A REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY

OF THE FROG FAUNA IN SHENDURNEY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY,

KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA

K. I. Pradeep Kumar

Anil Zachariah

David V. Raju

Ansil B. R., Sandeep Das

Muhamed Jafer Palot

E. Kunhikrishnan

Robin Kurian Abraham

2008 - 2011

Kerala Forests & Wildlife Department

Text, design & layout by Robin Abraham

Cover Photographs by

Robin Abraham

The text of this document is licensed underCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0

Cite this work asPradeep Kumar K. I., Zachariah A., Raju D. V., Ansil B. R., Das S., Jafer Palot M., Kunhikrishnan E. & Abraham R. K. (2011) A REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF THE FROG FAUNA IN SHEN-DURNEY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA. Kerala Forests & Wildlife Department, Kerala.

Copyright for images remain with the respective photographers.

Acknowledgments

We are extremely indebted to the Kerala Forest Department for providing permissions and to the staff of Shendurney WLS, Kol-lam, for the interest and cooperation shown in organizing the sur-vey. The staff members of the sanctuary made the survey thor-oughly enjoyable and productive. We are also thankful to all the participants for their dedication and interest.

Summary

The Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, located in Kollam district, Kerala is one among the richest pro-tected areas in terms of biodiversity in India. Several studies and assessments conducted in this reserve have emphasised the area as leading in conservation value for endemic plants, birds and

fishes. But the amphibian fauna of the sanctuary had not been assessed in detail, till late. We carried out a frog survey in the sanctuary between the years 2008 and 2011. Our surveys present the sanctuary to be a leader in frog species richness and endemism. The survey also resulted in the description of four novel frog species, first observed in the sanctuary. But, despite qualifying to be an area supporting exceptionally rich biodiversity, multiple threats dog the sanctuary management. Issues like proposals for tourism initia-tives, road widening, check-dam building and the presence of many private enclosures and plantations within the sanctuary need to be addressed. We recommend that any activity that is not oriented towards the conservation of wildlife should not be entertained within the sanctuary’s boundaries, since conserving biodiversity is the prerequisite of the wildlife sanctuary.

A Torrent Frog in it’s stream habitat. Photo: Robin Abraham

Introduction

India qualifies as one of the top ten mega-di-versity countries in the world, holding a signif-icant percentage of global biological diversity.

However, the biological wealth of India is still vastly underexplored except for the larger animals and flowering plants. Of the vertebrates, the lower ver-tebrates are the least studied and understood, but amphibians have recently been gaining attention. During the colonial period, zoologists and natural-ists from Europe made the first systematic attempts to survey and document the amphibians of India. Though centuries have passed, we are still depend-ent on the literature and repositories prepared by these early experts, since few intensive field surveys have followed since then.

The amphibian fauna of the world comprises of more than 6600 species (Frost, 2006). Of these, 346 species are known to occur in India and 180 from Western Ghats (Aravind and Gururaja 2010, Biju et al. 2011, Dinesh et al. 2009, Zachariah et al. 2011).

The Western Ghats mountain range of India, which is one among 34 global biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 2004), is a repository for much of India’s endemic amphibian diversity, hosting several endemic species, genera and even families. But, the diversity levels of amphibians increase consistently towards the southern parts of this mountain range.

The Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) is lo-cated in the southernmost sub-range of the West-ern Ghats known as the Agasthyamala Hills. The park has substantial areas of diverse vegetation types including grasslands, evergreen rainforests and montane forests with perennial water sources constituting an ideal abode for an exceptionally rich and varied amphibian fauna. Current informa-tion on the amphibians of the sanctuary is rather meager. Hence we carried out a pilot assessment of the amphibian fauna of the sanctuary, focusing on frogs with the help of naturalists and scientists from various parts of Kerala from the year 2008 to 2011.

Study areaShendurney Wildlife Sanctuary lies in Kerala’s Kol-

lam district between the latitudes of 8°48’22.25”N and 8°58’6.06”N and the longitudes of 77°4’44.76”E and 77°15’49.32”E. It covers an area of 171 sq. km

and is contiguous with the 791 sq. km Kalakkad -Mundunthurai Tiger Reserve of Tamil Nadu. The sanctuary was established in 1984 and lies in the western part of the Agasthyamalai (Ashambu) hill range, with an altitudinal span ranging from 92 m ASL at the base to 1,550 m ASL at Alwarkurichi peak. The park is primarily a river valley surrounded by rugged hills, characterized by steep peaks and ravines. The annual average rainfall for this region is approximately 2,882mm. The Shendurney valley and the catchment drainages of the Kallada irriga-tion project on the Kallada River, upstream of the Parappar (Thenmala) dam, fall within the bounda-ries of this protected area. The drainage comprises of the major tributaries of Shendurney, Kazhuthu-ruthy and Kulathupuzha, and minor tributaries such as the Parappar, Uruliar, Pasmankandamthodu, Aru-viar and Umayar within the sanctuary, all together form the Kallada River. Kazhuthuruthy river origi-nates outside the sanctuary, flowing through the north, before joining the Shendurney River at the dam. The other main tributary, the Kulathpuzha River, flows through the Kulathupuzha valley to the south of the Shendurney Valley.

The major vegetation types found here are low elevation evergreen forests (Hopea rachophloea - Humboldtia facies of the Dipterocarpus indicus - Dip-terocarpus bourdilloni - Strombosia ceylanica type), medium elevation evergreen forests (Cullenia exaril-lata - Mesua ferrea - Palaquium ellipticum - Gluta tra-vancorica type), Nageia wallichiana facies, reeds of Ochlandra spp., Myristica swamps, secondary moist deciduous forests (Lagerstroemia microcarpa - Tec-tona grandis - Dillenia pentagyna type) and rubber plantations (Ramesh et al. 1997 a). Shendurney is named after the highly localized endemic tree spe-cies Gluta travancorica, locally known as ‘chenkur-inji’, typical to low elevation (<700 m) evergreen forests. At least 951 species of flowering plants in 118 families have been recorded here, including 309 Western Ghats endemic species. Additionally, at least 100 rare and threatened species of plants occur in the sanctuary, which is also the type local-ity of many plant species described from the region. Shendurney is also home to a special ecosystem ex-isting only in some corners of the Western Ghats, namely the Myristica swamps. Some members of Myristicaceae, a primitive family of flowering plants,

that are adapted to living in waterlogged conditions, dominate the Myristica swamps. These swamps are one of the known centers of endemism in the West-ern Ghats.

Prior to the 1960s, no information was available to the scientific world about this special kind of eco-system. Myristica swamps are seen in wet valleys in the evergreen forests. Species such as Gymnacran-thera canarica and Myristica fatua var. magnifica are exclusive to the swamps. The trees in the swamps have special adaptations such as knee-roots that protrude into the air from the flooded substratum.

Another critical and important habitat for sev-eral organisms is the Reed Brake. These habitats are composed primarily of a small kind of bamboo be-longing to the genus Ochlandra. These reed brakes occur extensively towards the higher wind-prone areas of the sanctuary. The reeds are important to animals ranging from elephants to miniscule frogs. At least 5 species of frogs have been recorded to be closely associated to reed brakes, dependent on the reeds for one or more stages of their life cycle.

It is understood that among the sanctuaries of the Agasthyamalai Hills, Shendurney WLS has the highest conservation value index, based on a Bio-diversity Gap Analysis. Nearly 60% of the sanctuary is covered by wet evergreen forests with high levels of plant species richness and endemism (55% each) (Ramesh et al. 1997 b).

Shendurney has also been designated as an Im-portant Bird Area owing to the presence of three globally threatened species; the Lesser Kestrel (Fal-co naumanii), Wood Snipe (Gallinago nemoricola) and Nilgiri Wood-pigeon (Columba elphinstonii), and also because of the presence of 10 of 16 bird species that are endemic to the Western Ghats. It also holds eight of 15 species whose distributions

are largely or wholly confined to the Indian Penin-sula, in the Tropical Moist Forest biome (Islam and Rahmani 2004). A total of 245 species have been recorded here. Records of nesting colonies of River Tern (Sterna aurantia) and small Indian Pratincole (Glareola lactea) have been made from this site. Recent bird surveys reported nesting of the Lesser Fish Eagle (Ichthyophaga humilis) in the sanctuary. Till recently this bird was supposed to be confined to the Himalayan foothills. The sanctuary is also an important wintering site for long distance migrants such as the Tickell’s Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus affin-is), Large-billed Leaf Warbler (P. magnirostris), Blue-headed Rock Thrush (Monticola cinclorhynchus) and Rufous-tailed Flycatcher (Muscicapa ruficauda) (Is-lam and Rahmani 2004).

Along with the other contiguous rainforest areas in the Agasthyamalai region, the Shendurney valley forms one of the most important areas in the West-ern Ghats for the conservation of the endemic Lion-tailed Macaque (Macaca silenus). Other endemicmammals found here include Nilgiri Langur (Trach-ypithecus johnii), Slender Loris (Loris lydekkerianus) and Malabar Giant Squirrel (Ratufa indica). Global-ly threatened landscape species such as the Tiger (Panthera tigris) and Asian Elephant (Elephas max-imus) are also found here.

This sanctuary has had some disturbance in the past due to selective logging and reed collection in the lower reaches, although the rainforests at higher elevations have been left relatively undis-turbed (Nair 1991). The total area of the enclosures within the sanctuary is 5.8 sq. km of estates belong-ing to Rosemala, Kallar and Rockwood estates. An irrigation lake formed by daming the river is a ma-jor landscape element in the area. There also exists collection of minor forest produce, even though

Map of Shenduruney Wildlife Sanctuary, showing the main sampling locations

there are no tribal settlements inside the sanctuary (MoEF 2006, Islam and Rahmani 2004). In more re-cent years, the sanctuary has been under threat from proposals of widening of access roads and construc-tion of buildings inside estates, especially inside the Kallar area, primarily for tourism purposes. There have also been proposals to introduce exotic fishes for culture in the dam reservoir too, which is sure to have a negative impact on the aquatic young ones of several endemic frogs and caecilians.The pres-ence of the dam reservoir, along with the enclosed private plantation estates within the sanctuary has reduced natural forest cover in the past.

The objectives of the our investigations were to list the frog species within the sanctuary and also make estimates of their abundance in different parts of the sanctuary.

MethodologyShendurney WLS is known for its network of

streams, varied vegetation types and altitudinal gra-dients; hence the frog community is also expected to vary accordingly across different elevations and microhabitats in the sanctuary (see Appendix II). Sampling was carried out in selected sites by walking and searching in streams, pools, swamps and forest edges, both during day and night. Visual-encounter method and indirect evidences like vocalizations, presence of eggs, road-kills, etc. were considered for assessing the species diversity of the area. The following sites were selected for sampling, based

Fig.1. Breakup of frog families with

representative spe-cies occurring in the

Shendurney WLS

primarily on elevation gradient and forest types;

1. Kattilappara: Lowland Myristica swamp and surrounding areas

2. Rockwood Estate: Evergreen forests inter-spersed with plantations, at elevations of 700 + m ASL, on the southern part of the sanctuary

3. Pandimotta: Hilltop/montane evergreen for-ests with reed brakes at a height of more than 1200m ASL

4. Rosemala & Kallar Estates: Evergreen forests interspersed with plantations, from around 450m ASL in the northern part of the sanctuary

5. Surrounding Areas: Areas in between Kattilap-para, Pandimotta, Kallar, Thenmala dam and the deer park site

Overall population was approximately es-timated during the survey by using direct en-counter or indirect evidences like vocalizations, egg clutch, etc. The following abundance cat-egories were also attempted during the survey;

a. Abundant: > 10 individual in a locality, encoun-tered (sighted or heard)

b. Common: 5 - 10 individual in a locality, encoun-tered

c. Rare: < 5 individuals in a locality, encountered

A team of nature enthusiasts from various parts of Kerala (see Appendix III) participated in the survey from 8 -10th August 2009. Species were noted and recorded by Robin Abraham separately, between 2009 and 2011. The classification and nomenclature followed is that of Frost (2009).

Families not recorded in this survey but potentially exist in the sanctuary

Results & DiscussionA total of 45 species of frogs under 15 genera,

belonging to 8 families were recorded during the survey. Family Rhacophoridae dominated with 20 species, followed by Nyctibatrachidae (6 spp.), Di-croglossidae (4 spp.), Bufonidae (4 spp.), Ranixalidae (4 spp.), Micrixalidae (3 spp.) and two species each from the families Ranidae and Microhylidae (Fig.1). Additional families that could be represented in the sanctuary are Maelanobatrachidae and Nasikabat-rachidae, even though the present survey did not yield these species. This is also because of the sam-pling areas being restricted to a handful of sites close to field camps or base stations, all sampled in a limited timeframe.

We recorded the anuran species over a period of three years from 2008 to 2011. Many bushfrog spe-cies described between 2000 to 2011, such as Pseu-dophilautus kani, Raorchestes chotta, R. nerostegona, R. graminirupus, R. anili (Biju and Bossyut, 2009), R. crustai and R. johnceei were well distributed in vari-ous habitats in the sanctuary. Many species were also unidentifiable during the survey. These were found to be hitherto undocumented species. The Myris-tica swamps in the lowest reaches of the sanctuary are an ideal breeding ground for some Nyctibatra-chus species. Several clutches of eggs with guard-ing adults of Nyctibatrachus aliciae were also noted on leaves of a Lagenandra sp. at the swamps. Hill stream habitats of Rockwood are an ideal haunt for

Fig. 2. Species diversity across sampling sites in Shendurney WLS

1. KattilapparaThe Myristica swamps at Kattilappara and its

environs provide an ideal habitat for several frog species. A good population of breeding Nyctibatra-chus aliciae was noted alongside all marshy areas. Despite having a relatively low diversity of 16 spe-cies, compared to other areas of the sanctuary, the swamps support some unique and evolutionarily distinct frogs.

the torrent frog Micrixalus, an endemic genus of thesouthern Western Ghats. At the same time, the reed brakes (Ochlandra spp.) in the higher reaches of the sanctuary also harbour good breeding and forag-ing sites for many species of bushfrogs. The greatest species diversity (22 spp.) was noted at Pandimotta and the lowest species diversity (16 spp.) was re-corded at Kattilapara and Rockwood estate (Fig.2). A site wise elaboration of frog species diversity is given below;

Sl. No. Species Status Remarks1 Microhyla sp. Common2 Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common3 Hylarana aurantiaca Abundant4 Hylarana temporalis Common5 Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Common6 Euphlyctis hexadactylus Rare 7 Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Rare Immature8 Fejervarya keralensis Abundant9 Nyctibatrachus aliciae Common Breeding

10 Nyctibatrachus minor Common11 Indirana sp. Rare12 Pseudophilautus kani Common13 Raorchestes nerostagona Rare14 Rhacophorus malabaricus Common15 Polypedates psuedocruciger Common16 Polypedates sp. Rare

2. Rockwood EstateDegraded evergreen patches, secondary forests,

intact primary forests and hill streams, all around the Rockwood estate form an ideal haunt for many species of frogs. A fairly good number of Pseudophi-lautus kani and Raorchestes nerostagona were heard calling during the night survey. Mating pairs of Mic-rixalus fuscus were also noted on the boulders of torrential streams. The most abundant species were P. kani, Fejervarya keralensis and Micrixalus fuscus. Overall, 16 species were recorded in the estate and forests here.

Mid-elevation forest adjacent to plantation at Rockwood. Photo: Robin Abraham

Myristica swamp at Kattilappara Photo: Robin Abraham

 Sampling in the swamps of Kattilappara Photo: Jafer Palot

 Recording frogs at degraded evergreen forest patch near Rockwood estate. Photo: Jafer Palot

3. PandimottaThe reed brakes and stunted trees found here,

provides good habitat for several bush frogs, many of which are endemic and threatened. Populations of Nyctibatrachus beddomii and Duttaphrynus bed-domii, were also sighted in the higher elevations. The area forms one of the most important centres of diversity and endemism for several frog species.

Sl. No Species Status Remarks1 Ramanella sp. Rare2 Duttaphrynus beddomii Rare3 Pedostibes tuberculatus Rare4 Indirana diplosticta Rare5 Indirana sp. Rare6 Micrixalus sp. Rare7 Nyctibatrachus beddomii Common Breeding8 Nyctibatrachus major Rare9 Nyctibatrachus aliciae Common10 Nyctibatrachus pillai Common11 Raorchestes beddomii Common12 Raorchestes chalazodes Common13 Raorchestes ponmudi Common14 Raorchestes graminirupes Rare15 Raorchestes manohari Rare16 Raorchestes chalazodes Common17 Raorchestes crustai Rare18 Raorchestes johnceei Rare19 Raorchestes sp. Rare20 Raorchestes anili Common21 Raorchestes bobingeri Rare22 Rhacophorus calcadensis Common

Sl. No Species Status Remarks1 Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common2 Duttaphrynus parietalis Common3 Pedostibes tuberculatus Rare4 Hylarana temporalis Common5 Hylarana aurantiaca Common6 Fejervarya keralensis Abundant7 Indirana beddomii Common8 Micrixalus fuscus Abundant Breeding9 Nyctibatrachus aliciae Common10 Nyctibatrachus beddomii Rare11 Nyctibatrachus sp. Rare12 Pseudophilautus kani Common13 Raorchestes nerostagona Common14 Raorchestes chotta Common15 Rhacophorus malabaricus Common16 Polypedates maculatus Common

4. Rosemala & Kallar EstatesRosemala is a cluster of private states located in-

side the northern part of the Sanctuary, at a distance of 15 km from Ariyankavu. Kallar Estate is located in the southern part of the sancturay. Both Rosemala and Kallar lie on two sides of the Thenmala dam reservoir. Much of the surrounding forests are par-tially degraded, but still hold strong for amphibians. Recent developmental activities within the estate areas can be promlematic for the survival of frogs. Despite disturbances, we recorded 18 spp. here.

Ochlandra reed brakes with montane stunted for-est at Pandimotta. Photo: Robin Abraham

Plantations dominate both Rosemala and Kallar Estates, fringed by forest. Photo: Robin Abraham

5. Surrounding AreasLocalities like Deer park, Thenmala damsite,

Thenmala butterfly park, Kallar estates and the road between Kallar to Pandimotta area were also sur-veyed for frogs, but not as intensively as the other four sites. A total of 17 species of frogs were en-countered during the survey. Nasikabatrachus sahy-adrensis had been reported from near the damsite.

ConclusionAn analysis of earlier records and the present

survey reveals the presence of at least 45 spe-cies of frogs in the Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary. Of the total 45 species we recorded, 38 (84%) are strictly endemic to the Western Ghats and among the endemics, > 40% are regionally endemic to the Agasthyamalai Hills. New species described as late as 2011, such as Raorchestes crustai, R. agasthyaen-sis, R. johnceei, R. manohari and Nyctibatrachus pillai are well represented in the sanctuary. Species such as R. manohari and R. chalazodes are reed associated species, both of which were recorded in the sanctu-ary during our survey in 2008.

The frog communities of Shendurney WLS are exceptionally diverse and the sanctuary and sur-rounding regions can qualify to be among the rich-est protected areas for amphibians in the entire country. Hence, the Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary should merit the highest form of protection to safe-guard this incredible diversity, to help carry over its rich amphibian legacy into the future. Threats such as tourism initiatives, road development, the run-ning of piggeries and poultry farms as exist inside the sanctuary limits today; all must be controlled. Such domesticated livestock often serve as vectors for disease pathogens which can affect wild species. We recommend that any activity that is not oriented towards the conservation of the sanctuary’s wildlife, whether it be plants or animals, should never be en-tertained within the sanctuary’s boundaries.

Sl. No Species Status Remarks1 Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common2 Duttaphrynus parietalis Common3 Pedostibes tuberculatus Rare4 Hylarana temporalis Rare 5 Hylarana aurantiaca Rare 6 Indirana sp. Common7 Indirana sp. Rare8 Micrixalus fuscus Abundant Breeding9 Nyctibatrachus aliciae Common

10 Nyctibatrachus beddomii Rare11 Nyctibatrachus sp. Rare12 Pseudophilautus kani Common13 Raorchestes nerostagona Common14 Raorchestes chotta Common15 Raorchestes ochlandrae Rare 16 Rhacophorus malabaricus Common17 Polypedates maculatus Common18 Polypedates psuedocruciger Common

Sl. No Species Status Remarks1 Duttaphrynus melanostictus Common2 Hylarana temporalis Rare 3 Hylarana aurantiaca Rare 4 Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis Common5 Euphlyctis hexadactylus Rare 6 Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Rare Immature7 Fejervarya keralensis Abundant8 Nyctibatrachus aliciae Common9 Nyctibatrachus beddomii Rare

10 Nyctibatrachus sp. Rare11 Pseudophilautus kani Common12 Raorchestes nerostagona Common13 Raorchestes chotta Common14 Raorchestes ochlandrae Rare 15 Rhacophorus malabaricus Common16 Polypedates maculatus Common17 Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis Rare

Image Gallery

Duttaphrynus parietalis Photo: Robin Abraham

Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis

Photo: Sandeep Das

Hylarana temporalis

Photo: Sandeep Das

Micrixalus sp.

Photo: Robin Abraham

Indirana sp.Photo: Robin Abraham

Nyctibatrachus pillaiPhoto: Robin Abraham

Polypedates sp.Photo: Anil Zachariah

Raorchestes crustai

Photo: Sandeep Das

Raorchestes chalazodesPhoto: Robin Abraham

Rhacophorus calcadensisPhoto: Robin Abraham

Raorchestes johnceeiPhoto: Robin Abraham

Raorchestes pulcher

Photo: Sandeep Das

Raorchestes manohari

Photo: Sandeep Das

Raorchestes agasthyaensis

Photo: Sandeep Das

Raorchestes beddomiiPhoto: Robin Abraham

References

1. Aravind, N. A. & Gururaja, K. V. (2010) Theme paper on amphibians of the Western Ghats, Report submitted to the Western Ghats Ecology Panel, India

2. Biju, S. D., Bocxlaer, I. V., Mahony S., Dinesh K. P., Radhakrishnan C., Zachariah A., Varad, G. & 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

3. Biju, S. D. & 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

4. Dinesh, K. P., Radhakrishnan C., Gururaja K.V. & Bhatta, G. K. (2009) A checklist of amphibians of India. Zoological Survey of India, Kolkata

5. Frost, D. R. (2009) Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 5.3 (19th Au-gust, 2009). Electronic Database accessible at http:// research.amnh.org/herpetology/ amphib-ia/ American Museum of Natural History, New York, USA

6. Islam, M. Z. and Rahmani, A. R. (2004) Important bird areas in India: priority sites for conserva-tion. Indian Bird Conservation Network: Bombay Natural History Society and Birdlife Interna-tional, UK

7. Mittermeier, R. A., Gil, P. R., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., Lamoreux, J., Da Fonseca, G. A. B. (2004) Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endan-gered Terrestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX. Conservation International, and Agrupacion Sierra Madre, Monterrey, Mexico, 392pp

8. MoEF (2006) India’s Tentative List of Natural Heritage Properties to be inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. UNESCO, Paris, France

9. Nair, S. C. (1991) The southern Western Ghats: a biodiversity conservation plan. INTACH, New Delhi, India

10. Ramesh, B. R., Franceschi, D. and Pascal, J.P. (1997a) Forest map of South India: Thirvanan-thapuram - Tirunelveli. French Institute, Pondicherry, India

11. Ramesh B. R. , Menon S., Bawa K. S. (1997b) A Vegetation Based Approach to Biodiversity Gap Analysis in the Agastyamalai Region, Western Ghats, India. Ambio, Vol. 26 (8). pp. 529-536

12. Vasudevan, K. (1997) Rediscovery of the black microhylid Melanobatrachus indicus (Beddome, 1878). Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society: 170-171

13. Zachariah, A., Dinesh, K.P., Kunhikrishnan, E., Das, S., Raju, D. V., Radhakrishnan, C., Jafer Palot, M. & Kalesh, S. (2011) Nine new species of frogs of the genus Raorchestes (Amphibia: Anura: Rhacophoridae) from southern Western Ghats, India. Biosystematica, 5(1): 25-48

CLASS: AMPHIBIA ORDER: ANURA

FAMILY: MICROHYLIDAE

Microhyla sp.Common Name: Narrow-mouthed FrogOccurrence during the survey: Lowland forest at Kattilapara

Ramanella sp. E.WGCommon Name: Dot FrogOccurrence during the survey: A single record from Pandimotta

FAMILY: MELANOBATRACHIDAE

Melanobatrachus indicus Beddome, 1878 E.WGCommon Name: Indian Black FrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: None; records from neighbouring areas show high potential for species to occur in the sanctuary

FAMILY: BUFONIDAE

Duttaphrynus beddomii Günther, 1875 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Beddome’s ToadOccurrence during the survey: Young ones ob-served in the Pandimotta and Karimala Kadd-akkal area

Duttaphrynus parietalis Boulenger, 1882 Common Name: Ridged ToadDistribution: Peninsular IndiaOccurrence during the survey: Juveniles ob-served at forest near Rockwood estate

Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799)Common Name: Common Indian ToadDistribution: Throughout S. & S. E. AsiaOccurrence during the survey: Common in low- and mid-elevations

Pedostibes tuberculosus Günther, 1875 E.WGCommon Name: Malabar Tree Toad

Appendix ISystematic list of Frogs (Anurans) found in Shendurney WLS

Distribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: None; earlierrecords from the sanctuary

FAMILY: RANIDAE

Hylarana aurantiaca (Boulenger, 1904) E.WG.SLCommon Name: Golden FrogDistribution: Southern Western Ghats & Sri LankaOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common in lower altitudes

Hylarana temporalis (Günther, 1864) E.WG.SLCommon Name: Bronzed FrogDistribution: Western Ghats & Sri Lanka Occurrence during the survey: Fairly commonin low- and mid- elevations

FAMILY: DICROGLOSSIDAE

Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799)Common Name: Skittering Frog; Distribution: Throughout S. & S. E. AsiaOccurrence during the survey: Common in low elevations

Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834)Common Name: Indian Pond FrogDistribution: Throughout the Indian subconti-nentOccurrence during the survey: Uncommon; noted in low elevations

Fejervarya keralensis (Dubois, 1980) E.WGCommon Name: Kerala Warty FrogDistribution: Throughout the Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Most common species in most habitats

Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1802)Common Name: Indian Bull FrogDistribution: Throughout the Indian Subconti-nentOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common in low- and mid-elevations

FAMILY: RANIXALIDAE

Indirana beddomii (Günther, 1876) E.WGDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen at mid - elevations

Indirana diplosticta (Günther, 1876) E.WGCommon Name: Malabar Indian FrogDistribution: Southern Western Ghats Occurrence during the survey: Rarely observed at Pandimotta

Indirana sp. 1 E.WGCommon Name: Indian FrogOccurrence during the survey: Only observed at Kattilappara

Indirana sp. 2 E.WGCommon Name: Indian FrogOccurrence during the survey: Rarely ncoun-tered at Pandimotta

FAMILY: MICRIXALIDAE

Micrixalus fuscus (Boulenger, 1882) E.WGCommon Name: Dusky Torrent FrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common in low- and mid-elevation streams

Micrixalus sp. 1 E.WGCommon Name: Torrent FrogOccurrence during the survey: Many records in streams in Pandimotta

Micrixalus sp. 2 E.WGCommon Name: Torrent FrogOccurrence during the survey: Observed at two streams between Kallar estate and Pandimotta

FAMILY: NYCTIBATRACHIDAE

Nyctibatrachus aliciae Inger, Shaffer, Koshy and Bakde, 1984 E.WGCommon Name: Aliciae’s Night FrogDistribution: Southern Western Ghats Occurrence during the survey: Common in streams at all elevations

Nyctibatrachus beddomii (Boulenger, 1882) E.WGCommon Name: Beddome’s Night Frog

Distribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in mid- to high- elevations

Nyctibatrachus major Boulenger, 1882 E.WGCommon Name: Malabar Night FrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in mid- to high- elevations

Nyctibatrachus minor Inger, Shaffer, Koshy and Bakde,1984 E.WGCommon Name: Kerala Night FrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in mid- elevations

Nyctibatrachus pillai Biju et. al, 2011 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Pillai’s Night FrogOccurrence during the survey: Recorded in streams between Kallar estate upto Pandimotta

Nyctibatrachus vasanthi Ravichandran, 1997 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Kalakad Night FrogOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen in streams at Pandimotta

FAMILY: RHACOPHORIDAE

Raorchestes agasthyaensis Zachariah et al., 2011 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Agasthya’s BushfrogDistribution: Reported only from Neyyar, Pep-para and Shendurney Wildlife sanctuariesOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen at Pandimotta

Raorchestes anili Biju and Bossuyt, 2006 E.WGCommon Name: Anil’s BushfrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in mid- to high- elevations

Raorchestes beddomii (Günther, 1876) E.WGCommon Name: Beddome’s BushfrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common at Pan-dimotta

Raorchestes bobingeri Biju and Bossuyt, 2006 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Robert Inger’s Bushfrog

Distribution: Agasthyamalai HillsOccurrence during the survey: Rarely heard at Pandimotta

Raochestes chalazodes (Günther, 1876) E.WG.AGCommon Name: Chalazodes ReedfrogDistribution: Agasthyamalai HillsOccurrence during the survey: Commonly seen at Pandimotta

Raorchestes chotta Biju and Bossuyt, 2009 E.WGCommon Name: Small BushfrogDistribution: Agasthyamalai HillsOccurrence during the survey: Common at Rockwood estate

Raorchestes crustai Zachariah et al., 2011 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Canopy Bark BushfrogDistribution: Reported only from Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife sanctuariesOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen at Pandimotta

Raorchestes graminirupes Biju and Bossuyt, 2005 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Ponmudi GrassfrogOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common in the higher reaches

Raorchestes johnceei Zachariah et al., 2011 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Johncee’s BushfrogDistribution: Reported only from Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife sanctuariesOccurrence during the survey: Common at Pan-dimotta

Raorchestes ponmudi Biju and Bossuyt, 2005E.WGCommon Name: Large Ponmudi BushfrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in mid- elevations

Raorchestes pulcher Boulenger, 1882 E.WGCommon Name: Pretty BushfrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common at Rockwood estate

Raorchestes manohari Zachariah et al., 2011 E.WG.AGCommon Name: Spotted ReedfrogDistribution: Reported only from Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife sanctuariesOccurrence during the survey: Seen among the reeds at Pandimotta

Raorchestes nerostagona Biju and Bossuyt, 2005 E.WGCommon Name: Canopy/Waterdrop BushfrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common in mid- elevations

Raorchestes ochlandrae Gururaja, Dinesh, Palot, Radhakrishnan andRamachandra, 2007 E.WGCommon Name: Ochlandra ReedfrogDistribution in India: Central & Southern West-ern GhatsOccurrence during the survey: None; records from boundary of the sanctuary

Raorchestes sp. E.WGCommon Name: BushfrogOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen at Pandimotta

Pseudophilautus kani Biju and Bossuyt, 2009 E.WGCommon Name: Kani BushfrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common at low- to mid- elevations

Polypedates maculatus Gray, 1833Common Name: Chunam FrogDistribution: Throughout the Indian Subconti-nent Occurrence during the survey: Common at low elevations

Polypedates pseudocruciger Das and Ravichan-dran, 1998 E.WGCommon Name: False Hourglass Tree FrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: One sighting at Katilappara

Polypedates sp. E.WGCommon Name: Tree FrogOccurrence during the survey: Rarely seen at Kattilapara

Rhacophorous calcadensis Ahl, 1927 E.WGCommon Name: Kalakkad Tree FrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Common in Pan-dimotta

Rhacophorus malabaricus Jerdon, 1870 E.WGCommon Name: Malabar Gliding FrogDistribution: Central & Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: Fairly common at low- to mid- elevations

FAMILY: NASIKABATRACHIDAE

Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis Biju & Bossuyt, 2003 E.WGCommon Name: Indian Purple FrogDistribution: Southern Western GhatsOccurrence during the survey: None; but most likely found in parts of the northern ridge

Key:E.WG - Endemic to the Western GhatsE.WG.AG - Endemic to the Agasthyamalai HillsE.WG.SL - Endemic to the Western Ghats & Sri Lanka

Species  

Myristic

a  Sw

amp

LEMD

MEV

GSM

RBElev

ationa

l  Ran

ge  (m

)Prim

ary  Microha

bitat  

Relativ

e  Ab

unda

nce

Raman

ella  sp

._

__

R11

00-­‐140

0A,  F,  S

RMicrohy

la  sp

.P

P_

_90

-­‐300

T,  G,  P,  Sw,  Fo

RMelan

obatrach

us  in

dicu

s_

_P

P80

0-­‐14

00F,  T

RDu

ttap

hryn

us  m

elan

ostic

tus

PW

P_

90-­‐800

F,  T,  P

ADu

ttap

hryn

us  parietalis

_P

P_

300-­‐80

0F,  T

CDu

ttap

hryn

us  bed

domii

__

_R

1100

-­‐140

0F,  T,  S

RPe

dostibes  tu

berculatus

__

W_

500-­‐90

0A,  F,  S

CHy

larana

 auran

tiaca

WP

P_

90-­‐800

T,  S

CHy

larana

 tempo

ralis

WW

PP

90-­‐120

0T,  S,  P,  Sw

AEu

phlyctis  cyno

phlyctis

PP

__

90-­‐300

S,  P

AEu

phlyctis  he

xada

ctyla

_P

__

300

S,  P

CHo

plob

atrach

us  tige

rinus

_P

_30

0T,  S,  P

CFe

jervarya

 keralen

sisW

WW

P90

-­‐140

0F,  T  

AIndirana

 diplosticta

__

_R

1000

-­‐140

0F,  T,  S

RIndirana

 bed

domii

_P

W_

500-­‐80

0F,  T,  S

CIndirana

 sp.  0

1_

__

R10

00F,  T  

RIndirana

 sp.  0

2R

__

_90

-­‐150

F,  T,  P,  Sw

RMicrix

alus

 fuscus

_W

W_

90-­‐700

F,  T,  S

AMicrix

alus

 sp.  0

1_

PP

_30

0-­‐90

0F,  T,  S

CMicrix

alus

 sp.  0

2_

__

R12

00-­‐140

0F,  T,  S

RNy

ctibatrach

us  vas

anthi

__

_R

1200

-­‐140

0F,  T,  S

RNy

ctibatrach

us  m

ajor

__

WP

800-­‐10

00T,  S,  G

CNy

ctibatrach

us  bed

domii  

__

WP

600-­‐80

0F,  T,  S

CNy

ctibatrach

us  alic

iae

WW

W_

90-­‐800

T,  S,  Sw

ANy

ctibatrach

us  m

inor

_P

R_

300-­‐70

0F,  T,  S

CNy

ctibatrach

us  pillai

__

_W

1200

-­‐140

0F,  T,  S

CRa

orch

estes  p

ulch

erP

WW

_90

-­‐900

A,  F

CRa

orch

estes  n

eros

tago

naP

WW

_90

-­‐800

A,  F

CRa

orch

estes  c

hotta

_P

W_

800-­‐12

00A,  F,  T

CRa

orch

estes  m

anoh

ari

__

_R

1200

-­‐140

0A,  R

CRa

orch

estes  c

halazo

des

__

_R

1200

-­‐140

0A,  R

CRa

orch

estes  joh

ncee

i_

__

R12

00-­‐140

0A,  F,  T

CRa

orch

estes  a

gasthy

aens

is_

__

R12

00-­‐140

0A,  F

RRa

orch

estes  c

rustai

__

_R

1200

-­‐140

0A,  F

RRa

orch

estes  a

nili

_P

W_

600-­‐90

0A,  F

CRa

orch

estes  p

onmud

i_

PW

P70

0-­‐10

00A,  F

CRa

orch

estes  g

raminiru

pes

__

_R

1000

-­‐140

0T,  G

RRa

orch

estes  b

eddo

mii

__

_R

1000

-­‐140

0A,  F

CRa

orch

estes  o

chland

rae

_P

W_

600-­‐80

0A,  R

RRa

orch

estes  b

obinge

ri_

__

R10

00-­‐140

0A,  F

RPs

eudo

phila

utus

 kan

iW

WW

_90

-­‐500

F,  T

ARh

acop

horus  m

alab

aricus

PW

WP

90-­‐140

0A,  F,  Sw

CRh

acop

horus  c

alca

dens

is_

__

R10

00-­‐140

0A,  F

RPo

lype

dates  p

sued

ocrucige

rW

WP

_90

-­‐800

A,  F

CPo

lype

dates  m

aculatus

P_

__

90-­‐300

A,  F

RPo

lype

dates  s

p.R

__

_50

-­‐200

A,  F,  Sw

RNa

sikab

atrach

us  sa

hyad

rens

is90

-­‐900

F,  Fo

R

Fo

rest

Typ

e D

istr

ibu

tion

— W

= w

ide

spre

ad

in t

ha

t fo

rest

typ

e, R

= r

est

rict

ed

to

th

at

fore

st t

ype

, P =

pe

rip

he

rally

dis

trib

ute

d in

th

at

fore

st t

ype

; Fo

rest

Typ

e D

istr

ibu

tion

— W

= w

ide

spre

ad

in t

ha

t fo

rest

typ

e, R

= r

est

rict

ed

to

th

at

fore

st t

ype

, P =

pe

rip

he

rally

dis

trib

ute

d in

th

at

fore

st t

ype

; Pri

ma

ry M

icro

ha

bita

t —

A =

arb

ore

al, T

= t

err

est

ria

l, F

= f

ore

st in

ha

bita

nt, P

= p

on

dsi

de

inh

ab

itan

t, S

= s

tre

am

sid

e in

ha

bita

nt, R

= r

ee

d in

ha

bita

nt, G

= g

rass

lan

d in

ha

bit-

an

t, Sw

= s

wa

mp

, Fo

= F

oss

ori

al;

Re

lativ

e A

bu

nd

an

ce —

A =

ab

un

da

nt, C

= c

om

mo

n, R

= r

are

; F

ore

st T

ype

— L

EM

D =

Lo

w E

leva

tion

Mo

ist

De

cid

uo

us,

ME

VG

= M

id E

verg

ree

n, S

MR

B =

Stu

nte

d M

on

tan

e &

Re

ed

Bra

ke

s

App

endi

x II

Geo

grap

hic

and

ecol

ogic

al d

istr

ibut

ion

and

rela

tive

abun

danc

e of

frog

s in

the

Shen

durn

ey W

LS

Appendix III List of participants:

 

Dr Anil Zachariah, Beagle, Chandakunnu, Kalpetta, Wayanad district

Ansil B. R.,Vilayil Veedu, Mudapuram P. O., Chiraynakizhu, Thiruvananthapuram 695314

David V. Raju, Naturalist, Taj Safaris, Banjaartola, Kanha Tiger Reserve, Mukki.Post, Balaghat district, Madhya Pradesh

Dr. Jafer Palot, Western Ghats Field Research Station, Zoological Survey of India, Erannhipalam P. O., Kozhikode 673 006

Dr. Kalesh, B.N 439, Bapuji Nagar, Medical College, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram 695 011

E. Kunhikrishnan, Department of Zoology, University College, Thiruvananthapuram

K. I. Pradeep Kumar, Wildlife Warden, Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuary, Thenmala Dam, Kollam district

Robin Kurian Abraham, Nanthencode, Thiruvananthapuram 695 003

Sandeep Das, Santhi Nivas, Chembukkavu, Thrissur 680 020

K. K. Sethumadhavan, Lakshmi Niwas, Koottala, Mankara.Post, Palakkad district

Dr. Vinu R., Krishnendu, Athinadu South, Kattilakadavu, Kayamkulam, Kollam district

K.V. Uthaman, Wildlife Warden, Aralam Wildlife Sanctuary, Iritty Post, Kannur district

P. K. Uthaman, TC 4/1568, Dewaswom Board Junction, Thiruvananthapuram 695 003

Team members of the Frog Survey. Photo: Jafer Palot

A REPORT ON THE PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF THE FROG FAUNA

IN SHENDURNEY WILDLIFE SANCTUARY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA

A Nyctibatrachus aliciae male guarding egg clutch in a Myristica swampPhoto: Jafer Palot