A Regenerating Rainforest in Sri Lanka

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative

Research Paper No. 1, January 2012

DIVERSITY OF HERPETOFAUNA IN MAHAUSAKANDE: A REGENERATING RAINFOREST IN SRI LANKA

Mendis Wickramasinghe

Channa Bambaradeniya

Dulan Vidanapathirana

Suranjan Karunaratna

TECHNICAL PARTNER DIVERSITY OF HERPETOFAUNA IN

MAHAUSAKANDE: A REGENERATING

RAINFOREST IN SRI LANKA

Citation:

Wickramasinghe, L.J.M., Bambaradeniya, C.N.B., Vidanapathirana, D.L., and Karunarathna, D.M.S.S. (2012). Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande: A Regenerating Rainforest in Sri Lanka. Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative, Research Paper No.1, 40 pp.

For more information about the Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative, please visit http://mahausakande.org

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A systematic survey was conducted to assess the diversity of herpetofauna in the Mahausakande regenerating tropical rainforest (MRF) in Kiriella, Sri Lanka. Approximately 900 man hours were spent in the field over a period of four months to document amphibians and reptiles in representative habitat types, using different sampling methods. A total of 21 species of amphibians and 45 species of reptiles were recorded from MRF, of which 15 amphibians and 26 reptile species are endemic. The reptiles include 24 species of snakes, and 21 species of tetrapod reptiles. Among the endemics were three amphibian genera and six reptile genera. Two specimens of burrowing snakes (Typhlops sp.) collected may be new to science, and these will be further examined in the future. The most common species observed in MRF include the Common Paddy Field Frog (Zakerana syhadrensis), Zara’s Hump-nosed Viper (Hypnale zara), and the Kangaroo Lizard (Otocryptis wiegmanni). Of the total herpetofaunal species recorded in MRF, 11 species (16%) are considered as nationally threatened. The survey recognized several species of amphibians and reptiles that could be used as important ecological indicators to monitor the quality of habitats in the Mahausakande regenerating forest. The findings of the survey resulted in a two-fold increase in the herpetofaunal species recorded in MRF. The data gathered from the survey was also used for upgrading the IUCN National Red List.

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Species Richness and Diversity of Herpetofauna in Sri Lanka ...... 1 1.2 The Study Area ...... 1 1.3 Rationale ...... 1 1.4 Research Hypothesis ...... 2 1.5 Objectives ...... 2 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 3 2.1 Study Methods ...... 3 2.2 Specimen Collection and Identification ...... 4 2.3 Documentation of distribution patterns ...... 4 2.4 Evaluation of the Conservation Status of Species ...... 4 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 5 3.1 Species Richness of Herpetofauna in MRF ...... 5 3.2 Relative Abundance of Herpetofauna in MRF ...... 6 3.3 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Different Habitats of MRF ...... 7 3.4 Habitat Affinities of Herpetofauna in MRF ...... 11 4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 12 REFERENCES ...... 14 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 17

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Species Richness and Diversity of Herpetofauna in Sri Lanka

The wide array of natural ecosystems in Sri Lanka harbors a rich herpetofauna, represented by 111 species of amphibians,1-9 84 species of inland snakes,10-15 and 102 species of inland tetrapod reptiles.16-22 Among them, 93 species of amphibians, 49 species of serpents, and 76 species of tetrapod reptiles are endemic to Sri Lanka. Majority of the endemic herpetofauna are restricted to the central and southwest region of the island. Studies conducted over the last two decades have led to the discovery of several new species of herpetofauna in the island. However, degradation of natural habitats due to harmful anthropogenic activities has resulted in a decline of herpetofaunal populations. According to a national assessment of the conservation status of plant and animal species in Sri Lanka, 108 species of herpetofauna (34%) are considered as nationally threatened, with a majority of them (81%) being endemic species.23

1.2 The Study Area The Mahausakande regenerating tropical rain forest (MRF) is situated in the Ratnapura district of the Sabaragamuwa Province of Sri Lanka. The site consists of approximately 40 acres spread across a hilly terrain, with its altitude ranging from 80-1100 m asl. The site was managed as a rubber plantation till year 2003, which was subsequently abandoned in order to initiate a restoration program to establish a tropical rainforest. The area receives an annual rainfall of over 4000 mm, and the mean temperature is around 310 C. Two streams flow across the MRF site. The habitat types of the site consists of abandoned rubber, agricultural land, regenerating forest, secondary forest, rock-outcrop, riparian forest, manmade ponds and home garden. Preliminary investigations carried out at the MRF from 2004-2010 has documented 8 species of amphibians, 15 species of snakes, and 12 species of tetrapod reptiles.24

1.3 Rationale The Mahausakande tropical rainforest restoration initiative provides a unique opportunity to study the temporal changes in biodiversity associated with tropical forest regeneration. The herpetofauna can be used as valuable indicators to monitor the progress of species colonization associated with forest regeneration. Therefore, a systematic study was undertaken to document the diversity and richness of herpetofauna associated with the different habitat types of MRF.

January 2012 Page 1

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

1.4 Research Hypothesis The hypothesis investigated through the present research is highlighted below:

1. The diversity of the herpetofauna in MRF has not been adequately documented through a systematic investigation; and 2. The species richness and abundance of herpetofauna in MRF may be correlated with habitats under different stages of forest regeneration and anthropogenic influence.

1.5 Objectives The present survey intended to fulfill the following objectives, related to the taxonomy and conservation of the herpetofauna in MRF:

1. Update the knowledge base on the occurrence of herpetofauna in MRF, including the potential discovery and description of new species. 2. Determine the current distribution pattern and habitat relationships. 3. Establish a database on herpetofauna in MRF for future monitoring. 4. Contribute towards future conservation awareness programmes at MRF.

January 2012 Page 2

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Study Methods Field observations were made over a period of four months, extending from April to July 2011. A combination of methods was adopted to study the diversity of herpetofauna associated with all of the representative habitat and microhabitat types in MRF. These included litter cleaning methods (LCM), Digging loose soil (DLS), and Visual encounter surveys (VES) during day and night time. The use of pitfall traps was avoided, since it could result in herpetofaunal mortality and/or predation, and also disturb forest regeneration. The sampling replicates in each habitat type are summarized in Table 2.1 below:

Table 2.1: Sampling replicates per habitat type

Canopy Habitat types LCM DLS VES(N) VES(D) Total Cover Abandoned rubber (AR) High 4 4 4 4 16 Agricultural land (AL) Low 4 4 4 4 16 Home garden (HG) High 4 4 4 4 16 Manmade ponds (MP) Low 0 0 4 4 8 Regenerating forest (RF) Low-Mod 4 4 4 4 16 Riparian forests (RiF) High 4 4 4 4 16 Rock-outcrop (RO) Low-Mod 4 0 4 4 12 Secondary forest (SF) Moderate 4 4 4 4 16 Stream bank (SB) High 0 0 4 4 8 Total Samples 28 24 36 36 124

Litter cleaning method (LCM): The litter in quadrates of 2 m × 2 m on the surface of each terrestrial habitat was cleaned carefully, and the herpetofauna were noted. After the completion of sampling, the litter was reintroduced to the area cleaned to minimize impacts to the habitat.

Digging loose soil (DLS): A square area of 2 m × 2 m was carefully dug from the surface of each terrestrial habitat type to document burrowing amphibians and reptiles. The impact to the habitat was minimized by filling the area with soil after completion of sampling.

January 2012 Page 3

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Visual Encounter Surveys (VES): Observations were made by walking through representative terrestrial habitat types, and at the edge of man-made ponds during day and night time. Torch, and head lamps were used to observe species during night time. The specimens encountered were caught, measured (the length from the tip of the snout to the vent), sexed, and checked for any deformities. All information obtained was recorded in a database, to facilitate future monitoring.

2.2 Specimen Collection and Identification The specimens were identified and classified following published guides for reptiles and amphibians in Sri Lanka, supplemented with personal data and expertise. All specimens were photographed to capture morphological features that facilitate species identification (e.g., head close up, tail, and lateral, ventral and dorsal aspects of mid body, full body, tail with vent), and species were also photographed in their natural habitats.

2.3 Documentation of distribution patterns The locations of species were recorded with a GPS instrument, and the distribution of herpetofaunal species in MRF was enumerated using GIS technology.

2.4 Evaluation of the Conservation Status of Species The conservation status of species was determined using the 2007 National Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora in Sri Lanka.23

January 2012 Page 4

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of approximately 900 man hours were spent in the field to document herpetofaunal species in 28 litter cleaning plots, 24 loose soil digging plots, and 72 visual encounter surveys conducted during day and night time at MRF. The main findings related to herpetofauna in MRF are elaborated below.

3.1 Species Richness of Herpetofauna in MRF A total of 22 species of amphibians and 45 species of reptiles were recorded from MRF, of which 15 amphibians (68%) and 26 reptile (58%) species are endemic (see Appendix IA-IB). The endemic taxa included three amphibian genera and six reptile genera. The reptiles include 24 species of snakes, and 21 species of tetrapod reptiles. The present systematic survey has resulted in a two-fold increase in the herpetofaunal species recorded in MRF, which confirms the first hypothesis of this research. A comparison of herpetofaunal species richness in Sri Lanka and in MRF is presented in Table 3.1 below. Of the total herpetofaunal species recorded in MRF during the present study, 11 species (16%) are considered as nationally threatened. These include four species of amphibians (see Appendix IA), three species of snakes, and four species of tetrapod reptiles (see Appendix IB).

Among the herpetofauna recorded from MRF during the present study, two specimens of burrowing snakes belonging to Family Typhlopidae appears to be new to science (See Photo 36 and 37 of Appendix IIB). These will be further investigated and described in a scientific publication in the future. Among the snakes previously recorded from MRF, the Indian Python (Python molurus), the Russell’s Viper (Daboia russellii), Ornate Flying Snake (Chrysopelia ornata), and the Green Pit Viper (Trimeresurus trigonocephalus) were not observed during the present study. Although habitats that are suitable for these species are present in MRF, the limited duration of field work may be the reason for them to be missed during the present study. The gradual progression of MRF into a mature rainforest could result in the colonization of other wet zone rainforest amphibian species such as Pseudophilautus cavirostris, and reptile species such as Hemiphyllodactylus typus, Lepidodactylus lugubris, Eutropis floweri, Lankascincus gansi, L. greari, Lygosoma punctatus, Ahaetulla pulverulenta, Boiga beddomei, B. forsteni, Oligodon arnensis, O. calamarius, Sibynophis subpunctatus, and Hypnale hypnale in the future.

January 2012 Page 5

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Table 3.1: Species Richness of Inland Herpetofauna in Sri Lanka and MRF

Family Species in Sri Lanka Species in MRF* Amphibians Bufonidae 8 (6) 2 (1) Microhylidae 10 (5) 1 Nyctibatrachidae 1 (1) 1 (1) Dicroglossidae 13 (6) 6 (2) Rhacophoridae 72 (71) 9 (8) Ranidae 3 (2) 2 Ichthyophiidae 4 (4) 1 (1) Snakes Cylindrophidae 1 (1) 1 (1) Uropeltidae 17 (16) Colubridae 30 (9) 16 (5) Natricidae 12 (9) 2 (2) Elapidae 5 (2) 2 (1) Typhlopidae 10 (8) 2 (2) Viperidae 7 (4) 1 (1) Boidae 2 0 Tetrapod Reptiles Crocodylidae 2 0 Testudinidae 1 0 Bataguridae 1 1 Trionychidae 1 1 (1) Agamidae 18 (15) 6 (4) Gekkonidae 42 (35) 7 (4) Scincidae 32 (25) 4 (3) Lacertidae 2 0 Varanidae 2 2 Note: No. of endemic species indicated in parentheses; * Species recorded from present study

3.2 Relative Abundance of Herpetofauna in MRF Among the amphibians observed in MRF, the Common Paddy Field Frog (Zakerana syhadrensis) was the most common species occurring in all representative habitat types sampled through visual encounter surveys (VES) and litter clearing (see Appendix II Photo 6, and Appendix III). This was followed by the endemic Rhacophorids - Common Shrub Frog (Pseudophilautus popularis) and the Leaf-dwelling Shrub Frog (P. folicola), which were mainly documented through nocturnal VES. The endemic Yellow-banded Cecillian (Ichthyophis glutinosus) was the rarest amphibian in MRF, with less than 10 individuals documented through all sampling methods (see Appendix IIA Photo 19).

January 2012 Page 6

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Among the snakes observed in MRF, the endemic Zara’s Hump-nosed Viper (Hypnale zara) was the most common species (see Appendix II Photo 40), followed by the endemic Sri Lanka Keelback (Xenochrophis asperrimus) and Chequered Keelback (Xenochrophis cf. piscator) which inhabit aquatic habitats. Five species of serpents were only observed on a single occasion during the VES conducted in MRF. These included Amphiesma stolatum, Coeloganthus helena, Bungarus ceylonicus, Dendralapis caudolineolatus, and Boiga barnesii.

The tetrapod reptiles documented through VES in MRF were dominated by the endemic Kangaroo Lizard (Otocryptis wiegmanni) (see Appendix II Photo 46), followed by the endemic Common Lanka Skink (Lankascincus fallax). Three tetrapod reptiles – the Rough horn Lizard (Ceratophora aspera), Flapshell Turtle (Lissemys ceylonensis), and Black Turtle (Melanochelys trijuga) were recorded only once in MRF.

3.3 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Different Habitats of MRF Among the different sampling methods adopted, the VES conducted during day and night time enabled to document the highest number of species and individuals of amphibians, snakes and tetrapod reptiles in different habitats types of MRF. Based on the VES data, it is interesting to note that in general amphibians and snakes showed a higher species richness and abundance during nocturnal surveys, indicating their higher activity during night time (See Figures 3.1-3.4, and Appendix IIIA-IIIB). Conversely, the tetrapod reptiles were more commonly observed during diurnal surveys, highlighting their daytime activity (see Figures 3.5, 3.6 and Appendix IIIC). The observations on species richness and abundance of herpetofauna in different habitats of MRF are generally supportive of the second hypothesis of this study.

According to the diurnal VES data, the riparian forest harboured the highest species richness and abundance of amphibians (see Figure 3.1). However, the nocturnal VES data shows a higher species richness and abundance of amphibians in man-made pond habitats in MRF (see Figure 3.2). Where snakes are concerned, both diurnal as well as nocturnal VES data showed a higher richness and abundance in the luxurious home garden habitats in MRF, followed by the riparian forests (see Figures 3.3-3.4). A similar trend was evident among the tetrapod reptiles, where higher numbers were documented in the vegetation rich home garden habitats, followed by riparian forest habitats (see Figure 3.5-3.6).

January 2012 Page 7

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Figure 3.1: Species Richness and Abundance of Amphibians (Diurnal VES Data)

Figure 3.2: Species Richness and Abundance of Amphibians (Nocturnal VES Data)

January 2012 Page 8

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Figure 3.3: Species Richness and Abundance of Snakes (Diurnal VES Data)

Figure 3.4: Species Richness and Abundance of Snakes (Nocturnal VES Data)

January 2012 Page 9

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

Figure 3.5: Species Richness and Abundance of Tetrapod Reptiles (Diurnal VES Data)

Figure 3.6: Species Richness and Abundance of Tetrapod Reptiles (Nocturnal VES Data)

January 2012 Page 10

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

3.4 Habitat Affinities of Herpetofauna in MRF Amphibians: The Dicroglossids (e.g., Euphlyctis spp., and Zakerana spp.), were common in and around aquatic habitats such as man-made ponds, stream banks, and riparian forests in MRF. Among the Rhacophorids, the Common Shrub Frog (P. popularis) was commonly observed in less disturbed habitats such as regenerating forest, abandoned rubber, stream bank, man-made ponds, riparian forests, and luxurious home gardens. Similarly, the Leaf Dwelling Shrub Frog (P. folicola) was found in the regenerating forest, secondary forest, abandoned rubber, and home gardens, inhabiting small bushes close to large trees. Its breeding habitat was amongst fallen large curved leaves that are capable of collecting water. The Kandyan Shrub Frog (P. r u s ) was restricted to a home garden patch and the riparian forest, both habitats having a high canopy cover. The Orange Canthal Shrub Frog (P. stictomerus) was recorded mostly in disturbed lands, and its’ preferred habitat was among the Wire Fern (Dicranopteris linearis) patches that are found in degraded areas. The Grubby Shrub Frog (P. sordidus) was a rare species in MRF recorded in riparian forests and rock out-crops, amongst large rocks, under wet conditions with a good canopy cover. It was also observed in man-made boulder garden adjoining the research laboratory in MRF, indicating that the movement of this species is not restricted. Other rare endemics such as Kelaart’s Dwarf Toad (Adenomus kelaartii) and Sri Lanka Rock Frog (Nannophrys ceylonensis) were restricted to shaded stream bank habitats in MRF.

Reptiles: The man-made ponds and streams in MRF have provided ideal habitats for the Sri Lanka Keelback (Xenochrophis asperrimus), Chequered Keelback (Xenochrophis cf. piscator), Olive Keelback (Atretium schistosum), and Buff-striped Keelback (Amphiesma stolata). The litter layer in the forest has provided good habitat conditions for skinks. The endemic and threatened Sri Lanka Wolf Snake (Cercaspis carinata) seems to prefer the home garden and riparian forest habitats with a high canopy cover. Among the geckos observed, Molligoda’s Day Gecko (Cnemaspis molligodai) generally occurs in mature trees. This species was recorded in a mature Breadfruit tree (Artocarpus altilis) in MRF, and an orchid species (Dendrobium sp.) planted on this tree provides an ideal hiding and an egg laying habitat for this gecko. The single specimen of the endemic and threatened Rough horn lizard (Ceratophora aspera) was also recorded from a luxurious home garden habitat.

January 2012 Page 11

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The systematic survey resulted in a two-fold increase in herpetofaunal species recorded in MRF, including several endemic as well as nationally threatened species. The adoption of different sampling methods enabled to document a wide variety of herpetofauna with different habits, and inhabiting different habitats. The high richness of herpetofauna in a relatively small area of approximately 40 acres highlights the significance of MRF as a valuable biodiversity refuge. There is potential for other species of amphibians and reptiles that occur in the wet zone tropical rainforests to colonize MRF in the future. Among the herpetofauna documented during the present research, two species of burrowing snakes belonging to the Genus Typhlops could be new to science, and these will be further studied in the future. A species of gecko belonging to the Genus Cyrtodactylus also needs further study to confirm its species identity. It is important to note that the data gathered during the present survey was used for updating of the national list of threatened species, carried out by the Ministry of Environment.

Among the amphibian species, the Rhacophorids such as P. folicola, P. popularis, P. stictomerus, and P. rus are good indicator species to monitor the quality of the regenerating forest. Among the reptile species, snakes such as Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus and tetrapod reptiles such as Ceratophora aspera, Cyrtodactylus sp., and Cnemaspis molligodai are also indicators of forest quality and maturity. Based on the observations made during the present study, the following recommendations are proposed to sustain a diverse herpetofauna and their conservation in MRF:

 The overall biodiversity of the MRF could be further enhanced by establishing a habitat corridor through Baby nona’s luxurious home garden, and link it with the adjoining Bambarakanda Forest Reserve. Therefore, the possibilities of purchasing this stretch of land should be explored as a priority.

 The control of invasive alien tree species such as the Shrubby Dillenia (Wormia suffruticosa) in MRF should be carried out only in a manner that would not be harmful to herpetofauna. For instance, this species should not be cut down, but gradually destroyed by girdling to avoid rapid changes in microhabitat conditions that are detrimental to sensitive endemic herpetofauna.

January 2012 Page 12

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

 The cover of vegetation in stream banks should be further enhanced, to facilitate suitable habitats for rare and endemic amphibians such as Adenomus kelaartii, and Nannophrys ceylonensis. Similarly, the vegetation cover around man-made ponds and in the boulder garden should also be enhanced to provide suitable microhabitats for herpetofauna.

 Illegal felling of trees in the western areas of the Mahausakande mountain (including the Bambarakande Forest Reserve) is a serious threat to the biodiversity of this area. Consultations should be held with the Forest Department to enhance the conservation of the entire Mahausakande mountain as important refuge of biodiversity. The villagers should also be educated on the significance of this area for their own well-being.

January 2012 Page 13

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

REFERENCES

1. Manamendra-Arachchi, K. and Pethiyagoda, R. (1998). A synopsis of the Sri Lankan Bufonidae (Amphibia: Anura) with description of new species. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 3: 213–248. 2. Manamendra-Arachchi, K., and Pethiyagoda, R. (2001). Polypedates fastigo, a new tree frog (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae) from Sri Lanka. Journal of South Asian Natural History, 5(2): 191–199.

3. Manamendra-Arachchi, K., and Pethiyagoda, R. (2005). The Sri Lankan Shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae) with description of 27 new species. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 163–303.

4. Meegaskumbura, M., and Manamendra-Arachchi, K. (2005). Description of eight new species of Shrub-frogs (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka., The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, 12: 305–338.

5. Fernando S.S., Wickramasinghe, L.J.M. and Rodirigo, R.K. (2007). A new species of endemic frog belonging to Genus Nannophrys Gunther, 1869 (Anura: Dicroglossinae) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 1403. 55-68.

6. Meegaskumbura, M., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Schneider C. J., and Pethiyagoda R. (2007). New species amongst Sri Lanka’s extinct shrub frogs (Amphibia: Rhacophoridae: Philautus) Zootaxa, 1397: 1–15. 7. Meegaskumbura, M., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & Pethiyagoda, R. (2009) Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae: Philautus) from the lowlands of Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 2122: 51–68. 8. Meegaskumbura, M., & Manamendra-Arachchi, K. (2011) Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae: Pseudophilautus) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 2747: 1–18.

9. Meegaskumbura, M., Meegaskumbura, S., Bowatte, G., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Pethiyagoda, R., Hanken, J. and Schneider, C.J. (2011). Taruga (Anura: Rhacophoridae), A new genus of foam-nesting tree frogs endemic to Sri Lanka. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences), 39(2): 75–94.

January 2012 Page 14

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

10. Rooijen J.V., and Vogel, G. (2008). An investigation into the taxonomy of Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803): revalidation of Dipsas schokari (Kuhl, 1820) (Serpentes, Colubridae). Contributions to Zoology, 77 (1): 29-39. 11. Smith, E.N., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. and Somaweera, R. (2008). A new species of coral snake of the genus Calliophis (Squamata: Elapidae) from the Central Province of Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 1847: 19–33. 12. De Silva, A. (2009). Snakes of Sri Lanka: A Colored Atlas. Vijitha Yapa Publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 152pp. 13. Wickramasinghe L.J.M., Vidanapathirana, D.R., Wickramasinghe, N. and Ranwella, P.N. (2009). A New Species of Rhinophis Hemprich, 1820 (Reptilia: Serpentes: Uropeltidae) from Rakwana massif, Sri Lanka. Zootaxa. 2044: 1-22. 14. Maduwage, K., Silva, A., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Pethiyagoda, R. (2009). A taxonomic revision of the South Asian hump-nosed pit vipers (Squamata: Viperidae: Hypnale). Zootaxa, 2232: 1–28. 15. Gower, D.J. and Maduwage, K. (2011). Two new species of Rhinophis Hemprich (Serpentes: Uropeltidae) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 2881: 51–68. 16. Bahir, M.M., and Maduwage, K.P. (2005). Calotes desilvai, a new species of agamid lizard from Morningside Forest, Sri Lanka. Raffles Bull. Zool. (Supplement) 12: 381- 392. 17. Samarawickrama, V. A. M. P. K., Ranawana, K. B., Rajapaksha, D. R. N. S., Ananjeva, N.B., Orlov, N.L., Ranasinghe, J. M. A. S. and Samarawickrama, V. A. P. (2006). A new species of the genus Cophotis (Squamata: Agamidae) from Sri Lanka. Russian Journal of Herpetology, 13(3): 207-214. 18. Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Batuwita, S. and Pethiyagoda, R. (2007). A taxonomic revision of the Sri Lankan day-geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae: Cnemaspis), with description of new species from Sri Lanka and southern India. Zeylanica, 7(1): 9-122. 19. Wickramasinghe L.J.M., and Munindradasa D.A.I. (2007). Review of the Genus Cnemaspis Strauch, 1887 (Sauria: Gekkonidae) in Sri Lanka with the description of five new species. Zootaxa, 1490: 1-63. 20. Wickramasinghe L.J.M., Rodrigo, R. Dayawansa, N. & Jayantha, U.L.D. (2007). Two new species of Lankascincus (Squamata: Scincidae) from Sripada Sanctuary (Peak Wilderness), in Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 1612: 1-24.

January 2012 Page 15

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

21. Bauer, A.M., Jackman, T.R., Greenbaum, E., Giri, V.B. and deSilva, A. (2010). South Asia supports a major endemic radiation of Hemidactylus geckos. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 57: 343-352. 22. Wickramasinghe L.J.M., Wickramasinghe N., and Kariyawasam, L. (2011). Taxonomic status of the arboreal Skink Lizard Dasia halianus (Haly & Nevill, 1887) in Sri Lanka and the redescription of Dasia subcaeruleum (Boulenger, 1891) from India. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 3(8): 1961-1974. 23. IUCN Sri Lanka and Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Sri Lanka (2007). The 2007 Red List of Threatened Fauna and Flora of Sri Lanka. The World Conservation Union, Sri Lanka and Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Sri Lanka, xiii+148 pp. 24. Lists of amphibians and reptiles in Mahausakande, accessed from http://mahausakande.org/images/fauna%20list.htm.

January 2012 Page 16

Mahausakande Tropical Rainforest Regeneration Initiative Research Paper No. 1 Diversity of Herpetofauna in Mahausakande

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mrs. Nalini Ellawala - Founder Trustee of Ellawala Foundation Trust (EFT) is gratefully acknowledged for providing the logistics to conduct this research, and coordinating the field visits. The staff of the Mahausakande Research Center who helped the field survey in numerous ways is acknowledged herewith. Sincere thanks are also extended to the field research team from the Herpetological Foundation of Sri Lanka (HFSL) - Mr. Dharshana Priyantha, Mr. Dinal Samarasinghe, Dr. Gehan Rajeev, and Mr. Kovida Herath who assisted in the field research work. This research was facilitated through a grant from HSBC to EFT to initiate a scientific research program at the Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest.

January 2012 Page 17

Appendix I

Lists of Amphibians and Reptiles Observed in Mahausakande Regenerating Rainforest

(A) List of Amphibians Observed in Mahausakande Regenerating Rainforest

Conservation Family Scientific Name English Name Sinhala Name Status Adenomus kelaartiiE Kelaart's dwarf toad Kelartge kuru gemba Bufonidae Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common house toad Sulaba geai gemba Microhylidae Kaloula taprobanica Common bull frog Visituru ratu madiya Nyctibatrachidae Lankanectes corrugatusE Corrugated water frog Vakarali madiya Dicroglossidae Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Skipper frog Utpatana madiya Euphlyctis hexadactylus Six-toe green frog SaEangili pala madiya Zakerana kirtisingheiE Montain paddy field frog Kandukara vel-madiya

Zakerana syhadrensis Common paddy field frog Sulaba vel madiya Hoplobatrachus crassus Jerdon's bull frog Jerdonge hala madiya Nannophrys ceylonensisE Sri Lanka rock frog Lanka galpara madiya VU Hylarana aurantiaca Small wood frog Kuda bandi madiya VU Ranidae Hylarana temporalisE Common wood frog Sulaba bandi madiya Pseudophilautus folicolaE Leaf dwelling shrub frog Vakutu kola paduru mediya EN Rhacophoridae Pseudophilautus hoipolloiE Anthropogenic shrub frog Gevathu paduru mediya Pseudophilautus popularisE Common shrub frog Sulaba paduru mediya

Pseudophilautus reticulatusE Reticulated thigh shrub frog Jalaba paduru mediya EN E Pseudophilautus rus Kandiyan shrub frog Nuvara paduru mediya NT Pseudophilautus schneideriE Schneider’s shrub frog Schneiderge paduru mediya Aduru lapavan paduru Pseudophilautus sordidusE Grubby shrub frog mediya NT Thambili-hombu paduru Pseudophilautus stictomerusE Orange canthal shrub frog mediya NT Polypedates crucigerE Hourglass tree frog Ichthyophiidae Ichthyophis glutinosusE Common yellowband cecillian Kaha hiri danda E ‐ Endemic Species; VU – Vulnerable; EN – Endangered

(B) List of Reptiles Observed in Mahausakande Regenerating Rainforest

Conservation Family Scientific Name English Name Sinhala Name Status Bataguridae Melanochelys trijuga Black turtle Gal ibba Trionychidae Lissemys ceylonensis E Flapshell turtle Kiri ibba VU Agamidae Calotes calotes Green garden lizard Pala katussa Calotes liolepisE Whistling Lizard Sivuruhandalana katussa VU Calotes versicolor Common garden lizard Gara katussa Ceratophora asperaE Rough horn lizard Raluang katussa EN Lyriocephalus scutatusE Hump snout lizard Karamal bodiliya

Otocryptis wiegmanniE Kangaroo lizard Pinum katussa Gekkonidae Cnemaspis molligodaiE Molligoda's day gecko Molligodage divasarihuna Cnemaspis silvulaE Forest day gecko Vana divasarihuna Cyrtodactylus spE Great forest gecko Mukalam huna CR Gehyra mutilate Four-claw gecko Caturanguli huna Hemidactylus depressusE Kandyan gecko Hali gehuna Hemidactylus frenatus Common house-gecko Sulaba gehuna

Hemidactylus parvimaculatus Spotted housegecko Pulli gehuna Scincidae Eutropis carinata Common skink Sulaba hikanala Lankascincus dorsicatenatusE Catenated litter skink Damwal singitihikanala Lankascincus fallaxE Common Lanka skink Sulaba lakhiraluva Nessia burtoniiE Threetoe Snakeskink Triyanguli sarpahiraluva Varanus bengalensis Land monitor Talagoya Varanidae Varanus salvator Water monitor Kabaragoya Cylindrophidae Cylindrophis maculataE Sri Lanka Pipe snake Depath naya Ahaetulla nasuta Green vine snake Ahaetulla Colubridae Boiga barnesiiE Barnes’s cat snake Panduru mapila Boiga ceylonensis Sri Lanka cat snake Nidi mapila VU Cercaspis carinataE Sri Lanka wolf snake Dhara radanakaya VU Coeloganthus helena Trinket snake Katakaluwa

Dendrelaphis bifrenalisE Boulenger’s bronze back Pandura haldanda

Dendrelaphis caudolineolatus Gunther’s bronze back Viri haldanda VU

Dendrelaphis schokariE Common bronze back Tura haldanda.

Lycodon aulicus Wolf snake, house snake Alu radanakaya E Lycodon osmanhilli Flowery wolf snake Mal radanakaya Lycodon striatus Shaw’s wolf snake Kabara radanakaya E Oligodon sublineatus Dumerul’s kuki snake Pulli dath ketiya Ptyas mucosa Rat snake Gerandiya. Natricidae Amphiesma stolatum Buff striped keelback Aharukuka Aspidura guentheriE Ferguson’s roughside Kuda madilla NT Atretium schistosum Olive keelback Diyawarna Xenochrophis asperrimusE Sri Lanka keelback Diya naya Xenochrophis cf. piscatorE Checkered Keelback Diya bariya Elapidae Bungarus ceylonicusE Sri Lanka Krait Mudu karawala

Naja naja Indian cobra Naya Typhlopidae Typhlops (cf) mirusE Jan’s blind snake Heenkanaulla.

Typhlops spE Stoliczka’s blind snake Stoliczkage kanaulla Viperidae Hypnale zaraE Zara’s hump-nosed viper Zara's mukalan thelissa E ‐ Endemic Species; VU – Vulnerable; EN – Endangered; CR – Critically Endangered

Appendix II

Photos of Amphibians and Reptiles Observed in Mahausakande Regenerating Rainforest

PHOTO LOG (A) Amphibians of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 1: Adenomus kelaartii Photo 2: Duttaphrynus melanostictus

Photo 3: Lankanectes corrugatus Photo 4: Euphlyctis hexadactylus

Photo 5: Zakerana kirtisinghei Photo 6: Zakerana syhadrensis

PHOTO LOG (A) Amphibians of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 7: Nannophrys ceylonensis Photo 8: Pseudophilautus folicola

Photo 9: Pseudophilautus hoipolloi Photo 10: Pseudophilautus popularis

Photo 11: Pseudophilautus reticulatus Photo 12: Pseudophilautus rus

PHOTO LOG (A) Amphibians of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 13: Pseudophilautus schneideri Photo 14: Pseudophilautus sordidus

Photo 15: Pseudophilautus stictomerus Photo 16: Polypedates cruciger

Photo 17: Hylarana aurantiaca Photo 18: Hylarana temporalis

PHOTO LOG (A) Amphibians of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photos Credits:

Photo 19: Ichthyophis glutinosus

PHOTO LOG B Snakes of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 20: Cylindrophis maculata Photo 21: Ahaetulla nasuta

Photo 22: Aspidura guentheri Photo 23: Atretium schistosum

Photo 24: Boiga barnesii Photo 25: Boiga ceylonensis

PHOTO LOG B Snakes of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 26: Naja naja Photo 27: Coeloganthus helena

Photo 28: Dendrelaphis bifrenalis Photo 29: Dendrelaphis schokari

PHOTO LOG B Snakes of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 30: Lycodon aulicus Photo 31: Lycodon osmanhilli

Photo 32: Lycodon striatus Photo 33: Oligodon sublineatus

Photo 34: Ptyas mucosa Photo 35: Xenochrophis asperrimus

PHOTO LOG B Snakes of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 36: Typhlops (cf) mirus Photo 37: Typhlops sp

Photo 38: Bungarus ceylonicus Photo 39: Cercaspis carinata

Photo Credits

Photo 40: Hypnale zara

PHOTO LOG C Tetrapod Reptiles of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 41: Calotes calotes Photo 42: Calotes versicolor

Photo 43: Calotes liolepis Photo 44: Ceratophora aspera

PHOTO LOG C Tetrapod Reptiles of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 45: Lyriocephalus scutatus Photo 46: Otocryptis wiegmanni

Photo 47: Cnemaspis molligodai Photo 48: Cnemaspis silvula

Photo 49: Cyrtodactylus sp. Photo 50: Gehyra mutilata

PHOTO LOG C Tetrapod Reptiles of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo 51: Hemidactylus depressus Photo 52: Hemidactylus frenatus

Photo 53: Hemidactylus parvimaculatus Photo 54: Eutropis carinata

Photo 55: Lankascincus dorsicatenatus Photo 56: Lankascincus fallax

PHOTO LOG C Tetrapod Reptiles of Mahausakande Regenerating Tropical Rainforest

Photo Credits:

Photo 57: Nessia burtonii

Appendix III

Abundance of Amphibians and Reptiles Documented Through Different Sampling Methods in Mahausakande Regenerating Rainforest

(A) Abundance of amphibians recorded through VES (D = Diurnal, N = nocturnal) Habitat Types: AR – Abandoned Rubber; AL – Agricultural Land; HG – Home Gardens; MP – Manmade Ponds; RF – Regenerating Forest; RIF – Riparian Forest; RO – Rock Outcrops; SF – Secondary Forest; SB – Stream Bank Amphibian D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N Total Species AR AL HG MP RF RIF RO SF SB A. kelaartii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 D. melanostictus 4 7 1 3 8 19 1 14 2 21 1 7 0 3 0 2 1 7 101 E. cyanophlyctis 0 0 0 4 0 13 24 157 0 0 15 11 0 0 0 0 1 29 254 E. hexadactylus 0 0 0 0 6 21 8 45 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 Z. kirtisinghei 6 11 3 2 1 3 4 68 0 3 4 7 1 0 0 0 3 26 142 Z. syhadrensis 31 74 11 3 22 37 13 55 31 15 23 40 11 17 2 0 17 63 465 H. crassus 0 2 0 1 7 11 3 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 4 42 H. aurantiaca 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 6 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 H. temporalis 0 2 1 0 7 23 2 3 3 7 31 38 0 1 1 0 14 26 159 I. glutinosus 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 L. corrugatus 0 0 0 0 3 18 9 24 0 1 26 41 0 0 0 0 31 57 210 N. ceylonensis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Po. cruciger 0 1 0 5 0 22 0 29 0 14 1 13 0 4 0 16 0 11 116 Ps. folicola 0 42 0 28 0 37 3 71 0 62 0 27 0 29 5 44 2 26 376 Ps. hoipolloi 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 12 0 0 37 Ps. popularis 1 83 0 57 5 59 0 46 0 91 0 21 0 11 0 7 0 36 417 Ps. reticulatus 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 Ps. rus 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 4 0 1 48 Ps. schneideri 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 19 0 0 0 7 0 3 70 Ps. sordidus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Ps. stictomerus 1 18 0 3 0 38 0 17 0 46 0 5 0 13 0 6 0 11 158 Total 44 245 18 106 60 349 68 537 37 317 113 283 13 79 8 103 75 300 2755

(B) Abundance of snakes species recorded through VES (D = Diurnal, N = Nocturnal)

(Habitat Types: AR – Abandoned Rubber; AL – Agricultural Land; HG – Home Gardens; MP – Manmade Ponds; RF – Regenerating Forest; RIF – Riparian Forest; RO – Rock Outcrops; SF – Secondary Forest; SB – Stream Bank) D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N Snake species Total AR AL HG MP RF RIF RO SF SB Ah. nasuta 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 16 Am. stolatum 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 As. guentheri 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 At. schistosum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 Bo. barnesii 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bo. ceylonensis 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Bu. ceylonicus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ce. carinata 0 1 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 1 22 Co. helena 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D. bifrenalis 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 D. caudolineolatus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 D. schokari 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 8 H. zara 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 5 29 L. aulicus 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 L. osmanhilli 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 L. striatus 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 11 N. naja 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 O. sublineatus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 P. mucosa 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 X. asperrimus 0 0 0 0 2 3 6 10 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 X. cf. piscator 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 6 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Total 8 5 7 1 18 27 15 16 9 14 18 19 2 6 4 13 2 7 191

(Habitat Types: AR – Abandoned Rubber; AL – Agricultural Land; HG – Home Gardens; MP – Manmade Ponds; RF – Regenerating Forest; RIF – Riparian Forest; RO – Rock Outcrops; SF – Secondary Forest; SB – Stream Bank) Tetrapod Reptile D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N D N Total Species AR AL HG MP RF RIF RO SF SB Ca. calotes 3 1 2 2 6 4 0 0 2 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 29 Ca. liolepis 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 8 1 1 0 2 5 0 0 21 Ca. versicolor 13 2 6 1 17 3 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 50 Ce. aspera 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cn. molligodai 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Cn. silvula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 9 3 8 1 11 0 0 0 37 Cy. fraenatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 E. carinata 3 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 G. mutilata 0 0 2 6 6 13 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 H. depressus 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 H. frinatus 4 6 2 0 13 18 0 0 0 4 4 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 58 H. parvimaculatus 2 5 1 3 4 17 0 0 0 6 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 47 L. dorsicatenatus 2 0 3 2 7 3 0 0 0 2 6 19 2 0 2 2 1 6 57 L. fallax 14 1 3 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 3 26 17 0 88 L. punctata 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 L. scutatus 1 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 3 1 8 5 1 0 7 0 1 0 34 M. trijuga 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O. wiegmanni 14 8 3 1 19 3 0 0 11 9 21 13 9 0 38 1 3 0 153 V. bengalensis 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 8 V. salvator 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total 57 23 25 15 99 69 3 0 29 25 74 50 33 11 64 39 22 6 644

(D) Abundance of herpetofaunal species recorded through litter clearance surveys (Habitat Types: AR – Abandoned Rubber; AL – Agricultural Land; HG – Home Gardens; MP – Manmade Ponds; RF – Regenerating Forest; RIF – Riparian Forest; RO – Rock Outcrops; SF – Secondary Forest; SB – Stream Bank

Species AR AL HG MP RF RiF RO SF Total Amphibians Adenomus kelaartii 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Zakerana kirtisinghei 16 3 21 11 1 19 0 13 84 Zakerana syhadrensis 43 13 34 26 3 17 6 16 158 Hylarana aurantiaca 0 0 2 5 0 9 0 0 16 Hylarana temporalis 0 1 3 8 2 14 1 1 30 Ichthyophis glutinosus 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 Pseudophilautus 3 0 1 0 5 3 0 6 18 folicola Pseudophilautus 7 10 18 2 4 0 1 1 43 popularis Snakes Aspidura guentheri 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 3 12 Cercaspis carinata 0 0 3 0 2 1 3 8 17 Hypnale zara 5 0 1 0 3 2 0 4 15 Lycodon striatus 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Oligodon sublineatus 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 5 Tetrapod reptiles Lankascincus 0 0 6 0 4 13 2 3 28 dorsicatenatus Lankascincus fallax 38 3 26 0 11 16 1 19 114 Nessia burtonii 6 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 12 Otocryptis wiegmanni 13 5 14 0 21 29 6 17 105 Total 134 35 133 52 65 131 20 93 663

(E) Abundance of herpetofaunal species recorded through loose soil digging surveys Habitat Types: AR – Abandoned Rubber; AL – Agricultural Land; HG – Home Gardens; MP – Manmade Ponds; RF – Regenerating Forest; RIF – Riparian Forest; RO – Rock Outcrops; SF – Secondary Forest; SB – Stream Bank

Species AR AL HG MP RF RiF RO SF Total Amphibians K. taprobanica 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 I. glutinosus 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 Snakes C. maculata 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Typhlops (cf) mirus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Typhlops sp. 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tetrapod reptiles N. burtonii 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 9 Total 6 1 3 0 1 3 0 3 17