JoTT 4(6): 2617-2672 26 June 2012 by ZOO-WILD

June 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 6 | Pages 2617–2672 Date of Publication 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

Belosynapsis vivipara

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of articles in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

Journal of Threatened Taxa Published by Wildlife Information Liaison Development Society

Typeset and printed at Zoo Outreach Organisation

96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore 641035, Tamil Nadu, India Ph: +91422 2665298, 2665101, 2665450; Fax: +91422 2665472 Email: threatenedtaxa@gmail.com, articlesubmission@threatenedtaxa.org Website: www.threatenedtaxa.org EDITORS Founder & Chief Editor Dr. Sanjay Molur, Coimbatore, India Managing Editor Mr. B. Ravichandran, Coimbatore, India Associate Editors Dr. B.A. Daniel, Coimbatore, India Dr. Manju Siliwal, Dehra Dun, India Dr. Meena Venkataraman, Mumbai, India Ms. Priyanka Iyer, Coimbatore, India Editorial Advisors Ms. Sally Walker, Coimbatore, India Dr. Robert C. Lacy, Minnesota, USA Dr. Russel Mittermeier, Virginia, USA Dr. Thomas Husband, Rhode Island, USA Dr. Jacob V. Cheeran, Thrissur, India Prof. Dr. Mewa Singh, Mysuru, India Dr. Ulrich Streicher, Oudomsouk, Laos Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada Dr. Martin Fisher, Cambridge, UK Dr. Ulf Gärdenfors, Uppsala, Sweden Dr. John Fellowes, Hong Kong Dr. Philip S. Miller, Minnesota, USA Prof. Dr. Mirco Solé, Brazil Editorial Board / Subject Editors Dr. M. Zornitza Aguilar, Ecuador Prof. Wasim Ahmad, Aligarh, India Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae, Bangkok, Thailand. Dr. Giovanni Amori, Rome, Italy Dr. István Andrássy, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Deepak Apte, Mumbai, India Dr. M. Arunachalam, Alwarkurichi, India Dr. Aziz Aslan, Antalya, Turkey Dr. A.K. Asthana, Lucknow, India Prof. R.K. Avasthi, Rohtak, India Dr. N.P. Balakrishnan, Coimbatore, India Dr. Hari Balasubramanian, Arlington, USA Dr. Maan Barua, Oxford OX , UK Dr. Aaron M. Bauer, Villanova, USA Dr. Gopalakrishna K. Bhat, Udupi, India Dr. S. Bhupathy, Coimbatore, India Dr. Anwar L. Bilgrami, New Jersey, USA Dr. Renee M. Borges, Bengaluru, India Dr. Gill Braulik, Fife, UK Dr. Prem B. Budha, Kathmandu, Nepal

Mr. Ashok Captain, Pune, India Dr. Cleofas R. Cervancia, Laguna , Philippines Dr. Apurba Chakraborty, Guwahati, India Dr. Kailash Chandra, Jabalpur, India Dr. Anwaruddin Choudhury, Guwahati, India Dr. Richard Thomas Corlett, Singapore Dr. Gabor Csorba, Budapest, Hungary Dr. Paula E. Cushing, Denver, USA Dr. Neelesh Naresh Dahanukar, Pune, India Dr. R.J. Ranjit Daniels, Chennai, India Dr. A.K. Das, Kolkata, India Dr. Indraneil Das, Sarawak, Malaysia Dr. Rema Devi, Chennai, India Dr. Nishith Dharaiya, Patan, India Dr. Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman, Queenswood, South Africa Dr. William Dundon, Legnaro, Italy Dr. Gregory D. Edgecombe, London, UK Dr. J.L. Ellis, Bengaluru, India Dr. Susie Ellis, Florida, USA Dr. Zdenek Faltynek Fric, Czech Republic Dr. Carl Ferraris, NE Couch St., Portland Dr. R. Ganesan, Bengaluru, India Dr. Hemant Ghate, Pune, India Dr. Dipankar Ghose, New Delhi, India Dr. Gary A.P. Gibson, Ontario, USA Dr. M. Gobi, Madurai, India Dr. Stephan Gollasch, Hamburg, Germany Dr. Michael J.B. Green, Norwich, UK Dr. K. Gunathilagaraj, Coimbatore, India Dr. K.V. Gururaja, Bengaluru, India Dr. Mark S. Harvey,Welshpool, Australia Dr. Magdi S. A. El Hawagry, Giza, Egypt Dr. Mohammad Hayat, Aligarh, India Prof. Harold F. Heatwole, Raleigh, USA Dr. V.B. Hosagoudar, Thiruvananthapuram, India Prof. Fritz Huchermeyer, Onderstepoort, South Africa Dr. V. Irudayaraj, Tirunelveli, India Dr. Rajah Jayapal, Bengaluru, India Dr. Weihong Ji, Auckland, New Zealand Prof. R. Jindal, Chandigarh, India Dr. Pierre Jolivet, Bd Soult, France Dr. Rajiv S. Kalsi, Haryana, India Dr. Rahul Kaul, Noida,India Dr. Werner Kaumanns, Eschenweg, Germany Dr. Paul Pearce-Kelly, Regent’s Park, UK Dr. P.B. Khare, Lucknow, India Dr. Vinod Khanna, Dehra Dun, India Dr. Cecilia Kierulff, São Paulo, Brazil Dr. Ignacy Kitowski, Lublin, Poland continued on the back inside cover

JoTT Communication

4(6): 2617–2628

Species diversity of small mammals at Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, Malaysia Vijaya Kumaran Jayaraj 1, Nurul Farah Diyana Ahmad Tahir 2, Noor Amirah Udin 3, Noor Farahin Kamarul Baharin 4, Siti Katijah Ismail 5 & Siti Noor Azwa Zakaria 6 Faculty of Agro Industry and Natural Resources, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Jeli Campus Locked bag No. 100, 17600 Jeli, Kelantan, Malaysia Email: 1 jayaraj_vijayakumaran@yahoo.com (corresponding author), 2 diyan_yana90@yahoo.com, 3 nooramirahudin@yahoo.com, 4 noorfarahin_kamarulbaharin@rocketmail.com, 5 sitikatijah_ismail@yahoo.com, 6 azwa.zakaria@yahoo.com 1,2,3,4,5,6

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: Giovanni Amori Manuscript details: Ms # o3015 Received 21 November 2011 Final received 09 April 2012 Finally accepted 08 May 2012 Citation: Jayaraj, V.K., N.F.D.A. Tahir, N.A.Udin, N.F.K. Baharin, S.K. Ismail & S.N.A. Zakaria (2012). Species diversity of small mammals at Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, Malaysia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2617–2628. Copyright: © Vijaya Kumaran Jayaraj, Nurul Farah Diyana Ahmad Tahir, Noor Amirah Udin, Noor Farahin Kamarul Baharin, Siti Katijah Ismail & Siti Noor Azwa Zakaria 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Author Contribution: VKJ is the corresponding author of this paper. He provided the funding, led the field work and overall writing of the manuscript. NFDAT, NAU, NFKB, SKI and SNAZ was part of the field survey team and they volunteered to co-author this paper and produced the first draft of the paper including the tabulation of results. For Author Details and Acknowledgments See end of this article.

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA KELANTAN

OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

Abstract: A recent small mammal survey was conducted in Gunung Stong State Park. Standard mist nets, harp traps and cage traps were used to document diversity of small mammals in this new protected area. This study reports five new distributional records of bats in Gunung Stong State Park and a first record of Myotis muricola in Kelantan. The study also shows that Gunung Stong State Park is one of the three areas in Peninsular Malaysia where all four Cynopterus species that can be found in Peninsular Malaysia coexist. This protected area also has Maxomys rajah, M. whiteheadi and Niviventer cremoriventer which are currently listed as Vulnerable, highlighting this location as an important conservation area for small mammals. Continuous surveys are needed as information of small mammal diversity in Kelantan is still scarce, and this study is a part of a series of small mammal surveys that have been carried out in Kelantan. Keywords: Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, new record, small mammals, species diversity.

Introduction Gunung Stong State Park, Malaysia which covers an area of 21,950ha, is situated north west of Kelantan in the district of Kuala Krai (Maseri & Mohd-Ros 2005). This state park is strategically positioned as part of a large forest block that includes the Titiwangsa Range, the BelumTemenggor and the Ulu Muda forests in Malaysia, and connects with the stretch of forests in Hala Bala Wildlife Sanctuary and the Bang Lang National Park in southern Thailand (Maseri & Mohd-Ros 2005). This positioning, coupled with the buffering effect of various forests reserves around the area, is most suitable for fauna conservation as many iconic large mammals such as tigers, elephants, deer and leopards are found there (Zafir et al. 2005). Gunung Stong State Park is also a good area for ecotourism. Its center of attraction is the Jelawang waterfall which is hailed as the highest waterfall in Southeast Asia (Yusoff et al. 2005). This state park also has iconic flora and fauna, that appeal to nature photographers, such as hornbills, banded leaf monkeys, colugo, the endemic Fan Palm Licuda stongensis, the endemic Bamboo Holtummochloa pubescens and Rafflesia kerrii (Latiff & Faridah-Hanum 2005). Together with several mountain peaks such as Gunung Ayam, Gunung Tera and Gunung Stong, this place is suitable for a variety of recreational activities and has been listed in the 2006 Malaysian National Economic Plan as one of the top 10 special places for ecotourism. According to Bourliere (1975), small mammals have adult weights

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June | 4(6): 2617–2628

2617

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

ranging from 2gm to 5kg. The majority of species in this category are from the high diversity orders Rodentia and Chiroptera, and Lagomorpha, Insectivora and Scandentia are also in this group. The importance of Rodentia and Chiroptera in the ecology of the tropical rainforest in Southeast Asia is recognized, yet the small mammals of Kelantan are not well known, with records of surveys from EIA surveys on certain development projects such as the Pergau, Lebir and Negiri Dam Project (see Pue & Latiff 2005) and surveys conducted by Zafir et al. (2005), Shukor et al. (2005) and Mariana et al. (2005). The objective of this study was to survey the diversity and abundance of small mammals in Gunung Stong State Park and add further information on the biodiversity of small mammals in Kelantan, Malaysia.

Materials and Methods The main sampling areas of this study were the Gunung Stong State Park headquarters and Gua Ikan (Image 1). Two trails near the park headquaters were chosen as sampling stations for bats. The first sampling station was Stong Trail 1 (5020.352’N & 101058.503’E, elevation 100–200 m) and the second sampling station was Stong Trail 3 (5020.353’N & 101058.505’E, 100– 200 m). The vegetation at the first sampling station was hill vegetation with some bamboo plots, and the second sampling station was in the vicinity of the forest ecotone. A total of 10 mist nets and two harp-traps were used to capture bats. These nets and traps were placed in presumed flyways of bats at the sampling stations for four consecutive nights (2–4 March 2011). We also set up four additional nets near in Gua Ikan (05021.268’N & 10201.5483’E, 97m) which are limestone caves that are found near the forest reserve. For non-volant small mammals, two sites were

Image 1. Map of the study area (Source: Google Earth, 2011) 2618

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

chosen in the vicinity of the park headquarters (5020.352’N & 101058.503’E, 100–200 m) and Gua Ikan (5021.268’N & 10201.5483’E, 97m). The vegetation at the sampling stations were: site A) hill vegetation with some bamboo plots and river vegetation (park headquarters), and site B) limestone area (Gua Ikan). Non-volant small mammals were captured using cage traps and all traps were placed on the ground to target forest floor small mammals. A total of 100 cage traps baited with pineapple were used for this purpose and all traps were placed for four consecutive days (2–4 March 2011). Captured animals were identified using keys from Francis (2008), and standard measurements were recorded. The diversity of small mammals for this survey was presented as list of species recorded and abundance was characterized by the capture rate of each species during this survey.

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Results The cumulative species graph over days for bats is shown in Fig. 1. The graph is yet to reach an asymptotic level indicating that in-terms of sampling, there may still be species that are yet to be recorded. This also indicates that the netting effort of 52 net-nights was not adequate to sample the total chiroptera community in Kelantan. Table 1 shows the list of species caught, net-nights and capture rate of bats in this study and further comparison with the data from Mariana et al. (2005) and Shukor et al. (2005). This survey recorded 11 species of bats and the highest number of individuals caught was Cynopterus horsfieldii, followed by C. sphinx and the lowest capture rate were from Rhinolophus affinis, Tylonycteris robustula and Myotis muricola. The species graph over days for non-volant mammals is shown in Fig. 2. The graph reached an asymptotic level on the 2nd day – 3rd day but the number of species trapped increased on the 4th day of sampling indicating that the total trapping effort was

Figure 1. Cumulative frequency graph of bats in Mount Stong and Gua Ikan

Figure 2. Cumulative Frequency Graph of Non-volant Small Mammals in Mount Stong and Gua Ikan Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

2619

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Table 1. List of species caught, net nights and capture rate of bats in this study Species

Site A

Site B

Gua Ikan

total

Shukor et al. 2005

Cynopterus horsfieldii*

Cynopterus brachyotis

Cynopterus cf. brachyotis Forest

Cynopterus sphinx*

Balionycteris maculata

Penthetor lucasi*

Eonycteris spelaea*

Macroglossus sobrinus

Macroglossus minimus

Mariana et al. 2005

Family Pteropodidae

Rhinolophus trifoliatus

Rhinolophus stheno

Rhinolophus refulgens

Rhinolophus affinis

Hipposideros bicolor

Hipposideros larvatus

Kerivoula hardwickii

Kerivoula minuta

Kerivoula papilosa

Kerivoula pellucida

Murina cylcotis

Murina suilla

Murina aenea

Myotis ater

Myotis muricola**

Tylonycteris pachypus

Tylonycteris robustula

Total no. of individuals

216

214

No. of species

No. of family

Net-nights

Capture rate

Family Nycteridae Nycteris javanica Family Rhinolophidae

Family Hipposideridae

Family Vespertilionidae

* - new record at Gunung Stong State Park; ** - New record for Kelantan based on Pue & Latiff (2005), Mohd Zafir et al. (2005) and Mariana et al. (2005); a - Note that Shukor et al. (2005) and Mariana et al. (2005) did not distinguish C. brachyotis from C. cf. brachyotis Forest.

not adequate to document non-volant small mammals diversity on the forest floor in the sampling stations. We recorded a total of six species of non-volant small mammals in this study with the highest number of individuals caught were Leopoldamys sabanus (six 2620

individuals) followed by Maxomys whiteheadi (two individuals). Species accounts Cynopterus brachyotis (MĂźller, 1838): This

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2628

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

species has been recorded in open areas and agricultural plots in southern Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo (Abdullah 2003; Abdullah et al. 1997a,b, 2000; Anwarali et al. 2007; Hall et al. 2002, 2004; Karim et al. 2004; Azlan et al. 2005; Jayaraj et al. 2011, 2012). In Borneo C. brachyotis is one of the most successful and dominant fruit bat in terms of capture rate and distribution. We netted this species near the forest fringe and near a small stream. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Csorba et al. 2008) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). There has been ongoing research on the presence of several distinct lineages in this species and in southern Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo a smaller form tentatively assigned as C. cf. brachyotis Forest has been identified (Abdullah 2003; Campbell et al. 2004, 2006, 2007; Jayaraj 2009; Fong 2011; Jayaraj et al. 2012). We took the liberty of separating the new form C. cf. brachyotis Forest as a separate account for future reference using methods described by Jayaraj

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

et al. (2012). Cynopterus cf. brachyotis Forest: This undescribed species has been known to occur in primary forests and old secondary forests in contrast with the habitat of C. brachyotis (Abdullah 2003). We caught C. cf. brachyotis Forest in the forest fringes in the same nets that netted C. brachyotis, indicating that these two species although occurs in contrasting habitats but may meet at forest fringes. This undescribed species (see Simmons 2005) is not listed in IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species (2008) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Cynopterus horsfieldii Gray, 1843: This is a new record for Gunung Stong State Park. This species is known to be a forest dwelling Cynopterus, commonly caught at the ecotones and may occur sympatric with C. cf. brachyotis Forest but there are records of this species netted in oil palm plantations and in Pulau Tioman (Lim et al. 1999). The capture rate of this species was the highest in this study, which was highly in contrast when compared with trapping

Image 2. Female C. horsfieldii (left) with less prominent sagittal crest versus male C. horsfieldii with prominent sagittal crest (A) Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

2621

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

results in similar vegetations in Borneo (see Jayaraj et al. 2011) whereas in Pahang the capture rate of this species is similar with C. brachyotis (see Lim et al. 2008). Individuals of this species were caught in all three forms of habitat (ecotones, hill forest and limestone areas). Sexual dimorphism of skulls was apparent, where in male skulls have more prominent sagittal crest compared to female skulls (Image 2). This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008a) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Cynopterus sphinx (Vahl, 1797): This is a new record for Gunung Stong State Park. The social structure of C. sphinx was previously studied by Storz et al. (2000) and they found out that this species exhibits a polygynous mating system, with males having varying harem size from six to 13 females. Lim et al. (2008) suggested that the distribution pattern of C. sphinx should be investigated as little is known about the current distribution of this species in Malaysia. Clinal variation in terms of size of this species was discussed by Storz et al. (2001) and our observations (unpublished data) indicate that C. sphinx is not highly adaptable in Peninsular Malaysia incongruent with observations of Bates et al. (2008b). Although widespread the abundance of this species is determined by the type of vegetation sampled (Campbell et al. 2006). In Gunung Stong State Park the forearm length of this species was 74.52Âą3.87 mm and this species was netted in the hill vegetation and near bamboo plots beside the forest fringe. Struebig et al. (2005) netted this species near fruiting figs trees and this is commonly observed across Peninsular Malaysia with other Cynopterans. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008b) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Penthetor lucasi (Dobson, 1880): This is a new record for Gunung Stong State Park. Only one individual was caught near the forest fringe throughout the survey. This cave dwelling species normally roosts in large numbers and may have a population size up to 70,845 individuals [mark recapture model estimates in Wind Cave Nature Reserve Sarawak, Malaysia by Barapoi (2004)]. A recent study by Rahman & Abdullah (2010) indicated that there are two or more morphologically distinct forms of P. lucasi from 2622

different localities in Sarawak. It is quite possible that such a distinct form also existed in Peninsular Malaysia. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008c) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Eonycteris spelaea (Dobson, 1871): This is a new record for Gunung Stong State Park. Five individuals of this species were caught near the limestone area throughout the survey. Daytime survey in the cave revealed that this species was abundant in the Gua Ikan. Previously, this species was netted at Gua Musang, Kelantan (Shabrina 1991). Mariana et al. (2005) and Shukor et al. (2005) did not record this species in their survey most probably because their nets were not placed near the cave. Anwarali et al. (2008) observed that individuals from Peninsular Malaysia versus Borneo had a genetic distance of 1%. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Francis et al. 2008) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Macroglossus sobrinus K. Andersen, 1911: This species is common in many forest types in Malaysia but has been associated with flowering banana plots and mangrove areas. We collected five individuals of M. sobrinus near the river and similarly Shukor et al. (2005) and Mariana et al. (2005) collected 19 individuals of this species in their expeditions. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Hutson et al. 2008). Rhinolophus affinis Horsfield, 1823: Only one individual was caught in this survey near Gua Ikan. This highly adaptable and common species can be found in most protected areas in Malaysia and are generally abundant in most sites sampled. However, Lim et al. (2008) and Kingston et al. (2008) stated that this species is a common under-storey forest bat that is confined to caves. Shukor et al. (2005) collected 21 individuals of this species while Mariana et al. (2005) collected 29 individuals indicating high abundance of this species in Gunung Stong State Park. Approximately 4% in cyt-b genetic distance observed between Bornean individuals and a single individual from Thailand in Anwarali et al. (2008) and this may have some significance in this study as this individual from Gunung Stong State Park may have similar genetic difference with Bornean samples. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2628

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

Threatened Species (Walston et al. 2008) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Myotis muricola (Gray, 1846): This is a new record for Gunung Stong State Park and Kelantan. We netted this species near the bamboo plots but this species is generally netted in open areas, heath forest, peat swamps, streams and rivers near forest, and agricultural plots (Struebig et al. 2006; Francis 2008). The Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010) indicates that this species is widely distributed in peninsular Malaysia. Francis (2008) mentioned that this species maybe a complex species based on genetic analyses but diagnostic characters and appropriate names have yet to be assigned (see Anwarali et al. 2008). Only one individual was recorded throughout the survey and this species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008d) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Tylonycteris pachypus (Temminck, 1840): This species was netted near bamboo plots and a total of four individuals were collected throughout the survey. Shukor et al. (2005) collected only two individuals in their survey but we believe that this species maybe more abundant in Gunung Stong State Park based on the presence of many bamboo plots and observations of slit in the internodes of the bamboos. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008e) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Tylonycteris robustula Thomas, 1915: This is a species of bat associated with bamboos (Anwarali et al 2008; Francis 2008) and is a sister species with T. pachypus (Francis 2008). We collected only one individual of T. robustula in this survey, whereas Mariana et al. (2005) and Shukor et al. (2005) collected four individuals in their surveys. Similarly this species was netted in the same net as T. pachypus, reinforcing the idea that this species does share roosting sites with T. pachypus (Francis 2008). Francis (2008) did mention that there are differences in roost site selection of both species; T. robustula prefer large and dead bamboos whereas T. pachypus prefer live bamboo stems, but both species may share the same roost hole. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Bates et al. 2008f) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010).

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Maxomys surifer (Miller, 1900): We collected only one individual of M. surifer near Gua Ikan, but previously Shukor et al. (2005) collected three individuals of this species near the vicinity of site A (sampling site of present study). This species is the most abundant small mammal trapped in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, central Thailand (Walker & Rabinowitz 1992). M. surifer and M. rajah have rarely been caught in the same area but Shukor et al. (2005) collected one M. rajah in this state park, indicating that both species may co-occur in the same area but this needs further confirmation. This species is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Aplin et al. 2008a) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Maxomys whiteheadi (Thomas, 1894): We trapped two individuals of this species near Gua Ikan (limestone area) but Francis (2008) stated that generally, this species can be found in tall and old secondary forests and occasionally encroaching disturbed areas in the vicinity of these forests. Wilson et al. (2006) trapped this species in an acacia plantation and a fragmented forest in Borneo. There was also a record of this species occurring in mangrove swamp and secondary forest at Kuala Selangor State Park (Chuluun et al. 2005). This species is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Aplin et al. 2008b) due to significant population decline for the past 10 years but is listed as Least Concern in the Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Sundamys muelleri (Jentink, 1879): This species has a wide distribution and was normally caught near rivers (Francis 2008). Incidentally, this big rodent was caught in the limestone area of Gua Ikan where there is a river flowing into the cave. Previously this species was caught by Lim (1970) at Sungai Durian Forest Reserve and Mariana et al. (2005) in Gunung Stong State Park. In Borneo this species was caught on the ground or low trees (Wilson et al. 2006). Zakaria et al. (2011) found that this species can survive in disturbed habitats. Ruedas et al. (2008a) assigned the status Least Concern for this species in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species which was congruent with the Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Niviventer cremoriventer (Miller, 1900): Only one N. cremoriventer was caught in this survey at Site A. This species has been recorded in tall and secondary

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2628

2623

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Discussion

forests, forest area and lightly wooded areas (Francis 2008). Lim et al. (2008) trapped this species in a disturbed secondary forest at Lakum Forest Reserve, Pahang. In Mount Nuang Hulu Langat, this species has been recorded right up to 1350m asl (Shukor et al. 2001; Batin et al. 2002) and Francis (2008) mentioned that this species can be found up to 1900 m asl. This species is listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species due to significant population decline for the past 10 years (Ruedas et al. 2008b) and is listed as Least Concern in the Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010). Leopoldamys sabanus (Thomas, 1887): We collected a total of six individuals from both trapping sites, dominating non-volant small mammal captures in this study. This species is common in many types of forests in Malaysia and is threatened by clearing of forests (Lim et al. 2008). Individuals of this species were found to be highly infested with ectoparasites and previously Mariana et al. (2005) recorded ticks, Mesostigmatid mites and chiggers on individuals trapped in this same area. It is listed as Least Concern in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Lunde et al. 2008) and Red List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (DWNP 2010).

This survey recorded 11 species of bats and six species of non-volant small mammals with one new record for Kelantan (Myotis muricola) and four additional distributional records for Gunung Stong State Park (Cynopterus horsfieldii, C. sphinx and Penthetor lucasi). Bats from the family Pteropodidae dominated the captures as compared to Shukor et al. (2005) and Mariana et al. (2005) who recorded more insectivorous bats. Leopoldamys sabanus (six individuals) dominated the captures for non-volant small mammals followed by Maxomys whiteheadi (two individuals), while the remaining species (M. surifer, S. muelleri N. cremoriventer and Callosciurus sp.) recorded only one individual each. This in-turn increased the total number of small mammals known to occur in Gunung Stong State Park from 28 species to 35 species. The sampling effort for this survey was not adequate in documenting total chiropteran community at Gunung Stong State Park as the graph is yet to reach and asymptotic level. In Kuala Lompat, Krau Wildlife Reserve, a total of 837 harp-trap nights and 1573 net hours (786 hours for ground nets, 606 hours for stacked nets, 147 hours for canopy nets and 34 hours for river nets) were needed to document total insectivorous bat diversity (Kingston et al. 2003). Hall et al. (2004)

Table 2. List of species caught, net nights and capture rate of non-volant small mammals in this study Species

Site 1

Site 2

Total

Shukor et al. 2005

Mariana et al.2005

Rattus tiomanicus

Maxomys whiteheadi

Maxomys surifer

Maxomys rajah

Sundamys muelleri

Niviventer cremoriventer

Leopoldamys sabanus

Callosciurus nigrovittatus

Callosciurus sp. (sighted)

Total no. of individuals

No. of species

Muridae

Sciuridae

No. of family Trap-days Capture rate

2624

150

300

525

225

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2628

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

showed that generally a total effort of 30 net nights was needed to document total fruit bat composition in most areas in southern Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia and Borneo. In this study, the 54 net nights were not adequate in documenting total chiropteran fauna and to compensate this inadequacy, further surveys can be done on a long term basis. The low trapping rate of harp traps in this study (averaging one individual per night) contributed to the overall low diversity of insect bats captured in this study. Nonetheless our positioning of the harp traps near the forest edge and beside the river may not be effective if the bats do not use the presumed flyways. The low capture rate of non-volant small mammals and the absence of treeshrews and squirrels may be caused by the choice of bait used and trap placement in this study. Previous studies on nonvolant small mammals do indicate bait selection by small mammals, as Bernard (2003) mentioned that the local banana variety â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;pisang emasâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; (Musa acuminata) generally produces the best capture rate. In this study, we used pineapples as bait and the traps were placed on the forest floor which may be selective for trapping rats and treeshrews. The importance of Gunung Stong State Park for conservation of small mammals is yet to be explored but this recent survey revealed some major findings; First, Gunung Stong State Park is the second known protected area in Malaysia where all four species of Cynopterus that can be found in Peninsular Malaysia (C. brachyotis, C. cf. brachyotis Forest, C. horsfieldii and sphinx) co-exist. Previous records of such occurrences in Malaysia were only in Perlis State Park and Taiping, Perak (Campbell et al. 2004, 2006). Sungai Dusun may be another area where all four species co-exist but this needs to be confirmed (Abdullah 2003; Hall et al. 2004). Other records of such observations include Thaleban National Park, Thailand (Abdullah 2003; Hall et al. 2004; Abdullah et al. 2007). Abdullah et al. (2007) stated that having three species of Cynopterus netted in the same area was unusual, and they relate their observation way back in 1997 as due to lack of resource partitioning, diet overlap, or similar roosting, emergence time and flight behavior of the species. The results of this study show that all four species of Cynopterus meet at the ecotones (based on netting results) and such area may be the place where lack of space partitioning between these congenerics occur.

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

The habitat use of these four species can also be divided into open areas and forested areas, thus we speculate that the existence of such areas together with the ecotones in the vicinity and in Gunung Stong State Park may contribute to the conservation of these fruit bats. Second, this area also recorded three species of Maxomys, with M. rajah and M. whiteheadi listed as Vulnerable in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (Aplin et al. 2008 a,b). N. cremoriventer also joins the list of Vulnerable species that can be found in this protected area making Gunung Stong State Park an important area for the conservation of these rodents in peninsular Malaysia. These animals are primarily forest dependent species and are not found outside of forested areas (Aplin et al. 2008a,b; Ruedas et al. 2008b) and are threatened by clearing of forests (Lim et al. 2008), thus protected areas are the only areas where significant conservation planning and effort can be put in place. The conservation of bats and small mammals are generally overlooked in many protected area management plans in this country except enigmatic species such as the large flying fox Pteropus vampyrus and naked bats Chiromeles torquatus which have some form of economic or aesthetic value. Conservation of small mammals primarily depends on the establishment of protected areas and controlling human activities or disturbance in the vicinity and the protected area itself with good enforcement of local wildlife protection laws. Thus, it is important that knowledge on the diversity of small mammals in protected areas are known for monitoring and management purposes. Gunung Stong State Park as a newly established protected area which requires more data on the diversity and abundance of various taxa including small mammals and it is imperative that relevant institutions such as Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) support such work by contributing local knowledge on biodiversity in Kelantan. This study is a part of a series of three papers about Kelantan small mammals that will be published based on recent small mammal surveys in the state.

REFERENCES Abdullah, M.T. (2003). Biogeography and variation of Cynopterus brachyotis in southeast Asia. PhD Thesis.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2628

2625

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Department of Zoology and Entomology, The University of Queensland, xiv+233pp. Abdullah, M.T., M.A. Rahman & L.S. Hall (1997a). New records for bats in Sarawak, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal 50: 365–367. Abdullah, M.T., H., Siswanto A., Widiyanto, A. Setiabudi & Firmansyah (1997b). Abundance, diversity and distributional records of bats in disturbed habitats in Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia. Sarawak Museum Journal 51(72): 75–84. Abdullah, M.T., C. Moritz, G.C. Grigg & L.S. Hall (2000). Evidence of cryptic species within Cynopterus brachyotis by using mtDNA sequence, pp. 403–408. In: Yaacob, Z., S. Moo-Tan & S. Yorath (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on In-Situ And Ex-Situ Biodiversity Conservation in the New Millenium. Yayasan Sabah, Kota Kinabalu. Abdullah, M.T., P. Jusanit, P.W.H. Di, M.Z. Ariffin & L.S. Hall (2007). Observations on bats in three national parks in Thailand. Tiger paper 34(4): 5–10. Anwarali, F.A.K., S.N. Sazali, V.K. Jayaraj, S. Aban, K.M. Zaini, B. Ketol, J.J.R. Ryan, A.M. Julaihi, L.S. Hall & M.T. Abdullah (2007). Survey of bats in the tropical lowland dipterocarp forest of Bako National Park, Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Sarawak Museum Journal 63(84): 267– 300. Anwarali, F.A.K., V.J. Swier, S. Solari, P.A. Larsen, B. Ketol, W. Marni, S. Ellagupillay, M. Lakim, M.T. Abdullah, & R.J. Baker (2008). Using genetics and morphology to examine species diversity of Old World bats: report of a recent collection from Malaysia. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 281: 1–28. Aplin, K., D. Lunde & G. Musser (2008a). Maxomys surifer. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Aplin, K., D. Lunde, & L. Ruedas (2008b). Maxomys whiteheadi. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Azlan, J.M., J. Neuchlos & M.T. Abdullah (2005). Diversity of chiropterans in limestone forest area, Bau, Sarawak. Malaysian Applied Biology 34(1): 59 - 64. Barapoi, I.P. (2004). Population size estimation of Penthetor lucasi in Wind Cave, Bau, Sarawak. BSc Thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan, Sarawak. Bates, P., C. Francis, M.Gumal & S. Bumrungsri (2008a). Cynopterus horsfieldii. In: IUCN (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Bates, P., S. Bumrungsri, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008b). Cynopterus sphinx. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Bates, P., S. Bumrungsri, A. Suyanto, C. Francis, T. Kingston & I. Maryanto (2008c). Penthetor lucasi. In: IUCN 2011. 2626

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Bates, P., G. Csorba, S. Bumringsri, T. Kingston, C. Francis, G. Rosell-Ambal, B. Tabaranza, L. Heaney, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008d). Myotis muricola. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Bates, P., C. Francis, G. Rosell-Ambal, L. Heaney, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008e). Tylonycteris pachypus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Bates, P., C. Francis, G. Rosell-Ambal& L. Heaney (2008f). Tylonycteris robustula. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Batin, Z., M.N. Shukor & A.M. Yusoff (2002). Influence of elevational habitat changes on non-volant small mammal species distribution and diversity on Mount Nuang, Hulu, Langat, Selangor Malaysia. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 5(8): 819–824. Bernard, H. (2003). Bait preferences of some small mammal species of North Borneo based on line-trapping with wiremesh cage traps. Sabah Parks Nature Journal 6: 27–44. Bourliere, F. (1975). Mammals, small and large: the ecological implications of size, pp. 1–9. In: Golly, F.B., K. Petrusewicza & L. Ryszkowski (eds.). Small Mammals: Their Productivity and Production. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Campbell, P., C.J. Schneider, A.M. Adnan, A. Zubaid & T.H. Kunz (2004). Phylogeny and phylogeography of Old World fruit bats in the Cynopterus brachyotis complex. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33(3): 764-781. Campbell, P., C.J. Schneider, A.M. Adnan, A. Zubaid & T.H. Kunz (2006). Comparative population structure of Cynopterus fruit bats in Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand. Molecular Ecology 15: 29–47. Campbell, P., C.J. Schneider, A.M. Adnan, A. Zubaid & T.H. Kunz (2007). Morphological and ecological correlates of coexistence in Malaysian fruit bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae). Journal of Mammalogy 88(1): 105–118. Chuluun, B., A. Mariana, T. Ho & B. Mohd Kulaimi (2005). A preliminary survey of ectoparasites of small mammals in Kuala Selangor Nature Park. Tropical Biomedicine 22(2): 243–24. Csorba, G., S.Bumrungsri, C. Francis, P. Bates, M. Gumal, T. Kingston, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008). Cynopterus brachyotis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. DWNP (2010). Red List of Mammals For Peninsular Malaysia. Department of Wildlife and National Parks Peninsular Malaysia, 150pp. Fong, P.H. (2011). Genetic variation and population structure of the genus Cynopterus in Malaysia. MSc Thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Kota Samarahan.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

Francis, C.M. (2008). A Guide To The Mammals Of Southeast Asia. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 392pp. Francis, C., G. Rosell-Ambal, B. Tabaranza, P. Carino, K. Helgen, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008). Eonycteris spelaea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Hall, L.S., G. Richards & M.T. Abdullah (2002). The bats of Niah National Park, Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal 77(78): 254–281. Hall, L.S., G.G. Grigg, C. Moritz, B. Ketol, I. Sait, W. Marni & M.T. Abdullah (2004). Biogeography of fruit bats in Southeast Asia. Sarawak Museum Journal 60(81):191– 284. Hutson, A.M., A. Suyanto, T. Kingston, P. Bates, C. Francis, S. Molur & C. Srinivasulu (2008). Macroglossus sobrinus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Jayaraj, V.K. (2009). The phylogenetic relationships of Megachiroptera in Malaysia inferred from morphological and DNA analyses. MSc Thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sarawak. Jayaraj, V.K., B. Ketol, W. Marni, I. Sait, M.J. Mortada, F.A.K. Anwarali, P.H. Fong, L.S. Hall & M.T. Abdullah (2011). Comparative distribution and diversity of bats from selected localities in Sarawak. Borneo Journal of Resource Science and Technology 1(1): 1–13. Jayaraj, V.K., C.J. Laman & M.T. Abdullah (2012). A predictive model to differentiate C. brachyotis from C. cf. brachyotis Forest (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae) from Malaysia using Multivariate Analysis. Zoological Studies 51(2): 259–271. Karim, C., A.A. Tuen & M.T. Abdullah (2004). Mammals. Sarawak Museum Journal Special Issue No. 6(80): 221– 234. Kingston, T., C.M. Francis, A. Zubaid & T.H. Kunz (2003). Species richness in an insectivorous bat assemblage from Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 67–79. Kingston, T., B.L. Lim & Z. Akbar (2006). Bats of Krau Wildlife Reserve. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Publishers, Kuala Lumpur. Latiff, A. & I. Faridah-Hanum (2005). Effectiveness of Gunung Stong State Park in protecting biodiversity and promoting education and research in Kelantan, pp. 44–59. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Lim, B.L., K.K.P. Lim & H.S. Yong (1999). The terrestrial mammals of Pulau Tioman, Peninsular Malaysia, with a catalogue of specimens at the Raffles Museum, National University of Singapore. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 6: 101–123. Lim, B.L., M.K.M. Khan, K.S. Chai & C.C. Lim (2008).

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Pre-logging survey of herpetological and mammal fauna at Lakum Forest Reserve, Raub, Pahang, Malaysia. Journal of Science and Technology in the Tropics 4: 99–116. Lunde, D., K. Aplin, L. Rueda & S. Molur (2008). Leopoldamys sabanus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Mariana, A., Z. Zuraidawati,, T.M. Ho, B.M. Kulaimi, I. Saleh, M.N. Shukor & M.S. Shahrul-Anuar (2005). A survey of ectoparasites in Gunung Stong Forest Reserve, Kelantan, Malaysia. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health 36(5): 1125–1131. Maseri, N.M. & A.H. Mohd-Ros (2005). Managing Gunung Stong State Park: A conceptual framework, pp. 31–43. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Pue, G.H. & A. Latiff (2005). Kepelbagaian dan pengurusan hidupan liar di Kelantan, pp. 253–260. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum &A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan SosioEkonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Rahman, M.R.A. & M.T. Abdullah (2011). Memecahkan Kod DNA Cecadu Hitam Pudar. Dewan Kosmik, Majalah Sains dan Teknologi, Jun 2011. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, 32–33pp. Ruedas, L., D. Lunde & K. Aplin (2008a). Sundamys muelleri. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Ruedas, L., K. Aplin, G. Musser & D. Lunde (2008b). Niviventer cremoriventer. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Shukor, M.N., M.S. Shahrul Anuar, E. Nurul ‘Ain, M. Norzalipah, A. Norhayati, A. Nadzri, Y. Ahmed, O. Mohd Yusof, M. Ganesan & S. Kalimuthu (2005). Tinjauan mamalia kecil di Hutan Simpan Gunung Stong, pp. 227–236. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum &A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Simmons, N.B. (2005). Order Chiroptera, pp. xx-xx. In: Wilson, D.E. & D.M. Reeder (eds.). Mammal species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographical Reference—3rd Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Storz, J.F., H.R. Bhat & T.H. Kunz (2000). Social structure of a polygynous Tent-making Bat, Cynopterus sphinx (Megachiroptera). Journal of Zoology 251: 151–165. Storz, J.F., H.R. Bhat & T.H. Kunz (2001). Genetic consequences of polygyny and social structure in an Indian

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

2627

Small mammals of Gunung Stong

V.K. Jayaraj et al.

Fruit Bat, Cynopterus sphinx. II. Variance in male mating success and effective population size. Evolution 55: 1224–1232. Struebig, M.J., S.J., Rossiter, P.J.J. Bates, T. Kingston, S.S.L. Oo, A.A. Nwe, M.M. Aung, S.S. WIN & K.M. Mya (2005). Results of a recent bat survey in Upper Myanmar including new records from the Kachin forests. Acta Chiropterologica 7(1): 147–163. Struebig, M.J., B.M.F. Galdikas & Suatma (2006). Bat diversity in oligotrophic forests of southern Borneo. Oryx 40(4): 1–13. Walker, S. & A. Rabinowitz (1992). The small-mammal community of a dry-tropical forest in central Thailand. Journal of Tropical Ecology 8: 57–71. Walston, J., T. Kingston & A.M. Hutson (2008). Rhinolophus affinis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist. org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2011. Wilson, D.E., K.M. Helgen, C.S. Yun & B. Giman (2006). Small mammal survey at two sites in planted forest zone, Bintulu, Sarawak. Malayan Nature Journal 59(2): 165–187. Yusoff, M.K., R. Harun, A. Muda, A.R. Haron, J.N. Jahaya, M. Z. Ismail, N.S. Mohd Resali, N.A. Khairuddin & M. Mohammad (2005). Status kualiti air di Hutan Simpan Kekal Gunung Stong, pp. 81–90. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum &A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan SosioEkonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Zafir, A.W.A., A.K. Johanssen, M.R. Darmaraj, O. Ansel, D.S.K. Sharma & S. Suksuwan (2005). Camera-trapping and observations of the larger animals West Kelantan Forests complex, pp. 246–252. In: Shaharudin M.I., T. Dahalan, S.S. Abdullah, M.S. Jalil, I. Faridah-Hanum & A. Latiff (eds.). Taman Negeri Gunung Stong, Kelantan: Pengurusan, Persekitaran Fizikal, Biologi dan Sosio-Ekonomi. Siri Kepelbagaian Biologi Hutan 5. Jabatan Perhutanan Semenanjung Malaysia, 442pp. Zakaria, M., N. Musa & M.M. Top (2011). Composition of non-volant small mammals in different ages of rehabilitated forest. Rehabilitation of Tropical Rainforest Ecosystems 24–25 October 2011, Kuala Lumpur. Universiti Putra Malaysia - Mitsubishi Corporation, 169–178pp.

2628

Author Details: Vijaya Kumaran Jayaraj is Malaysian mammalogists currently attached to Universiti Malaysia Kelantan who has regularly written and publish papers on small mammal diversity in Malaysia. He is currently pursuing his PhD on phylogeographic relationship of treeshrews in Peninsular Malaysia at Universiti Sains Malaysia under the supervision of Associate Professor Dr. Ahmad Sofiman Othman and Associate Professor Dr. Sharul Anuar Mohd Sah. Nurul Farah Diyana Ahmad Tahir, Noor Amirah Udin, Noor Farahin Kamarul Baharin, Siti Katijah Ismail and Siti Noor Azwa Zakaria are all students pursuing their BSc (Hons) in Natural Resource Management at Universiti Malaysia Kelantan. Acknowledgements: The principle investigator Jayaraj Vijaya Kumaran would like to thank Professor Dr. Mohd. Tajuddin Abdullah and Isham Azhar for their comments and suggestions in improving the draft of this paper. He would also like to thank Siti Hajar Muhamad Daud for her help in getting the GPS reading for Gua Ikan and Miss Fong Pooi Har for the assistance during reexamination of specimens. We extend our gratitude to Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) for various administrative and logistic supports and we would also like to thank the management of Gunung Stong State Park for their support and hospitality throughout the survey. This study was actually a class activity for the subject Park and Protected area Management and we would like to thank Mr. Mohamad Rohanif Mohamed Ali, Mr. Muhammad Che Isa, Miss. Nur Aiashah Ibrahim, Miss. Nur Izzati Salleh, Miss. Zalina Che Man, Natural Resource Science students and all those who were involved for their effort in making this a successful event. We would also like to thank the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN) for approval to conduct research on wildlife in Kelantan. The quality of this paper has also been significantly improved by the critical comments of an anonymous reviewer and we are grateful to him for his contribution. This study was partially funded by two grants namely Ministry of Higher Education Fundamental Research Grant (MOHE FRGS: R/FRGS/A03.00/00481A/002/2011/000043) awarded to Jayaraj Vijaya Kumaran, Zulhazman Bin Hamzah, Professor Dr. Mohd Tajuddin Abdullah, Dr. Yuzine Esa, Faisal Ali Anwarali Khan and Jeffrine Rovie Ryan Japning and Universiti Malaysia Kelantan Short Term Grant (UMK SGJP: R/SGJP/ A03.00/00481A/001/2010/000037) awarded to Jayaraj Vijaya Kumaran, Dr. Wong Yee Ching and Dr. Abdul Rahman Aziz.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2617–2628

JoTT Communication

4(6): 2629–2636

Predicting effects of rainforest fragmentation from live trapping studies of small mammals in Sri Lanka Mayuri R. Wijesinghe Department of Zoology, University of Colombo, Cumaratunga Munidasa Mawatha, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka Email: mayuri@zoology.cmb.ac.lk

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: Giovanni Amori Manuscript details: Ms # o2994 Received 08 November 2011 Final received 23 May 2012 Finally accepted 29 May 2012 Citation: Wijesinghe, M.R. (2012). Predicting effects of rainforest fragmentation from live trapping studies of small mammals in Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2629–2636. Copyright: © Mayuri R. Wijesinghe 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Author Details: Dr. Mayuri R. Wijesinghe is a Senior Lecturer in Zoology attached to the University of Colombo, Sri Lanka. Her expertise lies in the fields of Conservation Biology and Toxicology. Her research focuses on collecting baseline data on the distribution and habitat requirements of many rodents and shrews and on investigating reasons for their vulnerability to forest destruction and fragmentation. She also studies the impact of agrochemicals and heavy metal pollutants on the survival, growth, development and histopathology of larval stages of amphibians. Acknowledgments: I am very grateful to the National Science Foundation for granting financial assistance (2004/Zoo/B2) for this project. I am also thankful to the Forest Department and the Department of Wildlife Conservation for granting me permission to work in the selected forests.

National Science Foundation, Sri Lanka

OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

Abstract: This paper examines the impact of forest fragmentation on small mammals inhabiting the rainforests of Sri Lanka. Fifteen forests ranging in size from 145 to 11000 ha were live-trapped for five to eight nights each in both interior and edge habitats, yielding a total of 18400 trap nights. A total of 444 individuals belonging to 10 species of small mammals were captured. Multiple-regression analysis incorporating three indicators of fragmentation: patch area, shape index (perimeter/area) and degree of isolation, showed no significant effects on overall species richness of small mammals. This is likely because the decline of forest-adapted species from small forest fragments was accompanied by an increase in more tolerant and adaptive species. Patch size, however, had a significant positive effect on the abundance of small mammals. Of the two dominant species, the endemic Mus mayori was positively affected by patch area whilst Rattus rattus was not affected. Although no differences were evident between interior and edge habitats with respect to total species richness and abundance, endemics were more abundant in core areas while the reverse was true for the nonendemics. Core forest areas were significantly different from forest edges with respect to canopy cover, density of herbaceous vegetation, large trees and litter cover. These results suggest that forest fragmentation is detrimental to some forest specialists and beneficial to some generalists. Keywords: Edge effects, endemics, fragmentation, rainforests, small mammals, Sri Lanka.

Introduction The global decline of biodiversity has been primarily attributed to habitat loss and fragmentation of natural landscapes. Not surprisingly, many studies have focused on the effects of forest fragmentation on the distribution and abundance of different animal taxa (Walters 1991; Boone & Keller 1993; Malcolm 1994). Forest destruction and fragmentation may affect fauna in several ways. As forests become increasingly fragmented the smaller remnant patches support fewer species (e.g. Debinski & Holt 2000; Laurance et al. 2000; Cox et al. 2004). The creation of edge habitats at the interphase where the forest meets man-modified habitats facilitates invasion of competitors or predators and/or exposes forest species to unsuitable external environmental conditions (Yahner 1988); a linear forest would be exposed to greater edge effects than a circular forest patch having the same area. Also, as forests become increasingly isolated, inter-patch migration becomes more difficult. This factor is particularly important for faunal taxa that have a metapopulation structure which necessitates frequent mixing of populations between different forest patches (Diffendorfer et al. 1995). Based on these factors it could be predicted that small, isolated and irregularly-shaped forests would support the lowest faunal diversity. However, all species are not equally sensitive to habitat fragmentation. For example species vulnerability to

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June | 4(6): 2629–2636

2629

Fragmentation and small mammals

M.R. Wijesinghe

forest fragmentation depends on habitat preferences (Andrén 1994). Generalist species, capable of using the original forest, its borders and the surrounding matrix, are less affected than species restricted to the use of the forest alone. The tropical rainforests in southwestern Sri Lanka harbour a rich complement of flora and fauna, with a large proportion of species being endemic to the island. Because of high levels of endemism and the exceptional levels of threat facing the biota, the wet zone in the southwest of the country has been recognized as a biodiversity hotspot (Myers 1990; Myers et al. 2000). Southwestern Sri Lanka, together with the Western Ghats of India, has the highest human population density among the hotspots (Cincotta et al. 2000). Increasing human settlements, urbanization and agricultural expansion has resulted in intense habitat degradation and fragmentation of the once extensive forests, which now cover a mere eight per cent of Sri Lanka’s wet zone land area. So far, no study has attempted to examine the influence of spatial attributes of forest fragments and/or edge effects on the fauna inhabiting these rainforests in Sri Lanka. The present live trapping study aimed to investigate the effects of forest area, shape, degree of isolation and the edge effects on species richness and abundance of small mammals in rainforest fragments of southwestern Sri Lanka with a view to ascertaining the overall effects of forest loss and fragmentation on this community. Small mammals are of special interest as they make a significant contribution to the country’s biological diversity and endemism representing over 30 per cent of the mammals and over 60 per cent of the endemic mammals inhabiting the island.

Methods Selected rainforests A total of 15 rainforests ranging in size from 145 to 11000 ha were surveyed for small mammals from 2006 to 2009 in: Kombala-Kottawa, Kanneliya, Dombagaskanda, Kalugala, Morapitiya, Delwala, Delgoda, Dellawa, Masimbula, Warathalgoda, Kalubowitiyana, Sinharaja, Walankanda, Yagirala and Kudumeriya in the four districts of Ratnapura, Kalutara, Galle and Matara in southwestern Sri Lanka. These are low to mid elevation forests with tropical 2630

wet evergreen forest vegetation (de Rosayro 1950). The forests are dominated by tree species of the family Dipterocarpaceae. Capturing small mammals Small mammal communities were assessed using live trapping. Two trapping grids were laid, one at the edge of the forest starting at the boundary (edge habitat) and the other in the forest interior at least 500m away from the forest boundary (core habitat). Each trapping grid consisted of 50 Sherman’s live traps laid at 10m intervals and baited with lightly roasted coconut kernel. This method has been successfully used for live trapping small mammals in Sri Lankan rainforests in the past (Wijesinghe & de Brooke 2005). Live trapping was conducted for five to eight nights twice or thrice during the study period yielding a total of 18400 trap nights. A live trapping of four nights has been recognized as being sufficient for the comparison of small mammal communities between forests (Wijesinghe 2010). Traps were checked and rebaited each morning and captured individuals were released at the point of capture after identification. Fur clipping enabled the identification of recaptured individuals within each trapping session of a maximum of eight days. The abundance of each species of small mammal was taken to be the number of new animals captured during each individual trapping session in a given forest, following Wijesinghe & Brooke (2005), Molur & Singh (2009), Ratnaweera & Wijesinghe (2009), and Wijesinghe (2010). Fragmentation indices Information on patch size, length of periphery and the distance to the nearest forest fragment for the 15 surveyed forests was obtained from the most recent digital maps provided by the Forest Department, Sri Lanka. If a forest was connected to another forest, the degree of isolation was taken to be zero. The shape index for each of the forests was calculated according to Gkaraveli et al. (2001) where Shape index = Perimeter of fragment / Area of fragment. Habitat assessments A total of 10 microhabitat parameters were identified that could be potentially affected by fragmentation in each of the two trapping grids at the edges and core areas of the selected forests. They were

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

Fragmentation and small mammals

canopy cover, number of seedlings (small plants below the height of ½m), number of non-woody herbaceous plants, number of trees with a girth at breast height (gbh) of less than 20cm, number of large trees (trees with over 20cm gbh), litter depth, litter cover, light intensity, relative humidity and temperature at a height of one metre from the ground. These were measured in six 5x5 m quadrats which were evenly distributed throughout each of the two trapping grids. The canopy was estimated cover using a plastic pipe (sighting tube with a diameter of 2.5cm), one end of which was covered by a piece of cellophane marked with a grid. When looking vertically upwards through the pipe towards the sky, the grid squares in which the view in at least half the area was intercepted by the canopy was counted and used to calculate the percentage canopy cover. Five readings were taken at the four corners and middle of each of the 5x5 m quadrats. The number of seedlings, non-woody herbaceous plants, small tress and large trees were counted within each of the six 5x5 m quadrats. Litter depth was measured at the four corners and middle of each quadrat using a ruler. This also included the humus layer. The litter cover was estimated at the four corners and middle of each quadrat using a square mesh of 25x25 cm with subdivisions of 5x5 cm squares. The number of squares where more than half the square was covered by litter was counted and used to calculate the percentage litter cover. Temperature, relative humidity and light intensities (Yu Pung YF 172) were measured using standard portable meters (Yu Pung YF 180).

Results The small mammal community in the wet zone forests A total of 444 individuals belonging to 10 species, eight rodents and two shrews, were recorded from the 15 rainforests. Five of these species Mus mayori Thomas, 1915 (Spiny Mouse), Srilankamys ohiensis Philllips, 1929 (Sri Lanka Bicolored Rat), Funambulus layardi Blyth, 1849 (Flame-striped Jungle Squirrel), Crocidura miya Phillips, 1929 (Sri Lanka Longtailed Shrew) and Suncus zeylanicus Phillips, 1928 (Sri Lanka Jungle Shrew) are endemic, with one of them (S. ohiensis) belonging to an endemic genus. The non-endemics recorded were Mus booduga Gray,

M.R. Wijesinghe

1837 (Field Mouse), Rattus rattus Linnaeus, 1758 (Common Rat), Vandeleuria oleracea Bennett, 1832 (Long-tailed Tree Mouse), Funambulus sublineatus Waterhouse, 1838 (Dusky-striped Jungle Squirrel) and Funambulus palmarum Linnaeus, 1766 (Palm Squirrel). The capture rate (number of captures per 100 trap nights was 3.09 per cent. The two predominant species M. mayori and R. rattus comprised 90 per cent of the small mammal community. Effect of forest fragmentation on small mammals Table 1 shows the summarized results of the trapping survey in the 15 forests. Multiple regressions were conducted incorporating the three indicators of fragmentation, i.e. the area, shape and the degree of isolation of the forests, as independent variables and species richness or abundance as the dependent variable. These analyses revealed that species richness was not significantly affected by any of the three factors (species richness = -0.242 + 0.000025area – 0.714shape – 0.0523isolation; F = 2.76, P>0.05), but that abundance was significantly and positively affected by patch size (abundance = 2.12 + 0.000148area -2.23shape - 0.161isolation; F=5.92, P>0.05). The three fragmentation indices contributed to around 40% of the variation in species richness and to 60% variation in abundance. Contrasting trends were observed with the two predominant species. Multiple-regressions incorporating abundance of the endemic M. mayori showed that around 80% of the variation in abundance was explained by the three factors with patch size having a positive and significant influence (M. mayori = 0.705 +.000095area – 0.846shape - 0.0947isolation; F=16.74, P<0.001). The positive value for area indicates that M. mayori is more abundant in larger forest patches than in smaller ones. It should be noted, however, that this species also utilized smaller forest patches to a certain extent (Table 1). Although not significant, the shape index had a negative impact on this species indicating that it preferred more circular patches. In the case of the other predominant species R. rattus, only 10% of the variation was explained by the three factors, with none of the factors having a significant impact (R. rattus = 1.43 – 0.000025area – 1.07shape – 0.117isolation; F=0.43, P>0.05). In the case of this too shape had a negative value indicating that it prefers circular forest patches. With regards to the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index [H’ = -∑(Pi ln Pi)]

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

2631

Fragmentation and small mammals

M.R. Wijesinghe

Table 1. Area, shape and distance to the nearest forest fragment of the selected forests and the species richness (S), abundance (number of species/individuals captured per 100 trap nights), abundance of the two predominant species Mus mayori (Mm) and Rattus rattus (Rr) and the diversity (H’) and evenness (E) values of the small mammal community of the fifteen rainforests. H’ and E values are from the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index. Area (ha)

Shape Index

Distance to the nearest forest (km)

Kanneliya

6143.0

0.007

0.00

Kottawa

2108.0

0.034

Dombagaslanda

449.0

0.024

Kalugala

4835.0

Morapitiya

7108.0

Delwala Delgoda

Forest

Abundance S

H’

1.53

1.26

1.42

0.91

1.18

0.68

2.27

0.64

0.91

0.68

2.27

2.36

1.18

1.09

0.83

1.73

3.18

1.45

1.55

0.81

1.69

0.36

2.00

0.73

1.09

0.98

1.63

0.14

1.93

0.64

1.29

0.64

2.13

0.00

0.21

2.79

1.07

1.64

0.77

1.6

0.45

0.29

2.43

0.71

1.57

0.48

0.8

0.026

0.00

0.36

2.73

1.09

1.45

0.93

1.55

Total

0.47

3.33

1.27

0.23

0.18

2.09

0.00

0.18

1.55

0.018

0.77

0.27

0.010

0.84

0.27

1531.0

0.015

0.00

1013.4

0.218

0.00

Dellawa

2231.5

0.018

Masimbula

299.2

0.004

Warathalgoda

1940.0

Kalubowitiyana

145.0

0.068

2.50

0.29

1.36

0.36

0.86

0.95

1.58

11000.0

0.009

0.00

0.57

3.14

1.57

0.71

1.49

1.66

Walankanda

938.9

0.030

0.00

0.14

1.57

0.43

1.14

0.59

1.96

Yagirala

2999.8

0.015

1.30

0.63

2.50

0.75

1.13

1.31

1.86

Kudumeriya

2152.0

0.014

0.45

0.36

3.18

1.00

1.91

0.94

1.57

Sinharaja

or evenness (E=H’/log S) where Pi is the proportional abundance of a species in a forest and S is the species richness in that forest, the values show that Kanneliya, Sinharaja and Yagirala had distinctly higher diversity compared to the other forests (Table 1). In some forests (e.g. Dombagaskanda, Delgoda and Kottawa) although the diversity was low, the evenness values were high suggesting that the existing species were equally distributed. Table 2 shows the abundance of the individual species in core and edge habitats of the 15 rainforests surveyed during the present investigation. Comparing the core and edge habitats of the forests, a total of eight species of small mammals were recorded from both core and edge habitats (Table 2). Of the 10 small mammals recorded, six species, the endemics S. ohiensis, M. mayori and C. miya and the nonendemics R. rattus, F. sublineatus and F. palmarum, were recorded from both core and edge habitats, while F. layardi and S. zeylanicus were recorded from only the core areas and the nonendemics M. booduga and Vandeleuria oleraceae were recorded only from edge habitats. With respect to overall abundance, both core areas and edges of forests recorded almost similar numbers of individuals (234 and 210). Similar results 2632

were noted for the abundance of small mammals in core and edge habitats when individual forests were considered (T=1.34, p>0.05, Pairwise t-Test). Marked differences were nevertheless evident when comparing the abundance of endemics and non-endemics. The abundance of endemics was higher in core areas than in the edge forests (123 core and 69 edge). This is primarily because of the differential use of interior and edge habitat by the endemic M. mayori. Significantly higher numbers of individuals were recorded for this species in core habitats (104 individuals) than at the edges (65 individuals). A reverse trend was seen for the non-endemics with more non-endemics using edges than interior areas. Some microhabitat features differed greatly between edges and core areas (Table 3). The core forest areas were characterized by a greater number of large trees, greater canopy cover, and by being shadier, cooler and more humid than the forest edges. The interior areas had a lower litter cover than edges. The forest edges, since they are exposed, have higher light levels and greater herbaceous vegetation. Statistical analyses revealed that four variables namely canopy cover, herbaceous cover, the number of large trees and litter cover differed significantly between the core and edge areas of the forest.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

Fragmentation and small mammals

M.R. Wijesinghe

Table 2. Species richness (S) and abundance (A) of the small mammal community and of the individual species in core areas and forest edges (in parentheses) of the 15 rainforests. Forest Kanneliya

Kottawa

Dombagaslanda

Kalugala

Morapitiya

Delwala

Delgoda

Dellawa

Masimbula

Warathalgoda

Kalubowitiyana

Sinharaja

Walankanda

Yagirala

Kudumeriya

Trap nights

Mm*

So*

Fl*

Cm*

Sz*

500

(3)

(20)

(6)

(2)

(10)

(3)

(2)

(8)

(3)

(2)

(11)

(5)

(2)

(14)

(5)

(1)

(4)

(10)

500

800

500

800

500

(1)

(12)

(3)

(2) -

(2)

(12)

(4)

(3)

(24)

(7)

(3)

(17)

(7)

(1) -

(4)

(14)

(7)

(2)

(14)

(5) 4 (3)

(1) -

(1)

10 (12)

(4)

(16)

(4)

(3)

(8)

8 (9)

(14)

(10)

6 (6)

5 (5)

(4)

(3)

(1) -

(8) -

(1) -

(6) -

(1) -

(6)

(1)

(5)

(1)

(13)

(2)

(1)

(18)

(6)

(11)

(1)

(11)

(3) 1

Mm - Mus mayori; Mb - Mus booduga; So - Srilankamys ohiensis; Rr - Rattus rattus; Vo - Vandeleuria oleraceae; Fl - Funambulus layardi; Fs - F. sublineatus; Fp - F. palmarum; Cm - Crocidura miya and Sz - Suncus zeylanicus. * - Endemic species

Discussion The present survey was conducted with the objective of investigating the overall effects of forest fragmentation on small mammal communities inhabiting the remnant rainforest patches in Sri Lanka. The theory of island biogeography by MacArthur & Wilson (1967) predicts that larger areas would support greater numbers of species and individuals than smaller areas. Supporting this claim, Goodman

& Rakotondravony (2000) report that in Madagascar, the species of the families Tenrecidae and Soricidae declined progressively with diminishing forest size. Similarly, Schoener (1974) proposed that, for small mammals, space is the main niche dimension that facilitates the coexistence of ecologically similar species. It has been shown that larger spaces result in greater resource diversity making the coexistence of a large number of species feasible (Vieira & MonteiroFilho 2003; RenataÂ 2004). Also, it is reported that

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2636

2633

Fragmentation and small mammals

M.R. Wijesinghe

Table 3. Habitat variables (mean ± std. error) in core and edge habitats in the surveyed rainforests. Results of the pairwise t-Tests comparing the mean values of each parameter in core and edge habitats of the individual forests are also shown. Habitat feature

Core

Edge

% Canopy cover

93.57±1.22

89.78±1.60

2.14

0.050*

Number of seedlings

15.94±2.24

15.22±2.66

0.56

0.583

Number of herbs

29.35±4.88

41.70±5.32

-3.64

0.003**

Number of plants

53.00±6.28

51.40±8.94

0.45

0.662

Number of large trees

6.40±0.50

4.50±0.48

4.34

0.001***

Litter depth

2.81±0.11

2.56±0.17

1.37

0.190

% Litter cover

93.48±1.84

95.86±1.00

- 2.16

0.050*

Light intensity

548.5±73.5

621.3±60.5

-1.43

0.178

Relative humidity

84.84±1.62

83.93±1.46

-1.93

0.082

Air temperature (oC)

25.2±0.45

25.9±0.37

1.15

0.263

* = P<0.05; ** = P<0.01; *** = P<0.001

the reduction of species is such that the complement of species in smaller patches is a subset of that found in larger ones (e.g. Patterson & Brown 1991; Pattanavibool & Dearden 2002). The species-area relationship per se, however, does not consider a variety of other factors that are of considerable importance in determining the viability of species and populations within habitat islands. For instance, fragmentation facilitates the creation of edge habitats that in turn may seriously affect the diversity of organisms within the forest patches (Laurance 1991; Hansen et al. 1992). The type of habitat matrix surrounding the individual forest patches will also have an impact on diversity (Renata 2004). The degree of isolation also influences the viability of the species within a particular fragment (Kozakiewicz & Jurasinska 1989). Hence, the variability of these factors between forest fragments may serve to mask the effects of area on biotic communities. This is evident from the results of several studies - Lindenmayer et al. (2000) for mammals; Wethered & Lawes (2003) for birds; Conde & Rocha (2006) and Rosenblatt et al. (1999) for small mammals. The present study did not provide direct evidence for the species-area relationship. It is apparent from the results of the present study that the lack of a species-area relationship for the overall small mammal community is because the absence of, or the reduction in, certain species in smaller fragments was well compensated for by other species. These “replacement species”, are those that are more adaptable to man modified landscapes. This observation suggests that 2634

a species replenishment model, demonstrated in some studies (e.g. Harraington et al. 2001; Castelletta et al. 2005), is applicable to the rainforests in Sri Lanka. Several studies have in fact shown that the speciesarea theory may be applicable at a regional scale but is not applicable at smaller spatial scales (Cutler 1991; Patterson & Brown 1991). Middleton & Merriam (1983), working with small mammal fauna of forest fragments in Illinois, likewise claim that the island biogeography analogy does not apply well for the areas studied. Species replacement tends to obscure speciesarea relationships. The patterns of replacement of species in smaller fragments in turn reflect the species’ ability to tolerate edge effects (Yáñez et al. 1999). Andrén (1994) reports that species’ responses to habitat disturbance are varied with fragmentation and edge effects imposing major threats to the survival of forest-dependent fauna. He further states that habitat generalists were largely tolerant of habitat fragmentation, their abundance being similar in forests, corridors, and remnants, and are capable of persisting in remnants only a few hectares in extent. In the present study the patterns of occupancy of the two predominant species, the endemic M. mayori and the cosmopolitan R. rattus in particular, clearly demonstrate such differences in tolerance. The fact that the smallest fragments and forest edges were occupied by a lesser number of individuals of M. mayori strongly suggests that environmental conditions in edges were perceived as matrix rather than a forest habitat by this species. It was evident from the results of the present

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

Fragmentation and small mammals

investigation that the forest interior was much cooler and had different vegetation characteristics such as greater canopy cover and larger trees and lesser herbaceous cover, than the edge habitats. R. rattus, in contrast to the former, is a ubiquitous generalist species that has managed to colonize six continents and thousands of islands in the wet tropics as well as in arid environments. In addition to M. mayori, the fact that the endemics S. ohiensis and F. layardi and the non-endemic F. sublineatus preferentially utilized interior areas, suggest that they may be negatively affected by the creation of habitat edges. On the other hand, those that are tolerant of habitat edges and perhaps benefit by such human modifications are R. rattus, M. booduga and F. palmarum. Due to edge effects and the differential tolerance of species, the shape of a particular forest patch could be expected to influence the biotic community it supports. Circular forest patches will have proportionately less edge habitat than similar-sized linear forest patches (Bentley et al. 2000). The shape index for forest fragments is calculated as the ratio of perimeter to area (Gkaraveli et al. 2001), which increases as forests become more linear. Based on this premise, the abundance of core forest species should be negatively affected by the shape index, which was observed for M. mayori. Although the fragmentation of Sri Lankan rainforests may not have an overall impact on the species richness of the small mammal community the study clearly demonstrates that it may lead to the decline of certain forest-adapted species. This emphasizes the need to preserve large intact and circular forests whenever possible. The preservation of the smaller forests is also important, since they function as potential “stop over points” that may facilitate the spreading of forest species to nearby patches. Such linkages between forests are particularly important for small mammals that are unable to cover large distances. References Andrén, H. (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with differed proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 355–366. Bentley, J.M., C.P. Catterall & G.C. Smith (2000). Effects of fragmentation of Auraucarian vine forest on small mammal communities. Conservation Biology 14: 1075–1087.

M.R. Wijesinghe

Boone, J.D. & B.L. Keller (1993). Temporal and spatial patterns of small mammal density and species composition in a radioactive waste disposal area: The role of edge habitat. Great Basin Naturalist 53: 341–349. Castelletta, M., J.M. Thiollay & N.S. Sodhi (2005). The effects of extreme forest fragmentation on the bird community of Singapore Island. Conservation Biology 121: 135–155. Cincotta, R.P., J. Wisnewski & R. Engleman (2000). Human population in the biodiversity hotspots Nature 440: 990– 992. Conde, C.F. & C.F.D. Rocha (2006). Habitat disturbance and small mammal richness and diversity in an Atlantic rainforest area in southeastern Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 66: 983–990. Cox, M.P., C.R. Dickman & J. Hunter (2004). Effects of rainforest fragmentation on non-flying mammals of the Eastern Dorrigo Plateau, Australia. Biological Conservation 115: 175–189. Cutler, A. (1991). Nested faunas and extinction in fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology 5: 496–505. Debinski, D.M. & R.D. Holt (2000). A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conservation Biology 14: 342–355 de Rosayro, R.A. (1950). Ecological conceptions and vegetation types with special reference to Ceylon. The Tropical Agriculturist 56: 108–121. Diffendorfer, J.E., M.S. Gaines & R.D. Holt (1995). Habitat fragmentation and movements of three small mammals (Sigmodon, Microtus and Peromyscus). Ecology 76: 827– 839. Gkaraveli, A., J.H. Williams & G.E.G. Good (2001). Fragmented native woodlands in Snowdonia. UK: Assessment and amelioration. Forestry 74: 89–193. Goodman, S.M. & D. Rakotondravony (2000). The effect of forest fragmentation and isolation on insectivorous small mammals (Lipothyphla) on the Central High Plateau of Madagascar. Journal of Zoology 250: 193–200. Hansen, A.J., P.G. Risser & F. DiCastri (1992). Epilogue: Biodiversity and ecological flows across ecotones, pp. 423–438. In: Hansen, A.J. & F. DiCastri (eds.). Landscape boundaries. Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flora. Springer-Verlag, New York. Harraington, G.N., A.N.D. Freeman & F.H.G. Crome (2001). The effects of fragmentation of an Australian tropical rainforest on populations and assemblages of small mammals. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17: 225–240. KozAkiewicz, M. & E. Jurasinska (1989). The role of habitat barriers in woodlot recolonizatin by small mammals. Ecography 12: 106–111. Laurance, W.F. (1991). Edge effects on tropical forest fragments. Application of a model for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 57: 205–219. Laurance, W.F., P. Delamônica, S.G. Laurance, H.L. Vasconcelos & T.E. Lovejoy (2000). Rainforest fragmentation kills big trees. Nature 404: 836. Lindenmayer, D.B., M.A. McCarthy, K.M. Parris & M.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

2635

Fragmentation and small mammals

M.R. Wijesinghe

Pope (2000). Habitat fragmentation, landscape context and mammalian assemblages in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Mammalogy 82: 787–797. MacArthur, r.h. & e.o. Wilson (1967). The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 203pp. Malcolm, J.r. (1994). Edge effects in central amazonian forest fragments. Ecology 75: 2438–2445. Middleton, J. & G. Merriam (1983). Distribution of woodland species in farmland woods. Journal of Applied Ecology 20: 625–644. Molur, s. & M. singh (2009). Non-volant small mammals of the Western Ghats of Coorg District, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(12): 589–608. Myers, n. (1990). The biodiversity challenge: Expanded hotspot analysis. The Environmentalist 10: 243–256. Myers, n., r.A. Mittermeir, c.G. Mittermeir, G.A.B. da Fonseka & J. Kent (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858. Pattanavibool, A. & P. dearden (2002). Fragmentation and wildlife in montane evergreen forests, northern Thailand. Biological Conservation 107: 155–164. Patterson, B.d. & J.h. Brown (1991). Regionally nested patterns of species composition in granivorous rodent assemblages. Journal of Biogeography 18: 395–402. ratnaweera, P.B. & M.r. Wijesinghe (2009). Effect of food quality and availability on rainforest rodents of Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1(12): 581–588. renata, P. (2004). Effects of forest fragmentation on small

2636

mammals in an Atlantic forest landscape. Biodiversity Conservation 13: 2567–2586. rosenblatt, d.l., e.J. heske, s.l. nelson, d.M. Barber, M.A. Miller & B. MacAllister (1999). Forest fragments in east-central Illinois: islands of habitat fragments for mammals? American Midland Naturalist 141: 115–123. schoener, t.W. (1974). Competition in the form of habitat shift. Theoretical Population Biology 6: 265–307. Vieira, e.M. & e.l.A. Monteiro-Filho (2003). Vertical stratification of small mammals in the Atlantic rainforest of south-eastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 501–507. Walters, B.B. (1991). Small mammals in subalpine old-growth forest and clearcuts. Northwest Science 65: 27–31. Wethered, r. & M. lawes (2003). Matrix effects on bird assemblages in fragmented Afromontane forests in South Africa. Biological Conservation 114: 327–340. Wijesinsghe, M.r. (2010). Efficiency of live trapping protocols to assess small mammal diversity in tropical rainforests of Sri Lanka. Belgian Journal of Zoology 140: 212–215. Wijesinghe, M.r. & M. de Brooke (2005). The distribution of small mammals along a disturbance gradient in Sinharaja, Sri Lanka. Journal of Tropical Ecology 21: 291–296. Yahner, r.h. (1988). Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology 2: 333–339. Yáñez, M.A., V. Frida, J.A. simonetti & A.A. Grez (1999). Small mammals of forest islands of the Beni Biological Station, Bolivia. Mastozoología Neotropical 6: 135–138.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2629–2636

JoTT Opinion

4(6): 2637–2643

A postulate for tiger recovery: the case of the Caspian Tiger C.A. Driscoll 1,2, I. Chestin 3, H. Jungius 4, O. Pereladova 5, Y. Darman 6, E. Dinerstein7, J. Seidensticker 8, J. Sanderson 9, S. Christie 10, S.J. Luo 11, M. Shrestha 12, Y. Zhuravlev 13, O. Uphyrkina 13, Y.V. Jhala 14, S.P. Yadav 15, D.G. Pikunov 16, N. Yamaguchi 17, D.E. Wildt 18, J.L.D. Smith 19, L. Marker 20, P.J. Nyhus 21, R. Tilson 22, D.W. Macdonald 23 & S.J. O’Brien 24 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Oxon OX13 5QL, UK 1,24 Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702 USA 2 Present address: WWF Chair in Conservation Genetics at WII Faculty of Wildlife Sciences, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001, India 3 WWF Russia, Nikoloyamskaya St.,19, bd.3, Moscow, 109240, Russia 4 WWF International, La Delaissee 13, 1270 Trelex, Switzerland 5 WWF Russia, Central Asia Programme, Nikoloyamskaya St., 19, bld. 3 Moscow, 109240 Russia 6 WWF Russia, Amur Branch, Verkhneportovaya St., 18A, Vladivostok, 690003, Russia 7 WWF US, Conservation Science Program, 1250 24th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 USA 8 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Conservation Ecology Center, National Zoological Park, Washington, DC, 20013 USA 9 Wild Cat Research and Conservation Center, Institute for the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 85721 USA 10 Conservation Programmes, The Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, London NW14RY, UK 11 School of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 12 Save The Tiger Fund, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 1133 15th St., NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20005 USA 13 Institute of Biology and Soil Science, Russian Academy of Sciences, 159, Prospect 100-letya, Vladivostok 690022 Russia 14 Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001, India 15 National Tiger Conservation Authority, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi, India 16 Pacific Institute of Geography, Far East Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, Radio St. 7, Vladivostok, 690041, Russia 17 Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Qatar, PO Box 2713 Doha, Qatar 18 Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, NZP Conservation and Research Center, Front Royal VA, 22630 USA 19 Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA 20 Cheetah Conservation Fund, P.O. Box 1755, Otjiwarongo, Namibia 21 Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Waterville, ME, 04901 USA 22 Department of Conservation, Minnesota Zoo, Apple Valley, MN, 55124 USA Email: 1 carlos.driscoll@nih.gov (corresponding author), 3 ichestin@wwf.ru, 4 hjungius@sunrise.ch, 5 opereladova@wwf.ru, 6 ydarman@amur.wwf.ru, 7 eric.dinerstein@wwfus.org, 8 seidenstickerj@si.edu, 9 gato_andino@yahoo.com, 10 sarah.christie@zsl. org, 11 luo.shujin@gmail.com, 12 mahendra.shrestha@nfwf.org, 13 zhuravlev@ibss.dvo.ru, 14 jhalay@wii.gov.in, 15 jdntca@gmail.com, 16 pikunov-dmitri@yandex.ru, 17 yamaguchi@qu.edu.qa, 18 WildtD@si.edu, 19 jlds@umn.edu, 20 cheetah@grumpy.net.na, 21 pjnyhus@ colby.edu, 22 ron.tilson@state.mn.us, 23 David.Macdonald@zoo.ox.ac.uk, 24 stephen.obrien@nih.gov 1,23

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: Mark Stanley Price Manuscript details: Ms # o2993 Received 08 November 2011 Final revised received 23 April 2012 Finally accepted 21 May 2012 Citation: Driscoll, C.A., I. Chestin, H. Jungius, O. Pereladova, Y. Darman, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, J. Sanderson, S. Christie, S.J. Luo, M. Shrestha, Y. Zhuravlev, O. Uphyrkina, Y.V. Jhala, S.P. Yadav, D.G. Pikunov, N. Yamaguchi, D.E. Wildt, J.L.D. Smith, L. Marker, P.J. Nyhus, R. Tilson, D.W. Macdonald & S.J. O’Brien (2012). A postulate for tiger recovery: the case of the Caspian Tiger. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2637–2643. Copyright, Acknowledgements and Logos: See end of this artilce.

Abstract: Recent genetic analysis has shown that the extinct Caspian Tiger (P. t. virgata) and the living Amur Tigers (P. t. altaica) of the Russian Far East are actually taxonomically synonymous and that Caspian and Amur groups historically formed a single population, only becoming separated within the last 200 years by human agency. A major conservation implication of this finding is that tigers of Amur stock might be reintroduced, not only back into the Koreas and China as is now proposed, but also through vast areas of Central Asia where the Caspian tiger once lived. However, under the current tiger conservation framework the 12 “Caspian Tiger States” are not fully involved in conservation planning. Equal recognition as “Tiger Range States” should be given to the countries where the Caspian tiger once lived and their involvement in tiger conservation planning encouraged. Today, preliminary ecological surveys show that some sparsely populated areas of Central Asia preserve natural habitat suitable for tigers. In depth assessments should be completed in these and other areas of the Caspian range to evaluate the possibility of tiger reintroductions. Because tigers are a charismatic umbrella species, both ecologically and politically, reintroduction to these landscapes would provide an effective conservation framework for the protection of many species in addition to tigers. And for today’s Amur Tigers this added range will provide a buffer against further loss of genetic diversity, one which will maintain that diversity in the face of selective pressures that can only be experienced in the wild. Keywords: Caspian Tiger, Central Asia, human conflict, large carnivore, phylogenetic, reintroduction, Tiger Range State.

OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

2637

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

Historic range Restoration landscapes Surveyed high quality habitat

C.A. Driscoll et al.

Approximate subspecies boundaries

Uncertain subspecies boundaries

Confirmed tiger presence Image 1. Map of Tiger Conservation Landscapes Legend: ‘Tiger Range States’, countries that show evidence of wild tigers within the last 20 years, are indicated in blue upper case: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, Nepal, Russia, Thailand and Vietnam. Central Asian range states of the extinct Caspian tiger in red upper case: Afghanistan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. In addition Caspian/Amur tigers formerly occurred in the Altai region of Russia, western China, parts of Mongolia, and the Korean peninsula. Caspian tiger historic range, current range and restoration landscape delineations based on Sanderson et al. (2006) and current authors; indicated high quality habitat from detailed feasibility studies in Jungius et al. (2009); Jungius (2010) and Lukarevski & Baidavletov (2010). 2638

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

Another Year of the Tiger has passed and we can say with certainty that global tiger conservation has not succeeded (Walston et al. 2010). Of eight subspecies recognized in the 1930s the Caspian, Javan, Bali and likely the South China tigers have gone extinct despite intense interest in biodiversity conservation, surveillance, legal protection and expenditure. The worldwide population has plummeted from over 100,000 wild tigers a century ago to a paltry 3200 survivors, ~3% of historical numbers and tigers now inhabit less than 7% of their historical range (Chundawat et al. 2008; Seidensticker et al. 2010; Tilson & Nyhus 2010). From these dire straits, rallying cries have called for doubling the wild tiger population by the next Year of the Tiger in 2022 (Wikramanayake et al. 2009; Hua Hin Declaration on Tiger Conservation 2010; The St. Petersburg Declaration on Tiger Conservation 2010). If tigers are to survive in the wild, much less double in number over the next 10 years, tiger recovery plans will have to deliver more than a simple reinvigoration of on-going conservation programs, and also boldly implement new management initiatives. One such prospect is to restore recently exterminated tiger populations in the former range of the Caspian Tiger (P. t. virgata) (Image 1). Biologists recently adopted a ‘landscape approach’ to tiger conservation, which explicitly seeks to identify and preserve all trophic levels naturally present in tiger habitat (Tilson & Nyhus 2010; Wikramanayake et al. 2011). To this end the 13 currently recognized ‘Tiger Range States’ (Image 1) have pledged to cooperate in developing and implementing effective tiger conservation plans within their respective boundaries (Hua Hin Declaration on Tiger Conservation 2010). Notably however, of the 13 official ‘Tiger Range States’ wild tigers are effectively extinct in five: Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Lao PDR and much of Myanmar (Tilson & Nyhus 2010), though efforts to bolster tiger numbers—including reintroductions—to these regions are ongoing (Global Tiger Recovery Program 2011). Meanwhile, the dozen independent states of Central Asia, which once also supported tigers, are not included in landscape-scale tiger conservation plans, in part because of political infighting in the tiger community. Should not the Central Asian countries in the Caspian Tiger’s former range be enlisted in tiger conservation?

C.A. Driscoll et al.

In this vast region of central and southwestern Asia, roughly the size of mainland USA, tigers had roamed free until recently; the last Caspian Tiger was shot in Turkey in 1970 (Can 2004). A recent expansive ecological survey of vegetation, available prey, and human footprint (i.e. human population density and infrastructure) reports that over a million square kilometers of potential tiger habitat still exists throughout the former range of the Caspian Tiger (Sanderson et al. 2006; Jungius 2010). Though perhaps only 25% of the original tiger habitat is potentially suitable for the species today, these ‘restoration landscapes’ (Sanderson et al. 2006) could be considered in evaluating tiger restoration plans. Though diminished, this area (1,000,000km2) still amounts to ample habitat for the support of multiple viable tiger populations; three times more land is currently available in the Caspian range than is available in India (Dinerstein et al. 2006; Sanderson et al. 2006), which supports the world’s largest population, an estimated 1,700 wild tigers (Jhala et al. 2011). Any restoration plan—in the Caspian range or elsewhere—should in no way detract from current conservation operations for surviving wild tiger populations anywhere else. However, now more than ever, ‘business as usual’ does not suffice and all logistically feasible and scientifically valid options should be considered for implementation. Who should be involved and who will benefit from such a plan? Restoration of a historic ecological balance is an explicit goal of the landscape approach to tiger conservation; tiger restoration could thereby provide a conservation impetus and framework for vast areas of natural habitat. Restoration would have several beneficial effects in tiger landscapes, including restoring a quality biologists recognize as ‘tigerness’(Wikramanayake et al. 1998) - the suite of ecological, behavioral, and physiological adaptations exhibited by tigers occupying vastly different habitats with different topography, vegetation, prey, diseases and parasites. A reintroduced Caspian tiger population would recover a new dimension of tigerness to Central Asia, encouraging a natural ecological balance by filling a vacant ecological niche at the top trophic level. The need for large areas free of human disturbance— with suitable habitat and prey—implies Caspian Tiger range countries will have to make significant commitments if tiger restoration there is to succeed,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

2639

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

C.A. Driscoll et al.

but they stand to realize equally significant economic and environmental benefits if it does. Advancing tiger reintroduction should first evaluate the ecological suitability of a proposed site (IUCN 1998; Hayward et al. 2007). In principle, a thorough habitat assessment should reveal a valid way forward, and preliminary steps in this direction have already begun. WWF Russia and WWF Netherlands last year completed on-the-ground feasibility studies (summarized in (Jungius 2010)) based upon historic Caspian tiger range (Heptner & Sludski 1972) and ecological optima including the human footprint (Krever et al. 1998), in which they identified at least two promising habitats: (1) the Amu-Darya delta and former Aral sea bottomland in Uzbekistan (Jungius et al. 2009) and (2) the South-Balkash/Ily-Delta region in Kazakhstan (Bragin 2010; Lukarevskii & Baidavletov 2010). Though both regions already have large uninhabited areas and an existing prey base, several measures are needed to better the prospects for sustaining viable tiger populations there. These include implementing protected areas, status, fostering natural habitats, boosting the preferred prey base (Wild Boar and Bukkara Deer, a subspecies of Red Deer), supporting anti-poaching law enforcement, and stabilizing fresh water resources; all this has to be done while ensuring popular local support and government leadership within the host countries. Which living subspecies should be reintroduced if the Caspian Tiger is extinct, and where are we to get all these tigers? Recent advances in tiger genetics and natural history suggest answers to this question. A DNA-based analysis of museum Caspian Tiger specimens, in the context of their relationship to other tiger subspecies, revealed negligible genetic differences between the Caspian specimens and modern Amur tigers of the Russian Far East (Driscoll et al. 2009). It seems that the Caspian and Amur tigers subspecies were actually a contiguous widespread population until the beginning of the 19th century (Heptner & Sludski 1972). So the Caspian Tiger is not extinct after all, rather it survives today as the Amur Tiger in the Russian Far East. Every year, Amur Tigers are removed from the wild in Russia as a result of conflict with humans or orphaning of cubs and so, given appropriate conditioning, many of these cats could be candidates for translocation to Central Asia (Goodrich & Miquelle 2640

2005). And the Russian Far East is not the only place where the Caspian/Amur Tiger survives; there are over 500 genetically healthy Amur Tigers of known ancestry and relatedness in world zoos (Muller 2009) and the captive population actually carries comparable or higher genetic diversity than the genetically depauperate wild population (Luo et al. 2008; Henry et al. 2009). In addition, a recent genomic technology termed “Verified Subspecies Ancestry” (VSA) has made possible the explicit identification, by a simple DNA test, of individual tigers descending from pure versus admixed subspecies backgrounds (Luo et al. 2008). In principle, captive populations could provide numerous appropriate and healthy founders for decades of tiger restoration (Christie & Seidensticker 1999; Wildt et al. 2010). Proponents of captive breeding regularly defend that process as an insurance policy against extinction, a backup to in situ conservation of species in the wild (Tilson & Christie 1999). Here is a real chance to fulfill that potential. Though reintroducing carnivores, either the translocation of behaviorally competent individuals from the wild or reintroduction from captive sources, is clearly a substantial challenge that should not be underestimated, this proposal is not without precedent. Wolves Canis lupus, Bears Ursus arctos and African Wild Dogs Lycaon pictus all have histories of success (Hayward & Somers 2009). Felid population restorations have been successful for Lion Panthera leo (Funston 2008), Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus (Pettifer 1981) and Pumas Puma concolor (e.g. Florida Panther) (Johnson et al. 2010), as well as smaller felid species including Iberian Lynx Lynx pardinus (Ruiz et al. 2009), Eurasian Lynx Lynx lynx (von Arx et al. 2009), Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis (Shenk et al. 2009), Bobcat Lynx rufus (Diefenbach et al. 2009) and Wildcat Felis silvestris (Hartmann-Furter 2009). Indian conservationists are actively planning to translocate Asiatic Lions Panthera leo persica from the Gir forest, presently their only home, to secondary sanctuaries within India (Venkataraman 2010) and, further, are negotiating Cheetah reintroductions to India (Ranjitsingh & Jhala 2010), where they have been extinct for 60 years. Russian authorities are engaged in two leopard restoration programs; one for the Caucasus Leopard Panthera pardus saxicolor (Rozhnov & Lukarevsky 2008) and one of the Amur Leopard Panthera pardus orientalis) in the Russian

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

Far East (Christie 2009). Limited restorations involving wild-caught tigers have been attempted with varying success in Russia, India and Sumatra (Goodrich & Miquelle 2005; Check 2006; Johnsingh & Madhusdan 2009; Gopal et al. 2010; Onishi 2010). In India tigers have been translocated to the Sariska and Panna Tiger Reserves where they went extinct in 2004 and 2008, respectively, due to poaching. Those in Panna have reproduced. These releases involved wild-caught tigers but the release of captive-bred tigers is also being considered. Following exhaustive feasibility studies by government and international wildlife teams over the last 10 years, Chinese authorities are preparing to reintroduce South China Tiger populations to their historic range (Tilson & Nyhus 2010). And, with ongoing habitat assessments, Iran is evaluating seriously the possibility of restoring tigers, having already secured the first pair from Russia (Anonymous 2010). Furthermore, in a private initiative presented as a proof of concept for the conditioning of captive tigers for life in the wild, four tigers imported from China were introduced to an enclosed 33,000ha habitat in South Africa in 2006 (Save China’s Tigers 2010). Repatriating tigers to areas where they roamed a century ago is ecologically feasible (Seidensticker et al. 1999; Jungius et al. 2009; Jungius 2010) and, if underpinned by good science and planning, requires only national resolve and sound scientific management (IUCN 1987; IUCN/SSC 1998). Reconstituting recently exterminated tiger populations in the Caspian range is not a flight of fancy. Conservation, while a branch of natural and social science, is also about choices and thus, ultimately, politics; as such it is inevitably controversial and demands wisdom as well as science. The restoration of Caspian Tigers is clearly a big idea, and therefore should advance only with the benefit of the best science and most considered wisdom. We, doubtless, would have preferred to start from a different position, but we are where we are, and eliminating 97% of the world’s tigers in less than a century is already anthropic intervention at its worst. Restoration is not about the nostalgic re-creation of a lost past, but about building a sustainable future (Macdonald 2010). Our suggestion here is not to magically resurrect extinct cats for a Jurassic Park or “Pleistocene re-wilding” experience (Donlan 2005), but rather to restore former

C.A. Driscoll et al.

tiger landscapes to be as biologically full, diverse, productive and interesting as they once were. By the Chinese calendar, the Year of the Tiger closed in February 2011. We believe that a new consensus resolution, including the 12 Central Asian countries in the Caspian Tiger’s former range, could envision a plan complementary to current tiger conservation strategies that could contribute to the laudable goal of doubling tiger numbers in the wild by 2022, the next Year of the Tiger. Considering the critical state of tiger conservation, time is running out.

References Anonymous (2010). Iran Recieves Siberian Tigers. Tehran Times, Tehran. Bragin, E. (2010). Review of the Situation in the Balhash Lake Basin and Water Management Policy of the Ily- Balhash Basin. WWF Russia, 17pp. Can, O.E. (2004). Status, Conservation and Management of Large Carnivores in Turkey. 24th meeting Standing Committee, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, 27pp. Check, E. (2006). Conservation biology: the tiger’s retreat. Nature 441: 927–930. Christie, S. (2009). Breeding far eastern leopards for reintroduction: the zoo programme perspective, pp. 462– 477. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. Christie, S. & J. Seidensticker (1999). Is reintroduction of captive-bred tigers a feasible option for the future? pp. 207– 209. In: Seidensticker, J., S. Christie & P. Jackson (eds.). Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human Dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Chundawat, R.S., B. Habib, U. Karanth, K. Kawanishi, J.A. Khan, T. Lynam, D. Miquelle, P. Nyhus, Sunarto, R. Tilson & S. Wang (2011). Panthera Tigris. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23 June 2012. Diefenbach, D.R., L.A. Hansen, R.J. Warren, M.J. Conroy & M.G. Nelms (2009). Restoration of Baobcats to Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA: lessons learned and evidence for the role of Bobcats as keystone predators, pp. 422–435. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. Dinerstein, E., C. Loucks, A. Heydlauff, E. Wikramanayake, G. Bryja, J. Forrest, J. Ginsberg, S. Klenzendorf, P. Leimgruber, T. O’Brien, E. Sanderson, J. Seidensticker & M. Songer (2006). Setting Priorities for the Conservation

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

2641

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

C.A. Driscoll et al.

and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2015. A User’s Guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, Washington, D.C.—New York. Donlan, J. (2005). Re-wilding North America. Nature 436: 913–914. Driscoll, C.A., N. Yamaguchi, G.K. Bar-Gal, A.L. Roca, S. Luo, D.W. Macdonald & S.J. O’Brien (2009). Mitochondrial phylogeography illuminates the origin of the extinct Caspian Tiger and its relationship to the Amur Tiger. Plos One 4: e4125. Funston, P.J. (2008). Conservation and management of lions in southern Africa: status, threats, utilization and the restoration option, pp. 109–131. In: Croes, B., R. Buij, H.H. de Iongh & H. Bauer (eds.). Management and Conservation of Large Carnivores in West and Central Africa. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden. Global Tiger Recovery Program (2011). Tiger Range Countries and Global Tiger Iniative. The World Bank, http://www. globaltigerinitiative.org/download/St_Petersburg/GTRP_ Nov11_Final_Version_Eng.pdf. Downdloaded 23 June 2012. Goodrich, J.M. & D.G. Miquelle (2005). Translocation of Probelm Amur Tigers to Alleviate Tiger-Human Conflicts. Oryx 39: 1–4. Gopal, R.G., Q. Qureshi, M. Bharadwaj, J. Singh & Y.V. Jhala (2010) Evaluating the status of the endangered Tiger Panthera Tigris and its prey in Panna Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Oryx 44: 383–389. Hartmann-Furter, M. (2009). Breeding European Wildcats Felis Silvestris Silvestris, (Schreber 1777) in species-specific enclosures for reintroduction in Germany, pp. 452–461. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. Hayward, M.W., J. O’Brien & G.I.H. Kerley (2007). Carrying capacity of large African predators: predictions and tests. Biological Conservation 139: 219–229 doi:210.1016/j. biocon.2007.1006.1018 Hayward, M. & M.J. Somers (2009). Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK; Hoboken, NJ. Henry, P., D. Miquelle, T. Sugimoto, D.R. McCullough, A. Caccone & M.A. Russello (2009). In Situ Population Structure and Ex Situ Representation of the Endangered Amur Tiger. Molecular Ecology 18: 3173–3184. Heptner, V.G. & A.A. Sludski (1972). Mammals of the Soviet Union. In: Heptner, V.G. & N.P. Naumov (eds.). Mammals of the Soviet Union, Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., Moscow. Hua Hin Declaration on Tiger Conservation (2010). First Asia Minesterial Conference on Tiger Conservation (1st AMC), Hua Hin, Thailand. http://www.globaltigerinitiative.org/ download/AMC-declaration-adopted-01-29.pdf. IUCN (1987). Iucn Position Statement on the Translocation of Living Animals, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 13pp. 2642

IUCN/SSC (1998). Guidlines for Reintroductions, IUCN/SSC Reintroduction Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland, 11pp. Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi, R. Gopal & P.R. Sinha (2011). Status of Tigers, Co-predators, and Prey in India, 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, TR 2011/003, 302pp. Johnsingh, A.J.T. & M.D. Madhusudan (2009). Tiger reintroduction in India: conservation tool or costly dream? pp. 146–163. In: Hayward, M.W. & M.J. Somers (eds.). Reintroduction of Top-order Predators. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, U.K. Johnson, W.E., D.P. Onorato, M.E. Roelke, E.D. Land, M. Cunningham, C. Belden, R. McBride, D. Jansen, M. Lotz, D. Shindle, J. Howard, D.E. Wildt, L.M. Penfold, J.A. Hostetler, M.K. Oli & S.J. O’Brien (2010). Genetic Restoration of the Florida Panther. Science 329: 1641–1645. Jungius, H. (2010). Feasibility Study on the Possible Reintroduction of the Caspian Tiger in Central Asia. WWF Russia, 36pp. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/final_ tigerreporthartm5_07_2010.pdf. Jungius, H., Y. Chikin, O. Tsaruk & O. Pereladova (2009).PreFeasibility Study on the Possible Restoration of the Caspian Tiger in the Amu Darya Delta. WWF Russia, 37pp.http:// www.wwf.ru/data/asia/tiger/tiger_pre-feasibility_study.pdf. Downdloaded 23 June 2012. Krever, V., O. Pereladova, M. Williams & H. Jungius (1998). Biodiversity Conservation in Central Asia: An Analysis of Biodiversity and Current Threats and Initial Investment Portfolio. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, 114pp. Lukarevskii, V. & R. Baidavletov (2010). Report on the Field Survey in the Ily River: Investigtions of the Possibilities of Tiger’s Presence in the Region and Opportunities for Its Reintroduction. WWF Russia, 9pp. http://www.wwf.ru/data/ asia/tiger/reportily-balhash-_lukr-illustrengl.pdf. Luo, S.J., W.E. Johnson, J. Martenson, A. Antunes, P. Martelli, O. Uphyrkina, K. Traylor-Holzer, J.L.D. Smith & S.J. O’Brien (2008). Subspecies genetic assignments of worldwide captive tigers increase conservation value of captive populations. Current Biology 18: 592–596. Macdonald, D.W. (2010). Lessons learnt and plans laid: severn awkward questions for the future of reintroductions, pp. 411– 448. In: Hayward, M.W. & M.J. Somers (eds.). Reintroduction of Top-Order Predators. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Muller, P. (2009). International Tiger Studbook. Zoologischer Garten Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany, 107pp. Onishi, N. (2010). Trying to Save Wild Tigers by Rehabilitating Them. New York Times International, New York Times, p.A12 (New York Edition). Pettifer, H.L. (1981). The experimantal release of captivebred Cheetah into the natural environment, pp. 1001–1024. Chapman, J.A. & D. Pursley (eds.). Worldwide Furbearer Conference, five. R.R. Donnelley and Sons Co., Falls Church, Virginia. Ranjitsingh, M.K. & Y.V. Jhala (2010). Assessing the Potential for Reintroducing the Cheetah in India. Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, & the Wildlife Institute of India, Dheradun,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

Caspian Tiger reintroduction

180pp. Rozhnov, V.V. & V.S. Lukarevsky (2008). Program for Reintroduction of Central Asian Leopard in the Caucasus Region. A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution and Scientific Press Ltd. KMK., Moscow, Russia. Ruiz, G., M. Lopez, L. Fernandez, J.A. Franco, G. Lopez & M.A. Simon (2009). Short communication on the first Iberian Lynx translocation from Sierra Morena to the Donana population, pp. 444–451. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. Sanderson, E., J. Forrest, C. Loucks, J. Ginsberg, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, P. Leimgruber, M. Songer, A. Heydlauff, T. O’Brien, G. Bryja, S. Klenzendorf & E. Wikramanayake (2006). Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005–2015. The Technical Assessment. WCS, WWF, Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF., New York - Washington, D.C. Save China’s Tigers (2010). Tiger Rewilding. http://english. savechinastigers.org/node/173. Seidensticker, J., B. Gratwicke & M. Shrestha (2010). How Many Wild Tigers Are There? An Estimate for 2008, pp. 295–299. In: Tilson, R. & P. Nyhus (eds.). Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera Tigris. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Seidensticker, J., P. Jackson & S. Christie (1999). Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-Dominated Landscapes, Zoological Society of London; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York. Shenk, T.M., R.H. Kahn, G. Byrne, D. Kevin, S. Wait, J. Seidel & J. Mumma (2009). Canada Lynx (Lynx Canadensis) reintroduction in Colorado, pp. 410–421. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. The St. Petersburg Declaration on Tiger Conservation (2010). The International Forum on Tiger Conservation, Saint Petersburg, Russia. http://www.globaltigerinitiative. org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Declaration-on-TigerConservation-NEGOTIATED-DRAFT-14July2010.pdf Tilson, R. & S. Christie (1999). Effective Tiger Conservation Requires Cooperation: Zoos as a Support for Wild Tigers, pp. 200–214. In: Seidensticker, J., S. Christie & P. Jackson (eds.). Riding the Tiger: Tiger Conservation in A Human-Dominated Landscape. Cambridge Universtity Press, Cambridge, UK. Tilson, R.L. & P.J. Nyhus (2010). Tigers of the World: The Science, Politics, and Conservation of Panthera Tigris. Elsevier, Ammsterdam, 524pp. Venkataraman, M. (2010) ‘Site’ing the Right Reasons: Critical Evaluation of Conservation Planning for the Asiatic Lion. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 209–213. von Arx, M., C. Breitenmoser-Wursten & U. Breitenmoser (2009) Lessons from the reintroduction of the Eurasian Lynx in Central and West Europe, pp. 403–409. In: Vargas, A., C. Breitenmoser & U. Breitenmoser (eds.). Iberian Lynx Ex

C.A. Driscoll et al.

Situ Conservation: An Interdisiplinary Approach. Fundacion Biodiversidad, Madrid, Spain. Walston, J., J.G. Robinson, E.L. Bennett, U. Breitenmoser, G.A. da Fonseca, J. Goodrich, M. Gumal, L. Hunter, A. Johnson, K.U. Karanth, N. Leader-Williams, K. Mackinnon, D. Miquelle, A. Pattanavibool, C. Poole, A. Rabinowitz, J.L. Smith, E.J. Stokes, S.N. Stuart, C. Vongkhamheng & H. Wibisono (2010) Bringing the Tiger Back from the Brink-the Six Percent Solution. PLoS Biol 8. Wikramanayake, E., S. Lieberman, P. Nihan & J. Benn (2009). Tigers Alive! Saving Tigers in the Wild. Strategic Plan 2010-2015. World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Washington, D.C., 93pp. Wikramanayake, E.D., E. Dinerstein, J.G. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T. Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hemley & D. Bolze (1998). An ecologybased method for defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the tiger as case study. Conservation Biology 12: 865–878. Wikramanayake, E., E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, S. Lumpkin, B. Pandav, M. Shrestha, H. Mishra, J. Ballou, A.J.T. Johnsingh, I. Chestin, S. Sunarto, P. Thinley, K. Thapa, G. Jiang, S. Elagupillay, H. Kafley, N.M.B. Pradhan, S. Teak, K. Jigme, P. Cutter, M.A. Aziz, and U. Than (2011). A landscape-based conservation strategy to double the wild tiger population. Conservation Letters 4: 219-227. doi: 10.111/j.1755-263X.2010.00162.x Wildt, D., W. Swanson, J. Brown, A. Sliwa & A. Vargas (2010). Felids ex situ: managed programmes, research, and species recovery, pp. 217–235. In: Macdonald, D.W. & A.J. Loveridge (eds.). Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Copyright: © C.A. Driscoll, I. Chestin, H. Jungius, O. Pereladova, Y. Darman, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, J. Sanderson, S. Christie, S.J. Luo, M. Shrestha, Y. Zhuravlev, O. Uphyrkina, Y.V. Jhala, S.P. Yadav, D.G. Pikunov, N. Yamaguchi, D.E. Wildt, J.L.D. Smith, L. Marker, P.J. Nyhus, R. Tilson, D.W. Macdonald & S.J. O’Brien 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: We thank Urs Breitenmoser, Christine BreitenmoserWursten, Dale Miquelle, Eric Sanderson and John Goodrich for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2637–2643

2643

JoTT Short Communication

4(6): 2644–2652

Western Ghats Special Series

Freshwater fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai, northern Western Ghats, India Sanjay S. Kharat 1, Mandar Paingankar 2 & Neelesh Dahanukar 3 Department of Zoology, Modern College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Ganeshkhind, Pune, Maharashtra 411007, India Zoo Outreach Organization, 96 Kumutham Nagar, Villankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035, India 3 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Sai Trinity, Garware Circle, Pune, Maharashtra 411021, India Email: 1 kharat.sanjay@gmail.com, 2 mandarpaingankar@gmail.com, 3 n.dahanukar@iiserpune.ac.in (corresponding author) 1

2,3

Abstract: Freshwater fish fauna of the Krishna River at Wai, and the Dhom reservoir upstream of Wai, was studied. Fifty one species belonging to 14 families and 33 genera were recorded; 13 endemic to the Western Ghats and two to the Krishna River system. Moderate to rare populations were found for six globally threatened species: Gonoproktopterus curmuca, Labeo potail, Schismatorhynchos nukta, Tor khudree, T. mussullah and Parapsilorhynchus discophorus. Fish in this area are under threat due to two introduced species and five transplanted species, and due to other anthropogenic activities such as overfishing and organic and inorganic pollution of the river. Site based conservation action plans are needed for conservation of rare and threatened fish in this area. Keywords: Freshwater fish fauna, Krishna River system, Threats.

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: W. Vishwanath Manuscript details: Ms # o2796 Received 05 May 2011 Final revised received 08 April 2012 Finally accepted 21 May 2012 Citation: Kharat S.S., M. Paingankar & N. Dahanukar (2012). Freshwater fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai, northern Western Ghats, India Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2644–2652. Copyright: © Sanjay S. Kharat, Mandar Paingankar & Neelesh Dahanukar 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: We are thankful to Dr. R.M. Sharma, Officer-incharge, and Shrikant Jadhav, Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Center, Akurdi, Pune, for encouragement and helpful discussion. The study was self funded. The CEPF-funded freshwater assessment of the Western Ghats encouraged us to publish this work. We duly acknowledge the help from CEPF for publication of this article. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

2644

Krishna River originates in Wai Taluka, Satara District, Maharashtra, India. The river flows west-east and the first major dam along its course is Dhom Dam, while the first major city is Wai. Some studies are available on the fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai and Dhom reservoir. Silas (1953) recorded nine species of freshwater fish from the river at Wai. Jayaram (1995) studied the entire Krishna River system and mentioned that collections were made from both Dhom reservoir and Krishna River at Wai. However, he did not provide a separate checklist of fish in this area. As an offshoot of the same work, Srithar & Jayaram (1990) described a species, Salmophasia longicauda, and suggested that both S. longicauda and an allied species S. novacula are found in the fish catches of Dhom reservoir. Arunachalam et al. (2002) recorded 14 species of freshwater fish from Dhom reservoir. Taken together, these studies list 22 fish species in this area, which is an under representation compared to checklists from other tributaries of the Krishna River system (Kharat et al. 2003; Jadhav et al. 2011; Dahanukar et al. 2012). There is no documentation of threats to fish species in this area. In the present work we have studied the fish fauna of both Dhom reservoir and Krishna River at Wai in order to document both diversity and threats. Fish were collected from Krishna River at Dhom

This article forms part of a special series on the Western Ghats of India, disseminating the results of work supported by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative of l’Agence Française de Développement, Conservation International, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank. A fundamental goal of CEPF is to ensure civil society is engaged in biodiversity conservation. Implementation of the CEPF investment program in the Western Ghats is led and coordinated by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE).

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644–2652

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

Image 1. Satara District is shown in grey. Sky blue area is the hydrobasin. Red line highlights the area considered for present study.

reservoir (17.9810N & 73.8000E) and from an approximately 15km stretch between Dhom Dam and downstream of Wai (17.9300N & 73.9220E) (Image 1). Study was carried out for two years from May 2009 to April 2011. Fish were collected from local fishermen and local markets at Wai (17.9520N & 73.8870E). Only one or two specimens of each species were preserved while remaining specimens were identified in the field. Large sized common fish species and introduced fish species were not collected. Collected specimens were preserved in 4% formaldehyde and their identification was confirmed using available literature (Jayaram 1991; 2010; Jayaram & Dhas 2000; Jayaram & Sanyal 2003; Menon 1987; Talwar & Jhingran 1991). Collected fish specimens are deposited in the Zoological Survey of India, Western Regional Centre, Akurdi, Pune, under the accession numbers from P/2628 to P/2665. Assuming that the fishing effort for a given type of net (gill net or drag net) was constant, relative abundance of the fish (for each type of net separately) was grossly categorized into four discrete categories, viz: abundant (76–100 % of the total catch), common (51–75 % of the total catch), moderate (26–50 % of the total catch) and rare (1–25 % of the total catch). Category for different species was determined for each catch separately and the most consistent category for a given species was

chosen. A total of 51 fish species belonging to 14 families and 35 genera were recorded (Table 1). Of these, 15 fish species are endemic to the Western Ghats of India while five are endemic to the Krishna River system. Out of a total 51 species, 49 fish species were recorded from Krishna River at Wai while 42 fish species were recorded from Dhom reservoir. Abundance-wise distribution suggests that Krishna River at Wai hosts 11 abundant, six common, 20 moderate and 12 rare fish species. Similarly, in Dhom reservoir, there are five abundant, 14 common, 16 moderate and seven rare fish species. Of the nine species of freshwater fish recorded by Silas (1953) from Krishna River at Wai (Table 2), we could record all species. However, of the 14 species recorded by Arunachalam et al. (2002) from Dhom reservoir (Table 2), we could not record four species, namely Puntius conchonius, Indoreonectes evezardi, Nemachilichthys ruppelli and Eugnathogobius oligactis. Even though Srithar & Jayaram (1990) recorded both Salmophasia longicauda and S. novacula from the Dhom reservoir, we could not distinguish two separate species in the fish catches. Therefore, following the synonymization of S. longicauda with S. novalula by Menon (1999) and Eschmeyer (2012), we

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644–2652

2645

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

Table 1. List of freshwater fish from Krishna River. Abundance b

Family/Species a

Remarks c

IUCN Redlist statusd

Krishna River at Wai

Dhom reservoir

Barilius barna (Hamilton, 1822)

Barilius bendelisis (Hamilton, 1807)

Catla catla (Hamilton, 1822)

Cirrhinus fulungee (Sykes, 1839)

Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton, 1822)

Cirrhinus reba (Hamilton, 1822)

Crossocheilus cf. latius (Hamilton, 1822)

Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus, 1758

Devario aequipinnatus (McClelland, 1839)

Danio malabaricus (Jerdon, 1849)

Garra mullya (Sykes, 1839)

Gonoproktopterus curmuca (Hamilton, 1807) d

Notopteridae Notopterus notopterus (Pallas, 1769) Cyprinidae LC T LC T LC LC T

LC WGE

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Â (Valenciennes, 1844)

Labeo rohita (Hamilton, 1822)

T WGE

Labeo potail (Sykes, 1839)

Osteobrama vigorsii (Sykes, 1839)

EN LC

Puntius cf. amphibius (Valenciennes, 1842)

Puntius jerdoni (Day, 1870) e

WGE

Puntius sahyadriensis Silas, 1953

WGE, KRE

WGE

Puntius sarana subnasutus (Valenciennes, 1842)

Puntius ticto (Hamilton, 1822)

Rasbora daniconius (Hamilton, 1822)

Rohtee ogilbii (Sykes, 1839)

WGE

Salmophasia boopis (Day, 1874) Salmophasia novacula (Valenciennes, 1840)

LC LC

WGE

Schismatorhynchos nukta (Sykes, 1839)

WGE

Tor khudree (Sykes, 1839)

Tor mussullah (Sykes, 1839)

WGE

Parapsilorhynchus discophorus Hora, 1921

WGE

Parapsilorhynchus tentaculatus (Annandale, 1919)

Acanthocobitis mooreh (Sykes, 1839) f

Noemacheilus anguilla Annandale, 1919

Schistura denisoni Day, 1867

Mystus bleekeri (Day, 1877)

Mystus seengtee (Sykes, 1839)

Mystus malabaricus (Jerdon, 1849)

Sperata seenghala (Sykes, 1839)

Parapsilorhynchidae LC

Balitoridae LC WGE, KRE

Cobitidae Lepidocephalichthys thermalis (Valenciennes, 1846) Bagridae

WGE

Siluridae Ompok bimaculatus (Bloch, 1794)

2646

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2652

Fishes of Krishna River

Family/Species a

S.S. Kharat et al. Abundance b

Remarks c

IUCN Redlist statusd

Krishna River at Wai

Dhom reservoir

Parambassis baculis (Hamilton, 1822)

Parambassis ranga (Hamilton, 1822)

Claridae Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822)

Belonidae Xenentodon cancila (Hamilton, 1822) Ambassidae Chanda nama Hamilton, 1822

Cichlidae Oreochromis mossambicus (Peters, 1852)

Gobiidae Glossogobius giuris (Hamilton, 1822) Channidae Channa gachua (Hamilton, 1822)

Channa marulius (Hamilton, 1822)

Channa punctata (Bloch, 1793)

Mastecembalidae Mastacembelus armatus (LacepĂ¨de, 1800)

Taxonomic status as per Jayaram (2010) except where mentioned. Abundance categories: A - abundant, C - common, M - moderate, R - rare, - - absent. c WGE - Western Ghats endemic; KRE - Krishna river system endemic; I - introduced; T - transplanted d IUCN (2011). EN - Endangered, NT - Near Threatened, LC - Least Concern, NE - Not Evaluated, DD - Data Deficient. Statuses for introduced/ transplanted species are not provided. e Gonoproktopterus kolus is considered as synonym of G. curmuca (Jayaram 2010). However, if they are proved to be different, then our species should be considered as G. kolus as per Jayaram (1991) and the threat status of the fish will be VU as per Raghavan & Ali (2011). f Jayaram (2010) has listed this species under both Gonoproktopterus and Puntius. Because of the uncertainty, we have put the species under Puntius following Jayaram (1991). g Species spellings as per Eschmeyer (2012). a b

have recorded only S. novacula from the study area. Thus, currently the total number of freshwater fish species known from Krishna River at Wai area is 55. Six species found in Krishna River at Wai and Dhom reservoir, viz., Gonoproktopterus curmuca, Labeo potail, Parapsilorhynchus discophorus, Schismatorhynchos nukta, Tor khudree and T. mussullah, (Image 2) are considered as globally threatened species, while two other species, Mystus malabaricus and Ompok bimaculatus, are considered as Near Threatened (IUCN 2011). Current study area holds an abundant to moderate to rare populations of these species. Labeo potail was assessed as Endangerd (EN) based on a conservative estimate of global population decline of this species by 50â&#x20AC;&#x201C;60 % in the last 10 years caused by decline in the habitat quality owing to organic and inorganic pollution of rivers, harvesting of fish for consumption and competition created by transplanted carps (Dahanukar 2011a). Labeo potail is found rarely in both the Dhom reservoir and the

downstream Krishna River in the study area and the species is facing similar stressors mentioned before. Raghavan (2011) assessed Tor khudree as EN owing to its high exploitation as a food fish, which might have resulted in drastic declines in the population of this species by more than 60% in the last 10 years. Raghavan et al. (2011) showed that the harvesting of this species from the wild populations is unsustainable and suggested that if conservation actions directed towards the species are not implemented the species might face a drastic reduction in the recent future. This species is found in moderate numbers in the Krishna River at Wai and is common in the Dhom reservoir. Nevertheless, the species is highly preferred as a food fish and fetches a good value in the fish market. Therefore, it is likely that the species could be under fishing pressure. Another allied species Tor mussullah is assessed as EN since it exists in the Western Ghats as severely fragmented populations and the population of this species is declining severely in most parts of its current distribution due to habitat modifications

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2652

2647

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

Table 2. Species recorded in previous studies. Silas (1953)*

Arunachalam et al. (2002)

Krishna River at Wai

Dhom reservoir

Puntius conchonius

Gonoproktopterus jerdoni

Puntius ticto

Tor khudree

Tor mussullah

Salmophasia boopis

Species Gonoproktopterus curmuca

Barilius barna

Barilius bendelisis

Devario aequipinnatus

Rasbora daniconius

Garra mullya

Parapsilorhynchus tentaculatus

Indoreonectes evezardi

Nemachilichthys ruppelli

Schistura denisoni

Lepidocephalichthys thermalis

Glossogobius giuris

Eugnathogobius oligactis

Channa punctatus

Mastacembelus armatus

* Key: + = present, - = absent.

caused by pollution, heavy harvest of the species and competition created by the introduced alien species (Dahanukar & Raghavan 2011). Tor mussullah is a very rare species in the current study area. Discussions with fishermen in this area indicate that populations of Schismatorhynchos nukta have declined drastically in the recent past. Similar concerns were raised by Ghate et al. (2002) for this species from other tributaries of the Krishna River system. Ghate et al. (2002), Kharat et al. (2003) and Dahanukar et al. (2012) suspected pollution of the rivers and heavy harvest of the fish resources as possible causes for decline of this species from other rivers. On similar lines, we think that heavy harvesting of all large carps including S. nukta is a possible threat to fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai. Jayaram (1995) suggested that S. nukta is not much preferred as food. This is also true in the current study area because this species had relatively low demand as compared to other carps. Therefore, we think that the heavy harvest of this species could be attributed to unintentional catches 2648

along with other major carps. Competition created by other introduced carps like Catla catla, Cirrhinus mrigala and Labeo rohita could also be a possible threat to the species as it shares the same niche. Based on the same stressors and the fact that the population of this species is declining drastically, this species is assessed as EN (Dahanukar 2011c). An endemic species of northern Western Ghats Parapsilorhynchus discophorus is assessed as Vulnerable (VU) owing to the fact that breeding habitats of the species on the mountain tops are threatened by habitat modification due to recreational activities (Dahanukar 2011b). The species is found in moderate numbers in the small streams draining in the Krishna River at Wai. Increasing urbanization, tourism and recreational activities in the mountain tops near this area, especially at Pachgani and Mahabaleshwar, are likely to affect the breeding habitats of the species. Commenting on the threat status of Gonoproktopterus curmuca is not as easy as other species in this area. Abraham (2011) assessed

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2652

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

Image 2. Globally threatened fish species found in Krishna River at Wai. a - Gonoproktopterus curmuca; b - Labeo potail; c - Schismatorhynchos nukta; d - Tor mussullah; e - Tor khudree; f - Parapsilorhynchus discophorus. Scale bar indicates 2cm. Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2652

2649

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

Image 3. Major threats to the fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai. a - Heavy harvesting of threatened species such as Schismatorhynchos nukta, Tor khudree and Tor mussullah; b - introduced alien species such as Oreochromis mossambicus; c - culturing of transplanted fish species such as Cyprinus carpio and Cirrhinus mrigala in Dhom reservoir; some of which have established populations even in the river below the dam; d - pollution of the river stretch.

Hypselobarbus curmuca as EN owing to the fact that the species is threatened throughout its range by habitat destruction and targeted fishing, which might have lead to population decline by more than 50% in the last 10 years whereas, Raghavan & Ali (2011) assessed Hypselobarbus kolus as VU based on population decline of 30â&#x20AC;&#x201C;40 % in the wild populations within last ten years due to overexploitation, destructive fishing practices and decline in the quality of habitat. In the book by Jayaram (2010), considered H. kolus a junior subjective synonym of H. curmuca and the genus is considered valid as Gonoproktopterus. If both H. kolus and H. curmuca are indeed one and the same species then the species G. curmuca might have a different threat status or it might be assessed as Least Concern (LC) based on the wide distribution. This uncertainty in taxonomic status and its effects 2650

on assigning the threat status bolsters the arguments raised by Molur et al. (2011) and Raghavan et al. (2012) that resolving the taxonomic issues is essential for assigning conservation status of a species. Nevertheless, G. curmuca is abundant in the study area although it is also subjected to heavy harvest. In the absence of detailed studies regarding the fishing trends it is difficult to state whether the harvesting of this species in the study area is sustainable or not. The fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai is threatened due to several factors including heavy harvesting of fish resources, competition and predation by introduced species and habitat degradation due to organic and inorganic pollution (Image 3). In the Upstream, the river is also threatened by tourism and associated recreational activities. Most of the river stretch is affected by organic and inorganic pollution seeping

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2652

Fishes of Krishna River

from adjacent agricultural lands. Especially in Wai the river is polluted due to organic and inorganic pollutants contributed by household waste, recreational activities and tourism. Even though the effect of these pollutants on the fish fauna of this area is not exactly known, decline in many endemic and threatened species could be partially attributed to them. In the light of global decline in biodiversity, especially in areas like the Western Ghats, which harbors rich diversity of endemic freshwater fish, systematic conservation plans to monitor and conserve freshwater fish of Wai area are essential. Because Wai also hosts a number of globally threatened species, there is a need for site based management plans in this area. We suggest following management plans: (i) check on the fishing activities in the backwaters of Dhom Dam especially during the breeding season (May to August), (ii) monitoring of the water quality and check on the release of untreated organic and inorganic wastes in the river, (iii) promotion of environment friendly agricultural practices along the river banks, and, (iv) strict regulations regarding tourism related anthropogenic stressors.

REFERENCES Abraham, R. (2011). Hypselobarbus curmuca. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Arunachalam, M., A. Sankaranarayanan, A. Manimekalan, R. Soranam & J.A. Jonson (2002). Fish fauna of some streams and rivers in the Western Ghats of Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 99(2): 337–341. Dahanukar, N. (2011a). Labeo potail. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www. iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Dahanukar, N. (2011b). Parapsilorhynchus discophorus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Dahanukar, N. (2011c). Schismatorhynchos nukta. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Dahanukar, N. & R. Raghavan (2011). Hypselobarbus mussullah. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Dahanukar, N., M. Paingankar, R.N. Raut & S.S. Kharat

S.S. Kharat et al.

(2012). Fish fauna of Indrayani River, northern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(1): 2310–2317. Eschmeyer, W.N. (ed.) (2012) Catalog of Fishes electronic version (15 March 2012). http://research.calacademy.org/ research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp. Accessed on 8 April 2012. Ghate, H.V., V.M. Pawar & B.E. Yadav (2002). Note on cyprinoid fish Schismatorhynchos (Nukta) nukta (Sykes) from the Krishna drainage, Western Ghats. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(7): 830–831. IUCN (2011). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 24 September 2011. Jadhav, B.V., S.S. Kharat, R. Raut, M. Paingankar & N. Dahanukar (2011). Freshwater fish fauna of Koyna River, Northern Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(1): 1449–1455. Jayaram, K.C. (1991). Revision of The Genus Puntius Hamilton from The Indian Region (Pisces: Cypriniformes, Cyprinidae, Cyprininae). Occasional Paper No. 135. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 178pp. Jayaram, K.C. (1995). The Krishna River System: A Bioresources Study. Occasional Paper No. 160. Records of Zoological Society of India, 167pp. Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater Fishes of The Indian Region. Second Edition. Narendra Publishing House, Delhi, 616pp. Jayaram, K.C. & J.J. Dhas (2000). Revision of The Genus Labeo from Indian Region with A Discussion on Its Phylogeny and Zoogeography. Occasional Paper No. 183. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 143pp. Jayaram, K.C. & A. Sanyal (2003). A Taxonomic Revision of The Fishes of The Genus Mystus Scopoli (Family: Bagridae). Occasional Paper No. 207. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 136pp. Kharat, S.S., N. Dahanukar, R. Raut & M. Mahabaleshwarkar (2003). Long term changes in freshwater fish species composition in North Western Ghats, Pune District. Current Science 84(6): 816–820. Menon, A.G.K. (1987). The Fauna of India and Adjacent Countries, Pisces, Vol. 4, Teleostei-Cobitoidea, Part 1, Homalopteridae. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 259pp. Menon, A.G.K. (1999). Check List Freshwater Fishes of India. Occasional Paper No. 175. Records of the Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata. 366pp. Molur, S., K.G. Smith, B.A. Daniel & W.R.T. Darwall (compilers) (2011). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in The Western Ghats, India. Cambridge, UK and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Zoo Outreach Organisation, Coimbatore, India, 116pp. Raghavan, R. (2011). Tor khudree. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www. iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Raghavan, R. & A. Ali (2011). Hypselobarbus kolus. In:

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644–2652

2651

Fishes of Krishna River

S.S. Kharat et al.

IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 03 March 2012. Raghavan, R., A. Ali, N. Dahanukar & A. Rosser (2011). Is the Deccan Mahseer, Tor khudree (Sykes) fishery in the Western Ghats Hotspot sustainable? A participatory approach to assessment. Fisheries Research 110(1): 29–38. Raghavan, R., N. Dahanukar, K. Krishnakumar, A. Ali, S. Solomon, M.R. Ramprasanth, F. Baby, B. Pereira, J. Tharian & S. Philip (2012). Western Ghats fish fauna in peril: are pseudo conservationist attitudes to be blamed?

2652

Current Science 102(6): 835–837. Silas, E.G. (1953). Notes on the fishes from Mahabaleshwar and Wai (Satara District, Bombay State). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 51(3): 579–589. Srithar, R.T. & K.C. Jayaram (1990). On a new species of Salmostoma Swainson (Cyprinidae: Cultrinae) form Dhom reservoir, Satara District, Maharashtra. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 87(2): 272–274. Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran (1991). Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries. Oxford-IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1158pp.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2644–2652

JoTT Note

Aizoaceae (Magnoliopsida: Caryophyllales) - a new family record to the flora of Andaman Islands, India L. Rasingam Botanical Survey of India, Deccan Regional Centre, Plot No. 366/1, in Zoological Survey of India Campus, Attapur, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500048, India Email: rasingam@gmail.com

The Family Aizoaceae (Fig-marigold family or Ice plant family) comprises 127 genera and about 1860 species (Mabberley 2008) distributed mostly in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa and a few of them from Asia, Australia and the central Pacific regions. Majority of the species (96%) are endemic to southern Africa (Chesselet et al. 2000). In India the family is represented by three genera, namely, Sesuvium, Trianthema and Zaleya with seven species distributed in the coastal and lowland areas of peninsular India and the Gangetic plains (Karthikeyan et al. 2009). The genus Sesuvium L. comprises of about 22 species distributed in the warmer parts of the world, mostly confined to the tropics and sub-tropics worldwide (Mabberley 2008). In mainland India, the genus is represented by two species namely S. portulacastrum (L.) L. distributed in the coastal

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: N.P. Balakrishnan Manuscript details: Ms # o3075 Received 20 January 2012 Final received 19 March 2012 Finally accepted 21 May 2012 Citation: Rasingam, L. (2012). Aizoaceae (Magnoliopsida: Caryophyllales) - a new family record to the flora of Andaman Islands. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2653–2655. Copyright: © L. Rasingam 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: I am grateful to the Director, Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for facilities, and the Officer in Charge, Botanical Survey of India, Deccan Regional Centre, Hyderabad for encouragements and Dr. K. Karthigeyan, Central National Herbarium, Howrah, for suggestions. I also thank the officials of ANFPDCL for field support. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

4(6): 2653–2655

areas and S. sesuvioides (Fenzl) Verdc., distributed in Gujarat and the Upper Gangetic Plains (Karthikeyan et al. 2009). During the course of studies on the floristic diversity of Little Andaman Island, the author collected a succulent prostrate herb with pink flowers from the sandy coasts of South Bay area. On critical examination and study of the specimen, it was identified as Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. Survey of literature revealed that its occurrence has not been reported from these islands so far (Rao 1986; Lakshminarasimhan & Rao 1996; Mathew 1998; Pandey & Diwakar 2008). It is now reported here as a new addition to the flora of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The collection of this species from Little Andaman Island also forms a new addition of the family Aizoaceae to the flora of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. A brief description, photographs and uses are given for easy identification and further utilization of this economically important plant. Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. Syst. Nat., ed. 10. 2: 1058. 1759; Roxb., Fl. Ind. [ed. Carey] 2: 509. 1832; C. B. Clarke in Hook.f., Fl. Brit. India 2: 659. 1879; Ridl., Fl. Malay. Penins. 1: 866. 1922; Backer in Steenis, Fl. Males., Ser. 1, Spermat. 4: 272. 1951; Karthik. et al., Fl. Pl. India-Dicot. 66. 2009. Portulaca portulacastrum L., Sp. Pl. 446. 1753. (Images 1 & 2). Specimen examined: 27.xi.2005, South Bay, Little Andaman Island, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India, coll. L. Rasingam #25973 (PBL - Herbarium of the Botanical Survey of India, Andaman and Nicobar Regional Centre, Port Blair). Small prostrate herb; stems reddish, succulent, rooting at nodes, densely caespitose, glabrous. Leaves simple, opposite, fleshy, lanceolate, linear–lanceolate, often oblong, 20–50 x 5–10 mm, attenuate at base, entire along margins, obtuse at apex, flat above, convex beneath. Petioles very short, ca 7mm long, dilated at the base into a scarious, semi-amplexicaul sheath. Flowers solitary in the leaf axils; pedicels up to 1cm long, thickened upwards, glabrous. Perianth segments broadly lanceolate or oblong-ovate, ca 8x4 mm, central thicker parts green, thin, imbricate, margins pink,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2653–2655

2653

Aizoaceae - a new record

Image 1. Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. (Aizoaceae) a - Habit; b - Flowering twig; c - Flower

inner surface pink, apex with fleshy apiculus. Stamens many, included; filaments free, coherent at base, pink; anthers dark coloured. Ovary 3–4-locular, glabrous. Styles as many as locules, white. Capsule included by the perianth, oblong, ca 10mm long; seeds many, orbicular, long-funicled, shining black. Flowering & fruiting: Throughout the year. Distribution: Cosmopolitan in the tropics, seashores of eastern and western coasts in India. Presently recorded from Andaman Islands. Habitat & ecology: Rare, in the sandy beaches and along the tidal creeks between 0 to 5 m above sea level 2654

in association with Wedelia biflora, Ipomoea pescaprae, Launaea sarmentosa, Ischaemum muticum, I. rugosum and Crinum asiaticum. Uses: The whole plant is sold in the markets of Asian countries as a green vegetable. It is also a good fodder for cattle and cultivated as a sand-binder in eroded sea shores.

REFERENCES Chesselet, P., G.F. Smith, P.M. Burgoyne, C. Klak, S.A.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2653–2655

Aizoaceae - a new record

L. Rasingam

Hammer, H.E.K. Hartmann, H. Kurzweil, E.J. van Jaarsveld, B.E. van Wyk & O.A. Leistner (2000). Mesembryanthemaceae. In: Leistner, O.A. (ed.). Seed Plants of Southern Africa. Strelitzia 10: 360–410. Karthikeyan, S., M. Sanjappa & S. Moorthy (2009). Flowering Plants of India. Dicotyledons. Vol. 1 (Acanthaceae - Avicenniaceae). Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, 365pp. Lakshminarasimhan, P. & P.S.N. Rao (1996). Supplementary list of angiosperms recorded (1983– 1993) from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 20: 175–185. Mabberley, D.J. (2008). Mabberley’s Plant-Book; A Portable Dictionary of Plants, Their Classification and Uses. 3rd revised edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., XVIII+1021pp. Mathew, S.P. (1998). A supplementary report on the flora and vegetation of Bay Islands, India. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 22: 249–272. Pandey, R.P. & P.G. Diwakar (2008). An integrated checklist of plants in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, India. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 32: 403–500. Rao, M.K.V. (1986). A preliminary report on the angiosperms of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany 8: 107–184.

Image 2. Herbarium image of Sesuvium portulacastrum (L.) L. (Aizoaceae) Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2653–2655

2655

JoTT Note

4(6): 2656–2659

Xerophyte Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala (Asclepiadaceae): a new record to the flora of Karnataka, India M. Ramachandra Naik 1 & Y.L. Krishnamurthy 2 Department of Applied Botany, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Karnataka 577451, India Email: 1 rcnaik1@gmail.com, 2 murthy_ylk@yahoo.co.in (corresponding author) 1,2

Caralluma R. Br is a xerophytic succulent genus of Asclepiadaceae (sometimes treated as subfamily Asclepiadoideae of family Apocynaceae) and include about 120 taxa, with distribution in Africa, Asia, South Africa and southwestern Europe and Saudi Arabia (Move & Liede 2002). Gilbert (1990) carried out comprehensive studies of Caralluma spp. wherein he categorized 57 species in several subgenera. Later, Plowes (1995) divided the genus Caralluma into 17 genera based on morphological studies. Among them, six were monotypic. Recently, Meve & Leide, (2004), using molecular studies based on cladistic analysis demonstrated that the smaller units of Caralluma spp., compared well with that of morphologically divergent and geographically distributed races. In India, it is represented by 13 species and five varieties (Jagtab & Singh 1999). Sharma et al. (1984)

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: N.P. Balakrishnan Manuscript details: Ms # o2898 Received 31 July 2011 Final received 28 March 2012 Finally accepted 21 May 2012 Citation: Naik, M.R. & Y.L. Krishnamurthy (2012). Xerophyte Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala (Asclepiadaceae): a new record to the flora of Karnataka, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2656–2659. Copyright: © M. Ramachandra Naik & Y.L. Krishnamurthy 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Prof. T. Pullaiah, Department of Botany, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur (A.P.), for encouragement and conformation of plant identification. Thanks are also due to S. Karuppusamy, Department of Botany, Madura College, Madurai (TN) for helping with identification of the specimens.

treated the genus Caralluma, with five species and two varieties, in flora of Karnataka analysis. Kushalappa (1996) recorded Caralluma adscendens (Roxb.) Haw. along with C. adscendens var. attenuata and C. umbellata from Tumkur District of Karnataka. Gravely & Mayuranathan, (1931) discussed the morphological differences between C. adscendens var. attenuata & C. adscendens var. fimbriata. Caralluma nilagiriana was a new species reported (Kumari & Rao 1976) from Nilgiri Hills and is considered endemic to Tamil Nadu (Ramachandran et al. 2011). Bhaskar & Kushalappa, (1989) reported Caralluma nilagiriana as a new record from Karnataka and their specimens are deposited in UAS Herbarium, GKVK, in Bangalore. Plowes (1995) transferred C. nilagiriana into Boucerosia nilagiriana (Kumari & Subba Rao) Plowes. Caralluma campanulata (Wight) N.E.Br. (=Boucerosia campanulata, Wight) is now considered as synonym of Boucerosia umbellata (Roxb.) Wight & Arn. Similarly, C. umbellata (Roxb.) Haw. is a synonym of Boucerosia lasiantha Wight. Boucerosia truncato-coronata Sedgewick is considered as endemic to Darwar District in Karnataka. In this report, we surveyed the eastern part of north to southern interior areas of Karnataka, and collected specimens which are maintained at the herbarium in the Department of Botany, Kuvempu University. We collected a few interesting specimens of Carallama sp. from Chitradurga District of Karnataka. The specimens were identified as C. stalagmifera but differed in certain floral characters. Caralluma stalagmifera was described by Fischer in 1925 from Vandalur near Madras (Chennai). Saldanha & Nicolson (1976) recorded it in the flora of Hassan and Seetharam et al. (2000) included it in the flora of Gulbarga in Karnataka. Karuppusamy & Pullaiah (2007) first reported a new variety of C. stalagmifera var. longipetala from near Madurai airport in Tamil Nadu. This species has so far not been reported from Karnataka. The identity of our specimen is revealed as C. stalagmifera var. longipetala which is a new addition for the flora of Karnataka (Image 1).

OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

2656

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2656–2659

New xerophyte to Karnataka

M.R. Naik & Y.L. Krishnamurthy

Image 1. Close-up view of Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala

Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala Karup. & Pull. Karuppusamy & Pullaiah (27968) SKU; Tamil Nadu, Madurai District, waste lands near airport, 28.vii.2005 (Holotype, SKU; Isotypes, MH). Specimen examined: 20.ii.2010, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Shivamogga District, Karnataka, India, KUABM 1004, KUABM 1005 and KUABH 1006, (Herbarium, Department of Applied Botany (KU), Bioscience complex). Distribution: India, Karnataka, Chitradurga District, Holalkere Thaluk, Ramagiri hobli, Hosabeelu (13051’25”N & 76007’45”E) and Muddapura Village (13053’111”N & 76006’328”E) region (Fig. 1). Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala is found on steep rock-faces on the lower parts of hilly areas near Ramagiri, a small town, where it is rare in distribution. Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala occur along with other plant species like, Euphorbia antiquorum, Ceropegia sp., Opuntia sp., Canthium parviflorum, Dodonea viscosa, Lantana camara and Barleria buxifolia, etc. Plant Description: Plants growing up to 25–40 cm tall, in dense clumps, with clear exudates; stems succulent, acute, quadrangular, 1–2 cm wide, greyishgreen with brown mottling and whitish ribs. Leaves tooth-like, acute, sessile 4–5 x 0.5–1 mm, fleshy,

glabrous (Fig. 2). Flowers axillary, solitary; bracts large, triangular; pedicels up to 15mm long and 1mm in diameter, slender, glabrous; calyx five-lobed, divided up to base; corolla deeply divided, rotate, ca 12mm long, 8mm across; lobes ovate-lanceolate, dark purple with purplish yellow tips, after 8–12 days flower colour changes to brownish-green, basal parts of some flowers light pale yellowish with dark markings at the petal; spindle shaped hairs present along the margins and apex (Image 1); corona staminal, biseriate; outer lobes 2, erect, linear-lanceolate; pollinia 5, pollen masses solitary in each anther cell, pollinaria-D-shaped, yellow, waxy, attached by dark brown caudicles; gynostegium ca 2.5mm long. Follicles paired, terete, purplish streaked, 10–13 x 0.5–1 cm, tapering towards apex; old dehisced follicles glabrous (Image 2). Flowering and fruiting: December - June

References Bhaskar,V. & C.G. Kushalappa (1989). Caralluma nilagiriana Kumari & Subba Rao (Asclepiadaceae) - a new record from Karnataka. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 86: 480. Fischer, C.E.C. (1925). Caralluma stalagmifera. Bulletin of miscellaneous information. Kew 1925: 430. Gilbert, M.G. (1990). A review of Caralluma R. Br. and its segregates. Bradleya 8: 1–32.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2656–2659

2657

New xerophyte to Karnataka

M.R. Naik & Y.L. Krishnamurthy

> S

Figure 1. Location of C. stalagmifera var. longipetala in Chitradurga District.

Gravely, F.H. & P.V. Mayuranathan (1931). The Indian species of the genus Caralluma (Fam. Asclepiadaceae). Bulletin of Madras Government Museum 4: 1–28. Jagtab, A.P. & N.P. Singh (1999). Fascicles of Flora of India. Fascicle 24. Botanical Survey of India. Calcutta. 190211pp Karuppusamy, S. & T. Pullaiah (2007). Two new varieties of Caralluma stalagmifera C.E.C. Fisch. (Asclepiadaceae) from Peninsular India. Rheedea 17(1&2): 41–45. Kumari, G.R. & G.V.S. Rao (1976). A new species of Caralluma (Asclepiadaceae) from India. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 73: 194–196. Kushalappa, C.G. (1996). Germplasm exploration for plants of horticultural and silvicultural importance from the forests in Tumkur District, Karnataka. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Ph.D. Thesis, 55–56pp. 2658

Meve, U. & S. Liede (2002). A molecular phylogeny and generic rearrangement of the Stapelioid Ceropegieae (Apocynaceace- Asclepiadoideae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 234: 171–209. Meve, U. & S. Liede (2004). Subtribal division of Ceropegieae (Apocynaceae- Asclepiadoideae). Taxon 53(1): 61–72. Plowes, D.C.H. (1995). A reclassification of Caralluma R. Brown (Stapelieae: Asclepiadaceae). Haseltonia 3: 49–70. Ramachandran, V.S., B. Thomas, C. Sofiya & R. Sasi (2011). Rediscovery of an endemic plant Caralluma diffusa (Wight) N.E. Br.(Asclepiadaceae) from Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu, India, after 160 years. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(3): 1622–1623. Sharma, B.D., N.P. Singh, R.S. Raghavan & U.R. Deshpande (1984). Flora of Karnataka - analysis. Botanical Survey of India, 164–165pp.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2656–2659

New xerophyte to Karnataka

Figure 2. Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala Karupp. & Pull. a - habitat; b - calyx; c - corolla; d - corona; e - pollinia; f - fruiting twig; g - seed

Image 3. Herbarium of Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala

Saldanha, C.J. & D.H. Nicolson (eds.) (1976). Flora of Hassan District, Karnataka. New Delhi, 809pp. Seetharam, Y.N., K. Kotresha & S.B. Uplaonkar (2000). Flora of Gulbarga District. Publisher Registrar, Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, 27–28pp.

Image 2. Seed dispersal of Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2656–2659

2659

JoTT Note

4(6): 2660–2663

Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C. Fisch. (Commelinaceae), a vulnerable spiderwort, rediscovered after sixteen decades from Maharashtra, India Shrinath Kavade 1, Subhash Deokule 2, P. Lakshminarasimhan 3, Prakash Diwakar 4 & Sachin Punekar 5,6 Art, Commerce and Science College, Lanja, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra 416701, India 2 Department of Botany, University of Pune, Pune, Maharashtra 411007, India 3 Central National Herbarium, Botanical Survey of India, P.O. Botanic Garden, Howrah, West Bengal 711103, India 4 Botanical Survey of India, Western Regional Centre, 7, Koregaon Road, Pune, Maharashtra 411001, India 5 Paleobiology Group, Agharkar Research Institute, G.G. Agarkar Road, Pune, Maharashtra 411004, India 6 Biospheres, Eshwari, 52/403, Lakshminagar, Parvati, Pune, Maharashtra 411009, India Email: 1 shrinathkavade@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 deokule@unipune.ernet.in, 3 lakshminarasimhanp@yahoo.co.in, 4 pgdiwakar1951@gmail.com, 5 sachinpunekar@gmail.com, 6 info@biospheres.in 1

Chandoli National Park (previously Chandoli Wildlife Sanctuary) is a part of recently declared Sahyadri Tiger Reserve situated in the heart of

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: N.P. Balakrishnan Manuscript details: Ms # o2444 Received 19 April 2010 Final received 06 April 2012 Finally accepted 14 May 2012 Citation: Kavade, S., S. Deokule, P. Lakshminarasimhan, P. Diwakar & S. Punekar (2012). Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C. Fisch. (Commelinaceae), a vulnerable spiderwort, rediscovered after sixteen decades from Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2660–2663. Copyright: © Shrinath Kavade, Subhash Deokule, P. Lakshminarasimhan, Prakash Diwakar & Sachin Punekar 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: We thank Dr. V.R. Gunale, Head, Department of Botany, University of Pune, Dr. S.R. Bhosale, Principal, ACS College, Lanja and Directors of Agarkar Research Institute, Pune and Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata for facilities. Thanks are also due to Maharashtra Forest Department during the fieldwork in Chandoli National Park. Help rendered by Dr. V.P. Prasad, Indian Liaison Officer, Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, London by sending the type image is gratefully acknowledged. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

2660

the northern Western Ghats of Maharashtra, ear-marked as a future UNESCO World Heritage site. The study area spreads over an area of 317.67km2 along the backwaters of Varana River across the Sahyadri range. Chandoli National Park (CNP) lies between 1703’29”–17017’00”N and 73041’55”–73051’55”E. The altitude ranges from 589 to 1044 m. During a study to assess the floristic diversity of CNP, we collected and identified Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C Fisch. after a lapse of 160 years from Maharashtra. The genus Belosynapsis Hassk. is represented by five species distributed from South Asia to New Guinea (e-Floras, Digital Flora of Taiwan 2009). In India, it is represented by three species, namely, B. epiphytica (Blatt.) C.E.C. Fisch., B. kewensis Hassk. and B. vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C. Fisch. (Karthikeyan et al. 1989). After Dalzell’s collection in 1851 from Parva Ghat (Fig. 1), Maharashtra (at the junction of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka State), this species could not be collected from any other place in Maharashtra and it is treated as nearly vanished from the state (Lakshminarasimhan 1996; Mishra & Singh 2001). Apart from Maharashtra, this endemic (Ahmedullah & Nayar 1986) species is distributed in Karnataka (Katlekan, Jog Falls, Yedur, Agumbe, Shimoga, Hulical-Hosgadda, Shirur Ghat, Talacavery) (Sundararaghavan 1970), Kerala (Wayaaad) (Sharma et al. 1984) and Tamil Nadu (Anamalai Hills) (Gamble 1931). In the present investigation, a total of about 100 individuals were seen growing as epiphytes on large tree trunks at about 1.52–3.04 m from the ground in the riparian forest patches of Male and Patharpunj villages in Chandoli National Park, which in fact forms the northernmost distribution of this vulnerable taxon (Kammathy 1987). Materials and Methods: The present work is based on intensive floristic survey of CNP in the period 2005 to 2010. During the field study four specimens of this species were collected and plant specimens were identified using Gamble (1967), Sundararaghavan, (1970), Kammathy (1987), Lakshminarasimhan (1996) and deposited in the herbarium of the Department of Botany, University of Pune and Herbarium of Botanical Survey of India, Western Regional Centre, Pune (BSI) with collection number SPK 645. A detailed description, ecological observations,

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2660–2663

Belosynapsis vivipara rediscovered

S. Kavade et al.

Figure 1. Distribution map of Belosynapsis vivipara showing the type locality (Parva Ghat) and Chandoli National Park.

photographs (Image 1a-c) and distribution map (Fig. 1) of the species are provided for easy identification. Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) Sprague ex C.E.C. Fisch. in Bull. Misc. Inform. Kew 1928: 254. 1928 & in Gamble, Fl. Madras 1551. 1931 [3: 1082. 1967 (Repr.)]; Kammathy in M.P. Nayar & Sastry (eds.), Red Data Book Indian Pl. 1: 124, f. 1987; Karthik. et al., Fl. Ind. Enum. Monocot. 24. 1989; Lakshmin. in B. D. Sharma et al., Fl. Maharashtra State, Monocot. 147. 1996; D.K. Mishra & N.P. Singh, Endemic & Threat. Fl. Pl. Maharashtra 241. 2001. Cyanotis vivipara Dalzell in Hooker’s J. Bot. Kew. Gard. Misc. 3: 226. 1851; Hook. f., Fl. Brit. India 6: 388. 1892; T. Cooke, Fl. Bombay 3: 305. 1967 (Repr.). Epiphytic, subscapigerous herbs, 10–25 cm long, covered with scattered rufous spreading hairs or glabrescent in the tender plants; rootstock small. Leaves radical and cauline; radical leaves 3–8 x 1–2 cm, sessile, linear or linear-lanceolate, base narrowed, apex acute or acuminate, covered with pilose hairs; cauline

leaves 1–2 x 0.2–0.5 cm, sessile, ovate or elliptic, apex acute, pilose. Scape 8–25 cm long, slender, viviparous at the apex with several small oblong-lanceolate acute leaves. Peduncle with 2–4 flowers in umbel, arising from the leaf axils, pilose, 2-bracteate. Sepals 3, 2–3 mm long, oblong, villous. Petals 3, white, connate to the middle. Stamens 6; filaments naked. Capsules oblanceolate, ca. 3mm long, obtuse, hairy, recurved after dehiscence, 3-celled, 2-seeded. Seeds cylindric, smooth. Specimens examined: 1851, Parva Ghat, Maharashtra, India, coll. Dalzell, s.n. (K), 30.xi.1961, Katlekan, on way to Gerusoppa from Jog, coll. Ansari and Kammathy, 78707; 04.x.1962, Yedur, Shimoga District, coll. Raghavan, 82972; 08.x.1962, Hulical, Shimoga District, coll. Raghavan, 83069; 09.x.1962, same locality, coll. Raghavan, 83088 A; 16.x.1962, Agumbe, Shimoga District, coll. Raghavan, 83267; 24.viii.1963, Hulical-Hosgadda area, Shimoga District, coll. Raghavan, 9196; 01.ix.1963, Shirur Ghat, Shimoga District, coll. Raghavan, 90372 A; 23.x.1963, Bhimanagundi, Coorg District, coll. A.S.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2660–2663

2661

Belosynapsis vivipara rediscovered

S. Kavade et al.

Image 1. Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C. Fisch. a - Habitat; b - Vegetative habit; c - Reproductive habit

Rao, 95014; 26.x.1963, Talacauvery, Coorg District, coll. A.S. Rao, 95144 (All in BSI); 21.vii.2007, Chandoli National Park, Sangali District, SPK 645 (Department of Botany, University of Pune; BSI) (Image 2). Flowering & Fruiting: July–October. Distribution: Endemic to Western Ghats. Maharashtra (Sangali); Karnataka (Chikmagalur, Coorg, Hassan, Mysore, N. Kanara, Shimoga), Kerala 2662

(Wayanad) and Tamil Nadu (Anamalai Hills). Ecology: Growing at an elevation of ca. 992m 0 (17 16’22.79”N & 73045’15.20”E) as an epiphyte on densely moss covered tree trunks and branches of Flacourtia montana, Memecylon umbellatum and Syzygium cumini in shady, semi-evergreen riparian forests (Image 1a) in association with Begonia crenata, Bryum sp., Hoya wightii, Hymenophyllum sp., Lycopodium hamiltonii, Pogonatum sp. and Remusatia

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2660–2663

Belosynapsis vivipara rediscovered

S. Kavade et al.

vivipara. We suggest that total protection should be given to the riparian forests areas of Chandoli National Park for the conservation of this vulnerable and endemic taxon. Ex situ conservation and domestication of this species in greenhouses and gardens for future survival, besides its re-introduction into the wild in similar habitats is the need of the hour.

References

Image 2. Herbarium of Belosynapsis vivipara

Ahmedullah., M. & M.P. Nayar (1986). Endemic Plants of Indian Region—Vol. 1. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, p.208. Digital Flora of Taiwan (2009). <http://www.efloras.org> Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO & Harvard University Herbaria, Cambridge, MA. Online version dated 26 September 2009. Gamble, J.S. (1931). The Flora of the Presidency of Madras— Pt. IX. Adlard and Son Ltd. London, p.1551. [3: 1082. 1967 (Repr.)]. Kammathy, R.V. (1987). Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalz.) Sprague et Fischer, p.123, f. on p.124. In: Nayar, M.P. & A.R.K. Sastry (eds.). Red Data Book of Indian Plants—Vol. 1. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Karthikeyan, S., S.K. Jain, M.P. Nayar & M. Sanjappa (1989). Florae Indicae Enumeratio: Monocotyledonae, Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, p.24. Lakshminarasimhan, P. (1996). Monocotyledones, p. 147. In: Sharma, B.D., S. Karthikeyan & N.P. Singh (eds.). Flora of Maharashtra State. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta. Mishra, D.K. & N.P. Singh (2001). Endemic and Threatened Flowering Plants of Maharashtra. Botanical Survey of India, Kolkata, p.241. Sharma, B.D., N.P. Singh., R. Sundararaghavan & U.R. Deshpande (1984). Flora of Karnataka Analysis. Botanical Survey India, Calcutta, p.288. Sundararaghavan, R. (1970). The Flora of Agumbe and Tirthahalli areas in Shimoga District, Mysore State. PhD Thesis. Madras University, Madras. (Unpublished)

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2660–2663

2663

JoTT Note

4(6): 2664–2666

New distributional record of a rare sedge Kobresia (Cyperaceae) from Sikkim, India Bikash Jana 1, R.C.Srivastava 2, D.G. Long 3 & G.P. Sinha 4 Botanical Survey of India, CGO Complex, DF Block, 5th Floor, Sector I, Saltlake, Kolkata, West Bengal 700064, India 3 Herbarium, Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburg | Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, Scotland, UK 4 Botanical Survey of India, Central Regional Centre, 10 Chatham Lines, Allahahabd, Uttar Pradesh 211002, India Email: 2 rcs_bsi@yahoo.co.in (corresponding author), 4 drgpsinha@gmail.com 1,2

Kobresia, a genus established by Willdenow in 1805, is placed in the tribe Cariceae under the subfamily Cyperioideae of the sedge family Cyperaceae. The genus is characterized by its utricles, which are more or less open on one side and in having at least some bisexual spikelets with male flowers above the female flowers. There are about 65 species (Govaerts et al. 2007) distributed in the northern hemisphere, especially at high altitudes in the Himalaya, India, China and central Asia. About 42 taxa are recorded so far from India. It is one of the important genera in the alpine flora of the eastern and western Himalayan region of India. It is also an important pasture plant dominating a vast area of the alpine region where grazing animals feed extensively on it.

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: N.P. Balakrishnan Manuscript details: Ms # o3039 Received 19 December 2011 Final received 16 May 2012 Finally accepted 30 May 2012 Citation: Jana B., R.C. Srivastava, D.G. Long & G.P. Sinha (2012). New distributional record of a rare sedge Kobresia (Cyperaceae) from Sikkim, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2664–2666. Copyright: © Bikash Jana, R.C. Srivastava, D.G. Long & G.P. Sinha 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

While revising the genus Kobresia Willd. (Cyperaceae) in India under ‘Flora of India Project’ of the Botanical Survey of India, the authors came across specimens in the BSHC herbarium, which on critical studies were identified as K. harae Rajbh. & H. Ohba. A scrutiny of the literature (Clarke 1894; Karthikeyan et al. 1989; Kuekenthal 1909; Koyama 1978; Noltie 1994; Noltie & Zhang 2010) and herbaria revealed that this species is known so far from Nepal only. Therefore, the present collection from northern Sikkim forms the first report for India. Kobresia harae Rajbh. & H. Ohba in J. Jap. Bot. 62(7): 193, f.1. 1987. (Image 1) Type: Nepal: Janakpur Zone, Ramechhap District, Serdingma-Dubikharka, 3400–3720 m, 7.vii.1985, Ohba et al. No.8570278 Holotype (TI) Specimen examined: 13.vii.1996, 3520m, Yumthang, North Sikkim District, Sikkim, India, coll. G.P. Sinha & D.G. Long, 17821 (BSHC) (Image 2). Perennial herbs. Rhizome elongated, ca. 4 x 0.3 cm covered with brownish-black scales. Culms slender, erect, 9.5–10.1 cm x 0.5mm, triquetrous, smooth; base covered with brownish-black lamina bearing outer sheaths. Leaves ca. 2–7 cm x 1.5–2 mm, much shorter than the culm; lamina linear, slightly scabrid at apex, midrib smooth, greenish in colour; sheath 1–2 cm long. Inflorescence erect, racemose, oblong, ca. 2.4cm x 1mm with 4–6 spikes; axis slightly triquetrous. Spikes oblong, 9–11 x 3mm, with about 5 or 6 spikelets. Spikelets all unisexual, lowest and lateral ones female and terminal one male. Glumes of the lowest spikes broadly ovate, ca 4x1 mm, glabrous, brownish, margin slightly hyaline, prominently, 1-nerved, apex long attenuate, scabrid, base slightly sheathing. Lowest spikelets female, elliptic, ca. 4 x 0.75 mm. Glumes of the female spikelets ovate to ovate-elliptic, ca. 2.5 x 0.5 mm, apex slightly acute to obtuse, glabrous, brown, margin slightly hyaline at apex. Prophyll linear to oblanceolate, ca. 4 x 0.75 mm, membranous, smooth, brownish, upper portion hyaline, margin

Acknowledgements: Authors are grateful to the Director, Botanical Survey of India for facilities. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

2664

BSHC - Botanical Survey of India Sikkim Himalayas Circle Herbarium Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2664–2666

Kobresia - new record from Sikkim

B. Jana et al.

1cm

1mm

F E

2mm

1mm

Image 1. Kobresia harae Rajbh. & H. Ohba A - close-up of apical portion of leaf; B - apical portion of inflorescence; C - female glume; D - prophyll with gynoecium; E - gynoecium; F - Male spikelet.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2664–2666

2665

Kobresia - new record from Sikkim

B. Jana et al.

open in upper half from apex to the middle. Male glume broadly elliptic-lanceolate, ca. 5 x 0.5 mm, apex obtuse, glabrous. Stamens 3; filaments slender. Gynoecium ca. 3 x 0.5 mm; style 3-fid, ca.1mm long; ovary trigonous, obovate, ca 2 x 0.5 mm, smooth, light yellow in colour. Rachiola ¾th of the ovary, 1-nerved, smooth, greenish-yellow in colour. Flowering and Fruting: July. Distribution: India: Sikkim ( Yumthang); Nepal. References Clarke, C.B. (1894). Kobresia Willd. 6: 696–702. In: Hooker, J.D. (ed.). Flora of British India. L. Reeve, London. Govaerts, H.A. Rafael & D. Simpson (2007). World Checklist 2666

Image 2. Herbarium of Kobresia harae

of Cyperaceae:Sedges. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew. Karthikeyan, S., S.K. Jain, M.P. Nayar, M. Sanjappa (1989). Florae Indicae Enum. Monocot. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, 58–60pp. Koyama, T. (1978). Kobresia, pp. 112–114. In: Hara, H., W.T. Stern & L.H.J. Williams (eds.). An Enumeration of The Flowering Plants of Nepal—Vol. 1. British Museum (Natural History), London. Kuekenthal, G. (1909). Kobresia Willd. In: Engler, Pflanzenr. Heft 38: 40–48. Berlin. Noltie, H. J. (1994). Kobresia Willdenow, 1(3): 333–352. In: Grierson & Long (eds.). Flora of Bhutan. Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. Noltie, H.J. & S.R. Zhang (2010). Kobresia Willd., pp. 23: 269–285. In: Flora of China - Cyperaceae. Missouri Botanical Garden Press (St. Louis), USA.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2664–2666

JoTT Note

K.G. Emiliyamma 1, Muhamed Jafer Palot 2 & C. Radhakrishnan 3 Zoological Survey of India, Western Ghat Regional Centre, Jaferkhan Colony, Eranhipalam P.O., Kozhikode, Kerala 673006, India Email: 1 kgemily@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 palot.zsi@gmail.com, 3 radhakrishnan.zsi@gmail.com 1,2,3

The Odonata fauna of Kerala comprises 138 species, representing 80 genera and 12 families (Emiliyamma & Radhakrishnan 2006; Emiliyamma et al. 2007). The present report adds an additional record from Kerala. During a faunistic survey tour conducted on 6 June 2010 in the Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary (between 11053’1”–11059’14”N and 75047’29”–75055’58”E), located in the Brahmagiri slopes of the northern Western Ghats in the Kannur District of Kerala, we collected a specimen of Microgomphus souteri Fraser, 1924 at Valayamchal. The specimen was collected at around 0200hr below a tube light. The weather was rainy and windy all through the day and night and the surroundings were thoroughly drenched. It is conjectured that the weather conditions might have prompted the species to come to the light at night.

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Editor: Albert Orr Manuscript details: Ms # o2885 Received 27 July 2011 Final received 11 May 2012 Finally accepted 01 June 2012

The genus Microgomphus belongs to the family Gomphidae. Its members are among the smallest species in the family, and are coloured black marked with greenish-yellow. The genus Microgomphus is defined by the following characters: Discoidal cell of forewing and hindwing different in shape, that of forewing shorter than in hindwing; incomplete basal antenodal nervure absent; superior anal appendages with an inner branch, inferior appendages slightly notched at the tips (Image 1), further they have more than two transverse nervures between the sectors of the arc, from arc to bifurcation of Rs (Radial Sector) in fore and in hindwing. They are distributed in the humid parts of the Western Ghats and the northeastern part of India at an elevation of 609.5m and above. Other species of the genus are distributed in Myanmar, Malaysia, Sumatra, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Borneo and Africa. Species of the genus are arboreal by nature, but occasionally the males descend and settle on rocks in midstream; they do not wander far from their parent streams, and may be found settled on vegetation, usually beside the water. The larvae breed in deep pools in lowland and submontane streams flowing through heavy primary rainforest (Fraser 1934). The genus Microgomphus is represented in India by four species: M. chelifer Selys, 1858, M.

Microgomphus souteri Fraser, a new addition to the Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Kerala, southern India

4(6): 2667–2669

Citation: Emiliyamma, K.G., M.J. Palot & C. Radhakrishnan (2012). Microgomphus souteri Fraser, a new addition to the Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Kerala, southern India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(6): 2667–2669. Copyright: © K.G. Emiliyamma, Muhamed Jafer Palot & C. Radhakrishnan 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for non-profit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata for facilities and encouragement. Thanks are also due to Shri. K.V. Uthaman, Wildlife Warden, Aralam WLS for the permission accorded to conduct the field trip in the conservation area. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

1mm

Image 1. Male anal appendages of Microgomphus souteri

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2667–2669

2667

Addition to Odonata of Kerala

K.G. Emiliyamma et al.

ÂŠ Md. Jafer Palot

Image 2. Adult male Microgomphus souteri at Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary

souteri Fraser, 1924, M. torquatus (Selys, 1854) and M. verticalis (Selys, 1873) (Subramanian 2009). Of these, only M. souteri is endemic to the Western Ghats (Prasad & Varshney 1995). The characters of the specimen collected tally (though with some minor variations) with that of M. souteri (Fraser 1924). The genus Microgomphus and the species M. souteri Fraser is reported here for the first time from Kerala. The morphometric details of the specimen are given below with their diagnostic characters. Microgomphus souteri Fraser (Image 2) Material examined: 06.vi.2010, 1 male, Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Kannur District, Kerala, India, coll. Muhamed Jafer Palot, Registration No. ZSI/ WGRC/IR-INV-2240. Measurements: Total length - 40mm; Abdomen 28mm; Forewing - 25mm; Hindwing - 23mm. Diagnostic characters: Antehumeral stripes on 2668

thorax not confluent with mesothoracic collar; vertex without marking; labrum black, marked with two large triangular greenish spots; abdominal segments 4 and 5 without mid dorsal oval yellow spots; 8 to 10 without yellow markings. However, we have observed minor variations from the description: anterior collar of prothorax black, two large yellow spots on either side; antehumeral stripe broad, short; mesepimeron and metepimeron yellow, separated by a thin black stripe at the posterolateral suture; undersurface of all coxae and thorax yellowish with white pruinescence; wings with pale yellow at the subcostal and cubital spaces extended up to one cell length; marking on abdominal segments similar, but apicolateral spot absent on segment 2; markings on segment 6 bilobed and on 7th segment not overlapping the transverse suture. Fraser (1924) described Microgomphus torquatus souteri based on a specimen collected from Coorg, Karnataka. According to Fraser (1934), the species is confined to Coorg and South Kanara and breeds in

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2667â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2669

Addition to Odonata of Kerala

Sampaji and Hallery Rivers and the Kibribetta stream, 609–1067 m, Coorg. The present collection locality of the species from Kerala is however, only about 40–50 km south of the type locality of the species. With the present discovery, a total of 139 species of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) representing 81 genera are now known to occur in Kerala. The specimen studied is deposited in the faunal depository of the Western Ghat Regional Centre, Zoological Survey of India, Kozhikode, Kerala. Distribution: India: Kodagu, Dakshina Kannada (Karnataka) and Kannur (Kerala) - present report.

K.G. Emiliyamma et al.

REFERENCES Emiliyamma, K.G. & C. Radhakrishnan (2006). First report of Cyclogomphus heterostylus Selys (Odonata: Insecta) from Kerala, South India. Records of Zoological Survey of India 106(Part-2): 123–124. Emiliyamma, K.G., C. Radhakrishnan & M.J. Palot (2007). Odonata (Insecta) of Kerala. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata, 243pp. Fraser, F.C. (1924). Microgomphus torquatus souteri Fraser, Records of Indian Museum 26: 427, 474. Fraser, F.C. (1934). The Fauna of British India Including Ceylon and Burma. Odonata—Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, 398pp. Prasad, M. & R.K. Varshney (1995). A checklist of the odonata of India including data on larval studies. Oriental Insects 29: 385–428. Subramanian, K.A. (2009). A Checklist of Odonata (Insecta) of India: 1–36. http://www.zsi.gov.in/checklist/Odonata/ pdf. Downloaded on 20 December 2010.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2667–2669

2669

JoTT Book Review

4(6): 2670–2672

A Contribution to the Herpetology of Northern Pakistan: The Amphibians and Reptiles of Margalla Hills National Park and Surrounding Regions

By Rafaqat Masroor Published by Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-0-916984-83-0, 20 April 2012, 217pp. (14x22 cm), Price $ 45 Book reviewed by Raju Vyas 505, Krishnadeep Tower, Mission Road, Fatehgunj, Vadodara, Gujarat, India Email: razoovyas@hotmail.com

In this book Rafaqat Masroor focuses on the herpetofauna of Margalla Hills National Park (MHNP). Located at the foothills of Himalaya, the MHNP is an important protected area, sharing a common boundary with the cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi in northern Pakistan. This book is the first regional field guide from Pakistan with colored pictures and illustrations since the compilation by Khan (2006); its title is reminiscent of Minton (1966). There is a foreword by Prof. Wolfgang Bohme and the book is dedicated to the renowned herpetologist the late Dr. Khalid Javed Baig. The author has published extensively on the subject, with much of the work derived from an extensive study conducted from 2003–2009 in MHNP. He describes nine species of amphibians (from three families and eight genera) and 33 species of reptiles (from 13 families and 30 genera) inhabiting the park, and also provides general information on their distribution throughout Pakistan. The detailed information provided in eight chapters covers diagnostic features, descriptions, habits and habitats and distribution (including regional distribution

Date of publication (online): 26 June 2012 Date of publication (print): 26 June 2012 ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print) Manuscript details: Ms # o3218 Received 26 May 2012 Copyright: © Raju Vyas 2012. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium for nonprofit purposes, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication. OPEN ACCESS | FREE DOWNLOAD

2670

maps). Color pictures are provided for each species and recent updated information is contained at the end of each account. Chapter 1 presents a systematic list of amphibians and reptiles in the park. Chapter 2 deals with specific identification, presenting line drawings and figures of key characters such as sole and hind foot of frogs, bone and scutes of turtle shells, basic scale types found on the bodies of lizards and snake scalation. Regrettably, the author did not include a diagram depicting the body characters of a typical frog, potentially confusing some readers. Chapter 3 covers toads and frogs. Of note, Duttaphrynus melanosticus is only found in northern Pakistan (especially in the hilly region), and not in the plains of Punjab and Sind Province. This is an interesting observation given that this species is present in the adjoining border areas of India, especially in the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan (GEER 2009). The distribution of Microhyla ornata in Pakistan is interesting, as it also occurs only in northern Punjab. The author notes that ‘Sarkar (1984) has found them at Bhuj, Gujarat, India, very close to the southern Sind Province’. Uperodon systoma is a very rare species in Pakistan, and is only recorded from Shakarparian Hills, Islamabad (Baig & Gvozdic 1998). M. ornata is recorded from two border districts of Gujarat; Katchchh (Kachchh Desert Wildlife Sanctuary, Narayan Sarovar Wildlife Sanctuary and Kachchh Bustard Wildlife Sanctuary: Daniel 1963; Vyas 2002, 2007, 2008) and Banaskantha (Jassore Wildlife Sanctuary: GEER 2009). These protected areas are close (0 –160 km) to Pakistan border areas with similar biogeography and habitats. U. systoma has been recorded at Ajmer, Rajasthan (Sharma & Sharma 2009) and Banaskantha, Gujarat (GEER 2009). Thus, it remains possible that both the Microhylidae species may occur on/along the border of Pakistan, especially in Sind Province. The record of a single species of Fejervarya from MHNP is F. limnocharis, is a species complex. Recently a number of new cryptic species has been described from the complex from South East Asia. Therefore a statement should have been rephrased as “a number of cryptic species containing the F. limnocharis species complex”. While only two species of Fejervarya (F. limnocharis and F. syhadrensis) are reported to inhabit Pakistan, there may be others present

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2670–2672

Book Review

R. Vyas

that could be detected by molecular studies. Chapter 4 covers turtles and tortoises. Three species of turtles are found in MHNP of the eight species of freshwater turtles recorded from all of Pakistan. Chapter 5 covers the lizard fauna, discussing a total of 13 species six families: Agamaidae (three species), Euplepharidae (one species), Geckkonidae (three species), Lacertidae (two species), Scincidae (three species) and Varanidae (one species). Lizards are the second most dominant group in area, after snakes. In the distribution note on Eublepharis macularius, the author quotes the species distribution up to ‘… Rajputana and Khandesh districts of India’. There are no such districts in independent India. The Rajputana and Khandesh provinces are the old monarch states named before India gained freedom; Rajputana now is a part of Rajasthan and Khandesh is now a part of Maharashtra. Das (1997) elevated the subspecies (E. m. fascus) to species rank as E. fascus. The population from Gujarat (Bhatt et al. 1999) and Maharashtra is considered as E. fascus species (Mirza & Upadhye 2010). The E. macularius population is restricted to Pakistan and north-west India (Rajasthan, Punjab and Jammu), Das (1997) speculated that the Rann of Kachchh could be a barrier separating E. macularius and E. fuscus. The snakes of MHNP are presented in Chapter 6, covering 17 species from five families, dominated by the Colubridae with nine species. The rare record of Dendrelaphis tristis from MHNP is accompanied with the author’s quote in ‘Remarks’ that ‘The Zoological Survey of India has also not found it in the states of Gujarat or Rajasthan, both bordering states of Sind’, which comes out as a big surprise from the author in the book. This is vague statement from the author

is a result of lack of referral of any literature for this particular species. There are half a dozen publications on the record of the species, which show that the species is widely distributed in Gujarat (Gayen 1999; Vyas 1998, 2000, 2006; Sharma 2000) and Rajasthan (see: Whitaker & Captain 2004). Over all distribution and habitat preferences of species inhabiting the park is discussed in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 discusses various threats and suggestions for herpetofauna conservation in general, and particularly within the park. The book also contains an excellent glossary covering technical terminology and a comprehensive bibliography. The book concludes with an updated list of 210 species of amphibians (21 species) and reptiles (179 species) in Pakistan with common English names (author should have mentioned the local vernacular name along with province distribution of each species). The author has not clarified why some amphibians and reptiles have been omitted (see Table 1) that were listed in the earlier works of Minton (1966) and Khan (2004; 2006). Such information would be beneficial to readers and subsequent studies. Khan (2006) provided a list of 23 species (three amphibians and 20 reptiles) as unconfirmed amphibians and reptiles from Pakistan in literature, of which three species are snakes; Dendrelaphis tristis, Coelognathus helana and Natrix tessellata are now incorporated in the present list by the author and therefore, it states a valid and confirmed record. There are very minor and negligible spelling mistakes (see on page 148: B. aeruleus) and some technical taxonomic errors where the author is not aware of or has not accepted recent taxonomic changes.

Table 1. List of species of amphibian and reptiles records from Pakistan in literatures No

Specie Name

Distribution

Source

Punjab

Frost 2011

Amphibian: Dicroglossidae 1

Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834) Reptile: Geckkonidae

Cyrtopodion fedtschenkoi (Strauch, 1887)

Baluchistan

Smith 1935; Minton 1966

Teratolepis fasciata Blyth, 1853

Jaulana, Hyderabad

Minton 1966

Reptile: Agamidae 4

Sitana ponticeriana Cuvier, 1844 *

Thar Parkar, Sind

Murray 1886

Trapelus ruderata Oliver, 1804

Quetta

Minton 1966; Khan 2004, 2006

Kalabag, Punjab

Khan 2006

Sind

Murray 1884

Reptile: Lacertidae 6

Mesalina brevirostris Blanford, 1874 Reptile: Colubridae

Macropisthodon plumbicolor (Cantor, 1839) *

* marked species recorded from border areas of Kachchh and Banashkanth, Gujarat by author.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2670–2672

2671

Book Review

R. Vyas

The author should refer the taxonomic position of Python molurus with family Boidae. In the present taxonomic chart of P. molurus, the species has been removed from the family Boidae and now all old world pythons from subfamily (Pythoninae) are elevated to a family known as Pythonidae. The Old World pythons are now considered distinct from Boidae and are widely recognized as a separate family (Vidal & Hedges 2004). Overall, this book is handy in size and easy to carry during field work. It is a worthwhile read for students and experts alike, and the best available reference on the herpetofauna of Pakistan in general and certainly of the herpetofauna of Margalla Hills National Park. References Baig, K.L. & L. Gvozdic (1998). Uperodon systoma: Record of a new microhylid frog from Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 30(2): 155–156. Bhatt, K., R. Vyas & M. Singh (1999). Herpetofauna of Gir protected area. Zoos’ Print Journal 14(5): 27–30. Daniel, J.C. (1963). Field guide to the amphibians of western India. Part II. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 60(3): 690–702. Das, I. (1997). Resolution of the systematic status of Eublepharis macularius fuscus Borner, 1981 (Eublepharidae: Sauria: Squamata), Hamadryad 22: 13–20. Frost, D.R. (2011). Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.5 (31 January, 2011). Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/vz/ herpetology /amphibia/. Accesses on 23rd May 2012 Gayen, N.C. (1999). A synopsis of the reptiles of Gujarat, western India. Hamadryad 24(1): 1–22. GEER (2009). The status of Biodiversity of Jessore Wildlife Sanctuary (A comprehensive ecological and socio-Economic study). Gujarat Ecological Education and Research (GEER) Foundation, Gandhinagar and Forest Department, Government of Gujarat, March 2009, 167pp. (Published Report). Khan, M.S. (2004). Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10: 191–121. 2672

Khan, M.S. (2006). Amphibian and Reptiles of Pakistan. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, 311pp. Minton, S.A. (1966). A contributions to the herpetology of West Pakistan, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 134: 27–184. Mirza, Z. & R. Upadhye (2010). On the distribution and natural history of the endemic Eublepharid Gecko Eublepharis fuscus Borner, 1981 in India. SAURIA, Berlin 32(3): 15–23. Murray, J.A. (1884). The vertebrate zoology of Sind: A Systematic Account, with Descriptionof all the known Mammals, Birds and Reptiles inhabiting the Province; Observation on the habit, and a Table of their Geographical Distribution in Persia, Beloochstan, and Afghanistan; Punjab, North-west Province, and Peninsula of India generally. Education Society’s Press, Byculla, Bombay, and Richardson and Co., London, 424pp. Murray, J.A. (1886). The Reptiles of Sind: A systematic account with description of all the species inhabiting the Province and a Table of their Geographical Distribution in Persia, Beloochstan, and Afghanistan; Punjab, North-west Province, and Peninsula of India generally, with woodcut, lithographs, and colored illustrations. Education Society’s Press, Byculla, Bombay, and Richardson and Co., London, 92pp. Sarkar, A.K. (1984). Ecological studies on the amphibians of Gujarat. Bulletin of the Zoological Society of India 6(1–3): 87–93. Sharma, K.K. & V. Sharma (2009). Records of two Microhylids: Ornate Narrow Mouthed Frog (Microhyla ornata) and Marbled Balloon Frog (Uperodon systoma) from Ajmer district, central Rajasthan, India. Cobra 3(3): 11–15. Sharma, R.C. (2000). Reptilia, 243–297. In: State Fauna Series 8: Fauna of Gujarat, Part - I. Zoological Survey of India. Smith, M.A. (1935). The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and amphibia. Vol. II: Sauria. Taylor and Francis Ltd. London, 440pp. Vidal, N. & S.B. Hedges (2004). Molecular evidence for a terrestrial origin of snakes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B Supplement 271, S226–S229. Vyas, R. (1998). The reptiles of Gujarat State: Updated distribution. TigerPaper 25(1): 8–14. Vyas, R. (2000). Herpetofauna of Hingolgadh Nature Education Sanctuary, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print Journal 15(6): 285–286. Vyas, R. (2002). Preliminary survey of herpetofauna of Narayan Sarovar Sanctuary, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(6): 812– 814. Vyas, R. (2006). Reptilian diversity of Jambughoda Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat. Tigerpaper 33(1): 20–23 Vyas, R. (2007). Present conservation scenario of reptile fauna in Gujarat State, India. The Indian Forester 133(10): 1381– 1394. Vyas, R. (2008). Review of the current diversity and richness of amphibians of Gujarat, India. The Indian Forester 134(10): 1381–1392. Whitaker, R. & A. Captain (2004). Snakes of India: The Field Guide. Draco Books, Chennai, India, xiv+481pp.

Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | June 2012 | 4(6): 2670–2672

Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Tai Po, Hong Kong Dr. Krushnamegh Kunte, Cambridge, USA Prof. Dr. Adriano Brilhante Kury, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Dr. P. Lakshminarasimhan, Howrah, India Dr. Carlos Alberto S de Lucena, Porto Alegre, Brazil Dr. Glauco Machado, São Paulo, Brazil Dr. Gowri Mallapur, Mamallapuram, India Dr. George Mathew, Peechi, India Prof. Richard Kiprono Mibey, Eldoret, Kenya Dr. Lionel Monod, Genève, Switzerland Dr. Shomen Mukherjee, Jamshedpur, India Dr. P.O. Nameer, Thrissur, India Dr. D. Narasimhan, Chennai, India Dr. T.C. Narendran, Kozhikode, India Mr. Stephen D. Nash, Stony Brook, USA Dr. K.S. Negi, Nainital, India Dr. K.A.I. Nekaris, Oxford, UK Dr. Heok Hee Ng, Singapore Dr. Boris P. Nikolov, Sofia, Bulgaria Prof. Annemarie Ohler, Paris, France Dr. Shinsuki Okawara, Kanazawa, Japan Dr. Albert Orr, Nathan, Australia Dr. Geeta S. Padate, Vadodara, India Dr. Larry M. Page, Gainesville, USA Dr. Arun K. Pandey, Delhi, India Dr. Prakash Chand Pathania, Ludhiana, India Dr. Malcolm Pearch, Kent, UK Dr. Richard S. Peigler, San Antonio, USA Dr. Rohan Pethiyagoda, Sydney, Australia Mr. J. Praveen, Bengaluru, India Dr. Mark R Stanley Price, Tubney, UK Dr. Robert Michael Pyle, Washington, USA Dr. Muhammad Ather Rafi, Islamabad, Pakistan Dr. H. Raghuram, Bengaluru, India Dr. Dwi Listyo Rahayu, Pemenang, Indonesia Dr. Sekar Raju, Suzhou, China Dr. Vatsavaya S. Raju, Warangal, India Dr. V.V. Ramamurthy, New Delhi, India Dr (Mrs). R. Ramanibai, Chennai, India Prof. S.N. Ramanujam, Shillong, India Dr. Alex Ramsay, LS2 7YU, UK Dr. M.K. Vasudeva Rao, Pune, India Dr. Robert Raven, Queensland, Australia Dr. K. Ravikumar, Bengaluru, India

Dr. Luke Rendell, St. Andrews, UK Dr. Anjum N. Rizvi, Dehra Dun, India Dr. Leif Ryvarden, Oslo, Norway Prof. Michael Samways, Matieland, South Africa Dr. Yves Samyn, Brussels, Belgium Dr. Asok K. Sanyal, Kolkata, India Dr. K.R. Sasidharan, Coimbatore, India Dr. Kumaran Sathasivam, India Dr. S. Sathyakumar, Dehradun, India Dr. M.M. Saxena, Bikaner, India Dr. Hendrik Segers, Vautierstraat, Belgium Dr. R. Siddappa Setty, Bengaluru, India Dr. Subodh Sharma, Towson, USA Prof. B.K. Sharma, Shillong, India Prof. K.K. Sharma, Jammu, India Dr. R.M. Sharma, Jabalpur, India Dr. Tan Koh Siang, Kent Ridge Road, Singapore Dr. Arun P. Singh, Jorhat, India Dr. Lala A.K. Singh, Bhubaneswar, India Prof. Willem H. De Smet, Wilrijk, Belgium Mr. Peter Smetacek, Nainital, India Dr. Humphrey Smith, Coventry, UK Dr. Hema Somanathan, Trivandrum, India Dr. C. Srinivasulu, Hyderabad, India Dr. Ulrike Streicher, Danang, Vietnam Dr. K.A. Subramanian, Pune, India Mr. K.S. Gopi Sundar, New Delhi, India Dr. P.M. Sureshan, Patna, India Prof. R. Varatharajan, Imphal, India Dr. Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Dehradun, India Dr. R.K. Verma, Jabalpur, India Dr. W. Vishwanath, Manipur, India Dr. E. Vivekanandan, Cochin, India Dr. Gernot Vogel, Heidelberg, Germany Dr. Ted J. Wassenberg, Cleveland, Australia Dr. Stephen C. Weeks, Akron, USA Prof. Yehudah L. Werner, Jerusalem, Israel Mr. Nikhil Whitaker, Mamallapuram, India Dr. Hui Xiao, Chaoyang, China Dr. April Yoder, Little Rock, USA English Editors Mrs. Mira Bhojwani, Pune, India Dr. Fred Pluthero, Toronto, Canada

Journal of Threatened Taxa is indexed/abstracted in Zoological Records, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, Index Fungorum, Bibliography of Systematic Mycology, EBSCO and Google Scholar.

Journal of Threatened Taxa ISSN 0974-7907 (online) | 0974-7893 (print)

June 2012 | Vol. 4 | No. 6 | Pages 2617–2672 Date of Publication 26 June 2012 (online & print) Communications Species diversity of small mammals at Gunung Stong State Park, Kelantan, Malaysia -- Vijaya Kumaran Jayaraj, Nurul Farah Diyana Ahmad Tahir, Noor Amirah Udin, Noor Farahin Kamarul Baharin, Siti Katijah Ismail & Siti Noor Azwa Zakaria, Pp. 2617– 2628 Predicting effects of rainforest fragmentation from live trapping studies of small mammals in Sri Lanka -- Mayuri R. Wijesinghe, Pp. 2629–2636 Opinion A postulate for tiger recovery: the case of the Caspian Tiger -- C.A. Driscoll, I. Chestin, H. Jungius, O. Pereladova, Y. Darman, E. Dinerstein, J. Seidensticker, J. Sanderson, S. Christie, S.J. Luo, M. Shrestha, Y. Zhuravlev, O. Uphyrkina, Y.V. Jhala, S.P. Yadav, D.G. Pikunov, N. Yamaguchi, D.E. Wildt, J.L.D. Smith, L. Marker, P.J. Nyhus, R. Tilson, D.W. Macdonald & S.J. O’Brien, Pp. 2637–2643

Xerophyte Caralluma stalagmifera var. longipetala (Asclepiadaceae): a new record to the flora of Karnataka, India -- M. Ramachandra Naik & Y.L. Krishnamurthy, Pp. 2656–2659 Belosynapsis vivipara (Dalzell) C.E.C. Fisch. (Commelinaceae), a vulnerable spiderwort, rediscovered after sixteen decades from Maharashtra, India -- Shrinath Kavade, Subhash Deokule, P. Lakshminarasimhan, Prakash Diwakar & Sachin Punekar, Pp. 2660–2663 New distributional record of a rare sedge Kobresia (Cyperaceae) from Sikkim, India -- Bikash Jana, R.C.Srivastava, D.G. Long & G.P. Sinha, Pp. 2664–2666 Microgomphus souteri Fraser, a new addition to the Odonata (Insecta) fauna of Kerala, southern India -- K.G. Emiliyamma, Muhamed Jafer Palot & C. Radhakrishnan, Pp. 2667–2669 Book Review

Short Communication CEPF Western Ghats Special Series Freshwater fish fauna of Krishna River at Wai, northern Western Ghats, India -- Sanjay S. Kharat, Mandar Paingankar & Neelesh Dahanukar, Pp. 2644–2652

A Contribution to the Herpetology of Northern Pakistan: The Amphibians and Reptiles of Margalla Hills National Park and Surrounding Regions—By Rafaqat Masroor Published by Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New York, USA, ISBN: 978-0-916984-83-0, 20 April 2012, 217pp. (14x22 cm), Price $ 45 -- Book reviewed by Raju Vyas, Pp. 2670–2672

Notes Aizoaceae (Magnoliopsida: Caryophyllales) - a new family record to the flora of Andaman Islands, India -- L. Rasingam, Pp. 2653–2655