Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(3) 577 Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(3) : 577-589 http://epg.science.cmu.ac.th/ejournal/ Contributed Paper Comparison of Anuran Amphibian Assemblages in Protected and Non-Protected Forest Fragments in Upper Northeastern Thailand Wiwat Kaensa*[a], Preecha Prathepha [b] and Sumpars Khunsook [a] [a] Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand. [b] Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Technology, Mahasarakham University, Mahasarakham 44150, Thailand. *Author for correspondence; e-mail: [email protected] Received: 9 October 2012 Accepted: 31 March 2014 ABSTRACT The aim of this three years study was to analyze and compare the richness, composition, abundance and observed frequency of anuran amphibian assemblages in the two forest fragments, Phufoilom (a protected area) and Phuhinlat (a non-protected area), both in the upper northeastern Thailand. The study was the first survey of the anuran amphibian assemblage in these forest fragments. Four Sampling techniques were used which are the visual encounter surveys (VES) using the time constrained count (TCC) technique, the sampling plots, the stream transects and the pitfall-trapping. The Chao-Jaccard Similarity Index was used for the comparison of species richness and composition among habitat types and fragments. Both fragments were very similar in anuran richness and composition, being composed of 5 families representing 15 genera (28 species) in Phufoilom and 13 genera (26 species) in Phuhinlat. However, the differences in richness and composition between habitat types were found within each fragment. Of the 28 species, 26 were shared in both forest fragments. In the protected area 22 anuran species were captured in higher rate than in non-protected, significant differences in 11 species. In addition, relative abundance among species followed a similar pattern within both areas. These results confirm the critical function of habitat in maintaining appropriate population size and proportion of abundance among species in an assemblage. Keywords: amphibian, anuran, similarity, forest fragments, protected forest area, non-protected forest area, upper northeastern Thailand 1. INTRODUCTION Currently, amphibians are widely causes [1-4]. Habitat transformation, threatened and in decline; with population fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbance decreasing over the last several decades until are accepted as the clearest causes of the the present. The decline and loss of amphibian reported declines in the global amphibian populations are problems with complex local population [1-3,5,6], particularly in tropical 578 Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(3) rain forests where the diversity is high and already subject to high levels of disturbance forests are transformed at always-increasing resulting from deforestation for an rates [1,7,8]. Habitat transforma-tion and agricultural expansion and farm animals. fragmentation occur at relatively higher The area transformation is forming internal rates in Southeast Asia and Indo-China than patchy ecosystem structure [18]. other tropical regions [8,9]. This is an Because the threats above mentioned important threat to amphibians in these are important problem to the existence of regions. However, there were few researches amphibians in tropical forest. Urgent that studied the relationship between action is required to limit these threats for landscape fragmentation and amphibian the conservation of local amphibian diversity in these regions [8-10]. biodiversity, including the establishment of The main effect of fragmentation to strict protection area [8,10,13,16,19]. The anuran amphibians is an impediment to creation of protected regions is vital to the migrated among patches resulting in long-term viable functioning of ecosystems population isolation, inbreeding, edge and the conservation of biodiversity within effects and disconnection between aquatic a region, and their successful establishment and terrestrial environments, both crucial requires reliable evaluative data. The term ecology for amphibian reproduction ‘protected’ applies to an area, established [1,5,6,7]. The relationship between by a national government, within a natural amphibian distributions and habitat protected area [1,8,13,16,19]. Our objectives fragmentation is available from previous were to compare anuran species richness, studies as well as the effects of fragmentation composition, abundance and frequency upon juvenile dispersal of pond-breeding between fragmented protected and amphibians [5,6,11,12]. In addition, the non-protected areas that allow us to habitat fragmentation is an even greater assess the effects of fragmented habitats extinction risk for endemics and highly rare upon anuran amphibian population and anuran species because of their habitat effectiveness of programs on biodiversity specialization [13, 14]. The transformation conservation. and fragmented habitat are often accompanied by a severe loss not only of 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS species diversity but also of genetic diversity. 2.1 Study Areas It has been suggested that high genetic Phufoilom forest is located southwest diversity was able to maintain by large and of Muang District, Udon Thani Province interconnected populations [8,15,16]. (latitude 17°7.945′ to 17°10.450′ E, longitude The fragments, Phufoilom (protected 102°39.731′ to 102°41.930′ S), with a total area) and Phuhinlat (non-protected area) are area of approximately 45 km2 and the highest parts of the Phupannoi Mountain Range in elevation of about 590 m above Mean Sea upper northeastern Thailand, located in Level (MSL). Phuhinlat forest is located west Indo-China sub region, which is a part of of Muang District, Udon Thani Province Indo-Australian region [17]. In the past, (latitude 17°11.220′ to 17°15.894′ E, longitude both areas formed a homogeneous, 102°26.698′ to 102°31.011′ S), with the total connected forest before being partitioned area being about 32 km2 and the highest by human communities, roads and elevation of about 580 m above MSL agricultural expansion. Phuhinlat is an area (Figure 1). Phufoilom and Phuhinlat are Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(3) 579 the part of the Phupannoi Mountain Range 1457 and 1534 mm from 2008-2010, which is divided into five major areas, respectively. The annual mean temperature including Nampong National Park, was 30, 28 and 30°C from 2008-2010, Phukaow-Phupankhum National Park, respectively [22]. Phuwiang National Park, Phufoilom, which The major vegetation types are tropical is part of Phundon-Prakho conserved dry dipterocarp forest about 54% of the forest [20], and Phuhinlat, the only total area in Phufoilom and 61% in non-protected area of this group (Figure 1). Phuhinlat, and mixed deciduous forest There are three seasons in Northeastern (about 25% of the total area in Phufoilom Thailand each year: summer (February to and 27% in Phuhinlat). Dry evergreen May), rainy (June to September) and forest is also found in both areas, covering winter (October to January) [21]. The about 10% of the total area. Other types annual precipitation in the region was 1677, of vegetation account for 5-10% [23, 24]. Figure 1. Location of study sites (bordered by dark line), Phufoilom (east) and Phuhinlat (west), are located between Nongbualumphu and Udon Thani Provinces in the Phupannoi Mountain Range in upper northeastern Thailand (edited from www.map.google.co.th.). 2.2 Sampling Methods and [16,26]. Five habitats under studied were: 1) Identifications Permanent ponds (PP), referring to the ponds This amphibian survey was carried out which have water cages for years in both over three years from March 2008 to wet and dry seasons; 2) Temporary ponds November 2010. A total of 10 sites were (TP), which include road sides, and refer sampled, comprising 5 habitats types to ponds in which water cages are found present in Phufoilom and Phuhinlat only in a hydroperiod; 3) Stream habitats forests. The same habitat type was selected (ST) extending to fifteen meters from location in both studied localities in the stream edges; 4) Woodland habitats (WL) same elevation (± 50 m MSL) [25]. All sites referring to areas located more than 500 m were surveyed three times a year and from water source, with tree canopy cover over three seasons. Habitats types were exceeding 50%; 5) Grassland habitats (GL), designated based on three factors, including which are open forest with less than 10% a dominant vegetation structure, landscape tree cover, with seasonally stagnant areas pattern and amphibian habitats association occurring during the wet season. 580 Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2014; 41(3) Sampling techniques followed the species-richness estimators [32, 33]. To standard methods for measurement and derive variables for each fragment, monitoring of amphibian diversity [27]. detection data from all sampling techniques Details of the sampling techniques were and all habitat types were aggregated. followed the procedure for obtain species Sampling efficiency can be estimated as richness in dry tropical rain forest of Von observed species richness (Sobs)/species May et al. (2008) and Behangana et al. (2009) richness estimate (Sest) (using average value [16, 28]. Visual encounter surveys (VES) using of all estimators) with values near 1, the time constrained count (TCC) technique, indicating that most of the species endemic along with sampling plots and stream to the area have actually been observed [34]. transects. We used 250 × 250 m plots in We used abundance-based richness