Biodiversity: A Global Scenario

• Biodiversity is a term that describes the variety of living beings on earth
• It encompasses microorganism, plants, animals and ecosystems such as coral reefs, forests, rainforests, and deserts
• biodiversity also refers to the number, or abundance of different species living within a particular region on earth
• represents the wealth of biological resources

​

Biodiversity: A Global Scenario

• Walter G. Rosen (1985) used the word ‘Biodiversity’ and E. O. Wilson first time used it in publication in the 1988
• Approximately 10-80 million species of living organisms on earth, among them only 1.4 million species are documented (Wilson 1988)
• In recent years extinction rate tremendously increased, this will bring serious effects for entire living world
• Because of this it’s important to study diversity of organisms on earth and threats to them

​

Biodiversity: Definitions

• It is variety of life in all its forms, levels and combinations it includes species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity

– UNEP & WWF

• Biodiversity is variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic eco-system and ecological complexes of which they are part this includes diversity within species ,between species and eco-systems

-UN in earth’s Summit

• Biodiversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and ecological complexes in which they occur and encompasses ecosystem diversity, species diversity and genetic diversity

- United States Congressional Biodiversity Act

​

Biodiversity: Types

• 1.73 million different species

​

• 0.3 million species of vascular plants

​

• 0.066 million species of vertebrates

​

• 1 million species of insects

​

• 0.36 million species of microorganisms

Source:http://www.currentresults.com

Global Biodiversity

Biodiversity Hotspots

35 areas

​

more than 70% original vegetation lost

​

more than 1500 endemic vascular plants

​

represent just 17.3% of Earth’s land surface

​

50% world’s plant species & nearly 43% of terrestrial vertebrate species as endemics

​

​

​

Sloan et al., 2014; Mittermeier et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2000

Biodiversity Hotspots

source: http://renatahori.com/knot

Mega-Biodiversity Countries

• world’s top rich and high endemism countries

​

• have more than 5000 species of vascular plants as endemics

​

• Marine ecosystem as their border

​

• Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, and Venezuela

India: A land of heritage

• One of the megadiversity countries and shows higher endemism
• Includes a wide variety of ecosystems
• It is situated at the tri-junction of three major bio-geographic regions Indo-Malayan, Eurasian, Afro-Tropical
• it holds four of the 35 biodiversity hotspots identified in the world Indo-Burma, Himalaya, Sundaland and Western Ghats

Sloan et al., 2014

India: A land of heritage

• India harbors 7-8% of world’s recorded species
• 45000 species of vascular plants and 91000 animals (CBD, 2014)
• Plant diversity

17926 species of Angiosperms,

74 species of Gymnosperms,

1267 species of Pteridophytes,

2504 species of Bryophytes

7244 species of Algae

ZSI, 2014

India: A land of heritage

• Faunal Diversity

3500 species of Protista

500 species of Porifera

5169 species of Molluscs

74175 Arthropoda (63423 insects)

3022 species of Pisces

381 species of Amphibians

526 species of Reptiles

1233 species of Aves

423 Mammalian species

CBD, 2014; ZSI, 2014

India: A land of heritage

Amphibians of India show high endemism among the all animals

​

Many of the biodiversity rich areas in India are still unexplored and there is possibility of occurrence of ample number of organisms to be explored

Mandal and Ray, 2006

The Western Ghats

• One of the 35 World’s biodiversity hotspots and is the critically positioned on global biodiversity scene (Myers et al., 2000)
• It harbors 7402 flowering plant species,

5588 are indigenous

1273 species are exclusively endemic

• It is home for nearly 325 globally threatened vertebrate species
• out of 139 mammalian species 32 are threatened

The Western Ghats

Invertebrate Group

350 ant species (20% endemism)

330 butterfly species (11% endemism)

174 dragonflies and damselflies (40% endemism)

277 land snails (72% endemism)

The Western Ghats

Vertebrate Group

• 288 fish species (41% are endemic)
• 220 species of Amphibia (78% are endemic)

28 of the country's 40 known caecilian species

• 225 species of reptiles (47.12% endemism) (Srinivasulu et al., 2014)
• 500 species of birds
• 139 species of mammals

• There are many anuran species, which are recently described by many researchers. A fossorial frog, Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis, with ooglossian affinity, was recently discovered in the Southern Western Ghats is one of them (Biju and Bossuyt, 2003).
• The Western Ghats region is a suitable habitat for Asian elephant and has its largest population. Some other mammals such as Tiger, Dhole and Gaur are predominantly present in this region.
• The Western Ghats also provide healthy environment for a number of wild relatives of cultivated plants species such as Piper, Amomum, Mangifera, Artocarpus and Santalum
• Considering outstanding universal value and high levels of endemism UNESCO inscribed thirty-nine sites in their World Heritage List in the Western Ghats in the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra in 2012

​

Habitat fragmentation is a major threat to Western Ghats biodiversity.

Exhaustive timbering

&

gathering non-timber forest produce

Resulted in

​

biodiversity and forest cover loss

Amphibians: Excellent Ecological Indicators

Amphibians

cold-blooded vertebrate animals

​

relatively sluggish organisms

​

having smooth skins

​

incapable of generating their own body heat low

​

metabolic rate than birds and mammals (Wells, 2007)

Amphibians: Excellent Ecological Indicators

Amphibians

The word “amphibian” meaning, “Double life”, (mode of life they posses)

in water (tadpole)

on land (adult)

they constitute the highest portion of vertebrate biomass in ecosystems (Blaustein et. al., 1994)

They lack claws (Except in a few species) and external scales(distinguished them from fishes and reptiles)

They have paired limbs in adults except limbless caecilians.

Life History

Reproduction of amphibians is conspicuous

&

details of reproduction were poorly understood (Wells 2007)

Typical amphibian life history

aquatic eggs

aquatic larvae

terrestrial adults

(Exceptions Raorchestes spp., Indirana spp. Pseudophilautus spp.)

Amphibians are important animals

​

act as secondary consumers in food chains in an ecosystem

​

control insect pests

​

Excellent bio-indicators

(Lips 1998; Roy 2002; Daniels 2003)

7657 amphibian species in the world, �orderAnura 6757 species �order Caudata 695 species �Gymnophiona 205 species

Amphibian Fauna of India

407 species

​

Order Anura 366 species

​

Order Gymnophina (caecilians) 39 species

​

Order Caudata 2 species

Western Ghats is heaven for amphibian species with having 220 species and 178 endemics

​

Also most of the species are under threat due to patchiness in their distribution

​

This feature makes them highly susceptible to extinction

• Kolhapur district lies in the one of the five landscape corridors of Western Ghats i.e. Sahyadri-Konkan corridor
• And has various habitats within its boundaries
• forested areas of district are mostly semi-evergreen or deciduous
• western region of district land is rich in bauxite ore therefore has several mines
• rainfall in the district varies from region to region
• Therefore, Kolhapur district is best model to study anurans

The aim of this research work is to understand the status of anuran diversity in Kolhapur district. In order to achieve this aim, the following objectives shall be answered in this study.

• To study species richness in study area
• To prepare checklist of anuran species
• To make quantitative assessment of anuran species
• To study the seasonal variation in anuran species
• To protect and encourage habitats of anuran species

​

Review of Literature

• Gunther (1864) first published systematic description work on amphibians of British India in “Reptiles of British India” in which he described total 37 anuran species and 2 species of caecilians.
• Two new species of genus Rana were discovered and described from Matheran and Darjeeling with the key for Rana species in Himalayan region (Boulenger, 1888). In addition, with research work, he has contributed for Fauna of British India by adding Batrachian fauna of India including the Ceylon (Boulenger, 1890). Furthermore, he has described a new species from Travancore, India and three new frog species from South India as well as Ceylon (Boulenger 1891, 1904).

Review of Literature

• Adnagulov et al. (2000) studied the herpetofauna of some areas of Russia, they recorded Bufo gargarizans (Anura, Bufonidae), and Hyla japonica (Anura, Hylidae) based on their distribution. In addition, for the first time, they reported the Amphiesma vibakari and Elaphe rufodorsata (both Serpentes, Colubridae) in the Evreiskaya an autonomous region and new for Middle Amur area
• Pauwels et al. (2002) had been enlisted 39 amphibians in addition to 110 reptile species from Phang Nga Province, southern Peninsular Thailand. They added six species to its fauna namely Amyda cartilaginea, Typhlops muelleri, Ahaetulla fasciolata, Oligodon purpurascens, Ptyas fusca and Maticora intestinalis lineata.
• Wilson and MacCranie (2003) reported 122 herpetofaunal species with 38 anuran species from the cloud forests of Honduras.

Review of Literature

• Pillai and Chanda (1976) have illustrated the distributional pattern of amphibians in Northeast India. From the Garo hills in 1981, they described and reported the new species of Rana.
• Yang (1991) worked on Amolops spp. and results revealed that, there were about 20 species distributed from North eastern India and Nepal to south-central China to Peninsular Malaysia.
• Chanda (1994) worked in Northeast India and reported 54 anuran species under 6 families and 18 genera.
• Ao et al. (2003) updated amphibian fauna of Nagaland 32 species with 19 new state records including five new country records.

Review of Literature

• Ningombam and Bordoloi (2007) recorded 25 amphibian species around Loktak Lake, Manipur in which 10 species are new for the state.
• Das et al. (2003) worked on herpetofauna from Talchhapar Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan.
• Vyas (2004) reported 54 species of the herpetofauna from Vansda National Park, Gujarat, in which 12 anuran species were reported.
• Das and Rathore (2004) carried out the study of the herpetofauna of Desert National Park, Rajasthan. In their observations, there were 15 species of reptiles with one amphibian species such as Bufonid.

Review of Literature

• Abraham et al. (2000) reported 30 species of amphibian fauna from Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary, Kerala, in which they were reported 27 anuran species.
• Dubois et al. (2001) described new Genus and species of Ranidae from Karnataka and Kerala in south-western India in that special character is observed, rictal glands which is absent in other Dicroglossids.
• Aravind and Gururaja (2001) enlisted 158 species of amphibians from Western Ghats, India, including their ecology, biology, threats to amphibian fauna of Western Ghats.
• Jobin and Nameer (2012) worked on Rhacophorid diversity in Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, Kerala, India, and found 11 species with some changes in IUCN conservation status.

Review of Literature

• Allmon (1991) stated that total abundance and diversity are seasonal and highest in wet season therefore the results are positively correlated with litter volume and moisture. However, amphibian species diversity and abundance significantly varies among neotropics, Africa and Southeast Asia.
• Inger and Voris (1993) made a comparative study on amphibian communities through time and places from Bornean forests along 18 streams with eight localities; they observed 13,249 individuals from 49 species.
• Duellman (1999) reported variation in amphibian diversity in the Amazon with reference to altitude, topography, rainfall, historical biogeography and reproductive modes.
• Crosswhite et al. (1999) sampled six sample periods and captured 886 individuals belonging to 38 species of herpetofauna from the upland forests of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas.
• Zainuddin (1999) observed 144 individuals of 18 anurans species in Bario with surrounding areas, however, assessed only half of the total species from Bario.

Review of Literature

• Werner et al. (2006) studied the status of two northern Leopard frog populations in Western Montana.
• Welsh et al. (2007) surveyed terrestrial forest amphibians from the 36 stands in North-western California and identified the total 5,923 number of individuals from 13 species.
• Angarita-M et al. (2015) observed 3,555 individuals of 23 amphibian species and 1088 individuals of 37 reptile species from an agro forestry system in the Colombian Caribbean. They found the highest biodiversity in Teak agro-forest compared to non-natural environments.
• Madhava et al. (2012) recorded 763 individuals of amphibians from 24 species and 1032 individuals of reptiles from 53 species in Kalugala proposed reserve forest, Western province of Sri Lanka. They further observed highest diversity of herpetofauna in non-cultivated land than cultivated areas.

Review of Literature

• Vasudevan et al. (2006) recorded 3684 anurans from Ashambu Hills and Anamalai Hills belonging to 28 species of four families (Bufonidae, Microhylidae, Ranidae, and Rhacophoridae). They were observed the more diversity in Anamalai hill range.
• Katwate et al. (2013) recorded 3260 individuals from 22 species from Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary, Northern Western Ghats of India.
• Inger (1999) observed 650 amphibian species in Southern Asia with adjacent islands and observed that most of the species are distributed with according to the environmental variations.
• Biswas and Pawar (2006) paid meticulous attention to challenges posed by the complex geological and ecological history of the region and the differences in distribution across taxonomic groups of amphibians.
• Chanda (1988) results revealed that amphibian species in Northeast India along with altitudinal distribution with emphasis on anuran species.

Review of Literature

After discovering and describing the amphibian species form particular area, regions, states and countries need to be a checklist.

• Inger and Lian (1996) published checklist of 138 anurans species from Borneo.
• Similarly, Iskandar (2004) has published annotated checklist of the herpetofauna of Malinau Region, Bulungan Research Forest, east Kalimantan and added notes on ecological preferences with local utilization.
• Inger and Iskandar (2005) prepared a list of anuran species from Padang area of West Sumatra with their distribution in altitudinal zones and described one new species.
• Khan (2004) prepared annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan and raised the species number from 178 to 225. Previously, Mertens (1972) has prepared the checklist of 178 herpetofauna in Pakistan.
• Bopage et al. (2011) provided list of 32 amphibian species in the Kanneliya forest, lowland in Sri Lanka with emphasis on threat status on them.

Review of Literature

• Sekar (1999) prepared checklist of amphibians from Maharashtra and reported four new records.
• Padhye and Ghate (2002) in an overview of the amphibians of Maharashtra enlisted 43 species.
• Dinesh and Radhakrishnan (2011) provided a checklist of amphibians from Western Ghats in which 157 species with 135 endemics were depicted.
• Purushotham and Tapley (2011) prepared a checklist of 28 amphibians from Agumbe Rainforest Research Station, Karanataka.

​

Review of Literature

• Vallan (2002) compared the amphibian fauna of intact rain forests with secondary forests, Eucalyptus plantations and rice fields. He has observed the effects of deforestation on amphibian behaviour.
• Azevedo-Ramos and Gallati (2002) determined the amphibian diversity and distribution in Brazilian Amazonia based on the literature. They suggested that prioritization of areas next to the Amazon deforestation for new studies due to the high rate of change and probable loss of species.
• Dayton and Fitzgerald (2006) worked on identification of quality habitat for conservation of populations of target species. They selected four desert amphibian species in Big Bend National Park, USA, Scaphiopus couchii, Bufo debilis, Bufo unctatus, and Gastrophryne olivacea as a model.
• Molur (2008) compiled the list of South Asian amphibians with addition to taxonomy and threats. As well as he enlisted 348 amphibians from the eight countries of the region, out of which 285 species are endemic to region.
• Perry et al. (2009) compared habitat characteristics and herpetofaunal communities in restored pine woodlands to relatively unmanaged, second-growth forests in the Ouachita Mountains of western Arkansas, USA. They got remarkable results after comparing both, pinewoods forests have greater restoration than unmanaged forests.

​

Review of Literature

• Lesbarreres et al. (2009) monitored restoration project followed by highway construction in Western France and observed positive cascading results in local amphibian diversity.
• Cano and Leynaud (2010) analysed effect of fire and cattle grazing on assemblage on herpetofauna in North-Eastern Argentina. They found fire had negative effect on herpetofauna particularly on amphibians. However, some species of lizards were benefitted of fire effect.
• Griffin (2010) studied the diversity patterns of reptiles and amphibians in the dry deciduous forests, and associated wetlands of the previously unstudied region of Mahamavo, western Madagascar, and total 19 herp species observed.
• Allentoft and O’brien (2010) proposed the term ‘dissociated populations’ to describe residual population structure, and provided overview of 34 studies covering 17 species of amphibians. Individuals with less genetic variability have negative effects of various pollutants, pathogens and UV-radiation.
• Preininger et al. (2012) found out the threats to the foot flagging frog species from Borneo and implemented the strategies like captive breeding for restoration.

Review of Literature

• Ochoa-Ochoa et al. (2012) analyzed the changes of alpha and beta-diversity spatial patterns in Mexico and performed an analysis of sensitivity for the beta-diversity patterns. They found that high levels of species extinctions depend upon low dispersal capability generates, however no change in geographical pattern.
• Arroyo-Lambaer et al. (2013) evaluated the impact of recent habitat fragmentation or degradation on dispersal of the two frog species Cardioglossa schioetzi and Astylosternus rheophilus.
• Crawford et al. (2013) used DNA bar-coding tool for analysis the cryptic diversity in El Valle Amphibian Conservation Center (EVACC) in the Republic of Panama. They assumed that cryptic diversity of amphibian might cause problems for conservation.
• Both et al. (2014) studied effect of invasive species on total amphibian community of Atlantic forest areas; they got weak positive relationship between invaded bullfrog and species richness.

Review of Literature

• Daniel (1974) enlisted 22 species of amphibians in the Maharashtra State Gazetteer.
• According to Ravichandran & Pillai (1990), about 29 species of amphibians are present.
• Biju et al. (2011) reviewed the Nyctibatrachus genus, and 12 new species found from Western Ghats of India.
• Biju et al. (2014) described 7 species from Hylarana genus and14 species of Micrixalus genus from Western Ghats region.
• Abraham et al. (2013) discovered the amphibian species and described two new genera from family Rhacophoridae are Mercurana and Beddomixalus.
• Vijaykumar et al. (2014) described nine new species of bush frogs (Anura: Raorchestes, Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats. Abraham et al. (2015) described a third species from genus Ghatixalus from Western Ghats.
• Padhye et al. (2012, 2014, and 2015) described a series of new species from Northern Western Ghats that are Raorchestes ghatei, Indirana Chirawasi, Hydrophylax bahuvistara.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

Kolhapur district

15˚ 43’ to 17˚ 17’ N and 73˚ 40’to 74˚ 42’ E

at the southernmost part of the Maharashtra

total area 7685 km² and spread over 12 tehsils

recorded forest area in Kolhapur district is about 1775 km²

​

​

Materials and Methods�3.1 Study Area�

Anuran Sampling Localities: 1- Chandgad, 2-Ajara, 3-Bhudargad,

4-Radhanagari, 5-Gaganbawada, 6-Panhala, 7- Shahuwadi,

8- Gadhinglaj, 9- Kagal, 10- Karvir, 11- Hatkanangale, 12- Shirol

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Materials and Methods

Climate

District has moderately pleasant climate conditions without having any extreme in climatic conditions

Maximum mean annual temperature is 31.5˚C, minimum mean annual temperature is 19.2˚C.

The climate is differentiated in three different seasons;

June to September monsoon

October to January winter

February to May summer

Materials and Methods

Rainfall

District receives major rainfall from southwest monsoon

Mean annual rainfall varies from 480 mm at eastern side to 6000 mm at western side

The mean annual rainfall in eastern regions is 775-900 mm and considered as low rainfall region. Due to low rainfall, dry deciduous forest appears in this zone.

Medium rainfall region falls in the central part of the district having mean rainfall 1450-2000 mm

The western parts of the district receive mean annual rainfall up to 6000 mm. Main forest types in these regions are mixed semi-evergreen and moist mixed deciduous forest.

Materials and Methods

In the present work study sites were selected randomly considering one site from each tehsil to include data from all over the district.

Anuran survey was conducted around the following coordinates

​

Materials and Methods

3.2 Anuran sampling

Anuran samplings were carried out consecutively for three years from October 2012 to September 2015 around the year

Different methods were used for the determination of anuran species richness, populations and seasonal variation (Heyer et al., 1994)

​

​

​

Materials and Methods

3.2 Anuran sampling

3.2.1 Methodology

a. Visual encounter survey :

Surveys were conducted in twelve localities with stratified sampling method (Heyer et al.,1994).

Base of stratification-forest, semi-forest, plateaus, agricultural, human habitat and roadsides.

Sampling were conducted between 18:30-22:30 hrs

Care has been taken during surveys to avoid destruction of natural habitat

All species encountered are identified up to species level by using the various keys of Bossuyt and Dubois, (2001), Daniels, (2005), Biju and Bossuyt, (2009) and Gururaja, (2012)

​

​

Materials and Methods

3.2 Anuran sampling

3.2.1 Methodology

b. Bio-acoustic identification:

At the time of visual encounter survey

if we occasionally heard anuran calls and then compared these calls to known calls of

Frog find 1.1 and downloaded calls from Amphibiaweb.org

​

Materials and Methods

3.2 Anuran sampling

3.2.2 Systematic analysis:

Systematic analysis was carried out by following methods

ambiguity in taxonomy of certain genera, which were taken closely related species and denoted as cf. (conferre).

a. Voucher specimens:

At the time of fieldwork, 1-2 frogs were collected as voucher specimens

sacrificed with 2-4% ethanol solution

​

​

​

fixed in 10% formalin solution

​

transferred in to 70% ethanol

​

​

​

Collected voucher specimens were deposited in the museum of National Centre for Biological Research (NCBS), Bangalore for further identification and confirmation of the already identified species by us

Schedule I species of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 were not collected

​

Materials and Methods

3.2.2 Systematic analysis:

b. Morphometric Analysis

The body measurements were taken by using Digital Calliper with minimum slip of 0.01 mm (Yamayo Precision Measuring Instruments, Mumbai, India)

Morphological characters were observed by naked eyes as well as by using stereomicroscope at 4X (Lawrence and Mayo, Mumbai).

​

Abbreviations used in morphometric study

• For the anuran morphometric study, internationally approved abbreviations are used in the present work and abbreviations are as follows

SVL, snout-vent length (from tip of snout to vent length); SL, snout length (from the anterior corner of eye to snout tip); EN, eye to nostril distance (distance between anterior-most point of eyes and nostrils); NS, nostril to snout distance (distance between anterior most point of nostril to snout tip); INS, inter-narial space (distance between nostrils); IOS, inter-orbital space (least distance between upper eyelids); ED, eye diameter (horizontal diameter of the eyes); HL, head length (distance between angle of jaws and snout-tip); HWAE, head width at the anterior corner of eye (width of head at the level of anterior corner of eye); HWPE, head width at the posterior corner of eye (width of head at the level of posterior corner of eye); HWAJ, head width at angle of jaw (width of head at the level of jaw angle); MN, mandible to nostril (distance from posterior corner of the mandible to the nostril); MAE, mandible to anterior part of eye (distance from posterior corner of the mandible to the anterior corner of the eye); MPE, mandible to posterior part of eye (distance from posterior corner of the mandible to the posterior corner of the eye); IAE, distance between anterior corners of eye; IPE, distance between posterior corners of eye; FLL, forelimb length (distance between elbow and base of outer tubercle); F1 to F4, length of 1^st to 4^th fingers (from the base of the first sub-articular tubercle to the tip of the respective finger); IMC length of inner metacarpal tubercle (greatest length of inner metacarpal tubercle); OMC length of outer metacarpal tubercle (greatest length of outer metacarpal tubercle); HLL, hind limb length (from groin to tip of 4th toe); TBL, tibia length (distance between surface of knee and surface of heel, with both tibia and tarsus flexed); TBW, tibia width (maximum width of tibia along its length); T1 to T5, length of 1^st to 5^th toes (from the base of the first sub-articular tubercle to the tip of the respective toe); IMT, length of inner metatarsal tubercle (greatest length of inner metatarsal tubercle); OMT, length of outer metatarsal tubercle (greatest length of outer metatarsal tubercle)

Materials and Methods

• 3.2.2 Statistical analysis:

MS Excel 2007 software was used for statistical analysis –the mean, standard deviation, family wise population percentage, relative species abundance, Simpson index of diversity (1-D), Shannon index ‘H’ and seasonal variation.

The same software was used to draw graphs of above mentioned variables as well as abiotic factors such as rainfall, temperature and humidity.

The software PAST-3.1 was used for drawing locality rarefaction curve and cluster in Bray Curtis cluster analysis

Statistical formulae used

a. Mean

Where,

∑X= Sum of all individuals, N= Number of surveys

b. Standard deviation (σ) =

​

Where,

N= Number of surveys, µ= Mean, Xi= individuals of X number of surveys

 c. Family wise population percentage =

Where, T_F = Total individuals in a family

T_A = Total individuals in a community

Statistical formulae used

​

d. Relative Species Abundance =

Where, T_S = Total individuals of a species

T_A = Total individuals in a community

e. Simpson index of diversity,

1-D =

Where,

n = the total number of individuals of a particular species

N = the total number of individuals in a community

​

f. Shannon H’ index,

H’ =

Where,

n_i = total number of individuals of species i

N= total number of individuals in a community

​

g. Seasonal Variation,

SV=

Where,

T_IS = Total number of individuals in a particular season

N_S = Number of sites where species observed

​

Results

• 4.1 Species Richness of Anura from Kolhapur District

25 species of anurans are recorded from

16 genera

7 families

family Dicroglossidae dominated with 9species

followed by

family Rhacophoridae with 5 species

family Microhylidae with 4 species

family Ranidae with 3 species

Ranixalidae and Nyctibatrachidae 2 species each

Bufonidae single species

​

Results

critically endangered (CR) Amboli bush frog (Pseudophilautus amboli)

An endangered species (EN) Uperodon mormorata

Leith’s leaping frog, Indirana leithii and Bombay bush frog, Raorchestes bombayensis are Vulnerable (VU) species

Bicoloured frog, Clinotarsus curtipes is in near threatened (NT) category

6 species are in Data deficient (DD) or not assessed (NA) category,

remaining species are least concerned (LC) category

according to IUCN Red list

SVL 150 mm

prominent cranial ridges

The snout is short and blunt

inter-orbital space is broader than the upper eyelid width.

Oval or circular tympanum is distinct

first finger is often longer than the second

The toes half webbed.

A sub-articular tubercle just before the junction of the thigh and shank

two metatarsal tubercles have black cornifications

spiny warts are present on the dorsal side

large and prominent parotid glands

During breeding season, males have a subgular vocal sac with callosities on the inner fingersts

Least Concern (LC)

SVL 60 mm

modest head with the rounded snout and Canthus rostalis is not prominent

Inter-orbital space is narrower than the upper eyelid width

Distinct circular tympanum and is as wide as two-thirds of the eye.

Pointed and slender fingers, first is equal to or smaller than second

Fully webbed toes up to the tips and pointed, fourth toe is little longer than third and fifth

Small subarticular tubercles, inner metatarsal tubercle is small and finger like

Skin has small tubercles on upper side

Less distinct rows of porous warts are present on flanks and from shoulder to the groin. A strong fold from eye to shoulder is present.

Least Concern (LC)

Tympanum is distinct and less than half of the diameter of the eye

Nostrils are at same distance from eye and snout

Dorsal side has short discontinuous dermal ridges

Ventral side is white coloured with distinct Fejervaryan lines

Fingers are pointed

Webbing on toes is poorly developed

Metatarsal tubercle is oval shaped and prominent subarticular tubercles

Data deficient (DD)

SVL 24 mm

Skin is smooth with few weak longitudinal glandular folds on dorsal side

Throat and belly is smooth, however thigh region is granular

It is easily distinguished by other Fejervaryan species due to presence of rectal glands

Distance between mandible to nostril is lower than sister lineage

Fingertips are rounded and first finger is shorter than fourth

Inner metatarsal tubercle is indistinct

Nuptial pad is present on first finger in male at breeding season

Toe webbing is rudimentary

Fejervaryan lines are present

Not Assessed (NA)

SVL 45 mm

Head is broad with round snout

Many warts present on the dorsum

Distinct tympanum is more than half of the diameter of the eye

First finger is longer than second

Prominent sub-articular tubercles are present on both fingers and toes

Inner metatarsal tubercle is large

Toe webbing is poorly developed

Least concerned (LC)

SVL 23 mm

Snout is pointed

Distinct tympanum is equal to diameter of the eye

Nostril is present near tip of the snout

First finger length is more or less equal to the second

Toes are half webbed

Inner and outer metatarsal tubercles are present

Least concerned(LC)

largest frog in India with approximately 160 mm SVL

moderate head with pointed snout

Thick canthus rostralis

nostrils are little nearer to the snout

Dorsal skin is with longitudinal

Distinct supra tympanic fold is present

Least concerned(LC)

SVL 60 mm

Head is short with a rounded snout

The inter-orbital space is narrower than the upper eyelid

Distinct tympanum is about two-thirds the diameter of the eye

The fingers are moderate and thick headed

First finger is longer than second

Toes are moderate and webbing poorly developed

The inner metatarsal is very large, shovel shaped with sharp edge

Sub-articular tubercles are moderate

The dorsal skin is smooth or granulates, with longitudinal folds

A strong supra-tympanic fold is distinctly appears

Least concerned(LC)

SVL 58 mm

head is large

rounded snout

Canthus rostralis is obtuse

inter-orbital space is narrower than the upper eyelid width

Distinct tympanum is more than half of the diameter of the eye

First finger is longer than the second

Webbing is poor

Subarticular tubercles are large

Inner metatarsal tubercle is very large, shovel-shaped, and with sharp-edge

The skin of dorsum is smooth and on ventral side granular

Supra-tympanic fold runs from the eye to the shoulder

Least concerned(LC)

SVL 25 mm

typical arrow-shaped mark on their dorsum

Inter-orbital space is double than upper eyelid width

Head is small

Fingers are spatulate

toes with rudimentary webbing

The skin is smooth sometimes with granulations

Metatarsal tubercles are prominent

Least concerned(LC)

SVL 84 mm

Dorsum skin is smooth whereas on ventral skin is wrinkled

Head is small with rounded snout

Canthus rostalis and tympanum are indistinct and eyes are beady

Inter-orbital space is nearly three times larger than the upper eyelid width

An occipital fold is present

supratympanic fold is indistinct

Fingers are distinct and first finger is shorter than the second

Webbing is poorly developed

metatarsal tubercles are large shove shaped

Least concerned(LC)

SVL 35 mm

Head is longer than width

Rounded snout

Head having typical ‘V’ mark

Nostrils are near to snout than eye

Tympanum is indistinct

Dorsum is somewhat warty

Fingers have wide triangular dilations

First finger is little shorter than second

Toes are with rudimentary webbing

Sub-articular tubercles are moderate

Inner metatarsal tubercle is large and shovel shaped

Endangered (EN)

SVL 55 mm

Small head with rounded snout

Canthus rostalis is absent

Occipital fold is present, supra-tympanic fold is poor

First finger is little shorter than second

toes are poorly webbed

A pair of strong and large shovel-shaped metatarsal tubercles is present

Dorsum is smooth while ventral side is granular

Least concerned (LC)

SVL 35 mm

Head is wider than length

Snout has well developed ridge produced inverted ‘Y’ shape

Canthus rostalis is rounded

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

A distinct supra-tympanic fold is present

Third finger and fourth toe discs with dorso-terminal groove and cover rounded distally

Sub-articular tubercles are prominent and oval

Webbing is moderate

Dorsum skin is wrinkled and sparsely granular

Not Assessed (NA)

SVL 48 mm

Head is wider than long

blunt and rounded snout

nostrils are near to snout

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

Third finger and fourth toe with circum marginal groove and cover rounded distally

Sub-articular tubercles are prominent, oval and unequal

Toes are with moderate webbing

Femoral glands are present

Not Assessed (NA)

SVL 65 mm

large head

short and rounded snout

Canthus rostralis is distinct and loreal region is concave

Nostrils are nearer to snout than to eye

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

Tympanum is distinct and equal to diameter of eye

Toes are short although webbing is well developed

Fingertips and toes ends are swollen or dilated into small disks

Sub-articular tubercles are well developed

Inner metatarsal tubercle is small, oval and blunt

Near threatened (NT)

SVL 81mm

Head is moderate and depressed

Snout is nearly equal to the diameter of the eye

Nostrils are nearer to the end of the snout

Inter-orbital space is narrower than the upper eyelid width

Distinct tympanum is nearly equal size of the eye

Toe webbing is moderately developed

Fingertips and toe ends are swollen

Sub-articular tubercles are very strong

Inner metatarsal tubercle is oval and blunt

A broad petty lateral fold is present

Least concerned (LC)

SVL 80 mm

Head is longer than wide

snout is rounded to truncate

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

Tympanum is distinct and nearly three-fourth of the eye

Fingers are thick and first finger is longer than second

Fingertips and toe tips are with obtusely pointed discs

Webbing is moderately developed

Sub-articular tubercles are prominent and oval

Inner metatarsal tubercles are distinct and

Rectal glands are present

Not Assessed (NA)

SVL 60 mm

Head is moderate with obtuse snout

Canthus rostralis is thick with concave loreal region

Nostrils are nearer to the snout

Inter-orbital space is nearly equal to the upper eyelid width

It has distinct tympanum and three-fourths of the diameter of the eye

The fingers are moderate, first finger is little longer than second

Toe webbing is moderately developed

Finger tips and toe ends dilated into well developed triangular disks

Sub-articular tubercles are well developed

Dorsum has short longitudinal glandular folds with a strong supra tympanic fold

Least concerned (LC)

SVL 38mm

Head is moderate with obtuse snout

Canthus rostralis is thick with concave loreal region

Nostrils are nearer to the end of the snout

Inter-orbital space is little narrower than the upper eyelid width

Tympanum is distinct and it is two-thirds of the eye diameter

First finger is little shorter than second

Vulnerable (VU)

SVL 80mm

Head is moderate

obtusely pointed snout

Canthus rostalis is well marked

Tympanum is distinct and about two-thirds of the eye diameter

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

Skin of the head is free developing a bony arch on the head

Supra-tympanic fold is present

Fingertips and toe ends are developed into dilated disks

toe webbing is moderately developed

Moderate sub-articular tubercles are present

Least Concerned (LC)

SVL 37 mm

Head is longer than wide

snout is pointed

Canthus rostralis is indistinct

loreal region is slightly concave

Tympanum is distinct and pigmented

Supra-tympanic fold is distinct

Fingers and toes are moderate with dilated disks

Sub-articular tubercles are prominent and rounded

Webbing on toes is moderate

Critically Endangered (CR)

SVL 30mm

Head is longer than wide

snout is rounded

Nostrils are nearer to the snout than to the eyes

Tympanum is indistinct

Fingertips and toe ends are dilated in to the discs

Toe webbing is poorly developed

Subarticular tubercles are prominent and rounded

Inner metatarsal tubercle is moderate and rounded

Dorsum has spinular projections resembling pimples

Males have large vocal sac resembling snail at the time of calling

​

Vulnerable (VU)

SVL 29.1mm

Head is wider than length

snout is small and rounded

Canthus rostralis sharp and loreal region is concave

Tympanum is indistinct

Distinct supra-tympanic fold is present

Tongue is bifid having a lingual pit

Inter-orbital space is wider than upper eyelid width

Inner metatarsal tubercle is moderate and oval

Not Assessed (NA)

SVL 100 mm

Head is moderate

rounded snout

Canthus rostalis is thick and the loreal region is concave

Nostrils are nearer to the snout than to the eyes

Inter-orbital space is wider than the upper eyelid width

Tympanum is distinct and about two-thirds of the eye diameter

Fingertips and toe ends are developed in to large disks

Webbing on the fingers and toes fully developed

Least concerned (LC)

4.2 Quantitative assessment of anuran species

the total of 92559 anurans were encountered during study period from October, 2012 to September, 2015

Figure 4.1: Mean number of anurans recorded per survey in sampling sites

​

Figure 4.2: Species population and richness of anurans

​

Figure 4.3: Family wise population of anuran species in Kolhapur district

​

Figure 4.4: Species wise anuran population in Kolhapur district

​

Figure 4.5: Family wise population of anuran species in Chandgad site

Figure 4.6: Relative species abundance of anurans at Chandgad site

Figure 4.7: Family wise population of anuran species in Ajara site

Figure 4.8: Relative species abundance of anurans at Ajara site

Figure 4.9: Family wise population of anuran species in Bhudaragd site

Figure 4.10: Relative species abundance of anurans at Bhudargad site

Figure 4.11: Family wise population of anurans in Radhanagari site

​

Figure 4.12: Relative species abundance of anurans at Radhanagari site

​

Figure 4.13: Family wise population of anuran species in Gaganbawada site

Figure 4.14: Relative species abundance of anurans at Gaganbawada site

Figure 4.15: Family wise population of anuran species in Shahuwadi site

Figure 4.16: Relative species abundance of anurans at Shahuwadi site

Figure 4.17: Family wise population of anuran species in Panhala site

Figure 4.18: Relative species abundance of anurans at Panhala site

Figure 4.19: Family wise population of anuran species in Karvir site

Figure 4.20: Relative species abundance of anurans at Karvir site

Figure 4.21: Family wise population of anuran species in Gadhinglaj site

Figure 4.22: Relative species abundance of anurans at Gadhinglaj site

Figure 4.23: Family wise population of anuran species in Kagal site

Figure 4.24: Relative species abundance of anurans at Kagal site

Figure 4.25: Family wise population of anuran species in Hatkanangale site

Figure 4.26: Relative species abundance of anurans at Hatkanangale site

Figure 4.27: Family wise population of anuran species in Shirol site

Figure 4.28: Relative species abundance of anurans at Shirol site

Figure 4.29: Simpson index of diversity (1-D) of all sampling sites

Figure 4.30: Shannon ‘H’ index of sampling sites

Figure 4.31: Locality rarefaction curve

Figure 4.32: Cluster resulted from Bray-Curtis similarities of species abundance data of study sites

Figure 4.33: Mean (±SD) anurans encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

Seasonal Variation

Figure 4.34: Mean (±SD) of Duttaphrynus melanostictus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.35: Mean (±SD) of Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.36: Mean (±SD) of Fejervarya cf. brevipalmata encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.37: Mean (±SD) of Fejervarya rufescens encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.38: Mean (±SD) of Fejervarya syhandrensis encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.39: Mean (±SD) of Hoplobatrachus tigerinus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.40: Mean (±SD) of Fejervarya gomantaki encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.41: Mean (±SD) of Sphaerotheca breviceps encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.42: Mean (±SD) of Sphaerotheca cf. dobsonii encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.43: Mean (±SD) of Microhyla ornata encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.44: Mean (±SD) of Uperodon mormorata encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.45: Mean (±SD) of Uperodon globulosus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.46: Mean (±SD) of Uperodon systoma encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.47: Mean (±SD) of Nyctibatrachus danieli encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.48: Mean (±SD) of Nyctibatrachus petraeus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.49: Mean (±SD) of Clinotarsus curtipes encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.50: Mean (±SD) of Hydrophylax malabaricus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.51: Mean (±SD) of Indosylvirana cf. montana encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.52: Mean (±SD) of Indirana beddomii encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.53: Mean (±SD) of Indirana leithii encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.54: Mean (±SD) of Polypedates maculatus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.55: Mean (±SD) of Pseudophilautus amboli encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

Figure 4.56: Mean (±SD) of Raorchestes bombayensis encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.57: Mean (±SD) of Raorchestes ghatei encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

Figure 4.58: Mean (±SD) of Rhacophorus malabaricus encountered in each season during study period (Oct. 2012 to Sept. 2015)

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 4.59: Relation of number of individuals per survey with Temperature and Humidity

Figure 4.60: Relation between average rainfall and average individuals in each season

​

Discussion�5.1 Richness of anuran species in Kolhapur district�

• Study revealed that the Kolhapur district has rich anuran diversity and represents 7.21% of known anuran species from India
• Among the seven families, family Dicroglossidae (eight species) dominates over other families when considered number of species in each family as well as population (Fig. 4.3). In India, family Dicroglossidae dominates to other families having most number of species (Dinesh et al., 2015a). Abraham et al., (2000), Gururaja (2001), Vyas (2004), Das (2008) and Das et al. (2009) found that, Dicroglossidae family is dominating throughout India
• Certain parts of Western Ghats because of evergreen and semi evergreen forest which is ideal habitat for Rhacophorid species (Jobin and Nameer, 2012). As our study area is largely confined with Northern Western Ghats and surrounding area, family Rhacophoridae (5 species) gain suitable environment for their occurrence hence they represent second most abundant family

Discussion

• Although the species number and abundance are low in Nyctibatrahidae, Ranidae and Ranixalidae, these families are with most number of endemic species to Western Ghats for instance Indirana beddomii, Indirana leithii, Nyctibatrachus danieli Indosylvirana cf. montana, Nyctibatrachus petreaus and Clinotarsus curtipes (Nair et al., 2011).
• The families Dicroglossidae, Microhylidae (four species) and Rhacophoridae, even though, they have more than 65% of species richness and abundance but less than 50% endemics.
• The Bufonidae family has only one species, which represents 4% of total anurans. While considering India, family Bufonidae representing only 7% species (Boulenger, 1888; Das, 1994; Jena et al., 2013; Dinesh et al., 2015a).

Discussion

• Although the species number and abundance are low in Nyctibatrahidae, Ranidae and Ranixalidae, these families are with most number of endemic species to Western Ghats for instance Indirana beddomii, Indirana leithii, Nyctibatrachus danieli Indosylvirana cf. montana, Nyctibatrachus petreaus and Clinotarsus curtipes (Nair et al., 2011).
• The families Dicroglossidae, Microhylidae (four species) and Rhacophoridae, even though, they have more than 65% of species richness and abundance but less than 50% endemics.
• The Bufonidae family has only one species, which represents 4% of total anurans. While considering India, family Bufonidae representing only 7% species (Boulenger, 1888; Das, 1994; Jena et al., 2013; Dinesh et al., 2015a).

Discussion� 5.2 Comprehensive checklist anuran species�

• Family: Bufonidae

1. Common Indian Toad, Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799)

• Family: Dicroglossidae

2. Skittering Frog, Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799)

3. Short Webbed Frog, Fejervarya cf. brevipalmata (Peters, 1871)

4. Goan Fejervarya, Fejervarya gomantaki (Dinesh et al, 2015)

5. Reddish Burrowing Frog, Fejervarya rufescens (Jerdon, 1853)

6. Long Legged Cricket Frog, Fejeravarya syhadrensis (Annandale, 1919)

7. Indian Bull Frog, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1802)

8. Indian Burrowing Frog, Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799)

9. Dobson's Burrowing Frog, Sphaerotheca cf. dobsonii (Boulenger, 1892)

• Family: Microhylidae

10. Ornate Narrow Mouthed Frog, Microhyla ornata (Dumeril and Bibron, 1841)

11. Indian Baloon Frog, Uperodon globulosus (Gunther, 1864)

12. Indian Dot Frog, Uperodon mormorata (Rao, 1937)

13. Indistinct Frog, Uperodon systoma (Schneider, 1799)

 Family: Nyctibatrachidae

14. Daniel's Night Frog, Nyctibatrachus danieli (Biju et al., 2011)

15. Castle Rock Night Frog, Nyctibatrachus petraeus (Das and Kunte, 2005)

• Family: Ranidae

16. Bicoloured Frog, Clinotarsus curtipes (Jerdon, 1853)

17 Fungoid Frog, Hydrophylax malabaricus (Tschudi, 1843)

18. Montane Golden Backed Frog, Indosylvirana cf. montana (Rao, 1922)

• Family: Ranixalidae

19. Beddome's Leaping Frog, Indirana beddomii (Gunther, 1876)

20. Leith's Leaping Frog, Indirana leithii (Boulenger, 1888)

• Family: Rhacophoridae

21. Chunam Tree Frog, Polypedates maculatus (Gray, 1830)

22. Amboli Bush Frog, Pseudophilautus amboli (Biju and Bossuyt, 2009)

23. Bombay Bush Frog, Raorchestes bombayensis (Annandale, 1919)

24. Ghate's Bush Frog, Raorchestes ghatei (Padhye et al., 2013)

25. Malabar Gliding Frog, Rhacophorus malabaricus (Jerdon, 1870)

Discussion� 5.2 Comprehensive checklist anuran species�

• Since, a number researchers were focused on this area for the survey the amphibians (Rao, 1922, Daniel, 1962),
• Daniel (1974) has prepared the first checklist of 22 amphibians, among which 20 species of anurans and 2 species of caecilians were mentioned, which was published in Maharashtra state Gazetteer.
• In year 1976 Yazdani and Mahabal reported 11 species of amphibians from Pune and Ravichandran and Pillai (1990) worked on the amphibian collection at the Western Regional Station, Zoological Survey of India, Pune and raised the amphibian species from 22 to 29.
• Sekar (1999) has prepared the checklist of 34 amphibians, among them 32 species of anurans were mentioned.
• Padhye and Ghate, (2002) reported 43 species of amphibians, among them 41 species of anurans were reported from Maharashtra state

Discussion�5.3 Qualitative and Quantitative assessment of anuran species�

• High diversity of animals is mainly depending upon the quality of habitat in which they occur (Myers et al., 2000).
• The anurans species primarily prefer the habitat with relative high humidity, moderate temperature as well as high rainfall locations (Daniels, 2005; Wells, 2007).
• Among the twelve sites were selected study in the district, Gaganbawada site harbours maximum anuran species diversity with evenly distributed species (Simpson index of diversity = 0.942; Shannon ‘H’ index= 2.94)
• Radhanagri site has maximum number of species (22 species) as well as individuals, even it is comparatively less diverse (Simpson index of diversity = 0.915; Shannon ‘H’ index = 2.81)
• The sites of Karvir, Gadhinglaj, Kagal, Shirol and Hatkanangale were relatively with high human population, most of the land is used for house constructions and remaining use as agricultural land, this resulted in low biodiversity (Simpson index of biodiversity ≅ 0.89; Shannon ‘H’ index ≅ 2.3).
• Hatkanangale site showed lowest anurans diversity as compare to species richness as well as population

Discussion�5.3 Qualitative and Quantitative assessment of anuran species�

• Out of 25 species, the E. cyanophlyctis, R. bombayensis, F. syhandrensis H. tigerinus and D. melanostictus were found most abundant and comparatively similar population throughout the year

These are common species and widely distributed in India except R. bombayensis (Das and Dutta, 1998; Daniels, 2005; Frost et al., 2006; Vasudevan, 2006; Katwate et al., 2013).

• S. cf. dobsonii, U. systoma, N. petraeus and R. malabaricus were less frequently observed and their distribution was erratic. Above-mentioned species were found only one or two places depending upon their suitable environment

According to Kirtisinghe (1957), U. systoma species has been foundin southern and eastern India and some isolated population in Gujarat. The present results clearly suggest that, U. systoma species is new record from Kolhapur district.

Discussion�5.3 Qualitative and Quantitative assessment of anuran species�

• A newly described species F. gomantaki from Goa and surrounding region (Dinesh et al., 2015) was also observed in study area and showed nearly 3% population
• Same pattern was observed for the R. ghatei, which was, described from Satara district and according to Padhye et al. (2013) this species occurs in Northern Western Ghats from Karad region.
• According to Biju, et al. (2004) U. mormorata is found in only in three localities, Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary (Goa); Sakleshpur, Hassan District (Karnataka) and Amboli (Maharashtra) with trend decreasing of population. However, we observed this species in variety of places from semi evergreen forests to agricultural field and even near human habitation with nearly moderate population (was also observed far from the above stated localities in Patan, Satara (unpublished data) and Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary, Raigad (Katwate, et al., 2013) with low abundance)

​

Discussion�5.3 Qualitative and Quantitative assessment of anuran species�

• N. danieli is only occurring in Humbarli village, Koyna and Amboli of Maharashtra (Biju et al., 2011), our results show near about 3% population is confined with western region of study area except Chandgad site
• Biju (2004) and Biju et al. (2004) assessed P. amboli and C. curtipes for IUCN. Their results about the distribution are stated that both species have northern most limit is up to Amboli, Maharashtra. We observe both the species in our study area, even the critically endangered P. amboli was found throughout the western region of study area and its population was comparatively moderate
• Indosylvirana montana was described by Rao, (1922) but later considered as synonym for I. temporalis by Dutta, (1997)

We found Indosylvirana closely related with this species widely occurred throughout western region of study area with high population

Discussion� 5.4 Seasonal variation of anuran species�

• The anurans are poikilotherms and ectotherms therefore for avoiding extreme environmental conditions they are hibernate and aestivate during both winter and summer seasons
• anuran species are active during monsoon due to suitable environmental condition for breeding and reproduction (Biju and Bossuyt, 2003; Daniels, 2005; Wells, 2007). The present results also supporting the above statement and observed that, many of the anuran species from Kolhapur district are confined with monsoon season only for their breeding activities

F.cf. brevipalmata, F. gomantaki, F. rufescens, F. syhandrensis, S. breviceps, S. cf. dobsonii, M. ornata, U. mormorata, U. globulosus, N. petraeus, H. malabaricus, P. maculatus, P. amboli, R. Malabaricus

some species like D. melanostictus, E. cyanophlyctis and H. tigerinus were observed throughout year, this might be due to they are acquainted with a wide range of habitats and climatic conditions

In contrast, Clinotarsus curtipes species showed maximum population in late summer as juveniles of this species emerged and become mature (Wemmer et al., 1996; Hiragond et al., 2001; Daniel 2002; Daniels 2005; Wells 2007).

​

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• Amphibians are more susceptible to alterations in the environment, therefore might serve as ‘harbinger’ of environmental degradation (Carrol, 1999).
• They are first prone to environmental degradation because of highly permeable skin that is vulnerable to various biological and chemical agents, and their dependence on aquatic and moist places (Vitt, et al., 1990; Murphy et al., 2000).
• Anthropogenic interference, habitat loss, climate change, pollution and introduction of invasive species continue to threaten the wildlife (Mader 1984)
• Most of the anurans species from Kolhapur district such as S. cf. dobsonii, U. systoma, N. petraeus, C. curtipes, R. ghatei were showed patchy distribution

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• The species which breeds in lentic habitat are more vulnerable to environmental degradation or change because of their dependency on water (Young et al., 2004), In the present study many dead individuals of C. curtipes were observed due to prolonged summer and unavailability of aquatic habitat for breeding in 2014

​

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• The effect of sudden increase in temperature was observed on Raorchestes bombayensis, and found that many of individuals were died due to impact of raised temperature

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• many species did not get their suitable partners even after showering, some spatiotemporally breeding species such as R. bombayensis and M. ornata showed interspecies amplexus

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Yadav and Yankanchi, (2014), Herpetological Review

​

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• Mining activities are carried out in some parts of the study area for example Shahuwadi, Radhanagari, Bhudargad and Chandagd lead detrimental effects on environment. Mining activities possesses major threats for instance dust pollution, vegetation loss, forest fragmentation and biodiversity loss and all directs negative impact on water resources

this area is ideal habitat for threatened species like Pseudophilautus amboli, R. bombayensis, Uperodon mormorata

• The noise generated by blasting and machinery is deleteriously affecting calls of certain anuran species. Generally, anuran calling efforts increase chances of reproduction success (Halliday, 1983; Sullivan 1983; Arak 1988; Wells and Schwartz, 1984; Robertson, 1986: Klump and Gerhardt, 1987; Dyson et al., 1992 and Witte et al., 2001). Similarly, many researchers were even found the negative effects of vehicular traffic and loud noise on communication of frogs (Sun and Narins, 2004; Lengagne, 2008)

Discussion� 5.5 Threats and conservation of anuran species �

• The strategies for conservation of amphibians are mainly depending upon the conservation of their habitats, especially these slimy creatures are the excellent bio-monitors of environmental fluctuations therefore they need our attention on conservation.

Summary and Conclusion�

• Kolhapur district anuran survey during study period from October, 2012 to September, 2015 revealed that, the total of 25 anurans were observed and are belonging to 16 genera and 7 families that are Bufonidae, Dicroglossidae, Microhylidae, Nyctibatrachidae, Ranidae, Ranixalidae and Rhacophoridae.

​

• It is interesting to note that, in Kolhapur district Fejervarya gomantaki, Uperodon systoma, Nyctibatrachus danieli, Indosylvirana cf. montana, and Raorchestes ghatei species are new records. In addition, Clinotarsus curtipes and Rhacophorus malabaricus species have been extended their ranges up to 50 kilometres north when compared to previous records.

​

• In the study area, family Dicroglossidae dominates with species richness (8 species) as well as population and followed by Rhacophoridae (5 species), Ranidae (3 species). Moreover, the family Nyctibatrachidae showed less population with two species.

​

​

Summary and Conclusion�

• The district has divided into three geographical strips, such as the western region with hilly and rugged terrain, the central region and the eastern plateau region. In western region maximum 22 species, central region as well as eastern plateau region 11 species were observed.

​

• In Kolhapur district there are 12 tehsils and for survey each tehsil considered as one site, among all, Radhanagari site has maximum species richness with 22 species as well as population. It is followed by Chandgad, Bhudargad and Gaganbawada with one species less (21). Interestingly low rainfall regions particularly Shirol and Hatkanangale site showed minimum species richness (10-11) with population.

​

• In Radhanagari site, species richness as well as population is high, although it demonstrated less biodiversity (Simpson index of diversity = 0.915) due to dominance of one species, Clinotarsus curtipes.

Summary and Conclusion�

• According to Bray-Curtis similarities of species abundance, there are clearly two clusters are formed, wherein, first cluster with sites of western region and second cluster with sites of central region and eastern plateau region. Besides, most similar sites are formed close clusters depicting similarities in biodiversity, for instance Bhudargad and Shahuwadi, Ajara and Panhala, as well as Hatkanangale and Shirol.

​

• Many of the species were observed in monsoon and winter seasons, whereas, some exceptional species were observed more in winter and summer than monsoon, these are Indosylvirana cf. montana, Clinotarsus curtipes, Indirana beddomii and Indirana leithii.

​

• In Kolhapur district Western Ghats area, bauxite mining is going on in several places since two decades. In fact, this activity leads to fragmentation of natural anuran habitats.

Bibliography

• Abraham, A.K., Alexander Pyron, R.A., Ansil B. R., Zachariah, A. and Zachariah, A. (2013). Two novel genera and one new species of treefrog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) highlight cryptic diversity in the Western Ghats of India. Zootaxa 3640 (2): 177–189.
• Abraham, R. K., Mathew, J. K., Cyriac, V. P., Zachariah, A., Raju, D. V. and Zachariaha, A. A novel third species of the Western Ghats endemic genus Ghatixalus (Anura: Rhacophoridae), with description of its tadpole. Zootaxa 4048 (1): 101–113.
• Abraham, S. K., Easa, P. S., Jahas, S. A. S. and Shaji, C. P. (2000). Amphibian fauna of Wayanad, Kerala. Zoos’ Print Journal 16(4): 457 – 461.
• Achard, F., H., Eva, H.J., Stibig, P., Mayaux, J., Gallego, T., Richards, and Malingreau, J.P. (2002). Determination of deforestation rates of the world’s humid tropical forests. Science 297:999–1002.
• Adnagulov, E. V., Tarasov, I. G. and Gorobeiko, V. V. (2000). New data on Amphibians and Reptiles distribution in the Russian Far East. Journal of Russian Herpetology 7 (2): 139 – 154.
• Ajith Kumar, Chellam, R., Choudhury, B.C., Mudappa, D., Vasudevan, K., Ishwar, N.M., and Noon, B. (2002). Impact of rainforest fragmentation on small mammals and herpetofauna in the Western Ghats, south India. Final Report pp. 159.
• Allentoft, M.E., and O’Brien, J. (2010). Global amphibian declines, loss of genetic diversity and fitness: A review. Diversity 2:47–71.
• Allmon, W. D. (1991). A plot study of forest floor litter frogs, Central Amazon, Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 7: 503 – 522.
• Almeria, M. L. and Nuneza, O. M. (2013). Amphibian diversity and endemism in the swamp forests of Agusan Marsh, Agusan del Sur, Philippines. Almeria and Nuneza 5(1):30-48.
• Ananjeva, N. B., Borkin, L. J., Darevsky, I. S. and Orlov, N. L. (1988). Dictionary of Amphibians and Reptiles in Five Languages. Amphibians and Reptiles.  Moscow: Russky Yazyk Publishers.
• Andrews, M. I., George, S. and Joseph, J. (2005). A survey of the amphibian fauna of Kerela-Distribution and status. Zoos’ Print Journal 20 (1): 1723 – 1735.
• Annandale, N. (1919). The fauna of certain small streams in the Bombay Presidency: Some frogs from streams in the Bombay Presidency. Records of the Indian Museum 16: 109–161.

Bibliography

• Annemarie Ohler, Muhammad Sharif Khan, Peter Paul van Dijk, Guinevere Wogan, Sushil Dutta, Robert Inger, Tej Kumar Shrestha, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi, Anslem de Silva. (2004). Sphaerotheca breviceps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58755A11837725. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58755A11837725.en.
• Ao, J. M., Bordoloi, S. and Ohler, A. (2003). Amphibian Fauna of Nagaland with nineteen new records from the state including five new records for India. Zoo’s Print Journal 18 (6): 117 – 125.
• Arak, A. (1988). Female mate selection in the natterjack toad: active choice or passive attraction? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22: 317–327.
• Aravind, N.A. and Gururaja, K.V. (2011). Amphibians of the Western Ghats. Theme paper, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India pp. 29.
• Arjunan, M., Puyravaud, J.-Ph. and Davidar, P. (2005). The impact of resource collection by local communities on the dry forests of the Kalakad–Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Tropical Ecology 46 (2005):135–144.
• Arroyo-Lambaer, D., Hazel Chapman, H., Hale, M. and Blackburn, D. (2013). Conserving amphibian diversity gene flow studies in a West African Biodiversity hotspot Mambilla Plateau, Nigeria. Nigerian Mountain Forest Project pp.1.
• Arzabe, C. (1999). Reproductive activity patterns of anurans in two different altitudinal sites within the Brazilian Caatinga. Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 16:851–864.
• Azevedo-Ramos, C., and Galatti. U. (2002). Patterns of amphibian diversity in Brazilian Amazonia: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 103:103–111.
• Baldauf, R. J. (1952). Climatic factors influencing the breeding migration of the spotted salamander, Ambystoma maculatum (Shaw). Copeia 1952:178–181.
• Bauer, A. M. (1998). South Asian herpetological specimens of historical note in the Zoological Museum, Berlin. Hamadryad. Madras 23: 133–149.
• Bauer, A. M., Günther, R. and Klipfel, M. (1995). Synopsis of taxa. Bauer, A. M., R. Günther, and M. Klipfel eds., Herpetological Contributions of W.C.H. Peters (1815–1883): 39–81. Oxford, Ohio, Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.
• Bennett, A.F. (1978). Activity metabolism in the lower vertebrates. Annual Review of Physiology 40:447–469.
• Bertoluci, J. (1998). Annual patterns of breeding activity in Atlantic rainforest anurans. Journal of Herpetology 32:607–611.
• Bertoluci, J., and Rodrigues, M. T. (2002). Seasonal patterns of breeding activity of Atlantic rainforest anurans at Boraceia, southeastern Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 23:161–167.

Bibliography

• (2002). Seasonal patterns of breeding activity of Atlantic rainforest anurans at Boraceia, southeastern Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 23:161–167.
• Biju, S. D. (2001). A synopsis of the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Publication. Indian Society for Conservation Biology 1: 1–24.
• Biju, S. D. (2001). A synopsis of the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Publication. Indian Society for Conservation Biology 1: 1–24.
• Biju, S. D., Garg, S., Gururaja, K. V., Shouche, Y. and Walujkar, S. A. (2014) DNA barcoding reveals unprecedented diversity in Dancing Frogs of India (Micrixalidae, Micrixalus): a taxonomic revision with description of 14 new species. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Science) 43(1): 37-123.
• Biju, S.D. and Bossuyt, F. (2009). Systematics and phylogeny of Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Anura,Rhacophoridae) in the Western Ghats of India, with descriptions of 12 new species. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 155: 374-444.
• Biju, S.D. and Dutta, S. (2009). Zakerana brevipalmata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T58268A11759262. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58268A11759262.en
• Biju, S.D., Dutta, S. and Padhye, A. (2009). Zakerana rufescens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009:e.T58288A11751652. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58288A11751652.en.
• Biju, S.D., Bocxlaer, I.V., Mahony, S., Dinesh, K.P., Radhakrishnan, C., Anil, Z., Giri, V. and Bossuyt. F. (2011). A taxonomic review of the Night Frog genus Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western Ghats, India (Anura: Nyctibatrachidae) with description of twelve new species. Zootaxa 3029:1-96
• Biju, S.D., Gajanan Dasaramji Bhuddhe, Sushil Dutta, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Vijayakumar, S.P. (2004a). Ramanella mormorata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004:e.T57987A11702179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T57987A11702179.en
• Biju, S.D., Sonali, G., Mahony, S., Wijayathilaka, N., Senevirathne, G. and Meegaskumbura, M. (2014b). DNA barcoding, phylogeny and systematics of Golden-backed frogs (Hylarana, Ranidae) of the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot, with the description of seven new species. Contributions to Zoology. 83(4) 269-335.
• Biju, S.D., Sushil Dutta, Anand Padhye, Robert Inger. (2004b). Indirana leithii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58311A11763222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58311A11763222.en.
• Biju, S.D., Sushil Dutta, Ravichandran, M.S. (2004c). Indirana beddomii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58307A11761967. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58307A11761967.en.

​

Bibliography

• (2002). Seasonal patterns of breeding activity of Atlantic rainforest anurans at Boraceia, southeastern Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 23:161–167.
• Biju, S. D. (2001). A synopsis of the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Publication. Indian Society for Conservation Biology 1: 1–24.
• Biju, S. D. (2001). A synopsis of the frog fauna of the Western Ghats, India. Occasional Publication. Indian Society for Conservation Biology 1: 1–24.
• Biju, S. D., Garg, S., Gururaja, K. V., Shouche, Y. and Walujkar, S. A. (2014) DNA barcoding reveals unprecedented diversity in Dancing Frogs of India (Micrixalidae, Micrixalus): a taxonomic revision with description of 14 new species. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Science) 43(1): 37-123.
• Biju, S.D. and Bossuyt, F. (2009). Systematics and phylogeny of Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Anura,Rhacophoridae) in the Western Ghats of India, with descriptions of 12 new species. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 155: 374-444.
• Biju, S.D. and Dutta, S. (2009). Zakerana brevipalmata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T58268A11759262. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58268A11759262.en
• Biju, S.D., Dutta, S. and Padhye, A. (2009). Zakerana rufescens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009:e.T58288A11751652. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58288A11751652.en.
• Biju, S.D., Bocxlaer, I.V., Mahony, S., Dinesh, K.P., Radhakrishnan, C., Anil, Z., Giri, V. and Bossuyt. F. (2011). A taxonomic review of the Night Frog genus Nyctibatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western Ghats, India (Anura: Nyctibatrachidae) with description of twelve new species. Zootaxa 3029:1-96
• Biju, S.D., Gajanan Dasaramji Bhuddhe, Sushil Dutta, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Chelmala Srinivasulu, Vijayakumar, S.P. (2004a). Ramanella mormorata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004:e.T57987A11702179. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T57987A11702179.en
• Biju, S.D., Sonali, G., Mahony, S., Wijayathilaka, N., Senevirathne, G. and Meegaskumbura, M. (2014b). DNA barcoding, phylogeny and systematics of Golden-backed frogs (Hylarana, Ranidae) of the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity hotspot, with the description of seven new species. Contributions to Zoology. 83(4) 269-335.
• Biju, S.D., Sushil Dutta, Anand Padhye, Robert Inger. (2004b). Indirana leithii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58311A11763222. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58311A11763222.en.
• Biju, S.D., Sushil Dutta, Ravichandran, M.S. (2004c). Indirana beddomii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58307A11761967. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58307A11761967.en.
• Biju, S.D., Sushil Dutta, Robert Inger. (2004d). Hylarana malabarica. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58657A11821459. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58657A11821459.en.
• Biswas, S. and Pawar, S. S. (2006). Phylogenetic tests of distribution patterns in South Asia: towards an integrative approach. Journal of Biosciences 31(1): 95 – 113.
• Blanchard, F. N., Gilreath, M. R. and Blanchard, F. C. (1979). The eastern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii) in northern Michigan (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). Journal of Herpetology 13:377–402.
• Blaustein, A.R., Wake, D.B. and Sousa, W.P. (1994). Amphibians decline: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8(1):60-71.

​

Bibliography

• Biswas, S. and Pawar, S. S. (2006). Phylogenetic tests of distribution patterns in South Asia: towards an integrative approach. Journal of Biosciences 31(1): 95 – 113.
• Blanchard, F. N., Gilreath, M. R. and Blanchard, F. C. (1979). The eastern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus edwardsii) in northern Michigan (Reptilia, Serpentes, Colubridae). Journal of Herpetology 13:377–402.
• Blaustein, A.R., Wake, D.B. and Sousa, W.P. (1994). Amphibians decline: Judging stability, persistence, and susceptibility of populations to local and global extinctions. Conservation Biology 8(1):60-71.
• Bopage, M. M., Wewalwala, K., Krvavac, M., Jovanovic, O., Safarek, G. and Pushpamal, V. (2011). Species diversity and threat status of amphibians in the Kanneliya Forest, lowland Sri Lanka. Salamandra 47(3): 173–177.
• Bossuyt, F. and Dubois, A. (2001). A review of the frog genus Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Anura, Ranidae, Rhacophorinae). Zeylanica 6: 1-112.
• Both, C., Madalozzo, B., Lingnau, R., Grant, T. (2014). Amphibian richness patterns in Atlantic Forest areas invaded by American bullfrogs. Australian Ecology 39: 864–874.
• Boulenger, G. A. (1882). Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the Collection of the British Museum. Second Edition.  London: Taylor and Francis.
• Boulenger, G. A. (1888). Description of two Indian species of Rana. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6th ser. 2:506-508.
• Boulenger, G. A. (1905). Description of a frog from Ceylon, hitherto confounded with Rana limnocharis. Spolia Zeylanica. Colombo 2: 73–74.
• Boulenger, G.A. (1891). Description of a new species obtained by Mr. H,S.Fergusson in Travancore, Southern India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 6:450.
• Boulenger, G.A. (1904). Description of three new frogs from South India & Ceylon. Journal of Bombay Natural History Society 15:450.
• Boulenger, G.A. (1920). A monograph of the South Asian, Papuan, Melanesian and Australian frogs of the genus Rana. Records of Indian Museum 20:1-226.
• Boulenger, G.A., (1890). The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Reptilia and Batrachia. London XVIH + 541pp

​

Bibliography

• Brook, B. W., Sodhi, N. S. and Ng, P. K. L. (2003). Catastrophic extinctions follow deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424:420–423.
• Brooks, T.M., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rylands, A.B., Konstant, W.R., Flick, P., Pilgrim, J., Oldfield, S., Magin, G., Hilton-Taylor, C. (2002). Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923.
• Cano, P., Leynaud, G. (2010). Effects of fire and cattle grazing on amphibians and lizards in northeastern Argentina (Humid Chaco). European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 411–420.
• Carroll, D. M. (1999). Swampwalker’s journal. A wetlands year. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Chanda, S. K. (1988). Amphibian (Anura) species and their altitudinal distribution in Northeast India. Journal of Bombay Natural History Soceity 87: 157 – 158.
• Chanda, S. K. (1994). Anuran (Amphibia) fauna of north east India. Memoirs of the Zoological Survey of India 18 (2): 1 – 143.
• Cope, E. D. (1865). Sketch of die primary groups of Batrachia: Salientia. Natural History Review 1865:97-120.
• Crawford, A.J., Cruz, C., Griffith, E., Ross, H., Ibáñez, R, Lips, K.R, Driskell, A.C., Bermingham, E. and Crump, P. (2013). DNA barcoding applied to ex situ tropical amphibian conservation program reveals cryptic diversity in captive populations. Molecular Ecology Resources 13 (6): 1005–1018.
• Crosswhite, D. L., Fox, S. F. and Thill, R. E. (1999). Comparison of Methods for Monitoring Reptiles and Amphibians in Upland Forests of the Ouachita Mountains. Prceedings of the Oklahama Academy of Science 79: 45 – 50.
• Daniel, J. C. (1963). Field guide to the amphibians of western India. Part 1. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 60: 415–438.
• Daniels, R.J.R. (1992). Geographical distribution patterns of amphibians in the Western Ghats, India. Journal of Biogeography, 19:521-529.
• Daniels, R.J.R. (2003): Impact of tea cultivation on anurans in the Western Ghats. Current Science 85:1415-1422.
• Daniels, R.J.R. 2005.Amphibians of peninsular India. Universities Press, Hyderabad, pp. 268

Bibliography

• Das, A. (2008). Diversity and Distribution of Herpetofauna and Evaluation of their Conservation Status in the Barail Hill Range (including the Barail Wildlife Sanctuary) Assam, Northeast India. Final Report: Barail Herpetofauna Project, Aaranyak pp.94.
• Das, A., Chetia, M., Dutta, S.K. and Sengupta, S. 2013. A new species of Duttaphrynus (Anura : Bufonidae) from Northeast India. Zootaxa 3646 (4): 336–348.
• Das, A., Saikia, U., Murthy, B. H. C. K., Dey, S. and Dutta, S. K. (2009). A herpetofaunal inventory of Barail Wildlife Sanctuary and adjacent regions, Assam, north- eastern India. Hamadryad 34(1): 117 – 134.
• Das, I. (1994). A checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Journal of the Andaman Science Association 10 (1 and 2): 44 – 49.
• Das, I. and Dutta, S. K. (1998). Checklist of the amphibians of India, with English common names. Hamadryad. Madras 23: 63–68.
• Das, S. K. and Rathore, N. S. (2004). Herpetofauna of Desert National Park, Rajasthan. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(9): 1626 – 1627.
• Das, S. K., Pandey, V. K. and Pardeshi, M. K. (2003). Notes on herpetofauna of Talchhapar Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Cobra 53: 13 – 16.
• Dayton, G. H. and Fitzgerald, L. A. (2006). Habitat suitability models for desert amphibians. Biological Conservation 132:40 –49.
• Deleva,S. R., Mollov, I. A., Fidanova, V. M. and Mechev, A. K. (2014). Species Diversity and Distribution of Amphibians and Reptiles in Nature Park “Sinite Kamani” in Stara Planina Mt. (Bulgaria). Ecologia balkanica 6(2): 83-92.
• Dinarzarde C. R., Taylor, H., Ablett, J., Preece, R.C., Aravind, N.A., and Naggs, F. (2014). A Systematic Revision of the Land Snails of the Western Ghats of India. Tropical Natural History, Supplement 4:1-294.
• Dinesh, K. P., Vijayakumar, S.P., Channakeshavamurthy, B.H., Torsekar, V. R., Kulkarni, N. U. and Shanker, K. (2015). Systematic status of Fejervarya ((Amphibia, Anura, Dicroglossidae) from South and SE Asia with the description of a new species from the Western Ghats of Peninsular India. Zootaxa 3999 (1): 79–94
• Dole J.W.(1971). Dispersal of recently metamorphosed leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. Copeia 1971:221–228.

​

Bibliography

• Dubois, A. (1984). Note preliminaire sur le groupe de Rana limnocharis Gravenhorst, 1829 (Amphibiens, Anoures). Alytes. Paris 3: 143–159.
• Dubois, A., and A. Ohler. (1999). Asian and Oriental toads of the Bufo melanostictus, Bufo scaber and Bufo stejnegeri groups (Amphibia, Anura): a list of available and valid names and redescription of some name-bearing types. Journal of South Asian Natural History. Colombo 4: 133–180.
• Dubois, A., Ohler, A. and Biju, S. D. (2001). A new genus and species of Ranidae (Amphibia, Anura) from south-western India. Alytes 19(2-4): 53-79.
• Duellman, W. E. (1999). Patterns of Distribution of amphibians: A global perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore M. D. pp. 633.
• Duellman, W.E. and Trueb, L. (1994). Biology of Amphibians. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press pp 670.
• Dutta, S. K. (1997). Amphibians of India and Sri Lanka (Checklist and Bibliography).  Bhubaneswar, Orissa, India: Odyssey Publishing House.
• Dutta, S., Kumar Shrestha, T., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Khan, M.S. and Roy, D. (2008). Microhyla ornata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T57886A11686884. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T57886A11686884.en.
• Dyson, M.L., Passmore, N.I., Bishop, P.J., Henzi, S.P. (1992). Male behavior and correlates of mating success in a natural population of African Painted Reed frogs (Hyperolius marmoratus). Herpetologica 48 (2): 236–246.
• Eterovick, P. C. (2003). Distribution of anuran species among montane streams in southeastern Brazil. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19: 219 – 228.
• Fahrig, L. and Rytwinski, T. (2009). Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology and Society 14(1): 21.
• Frost, D. R. (2015). Amphibian Species of the World:an Online Reference. Version 6.0 (11 November 2015) Electronic Database accessible at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/index.html. American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA.
• Frost, D. R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J., Bain, R., Haas, A., Haddad, C. F. B., de Sá, R. O., Donnellan, S. C., Raxworthy, C. J., Wilkinson, M., Channing, A., Campbell, J. A., Blotto, B. L., Moler, P., Drewes, R. C., Nussbaum, R. A., Lynch, J. D, Green, D. and Wheeler, W. C. (2006). The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 297:1–370.

Bibliography

• Gaitonde, N. and Giri, V. (2014). Primitive breeding in an ancient Indian frog genus Indirana. Current Science 107(1): 109–112.
• Garey, M. V. and Hartmann M. T. (2012). Anurans of Reserva Natural Salto Morato, municipality of Guaraqueçaba, State of Paraná, southern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 12(4): 137-145.
• Garrigues, J.P. (1999). Action anthropique sur la dynamique des formations vegetales au sud de 1’Inde (Ghats occidentaux, Etat Karnataka, District de Shimoga). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Claude Bernard, Lyon I, France.
• Gibbons, J. W., and Bennett, D. H. (1974).Determination of anuran terrestrial activity patterns by a drift fence method. Copeia 1974:236–243.
• Giri, V., Gower, D.J. and Wilkinson, M. (2004). A new species of Indotyphlus Taylor (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Caeciliidae) from the Western Ghats, India. Zootaxa 739: 1-19.
• Gittins, S.P. (1983). Diurnal activity of the common toad (Bufo bufo) during the breeding migration to a pond in mid-Wales. British Journal of Herpetology 6:292–294
• Glos, J. (2003). The amphibian fauna of the Kirindy dry forest in western Madagascar. Salamandra, Rheinbach 39(2): 75 – 90.
• Gower, D.J., Rajendran, A, Nussbaum, R.A. and Wilkinson, M. (2008). A new species of Uraeotyphlus (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Uraeotyphlidae) of the malabaricus group. Herpetologica 64:235-245.
• Gramapurohit, N.P., Gosavi, S.M. and Phuge, S.K. (2011). Unique courtship and spawning behaviour in the wrinkled frog, Nyctibatrachus humayuni. Amphibia-Reptilia 32: 333-339.
• Gray, J. E. (1830). Illustrations of Indian Zoology, Chiefly Selected from the Collection of Major-General Hardwicke, F.R.S. Volume 1. Part 1.  London: Treuttel, Wurtz, Treuttel, Jun. and Richter.
• Grelle, C. E., Alves, M. A. S., Bergallo, H. G., Geise, L., Rocha, C. F. D., Van Sluys, M. and Caramaschi. U. (2005). Prediction of threatened tetrapods based on the species-area relationship in Atlantic Forest, Brazilian Journal of Zoology, London 265:359–364.
• Griffin, O. (2010). Patterns of Diversity among Reptiles and Amphibians of The Mahamavo Region, Western Madagascar. University Of Bath Natural Sciences Final Year Undergraduate Dissertation pp-55.
• Griffiths, R. A. (1984). Seasonal behaviour and intrahabitat movements in an urban population of smooth newts, Triturus vulgaris (Amphibia: Salamandridae). Journal of Zoology, London 203:241–251.
• Guibé, J. (1950) "1948". Catalogue des Types d'Amphibiens du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.  Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

​

Bibliography

• Gunawardene, N.R., Daniels, A. E.D., Gunatilleke, I. A. U. N., Gunatilleke, C. V. S., Karunakaran, P. V., Geetha Nayak, K., Prasad, S., Puyravaud, P., Ramesh, B. R., Subramanian, K. A. and Vasanthy, G. (2007). A brief overview of the Western Ghats – Sri Lankan Biodiversity hotspot. Current Science 93: 1567- 1572.
• Gunther, A. (1864). The reptiles of British India. London Ray Society, xxvii+ 1-452: PL 1-26.
• Gupta, V., Kakodkar, N. and Kumar, D. (2008). Working Plan for The Forests of Kolhapur Forest Division Volume: I: Text (Part I & II). Government of Maharashtra pp. 238.
• Halliday, T.R. (1983). Do frogs and toads choose their mates? Nature 306: 226–227.
• Heltberg, R., Channing, T. C. and, Sekhar, N. U. (2000). ëFuelwood consumption and forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy substitution in rural Indiaí, Land Economics 76(2): 213-232.
• Hurlbert, S. H. (1969). The breeding migrations and interhabitat wandering of the vermillion-spotted newt, Notophthalmus viridescens (Rafinesque). Ecological Monographs 39:465–488.
• India's Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014). Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India pp. 142.
• Inger, R. F. (1999). Distribution of Amphibians in Southern Asia and adjacent Islands. In: Patterns of distribution of amphibians: A global perspective (Duellman, W. E. ed.). John Hopkin Univ. Press, Baltimore and London. 445 – 482.
• Inger, R. F. and Iskandar, D. T. (2005). A collection of amphibians from West Sumatra, with description of a new Megophrys (Amphibia: Anura). The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 53(1): 133 – 142.
• Inger, R. F. and Lian, T. F. (1996). Checklist of the frogs of Borneo. The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 44(2): 551 – 574.
• Inger, R. F. and Voris, H. K. (1993). A comparison of Amphibian communities through time and from place to place in Bornean forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 9: 409 – 433.
• Inger, R.F. (1994). Microhabitat description. in W.R. Heyer, M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek and M.S. Foster, editors. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Amphibians. Smithsonian Institution, USA 60-61.
• Inger, R.F., Shaffer, H.B., Koshy, M. and Bakde, R. (1987). Ecological structure of a herpetological assemblage in South India. Amphibia-Reptilia 8: 189-202.
• Iskandar, D.T. and Colijn E. (2000). Preliminary checklist of Southeast Asia and New Guinean Herpetfauna [ sic]. I. Amphibians. Truebia 31 :1–133.

​

Bibliography

• Jena, S.C., Palita, S.K., Mahapatra, M.K. (2013).Anurans of Bhitarkanika mangroves, Odisha, east coast of India. Check List 9(2): 400-404.
• Jenkins, M. (2003). Prospects for biodiversity. Science. 302:1175–1177.
• Jerdon, T. C. (1870). Notes on Indian herpetology. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1870: 66–85.
• Jobin, K.M. and Nameer, P.O. (2012). Diversity of rhacophorids (Amphibia: Anura) in Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Western Ghats, Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 4(13): 3205–3214.
• K.P. Dinesh, K. P. and Radhakrishnan, C. (2011). Checklist of amphibians of Western Ghats. FrogLog 16:15-20.
• Kamei, R.G., Gower, D.J., Wilkinson, M. and Biju, S.D. (2013). Systematics of the caecilian family Chikilidae (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) with the description of three new species of Chikila from northeast India. Zootaxa 3666: 401-435.
• Kamei, R.G., Wilkinson, M., Gower, D.J. and Biju, S.D. (2009) Three new species of striped Ichthyophis (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) from the northeast Indian states of Manipur and Nagaland. Zootaxa 2267:26-42.
• Kampen, V., (1923). The Amphibia o f the Indo- Australian Archipelago, Leiden pp. 304.
• Karunarathna DMSS, Abeywardena UTI, Asela MDC, Kekulandala LDCB. (2008). A preliminary survey of the Amphibian fauna in Nilgala Forest area and its vicinity, Monaragala District in Sri Lanka. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):264-272
• Katwate, U., Apte, D. and Raut, R. (2013). Diversity and distribution of anurans in Phansad Wildlife Sanctuary (PWS), northern Western Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(2): 3589–3602.
• Kelaart, E. F. (1853). Ceylon Amphibia. Prodromus Faunae Zeylanicae; Being Contributions to the Zoology of Ceylon. Part IV.Colombo, Sri Lanka 1: 189–197.
• Khan, M. S. (2004). Annotated checklist of amphibians and reptiles of Pakistan. Asiatic Herpetological Research 10: 191 – 201.
• Khatiwada, J. R., Wang, B., Ghimire, S., Vasudevan, K., Paudel, S., Jiang, J. (2015). A new species of the genus Tylototriton (Amphibia: Urodela: Salamandridae) from eastern Himalaya. Asian Herpetological Research 6: 245-256.
• Khonsue, W. and Thirakhupt, K. (2001). A checklist of the amphibians in Thailand. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University 1(1): 69 – 82.

Bibliography

• Klump, G.M., Gerhardt, H.C. (1987). Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray tree frogs. Nature 326: 286–288.
• Krishnamurthy, S. V. (2003). Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India. Environmental Conservation 30(3): 274 – 282.
• Kupfer, A., Nabhitabhata, J. and Himstedt, W. (2005). Life history of amphibians in the seasonal tropics: Habitat, community and population ecology of a caecilian (genus Ichthyophis). Journal of Zoology, London 266:237–247.
• Lengagne, T. (2008). Traffic noise affects communication behaviour in a breeding anuran, Hyla arborea. Biological conservation. 141:2023-2031.
• Lesbarreres, D., Fowler, M. S., Pagano, A. and Lode, T. (2010), Recovery of anuran community diversity following habitat replacement. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 148–156.
• Lim, K. K. P., and Lim, F. L. K. (1992). A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Singapore.  Singapore: Singapore Science Center pp. 160.
• Lips, K.R., (1998): Decline of a tropical montane amphibian fauna. Conservation Biology 12: 106–117.
• Loehle, C., Wigley, T. B., Shipman, P. A., Fox, S. F., Rutzmoser, S., Thill, R. E., and Melchiors, M. A. (2005). Herpetofaunal species richness responses to forest landscape structure in Arkansas. Forest Ecology and Management 209: 293–308.
• MacCulloch, R. D., Lathrop, A., Reynolds, R. P., Seńaris, J. C. and Schneider, G. E. (2007). Herpetofauna of Mount Roraima, Guiana Shield Region, Northeast South America. Herpetological Review 38(1): 24 – 30.
• Mader H. J. (1984). Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation. 29:81-96.
• Madhava, W., S. Botejue, and Jayantha Wattavidanage. (2012). Herpetofaunal diversity and distribution in Kalugala proposed forest reserve, Western province of Sri Lanka. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 5(2):65-80.
• Magalhães, F.M., Dantas, A.K.B.P., Brito, M.R., Medeiros, P.H.S., Oliveira, A.F., Pereira, T.C.S.O., Queiroz, M.H.C., Santana, D.J., São-Pedro, V.A., Silva, W.P. and Garda, A.A. (2013). Anurans from an Atlantic Forest-Caatinga ecotone in Rio Grande do Norte State, Brazil. Herpetology Notes 6: 1–10.
• Mandal, D. K. and Ray, S. (2006). An introduction to biodiversity. Eds: Mandal D.K.and Ray S. NewCentral Book Agency,Kolkata; pp.1-3.
• Marsh, D. M. (2000). Variable response to rainfall by breeding tungara frogs. Copeia 2000:1104–1108.

Bibliography

• Martins, A. R., Bruno, S. F. and Navegantes, A. Q. (2012). Herpetofauna of Núcleo Experimental de Iguaba Grande, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Biology 72( 3) 553-562.
• Mathew, R. and Sen, N. (2009). Studies on caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona: Ichthyophiidae) of North East India with description of three new species of Ichthyophis from Garo Hills, Meghalaya and additional information on Ichthyophis garoensis Pillai & Ravichandran, 1999. Rec Zool Survey India, Occasional Papar 309:1-56.
• Minton, S. A. (1966). A contribution to the herpetology of West Pakistan. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 134: 27–184.
• Mitchell, N. J. (2001). Males call more from wetter nests: effects of substrate water potential on reproductive behaviours of terrestrial toadlets. Proceeding of the Royal Society London B 268:87–93.
• Mittermeier, R. A., Robles Gil, P. and Mittermeier, C. G. (1999). Megadiversity: Earth’s Biologically Wealthiest Nations pp. 501.
• Mittermeier, R.A., Myers, N., Thomsen, J.B., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Olivieri, S. (1998). Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12: 516–520.
• Mittermeier, R.A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J., da Fonseca, G.A.B., (2004). Hotspots Revisited. CEMEX, Mexico City.
• Mittermeier, R.A., Robles-Gil, P., Mittermeier, C.G. (1999). Hotspots: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX/ Agrupaión Seirra Madre, Mexico City.
• Modak, N., Padhye, A. D. and Dahanukar, N. (2014). Delimiting the distribution range of Indirana leithii (Boulenger, 1888) (Anura: Ranixalidae), an endemic threatened anuran of the Western Ghats, based on molecular and morphological analysis. Zootaxa 3796: 62–80.
• Molur, S. (2008). South Asian amphibians: Taxonomy, diversity and conservation status, International Zoo Yearbook 42: 143-157.
• Murali, K.S. and Hegde, R. (1996). Sustainable harvest of NTFPs and forest management, In: M.P. Shive & R.B. Mathur (eds.), Management of Minor Forest Produce for Sustainability. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi. 219–223.
• Murphy, J. E., Phillips, C. A. and Beasley, V. R. (2000). Aspects of amphibian ecology. In Ecotoxicology of amphibians and reptiles,ed. D. W. Sparling, G. Linder, and C. A. Bishop, 141–178.
• Myers, N. (1988). Threatened biotas: Hotspots in tropical forests. The environmentalist 8: 118-208.

Bibliography

• Myers, N. (1990). The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis. The Environmentalist, 10 (4): 243-256.
• Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–858.
• Ningombam, B. and Bordoloi, S. (2007). Amphibian fauna of Loktak lake, Manipur, India with ten new records for the state. Zoos’ Print Journal 22(5): 2688 - 2690.
• Noss, R.F. (1992). Issues of scale in conservation biology In : fiedler, P.L. and Jain S.K. (Eds.) Conservation Biology. Champman and Hall, New York, NY pp. 239-250.
• Noss, R.F. (1996). Conservation of Biodiversity at the landscape scale. In : Szaro, R.C., and Johnston, D.W. (Eds.) Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford pp. 574-589.
• Ochoa-Ochoa L.M., Rodríguez P., Mora F., Flores-Villela O., Whittaker R.J. (2012) Climate change and amphibian diversity patterns in Mexico. Biological Conservation 150:94–102.
• Ohler, A. and Fretey, T. (2014). Going Back to Rovuma: The Frog Fauna of a Coastal Dry Forest, and a Checklist of the Amphibians of Mozambique. Journal of East African Natural History 103(2): 73–124.
• Oliver, L.A., Prendini, E., Kraus, F. and Raxworthy, C. J. (2015). Systematics and biogeography of the Hylarana frog (Anura: Ranidae) radiation across tropical Australasia, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 90:176-192.
• Packer, W. C. (1960). Bioclimatic influences on the breeding migration of Taricha rivularis. Ecology 41:509–517.
• Padhye, A. D. and Ghate, H. V. (2002). An overview of amphibian fauna of Maharashtra state. Zoos’ Print Journal 17(3): 735 – 740.
• Padhye, A.D. and Ghate, H.V. (2002). An overview of amphibian fauna of Maharashtra State. Zoos' Print Journal 17(3): 735-740.
• Padhye, A.D., Jadhav, A., Modak, N., Nameer, P.O. and Dahanukar, N. (2015). Hydrophylax bahuvistara, a new species of fungoid frog (Amphibia: Ranidae) from peninsular India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 7(11): 7744–7760.
• Padhye, A.D., Modak, N. and Dahanukar, N. (2014). Indirana chiravasi, a new species of Leaping Frog (Anura: Ranixalidae) from Western Ghats of India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 6(10): 6293–6312.
• Padhye, A.D., Sayyed, A., Jadhav, A. and Dahanukar, N. (2013). Raorchestes ghatei, a new species of shrub frog (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats of Maharashtra, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(15): 4913–4931.

Bibliography

• Parker, H. W. (1934). A Monograph of the Frogs of the Family Microhylidae.  London: Trustees of the British Museum pp. 208.
• Paternina-H, A., Carvajal-Cogollo, J. E. and Medina-Rangel, G. (2013). Diversity of the Amphibians community in the wetlands at department of Cesar. In Colombia Diversidad Biótica XIII, Edition: 13, Chapter: 21, Publisher: Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Editors: J. O. Rangel-Ch pp.499-509.
• Pauwels, O.S.G., Laohawat, O.A., Naaktae, W., Puangjit, C., Wisutharom, T., Chimsunchart, C., David, P. (2002): Reptile and amphibian diversity in Phang-nga Province, southern Thailand. The Natural History Journal of Chulalongkorn University 2(1): 25-30.
• Perry, R. W., Rudolph, D. C. and Thill, R. E. (2009) Reptile and amphibian responses to restoration of fire-maintained pine woodlands. Restoration Ecology 7: 917–927.
• Peters, W. C. H. (1863). Bemerkungen über verschiedene Batrachier, namentlich über die Original-exemplare der von Schneider und Wiegmann beschriebenen Arten des zoologischen Museums zu Berlin. Monatsberichte der Königlichen Preussische Akademie des Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1863: 76–82.
• Pillai, R.S. and Chanda, S. K. (1976). The distribution pattern of Amphibia in North east India Journal Assam Science Society, 19:53-56.
• Pillai, R.S. and Chanda S. K., (1981). Amphibia fauna of Garo hills, Meghalaya with description of a new species of Rana. Recordings of Zoological Survey of India 79:159-168.
• Popgeorgiev, G., Tzankov, N., Kornilev, Y.V., Naumov, B. and Stojanov, A. (2010). Species Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in The Special Protected Area "Besaparski Ridove", Southern Bulgaria. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment 24(1):661-666.
• Poynton, J. C. (2003). Altitudinal species turnover in southern Tanzania shown by anurans: some zoogeographical considerations. Systematics and Biodiversity 1 (1): 117–126.
• Prado, C. P. A., Uetanabaro, M. and Haddad. C. F. B. (2005). Breeding activity patterns, reproductive modes, and habitat use by anurans (Amphibia) in a seasonal environment in the Pantanal, Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 26:211–221.
• Preininger, D., Weissenbacher, A., Wampula, T., Hodl, W. (2012). The conservation breeding of two foot-flagging frog species from Borneo, Staurois parvus and Staurois guttatus. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 5:45–56.
• Purushotham, C. B. and Tapley, B. (2011). Checklist of Amphibians: Agumbe Rainforest Research Station. FrogLog 16: 2-14.

Bibliography

• Puyravaud, J-Ph. and Garrigues, J. P. (2002). L’agriculteur ou la forêt? Systèmes agraires, prélèvements et consequences écologiques sous la crête des Ghâts (district de Shimoga). In: J. Pouchepadass and J-Ph. Puyravaud (eds.) L’homme et la Forêt en Inde du Sud. Modes de Gestionetsymbolisme de la Forêtdansles Ghâtsoccidentaux. Institut Françaisde Pondichéry-Karthala 167-234.
• Ravichandran, M.S. and Pillai, R.S. (1990). Amphibia of Maharashtra with description of a new species of Torrent toad, Ansonia. Records of Zoological Survey of India. 86 (3&4): 505-513.
• Redford, K.H., Coppolillo, P., Sanderson, E.W., Da Fonseca, G.A.B., Dinerstein, E., Groves, C., Mace, G., Maginnis, S., Mittermeier, R.A., Noss, R., Olson, D., Robinson, J.G., Vedder, A., Wright, M. (2003). Mapping the conservation landscape. Conservation Biology 17: 116–131.
• Richards, P.W. (1996). The Tropical Rainforest: An Ecological Study. Cambridge University Press, London pp. 425.
• Roberts, C.M., McClean, C.J., Veron, J.E.N., Hawkins, J.P., Allen, G.R., McAllister, D.E., Mittermeier, C.G., Schueler, F.W., Spalding, M., Wells, F., Vynne, C., Werner, T.B. (2002). Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295: 1280–1284.
• Robertson, J.G.M. (1986). Female choice, male strategies and the role of vocalizations in the Australian frog Uperoleia rugosa. Animal Behaviour 34: 773–784.
• Rödel, M.O., M. Gil, A.C. Agyei, A.D. Leaché, R.E. Diaz, M.K. Fujita and R. Ernst. (2005). The amphibians of the forested parts of south-western Ghana. Salamandra 41: 107–127.
• Roy, D. (2002). Amphibians as environmental sentinels. Journal of Bioscience, 27:187-188.
• Savage, J. M. (1982). The enigma of the Central American herpetofauna: dispersals or vicariance? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 69: 464 – 454.
• Sechrest, W., Brooks, T.M., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Konstant, W.R., Mittermeier, R.A., Purvis, A., Rylands, A.B., Gittleman, J.L. (2002). Hotspots and the conservation of evolutionary history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 2067–2071.
• Sekar, A. G. (1999). Four new records and checklist of amphibians from Maharashtra. The Journal of the Bombay Natatural History Society 96(1): 152 – 157.
• Semlitsch, R. D. (1981). Terrestrial activity and summer home range of the mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum). Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:315–322.
• Sen, N. (2004). Further notes on statewise distribution of the amphibian fauna of northeast India. Records Zoology Survey India 102(3&4): 105 – 112.

Bibliography

• Shahrudin, S. and Jaafar, I. (2012). The Amphibian Diversity of Bukit Jana, Taiping, Perak. Tropical Life Sciences Research 23(2): 49–57.
• Shaw, G. (1802). General Zoology or Systematic Natural History. Volume III, Part 1. Amphibia.  London: Thomas Davison.
• Sivaprasad, P. S. (2013). Common Amphibians of Kerala (Frogs and Toads).  Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India: Kerala State Biodiversity Board pp. 228.
• Sloan, S., Jenkins, C. N., Joppa, L. N., Gaveau, D.L.A., and Laurance, W.F. (2014). Remaining natural vegetation in the global biodiversity hotspots. Biological Conservation 177:12–24.
• Smith, M.A., (1929). On a collection of Amphibians and Reptiles from upper reaches of Brahmaputra. Records of the Indian Museum 34:77-80.
• Spieler, M., and Linsenmair, K. E. (1998). Migration patterns and diurnal use of shelter in a ranid frog of a West African savannah: a telemetric study. Amphibia-Reptilia 19:43–64.
• Srinivasulu, C. Srinivasulu, B. and Molur, S. (2014). The Status and Distribution of Reptiles in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP) Wildlife Information Laision Development Society, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. Pp. 160.
• Srinivsaulu, B. S. and Molur, S. (2014). The Status and Distribution of Reptiles in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan (CAMP). Wildlife Information Laision Development Society, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.
• Stoliczka, F. (1872). Observations on Indian batrachians. Journal and Proceeding of the Asiatic Society Bengal:101-113.
• Subramanian, K. A., Dinesh, K. P. and Radhakrishnan, C. (2013). Atlas of Endemic Amphibians of Western Ghats. 1–127.
• Sullivan, B.K. (1983). Sexual selection in Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei). II. Female choice. Animal Behaviour 31: 1011–1017.
• Sushil Dutta, Anand Padhye, Saibal Sengupta, Sohrab Uddin Sarker. (2004b). Uperodon globulosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58022A11717889. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58022A11717889.en.

Bibliography

• Sushil Dutta, Kelum Manamendra-Arachchi, Karthikeyan Vasudevan, Chelmala Srinivasulu, S.P. Vijayakumar, Debjani Roy, Saibal Sengupta, Annemarie Ohler, Ghazi S.M. Asmat. (2004a). Polypedates maculatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T58956A11861964. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T58956A11861964.en.
• Szaro, R. and Shapiro, B. (1990). Conserving our Heritage : America's Biodiversity. The Nature conservancy, Arlington, VA.
• Szaro, R.C. and Salwasser, H. (1991). The management context for conserving biological diversity. 10^th World Forestry Congress, (Paris, France, Sep. 1991). Revae Forestiere Franaise Actes 2 : 530-535.
• Thompson, S.K. (1991). Adaptive cluster sampling: Designs with primary and secondary units. Biometrics, 47:1103-1115.
• Turner, W.R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T.M., Gascon, C., Gibbs, H.K., Lawrence, K.S., Mittermeier, R.A., Selig, E.R. (2012). Global biodiversity conservation and the alleviation of poverty. Bioscience 62, 85–92.
• Vaira, (2005). Annual variation of breeding patterns of the toad, Melanophyniscus rubiventris (Vellard, 1947). Amphibia- Reptilia 26:193–199.
• Vallan, D. (2002). Effects of anthropogenic environmental changes on amphibian diversity in the rain forests of eastern Madagascar. Journal of Tropical Ecology 18:725–742.
• Vasudevan, K., Kumar, A. and Chellam, R. (2001). Structure and composition of rainforest floor amphibian communities in Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. Current Science 80(3): 406 – 412.
• Vasudevan, K., Kumar, A. and Chellam, R. (2006). Species turnover: the case of stream amphibians of rainforests in the Western Ghats, southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 3515 – 3525.
• Veith, M., Wulffraat, S., Kosuch, J., Hallmann, G., Henkel, H.-W., Sound, P., Samsu, Rudhimanto, L. and Iskandar, D. (2004). Amphibians of the Kayan Mentarang National Park (East Kalimantan, Indonesia): estimating overall and local species richness. Tropical Zoology 17: 1 – 13.
• Vijayakumar, S.P., Dinesh, K.P., Prabhu, M.V., and Shanker, K. (2014). Lineage delimitation and description of nine new species of bush frogs (Anura: Raorchestes, Rhacophoridae) from the Western Ghats Escarpment. Zootaxa 3893 (4): 451–488.
• Vitt, L. J., Caldwell, J. P., Wilbur, H. M. and Smith, D. C. (1990). Amphibians as harbingers of decay. BioScience 40:418.
• Vukov, T., Kalezić, M. L., Tomović, Lj., Krizmanić, I., Jović, D., Labus, N. & Džukić, G. (2013) Amphibians in Serbia – Distribution and diversity patterns. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum 6: 90–112.

Bibliography

• Vyas, R. (2004). Herpetofauna of Vansda National Park, Gujarat. Zoos’ Print Journal 19(6): 1512 – 1514.
• Vyas, R. (2012). Frogs of Shoolpaneswr Wildlife Sanctuary, Gujarat, India. Froglog 101: 54-56.
• Waldez, F., Menin, M. and Vogt, R.C. (2013). Diversity of amphibians and Squamata reptilians from lower Purus River Basin, Central Amazonia, Brazil. Biota Neotropica 13(1):300-316
• Wells, K.D. (1980). Behavioral ecology and social organization of a dendrobatid frog (Colostethus inguinalis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 6:199–209.
• Wells, K.D. (2007): The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press pp. 1400.
• Wells, K.D. and Schwartz, J.J. (1984). Vocal communication in a neotropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: advertisement calls. Animal Behaviour 32: 405–420.
• Welsh Jr., H. H., Fellers, G. M. and Lind, A. J. (2007). Amphibian population in the terrestrial environments: Is there evidence of declines of Terrestrial Forest amphibians in Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 469-482.
• Werner, J. K., Heinz, G. and Lichtenberg, J. (2006). The status of two Northern Leopard frog Populations in Western Montana. Herpetological Review 37(3): 325 – 330.
• Wickramasinghe, L.J.M., D.R. Vidanapathirana, M.D.G., Rajeev, S.C., Ariyarathne, A.W.A., Chanaka, L.L.D., Priyantha, I.N., Bandara and N. Wickramasinghe (2013). Eight new species of Pseudophilautus (Amphibia, Anura, Rhacophoridae) from Sripada World Heritage Site (Peak Wilderness), a local amphibian hotspot in Sri Lanka. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(4): 3789–3920.
• Willis, K.J., Gillson, L., Knapp, S. (2006). Biodiversity hotspots through time: an introduction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362, 169–174.
• Wilson, L. D. and McCranie, J. R. (2003). The herpetofauna of the cloud forests of Honduras. Amphibia and Reptile Conservation. 3(1): 34 – 48.
• Witte, K., Ryan, M.J., Wilczynski, W. (2001). Changes in the frequency structure of a mating call decrease its attractiveness to females in the cricket frog Acris crepitans blanchardi. Ethology 107: 685–699.
• Woods, L. J., Mac Aller, J., Smeltzer, J. L., Murray, R. A., Rosen, P., Schwalbe, C., Hare, Trevor and Contributors (2004). Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Arid Southwest. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-4. Tucson, AZ pp.100.

​

Bibliography

• Yang, D.T. (1991). Phy1ogenetic systematics of the Amolops group of ranid frogs of Southeast Asia and the Greater Sunda Islands. Fieldiana: Zoology (new series) 63: 1 – 42.
• Yazdani, G.M. and Mahabal, A. (1976). Amphibia of Poona. Newsletter of Zoological Survey of India. 2 (4): 138-139.
• Zainuddin, R. (1999). A brief note on frogs of Bario, Kelabits Highlands, Sarawak. ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation (ARBEC). September-October: 1

Thank You