Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 October 2023 | 15(10): 24016–24031
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8590.15.10.24016-24031
#8590 | Received 14
June 2023 | Final received 08 September 2023 | Finally accepted 03 October 2023
Threat assessment and
conservation challenges for the herpetofaunal diversity of Dampa Tiger Reserve,
Mizoram, India
Sushanto
Gouda 1, Ht. Decemson 2, Zoramkhuma 3, Fanai
Malsawmdawngliana 4, Lal Biakzuala 5 &
Hmar Tlawmte Lalremsanga 6
1,2,4,5,6 Developmental Biology and
Herpetology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, Aizawl,
Mizoram 796004, India.
3 Department of Geography and
Resource Management, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Mizoram 796004, India.
1 sushantogouda@gmail.com, 2 decemsonht@gmail.com,
3 zoramkhuma24@gmail.com, 4 sawmattr.yx@gmail.com, 5
bzachawngthu123@gmail.com, 6 htlrsa@yahoo.co.in
(corresponding author)
Editor: Raju Vyas, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Date of publication: 26 October
2023 (online & print)
Citation: Gouda, S., Ht. Decemson, Zoramkhuma, F.
Malsawmdawngliana, L. Biakzuala & H.T. Lalremsanga (2023). Threat
assessment and conservation challenges for the herpetofaunal diversity of Dampa
Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 15(10):
24016–24031. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8590.15.10.24016-24031
Copyright: © Gouda et al. 2023. 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 National Mission for Himalayan
Studies (NMHS), Uttarakhand (GBPNI/NMHS-2017/MG-22/566), Chicago Board of Trade
(CBOT), Endangered Species Fund Grants, Chicago Zoological Society, USA, and
the Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, India (WTI/RAP/26).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing
interests.
Author details: Dr.
Sushanto Gouda is a DST-post doctoral fellow at the
Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, Mizoram, India. His areas of
interest are threat assessment and addressing
conservation challenges for wildlife species through local community
participation mainly in the northeast regions of India. Ht. Decemson is a PhD scholar at the Department of
Zoology, Mizoram University, India. He is also working as a Senior Research
Fellow in the DST-EEQ project and focuses mainly on primates and amphibian
diversity in Mizoram and Manipur. Zoramkhuma is an assistant professor at Govt.
Kolasib College, Mizoram, with six years of experience in teaching and research. His expertise lies in spatial science, encompassing Remote
Sensing and GIS, Environmental Geography, and Network Modelling. He is
currently pursuing a PhD in the Department of Geography and Resource Management
at Mizoram University. Mr.
Fanai Malsawmdawngliana is an aspiring PhD scholar at the
Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, working with things that crawls and
jumps especially frogs and scorpions for the past few years. Mr. Lal Biakzuala
is working as a junior research fellow under ICMR funded project. He is
currently perusing his PhD from the Department of Zoology, Mizoram University.
His research area includes herpetofaunal inventory, systematics, taxonomy,
conservation and snakebite mitigation in Mizoram. Prof. Hmar Tlawmte Lalremsanga is an eminent personality in
the field of herpetofaunal diversity especially from northeastern India. Apart
from his academic career, he is also working on several major projects funded
by both national and international agencies such as DST-SERB, DRDO, Habitat
Trust and CBOT, USA. He is also supervising PhD scholars in the field of
herpetology and developmental biology.
Author contributions: SG and HTD carried-out all the field
surveys and prepared the initial draft manuscript. FF, LB has performed the
molecular analysis of cryptic species and ascertains the identity of the
collected specimens. Mr. Z has analysis the LULC and other GIS
related works. HTL has supervised the entire survey
period and approved the final draft upon suggesting the necessary corrections to the initial draft
Acknowledgements: Authors are thankful to the chief
wildlife warden, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
Government of Mizoram, India for the permission of herpetofauna collections in
Mizoram (No: A.33011/2/99-CWLW/225). The authors acknowledge the National
Mission for Himalayan Studies (NMHS), Uttarakhand (GBPNI/NMHS-2017/MG-22/566),
Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), Endangered Species Fund Grants, Chicago
Zoological Society, USA, and the Wildlife Trust of India, Noida, India
(WTI/RAP/26) for the financial assistant to conduct field survey and other
works. The authors also appreciate the DTR forest staff for their help and
co-operation during the course of field work.
Abstract: Herpetofauna is an important
group of vertebrates with key functions in ecosystem sustenance. Nonetheless,
with ever-increasing anthropogenic activities and lack of evidence-based
studies, about 80% of the herpetofauna diversity of southern Asian region is
threatened. Our study reports 80 herpetofauna species distributed across
different habitat types in Dampa Tiger Reserve (DTR), Mizoram. We revise the
amphibian list of DTR throughthe addition of seven species and establish the
identity of cryptic species such as Microhyla ornata which is actually
two distinct species,i.e., M. mukhlesuri and M.
mymensinghensis. Through the questionnaire survey, it was found that 90% of
the respondents depended on varied forms of forest resources. Herpetofaunal
species account for 30% of the faunal resources with Varanus bengalensis,
Ophiophagus hannah, and Python bivittatus being the most consumed
reptile species. All chelonians and some amphibians like Duttaphrynus
melanostictus, Pterorana khare, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, Hoplobatrachus
litoralis, Hydrophylax leptoglossa, Minervarya asmati, Polypedates
teraiensis, and Sylvirana lacrima were also found to be consumed and
used for their presumed medicinal values. In addition to hunting, road-kills,
use of chemical pesticides, and habitat alteration were recorded to be the
prominent threats in the region. The land use and land cover (LULC) data shows
a steady recovery of dense forest and a better forest fire scenario as over 90%
of the DTR core region falls in the ‘low severity’ and ‘unburned’ category. With
continuous alteration in forested areas, the present study will not only
provide a fundamental baseline for the conservation of herpetofauna and better
management of protected areas but also stimulate future herpetological-based
research.
Keywords: Anthropogenic, habitat, land use
land cover, northeastern India, resource management, sustainable.
INTRODUCTION
Amphibians and reptiles are
amongst the most diverse and unique group of vertebrates. They play varied
roles in natural systems as predators, prey, seed dispersers, or as commensal
species (da Silva & de Britto-Pereira 2006). Several
herpetofauna species are known to serve as bio-indicators of environmental
health providing ideal models for biological and evolutionary studies (Böhm et
al. 2013; Hernández- Ordóñezet al. 2015; Erawan et al. 2021). Although
available in different land forms, the herpetofauna are sensitive to habitat
modification and face global extinction crises because of habitat loss and
climate change (Lesbarrères et al. 2014; Trimble &van Aarde 2014; Musah et
al. 2019).
Globally, around 41% of amphibians
and 21% of reptiles are categorized as ‘threatened’ by the IUCN Red List (Cox
et al. 2022), due to habitat destruction, hunting, poaching, and pet trade
(Böhm et al. 2013; Measey et al. 2019; Hughes et al. 2021; Cox et al. 2022).
While large body-sized vertebrates are comparatively well studied, little is
being documented about the responses of amphibians and reptiles to such
changing landscapes and anthropogenic activities (Fulgence et al. 2021).
Nestled in the eastern
Himalayan region, the northeastern states of India are located at the
crossroads of two biodiversity hotspots of the world, i.e., the Eastern
Himalaya and the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot (Saikia & Kharkongor
2017). The forests of Mizoram are mainly tropical forests with high species
richness and endemicity (Lalremsanga 2018). Recent studies from Mizoram have
reported several new species to the state that include Amolopsindo
burmanensis, Limnonectes khasianus, Microhyla mukhlesuri, and
M. mymensinghensis. New country records like Raorchestes rezakhani
and Sylvirana lacrima were also described from the state (Decemson et
al. 2021a). Reptiles like Cyrtodactylus montanus (Muansanga et
al. 2020), and Gekko lionotum (now Gekko mizoramensis) are some
other records. However, with rising incidences of forest fire, shifting
cultivation, change in land use, land cover pattern, local consumption, and
ethnomedicinal usage, the herpetofauna diversity of the state is in peril
(Pawar et al. 2004; Lalremsanga 2018; Gouda et al. 2021). As the pressure on
herpetofauna in the region continues to mount, threat assessments and inventory
studies are of great importance to document and conserve the rich
herpetological diversity of the state. Through this study, we aim to: (a)
assess the herpetofaunal diversity in and around Dampa Tiger Reserve (DTR),
which has been unrepresented or poorly documented, (b) determine the
conservation status and existing threats, and (c) identify and address the
research gaps that seek urgent attention from the stakeholders and concerned
authorities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Site
The study was undertaken in and
around Dampa Tiger Reserve located in the Mamit District of Mizoram. DTR is
part of both the Himalaya and the Indo-Burma biodiversity hotspot. The reserve
also forms the international border with Bangladesh. It stretches over an area
of 500 km2 of the core area (23.3486–23.7972 N, 92.2688–92.5275 E)
and a buffer zone of 488 km2 (23.8005–23.3533 N, 92.3175–92.5288 E)
(Mandal & Raman 2016) (Figure 1). Vegetation type in the area comprises
tropical wet evergreen, semi-evergreen and bamboo forests. The terrain in the
reserve is steep and rugged ranges run in an altitudinal range of ~230–1100 m.
Several perennial streams and small water bodies flow across the reserve. The habitat
types in the peripheral areas of DTR are secondary forests of medium-sized,
abandoned jhum fields, and small forest patches mixed with shrubs and bamboo
plants at varied elevations. The peripheral areas of DTR consist of 14 villages
where the main source of livelihood is agriculture and Non-timber forest
products (NTFP’s) collected from the reserve (Gouda et al. 2021).
Herpetological Sampling
Sampling was carried out in both
the core and buffer areas of DTR between July 2020 and November 2022. Extensive
surveys were carried out in different seasons and habitat types using multiple
approaches such as trail walks, line transect surveys and road surveys by a
group of two–four individual researchers (Prasad et al. 2018). Different
gradients of fallow lands and secondary forested areas (community forest) were
also surveyed. Surveys were carried out in the early morning (0500–0800 h) and
evening (1800–2300h). For the chelonian diversity, surveys were carried out
along the water bodies, drainage, and river beds that flow along DTR and the
surrounding village areas. Common species were photographed and released back
to the wild after examination and measurement, while unidentified species
including road kills were collected and preserved in 70% ethanol for future
evaluation.
Genetic analysis
Liver and other suitable tissue
samples were used for the DNA extraction process through DNeasy (Qiagen™) blood
and tissue kits. Standard polymerase chain reactions (PCR) were run for
amplification using forward primer L02510 and reverse primer H3056. The
amplified samples were then sequenced using a sequencer (Agrigenome Labs Pvt.
Ltd.) in both directions following Sanger’s dideoxy method (Sanger et al.
1977). The obtained chromatograms of 16S rRNA sequences were screened through
nucleotide BLAST (https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) and ORF finder
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/orffinder/), the generated sequences were
deposited in the GenBank repository and accession numbers were acquired for the
same. Voucher specimens for all species were also deposited at the Department
Museum of Zoology, Mizoram University (MZMU) for future reference.
Threat assessment
Socio-economic survey
For the assessment of
anthropogenic pressure, a semi-structured questionnaire, informal interviews,
and interactions with local communities were used to gather information
relating to the livelihood options, agricultural practices, knowledge on
herpetofaunal diversity, and usages of the herpetofaunal species (Gouda et al.
2021; Adil et al. 2022). The survey was conducted among all ethnic communities
across the fringe villages of DTR, i.e., Mizo, Bru, and Chakma tribes. All
discussions and interactions were conducted with the consent of the respondents
through the local dialect, which is ‘Mizo’.
Land use and land cover (LULC)
survey
The presence of humans including
settlements, forest cover, forest fire, and agricultural land in fringe
villages of DTR was acquired through the Indian Remote Sensing satellite data
(LISS-III and Cartosat-I) and digitized using QGIS software for the preparation
of LULC maps. LULC classification and NBR mapping were primarily relayed on
Landsat 8 data, Level2 products developed and distributed by United States
Geological (USGS) Earth Explorer (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/).
Understanding the pattern of LULC change, the study utilized three separate
satellite images with different years, months, and dates, like 19 February
2014, 29 January 2018, and 08 January 2023. The study area is covered by
path136 and row44. The selection of the data set was influenced by the image
quality, especially for those days with limited and low cloud cover. All the
selected images had less than 5% cloud cover.
For assessing the forest fire
severity, the study utilized multi-date images from Landsat 8 data, firstly,
the image representing the pre-fire scenario, acquired on 08 January 2023, and
second, the post-fire scenario acquired on 21 March 2022. Specifically, the
near-infrared band with 0.845–0.885 µm and short-wave-infrared band with
2.10–2.30 µm forest fire severity were utilized for forest fire severity
calculation.
RESULTS
Herpetofaunal diversity of DTR
The study reports 80
herpetofaunal species consisting of ophidians (20 species), saurians (20
species), chelonians (six species) and amphibians (34 species) (Tables
1&2). Among the reptilian fauna, all chelonian species except Cyclemys
gemeli are categorized as threatened as per the IUCN Red List while among
the ophidians, two species—Python bivittatus and Ophiophagus hannah
are ‘Vulnerable’, 15 are in ‘Least Concern’ and three are in ‘Not Assessed’
category. Of the 20 saurian species, Cyrtodactylus montanus, is
considered ‘Critically Endangered’, Tropidophorus assamensis as
‘Vulnerable’, Varanus bengalensis as ‘Near Threatened’, and Sphenomorphus
maculatus, Gekko mizoramensis as ‘Not Assessed’, while the remaining
15 species are of ‘Least Concern’ status (Table 1). Among the amphibians, one
species—Bufoides meghalayanus is categorized as ‘Critically Endangered’,
while 16 species are of ‘Least Concern’, four species are ‘Data Deficient’, and
11 are ‘Not Assessed’ (Table 2).
Through this study, we have also updated the
amphibian checklist of DTR to 34 species by the addition of seven new species
namely Raorchestes manipurensis (Departmental Museum of Zoology, Mizoram
University MZMU2326–2328 and MZMU2350), Polypedates braueri (MZMU2261), Theloderma
baibungense (MZMU2108), Kurixalus yangi (MZMU2273 and MZMU2274), Ichthyophis
multicolor (MZMU2494A–G), Bufoides meghalayanus (MZMU2078 and
MZMU2091), and Ichthyophis benji (MZMU2809) (Table 3) (Image 1).
The diversity of amphibians was
profoundly distributed in small perennial streams, roadside water holes, moist
temperate bamboo forests, and secondary forests within the core and also along
the buffer areas. Man-made water bodies like fish ponds in the buffer areas
accounted for species such as Euphlyctis adolfi, Fejervarya
multistriata, Microhyla berdmorei, and Sylvirana lacrima
while species like Amolops indoburmanensis and Odorrana chloronota were
more prominent in the cascade flowing of the lotic ecosystem. Agricultural crop
fields/ jhum fields were found to be inhabited by species like Duttaphrynus
melanostictus, E. adolfi, Hydrophylax leptoglossa, Hoplobatrachus
litoralis, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, Kaloula pulchra and Minervarya
asmati. Small seasonal drains along roadside were found to harbour species
such as D. melanostictus, Ichthyophis multicolor and R. manipurensis.
Species like Rhacophorus bipunctatus, and Theloderma baibungense were
more prevalent in the primary forests, while, Ingerana borealis, Limnonectes
khasianus, Leptobrachium smithi, Leptobrachella tamdil and Pterorana
khare were found in the slow-flowing streams in the core areas of DTR.
Although we observed saurian and
other reptilian species both from primary as well as secondary forests along
DTR, activities such as encroachment by humans, increase in number of
agricultural crop fields, over-harvesting, and use of chemical pesticides
appears to influence the distribution pattern of reptiles in DTR and its
peripheral areas. Several species such as Bungarus fasciatus, Bungarus
niger, Naja kaouthia, Ophiophagus hannah, Trimeresurus popeiorum,
Trimeresurus erythrurus, Python bivittatus, Varanus bengalensis,
Varanus salvator, Cyrtodactylus montanus, Calotes irawadi, Draco
maculatus, Ptyctolaemus gularis and Tropidophorus assamensis were
frequently encountered in secondary forests, thereby highlighting the role of
these mosaic forest patches in the conservation of the herpetofaunal diversity
of DTR. All six chelonian species in the study were
observed from the streams flowing in the primary forest. However, human
activities including illegal hunting and excessive release of pesticides to the
water bodies that connect the streams appear to be a challenge for their
conservation.
We ascertain the identity of
several cryptic species previously misidentified from the region by sequencing
mitochondrial genes, 16S ribosomal RNA, and bioinformatics tools The tissue sample earlier assigned to Microhyla
ornata was sequenced and the obtained genetic data revealed that it is two
distinct species, i.e., M. mukhlesuri and M. mymensinghensis.
Another amphibian species Xenophrys parva was established as X.
serchhipii, which is endemic to the northeastern region of India. Hoplobatrachus
sp. which was reported as a single species from DTR was sequenced and
confirmed to be two separate species, i.e., H. tigerinus and H.
Litoralis.
Threats and conservation
challenges
The threats for the herpetofaunal diversity
were assessed through the socio-economic survey and understanding of the land
cover change in and around the DTR region. Some of the major conservation
challenges for the herpetofauna of DTR include:
Dependency on forest resources
During the questionnaire survey,
it was found that more than 90% of the respondents collected NTFPs and other
forms of forest resources such as bamboo shoots, wild berries, different frog,
snails, and crab species. from the surrounding forested areas of DTR. About 19%
of the locals interviewed stated that they collect bamboo—Dendrocalamus
longispathus, D. asper, Melocanna baccifera, and Bambusa
tulda for construction, consumption, and fuelwood, while 2% collect timber—Gmelina
arborea and Derris robusta, 24.5% collect fuel wood, and 12.5%
collect edible food/medicines. About 39% of the respondents stated to collect
all the above forest items, while 3% of the surveyed locals do not collect any
form of forest products. Several faunal resources such as fish, tadpoles, crabs
and snails are also regularly collected by the locals and sold in the market
(Image 2). Large mammals hunted for bushmeat include Sus scrofa, Muntiacus
muntjak, Rusa unicolor, Capricornis sumatraensis, and Macaca
assamensis. Encouragement to adopt alternative livelihoods and expand their
income sources will be crucial for reducing the pressure on the biodiversity of
DTR and improving the socio-economic status of the tribal communities.
Over-harvesting of herpetofauna
Herpetofaunal species account for
30% of the faunal resources used by locals around DTR. Varanus bengalensis,
Ophiophagus hannah, and Python bivittatus were the most
consumed reptile species. Several snake species although not consumed,
were many a time killed out of fear of snake bite. Among amphibians Duttaphrynus
melanostictus and Pterorana khare were consumed as a delicacy
and also used for the treatment of ailments like common cold and cough. Species
like Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, H. litoralis, Hydrophylax
leptoglossa, M. asmati, P. teraiensis, Duttaphrynus sp.,
and S. lacrima were found to be sold alive or dried at 100/ package
weighing about 500g in the local market (Pers. obs. of HTL and SG during field visits to the
study sites) (Image 3). Tadpoles of Clinotarsus alticola and L.
smithi caught from the streams along the buffer region were also reported
to be consumed regularly by locals.
Ethnomedicinal or traditional
medicines play an important role in the exploitation of herpetofauna species in
and around DTR where health facilities are lacking or poor. The
questionnaire survey revealed that many locals use reptiles and
amphibian’s species for treating several health ailments such as skin
infections, stomach problems, and burns. The fats of Python bivittatus are
applied to burns and inflammation, and the glands are sometimes used as a
sedative. The fatty oil obtained from Trimeresurus erythrurus is used
for treating warts. Soup of D. melanostictus is administered for common
cold and cough. Different species of chelonians including I. elongata,
Cyclemys gemeli, and Cuora mouhotii are regularly
consumed by the locals and also traded to neighbouring states like Assam and
Tripura for their medicinal values (Image 4).
Road kills and lack of awareness
During our survey period, we
encountered several species of amphibians and reptiles that were killed on the
road that stretches from W. Phaileng to Marpara (84.9 km) and between W.
Phaileng to Rajiv Nagar (64 km) (Image 5). Some of the commonly observed
roadkill species included I. multicolor, Calotes irawadi, Coelognathus
radiatus, D. melanostictus, Pareas monticola, M. berdmorei,
S. lacrima, F. multistriata, and M. asmati. (Image 5a-i).
Ignorance or lack of awareness of the role of amphibians in biodiversity
sustainability, as biological indicators of climate change, pollution, and the
benefits of amphibians as pest control agents have led to their random killing
and consumption. Uncontrolled use of chemical pesticides in agricultural crop
fields that ultimately get deposited in the nearby water bodies as a result of
water runoff was another factor that led to a decline in the local
population of certain amphibian species. Hindlimb malformation in Adolf’s
Speckled Frog E. adolfi, Tamenglong Horned Frog X. numhbumaeng,
Mawphlang Odorous Frog O. mawphlangensis, Nagaland Montane Torrent Toad D.
chandai; anophthalmia in X. major are some of the cases reported
from the state of Mizoram. From DTR region abnormalities in skinks such as
Indian Forest Skink Sphenomorphus indicus, and Spotted Forest Skink S.
maculatus are also reported (Decemson et al. 2021b; Lalremsanga 2022;
Siammawii et al. 2022).
Land use pattern
The forest is a crucial component
for the prosperity and sustenance of wildlife in any given area. Data on LULC
generated for the years 2014, 2018, and 2022 shows a recovery of densely
forested areas in DTR. Nevertheless, substantial alteration in forest cover
along the peripheral areas of DTR also cannot be denied (Image 6). Another
interesting finding from the LULC is the reduction in areas under ‘jhum
cultivation’ also known as slush and burnt form of cultivation, thereby
resulting in an increased area of open forest. The areas under shifting
cultivation recorded during the last five years showed a decrease from 306 km2
to 180.49 km2 throughout Mizoram. Adaptation of mixed farming over
the traditional Jhum cultivation by local farmers around DTR has also helped
increase the fallow period between successional Jhum fields allowing the forest
vegetation to recover. An increase in plantation areas was also recorded for
DTR. Many of the local farmers now grow various forms of cash crops like Betel
Nut Areca catechu, Cavendish Banana Musa acuminata, Plantain Musa
paradisiaca, Tree Bean/ Stink Bean Parkia timoriana apart from their
traditionally grown paddy in the crop fields. Such adaptation in agriculture
can be attributed to better management practices by the concerned department
and the implementation of the New Land Use Policy (NLUP).
Forest fire
Forest fires in the region were
categorized based on the frequency of detected forest fires in an area over
period of time and the probabilities of occurrence (proneness) shortly as
suggested by Kumar et al. (2019). Analysis of satellite imageries of forest
fire data shows that more than 90% of DTR’s core areas fall under the category
of ‘low severity’ and ‘unburned’ (Image 7). Some areas namely Tuichar, Charte,
and Saithah composed mainly of bamboo forest that were previously cleared for
developing grasslands, represent a ‘moderate–high severity’ zone. The buffer
areas close to villages like Rajiv Nagar, Tuipuibari, Damparengpui, and Silsuri
pose a greater threat of fire crossover into the core regions and hence require
proper monitoring while jhum fields are burnt by the local farmers. Although
forest fire prevalence and severity in DTR are relatively low, with the growing
incidences of forest fires and increase in temperature (Pers. Obs of HTL and
Pramanick et al. 2023), timely vigilance by the concerned department and proper
awareness among locals will be crucial for the prevention of forest fire in the
near future.
DISCUSSION
Herpetofauna is one of the most
threatened groups of vertebrates on the planet. The synergistic effect of
habitat loss, fragmentation, over-harvesting, pet trade, traditional medicine,
and climate change has threatened the global herpetological population with
extinction in the next 50 years, especially in southern Asia (Stuart et al.
2008; Rowley et al. 2010; Nori et al. 2015; Hughes 2017; Choquette et al. 2020;
Montgomery et al. 2022). Being the largest protected area in the state
of Mizoram, the DTR and its surrounding areas hold a rich and diverse group of
herpetofauna of the state. Although Bufoides
bhupathyi was recently described as new species by Naveen et al. (2023)
from the similar study area in DTR, we recommend taxonomic reassessment of the
Bufoides population from this area using a more holistic data with implementing
integrated approach (e.g., multilocus phylogeny, natural history, robust
morphological distinctness, etc.) because recognizing cryptic species through a
short fragment of 16S rRNA (~413 bp) and few morphological attributes,
particularly webbing formulae and shape of parotoid is ambiguous. Thus, we consider
B. bhupathyi as a subjective junior synonym of B. meghalayanus
for the time being. Furthermore, the shallow genetic divergence (0-0.6%) across
the sequences of R. manipurensis from Mizoram (DTR: GBA MZ148617-21;
Sailam: GBA MZ148616, MW938629-30; Lunglei: GBA MZ148622) and the type locality
in Manipur (GBA MW680944-47), R. cangyuanensis from China (Yunnan: GBA
MN475866-7), and R. longchuanensis from India (West Bengal: GBA
MH423740) and Bangladesh (Habigonj: GBA MH699074) suggested that these samples
are conspecific and warrant the treatment of R. cangyuanensis as a subjective junior synonym of R.
manipurensis with the subsequent amendment on the taxonomic status of R.
longchuanensis from India (West Bengal) and Bangladesh into R.
manipurensis. We report several reptilian species from the reserve such as R.
manipurensis, Leptobrachella tamdil, R. senapatiensis, I. moustakius, I.
benjii, C. montanus, G. mizoramensis, T. assamensis, H. xenura, and
B. meghalayanus that are endemic to the northeastern states of India. Other
important species reported include C. montanus, T. assamensis,
and N. nigricans which are highly cryptic. Several cases of
misidentification and misclassification in some of the previous studies from
DTR (Pawar et al 2004; Decemson et al. 2021a) such as that of X. serchhipii
as X. parva; Amolops indoburmanensis as A. marmoratus, E.
adolfi as E. cyanophlyctis, L. khasianus as L. laticeps are
also resolved in the study However, similar to other tropical forests of
southern Asia, DTR too faces the challenge of habitat alteration, increasing
human population in the vicinity of villages, hunting, frequent forest fires,
monoculture plantation, and high harvesting pressures. A study on the impact of
climate change on amphibians by Lalremsanga (2018) showed several distinct
changes like altered reproductive activity, phenology, and altitudinal
migration from 100–500m to over 824m in Microhylids, and among Clinotarsus
alticola and Ingerana borealis respectively. Biodiversity in
protected areas across southern Asia is facing a huge threat mainly due to
human population growth (as 25% of the world’s population inhabits the region)
and the extension of agricultural lands (Ghosh-Harihar et al. 2019; Chowdhury
et al. 2022). Although pet trade and poaching of herpetofauna are yet to be
reported from the DTR region, their local consumption and ethno-zoological
usage pose a serious threat (Gouda et al. 2021). Mardiastuti et al. (2021) and
Montgomery et al. (2022) have also categorized humans as exceptional wildlife
consumers pursuing prey species from 34 taxonomic orders of body size ranging
from 27 g to 4,400 kg. All of the listed chelonian species in the study are
categorized as threatened species and require immediate conservation
interventions.
Frequent forest fire is another
factor that greatly hampers the herpetofaunal diversity of DTR. As highlighted
by Wang et al. (2021), the northeastern region of India alone contributes for
about 550,086 ha of the 658,778.4 ha of forested land that is lost every year in
India due to various reasons.
A significant proportion of the
herpetofaunal diversity in the DTR region is likely to be hidden within
morphologically cryptic species groups or genera which are mostly treated as a
single species or as many species. Misidentifications between closely
resembling species like Euphlyctis cyanohlyctis and E. adolfi, Raorchestes
manipurensis and R. rezakhani, Hoplobactrachus tigerinus and H.
litoralis, Microhyla mukhlesuri and M. mymensinghensis, F.
multistriata and M. asmati are quite common in this region and hence
require more concerted approaches (Stuart et al. 2006; Kundu et al. 2020; Neves
et al. 2020).
While the crucial role of
indigenous people and local communities in biodiversity conservation has been
greatly valued by organisations such as the United Nations Convention on
Biological Diversity, we believe that region-based conservation measures are
more likely to have a better impact. As observed in our study, the locals
reported the declining trend in amphibian fauna especially the bullfrogs (Kaloula
pulchra, Hoplobatrachus litoralis, and Hoplobatrachus tigerinus)
which are an important component of their diets. Similar to the findings of
Mandal & Raman (2016) and Gouda et al. (2021), the locals during the
questionnaire surveys also cited different factors like usage of chemical
pesticides, low rainfall, monoculture plantations, habitat alteration and the
use of modern machinery as causes for the decline in the population of such
species. Since human-dominated landscapes are known for the distribution of
over 65% of gap species (Acevedo-Charry & Aide 2019), with the continuous
conversion of forested areas into agricultural fields and human habitats in the
DTR region, the surrounding areas of DTR can serve as a valuable site for
survival and recovery of herpetofauna communities. Considering the paucity of
research in the region and cryptic nature of herpetofauna species, more
research initiatives and the knowledge of the local communities are necessary
for detailing the diversity and upgradation of the current Red List status.
Acknowledging the importance of inventory studies and the role of herpetofauna
in a balanced ecosystem will also be necessary for its management and
conservation across the eastern Himalayan range and the Indo-Burma biodiversity
hotspot. If done regularly, these studies will not only provide a fundamental
baseline for the conservation of herpetofauna and better management of
protected areas, but also stimulate future herpetological-based research.
Table 1. Chelonian, saurian, and
ophidian diversity in and around Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
Family |
Red List status |
|
|
Chelonia |
|||||
|
1 |
Assam Leaf Turtle |
Cyclemys gemeli |
Emydidae |
NT |
|
|
2 |
Keeled Box Turtle |
Cuora mouhotii |
Emydidae |
EN |
|
|
3 |
Asian Giant Tortoise |
Manouria emys |
Testudinidae |
CE |
|
|
4 |
Yellow Tortoise |
Indotestudo elongata |
Testudinidae |
CE |
|
|
5 |
Black Softshell Turtle |
Nilssonia nigricans |
CE |
|
|
|
6 |
Asiatic Softshell Turtle |
Amyda ornata jongli |
VU |
|
|
|
Sauria
|
|||||
|
1 |
Forest Garden Lizard |
Calotes emma |
Agamidae |
LC |
|
|
2 |
Indian Garden Lizard |
Calotes irawadi |
Agamidae |
LC |
|
|
3 |
Smooth-scaled Mountain Lizard |
Cristidorsa planidorsata |
Agamidae |
LC |
|
|
4 |
Blanford’s Flying Lizard |
Draco maculatus |
Agamidae |
LC |
|
|
5 |
Green Fan-throated Lizard |
Ptyctolaemus gularis |
Agamidae |
LC |
|
|
6 |
Burmese Glass Snake |
Dopasia gracilis |
Anguidae |
LC |
|
|
7 |
Jampui Bent-toed Gecko |
Cyrtodactylus montanus |
Gekkonidae |
CE |
|
|
8 |
Common House Gecko |
Hemidactylus frenatus |
Gekkonidae |
LC |
|
|
9 |
Fox Gecko |
Hemidactylus garnotii |
Gekkonidae |
LC |
|
|
10 |
Flat-tailed House Gecko |
Hemidactylus platyurus |
Gekkonidae |
LC |
|
|
11 |
Mizoram Parachute Gecko |
Gekko mizoramensis |
Gekkonidae |
NA |
|
|
12 |
Tokay Gecko |
Gekko gecko |
Gekkonidae |
LC |
|
|
13 |
Khasi Hill Long-tailed Lizard |
Takydromus khasiensis |
Lacertidae |
LC |
|
|
14 |
Bronze Grass Skink |
Eutropis macularia |
Scincidae |
LC |
|
|
15 |
Common Mabuya |
Eutropis multifasciata |
Scincidae |
LC |
|
|
16 |
Indian Forest Skink |
Sphenomorphus indicus |
Scincidae |
LC |
|
|
17 |
Spotted Forest Skink |
Sphenomorphus maculatus |
Scincidae |
NA |
|
|
18 |
North-eastern Water Skink |
Tropidophorus assamensis |
Scincidae |
VU |
|
|
19 |
Bengal Monitor Lizard |
Varanus bengalensis |
Varanidae |
NT |
|
|
20 |
Common Water Monitor |
Varanus salvator |
Varanidae |
LC |
|
|
Ophidia |
|||||
|
1 |
Yellow Whipsnake |
Ahaetulla flavescens |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
2 |
Tawny Cat Snake |
Boiga ochracea |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
3 |
Golden/Indian Flying Snake |
Chrysopelea ornata |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
4 |
Common/Painted Bronzeback |
Dendrelaphis proarchos |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
5 |
Asiatic Water Snakes/ Checkered
Keelback |
Fowlea piscator |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
6 |
Common Ringneck |
Gongylosoma scriptum |
Colubridae |
NA |
|
|
7 |
Chin Hills Keelback |
Hebius venningi |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
8 |
Wall’s Keelback |
Herpetoreas xenura |
Colubridae |
NA |
|
|
9 |
Zaw’s Wolf Snake |
Lycodon zawi |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
10 |
Light-barred Kukri Snake |
Oligodon albocinctus |
Colubridae |
LC |
|
|
11 |
Heller’s Red-necked Keelback |
Rhabdophis helleri |
Colubridae |
NA |
|
|
12 |
Banded Krait |
Bungarus fasciatus |
Elapidae |
LC |
|
|
13 |
Greater Black Krait |
Bungarus niger |
Elapidae |
LC |
|
|
14 |
Monocled Cobra |
Naja kaouthia |
Elapidae |
LC |
|
|
15 |
King Cobra |
Ophiophagus hannah |
Elapidae |
VU |
|
|
16 |
Common Slug Snake |
Pareas monticola |
Pareidae |
LC |
|
|
17 |
Common Mock Viper |
Psammodynastes pulverulentus |
Pseudaspididae |
LC |
|
|
18 |
Burmese Python |
Python bivittatus |
Pythonidae |
VU |
|
|
19 |
Pope's Bamboo/ Green Pit Viper |
Trimeresurus popeiorum |
Viperidae |
LC |
|
|
20 |
Redtail (Bamboo) Pit
Viper |
Trimeresurus erythrurus |
Viperidae |
LC |
|
CE—Critically Endangered |
EN—Endangered | LC—Least Concern | NT—Near Threatened | NA—Not Assessed |
VU—Vulnerable.
Table 2. Amphibian diversity of
Dampa Tiger Reserve region, Mizoram.
|
|
Common name |
Scientific name |
Red List status |
|
|
I |
Anurans |
|||
|
1 |
Smith’s Litter Frog |
Leptobrachium smithi |
LC |
|
|
2 |
Tamdil Leaf-litter Frog |
Leptobrachella tamdil |
NA |
|
|
3 |
Serchhip Horned Frog |
Xenophrys serchhipii |
DD |
|
|
4 |
White-lipped Horned Toad |
Xenophrys major |
LC |
|
|
5 |
Painted Kaloula/ Painted
Bullfrog |
Kaloula pulchra |
LC |
|
|
6 |
Pegu Rice Frog |
Microhyla berdmorei |
LC |
|
|
7 |
Mukhlesur's Narrow-mouthed Frog
|
Microhyla mukhlesuri |
NA |
|
|
8 |
Mymensingh Narrow-mouthed Frog |
Microhyla mymensinghensis |
NA |
|
|
9 |
Adolf’s Speckled / Bangladesh
Skittering Frog |
Euphlyctis adolfi |
LC |
|
|
10 |
Indian Bullfrog |
Hoplobatrachus tigerinus |
LC |
|
|
11 |
Bangladesh Coastal Bull Frog |
Hoplobatrachus litoralis |
LC |
|
|
12 |
Khasi Wart Frog |
Limnonectes khasianus |
LC |
|
|
13 |
Indo-Burma Torrent Frog |
Amolops indoburmanensis |
NA |
|
|
14 |
Malay Pointed-snout Frog/ Assam
Hill Frog |
Clinotarsus alticola |
LC |
|
|
15 |
Chin WoodFrog |
Sylvirana lacrima |
NA |
|
|
16 |
Copper-cheeked Stinky Frog/
ChloronateHuia Frog |
Odorrana chloronota |
LC |
|
|
17 |
Khare's Gliding Frog |
Pterorana khare |
LC |
|
|
18 |
Cope’s Assam Frog |
Hydrophylax leptoglossa |
LC |
|
|
19 |
Terai Tree Frog |
Polypedates teraiensis |
NA |
|
|
20 |
Himalaya Flying Frog |
Rhacophorus bipunctatus |
LC |
|
|
21 |
Leimatak’sBush Frog |
Raorchestes manipurensis |
NA |
|
|
22 |
White-lipped Tree Frog |
Polypedates braueri |
NA |
|
|
23 |
Baibung Small Tree Frog |
Theloderma baibungense |
LC |
|
|
24 |
Yang’s Frill-limbed Tree Frog |
Kurixalus yangi |
NA |
|
|
25 |
Paddy Frog |
Fejervarya multistriata |
DD |
|
|
26 |
Bangladeshi Cricket Frog |
Minervarya asmati |
NA |
|
|
27 |
Rotung Oriental Frog |
Ingerana borealis |
LC |
|
|
28 |
Asian Toad |
Duttaphrynus melanostictus |
LC |
|
|
29 |
Khasi Hill Toad/ Mawblang Toad |
Bufoides meghalayanus |
CR |
|
|
II |
Ichthyophiidae – Caecilians |
|||
|
1 |
Manipur Moustached Ichthyophis |
Ichthyophis moustakius |
DD |
|
|
2 |
Colourful Ichthyophis |
Ichthyophis multicolor |
DD |
|
|
3 |
Benji’s Caecillian |
Ichthyophis benjii |
NA |
|
CR—Critically Endangered| DD—Data
Deficient| LC—Least Concern| NA—Not Assessed.
Table 3. New record of amphibian
species from Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram.
|
|
Species |
Common name |
Family |
Voucher/ GenBank accession no. |
Red List status |
Distribution |
|
1 |
Raorchestes manipurensis (Mathew & Sen
2009) |
Leimatak’sBush Frog |
Rhacophoridae |
MZMU2326, 2327 & 2328 (GBA
no. MZ148621, MZ148620 & MZ148619, respectively) |
NA |
India (Manipur, Mizoram) |
|
2 |
Polypedates braueri (Vogt, 1911) |
White-Lipped Tree Frog |
Rhacophoridae |
MZMU2261 (GBA no. MH938688.1) |
DD |
Tropical and Sub tropical
China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and India (Mizoram) |
|
3 |
Theloderma baibungense (Jiang, Fei &
Huang, 2009) |
Baibung Small Tree Frog |
Rhacophoridae |
MZMU2108 (GBA no. OK474164) |
DD |
Tibet, China, Bangladesh and
India (Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland) |
|
4 |
Kurixalus yangi Yu, Rao &Yang,
2018 |
Yang’s Frill-limbed Tree Frog |
Rhacophoridae |
MZMU2273 & MZMU2274 (GBA
no. MT808303.1) |
NA |
Western Yuannan, China, Northern
Myanmar and India (Nagaland, Mizoram) |
|
5 |
Ichthyophis multicolor Wilkinson,
Presswell, Sherratt, Papadopoulou & Gower, 2014 |
Colourful Ichthyophis |
Ichthyophiidae |
MZMU1758 (GBA no. MZ098158 |
DD |
Ayeyarwady region of Myanmar
and India (Mizoram) |
|
6 |
Ichthyophis benjii (Lalremsanga,
Purkayastha, Biakzuala, vabeiryureilai, Muansanga and Hmar, 2021 ) |
Benji's Caecillian |
Ichthyophidaae |
MZMU2809 (GBA No. OR689358) |
NA |
Mizoram, India |
|
7 |
Bufoides meghalayanus (Yazdani &
Chanda, 1971) |
Khasi Hill Toad/ MawblangToad |
Bufonidae |
MZMU2078 & MZMU2091 (GBA
no. MW741545 & MW741544) |
EN |
Meghalaya, Assam, Mizoram
(India) |
DD—Data Deficient| E—Endangered|
LC—Least Concern| NA—Not Assessed.
For
figure & images - - click here for full PDF
References
Acevedo-Charry,
O. & T.M. Aide (2019). Recovery of amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal diversity during
secondary forest succession in the tropics.Oikos128(8):1065–1078.
https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.06252
Adil, S., M.
Altaf, T. Hussain, M. Umair, J. Ni, A.M. Abbasi, R.W. Bussmann & S. Ashraf
(2022). Cultural and
medicinal use of amphibians and reptiles by indigenous people in Punjab,
Pakistan with comments on conservation implications for herpetofauna. Animals
12: 2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12162062
Böhm, M., B.
Collen, J.E.M. Baillie, P. Bowles, J. Chanson, N. Cox, G. Hammerson, et al.
(2013). The
conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biological Conservation157:
372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015
Choquette,
R.E., A. Angulo, P.J. Bishop, C.T.B. Phan & J.J.L. Rowley (2020). The internet-based South-east
Asia amphibian pet trade. TRAFFIC Bulletin 32(2): 68–76.
Chowdhury,
S., S. Alam, M.M. Labi, N. Khan, Md. Rokonuzzaman, D. Biswas, T. Tahea, S.A.
Mukul & R.A. Fuller (2022). Protected areas in South Asia: Status and prospects. Science
of the Total Environment 811: 152316. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152316
Cox, N., B.E.
Young, P. Bowles, M. Fernandez, J. Marin, G. Rapacciuolo, M. Böhm, T.M. Brooks,
S.B. Hedges, C. Hilton-Taylor, M. Hoffmann, R.K.B. Jenkins, M.F. Tognelli, G.J.
Alexander, A. Allison, N.B. Ananjeva, M. Auliya, L.J. Avila, D.G. Chapple, D.F.
Cisneros-Heredia, H.G. Cogger, G.R. Colli, A. de Silva, C.C. Eisemberg, J. Els,
A.G. Fong, T.D. Grant, R.A. Hitchmough, D.T. Iskandar, N. Kidera, M. Martins,
S. Meiri, N.J. Mitchell, S. Molur, C. de C. Nogueira, J.C. Ortiz, J.
Penner, A.G.J. Rhodin, G.A. Rivas, M.O. Rödel, U. Roll, K.L. Sanders, G.
Santos-Barrera, G.M. Shea, S. Spawls, B.L. Stuart, K.A. Tolley, J.F. Trape,
M.A. Vidal, P. Wagner, B.P. Wallace & Y. Xie (2022). A global reptile assessment
highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods. Nature 605:
285–290. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04664-7
Decemson,
Ht., S. Gouda, L. Biakzuala, Lalmuansanga, G.Z. Hmar, M. Vabeiryureilai&
H.T. Lalremsanga (2021a). An annotated checklist of amphibians in and around Dampa Tiger Reserve,
Mizoram, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 13(3): 17918–17929. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6319.13.3.17918-17929
Da Silva, H.R. & M.C. de Britto-Pereira (2006). How much fruit do fruit-eating frogs
eat? An investigation on the diet of Xenohylatruncata (Lissamphibia:
Anura: Hylidae). Journal of Zoology 270(4):
692–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00192.x
Decemson, Ht.,
M. Vabeiryureilai & H.T. Lalremsanga (2021b). ErsterBerichtüber Gliedma ßenanomalienbei
Sphenomorphus indicus (Gray, 1853) and Sphenomorphus maculatus (Blyth,
1853) in Dampa Tiger Reserve in Mizoram, India. First report on limb anomalies
in Sphenomorphus indicus (Gray, 1853) at the Dampa Tiger Reserve in
Mizoram, India. Sauria 43(3): 69–72.
Erawan, T.S., J.
Jauhan, T. Husodo, T. Wulandari, D.A. Fauzi, E.N. Megantara & S.S. Shanida
(2021). Herpetofauna
diversity and distribution based on the elevation range in West Java,
Indonesia. Biodiversitas 22(10): 4308–4319. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d221023
Fulgence, T.R.,
D.A. Martin, R. Randriamanantena, R. Botra, E. Befidimanana, K. Osen, A. Wurz,
H. Kreft, A. Andrianarimisa & F.M. Ratsoavina (2021). Differential responses of amphibians
and reptiles to land-use change in the biodiversity hotspot of north-eastern
Madagascar. Animal Conservation 25(4): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12760
Fulgence, T.R., D.A. Martin, R.
Randriamanantena, R. Botra, E. Befidimanana, K. Osen, A. Wurz, H. Kreft, A.
Andrianarimisa & F.M. Ratsoavina (2021). Differential responses of
amphibians and reptiles to land-use change in the biodiversity hotspot of
north-eastern Madagascar. Animal Conservation 25(4): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12760
Ghosh-Harihar, M., A.R. Athreya,
R. Borthakur, U. Chanchani, P. Chetry, A. Datta, A.
Harihar, K.K. Karanth, D.Mariyam, D. Mohan, M. Onial, U. Ramakrishnan, V.V. Robin, A. Saxena, G. Shahabuddin, P. Thatte, V. Vijay, K. Wacker, V.B. Mathur, S.L. Pimm &
T.D. Price (2019). Protected areas and biodiversity conservation in India. Biological
Conservation 237: 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.024
Gouda, S., J. Sethy, N.S. Chauhan
& H.S. Bargali (2021). Study on the impacts of LULC change on the wildlife habitat and the
livelihood of people in and around Dampa Tiger Reserve, Mizoram, India. Journal
of Threatened Taxa 13(8): 18986–18992. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.5271.13.8.18986-18992
Hernández-Ordóñez, O., N.U.
Cardona & M.Martínez-Ramos (2015). Recovery of amphibian and
reptile assemblages during old-field succession of tropical rain forests. Biotropica
47(3): 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12207
Hughes, A.C. (2017). Understanding the
drivers of Southeast Asian biodiversity loss. Ecosphere 8(1): e01624. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1624
Hughes, A.C., B.M. Marshall &
C.T. Strine (2021). Gaps in global wildlife trade monitoring leave amphibians vulnerable. eLife
10: e70086. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.70086
Kumar, S., A. Chaudhary, T.
Biswas & S. Ghosh (2019). Identification of fire prone forest areas based on GIS analysis of
archived forest fire points detected in the last thirteen years. Technical
Information Series 1(1): 1–18.
Kundu, S., H.T. Lalremsanga, J.
Purkayastha, L. Biakzuala, K. Chandra & V. Kumar (2020). DNA barcoding elucidates the new
altitude record and range-extension of lesser-knownbullfrog (Hoplobatrachus
litoralis) in Northeast India. Mitochondrial DNA Part B 5(3):
2668–2672.https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2020.1787259
Lalremsanga, H.T. (2018). Effect of climate change on
amphibian fauna of Mizoram, Northeast India: a preliminary investigation. C-36,
pp. 371–384. In: Solanki, G.S. (ed.). Biodiversity Conservation: Strategies
and Application. Scientific Book Centre Publication, Assam.
Lalremsanga, H.T. (2022). Anophthalmia in a Greater Stream
Horned Frog, Xenophrys major (Boulenger, 1908), from Tamdil National
Wetland, Mizoram, India: pollution-induced or predator-mediated? Reptiles
and Amphibians 29: 201–203. https://doi.org/10.17161/randa.v29i1.16451
Lesbarrères, D., S.L. Ashpole,
C.A. Bishop, G. Blouin-Demers, R.J. Brooks, P. Echaubard,
P. Govindarajulu, D.M. Green, S.J. Hecnar, T.Herman, J. Houlahan, J.D. Litzgus, M.J. Mazerlle, C.A. Paszkowski, P.Rutherford, D.M. Schock, K.B. Storey
& S.C. Loughed (2014). Conservation of herpetofauna in northern landscapes:
Threats and challenges from a Canadian perspective. Biological Conservation
170: 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.030
Mandal, J. & T.R.S.Raman (2016). Shifting agriculture supports more tropical forest
birds than oil palm or teak plantation in Mizoram, Northeast India. The
Condor: Ornithological Application 118(2): 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1650/CONDOR-15-163.1
Mardiastuti, A., B.
Masy’ud, L.N Ginoga, H. Sastranegara & S. Sutopo (2021). Traditional uses of herpetofauna
practiced by local people in the island of Sumatra, Indonesia: Implications for
conservation. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 762:
012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/762/1/012003
Measey, J., A. Basson, A.D.
Rebelo, A.L. Nunes, G. Vimercati, M. Louw & N.P. Mohanty (2019). Why have a pet amphibian?
Insights from YouTube. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7: 52. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00052
Montgomery, R.A., J. Raupp, S.A.
Miller, M. Wijers, R. Lisowsky, A. Comar, C.K. Bugir & M.W. Hayward (2022). The hunting modes of human
predation and potential non-consumptive effects on animal populations. Biological
Conservation 265: 109398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109398.
Muansanga, L., H. Decemson, L.
Biakzuala, G.Z. Hmar, H.T. Lalremsanga, M. Das & J. Purkayastha (2020). First record of the Jampui
Bent-toed Gecko, Cyrtodactylus montanus Agarwal, Mahony, Giri,
Chaitanya, and Bauer 2018 (Squamata: Gekkonidae), from Mizoram, India. Reptiles
and Amphibians 27(2):267–268.
Musah, Y., Y.B. Ofori & D.K.
Attuquayefio (2019). Herpetofauna community diversity and composition of a changing coastal
wetland in Ghana. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 27(1): 52–65.
Neves, M.O., H. Cabral, M.
Pedrozo, V.L. Ferreira, M.R. Moura & D.J. Santana (2020). Dataset of occurrences and
ecological traits of amphibians from Upper Paraguay River Basin, central South
America. Nature Conservation 41: 71–89. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.41.54265
Nori, J., P. Lemes, N.
Urbina-Cardona, D. Baldo, J. Lescano & R. Loyola (2015). Amphibian conservation, land-use
changes and protected areas: A global overview. Biological Conservation
191: 367–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.028
Pawar, S.S., S. Gopal, S. Rawat
& B.C. Choudhury (2004).Recovery of frog and lizard communities
following primary habitat alteration in Mizoram, Northeast India. BMC
Ecology 4: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-4-10
Prasad, V.K., A. Verma
& G. Shahabuddin (2018). An annotated checklist of the herpetofauna of the
Rashtrapati Bhawan estate, New Delhi, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa
10(2): 11295–11302. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.3235.10.2.11295-11302
Pramanick, N., B.
Kundu, R. Acharyya & A. Mukhopadhyay (2023). Forest Fire Risk Zone Mapping in
Mizoram Using RS and GIS. International Conference on Geospatial
Science for Digital Earth Observation (GSDEO-2021) 26/03/2021 - 27/03/2021
Online 1164 012005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1164/1/012005
Rowley, J., R. Brown, R. Bain, M.
Kusrini, R. Inger, B. Stuart, G. Wogan, N. Thy, T. Chanard, C.T. Trung, A.
Diesmos, D.T. Iskandar, M. Lau, L.T. Ming, S. Makchai, N.Q. Truong & S.
Phimmachak (2010). Impending conservation crisis for Southeast Asian amphibians. Biological
Letters 6(3):336–338. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0793
Sanger F, S. Nicklen & A.R. Coulson (1977).DNA sequencing with
chain-terminating inhibitors.Proceedings of the National Academic of Science
USA 74(12): 5463–5467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.74.12.5463
Saikia, B. & I.J. Kharkongor
(2017). Checklist of
endemic amphibians of Northeast India. Recordings of the Zoological Survey
of India 117(1): 91–93. https://doi.org/10.26515/rzsi/v117/i1/2017/117283
Siammawii, V., F. Malsawmdawngliana,
L. Muansanga & H.T. Lalremsanga (2022).Hindlimb Malformation in a
Bangladesh Skittering Frog, Euphlyctis kalasgramensis Howlader, Nair,
Gopalan, and Merila 2015 (Anura: Dicroglossidae).Reptiles and Amphibians
29(1): 195–196. https://doi.org/10.17161/randa.v29i1.16440
Stuart, B.L., R.F. Inger & H.K.
Voris (2006).High level of cryptic species diversity
revealed by sympatric lineages of Southeast Asian forest frogs. Biological
Letters 2(3): 470–474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0505
Stuart, S.N., M. Hoffmann, M.
Chanson, J.S. Cox, N.A. Berridge, R.J.P. Ramani & B.E. Young (2008). Threatened Amphibians of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain;
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland; and Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia,
USA, 777 pp.
Trimble, M.J. & R.J. vanAarde
(2014). Amphibian and
reptile communities and functional groups over a land-use gradient in a coastal
tropical forest landscape of high richness and endemicity. Animal
Conservation17(5): 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12111
United State Geological Earth
Explorer (USGS). https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/
Wang, S.W., C.H. Limb & L. Woo-Kyun (2021). A review of forest fire and policy
response for resilient adaptation under changing climate in the Eastern
Himalayan region. Forest Science and Technology 17(4):180–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/21580103.2021.1979108