This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 5(2):65-80.
Herpetofaunal diversity and distribution in Kalugala proposed forest reserve, Western province of Sri Lanka
W. MADHAVA S. BOTEJUE AND 2JAYANTHA WATTAVIDANAGE
1 Taprobanica Nature Conservation Society, 150/6, Stanley Thilakaratne Mawatha, Nugegoda, SRI LANKA 2Department of Zoology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, The Open University of Sri Lanka, SRI LANKA
Abstract.—Kalugala Proposed Forest Reserve (KPFR) is a primary lowland tropical rain forest, surrounded by secondary forest and vegetation disturbed by human activities such as cultivation, logging, and the collection of firewood. Herpetofaunal communities of selected different habitats (closed forest, forest edge, home gardens, and cultivations) were assessed and distribution patterns were compared. A total of 24 amphibian species (63% endemic and 33% Threatened) and 53 reptile species (38% endemic and 30% Threatened) were recorded. Overall, 763 individual amphibians and 1032 individual reptiles were recorded in this forest area. Reptilian distribution patterns are similar to amphibian distribution patterns, with the highest diversity in the closed forest and the lowest diversity in cultivations. We did not observe an effect of forest edge (edge effect) in amphibian and reptile diversity, except for forest edge and cultivations for reptiles. Adverse human activities such as improper agriculture practices, logging, and waste disposal have led to deforestation and habitat loss in KPFR. Key words. Amphibians, reptiles, conservation, ecology, habitats, rain forest, Sri Lanka, threats
Citation: Botejue WMS, Wattavidanage J. 2012. Herpetofaunal diversity and distribution in Kalugala proposed forest reserve, Western province of Sri Lanka. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 5(2):65-80(e38).
Recent research has demonstrated the uniqueness of Sri Lankan fauna and its distinctness from the Indian mainland (Bossuyt et al. 2004, 2005; Helgen and Groves 2005). This is particularly true of the herpetofaunal assemblage (Bossuyt et al. 2004; Meegaskumbura et al. 2002). There are 110 species of amphibians in Sri Lanka, which belong to seven families and 19 genera with 95 (86%) endemic species. (Fernando et al. 2007; Frost 2008; Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda 2006; Meegaskumbura et al. 2007; Meegaskumbura et al. 2009; Meegaskumbura et al. 2010; Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi 2011). The reptile fauna consists of 210 species, including 120 (57%) endemic species, representing 24 families and 82 genera. (Bauer et al. 2007; Batuwita and Pethiyagoda 2007; de Silva 2006; Gower and Maduwage 2011; Maduwage et al. 2009; Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2006; Manamendra-Arachchi et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2008; Somaweera 2006; Wickramasinghe and Munindradasa 2007; Wickramasinghe et al. 2009). In the present period of mass extinction of biodiversity (Achard et al. 2002; Jenkins 2003) many species of animals, plants, and other organisms are disappearing at an alarming rate, primarily due to human activities such
Correspondence. Email: email@example.com
as deforestation (Bambaradeniya et al. 2003; Brook et al. 2003; Pethiyagoda 2005, 2007a), fire (Batuwita and Bahir 2005), erosion (Hewawasam et al. 2003), agrochemical use (Pethiyagoda 1994), and lack of systematic or scientific understanding (Bahir 2009; Pethiyagoda 2007b). Although the natural forest area of Sri Lanka still constitutes over 12% of the total land area (Tan 2005), human population density of the biologically rich wet zone is among the highest on earth (Cincotta et al. 2000). Furthermore, the population growth rate is increasing around protected areas (Wittemyer et al. 2008). Natural forests and the biodiversity have been rapidly diminishing over the past 100 years. The result has been the extinction of 21 species of amphibians, with 19 of these species being from the genus Pseudophilautus (Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda 2005; Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi 2005; Meegaskumbura et al. 2007). In addition, of the remaining species, 57 reptiles and 56 amphibians are considered Threatened (IUCNSL and MENRSL 2007). Kalugala Proposed Forest Reserve (KPFR) is one of the remaining few wet zone forest patches in Sri Lanka and is threatened by human activities. We report the results of a study conducted in KPFR to assess species richness, abundance, and diversity of the herpetofauna and to evaluate the distribution patterns among different habitats.
Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org
January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39
Amphib. Exotic species like Alstonia macrophylla are also found in the forest and the ground is covered with a thick and moist decomposing leaf matter layer. 1). Dipterocarpus sp. at some places the forest rises up to about 50-60 m in height and is primarily composed of Dipterocarpus sp. Murraya paniculata. Garcinia sp. Reptile Conserv. and Horsfieldia iryaghedhi. today it has been diminished to an isolated forest patch due to extensive deforestation and other human activities (Kekulandala 2002. Mallotus sp. 3). and consist of secondary and disturbed vegetation. and many other fern species dominate. However the boundaries of this forest are disturbed due to cultivation.. The floristic structure and composition suggest KPFR retain a considerable amount of primary forest.org 066 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . the forest is directly connected to cultivations.Botejue and Wattavidanage Study area and habitats The KPFR belongs to Agalawatta and Walallawita Divisional Secretariat of Kaluthara District. 4)... Mesua sp. that rise to about 30-40 m. The under growth is very dense in most parts of the forest edge. Artocarpus nobilis. Calophyllum sp. Entada pusaetha. Mangifera zeylanica.. Osbeckia sp. forest edge (Fig. Garcinia sp. shrubs such as Ochlandra stridula.. trees such as Mesua sp. Macaranga sp. The major vegetation formation of this habitat type can be classified as Doona-DipterocarpusMesua series (Ranasinghe 1995). Originally. The forest edge is the marginal area between closed forest and home gardens or cultivations. Artocarpus heterophyllus. Elaeocarpus sp. Doona sp. Average monthly temperature in the region is ~27. Closed forest is found deep in KPFR and on hilltops (Fig. A certain degree of stratification can be identified in the forest. Areca catechu. home gardens (Fig. However.3 °C (Kekulandala 2002. but primarily this layer is comprised of Humboldtia laurifolia... 5a. the KPFR was an area of approxiatemly 4.g. 6). and although an emergent layer cannot be clearly identified. Mangifera indica.) and epiphytes. The elevation of the area ranges from 30-300 m and the majority of its precipitation originates from the southwest monsoon (April to September) with a mean annual rainfall of 4000-5000 mm. in some places. and Doona sp. firewood collection. We identified four types of habitats as study sites: closed forest (Fig. Some areas of the forest are disturbed by well- maintained trails (Fig... logging. and illegal encroachments. Several decades ago. saplings of Calamus sp. where Dicranopteris sp.907 ha (Ranasinghe 1995). Melastoma malabathricum. Caryota urens. The composition of the understory is variable. Ranasinghe 1995). The subcanopy is about 15-30 m high with the primary trees being Semecarpus sp.. the land area has drastically reduced to about 2. Shorea sp. Sri Lanka..630 ha when first declared a Proposed Forest Reserve in 1992. Cyathea sp. The KPFR is a catchment area for both Benthara and Kalu rivers. KPFR was part of the western-most extension of Sinharaja rainforest. This is highly disturbed by human activities such as logging and firewood collecting. Shorea sp. A considerable number of streams are located in the study area (Fig.. The canopy layer is composed of Anisophyllea cinnamomoides.. 2).. Species of the family Poaceae and Asteraceae were also found in the ground layer and exotic Figure 1. b.. Vateria copallifera. climbers such as Calamus sp..). 7). and cultivations (Fig. | http://redlist-ARC.. and Mangifera zeylanica. however. Ranasinghe 1995). Pothos sp. Strobilanthes sp. This forest harbor a rich assemblage of climbing plants (e. Trema orientalis. agriculture practices. c). and tree ferns (Cyathea sp. and Glochidion sp. and Calamus sp. due to continuous deforestation. The vegetation of this area consists of a mixture of forest vegetation and home garden vegetation.. logging. Geographical location and map of KPFR. 8) and. as well as ground orchids. The ground layer is mainly composed of species in the family Poaceae and Asteraceae.... which lies between 6°25’-6°30’ N and 80°12’-80°16’ E (Fig. Syzygium sp.
Albizia sp. Cucurbitaceae. Macaranga peltata. Figure 4. Elaeocarpus serratus. Most home gardens are directly associated with cultivations (Fig. Figure 5a. Eucalyptus sp. as are exotic trees such as Alstonia macrophylla and Acacia sp. Shrubs consist of Melastoma malabathricum. and other ornamental plants are present. | http://redlist-ARC.org 067 sp. Caryota urens. Cassia Amphib. and Pinus sp. Cultivation (paddy). Closed forest.. Figure 3. Cinnamomum verum. Nephelium lappaceum. Acacia sp. Figure 5b. Spondias sp. Home gardens..... Forest edge. Figure 5c. Osbeckia octandra. Syzygium sp. Artocarpus heterophyllus. Plumeria sp. and Asteraceae. and thus many herbaceous crop plants of the family Fabaceae. and ornamental plants such as Musa sp.. nigrum. Home garden vegetation consists of crop.Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Figure 2. Dillenia suffruticosa. January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Carica papaya.. Cocos nucifera. species like Alstonia macrophylla. 9). Reptile Conserv. Artocarpus incisus. Cultivation (tea). Cultivation (rubber). and P.. shade. Areca catechu.. and exotic Lantana camara. Garcinia sp. Piper betle. Poaceae. were present in this habitat type. Mangifera indica. Manihot esculenta.
Around paddy and tea cultivation other crops like banana (Musa sp. Quadrat sampling (5 × 5 m) was employed for habitat-specific sampling. 10a. Amphib. respectively. Figure 8.org 068 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Temperature and humidity were measured using a digital thermometer and a digital humidity meter. cloud cover. and herbaceous plants of the family Fabaceae and Poaceae. such as tea and rubber. Well maintained trails inside the forest. Most rubber cultivations are not well maintained and the undergrowth is high and comprised of Dicranopteris sp. The KPFR area include three main types of cultivation: paddy. with quadrats being placed in pairs in every location of each habitat type. Weather. Randomly placed pitfall traps were used to sample small terrestrial reptiles where others were hand captured. 24 quadrats. Figure 9. A total of 12 field visits were conducted for a total of 480 hours. Mud pools and small rivulets in paddy-cultivated land provide many microhabitats for amphibians. | http://redlist-ARC. including night visits with the aid of head lamps. Belt transects (4 × 50 m) used for data collection and observations conducted 20 cm deep into the leaf litter. Home gardens associated with cultivation.. equating a total sampling area of 1400 m2 + 2000 m with equal observation time being allocated to each habitat. Streams inside the forest. and four belt transects were used. All quadrats were surveyed once during the day and once at night by 4-5 people moving slowly inward from the periphery. and rubber.Botejue and Wattavidanage Figure 6. or tea and paddy (Fig. Figure 7.) and coconut (Cocos nucifera) can be seen. In some locations two cultivations are in close proximity with one another. and in a few locations all three cultivations can be found in close proximity. Materials and methods Data collection Dates of field study were determined using a random number table. Reptile Conserv. and canopy cover were assessed visually. Forest on hilltops. Visual encounter surveys and line transects (200 m) were used for data collection. 12 line transects. tea. In total. b).
Bahir and Silva (2005). with 20 species (38%) being endemic and 16 (30%) being Threatened (Table 2).635 (Fig.Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Data analysis The Shannon-Wiener Index [H’ = -∑ (pi ln pi)] was used to determine the diversity of species heterogeneity (where. For amphibians. followed by home gardens. CU – Cultivations. excluding Pseudophilautus reticulatus) were recorded in forest edge. 18 species (75%) and 10 species (42%). respectively. and eight (33%) being Threatened (Table 1). Gunatilleke and Gunatilleke (1990). | http://redlist-ARC.838. and cultivations. (2007). (1997). b).org 069 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Pethiyagoda and ManamendraArachchi (1998). Somaweera (2006). NT Polypedates cruciger E Taruga longinasus E. H’ = species diversity. In terms of reptiles. and cultivations with comparatively low. A total of 53 species of reptiles (representing 38 genera and 12 families) were recorded. Table 1. Deraniyagala (1953 and 1955). and pi = proportional frequency of the ith species). EN Amphib. and Meegaskumbura and Manamendra-Arachchi (2011) for amphibians. (19941995). The greatest species richness for both amphibians and reptiles was in closed forest. 11). CF – Closed forest. Bauer et al. 44 species (83%). Meegaskumbura et al. VU – Vulnerable. and Whitaker and Captain (2004) for reptiles. EN x x x x x x x x x x – – x x x x x E x x x x x – x x x – – – x x – – x – – – – – x – – x – Pseudophilautus folicola E. The lists of Threatened species were based on the most recent national Red List (IUCNSL and MENRSL 2007). and 25 species (47%) were recorded in forest edge. respectively (Fig. 36 species (68%). Species diversity Overall the herpetofaunal diversity and both amphibian and reptile diversity in KPFR was high. Howlader (2011). Species Identification All amphibian and reptile species were identified and classified using Dutta and Manamendra-Arachci (1996). Plant species were identified using Ashton et al. de Silva (1990 and 2006). and 45 species (85%) of reptiles. Somaweera and Somaweera (2009). NT Rhacophoridae Pseudophilautus abundus E Pseudophilautus cavirostris E. Das and de Silva (2005). The non-parametric MannWhitney U-test at the 10% significant level was used to test differences in independent samples of amphibian and reptile distribution among habitats. Dassanayake et al. Reptile Conserv. NT – Near Threatened. EN Pseudophilautus hoipolloi E Pseudophilautus popularis E Pseudophilautus reticulatus x x x x Pseudophilautus stictomerus E. Scientific name Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis glutinosus E Bufonidae Adenomus kelaartii E Duttaphrynus melanostictus Microhylidae Kaloula taprobanica Microhyla rubra Ramanella variegata Dicroglossidae Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Euphlyctis hexadactylus Zakerana kirtisinghei E Recorded habitats CF FE HG CU x x x – x x x x x x – x x x x x x x x x x x – – x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x – Results Species richness A total of 24 species of amphibians (representing 15 genera in 7 families) were recorded. Taylor (1953). (2010). The ShannonWiener Index for overall herpetofauna (H’H) was 3. (2009). 12a. EN – Endangered. VU Nyctibatrachidae Lankanectes corrugatus E Ranidae Hylarana aurantiaca VU Hylarana temporalis E. with 15 species (63%) being endemic. home gardens. Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda (2006). The Shannon-Wiener Index for amphibian diversity (H’A) was 2. Abbreviations: E – Endemic. Günther (1864).508 and for reptile diversity (H’R) 3. Dassanayake and Clayton (1996-2000). with all 24 species of amphibians being recorded there. Zakerana syhadrensis Hoplobatrachus crassus Nannophrys ceylonensis E. Checklist of the amphibians (n = 24) recorded from KPFR. and Senaratna (2001). 23 species (96%. ManamendraArachchi et al. FE – Forest edge. Smith (1935). HG – Home Gardens. Dassanayake and Fosberg (1980-1991). de Silva (2009). (2010a and 2010b). Meegaskumbura et al.
and Ichthyophis glutinosus. NT x – x x x x – x Lankascincus greeri E Varanidae Varanus bengalensis – – x x x x x x x x x x – – – – Varanus salvator Bataguridae Melanochelys trijuga – x x x Species abundance During field visits a total of 763 individual amphibians were recorded. Geckoella triedrus. while 164 (22%) individual amphibians were recorded in cultivations and 273 (26%) individual reptiles were recorded in closed forest (Fig.Botejue and Wattavidanage Table 2. followed by Otocryptis wiegmanni and Lankascincus fallax. A total of 1. followed by Aspidura guentheri.. followed by Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis and E. NT Gehyra mutilata Hemidactylus depressus E Hemidactylus frenatus Hemidactylus parvimaculatus Lepidodactylus lugubris Scincidae Eutropis carinata Eutropis madaraszi E. Ramphotyphlops Amphib. VU x x x x x x x x – x x – Atretium schistosum Balanophis ceylonensis Boiga ceylonensis Boiga forsteni Cercaspis carinatus E. Reptile Conserv. reticulatus. Viperidae x x – – x x x x x E. P. Checklist of the reptiles (n = 53) recorded from KPFR. abundance was greatest in the forest edge. Balanophis ceylonensis. VU – Vulnerable. 172 (23%) individual amphibians and 215 (21%) individual reptiles were recorded. January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . and Ceratophora aspera. CU – Cultivations. Among habitats.032 individual reptiles were recorded with Hypnale hypnale being most abundant. VU Chrysopelea ornate NT – x – E. NT Otocryptis wiegmanni Gekkonidae Cnemaspis silvula E Cnemaspis sp. The least abundant species were Ramanella variegata. followed by Microhyla rubra. In home gardens. NT EN E. Atretium schistosum. NT – Near Threatened. cavirostris. hexadactylus. Scientific name Pythonidae Python molurus Colubridae Ahaetulla nasuta Ahaetulla pulverulenta Amphiesma stolatum Aspidura guentheri E. Taruga longinasus. EN x x x – x x x x x – – x x x x – – x x x x x x x x VU Calotes versicolor Ceratophora aspera x x x Lyriocephalus scutatus E. NT Naja naja Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops sp. stictomerus. and P. Typhlops sp. NT NT Recorded habitats CF FE HG CU Scientific name Uropeltidae Recorded habitats CF FE HG CU x x x x Rhinophis sp. 13). Abbreviations: E – Endemic.. EN – Endangered. E. The lowest amphibian abundance was documented in closed forest: 158 (20%) individuals.org 070 sp. FE – Forest edge. | http://redlist-ARC. and Rhinophis sp. HG – Home Gardens. NT Coelognathus helena Dendrelaphis bifrenalis Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus Lycodon aulicus Lycodon osmanhilli Oligodon arnensis Oligodon sublineatus Ptyas mucosa Sibynophis subpunctatus Xenochrophis asperrimus E Xenochrophis piscator Cylindrophiidae Cylindrophis maculatus Elapidae Bungarus ceylonicus E. VU x – x x x – – x – x x – x – x x x x x x x x x x – – – x x x x x – – x x x x x x – – – – x – – – – x – – x – – x x x x x x – – Daboia russelii Hypnale hypnale Trimeresurus trigonocephalus E Agamidae Calotes calotes Calotes liolepis E. Geckoella triedrus E. where the lowest reptile abundance was in cultivations: 171 (17%) individuals. Typhlops sp. The least abundant species were Ahaetulla pulverulenta.. P. with 269 (35%) individual amphibians and 373 (36%) individual reptiles being recorded. Boiga ceylonensis. CF – Closed forest. NT E E x x x – x x x x x x – – x x x x x – – x x x x x – – – x – – – – x x x x – x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x – x – x x – x x x x x x – Lankascincus fallax E Lankascincus gansi E. with Zakerana syhadrensis being most abundant. Pseudophilautus abundus.
however. Species distribution There were no significant differences in species richness of amphibians between any habitat type.org 071 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Discussion Species richness of amphibians was poor in cultivated habitats such as tea. Figure 11. Herpetofaunal diversity in different habitat types. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis and Zakerana syhadrensis). Species abundance in KPFR. n1 = 44. Number of species in different habitat types. coconut. Figure 10b. in paddy cultivations some dicroglossid frogs were found in high abundance (e. Reptile Conserv. reptiles showed a significant deference in species richness only between forest edge and cultivations (Mann-Whitney U-test: Z = 2. | http://redlist-ARC. However.Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Figure 10a. Figure 13. P = 0. Figure 12b. rubber. The higher availability of surface Amphib.. and some other commercial crops that are grown in KPFR. Closely connected cultivation (tea and rubber).g. Figure 12a. Closely connected cultivation (tea and paddy). Herpetofaunal diversity in KPFR.044).01. n2 = 25.
and Taruga longinasus) were mostly restricted to the forest habitats and were commonly not recorded in open areas such as cultivations and open home gardens. Balanophis ceylonensis. hoipolloi. Adenomus kelaartii.g. Edge effect encompasses biotic and abiotic changes. folicola. highest in forest edge and lowest in closed forest. water may arguably facilitate these aquatic amphibians to thrive in paddy cultivations. and rarely in open areas. amphibians (Karunarathna et al. the highest being in closed forest and lowest in cultivations. greeri are mostly forest dwelling and recorded in lower abundance in other habitats. 2008). | http://redlist-ARC. and Zakerana syhadrensis. popularis. Hylarana temporalis. P. resulting from the interaction between two different habitat types (Murcia 1995). Pseudophilautus abundus. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus. presumably due to high abundance of bufonid and dicroglossid frogs in other habitat types. Most of the endemic amphibian species (e. reticulatus. Lyriocephalus scutatus. stictomerus. Dendrelaphis bifrenalis. However. Ichthyophis glutinosus. birds (Helle and January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Eutropis madaraszi. Garbage dumping site of the monastery in KPFR. Figure 16b. Nannophrys ceylonensis. P. Cercaspis carinatus. along stream banks and water pools between edges of forest and cultivations. Endemic reptile species including Aspidura guentheri. Lankascincus gansi.. the most abundant species were bufonid and dicroglossid frogs including Duttaphrynus melanostictus. Xenochrophis asperrimus. Geckoella triedrus. Interestingly. Extensive research on edge effect of many taxa: insects (Hochkirch et al. Distribution of some prey and predator species. closed forest recorded the lowest amphibian abundance despite having the highest amphibian diversity. In home gardens. P. 2008). In cultivations Hypnale hypnale are found in high numbers potentially. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis. Cylindrophis maculatus. Euphlyctis hexadactylus. Figure 14. compared to amphibian abundance. which may be explained by the high abundance of prey (rodents and frogs) in those cultivated habitats.org 072 The distribution pattern of reptile species richness and species diversity are both similar to amphibians. Deforestation inside the KPFR. Hemidactylus depressus. Reptile Conserv. Garbage dumping site of the monastery in KPFR. Ceratophora aspera. cavirostris. Figure 15.Botejue and Wattavidanage Figure 16a. Amphib. Polypedates cruciger. and L. P. which is likely related to favorable living conditions and high abundance of food. reptile abundance was highest in forest edge and lowest in cultivations. Cnemaspis silvula. Bungarus ceylonicus. P. Calotes liolepis. P. however was most abundant in forest edge.
Rhinophis sp. frenatus. Therefore. and what remains are small isolated patches in a sea of human development. piscator. We are grateful to the Conservator General of the Department of Forest Conservation of Sri Lanka. prey species of Euphlyctis and Zakerana show a parallel distributional pattern to predator species of Xenochrophis. the villagers of Kalugala for all their support throughout the study. Sri Lanka) for his help to improve the document and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. Edge effect also applies to succession present where vegetation is spreading outwards rather than being encroached upon. C. P. Reptiles such as Ahaetulla nasuta. the use of agrochemicals is a great threat to the local biodiversity. These include Ichthyophis glutinosus. Varanus.—We would like to thank Upali Amarasinghe (University of Kelaniya. and Lasanthi Kanthika for assistance during fieldwork and data collection. Lepidodactylus lugubris. Typhlops sp. malformations. which harbor a high level of biodiversity. The forest edge habitats directly adjacent to cultivations have a high abundance (40%) of reptiles that prey upon amphibians. We also thank the Director General of the Department of Wildlife Conservation for granting permission to capture animals for identification. liolepis. many amphibian species are normally distributed in higher abundance at the forest edge rather than other habitats. mud pools and small rivulets). Wijesinghe (OUSL) for all their support. Otocryptis wiegmanni. Pseudophilautus abundus. despite forest fragmentation. for allowing the research on herpetofauna in land under their care. Eutropis madaraszi. and Taruga longinasus. and Ptyas mucosa (Fig. resulting in a varied distribution.. Near-primary forest cover accounts for less than 5% of the total wet zone land area. b) which are located inside the forest. For example.. Calotes calotes. We thank Tharindu Sulakshana. Additionally. stictomerus. these amphibians may provide the forage base for the abundant amphibian predatory reptiles. P. As a result of the garbage dumps. W. Navaratna (OUSL)..org 073 Adverse human activities have led to deforestation and habitat loss (Fig. N. Padmasiri Weerasinghe. K. Kanishka Ukuwela. However. Boiga forsteni. The abundance of prey items is much higher than of predators in all habitats. Dixo and Martins (2008) show that edge effects do not influence leaf litter frogs and lizards in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. 16a. X. Material such as polyethylene bags and other non-biodegradable materials are spread around the monastery and along footpaths inside the forest. Xenochrophis asperrimus. We strongly suggest the relevant authorities to take immediate action to protect this valuable tropical rain forest and to declare this area a forest reserve. Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis. and mammals (Pasitschniak-Arts and Messier 1998). Dinesh Gabadage. and abnormalities in amphibians (de Silva 2009). dicroglossid and ranid frogs were found in high abundance possibly due to a number of water bodies found there (e. in many instances. Finally. The material leakage into local streams may worsen effects on biodiversity as well as the health of people that inhabit the lower reaches of streams. Zakerana kirtisinghei. P. and to the Baduraliya Police for giving assistance to carry out the field work. Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus. M. Harini Pandithasundara. Ramphotyphlops sp. 15) in KPFR. Similarly. we would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to Ruchira Somaweera. Habitual overuse of agrochemicals in cultivation can lead to death. and Eric Wild for the peer-review and editing process. High damage has been inflicted on the forest habitat by the illegal encroachment in forests as a result of improper agriculture practices and illegal logging. The first author wishes to thank Thasun Amarasinghe and Suranjan Karunarathna for their valuable comments on the manuscript. Lankanectes corrugatus. popularis. Coelognathus helena.. Most endemic and endangered species found only in closed forest are at great risk of being exterminated from the area. In KPFR. Suranjan Karunarathna. Hemidactylus depressus. Cnemaspis silvula. and Dushantha Kandambi for providing photographs. Craig Hassapakis. Sibynophis subpunctatus. before implementing any longterm conservation and management plans. Reptile Conserv. Nilakariyawasam (OUSL).Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Helle 1982). cavirostris. folicola. P. and Lankascincus greeri have similar preferences. Bungarus ceylonicus. in the present study no edge effects were detected. One specific threat is the garbage dumps of the Kalugala Monastery (Fig. The only significant difference among distributions were recorded between forest edge and cultivations for reptiles (according to Mann-Whitney U-test).g. Nirmala Hirantha. the population of Varanus salvator and Sus scrofa may have increased. January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . In cultivated habitats. thus disrupting the ecological balance. parvimaculatus. and W. P. different species are more suited to edges or central sections of vegetation. Lycodon osmanhilli. Hoplobatrachus crassus. Atretium schistosum. We thank I. and predators show distribution patterns similar to prey. Hylarana temporalis. Although these conclusions are based on the results of this study. H. H. Chrysopelea ornate. | http://redlist-ARC. Species of Euphlyctis and Zakerana live in a mutual association (Manamendra-Arachchi and Pethiyagoda 2006) and this mutual association was clearly observed in KPFR. 14). this leads to loss of habitat and biodiversity. Aspidura guentheri. Rajapakshe (The Open University of Sri Lanka). Acknowledgments. especially for the environmentally sensitive amphibians. Upathissa Weerasinghe.. The existing protected forests in the wet zone. C. Amphib. Cylindrophis maculatus. hoipolloi. P. Here. Cnemaspis sp. Microhyla rubra. we recommend more research be carried out for longer durations and over a larger area. W. C. continue to be degraded due to illegal encroachment and suffer further fragmentation leading to adverse impacts (IUCNSL and MENRSL 2007). Oligodon arnensis.
Duttaphrynus melanostictus. Ramanella variegata.Botejue and Wattavidanage Figure 17. Reptile Conserv. Euphlyctis hexadactylus. Kaloula taprobanica. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 18.org 074 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Adenomus kelaartii. Microhyla rubra. Figure 19. Amphib. Figure 20. | http://redlist-ARC.
Reptile Conserv.org 075 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . | http://redlist-ARC. Hoplobatrachus crassus. Zakerana syhadrensis. Lankanectes corrugatus. Pseudophilautus hoipolloi. Figure 26. Figure 28. Figure 25. Hylarana aurantiaca. Pseudophilautus reticulatus. Figure 27. Amphib. Figure 24.Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Figure 23.
Figure 33. Amphib. Figure 31. Figure 35. Python molurus.Botejue and Wattavidanage Figure 29. Cylindrophis maculatus. Cercaspis carinatus. | http://redlist-ARC. Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus. Boiga ceylonensis.org 076 Figure 36. Bungarus ceylonicus. Figure 34. Atretium schistosum. Ahaetulla nasuta. Figure 32. January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Figure 30. Reptile Conserv.
Daboia russelii. Ceratophora aspera. Trimeresurus trigonocephalus. Figure 41. Figure 39. | http://redlist-ARC. Geckoella triedrus. Reptile Conserv. Figure 40. Figure 38. Calotes liolepis. Amphib.Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve Figure 37.org 077 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 .
Varanus bengalensis. grEEnbAuM E. FErnAndo rhSS. bAhir MM 2005. 2003. gAllEgo J. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. dASSAnAyAkE Md. SchnEidEr cJ. giri vb. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. WickrAMASinghE LJM. 2010b. SAMArAWickrEMA VAMPK. Current Science 96(5):632-633. The Herpetological Journal 20(3):129-138. Some taxonomic inaccuracies in conservation publications. AShton M. WiJESundArA S. WilkinSon M. Literature cited AchArd F. Local endemism within the Western Ghats – Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot. 2007. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. 2004. Figure 44. PErErA WPn. Stibig h. bAtuWitA S. Squamata. bEEnAErtS n. bAuEr AM. Figure 43. SAMArAWickrEMA vAP. SilvA A. Ceylon Journal of Sciences (Biological Sciences) 36(2):80-87. ooMEn ov. giri vb. roElAntS k. 2010a. MEEgASkuMburA M. Supplement 12:393-406. MAlingrEAu J. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. Science 306(5695):479481. Gekkonidae). bAhir MM. Otocryptis nigristigma. JAckMAn tr. bAtuWitA S. dE SilvA A. bAMbArAdEniyA cnb. Milinkovitch Mc. 1997. Melanochelys trijuga. Figure 46. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 57(1):343-352. bAhir MM. 2007. ng Pkl. boSSuyt F. MAyAux P. PEthiyAgodA r. grEEnbAuM E. Reptile Conserv. dAS I. Hemidactylus depressus. South Asia supports a major endemic radiation of Hemidactylus geckos. Figure 45. grEEnbAuM E. 2009. MAnnAErt A. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin. gunAtilEkE n. Sri Lanka Forester 26:21-40.org 078 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . gunAtilEkE cvS. A new species of day gecko from high elevation in Sri Lanka. bAuEr AM. dE ZoySA n. dE SilvA A. ricAhArdS t. Lankascincus greeri. Description of a new species of Sri Lankan litter skink (Squamata: Scincidae: Lankascincus). | http://redlist-ARC. bAhir MM. vii + 432 p. JAckMAnn tr. a new species of agamid lizard from Sri Lanka. Amphib. PErErA MSJ. EvA hd. Colombo. Supplement 12:351-380. JAckMAn T. Science 297(5583):999-1002. goWEr dJ. A Field Guide to the Common Trees and Shrubs of Sri Lanka. Supplement 83:22-32. with a preliminary phylogeny of Sri Lankan Cnemaspis (Reptilia. 2002. Composition of faunal species in the Sinharaja world heritage site in Sri Lanka. 2005. Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. kEkulAndAlA ldcb. Molecular evidence for taxonomic status of Hemidactylus brookii group taxa (Reptilia: Gekkonidae). Eutropis carinata.Botejue and Wattavidanage Figure 42. bAuEr AM. Description of five new species of Cyrtodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) from Sri Lanka. dE SilvA A. PEthiyAgodA R.
v + 482 p. kArunArAthnA dMSS. The World Conservation Union (IUCN). Milinkovitch MC. gärtnEr A-c. [Online]. Human populations in the biodiversity hotspots. Two new species of Rhinophis Hemprich (Serpentes: Uropeltidae) from Sri Lanka. FroSt DR. Sri Lanka. Published by the author. 2005. hEllE E. 2005. 88 plates + 440 p. A Colored Atlas of Some Vertebrates from Ceylon. WiSnEWSki J. ooMEn ov. PEthiyAgodA R. brAndt T. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. 1996-2000. 1996. R and A Publishing Ltd. Electronic database. Zootaxa 2232:1-28. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. The Reptiles of British India. 284 p. vii + 532 p. 2007. Sri Lanka. volume V.2. 2003. London. AbEyWArdAnA uti. Conservation Biology 4(1):21-31. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. New York. 1864. Bambaradeniya CNB. vii + 476 p. Nature 404:990-992. New Dilhi. hEWAWASAM t. hochkirch A. 2005. 1990. FoSbErg FR (Editors). National Museum of Sri Lanka. 2002. PEthiyAgodA r.. Chorthippus vagans (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Volume X. hEllE P 1982. Nature 424:420-423. Science 308(5719):199. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. volume IV. Colombo. 2009. 2007. dErAniyAgAlA PEP. American Museum of Natural History. 130 p. Cricket frog (Amphibia: Anura: Dicroglossidae): two regions of Asia are Corresponding two groups.. kEkulAndAlA LDCB. goWEr dJ. Distribution of floristic richness and its conservation in Sri Lanka. Avon. 2003.. 308 p. Supplement 12:163-303. ASElA Mdc. Edge effect on forest bird densities on offshore islands in the northern Gulf of Bothnia. ng PKL. Volume 2: Tetrapod Reptila. Available: http:// research. volume XIV. WilkinSon M. Bulletin of Entomological Research 98:449-456. kEkulAndAlA ldcb. von blAnckEnburg F. Sri Lanka. volume XI.. brook bW. 2005. 2011. Colour Guide to the Snake Fauna of Sri Lanka. 2011. Annales Zoologici Fennici 19:165-169. gunAtillEkE iAun. volume III. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi K. volume IX. Sodhi nS. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. vii + 499 p. dixo M. A Revised Handbook of the Flora of Ceylon. 134-163. PEthiyAgodA R. SilvA A. Biodiversity in Sri Lanka and western Ghats. 101 p. 2009. Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. 1990. vii + 424 p. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. AMArASinghE T. v + 458 p. clAyon WD (Editors). A Colored Atlas of Some Vertebrates from Ceylon. Monaragala district. MAnnAErt. rodrigo RK. Zeylanica 7(1):9-122. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. Editor. Amphibians of Sri Lanka: A Photographic Guide to Common Frogs. 2008. dErAniyAgAlA PEP. Reptile Conserv. Volume I. 390 p. dE SilvA A. JEnkinS M. USA. vii + 511 p. England. Colombo. goWEr dJ.. Description of eight new species of shrub-frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. ng Pkl. MArtinS M. Sri Lanka.org 079 January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 . Sri Lanka and Government of Sri Lanka. Geology 31:597-600. Supplement 12:305-338. volume VI. Biodiversity in Sri Lanka and western Ghats. Amphib. A survey of fish in Kalugala Proposed Forest Reserve. 2006. MEEgASkuMburA M. Prospects for biodiversity.. A taxonomic revision of the South Asian hump-nosed pit vipers (Squamata: Viperidae: Hypnale). MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi KN. Description of a second species of Cophotis (Reptilia:Agamidae) from the highlands of Sri Lanka. duttA Sk. Version 5. Bonnoprani – Bangladesh Wildlife Bulletin 5(1-2):1-7. MAduWAgE k. Volume VIII. The Amphibian Fauna of Sri Lanka. PEthiyAgodA R. Naturalist 5(2):20-25. FErnAndo SS. 1955. 420 p. 1994-1995. viii + 426 p. dE SilvA A.. v + 307 p. SchnEidEr cJ. Robert Hardwicke.. XIII. EngElMAn R. 1953. 2008. xxii + 26 plates + 452 p. 1980-1991. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Increase of human over natural erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. gunAtillEkE CVS. dASSAnAyAkE Md. 2008. MEEgASkuMburA M. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. Zootaxa 1403:5568. Lyriocephalus. MEEgASkuMburA M. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. A. 2003. vol. PEthiyAgodA R.org/herpetology/amphibia/index. 2006.. Zootaxa 2747:1-18. XII. A Photographic Guide to Snakes and Other Reptiles of Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus Gistel. New Holland Publishers. 2011. roElAntS k. kubik P. cincottA rP. New Dilhi. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):264-272. Science 308(5719):199..Herpetofauna of Kalugala proposed forest reserve boSSuyt F. A Revised Handbook of the Flora of Ceylon.. UK.php. New Dilhi. vii + 508 p. 144 p. 82 plates + 168 p. dAS i. bAtuWitA S. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.amnh. Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae: Pseudophilautus) from Sri Lanka. Ray Society. Supplement 1(6):1-8. hoWlAdEr MSA. bAEnErtS n. 1869 (Anura: Dicroglossinae) from Sri Lanka. MAduWAgE K. SchAllEr M. günthEr ALCG. | http://redlist-ARC. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. A preliminary survey of the amphibian fauna in Nilgala forest area and its vicinity. clAyton WD (Editors). National Museums of Sri Lanka.. 2000. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi K. volume VII. 230 p. [Accessed: 15 July 2008]. 121 p. Sri Lankawe Ubhayajeeween [Amphibians of Sri Lanka]. volume II. Colombo. Research and Conservation. Effects of forest-dune forest edge management on the endangered heath grasshopper. 2008. Zootaxa 2881:51-68. Current status of the reptiles of Sri Lanka In: Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy. dE SilvA A.. dASSAnAyAkE Md. hElgEn kM. WickrAMASinghA lJM. 2005. Science 302(5648):11751177. with description of new species from Sri Lanka and southern India. A new species of endemic frog belonging to genus Nannophrys Günther. FoSbErg Fr. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. 2006. A taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis). dE SilvA A. dE SilvA A. bAhir MM. 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae) with description of 27 new species. A Revised Handbook of the Flora of Ceylon. dASSAnAyAkE Md. Volume 3: Serpentoid Reptila. vii + 439 p. Toads and Caecilians. grovES CP. Are leaf-litter frogs and lizards affected by edge effects due to forest fragmentation in Brazilian Atlantic forest? Journal of Tropical Ecology 24:551-554.
Science 321(5885):123-126. 1994. Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae: Philautus) from the lowlands of Sri Lanka. PEthiyAgodA R. Sri Lanka. A Check List of the Flowering Plants of Sri Lanka. 2009. with description of two new species. degree in Natural Sciences from The Open University of Sri Lanka (OUSL) in 2009. Madhava earned his B. PEthiyAgodA r. Science 298(5592):379. He conducted post doctoral research on molecular genetics of Malaria at University of Edinburgh. Pearls. 1995. 2004. 45 p. 2001. boSSuyt F. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76(11):2020-2025. PEthiyAgodA r. SoMAWEErA r And SoMAWEErA N. rAnASinghE PN. A new species of coral snake of the genus Calliophis (Squamata: Elapidae) from the Central Province of Sri Lanka. PASitSchniAk-ArtS M And MESSiEr F. Edition Chimaira. JAYANTHA WATTAVIDANAGE has been involved in teaching and research in the fields of ecology. Exploring Sri Lanka’s biodiversity. MAnAMEndrAArAchchi k. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology. he is the Chairman. Journal of South Asian Natural History 1(1):77-96. Zootaxa 2122:51-68. New species amongst Sri Lanka’s extinct shrub frogs (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae: Philautus). BOTEJUE has researched the fauna of Sri Lanka for the past seven years. burton Aco. 2005. He is strongly involved in popularizing science among the general public and is the author of a large number of newspaper and magazine articles. boWAttE g. SoMAWEErA R. Draco Publication Limited. 2007. bAhir MM. National Science Foundation in Sri Lanka. 1 plate + 440 p. bEAn Wt. WittEMyEr g. India. | http://redlist-ARC. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. 2008. and M. 1835. He has conducted awareness programs to educate the Sri Lankan community of the importance of biodiversity and conservation. 479 p. New species records of Sri Lanka Mosses. Sri Lanka. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. MurciA C. January 2012 | Volume 5 | Number 2 | e39 .Botejue and Wattavidanage MEEgASkuMburA M. Zootaxa 1847:19-33. SchnEidEr CJ. hAnkEn J. National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. National Committee for Science Popularizing. Serpent’s Tail. 2007. He is also a recipient of many research awards including the Presidential Award for his research publications. MAnAMEndrAArAchchi k. Effects of edges and habitats on small mammals in a prairie ecosystem. Sri Lanka. MunindrAdASA DAI. Manuscript received: 16 November 2011 Accepted:10 December 2011 Published: 2 February 2012 W. rAnWEllA PN. The 2007 Red List of threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. 241 p. 1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka with the description of five new species. Zootaxa 1490:1-63. Biodiversity and Management Plan: Kalugala Proposed Forest Reserve. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 39(2):75-94.org 080 (IUCN) Colombo. 2007b. WhitAkEr r And cAPtAin A. SMith MA. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MENRSL). MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. MEEgASkuMburA S. Milinkovitch Mc. Currently. 1953. PEthiyAgodA R. tAn BC. 1820 (Reptilia: Serpentes: Uropeltidae) from Rakwana massif. SEnArAtnA LK. PEthiyAgodA R. WickrAMASinghE lJM. National Zoological Gardens. The World Conservation Union Amphib. PEthiyAgodA R. 1935. 2009. London.Sc. Zootaxa 1397:1-15. Colombo. tAylor EH. A review of the lizards of Ceylon. a new genus of foam-nesting tree frogs endemic to Sri Lanka. Supplement 12:1-4. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Taylor and Francis. SchnEidEr CJ. 1998. Reptile Conserv. 2007a. Hydrobiologia 285(1-3):189-201. 2009. SchnEidEr cJ. Sri Lankawe Sarpayin [Snakes of Sri Lanka]. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 35(12):1525-1585. The Young Zoologists’ Association. A revision of the endemic Sri Lankan agamid lizard genus Ceratophora Gray. German. DR. Dehiwala. from University of Sri Jayawardenepura and Ph. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi k. United Kingdom. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(2):58-62. He works as a Senior Lecturer in zoology at The Open University of Sri Lanka beginning in 1990. 342 p. faunal diversity. SMith En. PEthiyAgodA r. Currently he serves as treasurer of the Taprobanica Nature Conservation Society. 2002. 2008. MAnAMEndrA-ArAchchi K. 1998. 2005. Edge effects in fragmented forest: Implication for conservation. SoMAWEErA R. The ‘New species syndrome’ in Sri Lankan herpetology: A cautionary note. 148 p. Sri Lanka and associate editor for Taprobanica: The Journal of Asian Biodiversity. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka. A new species of Rhinophis Hemprich. MADHAVA S. Supplement 12:5-8. Volume II Sauria. Zootaxa 2044:1-22. 303 p. brAShArES JS. An Illustrated History of Biodiversity Exploration of Sri Lanka. WickrAMASinghE lJM. and molecular parasitology for the past twenty years. iucn Sri lAnkA (IUCNSL). from University of Colombo. Spices and Green Gold. 2010. Zeylanica 7(1):1-7. Review of the genus Cnemaspis Strauch. MEEgASkuMburA M. WickrAMASinghE n. PEthiyAgodA R. MEEgASkuMburA M.Phil. MEEgASkuMburA M. Threats to the indigenous freshwater fishes of Sri Lanka and remarks on their conservation. especially ecology and behavior. limnology. PEthiyAgodA R. 2007. Taruga (Anura: Rhacophoridae). vidAnAPAthirAnA dr. The Fauna of British India Including Ceylon and Burma: Reptilia and Amphibia. ElSEn P. 297 p.Sc. Jayantha earned his B. 1995. Colombo.D. 2006. Snakes of India. Sri Lanka: An amphibian hotspot. the Field Guide. (Unpublished). Colombo. Lizards of Sri Lanka: A Colour Guide with Field Keys. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.