Check List 10(2): 335–343, 2014 © 2014 Check List and Authors Chec List ISSN 1809-127X (available at www.checklist.org.br) Journal of species lists and distribution Species composition of Amphibians and Reptiles in Krau PECIES S Wildlife Reserve, Pahang, Peninsular Malaysia OF Nurulhuda, Zakaria 1,2, Juliana Senawi 3, Fakhrul Hatta Musa 4, Daicus Belabut 3,5, Chan Kin Onn 6, ISTS 1 1,3* L Shukor Md. Nor and Norhayati Ahmad 1 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Science and Technology, School of Environment and Natural Resource Sciences. 43600. Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. 2 Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Biological Sciences. 21030. Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia. 3 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI). 43600. Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. 4 Institute of Biodiversity, Bukit Rengit. Department of Wildlife and National Parks. 28500. Lanchang, Pahang, Malaysia. 5 University of Malaya, Faculty of Science, Institute of Biological Sciences. 50603. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 6 University of Kansas, KU Biodiversity Institute and Department of Ecology and Environmental Ecology. Dyche Hall, 1345 Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, KS 66045-7593. United States. * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: A revised and updated checklist of the herpetofauna of the Krau Wildlife Reserve (KWR), Pahang is presented, which includes 61 species of amphibians and 65 species of reptiles. Five species of amphibians are listed under revised names i.e. Hylarana labialis, H. picturata, Ansonia latiffi, Microhyla mantheyi and Rhacophorus norhayatae; and two species are listed as new locality records for KWR: Hylarana cf. siberu and Theloderma licin. The amphibians and reptiles recorded in KWR are approximately 56% and 22% of the total number of species recorded from Peninsular Malaysia, respectively. Introduction the Peninsular Malaysia using this technique (Matsui et The Krau Wildlife Reserve (KWR) is situated at the east al. 2009; Matsui 2009). This paper provides an overview of the Malaysian Main Range (=Titiwangsa Range) and of the herpetofauna of KWR, with additional data based near the basin of Gunung Benom in the Malaysian state on an intensive 12 month period of drift-fenced pitfall of Pahang. This reserve covers an area of 624 km2, which trappings and visual encounter surveys of amphibians at makes it the third largest protected area in Peninsular Malaysia. The highest peak within the reserve is Gunung in KWR) and with some notes on revised taxa, ecology, Benom (2,108 m), the third highest mountain in Peninsular andKuala distribution Gandah field of stationthe less (one common of the speciesfive field based stations on Malaysia. Inventories and surveys on the herpetofauna compilation of species list from all previous studies in KWR. Knowledge of species richness and community expedition to Gunung Benom was conducted (Grandison structures is important for conservation and governance 1972).in KWR Since have then, commenced other studies since have 1972 been when conducted the first at on sustainable management of the environment. Such various stations within the reserve, such as at Sg. (=River) Chenderoh (Jasmi et al. 1999), Bukit Rengit (Salman such as areas with high density of rare species, and areas et al. 1999; Norsham et al. 2001; Ahmad Shukri 2004; thatclarification are threatened is required by landscapeto focus effort alteration at crucial to initiate areas Grace 2006), and Kuala Gandah (Chan et al. 2008). These mitigation process. Thus, the objectives of this study were studies, however, were isolated in manner. It is not easy to to: (1) to document species richness in the region from past estimate the actual biodiversity of amphibians as a whole, and current studies with notes on their current taxonomic but diversity of amphibians in KWR has been believed status. (2) to examine patterns of community structure to be relatively well studied based on the many studies and composition, (2) to document taxa occurring species listed above. However, this assumption has proven to be richness in the region from past and current studies with erroneous as re-analyses of faunal diversity using different notes on their current taxonomic status. methods (eg. molecular techniques) have resulted in the revision and addition of many new taxa whose status was Materials and Methods previously based on morphology (Grandison 1972). Study Area Molecular techniques for associating adult and larval KWR is predominantly covered with lowland forms of some anurans have resulted in numerous novel dipterocarp forests at the east and highland forests at the species descriptions (Shimada et al. 2007), while others west. The reserve is drained by three major river systems, have been synonymized (Matsui et al. 2007a), resurrected Sg. Krau, Sg. Lompat, and Sg. Teris. The landscape ranges (Matsui et al. 2007) or revised under a different nomen (Chan and Grismer 2010). Another method that was used ranges of 43 – 2,107 m. The reserve was established in to delimit species boundaries is acoustic characteristics 1923,from flat starting lowlands with to a total undulating area of 552hilly km terrain,2. It was with regazetted altitude that can be used as a proxy for reproductive isolation. twice in 1965 and 1968 until it reached its present size of Two new amphibian species were recently described from 624 km2 (Perhilitan/Danced 2001). The average annual 335 Zakaria et al. | Herpetofauna in Krau Wildlife Reserve, Malaysia rainfall is about 2000 mm and the daily temperature were set upper line in this subgrid, with a distance of 5 m between traps. Galvanized metal drift fences 0.3 m in height were buried ~5 cm below soil surface to prevent whichfluctuates are betweenunder the a managementminimum of and23°C administration to a maximum of animals from burrowing under them. Pitfall traps consist theof 33°C. Department There are of Wildlifefive stations and National within this Parks reserve, (DWNP) all orof of 18-L plastic buckets (0.5 m deep and 0.2 m in diameter) PERHILITAN: Kuala Lompat Research Station (KL), Lubuk (Figure 3). Drain holes were punched at the bottom of Baung (LB), Kuala Sungai Serloh (KS), Kuala Gandah (KG), and Jenderak Selatan (JS). with the drift fence overhanging the lip of each pitfall trap. Theeach traps bucket were and opened buried for flush 7 continuous with the daysground each surface, month Study site for 12 consecutive months and were examined once a day before noon. The visual encounter survey procedure consisted KWR,The where study the focused National on Elephant Kuala ConservationGandah (3°36′00″ Centre N,is of active searching for animals using wide-beam also102°09′04″ located. E) Permission (Figure 1), to which study ishere located was atgranted the south by the of headlights at a steady pace within a constrained area DWNP. There are several villages of the indigenous Orang Asli Che Wong (Che Wong tribe) villages in the area, with a total of 45 households around the reserve (Haemamalar werealong conductedthe trails for at 7 acontinuous specific time days atper night, month usually for 12 et al. 2010). The Che Wong is of the Senoi sub-group, who months.within the Time first spent 2-4 hsurveying after dark depended fall (Table on 1).the Surveysdensity resides mainly in the forest of Pahang state in Peninsular of animals per unit area, based on the pit-fall collection. Malaysia. They depend substantially on forest produce. Animals were caught by hand and brought back for Other tribes that live here are Temuan and Jah Hut. They measurements. maintain many narrow motorbike trails in the reserve Voucher specimens for most taxa were collected to aid as their means of travelling in and out of the forest to the nearest town to get supplies. Some of these trails are samples for taxonomic groups requiring further taxonomic included in the plot. resolution.the identification All specimens of unknown are depositedtaxa and toat collectthe Institute tissue of Biodiversity, DWNP, Bukit Rengit, KWR. Taxonomic Method nomenclature follows the Amphibian Species of the Survey methods include drift-fenced pitfall trapping, World 5.3 by the American Museum of Natural History diurnal and nocturnal censuses, and opportunistic (http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/), last searches. A total of 126 traps were set up in a 400 x 400 accessed on 5 June 2009. Taxonomy for Hemidactylus m grid (Figure 2). The grid was further subdivided into 16 follows Carranza and Arnold (2006); Draco taxonomy sub-grids, each measuring 100 x 100 m. A total of 9 traps follows (Manthey 2008). Figure 1. Map of Krau Wildlife Reserve, Pahang. The reserve is represented by light grey, forest area outside the reserve by dark grey, and non- forest areas by white [Courtesy of M. Struebig (unpublished)]. 336 Zakaria et al. | Herpetofauna in Krau Wildlife Reserve, Malaysia by Ingerophrynus parvus (19%), and Megophrys nasuta (6%). Among the reptiles, Cyrtodactylus quadrivirgatus was the most frequently sampled (29% of the total reptiles), followed by Aphaniotis fusca (27%) and Eutropis multifasciata (18%). The species accumulation curve shown in Figure 4 andreflects levels the off same in laterscenario samples in most as increasingly studies of vertebrate rare taxa arecommunities added (Gotelli in which and theColwell curve 2001). rises Meanwhile,steeply at firstthe asymptote point shows the estimated species richness in the area of study was 38. The species accumulation curve showed no leveling off into an asymptote, suggesting that our sampling did not represent the true species richness in the area. The total number of amphibian species from Krau and one new locality record. The revised taxa are: Figure 2. The 400 x 400 m grid at Kuala Gandah where the traps were Hylarana laid along 14 designated lines A to N. labialisWildlife (Reservepreviously includes H. raniceps: five that Inger were etrecently al. 2009) revised, H. picturata (previously H. signata: Brown and Guttman 2002), Ansonia latiffi (previously A.