Introduction

Biological diversity is now recognized increasingly as a vital parameter to assess global and local environmental changes and sustainability of development activities (Lovejoy, 1995). Indeed, our understanding of biodiversity in natural ecosystem remains so woefully inadequate that we are unable to fully comprehend the consequences of its loss (Shanker, Hiremath and Bawa, 2005). The diversity of life on earth is dramatically affected by human alteration of ecosystems (Baillie, Hilton-Taylor and Stuart, 2004). Many activities indispensable for human subsistence lead to biodiversity loss, and this trend is likely to continue in the future (Diaz et al., 2006). Moreover, the wildlife habitats found on industrial land are important because they support a wide range of biota. These habitats need to be managed otherwise loss can occur through poor land use or abandonment (Cooper and Nevin, 2003). However, natural habitat will continue to be lost, fragmented and land modification will occur due to the urbanization and industrial needs. This is a major threat to wildlife worldwide.

Among vertebrates, amphibians are of particular concern, as they are still poorly known and are highly threatened (Rodrigues et al., 2010) and a decline in their population is a major concern (Wyman, 1990; Dalto, 2000; Stuart et al., 2004). The causes of catastrophic decline include invasive species, habitat loss, environmental pollution, highly infectious and lethal diseases, unsustainable use of natural resources and global climate change (Stuart et al., 2004; Cushman, 2006; Pounds et al., 2006; Rodrigues et al., 2010). Reptilian species face similar suites of problems and a number of taxa are experiencing severe range reductions and declines in abundance (Gibbons et al., 2000; Araujo, Thuiller and Pearson, 2006). Furthermore, reptiles can be sensitive indicators of the impact of human activities such as intensive grazing, forest cutting, and mining (Read, 2002; Thompson and Thompson, 2005; Wilgers and Horne, 2006). Most of the herpetofauna are threatened and are declining more rapidly compared to birds and mammals (Stuart et al., 2004). It is unfortunate that conservation strategies are mostly based on glamorous taxa such as birds and mammals, which may neglect smaller and less conspicuous vertebrates such as herpetofauna (Vasudevan et al., 2006).

The inclusion of smaller vertebrates in management plans for any particular region is necessary for overall conservation of biodiversity at local as well as landscape level (Pawar et al., 2007). Information on the herpetofauna species constellation appears to be largely neglected regionally. Moreover, the information available

Herpetology Notes, volume 6: 343-351 (2013) (published online on 23 August 2013)

Community composition and distribution of herpetofauna at Kalpakkam Nuclear campus, Southern India

T. Ramesh1, K. Jahir Hussain2,*, K.K. Satpathy2 and M. Selvanayagam1

1 Loyola Institute of Frontier Energy (LIFE), Loyola College, Chennai-600 034, India

2 Environmental and Safety Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam-603102, India

*Corresponding author; zakir781@gmail.com

Abstract. Baseline data on the species composition and distribution of herpetofauna at different habitats of Kalpakkam nuclear campus is provided to facilitate environmental impact assessment studies. We documented forty four species belonging to 32 genera and 16 families, including some South Asian endemic amphibian species such as Kaloula taprobanica, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, Hoplobatrachus crassus, Fejervarya rufescens, Sphaerotheca rolandae and Duttaphrynus scaber. The Dicroglossidae and Colubridae were the dominant families in terms of richness, and species such as Euphlyctis hexadactylus, Ptyas mucosus were common and Microhyla ornata, Chamaeleo zeylanicus, Eryx johnii and Dryocalamus nympha were rare and patchy in their distribution, not only inhabiting undisturbed scrub, but also the human conquered building area. Structural complexity, area availability of habitats and seasonal rainfall are chief factors influencing the herpetofaunal assemblages at Kalpakkam nuclear campus.

Keywords. reptile, amphibian, diversity, species composition, Kalpakkam

T. Ramesh et al.344

mostly restricted to some protected areas and there is a need to study these organisms particularly at industrial and institutional campuses, which are ecological islands in urban habitats. Nevertheless, an industrial installation should have such faunal resource information and the present study will act as a preoperational data for forth coming nuclear reactors. Hence, the objective of this study is to create base information on diversity and distribution pattern of herpetofauna communities present at different habitat types.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) nuclear campus premises (Fig. 1) at Kalpakkam (12º 33.7’N and 80º 10.5’E) encompass seashore and a vast plain area (2500 acres) consist of ecologically diverse habitats with rich fauna and flora (Jahir Hussain et al., 2010). It has two nuclear reactors producing 470MW(e) and a 500MW(e) Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor is under construction. The main natural vegetation observed at Kalpakkam nuclear campus is tropical dry evergreen and scrub,

comprising of members predominantly belonging to the families Poaceae, Fabaceae, Cyperaceae, Asteraceae, Euphorbiaceae, Verbenaceae, Solanaceae, Rubiaceae, Convolvulaceae and Amaranthaceae (Gajendiran and Ragupathy, 2002).

Habitat characterization

Scrub jungle habitat. This habitat occupies 13.16% of total area of the campus. The dry areas of the DAE premises shelter scattered patches of Prosophis juliflora plants. Some of the dominant tree species are Acacia polyacantha, Albizia saman and Albizia lebbeck. Predominant herbs and shrubs are Lantana camera, Canthium dicoccum, Euphorbia antiquorum, Martynia annua, Calotropis gigantea, Heliotropium indicum, Urena lobata, Solanum Sp., Tephrosia purpurea, Anisomeles sp., Zizyphus oenoplia, Ocimum basilicum, Achyranthes aspera, Croton bonplandianum, Solanum trilobatum, Leucas aspera, Mimosa pudica, Gomphrena serrata, Vernonia cinerea, Tinospora cordifolia and Common twiners.

Riparian habitat. The riparian habitat covers around nine percentage of total campus area and it is

Figure 1. GIS map of Kalpakkam showing different habitat types.

Community composition and distribution of herpetofauna 345

relatively dense with Pandanus fascicularis, Typha angustata, Acacia auriculiformis, Cassia siamea, Ficus benghalensis, Prosopis juliflora, Casuarina equisetifolia, Terminalia arjuna along with Anacardium occidentale and Tephrosia purpurea. Grasses are also abundant in this location.

Building area. This area occupies 24.58% of total area of the campus. Although this area receives comparatively high anthropogenic pressure especially due to regular site maintenance activities, it is a unique habitat with natural vegetation blended with introduced

ornamental flora. It is interesting to note that wreckage areas and abandoned store yards provide excellent shelter for reptilian species.

Sandy habitat. This habitat is a typical costal sandy stretch with meagre vegetation and it contributes 16.25% of the total campus area.

Monoculture habitat. The southern area of campus is dense with Casuarina equisetifolia monoculture plantation. This totally modified habitat covers 15% of total campus area. The remaining 22% areas were consist uncategorised habitats.

Table 1. List of herpetofauna observed in Kalpakkam during April 2007 to May 2011Table 1. List of herpetofauna observed in Kalpakkam during April 2007 to May 2011

Family Scientific name Common name Status SJ RH BA SH MH Amphibians Bufonidae Bufo scaber Fergusons toad UC + + + Bufonidae Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common indian toad C + + + + + Microhylidae Kaloula taprobanica Painted frog C + Microhylidae Microhyla ornata Ornate narrow-mouthed frog R + + Microhylidae Uperodon systoma Marbled ballon frog UC + + Rhacophoridae Polypedates maculatus Common tree frog C + + + Dicroglossidae Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Indian skipper frog C + + + + Dicroglossidae Euphlyctis hexadactylus Indian five-fingered frog C + + + + + Dicroglossidae Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Indus valley bullfrog UC + Dicroglossidae Hoplobatrachus crassus Jerdons bullfrog UC + + Dicroglossidae Fejervarya caperata Cricket frog R + Dicroglossidae Fejervarya limnocharis Paddy field frog R + Dicroglossidae Fejervarya rufescens Reddish burrowing frog R + Dicroglossidae Sphaerotheca rolandae Burrowing frog R + Reptiles Geoemydidae Melanochelys trijuga Indian black turtle UC + + Trionychidae Lissemys punctata Indian flapshell turtle C + + Gekkonidae Hemidactylus leschenaultii Bark gecko UC + + + Gekkonidae Hemidactylus brookii Brook’s gecko UC + + + + Gekkonidae Hemidactylus frenatus Southern house gecko C + Gekkonidae Hemidactylus triedrus Termite hill gecko R + + Gekkonidae Lygosoma punctata Little (garden) skink UC + + Agamidae Calotes versicolor Common garden lizard C + + + + + Agamidae Sitana ponticeriana Indian fan-throated lizard C + + + + + Chamaeleonidae Chamaeleo chamaeleon Common chameleon R + Scincidae Eutropis carinata Golden skink UC + + + Scincidae Eutropis macularia Common skink C + + + + + Scincidae Eutropis bibronii Sand skink UC + + Varanidae Varanus bengalensis Bengal monitor C + + + + + Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops braminus Brahminy worm snake UC + + Uropeltidae Plectrurus perrotetti Perrotet’s shieldtail snake UC + + Boidae Eryx johnii Red sand boa R + Colubridae Coelognathus helena Trinket snake UC + + + Colubridae Ptyas mucosus Indian ratsnake C + + + + + Colubridae Oligodon taeniolatus Russell’s kukri snake UC + + Colubridae Oligodon arnensis Banded kukri C + + + Colubridae Lycodon striatus Barred wolf snake UC + + Colubridae Lycodon aulicus Common wolf snake UC + Colubridae Dryocalamus nympha Bridal snake R + Colubridae Dendrelaphis tristis Common bronzeback C + + + + Colubridae Amphiesma stolatum Striped keelback UC + + Colubridae Xenochrophis piscator Checkered keelback UC + + Colubridae Ahaetulla nasutus Common wine snake UC + + + + Elapidae Bungarus caeruleus Common krait R + + Elapidae Naja naja Spectacled cobra UC + + Viperidae Daboia russelii Russell’s viper R + +

UC- Uncommon, C- Common, R- Rare, SJ- Scrub jungle habitat, RH- Riparian habitat, BA- Building area, SH- Sandy habitat, MH- Monoculture habitat

Faunal survey

Inventory. We sampled herpetofauna diversity in different habitats (scrub habitat, riparian habitat, building area, sandy habitat and monoculture habitat) by using ad-hoc search method as per Dahanukar and Padhye (2005). Random surveys were covering all the habitats from April 2007 to May 2011. Further we classified the species observed during 50 pooled sampling effort into the following categories based on the frequency of species occurrence: common, uncommon and rare. The numbers of species recorded were used to calculate the species diversity and species similarity pattern among the habitats. Identification of herpetofauna species was done using standard guides (Daniel, 2002; Daniels, 2005; Whitaker and Captain, 2004). Photographs were taken and sent to specialist to confirm species identity.

Quantitative estimation of amphibians. The amphibian abundance was determined using quadrat visual encounter surveys (Veith et al., 2004; Phochayavanich et al., 2010) on 10×10m by two workers for 30 min per quadrat. Bimonthly surveys were conducted during October 2008 to May 2010 and sampling effect was kept constant for each habitat.

Data analysis. The most widely used approach for estimating adequate sampling effort is based on species accumulation curve. This was obtained by plotting the number of species encountered, and the effort expended. The herpetofaunal species and abundance observed during the study was used to estimate distribution pattern of herpetofauna in different habitats at Kalpakkam. Moreover, the percentile composition of each species and genera was also calculated to represent the species and generic richness and amphibian abundance. The clustering of herpetofauna community based on their presence and absence at different habitats was compared by using Jaccard complete linkage clustering. Moreover, data on monthly rainfall were collected from meteorological station, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), Kalpakkam for correlation with amphibian abundance.

Results

Species composition, relative abundance and micro distribution

A total of 44 species, 32 genera and 16 families of herpetofauna were encountered in the present study, of which, 30 species of reptiles, belonging to 23 genera and 12 families. Amphibians observed included 14 species belonging to 9 genera and four families (Table 1). The

amphibian family Dicroglossidae was the most diverse followed by Microhylidae in terms of species richness, generic richness and abundance. However, the 2 species of Bufonidae contribute 16% of overall amphibian abundance, which was higher than the abundance of Microhylidae (Table 2). Among reptiles, Colubridae was the most specious family accounting for 11 species and 36.7% of genera, followed by Scincidae, (4 species and 8.7% of genera; Table 3). Table 2. Statistics of amphibians with respect to family, genus, species and number

observed in Kalpakkam

S.no Family Genera % Species % Individuals % 1 Bufonidae 2 20 2 14.3 65 16 2 Microhylidae 3 30 3 21.4 55 13.5 3 Rhacophoridae 1 10 1 7.1 1 0.2 4 Dicroglossidae 4 40 8 57.1 287 70.3

Total 10 100 14 100 408 100

Table 3. Statistics of reptiles with respect to family, genus and species observed in Kalpakkam.

T. Ramesh et al.346

Table 2. Statistics of amphibians with respect to family, genus, species and number observed in Kalpakkam.

Table 3. Statistics of reptiles with respect to family, genus and species observed in

Kalpakkam

S.no Family Genera % Species % 1 Geoemydidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 2 Trionychidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 3 Gekkonidae 2 8.3 5 16.1 4 Agamidae 2 8.3 2 6.5 5 Chamaeleonidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 6 Scincidae 1 4.2 3 9.7 7 Varanidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 8 Typhlopidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 9 Uropeltidae 1 4.2 1 3.2

10 Boidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 11 Colubridae 9 37.5 11 35.5 12 Elapidae 2 8.3 2 6.5 13 Viperidae 1 4.2 1 3.2 Total 24 100 31 100

Figure 2. Relative abundance of each of the seven common species; other seven species that contributed <1% each was pooled

The abundance of amphibian species varied from 1 to 178 individuals. The overall relative abundance of seven common amphibian species and the remaining seven species (contributed< 1% each) were pooled and given in figure 2. Relative abundance data indicated that Euphlyctis hexadactylus and Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis populations were high and, contributed about 43.5% and 22.5% respectively. The other 12 species contributed only 34% of the total abundance. E. hexadactylus was the common and species such as Fejervarya caperata, Fejervarya rufescens, Hoplobatrachus crassus and Microhyla ornata were rare in the present investigation. Similarly E. cyanophlyctis, Duttaphrynus melanostictus and Kaloula taprobanica were also predominant during rainy season. The overall amphibian population trend was coincided with rainy seasons and abundance fluctuation was positively correlated with rainfall (R = 0.56, p = 0.05) (Figure 3). A slight increase in abundance of amphibians was observed even during winter and early summer (Fig. 4). Calotes versicolor, Dendrelaphis tristis, Ptyas mucosus, Varanus bengalensis were common and Chamaeleo zeylanicus, Hemidactylus triedrus, Eryx johnii, Dryocalamus nympha, Bungarus caeruleus and Daboia russelii were rare reptilian species at Kalpakkam.

The micro distribution of amphibian and reptilian species within the five study habitats differed on the basis of availability of vegetation cover, availability/size of the microhabitat and disturbance. Most of the reptile

species were observed at human habitation i.e. building area (27 species) followed by undisturbed scrub jungle area (26 species). Similarly, composition of amphibian species also varied and highest species were observed at scrub habitat and building area followed by the riparian habitat (Fig. 5). Species such as F. limnocharis, F. caperata, H. tigerinus, F. rufescens, K. taprobanic, E. johnii, Lycodon aulicus, D. nympha, B. caeruleus, N. naja and D. russelii were patchy in distribution and observed only at building and scrub areas (Table 1). To visualize difference and similarity of community composition between the habitats, a complete linkage Jaccard similarity analysis was carried out. The Jaccard similarity matrix showed the existence of similar species composition between the scrub and building areas, which is evident from the cluster grouping, and, monoculture and sandy area formed another group. The riparian area stood apart from other sites (Fig. 6). We also measured the accumulation rate of new species through cumulative accumulation curve. A total of 45% of species were encountered within 20 efforts and the prior half of the curve stood upright compared to later half (Fig. 7). Since the accumulation curve did not achieve asymptote, the possibility of getting new species cannot be overruled.

Discussion The family Dicroglossidae have rich generic and

species diversity, followed by Microhylidae, Bufonidae

Community composition and distribution of herpetofauna 347

Figure 3. Correlation between amphibian abundance with rainfall

and Rhacophoridae at South Asia (Molur, 2008), and the present study partially augment this. The abundance of E. hexadactylus and E. cyanophlyctis were high. E. cyanophlyctis has the ability to breed throughout the year and its survivability is correspondingly high (Jacobsen, 1999). Our results also corroborate with Daniel (2002) who reported the higher densities of E. hexadactylus in permanent water bodies covered with weeds in Tamil Nadu. It is also true that these two species are adapted to thrive in urban habitats utilizing

a variety of resources. Another interesting observation is the South Asian endemic amphibian species such as K. taprobanica, H. tigerinus, H. crassus, F. rufescens, Sphaerotheca rolandae and Duttaphrynus scaber were also represented in this present investigation. They were selective in their distribution not only inhabiting undisturbed scrub, but also the anthropogenically influenced building area of Kalpakkam. Moreover, these two habitats had the greatest reptilian species, because of the availability of physical entities that provide

T. Ramesh et al.348

Figure 5. Species composition of herpetofauna found among different habitats of Kalpakkam nuclear complex.

Figure 4. Relative abundance of pooled amphibian species abundance and monthly rainfall (mm).

environmental conditions necessary for a wide variety of ecological functions such as reproduction, foraging, predator avoidance or escape, resting, availability of prey, and these habitats were connected by dispersal routes. Similar findings were also reported elsewhere (Srinivasulu and Das, 2008; Hamer and Mcdonnell, 2010; Banville and Bateman, 2012).

The amphibian and reptile communities may decrease or increase in the number of individuals or species present depending on its proximity to forest cover, wetlands and other critical habitats (Ryan et al., 2002;

Herrmann et al., 2005). In the present investigation, the similarity in species composition between building area and scrub habitat is due to the close spatial proximity and connectivity (see Fig.1). It is known fact that the undistributed natural scrub habitat usually support higher richness, whereas, the higher species richness at disturbed building area is not only because of its structural complexity, but also due to the availability of higher proportion (24.5%) of total size of the study area. Earlier studies also suggest that the species number and individual density increased with increasing area and structural complexity of habitats (Vallan 2002, Herrmann et al., 2005). These could be the possible reasons for the low diversity of herpetofauna at less structurally complex sites such as sandy and monoculture habitats.

There are several other factors that may affect the population of amphibians and reptiles. The largest problem in assessing amphibian and reptile populations is that behaviour and reproduction vary with natural environmental fluctuations such as precipitation and temperature (Gibbons and Semlitsch, 1981; Vogt and Hine, 1982). The present study clearly showed that the species richness and abundance was greater during rainy seasons this due to foraging and mating activity of amphibian and, scouting of dry hideouts and basking of reptiles. The overall results indicate that the diversity of herpetofauna at Kalpakkam nuclear campus was comparable (44 species) to other studies conducted at similar habitats of east coast (Kalaiarasan and Kanakasabai, 1999; Ganesh and Chandramouli, Figure 7. Sampling effort and estimated herpetofauna species

richness expressed through the species accumulation curve.

Figure 6. Dendrogram comparing different habitat by their herpetofauna species assemblages.

349Community composition and distribution of herpetofauna

2007; Subramanean, 2007, 2012) and the species accumulation curve also showed that increasing trend even after 70% of sampling efforts, this clearly indicates that the likelihood of getting more species are bright.

The results of herpetofauna surveys such as this one provide an essential database for future investigation and management decisions. Information on amphibian and reptilian abundance and diversity helps determine the relative health of any ecosystems. For example, amphibian abundance and diversity fluctuate directly with changes in the composition and amount of microhabitats. They may signal environmental stress earlier than do most other organisms (Dickerson, 2001). All the components necessary for reproduction and survival are not the same for all species and preferred habitat for one species may not even come close to serving as appropriate habitat for others. This has and will continue to be a problem because manipulations of the landscape will favor the habitats of some species but be detrimental to the habitats of others. Hence, urban and industrial developing areas can be main target habitats where these sentinel groups can be used. Moreover, long term census data on common and specialist species are required for its local conservation and management.

Acknowledgements. Authors are thankful to Dr. K.V. Gururaj, EWRG, CES, IISc, for help in identification of amphibian species. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

Aengals, R., Sathish Kumar, V.M., Palot, M.J. (2012): Updated Checklist of Indian Reptiles. Available at: http://zsi.gov.in/checklist/Checklist%20of%20Indian%20Reptiles.pdf. Last accessed on 18 October 2012.

Araujo, M.B., Thuiller, W., Pearson, R.G. (2006): Climate warming and the decline of amphibians and reptiles in Europe. Journal of Biogeography 33: 1712–1728.

Baillie, J.E., Hilton-Taylor, M.C., Stuart, S.N. (2004): IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A Global Species Assessment. IUCN.

Banville, M.J., Bateman, H.L. (2012): Urban and wildland herpetofauna communities and riparian microhabitats along the Salt River, Arizona. Urban Ecosystem 15: 473-488.

Cooper, A., Nevin, G. (2003): Biodiversity Action on Industrial Sites. Summary Report submitted to European Commission DG ENV D.1: 12.

Cushman, S.A. (2006): Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128: 231-240.

Dahanukar, N., Padhye, A. (2005): Amphibian diversity and distribution in Tamhini, Northern Western Ghats, India. Current science 88: 1496-1501.

Dalton, R. (2000): As amphibians come under study. Nature 405: 495-496.

Daniel, J.C. (2002): The book of Indian reptiles and amphibians, Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press.

Daniels, R.J.R. (2005): Amphibians of Peninsular India. Indian Academy of Sciences, University Press.

Diaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F.S., Tilman, D. (2006): Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. Plos Biology 4: 1300-1305.

Dickerson, D.D. (2001): Riparian Habitat Management for Reptiles and Amphibians on Corps of Engineers Projects. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SI-22 1-13.

Dinesh. K.P., Radhakrishnan, C., Gururaja, K.V., Deuti, K., Bhatta, G. (2010): Checklist of Amphibia of India. Zoological Survey of India. Western Ghats Regional Centre, Calicut. 1-11.

Gajendiran, N., Ragupathy, S. (2002): The macroflora of east coast at Kalpakkam. Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam.

Ganesh, S.R., Chandra Mouli, S.R. (2007): A study of the Herpetofaunal community in Mannampandal, Nagapatinam Dist. Tamil Nadu. Cobra 1: 33-43.

Gibbons, J.W., Semlitsch, R.D. (1981): Terrestrial drift fences and pitfall traps: An effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations, Brimleyana 7: 1-16.

Gibbons, J.W., Scott, D.E., Ryan, R.J., Buhlmann, K.A., Tuberville, T.D., Metts, B.S., Greene, J.L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S., Winne, C.T. (2000): The global decline of reptiles, déjà vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653–666.

Hamer, A.J., Mcdonnell, M.J. (2010): The response of herpetofauna to urbanization: Inferring patterns of persistence from wildlife databases. Austral Ecology 35: 568-580.

Herrmann, H.L., Babbitt, K.J., Baber, M.J., Congalton, R.G. (2005): Effects of landscape characteristics on amphibian distribution in a forest-dominated landscape. Biological Conservation 123: 139–149.

Jacobsen, N. (1999): Specialist report herpetofauna. Report No 648-F-19 2: 35.

Jahir Hussain, K., Satpathy, K.K., Prasad, M.V.R., Sridharan, V.T., Ramesh, T., Selvanayagam, M. (2010): Terrestrial Faunal diversity of Department of Atomic Energy Campus Kalpakkam-Environmentalists Delight. Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam.

Kalaiarasan, V., Kanakasabai, R. (1999): Distribution and status of reptiles in Chennai, Kanchipuram and Thiruvellore Districts, Tamil Nadu. Cobra 38: 1-5.

Lovejoy, T.E. (1995): The quantification of biodiversity: an esoteric quest or a vital component of sustainable development. In: Biodiversity Measurement and Estimation. p. 81-87. Hawksworth D.L., Ed., Chapman and Hall, London.

Molur, S. (2008): South Asian amphibians: Taxonomy, diversity and conservation status, International Zoo Yearbook 42: 143-157.

Pawar, S., Koo, M.S., Kelley, C., Ahmed, M.F., Chaudhuri, S., Sarkar, S. (2007): Conservation assessment and prioritization of areas in Northeast India: Priorities for amphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation 136: 346-361.

T. Ramesh et al.350

Phochayavanich, R., Voris, H.K., Khonsue, W., Thunhikorn, S., Thirakhupt, K. (2010): Comparison of Stream Frog Assemblages at Three Elevations in an Evergreen Forest, North-Central Thailand. Zoological Studies 49: 632-639.

Pounds, A.J., Bustamante, M.R., Coloma, L.A., Consuegra, J.A., Fogden, M.P.L., Foster, P.N., Marca, E.L., Masters, K.L., Merino-Viteri, A., Puschendorf, R., Ron, S.R., Arturo Sa´nchez-Azofeifa, G., Still, C.J., Young, B.E. (2006): Widespread amphibian extinctions from epidemic disease driven by global warming. Nature 439: 161-167.

Read, J.L. (2002): Experimental trial of Australian arid zone reptiles as early indicators of overgrazing by cattle. Austral Ecology 27: 55-66.

Rodrigues, A.S.L., Gray, C.L., Crowter, B.J., Ewers, R.M., Stuart, S.N., Whitten, T., Manica, A. (2010): A global assessment of Amphibian taxonomic effort and expertise. Bioscience 60: 798-806.

Ryan, T.J., Philippi, T., Leiden, Y.A., Dorcas, M.E., Wigley, T.B., Gibbons, J.W. (2002): Monitoring herpetofauna in a managed forest landscape: Effects of habitat types and census techniques. Forest Ecology and Management 167: 83–90.

Shanker, K., Hiremath, A., Bawa, K. (2005): Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods in India. Plos Biology 3: 1878-1880.

Srinivasulu, C., Das, I. (2008): The Herpetofauna of Nallamala Hills, Eastern Ghats, India: An Annotated Checklist, With Remarks on Nomenclature, Taxonomy, Habitat Use, Adaptive Types and Biogeography. Asiatic Herpetological Research 2: 110-131.

Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L., Waller, R.W. (2004): Status and trend of amphibian decline and extinction worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.

Subramanean, J. (2001): Observations on Snakes in the Suburbs of Chennai. Cobra 46: 33-35.

Subramanean, J. (2012): Lizard Fauna of Kancheepuram District, NorthEastern Tamil Nadu, Southern India. Cobra 6:12-22.

Thompson, G.G., Thompson, S.A. (2005): Mammals or reptiles, as surveyed by pit-traps, as bio-indicators of rehabilitation success for mine sites in the goldfields region of Western Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 11: 268-286.

Vallan, D. (2002): Effects of anthropogenic environmental changes on amphibian diversity in the rain forests of eastern Madagascar. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18: 725-742.

Vasudevan, K., Kumar, A., Chellam, R. (2006) Species turnover: the case of stream amphibians of rainforests in the Western Ghats, southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 3515-3525.

Veith, M., Lotters, S., Andreone, F., Rodel, M. (2004): Measuring and monitoring amphibian diversity in tropical forests. ii. Estimating species richness from standardized transect censing. Ecotropica 10: 85-99.

Vogt, R.C., Hine, R.L. (1982): Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin, Herpetological Communities. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Research Report No.13, p. 201-217. Scott, N.J., Ed., Washington, D.C.

Accepted by Philip de Pous

Whitaker, R., Captain, A. (2004): Snakes of India; the field guide, Draco books.

Wilgers, D.J., Horne, E.A. (2006): Effects of different burn regimes on tallgrass prairie herpetofaunal species diversity and community composition in the Flint Hills, Kansas. Journal of Herpetology 40: 73-84.

Wyman, R.L. (1990): What’s happening to the amphibians? Conservation Biology 4: 350-352.

351Community composition and distribution of herpetofauna