Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 May 2022 | 14(5): 21010–21018
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7666.14.5.21010-21018
#7666 | Received 19
September 2021 | Final received 18 April 2022 | Finally accepted 13 May 2022
Occurrence patterns of
herpetofauna in different habitat types of western Terai
Arc Landscape, India
Gajendra Singh Mehra 1, Nakulananda
Mohanty 2 & Sushil Kumar
Dutta 3
1,2 P.G. Department of Zoology,
Maharaja Sriram Chandra Bhanj Deo University, Odisha
757003, India.
3 Department of Zoology, Assam Don
Bosco University, Tapesia Garden, Guwahati, Assam
782402, India.
1 gajendrasingh.vnm@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 nakulanandamohanty@gmail.com, 3 duttaphrynus@gmail.com
Editor: S.R. Ganesh, Chennai Snake Park,
Chennai, India. Date of publication: 26 May 2022 (online
& print)
Citation: Mehra,
G.S., N. Mohanty & S.K. Dutta (2022). Occurrence patterns of herpetofauna in different habitat types of
western Terai Arc Landscape, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(5): 21010–21018. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.7666.14.5.21010-21018
Copyright: © Mehra
et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: The Corbett
Foundation- Corbett, Nainital
(Uttarakhand), 244715, India.
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Gajendra Singh Mehra is Ph.D. Scholar at P.G. Department of Zoology, MSCBD University, Baripada, Odisha. Nakulananda Mohanty is Ex-Professor and Head of
P.G. Department of Zoology, MSCBD University, Baripada,
Odisha. Sushil
Kumar Dutta is eminent herpetologist of India, also Ex-Professor and
Head of P.G. Department of Zoology, MSCBD University, Baripada,
Odisha.. Currently working in Assam Don Bosco University, Guwahati .
Author contributions: GSM- Fieldwork & Data
Collection, NM & GSM- Paper Writing,
SKD & NM- Paper review & Guidance.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Head P.G. Department
of Zoology, MSCBD University, Baripada, Odisha, for
providing research facilities and The Corbett Foundation (TCF) for providing financial support to the study.
We also thank the Forest Department of Uttarakhand, especially D.F.O., Ms. Neha
Verma (IFS) for her kind help during the study. Sincere thanks to the staff
of Ramnagar Forest Division for cooperation and field
staff of TCF for the assistance during field surveys.
We are extremely thankful to our
Field Assistant, Mr. Kuber Mehra
for his help and guidance in the field. A cordial thanks to Mr. H.S. Dev and
Mr. Mohan Joshi for their assistance. Last but not least a big thanks to Mr.
Prakash Mehta for helping in map work.
Abstract: The Terai
Arc Landscape (TAL) is an important region of biodiversity in India. Situated
in the foothills of the Himalaya, it is spread across India and Nepal. We describe
the herpetofauna of the western part of TAL encompassing Ramnagar
Forest Division, which falls in Uttarakhand state of India. We primarily used
visual encounter survey method for sampling. A total of 47 species of
herpetofauna belonging to three orders, 17 families and 36 genera were recorded
from 10 habitat types (6 terrestrial and 4 aquatic). Highest species richness
(n=32) was recorded from the human settlement and least (n=4) species richness
was reported from pond habitat. In this
paper, the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in each habitat type is
discussed.
Keywords: Amphibians, biodiversity,
ecoregion, habitat type, Himalaya, Ramnagar Forest
Division, reptiles, Uttarakhand, visual encounter survey.
Introduction
Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) is situated
in the foothills of the Himalaya spread across India and Nepal, and is listed
among 200 important ecoregions of the globe (Olson & Dinerstein
1998, 2002). The total area of TAL is 49,500 km2 out of which 30,000
km2 falls in India and 19,500 km2 in Nepal (Semwal 2005). TAL harbors various
habitat types such as Sal forest, Sal mixed forest, mixed forest, grassland,
riverbed, swamp forest, moist riverine forest, dry riverine forest, scrubland,
rivers, barren land, and wetlands (Jhala et al.
2015). Ramnagar Forest Division (RFD) is situated in
the western part of Indian TAL with an area of approx. 593 km2. RFD is a region with rich biodiversity,
and shares its western boundary with Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR). RFD serves as
a corridor in TAL from CTR to Nandhaur Wildlife
Sanctuary (both in Uttarakhand), which is contiguous to Shuklaphanta
National Park of Nepal (Poudyal & Chaudhary
2019).
Habitat is the place where a
species survives and thrives (Odum 1971), while
‘habitat type’ refers to the kind of vegetation of an area (Hall et al. 1997).
Intervention by humans may modify habitat types such that these areas differ
from original vegetation types.
Amphibians and reptiles are
collectively called herpetofauna, and they can be found in various habitat
types and are adapted for various modes of living (Bowo
et al. 2018). Although amphibians and reptiles provide various ecological
services (Aguilar 2013) most of the time herpetofauna are not given proper
consideration in decision making for forest management (de Maynadier
& Hunter 1995). Some species of herpetofauna are habitat generalist and
utilize various habitats, while some are habitat specialist species which
reside in a specific habitat only. Habitat loss in general is destructive to
the whole biodiversity but is the most severe threat for herpetofauna (Gibbons
et al. 2000). Specialist species which are restricted to less number of
habitats are more prone to extinction than generalist species living in
multiple habitat types (Segura et al. 2007).
Although this part of western TAL
is a well-known destination for wildlife enthusiasts and the information about
other vertebrates such as tigers, elephants, and avifauna are available, the status of herpetofauna is still unknown.
Hence this study was undertaken with the objectives to determine the diversity
of herpetofauna species and their distribution in various habitat types of
RFD.
Methods
Study area
RamnagarForest Division (RFD) falls
in the Nainital district of Uttarakhand state, on the latitudes 29.552–20.503
°N and longitudes 79.079–79.544 °E(Image 1) with an altitudinal range of
300–700 m. Annual temperature range is 5–40 °C, and is the lowest in January
and the highest in June. The average annual rainfall is around 2,000 mm, which
occurs mainly during monsoons with some showers during the winters. In this
study, sampling was done in 10 different habitat types, out of which six were
terrestrial and four were aquatic. These habitat types were selected on the
basis of vegetation, ecology and terrain, to avoid resampling in similar
habitat type in different location (Table 1).
All 10 habitat types vary in
locations and vegetation (Table 1, Image 1). The terrestrial habitat types
surveyed in the study were boulder region (BR), grassland (GL), scrubland (SL),
mixed forest (MF), Sal forest (SF), and human settlement (HS) (Image 2). The
aquatic habitat types surveyed were pond (PN), monsoon river (MR), perennial
river (PR), and marshland (ML) (Image 3).
Sampling methods
Sampling was primarily carried
out by area constrained visual encounter survey (VES) method (Crump & Scott
1994; Sutherland 2006). A total of 118
surveys were done in all 10 habitat types starting from September 2016 to
February 2018. Totally, 12 surveys per habitat type were done by two or three
persons. A total of 720 man-hours were spent on the sampling. The locations of
all habitat types were at least 10 km away from each other. Photographs were
taken for identification and no specimen was collected during the study. Data
was also gathered by using other methods such as opportunistic observation (Behangana 2014), road kill survey (Langenet
el. 2009), night searches (Bennett 1999), and rescue and release program.
Species identification was made in the field, with the help of field guides,
identification keys (Daniel 2002; Vasudevan & Sondhi
2010) and some recent taxonomic works (Lajmi et al.
2016; Bisht et al. 2021; Ganesh et al. 2021; Gowande
et al. 2021; Amarasinghe et al. 2022; Bandara et al. 2022).
Results
A total of 47 species were
recorded from RFD. We recorded 10 anurans, 13 lizards, 20 snakes and four
species of turtles (Table 2). The occurrence patterns of herpetofauna species
in different habitat types of RFD is presented in Table 3.
Terrestrial habitat
types
Boulder Region (BR) (Image 2A)—A total of six species
of herpetofauna out of 47 (13%) were encountered in BR. Thisincludes
five species of lizards and one species of snake – Amphiesma
stolatum. No species of Testudinata
or anurans were found.
Grassland (GL) (Image 2B)—A total of seven
species out of 47 species of herpetofauna were encountered in this
habitat type. Presence of four species of anurans, two species of lizards—Calotes vultuosus &
Eutropis carinata,
one species of snake – Amphiesma stolatum, was reported, but no species of Testudinata was found. In total, around 15% of species of
herpetofauna were encountered in GL.
Scrubland (SL) (Image 2C)—A total of
seven species of herpetofauna, were recorded from this habitat type. Four
species of anurans and three species of lizards were found, but no species of
snake or Testudinata were encountered. Around 15% of
species of herpetofauna were encountered in SL.
Mixed forest (MF) (Image 2D)—A total ofnine species of herpetofauna species were reported from
this habitat type. One anuran – Sphearotheca
breviceps, four lizards, two snakes – Trimerusurus septentrionalis & Sibynophys sagittarius,
and two turtles – Melanochelys trijuga & Melanochelys
tricarinata were recorded; 19% of the total species
were encountered in MF.
Sal forest (SF) (Image 2E)—A total of 12 species
of herpetofauna were encountered in SF. One species of anuran –Sphearotheca breviceps,
three species of lizards, seven species of snakes, and one species of tortoise–Indotestudo elongata were
recorded; 25% of species of herpetofauna were encountered in SF.
Human settlement (HS) (Image 2F)—A total of 32 species
out of 47 (68.08%) were reported from HS. Among these, seven
species of anurans out of total 10species, eight species of lizards out of
total 13 species, 15 species of snakes out of total 20 species, and two species
of Testudinata out of a total four, were recorded in
HS. Two species of anurans – Duttaphrynus
melanostictus & Duttaphrynus
stomaticus, and two species of lizards – Hemidactylus flaviviridis
& Hemidactylus kushmorensis,
and eight species of snakes were encountered only in HS (Table 2).
Aquatic habitat types
Pond (PN) (Image 3A)—Four species of
herpetofauna were found in this habitat type. Three species of anurans and one
species of lizard – Varanus bengalensis were observed, but no species of
snakes or Testudinata were encountered. Only 9% of
total species of herpetofauna were encountered in PN.
Monsoon river (MR) (Image 3B)—A total of six
species of herpetofauna, were recorded from MR. Four species of anurans, one
species of lizard – Calotes vultuosus, one species of snake – Fowlea
piscator, were found, but no species of Testudinata was encountered; 13% of species of herpetofauna
were encountered in MR.
Perennial river (PR) (Image 3C)—A total of nine
species of the total herpetofauna were reported from this habitat type. From
this habitat type three species of anurans, four species of lizards, and two
species of Testudinata – Indotestudo
elongata & Lissemys
punctata, were recorded. However, no species
of snake was found; 19% of species of herpetofauna were encountered in PR.
Marshland (ML) (Image 3D)—Seven species of
herpetofauna were recorded. Five species of anurans, one lizard –Calotes vultuosus, and
one species of snake – Ptyas mucosus, were recorded, but no Testudinata
was observed; 15% of species were encountered in ML.
Discussion
The maximum
number of species of herpetofauna was recorded from the human settlement. Of 47 species
of herpetofauna, 32 were encountered in human settlements while only four were
observed in the pond. The higher number
of species in human settlement might be due to the availability of a wider
variety of microhabitats such as drains, lawns, leaf litter, kitchen gardens,
and front & backyards. Night bulbs
present around human settlement might also attract more insects, which could
lure amphibians and reptiles for easy prey. In southern India, a similar result
was observed in the Kalpakkam area (12.551°N &
80.168°E) where reptilian diversity was found high in human-dominated regions
(Ramesh et al. 2013). Herpetofauna diversity was also found higher in human habitation
in Sri Lanka (Karunarathna et al. 2008). In another
study in Sri Lanka, the home gardens were found to be the second most diverse
habitat for herpetofauna, after forest habitat, in a tea plantation ecosystem (Kottawa-Arachchi et al. 2014).
In RFD no anuran or testudine species were encountered in the Boulder region. Karunarathna et al. (2008) also found fewer herpetofauna
species in the boulder habitat type, and considered it as a xeric habitat for
herpetofauna. In Kalpakkam area of southern India,
the highest number of herpetofauna species were reported from scrubland (Ramesh
et al. 2013). However, we did not find the same pattern of herpetofauna
diversity in this habitat type in RFD. In contrast, we found only 15% species
diversity in scrubland, with comparison to human settlement which had the
highest diversity (68.08%) among all 10 habitat types studied.
Sal forest which is the dominant
habitat type in the TAL region, was found to be the second most diverse region
for herpetofauna diversity in this study. The least herpetofauna diversity was
found in the pond habitat, possibly because it is a stagnant water body, hence
only species preferring lentic water might live here.
Table 1. Description of the habitat types in Ramnagar Forest Division.
|
Habitat types |
Geographic location |
Description of habitat type |
|
Boulder Region (BR) |
29.367N, 79.339E |
This site is a rocky terrain
occupied with huge boulders and very less vegetation. Vegetation consist of Senegalia catechu trees, shrubs of Lantana
camara and Adhatoda
vasica. |
|
Grassland (GL) |
29.411N, 79.135E |
This site is located nearby Kosi river and surrounded by scrubland. Major grass
species on the site are Cynodon dactylon, Sorghum halepense,and Eleisine
indica. |
|
Scrubland (SL) |
29.394N, 79.279E |
It is Lantana camara dominated bushland, along with other shrub
species like Ziziphus mauritiana,
Murraya koenigii and Acacia
himalayana. |
|
Mixed forest (MF) |
29.3185N, 79.325 |
This is a forest with
two-layered canopy and variety of plant species. Among these primary canopy
consist of trees like, Trevia nudiflora, Syzygium cumini, Mallotus philippensis, and Ficus
benghalensis. While the secondary canopy
consists of shrubs such as Adhatoda vasica, Glycosmis pentaphylla, and Murraya koenigii. |
|
Sal forest (SF) |
29.468N, 79.233E |
This site is a Sal- Shorea robusta dominated
area, along with Sal associated tree species like Mallotus
philippensis, Lagerstroemia parviflora and Clerodendrum
viscosum. |
|
Human settlement (HS) |
29.452N, 79.143E |
This site is located in Dhikuli village. Surveys were done around houses, drains,
lawns, gardens, and courtyards. |
|
Pond (PN) |
29.450N, 79.215E |
A man-made waterhole near Tectona grandis
forest, which remains filled with water throughout the year. |
|
Monsoon river (MR) |
29.380N, 79.254 |
This site is a monsoon river
with a broad river bed occupied by sand and pebbles, remains dry beyond
monsoons and floods during the rainy season. |
|
Perennial river (PR) |
29.372N, 79.193E |
This site is on an ever-flowing
river, with the narrow river bed. River bed is occupied by sand, rocks and
boulders with scanty vegetation on the banks. |
|
Marshland (ML) |
29.384N, 79.266E |
A marshy area which remains
water-logged for around eight months of the year. Major vegetation found are Bacopa
monnieri, Amaranthus viridis,
Senna tora and Equisetum diffusum. |
Table 2. Occurrence patternsof herpetofauna in the various habitat types of Ramnagar Forest Division.
|
|
Species |
Common names |
Terrestrial habitat types |
Aquatic habitat types |
|
Anurans |
||||
|
1. |
Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis |
Indian Skipper Frog |
GL, PR, SL |
ML, PN, MR, PR |
|
2. |
Minervarya sp. |
Paddy Field Frog |
HS, GL, PR, SL |
ML, PN, MR, PR |
|
3. |
Hoplobatrachus tigerinus |
Indian Bull Frog |
HS, GL, PR, SL |
ML, PN, MR, PR |
|
4. |
Hoplobatrachus crassus |
Jerdon’s Bull Frog |
|
ML, MR |
|
5. |
Sphaerotheca breviceps |
Indian Burrowing Frog |
HS, SF, MF, SL |
ML |
|
6. |
Duttaphrynus melanostictus |
Common Indian Toad |
HS |
|
|
7. |
Duttaphrynus stomaticus |
Marbled Toad |
HS |
|
|
8. |
Uperodon systoma |
Indian Balloon Frog |
GL |
|
|
9. |
Microhyla nilphamariensis |
Nilphamari Narrow-mouthed
Frog |
HS |
|
|
10. |
Polypedates maculatus |
Indian Tree Frog |
HS |
|
|
Lizards |
||||
|
11. |
Varanus bengalensis |
Indian Monitor Lizard |
HS, SF, BR, SL |
PN |
|
12. |
Calotes vultuosus |
Bengal Garden Lizard |
HS, GL, PR, BR, SL |
MR, PR |
|
13. |
Laudakia tuberculata |
Himalayan Rock Lizard |
HS |
PR |
|
14. |
Asymblepharus himalayanus |
Himalayan Rock Skink |
|
PR |
|
15. |
Eutropis carinata |
Keeled Grass Skink |
HS, GL, SF, PR, MF, BR, SL |
PR |
|
16. |
Eutropis cf. macularia |
Bronze Grass Skink |
MF |
|
|
17. |
Eutropis trivittata |
Striped Grass Skink |
MF |
|
|
18. |
Riopa punctata |
Dotted Grass Skink |
HS, SF, MF |
|
|
19. |
Riopa albopunctata |
White-spotted Supple Skink |
BR |
|
|
20. |
Cyrtodactylus fasciolatus |
Bent Toed Gecko |
HS |
|
|
21. |
Hemidactylus kushmorensis |
Kusmore’s House Gecko |
HS |
|
|
22. |
Hemidactylus flaviviridis |
Northern House Gecko |
HS |
|
|
23. |
Hemidactylus leschenaultii |
Leschenault’s House Gecko |
BR |
|
|
Snakes |
||||
|
24. |
Ophiophagus hannah |
King Cobra |
HS, SF |
|
|
25. |
Naja naja |
Indian Cobra |
HS |
|
|
26. |
Bungarus caeruleus |
Common Krait |
HS |
|
|
27. |
Daboia russelii |
Russell’s Viper |
HS |
|
|
28. |
Trimerusurus septentrionalis |
Himalayan White-lipped Pit
Viper |
MF |
|
|
29. |
Python bivittatus |
Burmese Python |
HS, SF |
|
|
30. |
Dendralephis tristis |
Bronze Back Tree Snake |
HS, SF |
|
|
31. |
Ptyas mucosa |
Indian Rat Snake |
HS |
ML |
|
32. |
Oligodon russelius |
Russell’s Kukri |
HS |
|
|
33. |
Boiga trigonata |
Common Cat Snake |
HS, SF |
|
|
34. |
Boiga forsteni |
Forsten’s Cat Snake |
SF |
|
|
35. |
Coelognathus helena |
Common Trinket Snake |
HS, SF |
|
|
36. |
Coelognathus radiata |
Copper-headed Trinket |
SF |
|
|
37. |
Lycodon aulicus |
Common Wolf Snake |
HS |
|
|
38. |
Lycodon jara |
Twin-spotted Wolf Snake |
HS |
|
|
39. |
Sibynophis sagittarius |
Contor’s Black-headed Snake |
MF |
|
|
40. |
Fowlea piscator |
Checkered Keelback |
|
MR |
|
41. |
Amphiesma stolatum |
Striped Keelback |
HS, GL, BR |
|
|
42. |
Indotyphlops braminus |
Brahminy Blind Snake |
HS |
|
|
43. |
Argyrophis diardii |
Indochinese Blind Snake |
HS |
|
|
Testudines |
||||
|
44. |
Melanochelys tricarinata |
Tricarinate Hill Turtle |
MF |
|
|
45. |
Melanochelys trijuga |
Indian Black Turtle |
MF |
|
|
46. |
Lissemys punctata |
Indian Flap Shell Turtle |
HS, |
PR |
|
47. |
Indotestudo elongata |
Elongate Tortoise |
HS, SF |
PR |
BR—Boulder region | GL—Grassland
| SL—Scrubland | MF—Mixed forest | SF—Sal forest | HS—Human settlement |
PN—Pond | MR—Monsoon river | PR—Perennial river | ML—Marshland.
Table 3. Presence of herpetofauna
species in various habitat types of Ramnagar Forest
Division.
|
Habitat types |
Species of anurans |
Species of lizards |
Species of snakes |
Species of Testudinata |
|
BR |
0 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
|
GL |
4 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
|
SL |
4 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
MF |
1 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
SF |
1 |
3 |
7 |
1 |
|
HS |
7 |
8 |
15 |
2 |
|
PN |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
MR |
4 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
PR |
3 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
ML |
5 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
BR—Boulder region | GL—Grassland
| SL—Scrubland | MF—Mixed forest | SF—Sal forest | HS—Human settlement |
PN—Pond | MR—Monsoon river | PR—Perennial river | ML—Marshland.
For figure &
images - - click here
References
Aguilar,
A.V., A.M.C. Gomez & C.A.R. Agudelo (2013). Ecosystem
services provided by amphibians and reptiles in neotropical ecosystems. International
Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Service and Management 9(3):
257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2013.821168
Amarasinghe, A.T., S.R. Ganesh, Z.A. Mirza,
P.D. Campbell, O.S. Pauwels, S. Schweiger, A. Kupfer,
H. Patel, S. Karunarathna, K. Deuti
& I.Ineich (2022). The delusion of stripes: A
century-old mystery of five-lined sun skinks (Reptilia:
Scincidae: Eutropis)
of Peninsular India elucidated. ZoologischerAnzeiger
296: 71–90.
Bandara, S.K., S.R. Ganesh, A.S.
Kanishka, A.D. Danushka, V.R. Sharma, P.D. Campbell,
I. Ineich, G. Vogel & A.T. Amarasinghe
(2022). Taxonomic
Composition of the Oligodonarnensis (Shaw
1802) Species Complex (Squamata: Colubridae) with the
Description of a New Species from India. Herpetologica
78(1): 51–73.
Behangana, M. (2004). The
diversity and status of amphibians and reptiles in the Kyoga Lake Basin. African
Journal of Ecology 42: 51–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00461.x
Bennett, D. (1999). Expedition
Field Techniques: Reptiles and Amphibians. EAC, Royal Geographical Society,
London, 95 pp.
Bisht, K., S.
Garg, A. Sarmah, S. Sengupta & S.D. Biju (2021). Lost, forgotten, and overlooked:
systematic reassessment of two lesser-known toad species (Anura,
Bufonidae) from Peninsular India and another
wide-ranging northern species. Zoosystematics
and Evolution 97: 451.
Bowo, R.P., C.A. Navas,
M. Tejedo, S.E.S. Valença
& S.F. Gouveia
(2018). Ecophysiology of Amphibians: Information for Best Mechanistic
Models. Diversity 10: 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/d10040118
Crump,
M.L.& N.J. Scott Jr. (1994). Visual encounter surveys, pp.
84–92. In: Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly,
R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek & M.S. Foster
(eds.). Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard methods
for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. USA, 383pp.
Daniel, J.C. (2002). The Book
of Indian Amphibians and Reptiles. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 238pp.
Demaynadier, P.G. & M. Hunter (1995). The
relationship between forest management and amphibian ecology: a review of the
North American literature. Environmental Reviews 3: 230–261.
Ganesh, S.R.,
K. Deuti, N.S. Achyuthan,
P. Campbell, S. Raha, P. Bag & S. Debnath (2021).
Taxonomic
reassessment of Eutropismacularia (Blyth,
1853) complex in the Western Ghats of India: Resurrection of Eutropisbrevis (Günther, 1875), Eutropisdawsoni
(Annandale, 1909) and synonymisation of Eutropisgansi (Das, 1991) (Reptilia:
Squamata: Scincidae). Records of the Zoological
Survey of India 121(3): 363–374.
Gibbsons, J.W., D.E. Scott, T.J. Ryan,
K.A. Buhlmann, T.D. Tubervilley,
B.S. Metts , J.L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden,
S. Poppy & C.T. Winne(2000).The Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà Vu Amphibians. Biosciences 50(8):
653–666.
Gowande, G., S. Pal, D. Jablonski, R. Masroor, P.U. Phansalkar, P.
Dsouza, A. Jayarajan & K. Shanker
(2021). Molecular
phylogenetics and taxonomic reassessment of the widespread agamid lizard Calotes versicolor (Daudin,
1802) (Squamata, Agamidae) across South Asia. Vertebrate
Zoology 71: 669.
Hall, L.S.,
P.R. Krausman & M.L. Morrison (1997).The
habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 25(1): 173–182.
Jhala, Y.V., Q. Qureshi & R. Gopal
(2015). The status
of tigers, copredators and
prey in India 2014. National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi
and Wildlife Institute of India,
Dehradun, 460pp.
Karunarathna, D.M.S.S., U.T.I. Abeywardena, M.D.C. Asela &
L.D.C. Kekulandala (2008). A preliminary survey of
the Amphibian fauna in Nilgala Forest Area and its
vicinity, Monaragala district, Sri Lanka. Herpetological
Conservation and Biology 3(2): 264–272.
Kottawa-Arachchi, J.D., R. Gamage, G.G. Jayathilake & H.S.V. Hiripitiya
(2014). Importance of different habitats for herpetofauna in tea plantation
ecosystem in Mattakelle tea estate, Sri Lanka, pp.
197–201. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Agriculture
and Environment. University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka.
Krausman, P.R. (1999). Some Basic
principles of habitat use. In: K.L. Launchbaugh, K.D. Sanders, J.C. Mosley (eds).
Grazing Behavior of Livestock and Wildlife. Idaho
Forest, Wildlife & Range Exp. Sta. Bull. Monograph No. 70, University of
Idaho, Moscow, 86pp.
Lajmi, A., V.B. Giri
& K.P. Karanth (2016).Molecular data in conjunction
with morphology help resolve the Hemidactylusbrookii
complex (Squamata: Gekkonidae). Organisms
Diversity & Evolution 16(3): 659–677.
Langen, T.A., K.M. Ogden & L.L. Schwarting
(2009). Predicting hot spots of herpetofauna road mortality along highway
networks. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(1): 104–114.
Masindai, I.M. (2014). An assessment
of diversity, abundance, and distribution of the herpetofauna in the Serengeti
National Park, Tanzania. M.S. Thesis. Department of Ecosystem Science and
Management, Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania, 116 pp.
Odum, E.P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology
- 3rd Edition. W.B. Sanders Co., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
574pp.
Olson, D.
& E. Dinerstein (1998). The Global 200: A
representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable
Ecoregions. Conservation Biology 12: 502–515.
Olson, D.
& E. Dinerstein (2002). The Global 200: Priority ecoregions
for global conservation. Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden 89(2):
199–224.
Poudyal, L.P. & H. Chaudhary (2019). Birds of Shuklaphanta
National Park: Calligraphic design studio, Kathmandu, Nepal, 155pp.
Ramesh, T.,
K.J. Hussain, K.K. Satpathy & M. Selvanayagam (2013). Community composition and
distribution of herpetofauna at Kalpakkam Nuclear
campus, Southern India. Herpetology Notes 6: 343–351.
Segura, C.,
M.N. Feriche, J.M. Pleguezuelos
& X. Santos(2007).Specialist and generalist species in habitat use: Implications for
conservation assessment in snakes. Journal of Natural History 41(4):
2765–2774. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222930701664203
Semwal,R.L. (2005). The Terai Arc Landscape in India: Securing protected areas in
the face of global change. WWF India, New Delhi, 47 pp.
Sutherland,
W.J. (2006).
Ecological census Techniques. Cambridge University Press, London, United
Kingdom, 411 pp.
Vasudevan, K.
& S. Sondhi (2010). Amphibians and Reptiles of
Uttarakhand, India. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 94 pp.