntiacus spp. are grouped, giving a regionnal species pool of 29 instead of 31.

Simpson and Shannon diversity indices remained relatively stable with increasing sampling effort (means ± SD: D = 6.87 ± 0.15 and H = 2.24 ± 0.02 respectively), while Fisher’s A linearly increased from 5.00 to 5.65 ± 0.85.

Arboreal Traps Two individual Prevost’s squirrels were recorded by the arboreal camera traps. Two flying squirrels were recorded on video, but the images did not allow positive identification of either individual.

Notable Species Accounts Otter-civet (Cynogale bennettii) On one occasion two individuals, one adult and one juvenile, were recorded by a camera trap positioned on a hilltop at 196m a.s.l. (Figure 2.5). The animals were recorded January 15th 2011 at 17:47h. Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) Two sun bears were recorded in two separate locations spaced 1.3km apart, the 20th and 31st of January at 11:14h and 17:42h respectively. One of the photos was not clear enough to allow individual identification.

Figure 2.4 – Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) photographed by camera trap (January 31, 2011) © Tim van Berkel

DISCUSSION Methodology Camera trapping proves to be a very effective method of creating a species inventory of large- and medium-sized terrestrial mammals, requiring relatively little effort and time compared to more traditional survey methods. During this study not all terrestrial species expected to be present were sampled, this is possibly due to the low trapping effort of merely 570 days. As an example, we detected clear foot prints of the Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) but failed to capture the species on camera. To optimise the effectiveness of a terrestrial mammal inventory combining camera surveys with additional methods such as (opportunistic) spoor counts, line transects to survey arboreal species (including primates and arboreal civets), and small mammal trapping to account for mammals which are often missed by camera trap survey, will offer the best results. The importance of the latter is exemplified here by the comparison of the performance between both camera types employed during this survey. The lower proportion of small mammals detected by the Cuddeback seems a clear example of a failure to adequately detect the smaller species as is also demonstrated by Tobler et al., (2008). This is very likely mainly due to the sensitivity of the camera type, which therefore needs to be included as a study specific covariate when estimating species occupancy or abundance estimates. Even though arboreal sampling effort totalled a mere seven days, there were two occasions on which squirrels and two on which flying squirrels were recorded. This high number of recordings is encouraging as arboreal trapping is laborious, resulting in relatively low return for high effort and therefore hardly practised. The paucity of data on flying squirrels, due to their difficult detection using direct observations, gives motive to pursue arboreal camera trapping further as a more efficient and rewarding method to study their behavioural and ecological aspects. If well placed, these traps can provide valuable data on distribution, activity patterns, niche speciation and reproduction and, with large enough effort, also occupancy and abundance estimates.

Species richness The initial slope of the species accumulation curve would suggest that the large and medium sized mammal community is made of a low proportion of abundant species. The still rising curve suggests that the species inventory is not complete and the number of species is likely to rise with increased sampling effort. The relatively low proportion of abundant species, as represented by the gentle initial slope of the rarefied species accumulation curve, could possibly be partly explained by hunting pressure, since villagers from Tumbang Tohan previously utilised the area as a hunting zone. However, it could be that this purely represents an inherent natural state of the mammal community. Unfortunately, limited records have been published with regards to community structure of medium and large sized mammals in other parts in Borneo, making inferences difficult. As the villagers have collectively agreed to stop hunting and, subsequently designating the research location as a collective nonhunting zone, we will be able to examine the impact of hunting by repeating the study over coming years.

Because sampling effort was relatively poor; 570 trapping days, the inventory is unlikely to be comprehensive (Tobler et al., 2008) and species that have not been recorded might still be present in the area. Detection probabilities of most species were low (p < 0.1) when compared to other studies. It was therefore not possible to provide accurate occupancy estimates for those species. Possible causes might be hunting pressure resulting in lower species abundance, poor camera placement, or camera malfunctioning. During tests, we found many Cuddeback cameras to perform badly, failing to be triggered when a researcher imitated an animal moving in front of a camera. We therefore suggest this is to be the main reason for the low detection rates. Species accounts Of special interest is the observation of the Sunda otter-civet (Figure 2.5). This species is a highly elusive carnivore, mainly found in the lowlands near streams. It is the most threatened civet in Southeast Asia and has been recorded only a few times in Borneo (Veron et al., 2006; Cheyne et al., 2010; Wilting et al., 2010). This record constitutes the first video footage of an adult with young and provides the first record for the species in Murung Raya. The only other known record in Central Kalimantan is from the peat swamp forests in Sabangau National Park (Cheyne et al., 2010) Pig-tailed macaques were found to have the highest occupancy of all species. This is in strong contrast with the results obtained from the line transects walked in the same area, where a single M. nemestrina individual was encountered only once. McConkey & Chivers (2004) studied mammalian abundance in nearby Barito Ulu using line transects also found extremely low occurrence of M. nemestrina (one or two observations over 10km of Figure 2.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; An adult and immature Sunda otter-civet (Cynogale transects, totalling 240km), proposing that bennettii) photographed by camera trap (January 15, 2011) ÂŠ Tim van Berkel they would either occupy a large home range or would be nomadic. The low rate of encounter for the long-tailed macaque is not surprising given the ranging behaviour of this species. The longtailed macaque, whilst ranging throughout the island of Borneo (Payne et al., 1985), is thought to prefer the riverine forests, contrary to observations in many other parts of Southeast Asia where they have been observed to range much further inland than is seen in Borneo (Chivers, 1996; McConkey & Chivers, 2004). Long-tailed macaques were sighted from the river while travelling to the Heart of Borneo site, therefore boat surveys should be considered in planning future research on the Figure 2.6 - A female Southern pig-tailed macaque occurrence of this species at the site. The pig-tailed (Macaca nemestrina) photographed by camera macaque is thought to prefer upland and hilly trap (January 4, 2011) ÂŠ Tim van Berkel 20

environments (Adams, 1997) similar to those found at the study site. Therefore, the lack of observations during the survey cannot be attributed to a lack of suitable habitat This study shows that M. nemestrina could be more abundant than previously assumed from line transect surveys, at least in Barito Ulu. This could at least partially be attributed to survey technique: Traditionally, line transects are commonly used to study M. nemestrina and other primates. M. nemestrina however, differs in behaviour from most other primates in various ways: Firstly, and as this study shows, it is highly active on and close to the forest floor, where it is less visible than when it is foraging in trees. Secondly, it tends to flee via the ground instead of through the trees, as is common in most other primates (Bernstein, 1967), thus reducing its detection probability. The apparent absence from the camera trap study of four of the five Bornean cat species is not surprising if taken into context. A study in the peat swamp forest in Sabangau, Central Kalimantan showed that, similarly to this study, only the leopard cat was observed within the same time frame. In Sabangau, a trap effort of almost 3,500 trap nights was needed to include three cat species (Cheyne & Macdonald, 2011). The behaviour, ecology and habitat requirements for these species are lacking but are, in view of the rapid clearance of the Bornean lowland forests, required to provide guidance for effective Figure 2.7 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A leopard cat (Prionailurus bengalensis conservation programs. In the future, the borneoensis) captured by camera trap (January 3, 2011) ÂŠ Tim Heart of Borneo Project aims to focus on the van Berkel acquisition of this data.

3. Mammal transects and observations Principal investigator: Lara Rogers

AIMS Line transect surveys were carried out alongside camera and small mammal trapping to provide a list of occurrence and estimate the relative mammal density within the research site. In addition to furnishing a species list, these line transect surveys are intended to provide baseline data for future research in the area.

METHODS Five 2 km long line transects were placed parallel to one another at 500 m intervals. These transects were each walked twice by a team of three between 6h00 and 14h00 for diurnal surveys and by a team of four between 18h00 and 03h00 for nocturnal surveys. Nocturnal surveys were carried out with the use of red filtered Petzl Zoom 4.5V headlamps (Petzl, Crolles, France) which are suggested to increase nocturnal primate sightings over white light and nocturnal mammals have shown to be insensitive to the red spectrum of light (Finley, 1959; CharlesDominique & Bearder, 1979; VerCauteren et al., 2003; Iseborn et al., (In Print) ). Transects were walked quietly and slowly at an average rate of 1.5 km/hour with frequent stops to Figure 3.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Lara Rogers and Bobo out on a nocturnal transect scan the forest layers. At each sighting the ÂŠ Martin Holland following data were recorded where possible: date, time, GPS co-ordinates of the animal's location, weather condition, perpendicular distance (distance of the first individual seen from the transect), estimated group size and animal height from the ground. In addition, animal behaviour data were recorded for the nocturnal mammals observed. Categories of behaviour were adapted from (Nekaris, 2001; Gursky, 2003) and are detailed in Table 3.1. Due to low encounter rates, the data collected during the surveys were not substantial enough to reliably estimate species abundance. Therefore, the data are presented here as a detailed species list including linear encounter rates (encounters/km) and mean perpendicular distances. Finally, we also provide records of observations made during incidental encounters.

Table 3.1 - Descriptions of behavioural categories at first contact (adapted from Nekaris, 2001; Gursky, 2003).

Activity

Description

Resting Sleeping Moving Alert Feeding

Body immobile and not involved in activity Assume specific position for sleep and is not alert to environmental changes Any mobile activity Separated from resting as animal is distracted/ concentrating by/on factors in the environment Consumption of animal or plant matter Less frequent behaviours such as grooming, social interaction and vocalization were grouped into one category.

Other

RESULTS A total of 21 mammal species were encountered during surveys; belonging to five different orders and eleven separate families. The majority of species are currently listed as Least Concern and Vulnerable by the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2011). Figure 3.2 lists the perpendicular distances of nocturnal and diurnal mammals observed during the surveys. Table 3.2 and 3.3 list the relative abundances and average perpendicular distances for all mammal species encountered during the survey. Table 3.4 lists the average encounter heights and average heights of trees primates were encountered in.

ERINACEOMORPHA Moonrat (Echinosorex gymnura) One individual was observed during a nocturnal survey. The moonrat was sighted at 18h50 at 7m from the transect. RODENTIA Squirrels Two pale giant squirrels (Ratufa affinis cothurnata), two plantain squirrels (Callosciurus notatus) and one plain pygmy squirrel (Exillisciurus exillis) were observed during the survey. The plantain squirrels were the only species encountered between 06h00 and 08h00; both the giant squirrels and the pygmy squirrel were encountered between 08h00 and 10h00. One black-eared pygmy squirrel (Nannosciurus melanotis pallidus) was observed outside the survey period as well as three pale giant squirrels. A horse-tailed squirrel (Sundasciurus hippurus borneensis) was observed on two occasions at the upper reaches of the river Joloi. On the second occasion the individual was observed foraging in a mixed bird species flock. We were not able to identify squirrels encountered during the mammal surveys to species level. A number were identified during the expedition and recorded by canopy camera traps.

Contact Frequency

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

DS NS Figure 3.2 - Perpendicular distances of nocturnal and diurnal mammal sighting throughout the survey period. It can be seen that minimal animals numbers were encountered on the transect line.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Perpendicular Distance (M)

CARNIVORA Asian small-clawed otter (Aonyx cinerea) Many tracks of this species were seen on the banks of the river Kalopu and a group of at least three individuals was observed foraging in a small side stream of the Mohot. During the gibbon survey one otter was observed in a small stream of the upper Joloi. Banded linsang (Prionodon linsang) One individual was encountered during the survey. It was observed moving 17m from the transect at 18h52. Binturong (Arctictis binturong) Two individuals were encountered during the nocturnal survey. They were observed between 19h00 and 23h00 at a mean distance of 8.5m from the transect. The second individual was noted to have unusual facial markings characterised by a dense white circle of fur encircling the face, from the chin to the forehead. One other individual was observed resting in a fruiting fig tree (Figure 3.3). Figure 3.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A binturong (Arctictis binturong) resting in a fig tree near one of the transects ÂŠ James Harwood

Malayan sun bear (Helarctos malayanus) Two immature individuals were encountered mid-morning. They were observed climbing down a tree; we presume they were disturbed by the researchers. Fresh and old claw marks in trees were present throughout the study area. Also, during the hybrid gibbon surveys at the upper Joloi River in kerangas forest we scared one bear away in the early morning. Malay civet (Viverra tangalunga) Two individuals were encountered during the nocturnal survey. The individuals were observed Moving and Resting in the undergrowth between 19h00 and 21h00 at a mean distance of 8m from the transect. One was observed successfully predating on an unidentified rodent. Two additional individuals were frequently observed near the camp. Some of the chickens were reported to have been killed by two civets and the camp rooster was attacked in the middle of the night.

Common palm civet (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) We observed a common palm civet on two occasions at night in a tree at approximately 10m and 15m height. Table 3.2 - Relative abundances and average perpendicular distances for all nocturnal mammal species encountered during the nocturnal survey totalling 20km. Linear encounter rate Perpendicular No of animals encountered (encounters/km) distance (m) Banded linsang 1 0.05 17 Binturong

0.10

7.5

Bornean slow loris

0.05

Bornean tarsier

0.05

Greater mouse deer

0.10

Lesser mouse deer Malay civet Moonrat

13 2 1

0.65 0.10 0.05

8.7 4.5 6

Red muntjac

0.05

MANIDAE Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica) One Sunda pangolin was observed at night outside of the official surveys. ARTIODACTYLA Bornean yellow muntjac (Muntiacus atherodes) Three individuals were observed on two occasions. On one occasion an individual was seen feeding in the undergrowth. These individuals were sighted in the morning between 8h00 and 10h00 at an average of 20m from the observer. One additional individual was observed outside the surveys. Red/common muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak) One individual was observed during the diurnal surveys (8h45) and one during the nocturnal surveys (00h15). One male was observed barking the 20th of December at 8h48. Sambar deer (Rusa unicolor) One male individual was encountered during a diurnal survey at 9h10, 15m from the observer. Another individual was seen during the day on an incidental encounter and tracks were observed on multiple occasions and locations, including the banks of the river Kalopu. Greater mouse deer (Tragulus napu) Two individuals were observed during the nocturnal survey. They were encountered between 20h00 and 22h30 at an average of 1m from the observer. One individual was Alert during the time of observation and the second was slowly moving in the undergrowth. Lesser mouse deer (Tragulus kanchil) This was the most commonly observed species (n=13). Individuals were seen during the nocturnal survey between 18h30 and 23h30 at an average of 8 m from the observer. They were always seen in the undergrowth, showing minimal concern for the presence of the observer, making it possible to 25

approach within 2m of the deer. The species were observed: Moving (42%), Feeding (22%), Resting (22%) and Alert to the observer (14%) of the time. Bearded pig (Sus barbatus) No bearded pigs were encountered during the surveys but recent tracks were abundant and one pig’s nest was encountered on a recently created nest which was still in use as was identified from camera traps. PRIMATES Bornean slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis) One individual was encountered during the nocturnal survey. The slow loris was seen at 20h00 Resting at approximately 30m from the transect in a 38m high tree. Bornean tarsier (Tarsier bancanus borneanus) One individual was encountered during the nocturnal survey. The tarsier was observed Resting at 1m on a 3m sapling on the transect, approximately 0.5m from the ground at 20h38. Bornean southern gibbon (Hylobates albibarbis) A total of 17 individuals were seen during the survey: two individual males, three groups of two and three groups of three. Gibbons were only encountered between 08h00 and 10h00 at a mean height of 28m in trees averaging 38m. Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) A lone male proboscis monkey was sighted at the end of a transect near a small river, approximately 600m from the Mohot River. In addition the expedition's head guide observed two individuals and inhabitants from Tumbang Tohan village reported observing two large males at the confluence of the Mohot and Joloi Rivers the previous year. Long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) One group of three individuals were observed. Long tailed macaques were the only mammals to be sighted between 10h00 and12h00. They were at a distance of 30m from the transect, 30m up an approximately 40m tree. Long-tailed macaques were often observed outside of transect surveys. Figure 3.4 – A long-tailed macaque. This animal slept in a tree overhanging the Mohot in Camp Foyle. It never entered the camp itself but was not scared by the presence of people. © Martin Holland

Southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina) Pig-tailed macaques were not observed during the official surveys but were heard on several occasions and one individual was seen foraging in a fig tree near a transect. After it was disturbed by the observers it fled away across the forest floor. Red langur (Presbytis rubicunda) Six individuals were observed on two separate occasions. One sighting was of a group of five and the second consisted of a single individual. Both groups were seen in the morning between 08h00 and

10h00 at an average distance of 24m from the transect. They were observed approximately 18m up in trees averaging 28m in height. Table 3.3 - Relative abundance and density estimates for all diurnal mammal species encountered during the diurnal survey.

No of Animals/Groups Encountered

Average Linear Encounter Rate (ind/km)

Perpendicular Distance to transect (m)

Bornean yellow muntjac

0.15

5±4

Giant squirrel

0.10

Long-tailed macaque

0.25

Malayan sun bear

0.10

Maroon langur

0.55

Plain pygmy squirrel

0.05

Plantain squirrel

0.10

Red muntjac

0.05

Sambar deer

0.05

Southern Bornean gibbon

0.70

White fronted langur

0.10

+ number of groups

White fronted langur (Presbytis frontata) Two groups were encountered during the survey. The visibility was too poor to determine group size, however the distinctive white diamond-shaped patch on the forehead of this species was clearly observed on both occasions. Both groups were seen in the morning at an average distance of 22m from the transect at an average of 24m in 27.5m trees. On two occasions a small group of approximately 4 individuals was observed foraging with long-tailed macaques and hornbills in a fruiting tree. Table 3.4 – Primate encounter heights and heights of trees primates encountered during the surveys

Southern Bornean gibbon Long tailed macaque Bornean slow loris White fronted langur Maroon langur Bornean tarsier

Tree Height (m)a

Animal Height (m)a

38 ± 1 40* 38* 28 ± 2 28 ± 5 3*

28 ± 1 30* 30* 24 ± 3 18 ± 4 1*

) Means with standard errors. *) Means and standard errors not provided as only one animal encountered

Bats Although bats were not the focus of this study, a total of three species were recorded during the expedition. We recorded one individual Trefoil horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus trifoliatus) which we disturbed resting on a small tree branch at approximately 2m height. We also discovered a naked bat (Cheiromeles torquatus) in a hollow tree. Groups of sheath-tailed bats (Emballonura sp.) were occasionally disturbed from roosting in/under fallen logs and rotting trees. Figure 3.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Bornean naked bat (Cheiromeles torquatus) which was encountered on the forest floor near Camp Foyle ÂŠ Misbahul Munir

DISCUSSION The line transect surveys conducted at the research site proved successful in providing species occurrence for some terrestrial mammal species thought to occur in the area. In addition, the research area contained the full diversity of primate species expected. This included the proboscis monkey, making this one of the most inland recordings of the species in Borneo. It has previously been assumed to have a range limited to the costal and downstream rivers of Borneo. However, Meijaard & Nijman (2000) provide evidence that the species ranges more broadly, from coastal areas to the headwaters of all major rivers. Approximately 60km to the east of the Heart of Borneo research site, several groups have been sighted along the riverine forests of the Murung and Upper Barito rivers (Bodmer et al., 1991), which suggests the potential presence of groups around the research site. Yeager (cf. Meijaard & Nijman, 2000) has explained the occurrence of inland 'groups' as only wandering males, which may be the case at the Heart of Borneo research site as only males were observed. Regardless, the recorded presence of proboscis monkeys is further supporting evidence that this species ranges even more broadly than previously described. Further research needs to be conducted to investigate the extent of proboscis monkey occurrence at the Heart of Borneo research site. The most striking absence might be the one of the Bornean orang-utan (Pongo pygmaeus). Even though the forest is primary habitat for the species, no nests or other signs of this enigmatic primate have been observed. Discussion with the local villagers indicated that orang-utans were certainly present in the past, but that they have been intensely persecuted, possibly leading to their local extinction. The two main reasons for its persecution to come forward were that the villagers were afraid, since it was believed orang-utans abducted children into the forest and that the animal was a notorious crop raider. No orang-utans have been sighted by any of the villagers in the area but one village elder indicated he had seen orang-utans in the foothills of the Joloi headwaters, about 30km north of the village. During the survey time two juvenile sun bears were disturbed from a tree presumed to be their sleeping site for the day. Additionally we found numerous recent claw marks on trees throughout 28

the area. Sun bears are deemed to be omnivorous. However during the fruiting season they rely heavily on fruit for their survival. McConkey & Galetti (1999) showed the importance of sun bears as seed dispersers, along with other species fulfilling this role their survival will inevitably affect the quality of the forest. A major threat to the survival of sun bears is the decrease in viable habitat; indeed although population sizes are generally unknown for this species it is thought that they have declined 30% over the past 30 years (Fredriksson et al., 2008). As their habitat degrades and with it the fruit availability this pushes the bears to search for food outside the forest boundary, bringing them into conflict with the surrounding village communities. In fact, on our arrival at Tumbang Tohan a villager explained to us that his wife had just killed a sun bear which had entered their vegetable plot, posing a threat to the village’s safety and it was consequently offered to the HoBP team as a stew. If this is an on-going problem for the village we suggest exploring human-wildlife conflict mitigation work with the village. The binturong, a similarly important keystone species as a seed disperser (Cosson et al., 2007) was sighted three times during the expedition and always in fruiting fig trees, as in India (Datta et al., 2008). Binturongs are thought to be rare although widely distributed (Pocock, 1933; Grassman et al., 2005; Datta et al., 2008) except in Thailand where (Kitamura et al., 2010) believes there to be a ‘healthy population’ of binturong. There is no available data on what constitutes a healthy population of binturong. Similar to studies in Malaysia (Heydon & Bulloh, 1996) binturongs were observed during the diurnal and nocturnal surveys. Payne (1985) report the occurrence of A. b. penicillata [a species which has varying amounts of white/grey grizzled throughout its coat] to occur in Kalimantan, (Adams, 1997) noted the presence of one binturong which was sighted during the day at Project Barito Ulu. All other records of binturong sightings are from East Kalimantan (O’Brien & Fimbel, ND) and West Kalimantan (Puri, 2001; Marshall et al., 2009). These authors make no

reference to pelage descriptions or density. The individuals seen throughout our study seemed to fit the description by Payne & Francis (1985), however on the final night a binturong with an altogether different pelage was observed. This individual had a face that was almost entirely white/buff and fits more with the description by Pocock (1933) of a white-faced Northern Bornean subspecies A. b. pageli. Obviously there is a paucity of information available on binturongs across South-East Asia and more work needs to be done on density, range and diversity of this species and its possible subspecies. Coat colour can vary even within subspecies Line transects have been shown to be a cost-effective method of covering large distances (Fewester et al., 2005), however this only seems to be the case in areas with relatively easy forest access. Our research site was traversed with constant hills and many small rivers resulting in extremely difficult terrain throughout. Due to time constraints we were only able to create five transects with a total of 10km on which to concentrate survey efforts; Our study was conducted during the rainy season; poor weather conditions made visibility sometimes difficult and detection less likely; all of our diurnal sightings were made during sunny mornings as with numerous studies of diurnal mammals for instance (Evans et al., 2000; Coudrat et al., 2011), and all of our nocturnal sightings were made when it was dry. Nocturnal mammals are notoriously shy (Duckworth, 1997) and difficult to survey during the night as the researcher relies on either noise or the animals eye shine if they look towards the torch for detection (Nekaris et al., 2008). Head lights with red filters were used in this study as this has been suggested to increase detection rates of nocturnal primates over white light as stated in the method 29

section. Others have suggested that white light may offer better visibility during nocturnal surveys but does not increase detection given that nocturnal mammals are only detected by their eye-shine and not their body shape. Whilst there have been no systematic surveys of other nocturnal mammals to determine the effectiveness of red over white light, studies have shown that they have little perception of lights within the red and infrared end of the spectrum (Southern et al., 1946; Finley, 1959; VerCauteren et al., 2003). Indeed, the abundance of filters within the red spectrum available to hunters of deer and hogs implies they provide more effective light conditions. In the eyes of mammals, the retina is at the back of the eye, and is made up of two light sensitive cells; rods which enable vision in low light conditions, and cones which allow colour vision. Nocturnal mammals have a higher number of rods and a decreased number of cones. In addition, they only have two types of cones representing three photo pigments. These photo pigments utilise only the short and middle wavelength cones to supplement the rods under low light conditions. Therefore, nocturnal mammals perceive colours from violet to green but may not perceive red. Tarsiers are the only nocturnal mammals in the area which do not produce eye shine due to lacking a tapetum lucidum. Studies have previously used white light to detect tarsier relying on movement and calls to determine their location. T. bancanus borneanus are not known to vocalise regularly (Niemitz, 1979; Crompton & Andau, 1987) and studies have shown that red light produces a strong red glow from tarsier where white light cannot (Munds, 2010). Indeed, it was the red filter which enabled the detection of the Bornean tarsier as we were too far down the transect to see body shape however the glow from the eyes alerted us to its presence. As the survey area was very remote and the consequences of an accident could have been severe, the decision was made to conduct diurnal surveys with a minimum of three observers and nocturnal surveys with a minimum of four observers. Mammalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; anti-predatory strategies have been shown to be affected by observer group size (Adams, 1997; Duckworth, 1997; Nekaris et al., 2008). Our results showed a skewed detection function with very few mammals being observed on the transect line. This suggests that some animals directly on the line were missed and that animals had moved before being detected, two of the fundamental rules for line transect surveys. Our frequent use of the transects due to number of observers using the transect and frequent use by other research teams may have had a detrimental effect on the sightings. The majority of surveys for rainforest mammals suggest an optimum number of observers for safety and stealth is two (Duckworth, 1994; Adams, 1997; Heydon & Bulloh, 1997; Nekaris et al., 2008). This number decreases the disturbance on the area allowing more natural occurrence of species distribution and avoids the bias of detection probability falling well below 100% (Duckworth, 1998). In future surveys it is suggested that transects are dispersed throughout the accessible forest area incorporating forest over the river and further up and downstream. This would enable researchers to spread around the field site allowing minimal impact on one area. Subsistence hunting can have a dramatic effect on mammal densities when unregulated (Peres, 2000; Harrison, 2011). Interior communities have successfully subsistence hunted for hundreds of generations. But, inland communities have never been under as much pressure as they are today. As the population of Borneo increases, both with immigrants moving further into the interior and the increase of population from births, more and more pressure is being placed on the hunted species (Bodmer et al., 1991). Furthermore, quality and quantity of hunting equipment increases (e.g. shotguns, air riffles and transport means enable hunters to travel further) and there is a shift from pure subsistence hunting to commercial hunting (Limberg, G. pers. comm.), adding additional 30

pressure. Without proper management strategies in place this could fast shift from sustainable to unsustainable subsistence hunting, possibly leading to irreversible damage (Wadley et al., 1997). As HoBP’s research site has been demarcated as a no hunting area with Tumbang Tohan village it will be extremely interesting to conduct a repeat survey in the area to monitor if there is a visible change in the mammal densities. HoBP is in an ideal situation to work closely with Tumbang Tohan to create sustainable hunting quotas and in time alternative livelihoods to decrease pressure on forest resources and ultimately improve the living standards of the village.

4. Small mammals Principal investigator: Tim van Berkel

AIMS The aim of this study was to obtain an indication of the small mammal community assemblage (<500g) and how this would differ for various habitats. Due to the small capture effort it was not possible to estimate density and habitat associations and relative abundance was calculated instead. A second aim was to determine the effectiveness of the two trap types employed.

METHODS Fifty four locally made Kasmin cage traps (3 x 3.5 x 9") and 38 Sherman foldable aluminium traps (6 x 6 x 19”) were placed along two parallel trap lines spaced 50m apart. Traps were distributed along 23 stations, spaced twenty meters apart. Each station consisted of four traps, which were placed in a 10 meter radius. Although fresh bait (such as bananas) was preferred as it has shown to attract rats, squirrels and treeshrews (Patric, 1970; Langham, 1983; Stuebing & Gasis, 1989), the remoteness of the area did not permit the use of these. Instead, traps were baited with peanut butter or durian paste, which was refreshed every third day or when it was eaten by ants or termites. As it is estimated that over 83% of Bornean mammals are at least partly arboreal (Mabberly, 1983) 18 traps were placed in trees and woody climbers up to a height 2m above the ground to capture arboreal species. To enhance trapping success traps were placed in locations presumed preferable to small mammals. These are generally: along the edge and on top of logs; along paths across leaf litter or soil; near apparently active burrows and holes and in between the buttresses of large trees. All were placed in areas of relatively dense vegetation. Traps were checked each day at dusk and dawn and rebaited where needed. Traps were traceable by means of a raffia string running from a central tree to each trap, something which considerably increased operating speed. Captured animals were identified to species level and moved to home-made handling cones to allow body measurements to be 31

Figure 4.1 – A Kasmin trap with a termite mount in place where the bait should have been. The bait was completely gone on checking the trap less than 12 hours later. © Tim van Berkel

taken. These included body mass, length from nose tip to tail base, tail length, left hind foot length, greatest ear length, gender, age class and ectoparasites. Traps were planned to be active for four weeks. Due to two brown spiny rats (Maxomys rajah) being killed by ants after the first seven trapping days as well as termite infestations (Figure 4.1) and time constraints it was decided not to continue trapping after the eighth trapping day, giving a total trapping effort of 664 trapping nights. Trapping was carried out from the 2nd to 9th of January 2010.

Analysis Trapping success was measured as the number of captures over the total trapping effort and is considered to be a relative abundance index. Macro-habitat was considered to be similar for all trapping stations. To analyse the effectiveness of the two different trap types a binomial proportions test using the statistical software package R version 2.13.0 (R Development Core Team, 2011) was applied.

RESULTS Species diversity and abundance A total trapping effort of 664 trapping nights resulted in 28 captures of 22 different individuals, giving a total trapping success of 4.2%. No animals were captured on the first day of trap placement during this study. Five different mammal species were captured; all were members of the murid family. Table 4.1 lists the species and their relative abundances. A single Maxomys muelleri was captured at 2m above the forest floor. This was the only arboreal capture during the study. On one occasion a garnet pitta (Pitta granatina) was captured in a terrestrial Kasmin trap, while on one other occasion two bush crickets were caught in a single terrestrial Sherman trap.

Trap effectiveness The locally made wire Kasmin traps proved to be significantly more effective than the aluminium Sherman traps (X2 = 4.52, p = 0.035) with a proportion rate of 0.027 vs. 0.010 respectively. Table 4.1 - Total number of captures for each mammal species. Figures in parentheses represent number of captured individuals.

Relative Abundance

Species name

Captures

Scientific

Common

Arboreal

Terrestrial

Maxomys rajah

Rajah Sundaic Maxomys

13 (12)

Maxomys whiteheadi

Whiteheadâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sundaic Maxomys

8 (7)

Maxomys muelleri

MĂźllerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Sundamys

3 (1)

Maxomys surifer

Indomalayan Maxomys

1 (1)

Niviventer cremoriventer

Sundaic Arboreal Niviventer

1 (1)

Total

TOTAL

26 (22)

DISCUSSION All captures comprised of species of the murid family, with the noted absence of the arboreal treeshrews (Tupaiidae) and squirrels (Sciuridae) despite the use of arboreal traps. Squirrels and flying squirrels however, are extremely difficult to trap (Nor, 2001) and it is noted that peanut butter is not the optimal bait for tree shrews or squirrels, which prefer fresh banana (Bernard, 2003), possibly explaining their absence. Another explanation might be ill-placement of the arboreal traps. Ants and termites proved to be a real harassment, even leading to the death of two captured individuals. They would often eat the bait before any target animal. In fact, they proved to be such a nuisance that the survey was abandoned. Most were encountered in the Sherman traps, which I believe partially explains the lower trap success. One note of interest is the capture of a Müller’s sundamys at 2m above the forest floor. Being the only arboreal trap success this is surprising as this species is considered to be the one of the most terrestrial of all species (van Schaik & Griffiths, 1996). Figure 4.2 – A juvenile Rajah Sundaic maxomys (Maxomys rajah) just released after being captured. © Tim van Berkel

Recommendations The low sampling effort and small area surveyed do not make for a representative sample of the study area. Both increased sampling effort and sampling area would reduce the bias in species composition significantly. Where possible, the additional use of fresh banana and other bait types such as dried fish are advised to obtain a more representative sample of the small mammal assemblage. Prebaiting the stations at least two days before conducting the survey is further recommended to optimise capture rates as it would increase visits due to the presence of the bait.

5. Hybrid gibbons Principal investigator: Lara Rogers

INTRODUCTION Two gibbon species (Hylobates muelleri and H. albibarbis), endemic to the island of Borneo, are both in danger of extinction due to trade and habitat loss from illegal, as well as legalised, selective logging, clearance of forest for oil-palm plantations and slash-and-burn practices from small villages. Although gibbons have formed the focus of many behavioural and ecological studies (e.g.(Gittins, 1982; Chivers, 1984; Raemaekers & Raemaekers, 1985; McConkey, 2000; McConkey et al., 2002; McConkey et al., 2003), limited data are available in terms of their population and demographic trends (Mitani, 1990; O'Brien et al., 2004). Both the media and the scientific world tend to overlook the conservation status of gibbons (Geissmann, 2003). Muller’s gibbon (H. muelleri) and the Bornean southern gibbon (H. albibarbis) are both listed as Endangered by the IUCN red list of threatened species (Geissmann & Nijman, 2008; Nijman et al., 2008) and are on Appendix I of CITES. CITES prohibits the trade in endangered species, but this has done little to alleviate the poaching of gibbons in Borneo. In Kalimantan there are still about 1000 gibbons being kept as pets (Campbell et al., 2008) and between 2003-2004 H. albibarbis was observed 79 times in Kalimantan markets (Nijman, 2005 as cited in (Nijman et al., 2008). There exists a natural hybrid zone between H. albibarbis and H. muelleri in Central Kalimantan. The hybrid, H. albibarbis Figure 5.1 – A baby gibbon kept as a pet in a riverside shop x H. muelleri, has yet to be recognised by the in the upper Barito. © James Harwood IUCN and, therefore, forgoes the protection associated with an Endangered classification. Documenting the occurrence and distribution of the threatened hybrid gibbon population that occurs in the Joloi watershed assumes critical importance in view of the rapid clearing of forests in Borneo. H. albibarbis x H. muelleri was discovered in 1979 by Markaya and Marshall (Marshall & Sugardjito, 1986). Greenway (1991) discovered that the hybrid gibbons around Project Barito Ulu (Map on inset of cover) have a home range size between 17 and 43ha (dependent on habitat quality), prefer vine fruit to figs when both foodstuffs are available and sing on 93% of mornings. The known population boundary stretches from around Ketipon, on the upper reaches of the Busang River in the north, the Keramu and the Murung Rivers in the east, the Barito and Joloi Rivers in the south and at that point, the Busang River in the West. The western boundary, however, is no more than a minimum estimation. Dr David Chivers, from the University of Cambridge and Scientific Director of Project Barito Ulu, suggested that the western 34

boundary lies further west and could possibly be identified as the Joloi River or perhaps even stretch over to the Kapuas headwaters in West Kalimantan. If the latter is the case, the area in which the Endangered hybrid is found will be at least another 6-7,000 km2, giving a total area of about 10,000 km2. H. albibarbis x H. muelleri is unique amongst hybrid gibbons, in that the contribution of pure migrants to the hybrid breeding population in each generation is negligible. The hybrid matings are fertile and have produced viable offspring for hundreds of generations (Mather, 1992b). Given the pressure that exists on gibbon species in Kalimantan, conservation efforts should focus on any stable population present in the area. If the H. albibarbis x H. muelleri population is considered as a viable population, its conservation will be essential for the future of gibbon species in Kalimantan. We hope that our work will provide useful information, such as updated size of the hybrid zone and novel data on the habitat requirements, which will initiate recommendations to aid in the future survival of the species.

AIMS    

To establish the western boundary of the hybrid gibbon H. albibarbis x H. muelleri. To collect data on the habitat requirements of H. albibarbis x H. muelleri. To bring H. albibarbis x H. muelleri to the attention of policymakers and conservationists, encouraging recognition and protection. To create awareness and focus international attention on the gibbons of Central Kalimantan through our multimedia programme.

METHODS Mapping western boundary and density estimation Five suitable research sites were located and spread over the Mohot and Joloi Rivers. The survey team, consisting of 6 researchers were split into four groups placed about 300 m apart at suitable listening posts on either side of the river. Researchers were in position by 0430h and data collection followed the auditory survey technique of (Brockelman & Ali, 1987). Gibbon calls are species specific and differences between H. albibarbis and the hybrid H. albibarbis x H. muelleri are easily distinguished (Chivers pers. comm.;(Mather, 1992b)). Observers recorded the gibbon species calling (H. albibarbis or H. albibarbis x H. muelleri), direction of each calling group heard, the time and the start and end time of each calling bout. Researchers spent two good listening days (no rain, wind or heavy cloud) at each listening site. Triangulation points and sightings were marked on maps of the study area, and ultimately overlaid onto a single map, allowing estimate of the number of groups present and the effective listening area during the research period. Points mapped more than 500 m apart were considered to be different groups (Brockelman & Ali, 1987; Brockelman & Srikosamatara, 1993).

Song recording The great call of the closest singing group at each listening site was recorded and analysed, firstly to ensure that the group heard at the last research site was in fact the hybrid and, secondly, to provide data on the song characteristics of H. albibarbis on the Mohot and Joloi Rivers. Song bouts were recorded with a Marantz portable audio recorder with directional microphones for analysis of song characteristics. Following the methods of Mather (1992b), song characteristics were broken down to reflect differences in pure and hybrid gibbon calls. Characteristics to be analysed were: cn - the number of climax notes; cn/sec- the rate of emission of climax notes; tn - the total number of notes; tn/sec - the rate of emission of notes for the whole song. The cn/sec value for any hybrid individual can be used as a hybrid index, reflecting that individual’s genetic composition in terms of percentage H. muelleri and H. albibarbis genes. On a log scale, the relative position of any cn/sec value between the values for the two pure forms reflects its genetic makeup. The pure H. albibarbis genes is represented by P = 0, the pure H. muelleri gene is represented by P = 1. The Pvalue for any hybrid gibbon is its hybrid index value, and is given by the equation: (

From: Mather (1992b)

)

Where A is the mean cn/sec for the samples of the pure population of H. albibarbis at the study sites (0.49). M is the mean cn/sec for H. muelleri (9.23) taken from Mather (1992b) as we did not sample any H. muelleri during our survey.

Assessment of habitat quality Habitat quality was estimated on both sides of both rivers at each of the ten listening posts. We sampled a total of 20 vegetation plots within the gibbon survey areas. Four vegetation plots were placed in the Mohot River site and six vegetation plots were placed at the respective listening sites on the Joloi River. We selected randomly 20x20m plots in which all trees with a diameter at breast high (DBH) ≥ 10 cm were identified (at species level) with the aid of local guides and Indonesian students, measured for height and circumference at breast height (CBH). Data were collected on: 1) canopy cover; 2) tree density, 3) DBH; 4) number of tree families within the plot and 5) number of important gibbon food trees within the plot (Mather, 1992a; Ganzhorn, 2003; Hamard et al., 2010). Data was then summarised into nine variables for each plot:1) mean canopy cover, 2) mean tree height, Figure 5.2 – Parman measuring and identifying trees 3) mean DBH, 4) density of all trees ≥10cm DBH, 5) on one of the vegetation plots © James Harwood density of large trees (≥20cm DBH), 6) total crosssectional area of all trees ≥10cm DBH, 7) total cross-sectional area of large trees (≥20cm DBH), 8) total cross-sectional area of known gibbon food trees following Hamard et al. (2010). Gibbon food 36

trees are defined as tree species whose edible parts (leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds) are known to be eaten by gibbons in the Project Barito Ulu area (Cheyne, S.M. pers. comm). Statistical analyses were carried out using standard General Linear Modelling (GLM) with the use of the software program R version 2.13 (R Development Core Team, 2011).

RESULTS One hybrid gibbon group and 45 H. albibarbis groups were heard over 20 census days, in a total survey area of about 32.24 km2. The average number of gibbon groups heard was found to differ between the two rivers. On the Mohot River, the mean number of gibbon groups heard was 6.50 ± 0.32, in a mean listening area of 3.07 ± 0.04 km2 (Table 5.1). On the Joloi River, the mean number of gibbon groups heard was 3.33 ± 0.42 groups in a mean listening area of 3.33 ± 0.05 km2. The only H. albibarbis X H. muelleri group was found on the final day of survey on the eastern side of the Joloi River. This group duetted for 15 minutes from 07h00. We recorded a total of 256 trees (DBH ≥ 10cm), representing 92 different species, as determined by the Indonesian guides. From their local name, only 15% could be identified to species level, 68% to genus level and 16% could not be recognised by their Bahasa Indonesian name. For this reason, and to avoid bias, we refrained from performing further species-richness analyses. In addition, this dataset was not large enough to perform statistical analysis; thus, we have presented these data as an analysis of means to determine the habitat characteristics available to gibbon groups at each river site. Tree height varied significantly (p = 0.03, F = 4.61) between the Mohot (19.3 ± 1.24m) and the Joloi sites (16.6 ± 0.79m) although DBH did not (p = 0.178, F = 1.83). Both sites showed almost identical numbers of known gibbon food trees, with the Mohot River producing a mean of 9.5 ± 0.6 trees/plot and the Joloi site producing 9.0 ± 0.9 trees/plot. The vegetation plots on the Mohot River contained trees with larger cross-sectional areas of all three categories than the plots measured at the Joloi River. The first listening post on the Joloi (Site 3 on the east bank of the river) was the only listening site where no groups of gibbons were heard singing during the survey period. Here, the total cross-sectional area of large trees was lower than found at Table 5.1 - Numbers of gibbon groups heard from each listening site during the survey. Effective listening area refers to the actual area within which gibbon great calls were audible from each listening post.

River

Site 1

Mohot 2 3 Joloi

4 5

Listening Post Orientation (River Bank) N S N S E W E W E W

5 7 8 6

Effective Listening Area (km2) 2.99 3.32 3.01 2.95

0 1 7 4 4 4

3.04 3.11 3.72 3.19 3.75 3.16

No. of Groups

any other site (Table 5.3, next page). Additionally, we did not record any known gibbon food trees in this plot and found a tree density as low as 275 trees/ha.

Song recording The songs of H. albibarbis recorded during this study were characterised by great calls of between 9 and 12 notes, given at a rate of 1.01-1.75 notes/sec. Of these, 3 or 4 notes were climax notes, given at 0.41-0.62 notes/sec. The analysis of the great call of the hybrid gibbon group provides us with the P value for this group of 0.2, where P =0 is pure H. albibarbis and P =1 is pure H. muelleri. A P value of -0.2 shows that the hybrid group heard has 80% H. albibarbis genes and 20% H. muelleri genes (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2 - Important characteristics of H. albibarbis and H. albibarbis x H. muelleri gibbon great calls where cn is the number of climax notes cn/sec is the rate of emission of climax notes, tn is the total number of notes, tn/sec is the rate of emission of notes for the whole song

River

Group

cn/sec

tn/sec

1.1

0.48

1.75

1.2

0.41

1.66

2.1

0.57

1.22

2.2

0.51

1.7

4.1

0.39

1.31

4.2

0.51

1.63

2.1

0.62

1.25

Hybrid

0.89

1.01

Mohot

Joloi

Table 5.3 - Vegetation characteristics for each listening post of trees DBH ≥ 10cm or where stated otherwise

River

Site

Listening Post Orientation (River Bank)

Canopy Cover (%)

Mean Tree Height* (m)

75-100

24.9 ± 2.1

24.0 ± 4.2

36.1

Total crosssectional area trees DBH ≥ 20cm (m2/ha) 12.6

50-75

18.6 ± 2.8

21.6 ± 5.7

31.2

75-100

17.4 ± 2.7

17.6 ± 5.6

75-100

17.2 ± 2.8

25-50

Mean DBH* (cm)

Total crosssectional area all trees (m2/ha)

Total tree density (trees/ha)

Density trees DBH ≥ 20cm

Food tree density (trees/ha)

575

(trees/ha) 200

7.8

700

175

250

15.8

2.6

750

125

275

17.9 ± 5.7

21.4

5.4

700

175

275

14.4 ± 3.6

30.7 ± 7.2

17.7

8.0

275

125

75-100

15.0 ± 2.8

24.2 ± 5.8

33.5

7.2

700

150

200

25-50

16.0 ± 2.6

23.3 ± 5.3

66.6

26.6

750

300

50-75

15.8 ± 2.8

21.0 ± 5.8

42.1

15.0

700

250

200

25-50

16.8 ± 3.0

25.7 ± 6.1

34.2

14.4

475

200

225

25-50

19.3 ± 2.6

21.0 ± 5.3

59.5

23.4

700

275

425

150

1 Mohot 2

Joloi

* ± Standard Error

DISCUSSION Hybrid boundary A distribution boundary survey was conducted for the hybrid gibbon H. albibarbis X H. muelleri along the Mohot and Joloi Rivers. This project is the first survey for the hybrid gibbon at this site. The last boundary survey for the hybrid gibbon was conducted almost two decades ago (Mather 1992a). Mather determined that the hybrid zone stretches from around Ketipon, on the upper reaches of the Busang River in the north, the Keramu and the Murung Rivers in the east, the Barito and Joloi Rivers in the south. He noted that the Busang River does not act as a boundary to the distribution of hybrid gibbons. We can now confirm that the hybrid gibbon does indeed exist west of the Busang River, at least as far as the navigable end of the Joloi River and perhaps even further. The area of the hybrid zone is hereby increased to a total of roughly 3,300km2, strengthening the belief that there is a viable population of hybrid gibbons in Central Kalimantan (Map 5.1). Whilst it was determined that the hybrid gibbon's territory stretches as far as the Joloi River to the west, with the discovery of one hybrid gibbon group on the final day of survey, the extent to which the whole population has spread is still unknown. It is likely that there are many more groups in the area, which were not singing whilst we were in their territories.

Map 5.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Showing the perceived minimum distribution of the hybrid gibbon (Âą 3,300km2) in Central Kalimantan as the hatched area. The northern, southern and eastern boundaries were estimated by (Mather, 1992b). The five listening posts are labelled GS 1-5.

Gibbons seldom sing when it is raining, and windy conditions have also been shown to inhibit singing (Raemaekers et al., 1984; Brockelman & Ali, 1987; Leighton, 1987; Brockelman & Srikosamatara, 1993; Buckley & Nekaris, 2006). Whilst efforts were made to avoid data collection on rainy mornings and on mornings directly following heavy rain during the night, the study did take place during the rainy season, which made it unavoidable to sample during imperfect mornings on occasion. The weather was far from ideal and could possibly have affected the number of hybrid gibbons, as well as H. albibarbis, calling during the survey time. Dr. David Chivers from the University of Cambridge mentioned he heard hybrid gibbons singing on the south bank of the Joloi. This observation needs further investigation to ascertain the presence of the hybrid in this location. If encountered, this would mean that even the Joloi would not constitute a solid boundary. This in turn would raise the question: Do the rivers currently thought to be solid boundaries merely act as a deterrent for the hybrid’s spread? This certainly warrants further investigation into the hybrids’ distribution dynamics. Mather found that hybrid gibbons spend more time duetting than pure gibbons (Mather, 1992b). He believes this extra calling may enable hybrids to maintain their territories, and exclusive access to their mates. (Mather, 1992b). Gibbon calls are density dependent, with groups calling less at lower densities (Chivers, 1974; Nijman, 2004), sometimes not singing for days despite favourable weather conditions (Cheyne, 2008; Cheyne et al., 2008). Low densities (< 2 groups/km2) may affect singing probability, as singing can be stimulated by other duets from neighbouring groups (Brockelman & Ali, 1987; Mitani, 1987; Brockelman & Srikosamatara, 1993). The fact that we only heard one group call might thus be explained by a low density of hybrid gibbon groups in this area, which is possible as they would naturally be occurring at lower densities at the edge of their population range. Thus, it is possible that we did not survey each area long enough (two ‘good listening’ days) to ensure that all groups in the vicinity were heard (Cheyne et al., 2008). A longer survey time at each listening site would possibly have resulted in the observation of more groups, especially if we had censused a larger area.

Habitat quality Low-quality habitat is thought to be unable to support higher gibbon densities (Geissmann et al., 2009). Whilst this would not be a factor for low hybrid-gibbon density at the listening site where they were found, the impact of habitat quality on gibbon densities was observed during this survey. The site closest to the village of Tumbang Tohan did not yield any gibbon groups on the east bank of the river and only one group on the west bank. The canopy at this site was open and the forest was fragmented and interspersed with large patches of bamboo. In these areas habitat was certainly not ideal for gibbons. In addition, on the east bank there were no known gibbon food trees in the vegetation plot. The measure of gibbon food trees can be used as a predictor of gibbon density, explaining up to 98% of the variance between sites (Mather, 1992a; Hamard et al., 2010). Causes for sub-optimal habitat quality in the survey area are believed to include selective logging and local shifting cultivation. This interpretation must, however be treated with caution, as it is based on the results of only two vegetation plots and two days of auditory survey. Even so, the fact remains that the survival of primates is dependent upon the protection of their rainforest (Lucas & Corlett, 1998; Chapman et al., 2006; Link & di Fiore, 2006) and so understanding the links between primate abundance and their habitat characteristics is essential to their conservation (Hamard et al., 2010). Additional research in this area would therefore be important for the future conservation of gibbons. 41

Phylogenetic affinity There has been some controversy over the years about the phylogenetic affinities of Hylobates albibarbis (Geissmann, 1995). Traditionally, H. albibarbis has been recognised as a subspecies of H. agilis, as the vocal characteristics are virtually identical, and due to similarities in hair characteristics (Marshall & Sugardjito, 1986; Geissmann, 1993), but the most recent classification (Groves, 2001; Geissmann, 2007) places H. albibarbis as a distinct species. According to the definition of a species, gene flow should not be possible between populations which have achieved species-specific status (Mather, 1992b). In view of the extensive hybridisation of H. albibarbis and H. muelleri, it may be necessary to re-evaluate the status of these two species. The options for the systematic treatment of H. albibarbis include, among others, making it a subspecies of either H. agilis or H. muelleri or combining H. agilis, H. muelleri and H. albibarbis into one species (Groves, 1984; Geissmann, 1995). DNA analysis of H. albibarbis, H. muelleri and its hybrid should resolve the taxonomic problems confounding these species (Chivers, 2001). The finding of the hybrid gibbon as far west as the Joloi River will assist the Kalimantan Working Group to generate adequate protection for the hybrid gibbon within Indonesia through lobbying for their inclusion on the list of Indonesian Primates, and so a stronger case can be made for them to be recognised in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The Heart of Borneo Project will be returning to the research site in 2012, when a detailed survey of the hybrid gibbon population found at the navigable end of the Joloi River can be conducted. The focus should be primarily on this one site (and beyond) and faecal samples should be collected for DNA analysis of these hybrids and their parent species.

6. Avifauna Principal investigator: Misbahul Munir

AIMS Birds are among the most studied animal taxa in Indonesia and much is known about their behaviour, distribution and ecology although the geographical interior of Borneo remains, from an ornithological perspective, largely unexplored terrain. The aim of this study was to compile an inventory of the bird population in BBPF to give an indication of the quality and the importance of the forest for the Borneo avifauna. The observation of some lesser known species will further shed more light on their distribution patterns and status.

METHODS Line transects Dawn and dusk line transects were conducted repeatedly following (Bibby et al., 2000) over six 2km and two 300m long transects. Transects were walked at a speed of about 1km/hour, starting 30 minutes before dawn or dusk and continuing another 30 minutes after dawn or dusk to coincide with optimal avian activity.

Incidental observations Throughout the expedition and reconnaissance incidental observations were recorded whilst walking along trails and whilst travelling on the Mohot River. Records are also included from boat surveys along the Joloi directly to the east of BBPF as far as a logging camp â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Camp Bravoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, the villages of Tumbang Naan and Tumbang Tohan, and the Mohot and Joloi River north of the confluence with the Mohot. Sound recordings, both of choruses and unknown calls, were made for subsequent analysis.

Camera Trapping Camera traps were used to survey terrestrial species such as galliformes. Methods on deployment of camera traps are covered in Chapter 2: Terrestrial vertebrate camera trapping.

Data recording and identification For each observation the number of individuals was recorded, activity, height above ground (where relevant) and any other notes such as breeding or remarkable behaviour. Vocalisations were matched with the voice database in Birds of Tropical Asia 2.03 (Scharrema, 2004) and Xeno Canto (Xeno Canto Foundation, 2011)

RESULTS In total 152 bird species from 40 families were observed, including seven species endemic to Borneo: Polyplectron schleiermacheri, Carpococcyx radiatus, Megalaima eximia, Cyornis superbus, Chlamydochaera jefferyi, Prionochilus xanthopygius, and Lonchura fuscans. Of the recorded birds four migrant species: Tringa hypoleucos, Pitta nympha, Hirundo rustica and Phylloscopus borealis, and 50 threatened species (2 Endangered, 6 Vulnerable, 42 Near Threatened) were documented. A total 135 species were recorded in the forest near Camp Foyle (Mohot River), 19 along the headwaters of the Joloi River during the Hybrid Gibbon Survey and 26 along the Joloi River (from Camp Bravo to Tumbang Tohan, see species list in Appendix 2). Details are provided for species of scientific interest including; new records, rare or shy species, regional rarities, large raptors and certain threatened species. Records of galliformes are also included, given the high hunting pressures on these species in the region. Status follows the latest IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2011), and restricted-range status follows Myers (2009), Phillipps (2009) and Sattersfield et al. (1998). Unless otherwise stated, records stem from the main study area, located in primary mixed dipterocarp lowland and hill rainforest. An annotated checklist of all species can be found in Appendix 2. Camera trap records are listed in Table 8.1.

Black partridge Melanoperdix niger (VU) A single bird was observed on January 17th running over the forest floor surrounding a small stream near Camp Foyle at 06:49am. This species has declined throughout much of its former range and there have been few Bornean records since the 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, the majority of these are from Kalimantan (Myers, 2009). Great Argus Argusianus argus (NT) Heard calling almost daily at dusk, one female was observed on the 27th of December 2010, while ten more records stem from camera traps.

Table 8.1 - Camera trapping results for bird species in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest

Galliformes Phasianidae

Cuculiformes Cuculidae

No of occasions

No of trap nights / No of captures

Great argus Crested fireback Crested partridge Bornean peacock-pheasant

10 15 35 2

57 38 16 285

Bornean ground-cuckoo

143

Scientific name

Common name

Argusianus argus Lophura ignita Rollulus rouloul Polyplectron schleiermacheri

Carpococcyx radiates

Bornean peacock-pheasant Polyplectron schleiermacheri (EN) Borneo endemic - One male and one female were recorded on separate occasions in the same location by a camera trap on January 25th and 29th respectively. The camera was positioned on a hill top (Figure 6.1). The relatively high and hilly forest types in BBPF seem to be preferred habitat for this species (Fredriksson & Nijman, 2004). Most confirmed records stem from the centre of the island.

Figure 6.1 - Male Bornean Peacock pheasant (Polyplectron schleiermacheri) captured by camera trap (January 25th 2011) © Tim van Berkel

Storm’s stork Ciconia stormi (EN) A single bird was observed February 7th near Camp Bravo, flying low over the Joloi River where ladang sites were found on both river banks. Lesser fish-eagle Ichthyophaga humilis (NT) A single bird was observed January 19th. It was perched in a tree bordering the Joloi River near Tumbang Tohan (Figure 6.2).

Figure 6.2 – Lesser fish-eagle. In Kalimantan this is an uncommon species found in lowland and hills, usually up to height of 1.000m. © James Harwood

Large green-pigeon Treron capellei (V) A single bird was observed foraging in fig trees along the main trail on January 17th, 2011. Bornean ground-cuckoo Carpococcyx radiatus (NT) Borneo endemic. Four birds were recorded on different occasions in three locations by camera traps on January 9th, 18th, 19th and February 1st. The Bornean ground-cuckoo, a scarce to rare (albeit widespread) and highly elusive lowland specialist, until 2002 had a known presence in Central Kalimantan through only four records including an adjacent area (Busang-Kassau) where two birds were collected in 1916 (Voous, 1961, in Long & Collar, 2002). These records provide further Figure 8.3 – A Bornean ground cuckoo (Carpococcyx radiatus), as recorded by camera trap in Bukit important supportive evidence for its presence in Batikap Protection Forest (February 1st, 2011) © Tim Indonesian Borneo. van Berkel

Blue-banded kingfisher Alcedo euryzona (VU) Several individuals were observed while flying low over small streams and rivers in primary forest. Wrinkled hornbill Aceros corrugatus (NT) A single bird was observed on January 22nd, flying high above the canopy to roost. The wrinkled hornbill is a highly nomadic and relatively uncommon lowland specialist that follows fruiting trees This species has been recorded from nearby Barito Ulu during a period of peak fruit abundance (McConkey & Chivers, 2004). Bornean (black-throated) barbet Megalaima eximia (LC) Borneo endemic. A single individual was heard singing on January 16th at 07:45 at approximately 200 m a.s.l. possibly constituting a new altitudinal record of a species that usually frequents lower montane forest types, current documentations of altitudinal range span from an altitude of 4252140 m (MacKinnon et al., 2003). The presence of the Schwaner Mountains at 5 km distance from camp may explain its occurrence in this area. Garnett pitta Pitta granatina (NT) This species was observed on four occasions. Two birds were observed sleeping at the root of a tree at a height <1 m from ground level on January 1st and 24th, 2011. One bird was found sleeping in a small mammal Kasmin trap (Figure 6.3), while another bird was recorded by a camera trap on January 18th in riverine forest. Figure 6.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; This Garnett Pitta (Pitta granatina) was possibly attracted to the bait or the ants or termites on it and trapped in this small mammal trap where it was found roosting. ÂŠ Tim van Berkel

Fairy pitta Pitta nympha (VU) An immature bird was observed during a night survey and photographed roosting on a branch near the river at a height of approximately 3m from ground level on January 5th (Figure 6.4). This is the second reported record for this species in Indonesian Borneo. The first record is from Riam, southwest Central Kalimantan, December 1935 (Mayr, 1938, in Mees, 1977). The fairy pitta is an intra-Asian migrant wintering primarily in Taiwan, Vietnam, and southern China and uncommonly in Northern Borneo from October to March. Only nine museum specimens are known from Sabah and Sarawak (Phillipps, 2009). This record may prove particularly significant if more are discovered in the vicinity given Figure 6.4 - Fairy Pitta observed in the forest near that the species is declining across its range and much Camp Foyle (January 5th 2011) ÂŠ Misbahul Munir of its wintering habits are unknown. BBPF lies in the 46

very centre of Borneo, and is therefore not an optimal area to receive northern migrants As observed by (Wilkinson et al., 1991), making the presence of this nomadic species all the more remarkable. Rail babbler Eupetes macropterus (NT) A single bird was observed on December 20th. We observed this scarce and very shy, although widespread bird whilst it was foraging in scrub vegetation on the forest floor. Straw-headed bulbul Pycnonotus zeylanicus (VU) A single bird was observed on January 27th, foraging together with other species of bulbul adjacent to a small river. The species has been exploited extensively for the bird trade (on account of its song) and decimated in most places. The species is only known in the wild in the Murung Raya district from remote regions of the upper Barito (Limberg, G. pers.comm.). Its presence accentuates the importance of this area for its conservation. Hook-billed bulbul Setornis criniger (V) A single bird was observed on January 11th beside the Mohot River. The Hook-billed bulbul is reported as being rare in primary forest, preferring nutrient-poor vegetation on acid soils, including peat swamp and Kerangas-type forest (BirdLife International, 2011). Kerangas is found in close proximity to the study area and the record might derive from a dispersing individual. Similarly, hookbilled bulbul has been recorded from Barito Ulu (Dutson et al., 1991). Yellow-bellied bulbul Alophoixus phaeocephalus diardi (LC) All seven individuals encountered had a broad yellow terminal band to the tail, typical for A. p. diardi (Figure 6.5). This subspecies is endemic, known primarily from Western Borneo (Clements et al., 2011) south of the Baram River. Its range is largely unknown out of this area. Figure 6.5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Yellow-bellied bulbul sleeping on a branch. Note the yellow tip on the tail, characteristic for this subspecies (Alophoixus pheaocephalus diardi). ÂŠ Misbahul Munir

Blue-wattled bulbul Pycnonotus nieuwenhuisii (DD) A single bird was observed on December 12th in a mixed feeding flock of other Pycnonotidae sp. Subsequently it was observed flying across the main transect frequenting the small trees of the lower canopy. The blue-wattled bulbul is a rare bird that still remains virtually unknown and is debated taxonomically. Sightings include; Central Kalimantan - one specimen collected at 600 m a.s.l. in 1900 by A.W. Nieuwenhuis in the upper Kayan River, Bentuang Karimun National Park (Finsch 1901, in Williams, 2002. Although Mann (2008) attributes this record to stem from 610m in East Kalimantan); West Kalimantan -sighted in 1996 by (Raharjaningtrah & Prayogo, 2000), Brunei, five sightings in 1992 in Batu Apoi National Forest Centre; Sumatra - one specimen collected in poor quality habitat in the north of the country in 1937 (Williams, 2002). Wiliams (2002) seriously questions its validity as a species however, due to its historical scarcity, inconsistent range and apparent ability to utilise primary forest and degraded land. Instead he suggests the species to be a hybrid. Based on documentation of hybridisation of similar Pycnonotus species in southern Africa he suggests black-headed bulbul (P. atriceps) and Grey-bellied bulbul (P. cyaniventris) as putative parents.

Rufous-crowned babbler Malacopteron magnum (NT) A single bird was observed on January 8th on a nest, incubating two cream coloured and brown blotched eggs. The nest was a small cup made of intertwined rootlets and creepers approximately 1.5 m from the ground in a small tree on the banks of a small stream (Figure 6.6a & b). The current known breeding season for the species is March-October, constituting an extension to the season and possibly the first description of the nest/brood.

Figure 6.6a - Rufouscrowned babbler breeding on nest b) Its nest with 2 eggs (January 8th, 2011) ÂŠ Misbahul Munir

Fruithunter Chlamydochaera jefferyi (LC) Borneo endemic. A single female bird was observed on December 20th foraging in fruiting trees in a mix species flock at an estimated height of 200 m a.s.l.. The fruithunter is a known montane forest specialist with a known distribution between 700 and 3200 m. a.s.l., its presence at the research site could be explained by the proximity to the nearby Schwaner range or possibly that it is more adaptable to lowland environments than previously thought.

DISCUSSION Bird activity, presence and abundance, and inherently, detectability, are not constant in the tropics but depend mainly on food abundance (Fogden, 1972; Karr, 1976 and references within). This is especially true for Borneo, where synchronous mass fruiting of dipterocarp is triggered by El NiĂąoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) events, which occur every 3 to 4 years (Curran et al., 1999). Since data collection did not span an entire year and was limited from October to February and new species were readily encountered, we acknowledge that the species presented here do not make up the entire bird community. At the time of the last surveys new species were still being recorded, showing that the number of birds recorded is far from comprehensive. From these initial recordings we expect to record more species given more time, additional research techniques and more experienced researchers. Use of mist-netting would be a method to consider in the future. This method will help provide data on the more elusive understory species which are difficult to observe using transect or camera trapping methods. Additional birds could have been identified if the calls were known to the observers. Song recording and comparison to available sound databases will effectively expand the survey effort and undoubtedly yield additional records.

7. Herpetofauna Principal investigators: Dale Mortiboys, Holli Kilburn

INTRODUCTION Reptiles and amphibians comprise the least studied vertebrate groups in Borneo. Given that new species are continually being discovered, the current known species account does not make up the full diversity likely to occur on Borneo. In fact, even the major distribution and general aspects of ecology of most of the Bornean herpetofauna are largely unknown, mainly because many areas remain highly under sampled or have never been studied (Inger & Stuebing, 2005; Das, 2011). For instance, virtually no herpetological sampling has been carried out in the interior forests of Kalimantan and any species accounts obtained from these parts are likely to include significant extensions of the known range of some species.

METHODS A combination of pitfall traps and Visual Encounter Survey techniques (VES) was employed to optimise encounters (Campbell & Christman, 1982; Bury & Raphael, 1983; Crump & Scott Jr, 1994; Jaeger & Inger, 1994; Doan, 2003). VES was used as a sampling method to record species active in trees and shrubs and around streams and pools. VES has been found to yield an equal number of species as other active methods, such as quadrat sampling, whilst recording more unique species (Pearman et al., 1995; Adams, 1997; Rocha et al., 2004). Pitfall Figure 7.1 - Misbahul Munir and Ismail Agung come traps were employed as a complementary method across one of Borneo’s ‘flying’ frogs; Wallace’s flying frog as this method is most effective at capturing leaf (Rhacophorus nigropalmatus), during a nocturnal VES © litter species (Bury & Corn, 1987; Greenberg et al., Misbahul Munir survey. 1994; Enge, 2001), but also captures arboreal species that descend to the leaf litter to forage (Crosswhite et al., 1999). Pitfalls were employed to focus on leaf litter taxa while nocturnal VES were used to record amphibians and reptiles active in the dark since frogs and snakes are more active during this time. For each method, once species were captured, several measurements were taken. Measurement for frogs included: Snout to Vent Length (SVL); rear left leg length; rear left foot length and front left hand length. Measurements for reptiles included SVL and tail length. Whenever possible, detailed photographic Figure 7.2 - Holli Kilburn, eye to eye with a evidence was also taken and behavioural or other Bornean horned frog (Megophrys nasuta) © James Harwood

interesting observations were recorded. Specimens were measured with plastic (to avoid damage to the skin) and dial callipers to the nearest 0.1 mm. Incidences where capture was not possible occurred frequently in the difficult terrain. When this arose best efforts were made to record photographic information to later identify the specimens.

Pitfalls Two pitfall trap systems were used for 30 consecutive days. All traps of both configurations consisted of four 3.5-litre buckets (25cm depth and 20cm diameter) buried in the ground and set 2m apart, with a soft plastic drift fence approximately 50cm high extended between them to guide the animal into the buckets. The first system consisted of four buckets put out in a straight line with the fence running through the middle of each bucket, while in the second system the buckets were laid out in a Y-shape. One bucket was placed in the middle while the other three were placed at the end of each extension of fencing (see Figure 7.3). Originally it was planned to have 80 buckets operational in 20 stations, but due to limited time and surveyor resources the research had to be restrained to 24 buckets in 6 stations. Total trapping effort for pitfalls was 180 (6 x 30) trapping days. Pitfall stations were placed along the main transect for ease of checking and were placed 50m apart. Attempts were made to make the placements as random as possible and not merely focus on ideal habitat, but this was Figure 7.3 - showing the two pitfall configurations employed: a limited by the need for relatively flat, linear (left) and Y-shaped configuration (right) non-water logged ground for the fences to be properly installed. As a result the stations, apart from one, were not placed near streams or close to other running water bodies. Due to time constraints the larger buckets required were not obtained and smaller 3.5 litre buckets were used instead. Pitfalls were checked once every morning and all amphibians, reptiles and nontarget species such as small mammals and invertebrates found were measured and released. Where rainwater had filled the buckets with water to a level where it could cause fatalities to mammals they were sponged dry.

VES Nocturnal VES using white LED head torches were conducted between 18h00-22h00 on all five 2km transects for 20 nights. Diurnal VES were carried out during sunny periods of the day between 09h00-12h00 or 14h00-16h00. This is the period when skinks are most active and when reptiles would be basking in the sun. Each transect was walked four times. Visual searching (in and on plants, between rocks along the stream, on the forest floor) was the main method used during these survey nights. A steady pace (averaging 750m/h) was maintained. At four points along each transect there was an intense search of wet areas (usually streams/bogs/rivers) for 15 minutes to increase effectiveness for amphibian searches. In the case of diurnal surveys, points along the transect were observed for up to an hour. 50

In these observations surveyors remained quiet and still, looking for animal movement along the forest floor and amongst low lying branches, fallen logs and leaf litter.

RESULTS Amphibians 35 anuran species from 6 families and 16 genera, and 1 caecilian were recorded, of which 5 are endemic to Borneo and 11 were considered Near Threatened by the IUCN (IUCN, 2011). Of the anurans 25 were not known to occur in this part of Borneo. Nine of those were not previously recorded in Central Kalimantan (Table 7.1, next page).

The pitfall trapping lasted 30 consecutive days during which 29 individuals of 3 frog species were trapped: 26 Chaperina fusca, one Pedostibes hosii and two Occidozyga laevis. More C. fusca had been using the buckets during the survey time than were recorded as its spawn was found in a number of buckets not at that time containing frogs. The two O. laevis (SVL 26.6 and <30mm respectively) pitfall records are the only ones obtained. The only caecilian recorded was of the family Ichthyophiidae. We were not able to identify the specimen to species level. It was found on the edge of base camp, near the edge of the river Mohot.

Figure 7.4 - Three frog species for which the study area was not previously known to be included in their distribution according to the IUCN (IUCN, 2011). From left to right: Leptobrachium abbotti, Pelophryne signata (no previous records in Central Kalimantan) and Limnonectes paramacrodon. © Misbahul Munir, © Tim van Berkel,, © Misbahul Munir

Table 7.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A list of all amphibians encountered during the Murung Raya Expedition in and around Bukit Batikap Nature Reserve.

Family

Scientific name

Common name

Bufonidae

Ansonia leptopus Ansonia longidigita Phrynoidis aspera Phrynoidis juxtaspera Pedostybes hosii Pelophryne signata Limnonectes finchi Limnonectes laticeps Limnonectes kuhlii Limnonectes leporinus Limnonectes malesianus Limnonectes palavanensis Limnonectes paramacrodon Occidozyga laevis Leptobrachium abbotti Leptolalax dringi Leptolalax gracilis Megophrys nasuta Chaperina fusca Metaphrynella sundana Microhyla perparva/perpetriga Hylarana raniceps Odorrana hosii Hylarana nicobariensis Hylarana picturata Nyctixalus pictus Polypedates colletti Polypedates leucomystax Polypedates macrotis Polypedates otilophus Rhacophorus appendiculates Rhacophorus harrissoni Rhacophorus kajau Rhacophorus nigropalmatus Rhacophorus pardalis

Brown slender toad Long-fingered slender toad River toad Giant river toad Brown tree toad Lowland dwarf toad Rough guardian frog Corrugated frog Kuhl's creek frog Giant river frog Peat swamp frog Smooth guardian frog Lesser swamp frog Common puddle frog Lowland litter frog Dring's slender litter frog Sarawak slender litter frog Bornean horned frog Saffron-bellied frog Tree hole frog Narrow-mouthed frog sp White-lipped frog Poisonous rock frog Cricket frog Spotted stream frog Cinnamon frog Collett's tree frog Four-lined tree frog Dark-eared tree frog File-eared tree frog Southeast Asian tree frog Brown tree frog White-eared tree frog Wallace's flying frog Harlequin tree frog

Dicroglossidae

Megophryidae

Microhylidae

Ranidae

Rhacophoridae

Ichthyophiidae *) Not previously recorded in Central Kalimantan

Caecilian sp.

Red list status ? NT LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC NT LC NT LC LC NT NT LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC LC DD

Distribution extension ? y* n n Y y* y y n n n y* y y* y* y* y n y* y y y n y y y* y y n y y y* n y y -

Reptiles 45 reptile species from 11 different families were recorded. These included 22 lizard, 21 snake and 2 turtle species. Many of the species were recorded only once or twice with the exception of the smaller lizards and skinks. A comprehensive list of the species encountered, can be found in Table 7.2. Four reptile species were solely recorded using the pitfall traps; one many-scaled litter skink (Sphenomorphus multisquamatus), three blue-bellied skinks (Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus) and two reed snakes; one Pseudorabdion saravacense, and one unidentified Calamaria sp.. The other species observed in the pitfall traps was a dusky earless agama (Aphaniotis fusca). Diagnostic characteristics of this specimen of P. saravacense are: SVL 133mm, 117 ventrals, 30 subcaudals, pre-ocular absent, supra-ocular present, 4 infralabials, 5 supralabials with numbers 3 and 4 touching eye shield, chin shields touching mental scale (Figure 7.5). Both Calamaria spp. could not be identified to species level as not enough characteristics were recorded and guide books did not offer detailed enough descriptions. The Cnemaspis sp. (Figure 7.7) and Sphenomorphus sp. (Figure 7.10) did not apparently fit any description of species listed in the guide books. Not enough details could be recorded however, making positive identification impossible.

Figure 7.5 - Pseudorabdion saravacense, one of the significant records obtained from the pitfall traps. ÂŠ James Harwood

A reticulated python (Python reticulatus) with SVL of 196 cm was observed locked in a fight with a king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah) of about 2.5 m on the 20th January at 16h20. The snakes were found in a small stream; the python had coiled around the head of the cobra and was slowly drowning it. After some 25 minutes the grip of the python loosened and the cobra managed to escape. The python was caught and on inspection it became clear the cobra had injected the python with a lethal dose of venom. After its escape, the cobra fled while the python succumbed to the venom and died within 10 Figure 7.6 - A reticulated python (Python reticulatus) strangling a king cobra (Ophiophagus hannah), whose head is barely visible under water, in a small minutes. stream near Camp Foyle. The python did not survive the battle as it was One Asiatic softshell turtle envenomed by the cobra, which managed to free itself and escape. ÂŠ Martin Holland (Amyda cartilaginea) was handed to the expedition team by a fisherman from Tumbang Tohan, who caught it in the Mohot River, approximately 2km upriver from Camp Foyle. 53

Table 7.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Complete list of the reptiles recorded in and around Bukit Batikap Protection Forest during the Murung Raya Expedition.

Lizards

Family

Scientific name

Gekkonidae

Cnemaspis sp. Cyrtodactylus consobrinus Cyrtodactylus malayanus Ptychozoon horsfieldii Aphaniotis fusca Aphaniotis ornata Bronchocela cristatella Draco melanopogon Draco quinquefasciatus Gonocephalus bornensis Gonocephalus doriae Gonocephalus liogaster Varanus salvator Apterygodon vittatum Eutropis multifasciata Eutropis rudis Eutropis rugifera Lipinia vittigera Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus Sphenomorphus multisquamatus Sphenomorphus sp. Tropidophorus beccari

Red list status Peters' bent-toed gecko NE Malayan bent-toed gecko NE Horsfields gliding gecko DD Dusky earless agama LC Ornate shrub lizard NE Crested green lizard NE Black-bearded flying lizard NE Five-banded flying lizard NE Bornean angle-headed lizard NE Marquis Doria's angle-headed lizard NE Blue-eyed angle-headed lizard NE Common water monitor LC Striped Bornean tree skink NE Common sun skink NE Black-banded skink NE Red-throated skink NE Common striped skink NE Blue-throated litter skink NT Many-scaled litter skink NE Beccariâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s keeled skink NE

Python reticulatus Calamaria sp1 Calamaria sp2 Pseudorabdion saravacense Ahaetulla_prasina Asthenodipsas laevis Boiga drapiezii Dendrelaphis caudolineatus Dendrelaphis formosus Dendrelaphis pictus Lycodon effraenis Oligodon purpurascens Oligodon signatus Ptyas fusca Rhabdophis chrysargos Rhabdophis conspicillata Xenochrophis maculatus Xenodermus javanicus Trimeresurus borneensis Calliophis intestinalis Ophiophagus hannah

Reticulated python Oriental vine snake Smooth slug eating snake White-spotted cat snake Striped bronzeback tree snake Elegant bronzeback tree snake Painted bronzeback Scarce wolf snake purple kukri snake Rusty banded kukri snake White-bellied rat snake Speckle-bellied keelback snake Red-bellied keelback snake Spotted keelback snake Rough-backed litter snake Bornean leaf-nosed pit viper Malayan striped coral snake King cobra

NE NE DD LC NE NE NE NE NE LC NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE LC VU

. . . y** . . . . . . n . . . . . . . . n n

Cyclemys dentata Amyda cartilaginea

Asian leaf turtle Asiatic softshell turtle

NT VU

n n

Agamidae

Varinidae Scincidae

Snakes

Boidae Calamaridae

Colubridae

Crotalidae Elapidae

Turtles

Testudinidae Trionychidae

Common name

*) Not previously recorded in Kalimantan **) Not previously recorded in Indonesia

Distribution extension . . . ? . . . . . . . . n . . . . . y* . .

DISCUSSION Amphibians A large number of species were recorded which have not previously been documented in these parts of Kalimantan. Given the paucity of data for this region, this may not be that surprising, but these records are significant contributions to our knowledge of amphibian distributions and biodiversity patterns. These findings strengthen the proposition of Kueh et al., (2004) who discussed that his modelled low richness of anurans in the central parts of Kalimantan could be due to low sampling effort instead of being a reflection of actual low species richness. Ansonia leptopus is documented in the identification literature but not listed on the IUCN red list. There is literature to support its existence, but it is difficult to comment on its status. The Microhyla sp. listed is believed to be either M. perparva or M. petrigena. These species are very similar in appearance and both are listed on the IUCN red list as Near Threatened. Either would constitute a range extension. M. perparva is endemic to Borneo whilst M. petrigena has also been recorded on Tawi-Tawi, a small island to the north-east of Borneo in the Malay Archipelago. It proved difficult to identify this individual to species level as only one photo was taken. It was however clear that it would be either of those two species. Polypedates leucomystax was recorded only in a logging camp known as Camp Bravo, some 48km due east from Camp Foyle, along the Joloi River. A number were observed in highly disturbed habitat in puddles along a track within the camp. These encounters fit with the general habitat preferences of this species which is commonly associated with disturbed habitat and human habitation (IUCN, 2011) and not with primary rainforest. Occidozyga laevis, which was recorded twice and only in the pitfall traps, is in appearance very similar to Limnonectes kuhlii. Because O. Laevis was only recorded in pitfall traps that were located at relatively large distance from any streams (L. kuhlli is only found within metres of small to medium sized streams (Inger & Stuebing, 2005)), chin colouration of both was similar and markedly different from all L. kuhlii observed and both SVL lengths are shorter than L. kuhlli, we are fairly confident to have identified this species correctly. Exclusive identification however, remains problematic and specimens and genetic testing could provide exclusive evidence. This is especially true for frogs as some wide-ranging species such as L. kuhlli are thought to be a species complex consisting of more than one species (McLeod, 2010).

Figure 7.7 –Unidentified gecko of the genus Cnemaspis. © James Harwood

Reptiles Since so little research and specimen collection has been carried out, it is not surprising that the vast majority of reptile species observed are not listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This lack of data makes the species records of this expedition all the more important. Very little literature is available on herpetofauna distribution, let alone their natural history. It is therefore difficult to put our findings in a wider context. Some of the species have only been listed on the IUCN Red List in 2011. One of these is the blue-throated litter skink (Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus). According to the Red List (v2011.2) this species is in Borneo only known from a few sites in Sabah, Sarawak and Brunei. Since the Figure 7.8 - A male blue-throated litter skink observed during species is listed as Near Threatened its the VES. According to the IUCN red list this species was not presence in Central Kalimantan is a positive previously recorded in Kalimantan. @ James Harwood sign for its future existence, and is likely more widespread than previously assumed. Again, this finding underlines how little is known of Borneo’s interior forests. The lizards were often observed at waist height on bushes next to the transect path making them conspicuous compared to camouflaged snakes in the leaf litter. Skinks were observed in high incidental numbers due to them using the areas adjacent to the camping area as basking areas. Another record of particular interest is that of the Borneo endemic Pseudorabdion saravacense, a fossorial species of reed snake which has only been documented in a few localities, all of which stem from Sarawak. This record would therefore constitute the first for Indonesia. Some species could not be identified to species level. These include the Cnemaspis sp. which was caught during a VES in the leaf litter. The species, shown in Figure 7.7, mostly resembles C. nigridia. This specimen had a tail without median row of pointed scales below. Venter was almost as dark as dorsum. 56

Methods Pitfall trapping The buckets used for the pitfalls were too small to capture and retain some of the more agile species and it is possible that most individuals present in the traps were still able to escape rather than having been trapped. The pitfalls also recorded a unique reptile species, Pseudorabdion saravacense, a little known reed snake. Although the traps required a large capture effort for a rather meagre return (26 individuals/180 trapping days) compared to other studies (Bury & Corn, 1987; Greenberg et al., 1994; Crosswhite et al., 1999; Enge, 2001) and were therefore not as efficient, they did effectively add unique species and as such remain an essential tool for obtaining a more representative sample of the biodiversity in a Bornean rainforest. The pitfall surveys suffered a number of setbacks. The desired size of bucket was unobtainable with our in-country supplies, meaning far smaller buckets had to be used than were intended. Larger buckets (15-30 litres) are often considered to have a greater chance of success in capturing larger animals (Ribeiro-JĂşnior et al., 2008) e.g. large reptiles (Crosswhite et al., 1999; Cechin & Martins, 2000). The terrain also proved harder than originally anticipated to install the survey stations. Areas large enough to put Y-shaped stations need to be relatively flat and not water logged, which was hard to find in the hilly and sloping terrain. The digging of the ground also proved far more strenuous than anticipated, leading to heavy time restraints, and the number of stations had to be drastically reduced. The issues with suitable habitat meant that the desires for random placement every 50m were altered to fitting them in to suitable areas as close to the 50m spacing as possible. Once installed, the inadequate smaller size of the buckets became apparent. They did however prove to be a valuable method for recording reptiles as 3 of the 5 pitfall records were uniquely observed with this method. The two snake species caught in the pitfall traps are associated with the leaf litter and not expected to be found easily using other methods. This highlights the importance of selecting several methods to record a good spectrum of biodiversity. VES The diurnal VES were limited due to time constraints, as often the case on expeditions. The species we intended to sample, mostly skinks, are well camouflaged and small making them difficult to spot. Through this method we did uncover several species not found with other methods. However due to the limited number of clear basking areas in the jungle and the high level of ambient temperatures many species do not rely on direct sunlight for ectothermic regulation, Figure 7.9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A Marquis Doria Angle-Headed Lizard making this method less effective. (Gonocephalus doriae) which was observed during a VES survey walk. @ Misbahul Munir

The terrain itself caused considerable difficulties in focusing all the surveyors’ effort on the task of locating and identifying species along the transects during VES. The gradient of the slopes (on occasion over 60%) and the treacherous nature of the paths undoubtedly led to a reduced efficiency in finding specimens because of slips, falls and the necessity to keep two eyes and a hand on the path. Animals within the area of the transects may have been disturbed by the presence of surveyors moving along them and relocated outside of the survey area or away from the paths. Bias All surveys were biased towards species inhabiting ground level to approximately 3m above ground and VES focussed particularly on stream-based breeding frogs. Calling males of certain species made locating these easier. While many species were located through visual sightings alone, species such as Hylarana picturata were found after first hearing their calls. Although the research was carried out over a 34 day period, in order to gain a true understanding of biodiversity in the area the surveys used here should be carried out for similar or longer periods at various points throughout the year. This would help to capture an overall idea of the ecology of species in the area at different times of year and would reflect the variation of species movement and presence due to seasonal behaviour and breeding tendencies (Inger, 2003). Our methods were not highly suitable in detecting species with specific habits and habitats: burrowing species and species known to inhabit fast flowing streams had a very low to zero detection probability and were therefore under-sampled. Pitfall trapping was therefore a useful method, recording many species which were not recorded by other means. On occasion, large numbers of individuals were encountered at a single moment, making it practically impossible to catch and measure all due to time restrictions and inadequate manpower. In addition, at a small stream near camp there was a considered risk of re-recording individuals as researchers passed through this area each time they went out to survey and some species might have been recorded more than once Identification of species relied on using existing knowledge of the species and by comparisons with field guides. In some instances even with the species in hand it was impossible to correctly identify specimens due to inadequate literature. Occasions arose where an animal was only glimpsed by one of the survey teams and in these cases identification was limited by surveyors’ ability to identify an animal with limited information. Insufficient knowledge of which identifying features to record in Figure 7.10 – Unidentified skink of the genus Sphenomorphus. © Misbahul Munir order to distinguish it from similar species also hampered the efforts. Because of this we were not able to identify the Cnemaspis sp, Sphenomorphus sp and Calamaria spp and some frog specimens to species level.

8. Canopy Herpetofauna Principal investigator: Holli Kilburn

INTRODUCTION Very little high arboreal survey work has been conducted in Kalimantan Borneo. Reptiles and amphibians are exceedingly adaptable animals with frogs especially occupying a very wide range of ecological niches from below ground to high canopy and within a large variety of habitats. In order to gain a more complete insight into the full range of species found in the area it was important to try and expand the research to encompass as much varied habitat as possible. The purpose of the high arboreal work was to give a more three dimensional insight into the ecology of the area, observe as wide a range of ecological niches as possible and also to potentially expand the knowledge of individual species ecological niches.

METHODS Five mature, emergent canopy trees were accessed by rope to heights of up to 65m and surveyed for their herpetological populations (Figure 8.1). The arboreal herpetological work was conducted as an extension to the terrestrial herpetological work so the methods used were reflective of methods used on the ground such as visual encounter surveys and the use of small buckets to emulate water retentive epiphytes placed within the densest areas of the epiphyte populations within the crown.

Figure 8.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Holli Kilburn ascending an emergent Koompasia tree, at a height of about 50m @ James Harwood

Trees surveyed were between 55 and 65m in height and had epiphyte populations in their crowns. Four were located along the first 500m of the main trail out from camp and the fifth tree was located 200m into transect five. Two nocturnal surveys were conducted in each tree at dusk for a minimum of two hours and consisted of listening for frog calls from positions within the canopy and then catching individuals for processing. Where possible this was done on evenings when it had rained in the previous 24 hours to increase encounter rate. Incidental encounters of reptiles in the canopy were also recorded. When encountered, specimens were photographed without being disturbed then attempts made to catch them. If caught they were

photographed in the hand in more detail, processed and identified in the tree where possible or processed back at base camp and then released back where they were found. Processing involved taking measurements using callipers to the nearest 0.1mm of the snout to vent length (SVL), left leg length and left foot length, as well as identifying to species level and taking detailed photographs of the dorsal and ventral aspects and of the webbing and structure of the hands and feet.

Access Techniques The trees were accessed with a ‘Bigshot’ catapult on a three metre timber pole which was used to fire 250 gram or 350 gram weight bags tied to 3mm ‘Zing-It’ throw line over a suitable branch. It was necessary that the weight bag go over the branch and come back down to the ground where it was then used to pull up 11mm diameter static climbing rope. One end of the rope was secured around a suitable anchor point that the other end could be climbed using a single rope technique known as the ‘yo-yo’ technique. Once in the canopy the climbers employed a double rope technique using a prussik loop to move between pitches which were fixed in the tree using hand thrown weight bags on throw line. Using these methods most areas within the crown were accessible for survey. Main pitches were retained in each tree for subsequent climbs by fishing wire. Before access into a tree was attempted, the health of each tree was assessed visually with special attention paid to striations in the trunk, fungal infections and excessive branch drop. Potential hazards within and around the tree were identified to keep the safety risks to a minimum and continual assessment conducted throughout each climb. Unsafe trees or branches were avoided to minimise personal risk.

RESULTS Three brown tree frogs (Rhacophorus harrissoni) were observed in the upper canopy, all three were found at approximately 50m above ground level on January 9th, 2011. Specimens were observed after hearing their calls on 6th January 2011 during a nocturnal survey. Two individuals were caught in one of the two Koompassia trees surveyed, in the epiphyte garden in the crown of the canopy. All three were hiding in the most abundant foliage, that of the Pandanus epiphyticus (Martelli), a large, woody epiphyte covered in spines and often retaining water in small pools up Figure 8.2 – One of the Rhacophorus harrissoni which was its stem. This epiphyte was found in both documented in the upper canopy. The webbing between the Koompassia trees surveyed. front feet, which it uses to glide down, is clearly visible. ©James Harwood

DISCUSSION R. harrissoni was not observed on the ground during the expedition although it is known to descend to within a few metres of the ground to breed (Inger & Stuebing, 2005). Virtually nothing is known of its usual foraging height and to our knowledge this observation constitutes the first published record of the species in the upper canopy. Canopy access of tall, emergent canopy trees is difficult and time consuming. The effort/return ratio is low as it can take a whole day and a great deal of energy to access a single tree only to find that there are no discernable herpetofauna living within its canopy. The methods used here would only have picked up any frogs within the canopy that happened to call during the surveys and more specifically during the three hours immediately after dusk and did not take into account the possibility that some species may call at different times during the course of the night, thereby heavily influencing the results. Two nocturnal surveys were conducted in each tree and only when it had rained in the previous 24 hours to try and reduce the chance of missing frogs that were simply not calling on that particular evening. Due to the large amount of time required to conduct the surveys, it was only possible to access a small number of trees. Trees were chosen for their discernable health and accessibility and as a result the trees that were surveyed tended to be one of two genuses. This would have helped to reduce inter-sample site variations, however only one tree out of the five sampled was found to have any discernible frog population. A greater number of trees would need to be sampled to allow for comparisons and give a better representation of the herpetofauna diversity in the upper canopy. As there is little previous canopy herpetological research to go by, a certain amount of experiment and refinement were deemed necessary during the first few weeks of climbing. It was found that surveys were best conducted after dark and when it had been raining in the last 24 hours as due to their cryptic nature locating individuals happened via listening to their call. Small buckets containing a half inch of water and with cardboard half lids were also placed within the foliage of epiphyte populations within the crown to see whether this may increase the frog encounter rate by providing attractive hiding places. This proved to be unsuccessful as no frogs were

Figure 8.3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; View on the Muller Mountains from a high pitch in one of the surveyed trees near the Mohot River. ÂŠJames Harwood

found to be using the buckets throughout the survey period. One glaring omission is that the mid-level canopy frog populations were not effectively sampled. This included an area from approximately three metres above ground level to the base of the crowns of the emergent canopy trees that were surveyed â&#x20AC;&#x201C; around 45m above ground level. Attempts were made to survey this area using vertical transect surveys by abseiling slowly down a rope through the canopy on a timed descent after dark using powerful head torches. Although a number of frog calls could be discerned at varying distances, the actual encounter rate was non-existent as individuals were impossible to see due to camouflage and concealment. We highly recommend the inclusion of sound recording in herpetological canopy studies since observer movement is greatly impaired and a speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; call can often provide the only means of identification and evidence of a species. There is a lot more work and experimental development of techniques that could be done in the field of herpetological canopy research. Techniques need to be developed in order to assess midlevel canopy populations. It is evident from hearing frog calls during descent that there are frogs using this habitat. The development of traps to monitor the vertical movements of frogs within the mid-level canopy would be useful to gain insight into their ecology and help to assess the relationship between connectivity between trees and frog populations within the canopy. A lot more research could be done on the relationships between the make-up of epiphyte colonies and frog canopy populations.

9. Epiphytes Principal investigator: Holli Kilburn

AIMS Epiphytic plants are an important part of the structure in a rainforest and give it its typical appearance. This study involved the use of canopy rope access techniques to obtain preliminary data on the epiphyte diversity and community structure in the study area which could act as a precursor to more in-depth study.

METHODS Canopy access techniques are described in detail in Chapter 6: Canopy herpetological survey section. Each tree was accessed twice by two researchers and the epiphyte populations within the crown assessed using the DAFOR scale. This is an internationally recognised abundance scale for measuring biodiversity. In this circumstance it was a means of assessing the proportional presence of each species as part of the whole of the micro-habitat of each tree. It is a grading scale and therefore subjective to the surveyor. DAFOR stands for D=dominant, A=abundant, F=frequent, O=occasional and R=rare. The same two surveyors assessed each tree individually and cross-referenced their results to try and maintain a standard throughout. Each species was recorded using detailed macro-photography both in-situ in the tree and in more detail, back at camp. In camp, photos were taken of the front and back of each leaf, detailing structure and form and inflorescence at the base of compound leaves where present. Flowers and fruit were dissected and photographed to display interior structures and seed formation. For each tree, details of leaves and inflorescence were recorded, the bark photographed, cut and any exudates photographed one hour after the cut was made. Details on locality, geology, tree height, crown height and temporal information were recorded. Only vascular epiphytes were recorded due to the difficulty in identifying the often much smaller and less distinct non-vascular epiphyte and the inherent problems with trying to record their features photographically in the field.

RESULTS Thirty-five different species of epiphyte were documented in five different trees (Table 8.1). Fourteen of these were identified to family and of these, six different families were found to be present, comprising of Menispermaceae (1), Figure 8.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The tree fern Pandanus epiphyticus (Martelli) at 42.6m in Tree 3 in which we recorded Rhacophorus harrissoni ÂŠ James Harwood

Polypodiaceae (4), Fabaceae (N = 1), Davaliaceae (ferns) (N = 2), Orchidaceae (N = 4) and Pandanaceae (N = 2). Twenty-one specimens proved unidentifiable from the photographic records.

Of the four species of Polypodiaceae, one, Leporinus longifolius, occurred in three trees, the other three in one tree each. The family Davalliaceae is a sister family to Polypodiaceae. Two species were identified across three trees, all as individuals and recorded as rare. Three species of Orchidaceae were found in Tree 3 and a fourth in Tree 5. All were small, individual specimens, and were recorded mostly as rare.

DISCUSSION The Polypodiaceae were regularly recorded as abundant in the four out of five trees that it was recorded in due to its often extensive foliage, however it was not clear whether this belonged to one plant or as an assemblage. The epiphytic data recorded shows a very small section of the wider population to be found in the area as only a small number of trees were sampled and they comprised of only two genera. What is interesting is that even in this small sample there is very little overlap between trees. It proved very difficult to positively identify vascular epiphytes from photographs and, despite having use of the herbarium at the Royal Botanical Gardens Kew as well as help from their resident experts, over half remain unidentified, stressing the need for collection of specimens. Since canopy access is very labour-intensive, we suggest the inclusion of other epiphyte collection techniques. Sampling from recently fallen trees would provide a valuable addition. Table 8.1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Epiphyte species documented in the trees surveyed using the DAFOR scale (D = Dominant, A = Abundant, F = Frequent, O = Occasional, R = Rare)

Family Polypodiaceae Polypodiaceae Polypodiaceae Polypodiaceae Davalliaceae Davalliaceae Pandanaceae Pandanaceae Fabaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Orchidaceae Menispermaceae

Koompassia sp.

Scientific name Lepisorus Longifolius Drynaria quercifolia Photinopteris speciosa Microsorum punctatum Davallia solida Davallia denticulata Pandanus epiphyticus (Martelli) Freycinetia sp. Spatholobus ferrugineus Trichotosia sp. Dendrobium sp. Bulbophyllum sp. Coelogyne sp. -

Tree 1 R R

Tree 2

Shorea sp. Tree 3 A

Tree 4 A

Tree 5

A A R D

R R

D O O R R R F

10. General discussion During the expedition some truly interesting species records were obtained. 50 mammals, 152 birds, 36 amphibians and 45 reptiles were recorded. The most significant records are: the Bornean endemic reed snake Pseudorabdion saravacense, which has not yet been reported from Kalimantan; the Fairy Pitta, for which we provide the second record for Kalimantan; the blue-throated skink, for which we provide the first record for Kalimantan; the Sunda otter-civet, which is highly elusive and has not officially been recorded in Borneo; 25 frog distribution extensions, some of which are new for Kalimantan. Borneo harbours a rich biodiversity, but its flora and fauna are being destroyed at a phenomenal and increasing rate. It is the lowland forests, such as our survey sites in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest, which are under most threat of disappearance. Expansion of agricultural land for oil palm plantations, increased activity of logging companies and human settlements into areas made accessible by logging roads are the main direct forces behind deforestation. Forests are being cleared while we are barely starting to realise how much more these intricate ecosystems are worth left standing than cut down, and do we not yet fully know the diversity of species in many parts of the forests, particularly those still remaining in the central parts of Borneo which still harbour some of the richest forest on the island. The biodiversity inventories carried out during this expedition underline and partly fill the gaps still present in our knowledge of biodiversity distribution patterns in Borneo. Especially the bird, reptile and amphibian records with some significant distribution extensions demonstrate the importance of surveys in the central parts of Borneo. It is likely that many understudied areas in the Heart of Borneo harbour greater biodiversity than assumed, either as derived from distribution models, or from direct observations. We suggest that the fauna and possibly also the flora of this part of the island is richer than previously assumed. The presence of Pseudorabdion saravacense, Sphenomorphus cyanolaemus, and 25 amphibian species which were previously not recorded in the area, plus the presence of the nomadic fairy pitta both provide evidence to support this belief. These findings also support the hypothesis that the higher biodiversity observed in Malaysian Borneo could party be explained by a disproportionally larger research effort and thus not merely attributed to geographical differences. This study offers a strong argument for more intense studies into zoogeographic and biodiversity patterns and increased conservation efforts in the inlands of Kalimantan. The large number of forest indicator bird species (including the recording of all eight hornbill species) and high mammal prevalence (including the presence of proboscis monkey, Sunda pangolin, Malayan sun bear and Sunda otter-civet) indicate the lowland forests in BBPF to be of remarkable quality and of high zoological importance. We argue that this area should be considered a conservation priority and hope it to receive appropriate attention from the relevant conservation authorities to sustain its existence for the future.

With the large scale clearance and degradation of most of the forests in Sabah and Sarawak, now is the time for conservation and biodiversity research organisations to focus their attention on those parts of Borneo that still contain large stretches of intact and highly biodiverse rainforest. Without further protection the continued existence of these forests is uncertain, and with their destruction we would lose a treasure of which we havenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t discovered its full value yet. We hope to be able to continue our species inventories in the future and expand on the knowledge of the ecological requirements of especially threatened species to learn more about the magnificent, species rich and diverse place that is the Heart of Borneo.

Bibliography Adams, C. (1997) Biodiversity of a Bornean study site. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Azlan, J.M. & Lading, E. (2006) Camera trapping and conservation in Lambir Hills National Park, Sarawak. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 54, 469-475. Beck, J.A.N., Schwanghart, W., Khen, C.V. & Holloway, J.D. (2010) Predicting geometrid moth diversity in the Heart of Borneo. Insect Conservation and Diversity, no-no. Beck, J.A.N., Schwanghart, W., Khen, C.V. & Holloway, J.D. (2011) Predicting geometrid moth diversity in the Heart of Borneo. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 4, 173-183. Bernard, H. (2003) Bait preferences of some small mammal species of North Borneo based on linetrapping with wire-mesh cage traps. Sabah Parks Nature Journal, 6, 27-44. Bernstein, I.S. (1967) A field study of the pigtail monkey (&lt;i&gt;Macaca nemestrina&lt;/i&gt;). Primates, 8, 217-228. Bibby, C.J., Hill, D.A. & Mustoe, S.H. (2000) Bird census techniques, Academic Press, London. BirdLife International (2011) IUCN Red List for birds. Bodmer, R.E., Mather, R.M. & Chivers, D.J. (1991) Rain forests of central Borneo – threatened by modern development. Oryx, 25, 21-26. Brockelman, W.Y. & Ali, R. (1987) Methods of surveying and sampling forest primate populations. In Primate conservation in the tropical rainforest (eds R.A. Mittermeier & R.W. Marsh), Alan Liss, New York, USA. Brockelman, W.Y. & Srikosamatara, S. (1993) Estimation of density of gibbon groups by the use of the loud songs. American Journal of Primatology, 29, 93-108. Buckley, C. & Nekaris, K.A.I. (2006) Survey of Hylobates agilis albibarbis in a logged peat-swamp forest: Sabangau catchment, Central Kalimantan. Primates, 47, 327-335. Burnham, K.P.O., W.S. (1979) Robust estimation of population-size when capture probabilities vary among animals. Ecology, 60, 927-936. Bury, R.B. & Corn, P.S. (1987) Evaluation of pitfall trapping in northwestern forests: trap array with drift fences. Journal of Wildlife Management, 51, 112-119. Bury, R.B. & Raphael, M.G. (1983) Inventory methods for amphibians and reptiles. In Renewable resource inventories for monitoring changes and trends: Proc. Internat. Conf. (eds J.F. Bell & T.A. Atterbury), pp. 416-419. Soc. Am. For. . Campbell, C., Andayani, N., Cheyne, S.M., Pamungkas, J., Mamullang, B. & Usman, F. (2008) Indonesian Gibbon Conservation and Management Workshop Final Report. IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Apple Valley. Campbell, H.W. & Christman, S.P. (1982) Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis. In Herpetological communities (ed N.J. Scott Jr), U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Cechin, S.Z. & Martins, M. (2000) Eficiencia de armadilhas de queda (pitfall traps) em amostragens de anfıbios e repteis do Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia, 17, 729–740. Chao, A. (2004) Species richness estimation. In Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (ed C.B.V. Read, B.), pp. 7909-7916. Wiley, New York. Chapman, C.A., Lawes, M.J. & Eeley, H.A.C. (2006) What hope for African primate diversity? . African Journal of Ecology, 44, 116–133. Charles-Dominique, P. & Bearder, S.K. (1979) Field studies of Lorisid behaviour: methodological aspects. In The Study of Prosimian Behaviour (eds G.A. Doyle & M. R.D.), pp. 567-629. Academic Press, New York, USA. Cheyne, S.M. (2008) Gibbon song: effects of climate, location and human disturbance on the singing apes. American Journal of Primatology, 7, 1–7. Cheyne, S.M., Husson, S.J. & Macdonald, D.W. (2010) First otter-civet Cynogale bennetti photographed in Sabangau peat-swamp forest, Indonesian Borneo. Small Carnivore Conservation, 42, 25-26. 67

Cheyne, S.M. & Macdonald, D.W. (2011) Wild felid diversity and activity patterns in Sabangau peatswamp forest, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx, 45, 119-124. Cheyne, S.M., Thompson, J.H., Phillips, A.C., Hill, R.M.C. & Limin, S.H. (2008) Density and population estimate of gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) in the Sabangau catchment, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Primates, 49, 50-56. Chivers, D.J. (1974) The siamang in Malaya: A field study of a primate in tropical rain forest. Contributions to Primatology, 4, 1-9. Chivers, D.J. (1984) Feeding and ranging in gibbons. In The Lesser Apes: Evolutionary and Behavioural Biology (eds H. Preuschoft, D.J. Chivers, W.Y. Brockelman & N. Creel), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Chivers, D.J. (1996) Joint Research into Tropical Forest Ecology - Project Barito Ulu Quinquennial Report 1992-1996. Project Barito Ulu, Cambridge, UK. Chivers, D.J. (2001) The swinging singing simians: fighting for food and family in Far East Forests. In The Apes: Challenges for the 21st Century (eds V. Sodaro & C. Sodaro), Brookfield Zoo, Chicago, USA. Clements, J.F., Schulenberg, T.S., Iliff, M.J., Sullivan, B.L., Wood, C.L. & Roberson, D. (2011) The Clements checklist of birds of the world Cosson, L., Grassman, L.L., Zubaid, A., Vellayan, S., Tiller, A. & Veron, G. (2007) Genetic diversity of captive binturongs (Artictis binturong, Viverridae, Carnivora): implications for conservation. Journal of Zoology, 271, 386-395. Colwell, R.K. (2006) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8. Coudrat, C.N.Z., Rogers, L.D. & Nekaris, K.A.I. (2011) Abundance of primates reveals Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary, Cardamom Mountains, Cambodia as a priority area for conservation. Oryx, 45, 427-434. Crompton, R.H. & Andau, P.M. (1987) Ranging, activity rhythms, and sociality in free-ranging Tarsius bancanus: A preliminary report. International Journal of Primatology, 8, 43-71. Crosswhite, D.L., FOX, S.F. & THILL, R.E. (1999) Comparison of methods for monitoring reptiles and amphibians in Upland Forests of the Ouachita Mountains. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science, 79, 45â&#x20AC;&#x201C;50. Crump, M.L. & Scott Jr, N.J. (1994) Visual encounter surveys. In Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians (eds W.R. Heyer, M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek & M.S. Foster), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, USA. Curran, L.M., Caniago, I., Paoli, G.D., Astianti, D., Kusneti, M., Leighton, M., Nirarita, C.E. & Haeruman, H. (1999) Impact of El NiĂąo and Logging on Canopy Tree Recruitment in Borneo. Science, 286, 2184-2188. Curran, L.M., Trigg, S.N., A. K. McDonald, D. Astiani, Y. M. Hardiono, P. Siregar, I. Caniago & Kasischke, E. (2004) Lowland Forest Loss in Protected Areas of Indonesian Borneo. Science, 303, 3. Das, I. (2011) Snakes and other reptiles of Borneo, New Holland Publishers (UK), London. Datta, A., Naniwedekar, R. & Anand, O.M. (2008) Occurrence and conservation status of small carnivores in two protected areas in Arunachal Pradesh, north-east India. Small Carnivore Conservation, 39, 1-10. Doan, T. (2003) Which methods are most effective for surveying rain forest herpetofauna? Journal of Herpetology, 37, 72-81. Duckworth, J.W. (1994) Field observations of mammals in Laos, 1992-1993. Natural History Bulletin Siam Society, 42, 177-205. Duckworth, J.W. (1997) Small carnivores in Laos: A status review with notes on ecology, behaviour and conservation. Small Carnivore Conservation, 16, 1-21. Duckworth, J.W. (1998) The difficulty of estimating population densities of nocturnal forest mammals from transect counts of animals. Journal of Zoology, 246, 466-468. Enge, K.M. (2001) The pitfalls of pitfall traps. Journal of Herpetology, 35, 467-478. 68

Evans, T.D., Duckworth, J.W. & Timmins, R.J. (2000) Field observations of larger mammals in Laos, 1994-1995. Mammalia, 64, 55-100. Fewester, R.M., Laake, J.L. & Buckland, S.T. (2005) Line transect sampling in small and large regions. Biometrics, 61, 856-861. Finley, R.B. (1959) Observation of nocturnal animals by red light. Journal of Mammalogy, 40, 591594. Finsch, O. (1901) Ueber Eine Neue Art Haarvogel aus Central-Borneo. Notes Leyden Museum, 23, 95. Fogden, M.P.L. (1972) The seasonality and population dynamics of equatorial forest birds est Sarawak. Ibis, 114, 307-343. Fredriksson, G.M. & Nijman, V. (2004) Habitat use and conservation status of two elusive ground birds (Carpococcyx radiatus and Polyplectron schleiermacheri) in the Sungai Wain Protection Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx, 38, 297-303. Fredriksson, G.M., Steinmetz, R., Wong, S. & Garshelis, D.L. (2008) Helarctos malayanus. Ganzhorn, J.U. (2003) Habitat description and phenology. In Field and laboratory methods in primatology (eds J.M. Setchell & D.J. Curtis), pp. 40â&#x20AC;&#x201C;56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Gaston, K.J., Williams, P.H., Eggleton, P. & Humphries, C.J. (1995) Large Scale Patterns of Biodiversity: Spatial Variation in Family Richness. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 260, 149-154. Geissmann, T. (1993) Evolution of communication in gibbons (Hylobatidae). PhD. dissertation, Zurich University. Geissmann, T. (1995) Gibbon systematics and species identification. International Zoo News, 42, 467501. Geissmann, T. (2003) Rarest Ape Species Rediscovered in Vietnam. Asian Primates, 8, 8-10. Geissmann, T. (2007) Status reassessment of the gibbons: results of the Asian Primate Red List Workshop 2006. Gibbon Journal, 3, 5-15. Geissmann, T., Grindley, M., Momberg, F., Lwin, N. & Moses, S. (2009) Hoolock gibbon and biodiversity survey and training in southern Rakhine Yoma, Myanmar. Gibbon Journal, 5, 727. Geissmann, T. & Nijman, V. (2008) Hylobates muelleri. www.iucnredlist.org [accessed 12 December 2011 Gittins, S.P. (1982) Feeding and ranging in the agile gibbon. Folia Primatologica, 38, 39-71. Grassman, L.L., Tewes, M.E. & Silvy, N.J. (2005) Ranging, habitat use and activity patterns of binturong Artictis binturong and yellow-throated marten Martes flavigula in north-central Thailand. Wildlife Biology,, 11, 49-56. Greenberg, C.H., Neary, D. & Harris, L.D. (1994) A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Journal of Herpetology, 28, 319-324. Greenway (1991) A study of the behavioural ecology of Hylobates muelleri x H. agillis hybrid gibbons. Dissertation, Cambridge University. Groves, C.P. (1984) A new look at the taxonomy and phylogeny of the gibbons. In The lesser apes. Evolutionary and behavioural biology (eds H. Preuschoft, D.J. Chivers, W.Y. Brockelman & N. Creel), pp. 542-561. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Groves, C.P. (2001) Primate taxonomy, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Gursky, S. (2003) Lunar philia in a nocturnal primate. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 351367. Hamard, M., Cheyne, S.M. & Nijman, V. (2010) Vegetation correlates of gibbon density in the peatswamp forest of Sabangau national park, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 607â&#x20AC;&#x201C;616. Harrison, R.D. (2011) Emptying the Forest: Hunting and the Extirpation of Wildlife from Tropical Nature Reserves. BioScience, 61, 919-924.

Heydon, M.J. & Bulloh, P. (1996) The impact of selective logging on sympatric civet species in Borneo. Oryx, 30, 31-36. Heydon, M.J. & Bulloh, P. (1997) Mousedeer densities in a tropical rainforest: the impact of selective logging. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34, 484-496. Hijmans, R.J., Cameron, S.E., Parra, J.L., Jones, P.G. & Jarvis, A. (2005) Very high-resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. International Journal of Climatology, 25, 1965-1978. Holmes, D. & Burton, K. (1987) Recent notes on the avifauna of Kalimantan. KUKILA, 3, 2-33. Inger, R.F. (2003) Sampling biodiversity in Bornean frogs. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University, 3, 9-15. Inger, R.F. & Stuebing, R.B. (2005) Frogs of Borneo, Natural History Publications (Borneo), Kota Kinabalu. Iseborn, T., Rogers, L.D. & Nekaris, K.A.I. ((In Print) ) Preliminary survey of common palm civets (Paradoxurus hermaphrodites) and field observations of other civet species in Veun Sai Forest and Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary, Cambodia. Small Carnivore Conservation. IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. Jaeger, R.G. & Inger, R.F. (1994) Quadrat sampling. In Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: Standard methods for amphibians (eds R.H. Heyer, M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek & M.S. Foster), pp. 97-102. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, USA. Jukka, M., Chenghua, S.H.I. & Soo Chin, L. (2011) Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology, 17, 2261-2270. Karr, J.S. (1976) Seasonality, Resource Availability, and Community Diversity in Tropical Bird Communities. The American Naturalist, 110, 973-994. Kitamura, S., Tong-Aree, S., Madsri, S. & Poonswad, P. (2010) Mammal diversity and conservation in a small isolated forest of southern Thailand. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 58, 145-156. Kueh, B.H., Maryati, M.D., Das, I. & Chew, D. (2004) Integrated effort in the prioritization of areas for conservation in Borneo. In BBEC International Conference. Langham, N. (1983) Distribution and Ecology of Small Mammals in 3 Rain-Forest Localities of Peninsula Malaysia with Particular References to Kedah Peak. Biotropica, 15, 199-206. Leighton, D.R. (1987) Gibbons: territorality and monogamy. In Primate Societies (ed B.B. Smuts), pp. 135-145. Chicago University Press, Chicago, USA. Link, A. & di Fiore, A. (2006) Seed dispersal by spider monkeys and its importance in the maintenance of Neotropical rain-forest diversity. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22, 235–246. Long, A. & Collar, N. (2002) Distribution, status and natural history of the Bornean Ground Cuckoo Carpococcyx radiatus. Forktail, 111-120. Lucas, P.W. & Corlett, R.T. (1998) Seed dispersal by long-tailed macaques. American Journal of Primatology, 45, 29–44. Mabberly, D.J. (1983) Tropical Rain Forest Ecology, Blackie & Sons, Oxford. MacKenzie, D.I., Nichols, J.D., Lachman, G.B., Droege, S., Royle, J.A., Langtimm, C.A. (2002) Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology, 83, 2248-2255. MacKinnon, J., Phillipps, K. & van Balen, B. (2003) Burung-burung di Sumatera, Jawa, Bali dan Kalimantan. Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia–BirdLife International Indonesia Programme. Bogor. Mann, C.E. (2008) The Birds of Borneo, British Ornithologists' Union, Peterborough, UK. Marshall, A.J., Cannon, C.H. & Leighton, M. (2009) Competition and niche overlap between gibbons (Hylobates albibarbis) and other frugivorous vertebrates in Gunung Palung National Park, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. In The Gibbons (eds D. Whittaker & S. Lappan), Springer NY, New York, USA. Marshall, J.T. & Sugardjito, J. (1986) Gibbon systematics. In Systematics, evolution, and anatomy (eds S. D.R. & J. Erwin), Alan R. Liss, New York, USA. 70

Mather, R. (1992a) Distribution and abundance of primates in northern Kalimantan Tengah: comparisons with other parts of Borneo, and peninsular Malaysia. In Forest biology and conservation in Borneo (eds G. Ismail, M. Mohamed & S. Omar), Sabah Foundation, Kota Kinabalu. Mather, R. (1992b) A field study of hybrid gibbons in central Kalimantan. PhD thesis, Cambridge University. Mayr, E. (1938) Notes on a collection of birds from south Borneo. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, 14, 5-46. McConkey, K. & Galetti, M. (1999) Seed dispersal by the sun bear Helarctos malayanus in Central Borneo. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 15, 237-241. McConkey, K.R. (2000) Primary seed shadow generated by gibbons in the rain forests of Barito Ulu, Central Borneo. American Journal of Primatology, 52, 13-29. McConkey, K.R., Aldy, F., Ario, A. & Chivers, D.J. (2002) Selection of Fruit by Gibbons (Hylobates muelleri x H. agilis) in the Rain Forests of Central Borneo. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 123-145. McConkey, K.R., Ario, A., Aldy, F. & Chivers, D.J. (2003) Influence of forest seasonality on gibbon food choice in the rain forests of Barito Ulu, Central Kalimantan. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 19-32. McConkey, K.R. & Chivers, D.J. (2004) Low mammal and hornbill abundance in the forests of Barito Ulu, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oryx, 38, 439-447. McLeod, D.S. (2010) Of Least Concern? Systematics of a cryptic species complex: Limnonectes kuhlii (Amphibia: Anura: Dicroglossidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 56, 991-1000. Mees, G.F. (1977) Additional records of birds from Formosa (Taiwan). Zoologische mededelingen, 51, 243-264. Meijaard, E. & Nijman, V. (2000) Distribution and conservation of the proboscis monkey Nasalis larvatus in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 92, 15-24. Meijaard, E. & Nijman, V. (2003) Primate hotspots on Borneo: Predictive value for general biodiversity and the effects of taxonomy. Conservation Biology, 17, 725-732. Mitani, J.C. (1987) Territoriality and Monogamy Among Agile Gibbons (Hylobates agilis). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 20, 265-269. Mitani, J.C. (1990) Demography of Agile Gibbons (Hylobates agilis). International Journal of Primatology, 11, 409-422. MoFor (2008) Forest Land Use Agreement Central Kalimantan (TGHK). (ed K.K.R.I. Direktorat Jenderal Planologi Kehutanan). MoFor (2009) Peta usulan perubuhan kawasan hutan dalam revisi rencana tata ruang wilayah provinsi Kalimantan Tengah. Menetari Kehutanan. Munds, R.A. (2010) Population density, habitat, trapping and taxonomy of the Bornean slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis) and Bornean tarsier (Tarsius bancanus borneanus). M.Phil Oxford Brookes University. Myers, S. (2009) A Field Guide to the Birds of Borneo, New Holland. Nekaris, K.A.I. (2001) Activity budget and positional behaviour of the Mysore slender loris (Loris tardigradus lydekkerianus): Implications for slow climbing locomotion. Folia Primatologica, 72, 228-241. Nekaris, K.A.I., Blackham, G.V. & Nijman, V. (2008) Conservation implications of low encounter rates of five nocturnal primate species (Nycticebus spp.) in Asia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17, 733-747. Niemitz, C. (1979) Results of a field study of the Western tarsier (Tarsius bancanus borneanus Horsefield, 1821) in Sarawak. The Sarawak Museum Journal, 27, 171-228. Nijman, V. (2004) Conservation of the Javan gibbon Hylobates moloch: population estimates, local extinctions, and conservation priorities. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 52, 271â&#x20AC;&#x201C;280. Nijman, V., M., R. & Geissmann, T. (2008) Hylobates albibarbis. www.iucnredlist.org 71

Nor, S.M.D. (2001) Elevational diversity patterns of small mammals on Mount Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 10, 41-62. O'Brien, T.G., Kinnaird, M.F., Nurcahyo, A., Iqbal, M. & Rusmanto, M. (2004) Abundance and distribution of sympatric gibbons in a threatened Sumatran Rain Forest. International Journal of Primatology, 25, 267-284. O’Brien, T.G. & Fimbel, R.A. (ND) Faunal surveys in unlogged forest of the Inhutani ii malinau timber concession, east Kalimantan, Indonesia. Unpublished report. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, USA. Otis, D.L., Burnham, K.P., White, G.C. & Anderson, D.R. (1978) Statistical-Inference from Capture Data on Closed Animal Populations. Wildlife Monographs, 7-135. Partomiharjo, T. (2005) Pegunungan Muller: Warisan Dunia di Jantung Kalimantan, Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI), Bogor. Patric, E.F. (1970) Bait Preference of Small Mammals. Journal of Mammalogy, 51, 179-182. Payne, J., Francis, C. & Phillipps, K. (1985) A field guide to the mammals of Borneo, The Sabah Society, Kota Kinabalu. Pearman, P.B., Velasco, A.M. & Lopez, A. (1995) Herpetofauna monitoring: a comparison of methods for detecting inter-site variation in species composition. Herpetologica, 51, 325-337. Peres, C.A. (2000) Effects of subsistence hunting on vertebrate community structure on Amazonian forests. Conservation Biology, 14, 240-253. Phillipps, Q. (2009) Phillipps' field guide to the birds of Borneo, Beaufoy Books, Oxford. Pocock, R.I. (1933) The rarer genera of Oriental Viverridae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 969–1035. Puri, R.K. (2001) The Bulungan ethnobiology handbook: a field manual for biological and social, SMK Grafika, Desa Putera, Indonesia. Xeno Canto Foundation. (2011) xeno-canto: sharing bird songs from around the world. http://www.xeno-canto.org/ [accessed 25-11-2011] R Development Core Team, (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Raemaekers, J. & Raemaekers, P. (1985) Field playback of loud calls to gibbons (Hylobates lar): territorial, sex-specific and species-specific responses. Animal Behaviour, 33, 481-493. Raemaekers, J.J., Raemaekers, P.M. & Haimoff, E.H. (1984) Loud calls of the gibbon (Hylobates lar): Repertoire, organisation and context. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology, 91, 146-189. Raharjaningtrah, W. & Prayogo, H. (2000) Keanekaragaman, distribusi, ekologi serta aspek konservasi burung di Taman Nasional Bentuang Karimun, Kalimantan Barat. In Prosiding seminar RPTN Bentuang karimun 2000 - 2004 pp. 339-357. Dinas Kehutanan. Ribeiro-Júnior, M.A., Gardner, T.A. & Ávila-Pires, T.C.S. (2008) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Herpetofaunal Sampling Techniques across a Gradient of Habitat Change in a Tropical Forest Landscape. Journal of Herpetology, 42, 733-749. Rocha, C.F.D., Bergallo, H.G., Pombal Jr., J.P., Geise, L., van Sluys, M., Fernandes, R. & Caramaschi, U. (2004) Fauna de anfíbios, répteis e mamíferos do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, sudeste do Brasil. Avulsas do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, 104, 1-24. Rovero, F., Tobler, M.W. & Sanderson, J. (2010) Camera Trapping for inventorying terrestrial vertebrates. In Manual on Field Recording Techniques and Protocols for All Taxa Biodiversity Inventories (eds J. Eymann, J. Degreef, C. Häuser, J.C. Monje, Y. Samyn & D. VandenSpiegel), ABC Taxa. Sattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege, D.C. (1998) Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation, BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Scharrema, J. (2004) Birds of Tropical Asia Bird Songs International B.V., Westernieland. Slik, J., Poulsen, A., Ashton, P., Cannon, C., Eichhorn, K., Kartawinata, K., Lanniari, I., Nagamasu, H., Nakagawa, M. & Van Nieuwstadt, M. (2003) A floristic analysis of the lowland dipterocarp forests of Borneo. Journal of Biogeography, 30, 1517-1531. 72

Southern, H.N., Watson, J.S. & Chitty, D. (1946) Watching nocturnal animals by infra-red light. Journal of Animal Ecology, 15, 198-202. Stuebing, R.B. & Gasis, J. (1989) A survey of small mammals within a Sabah tree plantation in Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 5, 203-214. Tobler, M.W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S.E., Pitman, R.L., Mares, R. & Powell, G. (2008) An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation, 11, 169-178. van Schaik, C.P. & Griffiths, M. (1996) Activity patterns of Indonesian rain forest mammals. Biotropica, 28, 105-112. VerCauteren, K.C., Hygnstrom, S.E., Pipas, M.J., Fioranelli, P.B., Werner, S.J. & Blackwell, B.F. (2003) Red lasers are ineffective for dispersing deer at night. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 31, 247-252. Veron, G., Gaubert, P., Franklin, N., Jennings, A.P. & Grassman, L.I. (2006) A reassessment of the distribution and taxonomy of the Endangered otter civet Cynogale bennettii (Carnivora : Viverridae) of South-east Asia. Oryx, 40, 42-49. Voous, K.H. (1961) Birds collected by Carl Lumholtz in eastern and central Borneo. Nytt. Mag. Zool., 10, 127-180. Wadley, R.L., Pierce, C.J. & Hood, I.G. (1997) Hunting primates and managing forests: The case of the Iban forest farmers in Indonesian Borneo. Human Ecology, 25, 243-271. Wilkinson, R., Dutson, G., Sheldon, B., Darjono & Noor, Y.R. (1991) The avifauna of the Barito Ulu Regioin, Central Kalimantan. KUKILA, 5, 99-116. Wilting, A., Samejima, H. & Mohamed, A. (2010) Diversity of Bornean viverrids and other small carnivores in Deramakot Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia. Small Carnivore Conservation, 42, 10-13. WWF (2005) Borneo: Treasure island at risk. WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main. WWF (2010) Borneo's New World - Newly discovered species in the Heart of Borneo.

Appendix 1 – List of Mammals Order

Family

scientific name

common name

Insectivora Scandentia

Erinaceidae Soricidae Tupaiidae

Rodentia

Sciuridae

Echinosorex gymnura Crocidura monticola Tupaia dorsalis Tupaia longipes Ratufa affinis cothurnata Callosciurus notatus Callosciurus prevostii atricapillus Sundasciurus lowii lowii Sundasciurus hippurus Exilisciurus exilis Nannosciurus melanotis pallidus Lariscus insignis Sundamys muelleri Maxomys rajah Maxomys surifer Niviventer cremoriventer Maxomys whiteheadi Hystrix brachyura Trichys fasciculata Hystrix crassispinis Manis javanica Helarctos malayanus Aonyx cinerea Cynogale bennettii Viverra tangalunga Arctictis binturong Paradoxurus hermaphroditus Prionodon linsang Hemigalus derbyanus Herpestes brachyurus rajah Herpestes semitorquatus Prionailurus bengalensis Neofelis diardi Sus barbatus Tragulus kanchil Tragulus napu Muntiacus muntjak Muntiacus atherodes Rusa unicolor Nycticebus menagensis Tarsius bancanus Presbytis rubicunda rubicunda Presbytis frontata Macaca fascicularis Macaca nemestrina Nasalis larvatus Hylobates albibarbis Rhinolophus trifoliatus

Moonrat Sunda shrew Striped tree shrew Bornean tree shrew Pale giant squirrel Plantain squirrel Prevost's squirrel Low's squirrel Horse-tailed squirrel Least pigmy squirrel Black-eared pigmy squirrel Three-striped ground squirrel Müller’s Sundamys Rajah Sundaic Maxomys Indomalayan Maxomys Sundaic Arboreal Niviventer Whitehead’s Sundaic Maxomys Malayan Porcupine Long-tailed porcupine Thick-spined porcupine Sunda pangolin Malayan Sun Bear Asian Small-clawed Otter Sunda otter-civet Malay civet Binturong Common palm civet Banded linsang Banded civet Short-tailed mongoose Collared mongoose Leopard cat Sunda clouded leopard Bearded pig Lesser oriental chevrotain Greater oriental chevrotain Southern red muntjac Bornean yellow muntjac Sambar deer Bornean slow loris Bornean tarsier Red langur White fronted langur Long-tailed macaque Southern pig-tailed macaque Proboscis monkey Bornean white-bearded gibbon Trefoil horseshoe bat

Muridae

Hystricidae

Pholidota Carnivora

Manidae Ursidae Viverridae

Felidae Artiodactyla

Suidae Tragulidae Cervidae

Primates

Chiroptera

Lorisidae Tarsiidae Cercopithecidae

Hylobatidae Rhinolophidae

Borneo endemic y y y y y y Y y y Y y -

Red list status LC LC DD LC NT LC LC LC NT DD LC LC LC VU LC VU VU LC LC LC EN VU VU EN LC VU LC LC VU LC DD LC VU VU LC LC LC LC VU VU VU LC VU LC VU EN EN LC

Molossidae Emballonuridae

Cheiromeles torquatus Emballonura sp

Greater naked bat Lesser/Greater sheath-tailed bat

LC LC

Appendix 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; List of Birds List of birds as observed in and around Bukit Batikap Protection Forest during the HoBP Murung Raya Expedition 20102011. Residence status: R = Resident, E = Endemic, M = Migrant. Sites include M = Mohot River, HJ = Hulu Joloi (Joloi River north of Mohot River), J = Joloi River (The Joloi River from Camp Bravo to Mohot River).

Red Site Residence list status M HJ J status VU R x NT R x x NT R x EN R, E x NT R x

Family

Scientific Name

Common Name

Phasianidae

Melanoperdix niger Rollulus rouloul Lophura ignita Polyplectron schleiermacheri Argusianus argus

Black Partridge Crested Partridge Crested Fireback Bornean Peacock-Pheasant Great Argus

Ardeidae

Egretta garzetta Butorides striata

Little Egret Striated Heron

LC LC

R R

x x

Ciconiidae

Ciconia stormi

Storm's Stork

Accipitridae

Spilornis cheela Haliastur indus Ichthyophaga humilis

Crested Serpent Eagle Brahminy Kite Lesser Fish-Eagle

LC LC NT

R R R

Falconidae

Microhierax fringillarius

Black-Thighed Falconet

Scolopacidae

Actitis hypoleucos

Common Sandpiper

Columbidae

Treron capellei Treron curvirostra

Large Green-Pigeon Thick-Billed Green-Pigeon

VU LC

R R

x x

Psittacidae

Loriculus galgulus

Blue-Headed Hanging Parrot

Cuculidae

Cuculus saturatus Cacomantis variolosus Phaenicophaeus sumatranus Phaenicophaeus chlorophaeus Phaenicophaeus curvirostris Centropus sinensis Carpococcyx radiatus

Himalayan Cuckoo Brush Cuckoo Chestnut-Bellied Malkoha Raffles Malkoha Chestnut-Breasted Malkoha Greater Coucal Bornean Ground-Cuckoo

LC LC NT LC LC LC NT

R, M R R R R R R, E

x x x x x x

Strigidae

Ketupa ketupu Bubo sumatranus Otus rufescens Otus lempiji

Buffy Fish Owl Barred Eagle Owl Reddish Scops-Owl Sunda Scops-Owl

LC LC NT LC

R R R R

x x x x

Apodidae

Collocalia esculenta Apus affinis Collocalia fuciphaga Rhaphidura leucopygialis

Glossy Swiftlet Little Swift Edible-Nest Swiflet Silver-Rumped Needletail

LC LC LC LC

R R R R

x x

Hemiprocnidae

Hemiprocne longipennis

Grey-Rumped Tree-Swift

Trogonidae

Harpactes kasumba

Red-Naped Trogon

x x

x x x x x

Harpactes orrhophaeus Harpactes duvaucelii

Cinnamon-Rumped Trogon Scarlet-Rumped Trogon

NT NT

R R

x x

Alcedo meninting Alcedo euryzona Ceyx erithaca Ceyx rufidorsa Pelargopsis capensis Actenoides concretus

Blue-Eared Kingfisher Blue-Banded Kingfisher Black-Backed Kingfisher Rufous-Backed Kingfisher Stork-Billed Kingfisher Rufous-Collared Kingfisher

LC VU LC LC LC NT

R R R R R R

x x x x x x

Meropidae

Nyctyornis amictus

Red-Bearded Bee-Eater

Coraciidae

Eurystomus orientalis

Dollarbird

R, M

Bucerotidae

Aceros undulatus Aceros comatus Anthracoceros malayanus Buceros rhinoceros Rhinoplax vigil Anorrhinus galeritus Anthracoceros albirostris Aceros corrugatus

Wreathed Hornbill White-Crowned Hornbill Black Hornbill Rhino Hornbill Helmeted Hornbill Bushy-Crested Hornbill Oriental-Pied Hornbill Wrinkled Hornbill

LC NT NT NT NT LC LC NT

R R R R R R R R

x x x x x x x x

Megalamidae

Megalaima rafflesii Megalaima australis Megalaima henricii Megalaima eximia Megalaima chrysopogon Megalaima mystacophanos Calorhamphus fuliginosus

Red-Crowned Barbet Blue-Eared Barbet Yellow-Crowned Barbet Black-Throated Barbet Gold-Whiskered Barbet Red-Throated Barbet Brown Barbet

NT LC NT LC LC NT LC

R R R R, E R R R

x x x x x x x

Picidae

Sasia abnormis Celeus brachyurus Meiglyptes tristis Reinwardtipicus validus Blythipicus rubiginosus Picus mineaceus

Rufous Piculet Rufous Woodpecker Buff-Rumped Woodpecker Orange-Backed Woodpecker Maroon Woodpecker Banded Woodpecker

LC LC LC LC LC LC

R R R R R R

x x x x x x

Eurylaimidae

Corydon sumatranus Cymbirhynchus macrorhynchos Eurylaimus ochromalus Calyptomena viridis Eurylaimus javanicus

Dusky Broadbill Black-And-Red Broadbill Black-And-Yellow Broadbill Green Broadbill Banded Broadbill

LC LC NT NT LC

R R R R R

Pitta granatina Pitta nympha Pitta guajana

Garnet Pitta Fairy Pitta Banded Pitta

NT VU LC

R M R

x x x

Camphepagidae Hemipus picatus Hemipus hirundinaceus Coracina fimbriata

Bar-Winged Flycatcher-Shrike Black-Winged Flycatcher-Shrike Lesser Cuckoo-Shrike

LC LC LC

R R R

x x

Dicruridae

Bronzed Drongo Greater Racquet-Tailed Drongo

LC LC

R R

Alcedinidae

Pittidae

Dicrurus aeneus Dicrurus paradiseus

x x x

x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x x

Rhipiduridae

Rhipidura perlata

Spotted Fantail

Monarchidae

Hypothymis azurea Terpsiphone paradisi

Black-Naped Monarch Asian Paradise Flycatcher

LC LC

R R

x x

Corvus enca Platylophus galericulatus Platysmurus leucopterus

Slender-Billed Crow Crested Jay Black Magpie

LC NT NT

R R R

x x x

Eupitidae

Eupetes macrocerus

Rail Babbler

Hirundinidae

Hirundo rustica

Barn Swallow

Sittidae

Sitta frontalis

Velvet-Fronted Nuthatch

Pycnonotidae

Pycnonotus zeylanicus Pycnonotus eutilotus Pycnonotus nieuwenhuisii Pycnonotus simplex Pycnonotus brunneus Pycnonotus plumosus Pycnonotus erythropthalmos Alophoixus ochraceus Alophoixus bres Alophoixus phaeocephalus Ixos malaccensis Setornis criniger Alophoixus finschii Tricholestes criniger Iole olivacea

Straw-Headed Bulbul Puff-Backed Bulbul Blue-Wattled Bulbul Cream-Vented Bulbul Red-Eyed Bulbul Olive-Winged Bulbul Spectacled Bulbul Ochraceous Bulbul Grey-Cheeked Bulbul Yellow-Bellied Bulbul Streaked Bulbul Hook-Billed Bulbul Finsch's Bulbul Hairy-Backed Bulbul Buff-Vented Bulbul

VU NT DD LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT VU NT LC NT

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Irena puella

Asian Fairy-Bluebird

Rhinomyias umbratilis Muscicapa dauurica Ficedula dumetoria Cyornis turcosus Cyornis superbus Cyornis unicolor Philentoma pyrhoptera Philentoma velata Rhinomyas sp.

Grey-Chested Flycatcher Asian Brown Flycatcher Rufous-Chested Flycatcher Malaysian Blue-Flycatcher Borneon Blue-Flycatcher Pale Blue-Flycatcher Rufous-Winged Philentoma Maroon-Breasted Philentoma Jungle Flycatcher Sp.

NT LC NT NT LC LC LC NT

R R, M R R R, E R R R

x x x x x x x x x

Chlamydochaera jefferyi Copsychus malabaricus Copsychus saularis Enicurus ruficapillus Enicurus leschenaulti Trichixos pyrropygus Zoothera interpres

Fruit Hunter White-Rumped Shama Magpie Robin Chesnut-Naped Forktail White-Crowned Forktail Rufous-Tailed Shama Chestnut-Capped Trush

LC LC LC NT LC NT LC

R, E R R R R R R

x x

Orthotomus atrogularis Phylloscopus borealis

Dark-Necked Tailorbird Arctic Warbler

LC LC

R M

x x

Corvidae

Irenidae Muscicapidae

Turdidae

Silviidae

x x

x x x x

x x x x x

x x

Timalidae

Trichastoma rostratum Trichastoma bicolor Malacocincla sepiaria Malacocincla abbotti Malacocincla malaccensis Malacopteron cinereum Malacopteron magnum Malacopteron magnirostre Malacopteron affine Stachyris maculata Stachyris erythroptera Stachyris nigricollis Stachyris poliocephala Macronous ptilosus Alcippe brunneicauda Erpornis zantholeuca

White-Chested Babbler Ferruginous Babbler Horsfield Babbler Abott's Babbler Short-Tailed Babbler Scaly-Crowned Babbler Rufous-Crowned Babbler Moustached Babbler Sooty-Capped Babbler Chestnut-Rumped Babbler Chestnut-Winged Babbler Black-Throated Babbler Grey-Headed Babbler Puffy-Backed Tit-Babbler Brown Fulvetta White-Bellied Yuhina

NT LC LC LC NT LC NT LC NT NT LC NT LC NT NT LC

R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Sturnidae

Gracula religiosa

Common Hill Myna

Chloropsidae

Chloropsis cyanopogon Chloropsis sonnerati Chloropsis cochinchinensis

Lesser Green Leafbird Greater Green Leafbird Blue-Winged Leafbird

NT LC LC

R R R

x x x

Dicaeidae

Prionochilus xanthopygius Prionochilus percussus Prionochilus maculatus Dicaeum trigonostigma Dicaeum concolor

Yellow-Rumped Flowerpecker Crimson-Breasted Flowerpecker Yellow-Breasted Flowerpecker Orange-Bellied Flowerpecker Plain Flowerpecker

LC LC LC LC LC

R, E R R R R

x x x x x

Nectarinidae

Anthreptes singalensis Anthreptes rhodolaemus Anthreptes simplex Hypogramma hypogrammicum Arachnothera longirostra Arachnothera affinis

Ruby-Cheeked Sunbird Red-Throated Sunbird Plain Sunbird Purple-Naped Sunbird Little Spiderhunter Grey-Breasted Spiderhunter

LC NT LC LC LC LC

R R R R R R

x x x x x x

Lonchura fuscans

Dusky Munia

R, E

Estrilidae

Appendix 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tree species Names of trees sampled in Bukit Batikap Protection Forest, including scientific name derived from the local names where possible with the help of the Bornean Orang-utan Survival Foundation (BOS) and Cheyne, unpub. data.

Family Anacardiaceae

Local name Reggahas

Family Lamiaceae

Scientific name Geunsia tetandra

Local name Kato Topung

Tamehas

Lauraceae

Dehaasia sp

Pangowan

Eusideroxylon zwagerii

Ulin

Mahawai phuti Jelutong Tatong Durian Hongas Irat karamu Mahasom Balau

Leguminosae

Casuarinaceae

Scientific name Gluta sp Bouea oppositofolia Dracontomelon dao Dyera costulata Dyera costulata Durio sp Santiria laevigata Dacroydes sp Canarium sp Casuarina sp

Doho Kasinut Kempas Marijang Assam Menyerau Bunyo Papung Uhai

Clusiaceae

Garcinia sp

Gandis

Moraceae

Dilleniaceae Dipterocarpaceae

Garcinia sp Dillenia sp Dipterocarpus sp Dipterocarpus sp

Kondis Salam Mohing Bajan Bajanohith Kangkawan z Laning Karuing Katoi Kayu batu Kayu Matahri Kelapis Latang prengat Lutung Meranti Pahan Propock/Maharoon

Koompassia excelsa Koompassia malaccensis Sindora sp Magnolia bintulensis Michelia champaca Aglaia sp Sandoricum sp dysoxylum sp Artocarpus odoratissimus Artocarpus comando

Annonaceae Apocynaceae Bombaceae Burseraceae

Shorea pinanga

Euphorbiaceae

Fagaceae

Dipterocarpus sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea sp Shorea rugosa Shorea sp Shorea macrophylla Shorea sp Croton sp Mallotus sp Macaranga sp Mallotus sp Neoscortechinia sp Croton argyratus Lithocarpus sp -

Tingkuan

Magnoliaceae Meliaceae

Myristicaceae Myrtaceae Nauclea Phyllanthaceae

Tankawang Tehan Balik Anging Belanti Hasang Klumpai Pupu palanduk Tembalik ingin Pampaning Tekarot

Rubiaceae Sapindaceae

Sapotaceae Simaroubaceae Sterculiaceae

Binturung

Artocarpus anisophyllus Artocarpus sp

Bundut Gambir Poan Sampang

Artocarpus sp

Tampang

Syzygium sp Syzygium sp Rubiaceae sp Baccaurea sp Aporusa sp Baccaurea sp Baccaurea sp

Kumpang deha Kupung Jambu Burung Jambu Merrah Benken Kolo Lamba Kalibon Moloch Poak Umbak

Baccaurea sp

Unding Undang

Anthocephalus cadomba Nephellium sp Pometia pinnata Nephellium sp Disoxylum sp Dimocarpus sp Palaquium sp Heritiera sp

Hotap Lanamun Potamak Takuho Talonka Tenkuhith Nyatu Gading Gading Phuti Lambin

Family UNKNOWN -

Scientific name UNKNOWN -

Local name Bahai Bertiharas Bringin Mahotu Byure Dari rassa Dumeh Galuoiy Guring Bahs Hah Hann Hohing Jakang Jatat Pambai Kala Borock Kaliwan Karak bari Kayu balan Kayu assam Kayu balo Klompang Landing Lumping bilik Mahadoring Manyup Murlo Nanyup

Family UNKNOWN -

Scientific name UNKNOWN -

Local name Neakumpong Nyipotoh tung Oreng Ozrak Pating batoran Pating joli Piping Planchi Poyying Boke Puku pelanuk Putting Putting botaoran Putting juri Putung Ramaniung Rangasang Rumbang Sadiron Saiwan Sakotaop Buho Sekatop buhin Talomui Tunoling kundan Uun Yarua Yiponthtung Sedoruk

Appendix 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Invertebrates Principal Investigator: Russell Goodchild

AIMS The aims of the invertebrate sampling were to obtain general knowledge of the invertebrate species present in the study area and to record any undescribed species. Knowing in advance there would be significant quantities of invertebrate organisms only certain groups were being surveyed. In cooperation with Dr Merlijn Jocke from the Belgian Natural History Museum, the arachnid orders thelyphonida and amblypygi, the arachnid sub-order cyphophthalmi from the order opiliones, and the insect families cerambycidae and elateridae were included. These groups will further be referred to as the BINCO 5. Based on my own knowledge and expertise aranae (spiders) were also included. Dr Carsten Bruhl and Dr Jan Back investigated how different species diversity and community composition are compared to northern Borneo sites, with a focus on nocturnal lepidoptera and leaf litter ants. This will be particularly important to judge the value of these regions for biodiversity conservation, e.g. in the context of the proposed and ratified, trinational Heart of Borneo conservation area.

METHODS Binco 5 and aranae Pitfall Trapping For the sake of logistical ease much of the invertebrate surveying was combined with the herpetofauna surveys. Pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys are used for both groups; therefore these surveys were treated as combined invert-herpetofauna surveys although there are differences in standard practise. Pitfall traps designed for invertebrate capture normally have a water/detergent solution in their base, sometimes combined with a preservative and another killing agent (McGavin, 2007). This would be unacceptable to have in a trap jointly used for catching amphibians which are very susceptible to chemicals in the environment due to their porous skin; therefore the pitfall traps we deployed did not have any added chemicals. Also, they were kept as dry as possible so that reptiles that were caught would not drown or would be too disadvantaged by being cooled down. The pitfall traps for the invertebrate survey were aimed at detaining harvestmen (primarily from the sub-order cyphpophthalmi), and the larger arachnids such as mygalomorph spiders, and thelyphonids. See Section 6. Herpetofauna for exact methods on pitfall trapping Visual Encounter Surveys (VES) The same principal applied to the VES which were also conducted the same time as the Herpetological VES as many of the invertebrates being sought would be found in similar ways as the herpetofauna. Primarily this survey focused on aranae such as thelyphonida, amblypygids, and arachnids, as well as other the two target insect families for that might be lured out of their hideaway by the torch light, but would be too far from camp to be attracted by its lights.

The surveys were conducted on 2km long transects specifically created for the mammal and bird surveys. When a target invertebrate was located attempts were made to capture it using stackable 750ml containers with added air holes. Before capture a quick assessment was carried out so that the specimen could be captured safely without harm to it or the surveyor. Where possible a specimen were not handled, rather captured neatly in the container by placing it over or by gently herding it in. The specimen would then be taken back to camp. See section 6. Herpetofauna for further info on VES methods. Incidental captures The abundance of invertebrate organisms in the forest meant that it would be highly likely target invertebrates would appear in camp and other areas the team would be even when not necessarily on survey, therefore it was understood by all members of the camp that all target invertebrates would be captured and handed over to the principal investigator to be processed and recorded as an incidental capture. Processing taken specimens Two methods for processing samples were used. Originally I hoped to include measurements of limbs and various lengths of the anatomy so that as much information could be taken before the specimens were preserved, including photographs taken when they were still active against 1mm gridded graph paper. However; after 30 specimens were processed this way it was apparent that this was too much work to complete whilst conducting the nocturnal VES, and therefore the method was simplified. Details recorded included: approximate length of important appendages taken, colour scheme, texture, and any interesting behaviour. Photographs were taken against the 1mm graph paper and used to later identify specimens with the use of guide books and museum specimens.

Ants and Moths Method to assess the biodiversity of leaf litter ants Leaf litter ants were sampled at six separate sites along a transect line with a distance of 100m between the centres of the sampling sites. This design proved to be highly efficient in terms of effort, with ca. 70% of the estimated species pool collected. Around the centre of each sampling site, 10 1m2 samples of leaf litter were collected, situated at least 3m apart from each other. Three metres is a distance which exceeds the foraging range of most litter-inhabiting ants (personal observation). The litter was sifted using a sieve with 1 x 1 cm mesh size. Litter is defined as the layer of leaves and detritus which can readily be scraped away from the more compact soil. Sampling was undertaken at least two days after heavy rains, thus ensuring that small arthropods would not stick to the water film on leaves and could reliably be extracted using the method. The litter samples were left for extraction in a mini Winkler apparatus in a shady place for three days. Extracted ants were identified on site using a microscope and relevant literature as listed on www.antbase.net. Method to assess the biodiversity of nocturnal macrolepidoptera Nocturnal insects were attracted to a battery-powered 15 Watt blacklight tube placed inside a white gaze cylinder. Three habitats were sampled: Forest edge at river/camp, dense forest undergrowth,

and canopy at ca. 50m height. Access to the canopy was gained by climbing an emergent tree using the single rope technique. Each habitat was sampled repeatedly for 3-4 hours from the onset of dark, depending on weather conditions. Moth arrival usually decline markedly after ca. 21:30. Three to four nightly samples were taken in each habitat, which will allow detailed statistical analysis of data in future analysis. Specimens were identified using relevant literature at www.mothsofborneo.org, whereas photographic images will be used to confirm identification later.

RESULTS BINCO 5 and Aranae Table 1 shows the totals of all the target species taken as specimens including a percentage to show how much each method contributed. The highest supplier of specimens came from random incidental findings with a share of nearly 60%. Pitfall traps, a very labour intensive method, provided less than 7% of specimens. Amblypygids were not encountered at all, even after specific searches Table 1 - the totals of all the target species taken as specimens Pitfall traps VES Incidental Total

Aranae 4 41 33 78

Thely 1 1 1 3

Opiliones 4 2 4 10

Cyph 1 4 4 9

Ceram 4 34 38

Elat 11 11

Total 10 52 87 149

Percentage (%) 6.7 34.9 58.4 100

Pitfall traps Table 2 shows how many of each target group were found in each pitfall station, with amblypygi and the insect families not represented as no specimens were captured this way. Opiliones along with aranae had the greatest representation in this method with 4 specimens each. All the opiliones captured were of the same unidentified species. In total only three thelyphonids were captured during the whole expedition and one was caught through pitfall traps. Table 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; number of target individuals captured in each pitfall station Aranae Thelyphonida Opiliones Cyphophthalmi Total Pitfall Station 1 1 1 1 3 Pitfall Station 2 Pitfall Station 3 1 1 Pitfall Station 4 1 1 Pitfall Station 5 2 2 Pitfall Station 6 2 1 3 Total 4 1 4 1 10

VES Table 3 below shows how the visual encounter surveys provided a total of 52 specimens, with four target species represented but with over 80% of which being aranae specimens. Each transect provided a similar amount of specimens with most, 11 specimens, coming from transect 4, and the lowest amount coming from transect 1, which provided 8 specimens.

Table 3 – Results of the VES Aranae Thelyphonida Transect 1 6 Transect 2 7 Transect 3 8 Transect 4 11 1 Transect 5 9 Total 41 1

Opiliones 1 1 2 4

Cyphophthalmi 1 1 2

Cerambycidae 1 1 2 4

Total 8 9 11 13 11 52

Incidentals These specimens are the ones that were encountered without a particular technique or survey to locate them; they were either found by random encounters on the transects or, especially with the case of cerambycidae and elaterids, they were encountered in camp and were taken as specimens. These random specimens accounted for 58.4% of all the samples taken and provided the most of all target species with the exception of aranae which had 33 specimens collected from incidental finds compared to the VES which supplied 41 specimens. Table 4 highlights just how significant incidental captures were in providing specimens in comparison with the two main methods employed while Table 5 shows how in fact most incidental captures were found in base camp in comparison to other areas, such as the transects and the main trail. Table 4 – Percentage of specimens collected from total during incidental captures. Aranae Thely Opiliones Cyph Ceram Elat Total specimens 42.3 33.3 40 44.4 89.5 100 58.4 (%) Table 5 – Location of incidental captures. Aranae Thely Opiliones Base camp 27 2 Other places 6 1 2 Total 33 1 4

Cyph 3 1 4

Ceram 33 1 34

Elat 11 11

Total 87.4 12.6

Identification to species level will require substantial analysis and time and will in most cases not be possible.

DISCUSSION BINCO 5 and Aranae All elaterids were captured in base camp, as well as the vast majority of cerambycidae, see Table 1. The most likely reason behind this that the camp would attract these two families at night time with the relatively large amount of light coming from gas lamps, torches and fire, which would have been the only light source for over 30km. Unfortunately, no light trapping was done mostly due to time restraints, if it was done it would be interesting to find out if whether this would have changed or made an impact on the results. Unsurprisingly, neither of these insect families appeared in pitfall traps, by virtue of their ability to fly and normal habit of only being stationary on bushes and trees.

It is somewhat surprising that no amblypigids were found. One would normally expect to see them on tree trunks and in hollows, such as fallen trees where the inside has rotted away. When they became the last of the target species to be found special effort was made to try and locate them, including teaching the guides about them and paying special attention to areas more likely to be occupied by them. However, despite this increased effort none were located. There are many potential reasons for this; the first is that amblypygi simply are absent from the area. This seems doubtful as a lot of the other arachnids normally associated with Southeast Asian tropical rainforest, including thelyphonida which were expected to be hardest to find, are present.