Asian Journal of Conservation Biology, December 2012. Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85 ISSN 2278-7666 ©TCRP 2012 AJCB: FP0010 Herpetofaunal assemblage with special emphasis on community structure and spatiality in amphibians of Cauvery delta region, Tamil Nadu Anukul Nath*, Sanjoy Sutradhar, A. Kalai Mani, VishnuVijyan, Krishna Kumar, B. Laxmi Narayana, B. Naresh, G. Baburao, Sneha Dharwadkar, Gokul Krishnan, B. Vinoth, R. Maniraj, D. Mahendar Reddy, D. Adi mallaiah, Kummari Swamy Department of Zoology & Wildlife Biology, AVC College (Autonomous), Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai-609305, Tamil Nadu, India (Accepted November 20, 2012) ABSTRACT We studied the amphibian community structure, spatial overlap and herpetofaunal assemblage at Mannampandal, Tamil Nadu during October, 2010 to January, 2011. The survey methods involved careful visual estimation of amphibians in all the possible microhabitats present in the study area. Five different microhabitat categories were selected, viz., leaf litters, temporary water pools, tree holes, shrubs & grasses (ground vegetation), pathways, open floor & outer edges of buildings. We identified 26 species of reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. There was a significant difference found among the amphibian species occupying in different microhabitats. Species diversity was calculated, Shanon-Wiener H'= 1.55. The high niche overlap was found between Duttaphrynus scaber and Uperodon systoma followed by Fejervarya sp. and Sphaerotheca breviceps. The present study on amphibian community is just a representation to show the microhabitat occupancy and adjustment by the amphibians in human settlements and competition among them as, spatial resource partitioning. Key words: Herpetofauna, community, microhabitat, niche-overlap, human settlement, Mannampandal. nearby ponds and roads (Semlitsch, 2000; Marsh & Trenham, 2001). When species co-exist and interact with each other they constitute a community assemblage. Different kinds of amphibian communities can be recognized by the number of species, the number of individual represents each species. Communities also may be characterized by the habitat they occupied and the habits of the species involved (Daniels, 2005). However, for most species, the spatial distribution of individuals in upland habitats is poorly understood. To predict the effects of habitat alteration on population size and viability, data describing the landscape-scale distribution of individuals are needed (Trenham & Shaffer, 2005). Studying multiple species and spatial scales is a key challenge in applied ecology (Meentemeyer & Box, 1987). In India, besides the forest floor and stream communities of amphibians, there are few widely spread species in human modified and agro ecosystems (Daniels, 2005). The human modified ecosystems of the plains as that in rural, cultivated and semi urbanized areas attract number of species of frog and toads. Hence, the purpose of this study is to provide species composition of amphibian community, microhabiatat preference, and spatial niche overlap of amphibians in Anbanadhapuram Vahaira Charity (A.V.C.) College Campus. In addition we also made a note on reptiles at Mannampandal, although Ganesh & Chandramouli (2007) well documented the herpetofauna of Mannampandal. However, it is equally important that, to monitor and know the present status for assessing the impact of human alteration and other human interference on resident population of herpetofauna (Purkayastha et al., 2011). INTRODUCTION Reptiles and amphibians occupy a diverse range of habitats and microhabitats, found from deserts to grasslands, from forests to oceans and from hills to our own houses. India is very rich in herpetofaunal diversity. There are more than 518 species of reptiles (Aengals et al., 2011) and 314 species of amphibians (Dinesh et al., 2011) found in India. The life history, microhabitat preference, and the factors affecting the distribution of most species are unknown. According to IUCN criteria 57% of the amphibians in India are ‘threatened’ (Vasudevan et al., 2001). Habitat destruction and the resulting fragmentation of population is the most important factor affecting the amphibian population (Adams, 1999). Population size of amphibians are unknown for almost all species, and, as significance, recent trends in population sizes also remain unknown (Dutta, 1997). Generally, most of the fundamental data on species biology and ecology are lacking (Vasudevan et al., 2001). Investigations of amphibian species are receiving considerable attention because of the proposed role of amphibians as indicators of ecosystem deterioration (Wake, 1991). It is expected that the world population growth in the next thirty years will be mostly concentrated in the urban areas (United Nations, 2004) leading to even more rapid degradation of pockets of remnant natural habitats. Due to urbanization, species with specific habitat preferences often experience either decreased density or extirpation, which can result in an increase in opportunistic species (Magura et al., 2004). Landscape perspectives have become widespread only in the last decade. Local occurrence of many species can be predicted from data on landscape composition, including especially the densities of *Corresponding Author’s E-mail: anucool.nath5@gmail.com Study area The study was carried out at Mannampandal (11⁰6.354´N & 79⁰41.584´E) Nagapattinam District, 78 Nath et al. Tamil Nadu (Figure 1). It is a part of Cauvery delta region in the South-East coast in the alluvial plains. The area is dominated by wet agricultural lands irrigated by the River Cauvery and its tributaries. Woody vegetation is sparse in the form of groves and roadside trees. The predominant wood plant species found in the study area are Cocos nucifera, Borassus flabellifer, Madhuca indica, Mangifera indica, Enterolobium saman, Tamarindus indicus, Ficus benghalensis, Ficus religiosa, Thespesia populnea, Acacia arabica, Odina wodier and Azadirachta indica. Important shrub species are Prosopis juliflora, Jatropha glandulifera, Adhathoda vesica. Plantations of Casuarina equisetifolia, Tectona grandis and Bamboosa arundinacea are also found in the study area (Ali et al., 2011). The place is 18 km away from the Bay of Bengal at an elevation of 19 m asl. The area experiences 100 cm of annual rainfall principally during the North-East monsoon. Extensive study of amphibian community was carried out in A.V.C. College Campus; approximately it covers an area of 28 ha. METHODOLOGY The survey methods involve extensive survey and careful visual estimation of amphibians in all the possible microhabitats present in A.V.C. College Campus, excluding 1.32 ha plot of Women’s hostel. Path ways were scanned, leaf-litter within the area was turned, bricks were lifted and searched underneath, shrubs and grass were shaken and gleaned, fallen logs turned and searched underneath, tree holes, temporary water pools were searched for the presence of amphibians with the help of six persons team. The species were identified by using Smith (1943), Daniel (2002) and Daniels (2005) . The survey was made at night, between 1000 hrs to 1400 hrs thrice a week during the month of October 2010 to January 2011. There were five different microhabitat categories selected, viz., leaf litters, temporary water pools, tree holes, shrubs and grasses (ground vegetation), pathways, open floor & outer edges of buildings. The number of individuals and microhabitat were noted in the data sheet when the amphibians were encountered. Apart from that, reptiles were surveyed during January to December 2010 including all the opportunistic sightings, road kills and rescue calls. Some of the individuals were collected for identification purposes whenever necessary and soon after the identity was ascertained that the individuals were released at the place of capture. The species were identified by using Smith (1943) and Das (2002). Species diversity index (H¯) was determined by Shannon Wiener’s index (Shannon & Weaver 1949). H¯ = − Σ pi ln pi, where, pi = ni/N, which denotes the importance probability of each species in a population; ni =importance value for each species; N = total of importance value. Concentration of dominance (Cd), known as Simpson index, was measured according to Simpson (1949): Index of dominance (Cd) = Σ (ni/N)2. Species richness or variety index (d) is the mean number of species per sample and determined using the formula of Margalef (1958). Species richness Figure 1. Map of the study area. index (d) = S-1/lnN; where, S = number of species, N = number of individuals of all species. Equitability or evenness (e) refers to the degree of relative dominance of each species in that area. It was calculated according to Pielou (1966) as: Equitability (e) = H¯/ ln S; where, H = Shannon Wiener’s index and S = Number of species. The niche index was used to examine the patterns in use of the environment (space use), and patterns of distribution in it (i.e., micro habitat choice). Spatial niche overlap among amphibian species were analyzed by using Pianka’s index (Pianka 1973). where, Ojk is the overlapping index between species j and k, and pi is the proportion of a single food item i in the diet of species j and k. Pianka’s index varies between 0 (total separation) and 1 (total overlap) (Pianka, 1973). Pianka’s index (O) varies between 0 (total separation) and 1 (total overlap). Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis exclusively only found in one of the microhabitat among the five categorized type, and Euphlyctis hexadactylus encountered outside AVC campus, hence excluded from the Niche Overlap calculation. OBSERVATIONS & RESULTS A total of 40 species of herpetofauna identified belonging to 14 family and 31 genera, includes 14 species of snakes, 14 species amphibians, 10 species of lizards and 2 turtle species (Table 1). Among amphibians, abundance of Duttaphrynus melanostictus was high compare to other species. There was significant difference found among the amphibian species occupying different microhabitats (χ2 =547.25, p <0.05, df = 4) (Fig. 2). Duttaphrynus scaber a rare toad noticeably found to reside in leaf litters. However Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis and Hoplobatrachus tigerinus mostly encountered in temporary water pools; Kaloula taprobanica and Ramanella variegata were often found in tree holes during non-rainy days. The Shannon-Wiener diversity and Margalef species richness index calculated 79 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 Herpetofaunal assemblage in Cauvery delta 1.55 and 1.882 respectively. The Simpson index and Equability (e) were 0.606 and 0.604. The spatial niche overlap values are given in Table 2. The high niche overlap found between D. scaber and Uperodon systoma, Niche overlap (O) value = 0.8893 followed by Fejervarya sp. and Sphaerotheca breviceps (O) = 0.8880. The species which were found to breed at AVC campus were Duttaphrynus melanostictus, Ramanella variegata, Polypedates maculatus and Kaloula taprobanica. At AVC Campus, street and garden lights attracts lots of flying insects particularly after the rain. These lights, in turn, visited by number of frogs and toads that feast on the insects that fall on the ground. K. taprobanica and D. melanostictus often found to feed on insects under the light. Among the turtles Melanochelys trijuga was encountered once during rainy night hours at AVC campus and often seen nearby ponds and a juvenile road killed specimen was also found. On the other hand Lissemys punctata was only encountered twice at Cauvery river channel. Among the lizards, Calotes versicolor was more frequent than Calotes calotes whereas Eutropis carinata, Eutropis macularia were more common than the Lygosoma punctatum. Lygosoma albopunctata was only ones recorded in leaf litter during evening hours at the college campus. Varanus bengalensis is common throughout the Mannampandal, several of them were spotted in termite mounds present at College campus, and also seen in agricultural lands and human habitations. Snakes were encountered in almost all habitats present in the study area. Among the colubrids Amphiesma stolatum, Xenochrophis piscator, Ahaetulla nasuta, Ptyas mucosa were more frequently encountered than the others. Three species of venomous snakes identified were Bungarus caeruleus, Naja naja and Daboia russelii. B. caeruleus and N. naja were also not uncommon at Mannampandal. Several of them were rescued from residential houses, shops and open well; whereas D. russelii was rare compare to other venomous species found in the study area. diversity of an amphibian community is determined by the availability of food, moisture and micro habitat. Significantly amphibians were encountered in leaf litters, as leaf litters may provide a wider range of microhabitats, allowing more individuals and more species to coexist in the litter microhabitat (Fauth et al., 1989). Furthermore, Fauth et al. (1989) found that species richness increased rapidly with an increase in leaf litter depth, as did herpetofaunal density. Deeper leaf litter may provide a wider range of micro- habitats, allowing more individuals and more species to coexist in the litter microhabit. D. melanostictus and D. scaber seemed to be the most similar species pair at the study site. They found to feed on same site. However, D. scaber was entirely nocturnal and rather rare and smaller than D. melanostictus, hardly exceeds 46 mm when adult (Daniel, 2002). All the frogs and toads are insect eating with few exceptions. Uperodon systoma has a strong preference for termites, especially the larger winged forms. On the other hand D. melanostictus and D. scaber largely feeds on ants. Though these species were found highly overlapped in case of spatiality but there food preference is quite different. On the other hand Sphaerotheca rolandae and Sphaerotheca breviceps found to overlap their microhabitat. Due to the burrowing nature of these frogs and very little information on the habits of this species it’s very difficult to point out the reason behind the high overlap. Microhyla ornata found to overlap with Sphaerotheca rolandae, Sphaerotheca breviceps, Fejervarya sp. M. ornata has wide range: throughout Southeast Asia, South China and Taiwan. Furthermore, this species has adapted itself to life in different biotopes and occurs in desert areas like Kutch and areas of heavy rainfall as Kerala and Assam (Daniel, 2002). Microhyla ornata feeds mainly on ants and other small sized insects. Apart from that M. ornata rarely exceeds 25mm in length. Therefore the amount of food consumption might be diminutive as compared to other species found to share same microhabitat types with M. ornata. Schoener's (1974) review, found that habitat, food, and time (in that order) were the most important niche dimensions in most community studies. Here in our study we only analyzed one of the dimension, therefore concrete conclusion can’t be made on the niche overlap or coexist of these amphibian species in the same biota. Furthermore, Niche metrics have been used to infer the role of competition, but the interpretations are not straight forward (e.g. Colwell & Futuyma, 1971): a small overlap may indicate that competition is not important, but may also result from intense competition. Theoretically, two niches may overlap 100% on some resource axes, as long as they are separate on others (McNaughton & Wolf, 1979). Niche theory holds that two coexisting species will tend to reduce overlap in use of limited resources to avoid competition (MacArthur & Levins, 1967). Most likely, adjustments in resource use would be made over long periods of association, as species co-evolve. Coexisting species should move toward a tolerable level of overlap determined by the abundance and diversity of resources available (MacArthur & Levins, 1967). The theory of community ecology predicts that spatial and temporal DISCUSSION The present study reveals that Mannampandal holds handful diversity of herpetofauna. Ganesh & Chandramouli (2007) recorded 45 species of herps from Mannampandal whereas we are able to detect 40 species. Species richness is simply the number of species in a fauna, while equitability represents some measure of the evenness of their distribution. In this study high value of dominance index compare to species diversity of amphibians indicates the lower diversity and may lead to lower stability of the community (MacArthur, 1955). High abundance of D. melanostictus compared to other species which may lead to the lower stability in this community. D. melanostictus is cosmopolitan in distribution (Dutta, 1997) and is known to occur in a variety of habitats, especially in disturbed areas (Inger et al., 1984). Species with the broadest habitat distribution should show high levels of plasticity. Daniels (1992) stated that the number of individuals that represents each species in community may vary from place to place depending on the amount of rainfall, available habitats and human interference as the structure and 80 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 Nath et al. environmental variations have a crucial role in species coexistence (Desbiez et al., 2009). However, the present study on amphibian community is just a model to show the microhabitat occupancy by the amphibians in the human settlements and competition among them as, spatial resource partitioning may be one of the chief indicators of interspecific interactions. Furthermore, Tamil Nadu with its diversity in ecosystems has a very good potential to support numerous reptiles, especially snakes (Daniels, 2001). In our study we found 14 species of snakes in and around human habitation which initiates human-snake conflict quite often. Xenochrophis piscator is one of the most common snakes in India (Daniel 2002; Das 2002, Nath et al., 2011); it was also found to be the most relatively abundant snake at Mannampandal. X. piscator and Naja naja were more likely to create human-snake conflict in the study area. In most cases, non-venomous snakes were found to be the victims in the human-snake conflict, as most of the people not able to distinguish between venomous and non-venomous snakes. Lack of awareness was the main reason for the killing of snakes (Nath et al., 2011). Awareness programs are needed to be conducted in order to make people acquainted with herpetofauna and their importance for a balanced ecosystem. Snake bite management is another issue which is to be taken up more seriously, although people were seen to reach hospitals immediately after the snake bite. The study of herpetofauna in Mannampandal village is important because Ganesh & Chandramouli (2011) has reported Polypedates cf. leucomystax from A.V.C Campus, based on evident parietosquamosal. However, Biju (2001) and Daniel (2002) deny its presence in south India. Dutta (1997) remarked that some earlier authors considered P. maculatus and P. leucomystax to be subspecies and the occurrence of P. leucomystax in Sri Lanka is erroneous and in Karnataka, south India is uncertain. The report from the Western Ghats of Karnataka was once considered authentic and then ‘changed’ to doubtful (Daniels, 1997, 2000 & 2005). Furthermore, Ganesh & Chandramouli (2010) rediscover a rare gekkonid lizard Hemidactylus scabriceps originally described from the Ramnad district of Tamil Nadu, India, was recorded from A. V. C. College campus Mannampandal, Nagapattinam district. This is the third known locality for this species in India Figure 2. Percentage of amphibians recorded in different microhabitats of A.V.C. College Campus, Mannampandal, Tamil Nadu during October, 2010 to January, 2011. Table 1. Herpetofaunal species recorded during 2010-11 at Mannampandal, Tamil Nadu. Sl. No. 1 Family Species IUCN Status Bufonidae Duttaphrynus melanostictus (Schneider, 1799) 2 Microhylidae 3 4 Rhacophoridae Ranidae 5 6 Trionychidae Geoemydidae 7 Gekkonidae IWPA Status Least Concern CITES Appendix Not listed Duttaphrynus scaber (Schneider, 1799) Kaloula taprobanica (Parker, 1934) Microhyla ornata (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) Microhyla rubra (Jerdon, 1854) Ramanella variegata (Stoliczka, 1872) Uperodon systoma (Schneider, 1799) Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV Polypedates maculatus (Gray, 1830) Euphlyctis cyanophlyctis (Schneider, 1799) Euphlyctis hexadactylus (Lesson, 1834) Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Daudin, 1803) Fejervarya sp. Sphaerotheca breviceps (Schneider, 1799) Sphaerotheca rolandae (Dubois, 1983) Lissemys punctata (Lacépède, 1788) Melanochelys trijuga (Schweigger, 1812) Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern --Least Concern Least Concern Least Concern Near Threatened Least Concern Not listed II Not listed II --Not listed Not listed II Not listed Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule IV --Schedule IV Schedule IV Schedule I Schedule IV Not listed Schedule IV Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Hemidactylus frenatus (Schlegel, 1836) Hemidactylus brookii (Gray, 1845) Hemidactylus triedrus (Daudin, 1802) 8 Scincidae Schedule IV Eutropis carinata (Schneider, 1801) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Eutropis macularia (Blyth, 1853) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Lygosoma punctatum (Linnaeus, 1758) Lygosoma albopunctata (Gray, 1846) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV 81 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 9 Agamidae Herpetofaunal assemblage in Cauvery delta Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Calotes calotes (Linnaeus, 1758) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Calotes versicolor (Daudin, 1802) 10 Varanidae Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802) Least Concern I Schedule I 11 Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV 12 Colubridae Oligodon arnensis (Shaw, 1802) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Oligodon taeniolatus (Jerdon, 1853) Lower Risk Not listed Schedule IV Lycodon aulicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Coelogathus helena (Daudin, 1803) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Ptyas mucosa (Linnaeus, 1758) Least Concern III Schedule II Dendrelaphis tristis (Daudin, 1803) Least Concern Not listed Schedule IV Ahaetulla nasuta (Lacépède, 1789) Lower Risk Not listed Schedule IV Amphiesma stolatum (Linnaeus, 1758) Lower Risk Not listed Schedule IV Atretium schistosum (Daudin, 1803) Lower Risk III Schedule II Xenochrophis piscator (Schneider, 1799) Least Concern III Schedule II Bungarus caeruleus (Schneider, 1801) Naja naja (Linnaeus, 1758) Daboia russelii (Shaw & Nodder, 1797) Lower Risk Least Concern Lower Risk Not listed III III Schedule IV Schedule II Schedule II 13 Elapidae 14 Viperidae Table 2. Spatial Niche overlap among the amphibian species in A.V.C. College Campus, Mannampandal, Tamil Nadu, South India. Species Name Sp ha e ro the c a breviceps Sphaerot h e c a rolandae Sphaerot h e c a breviceps Fe jervarya sp. H o p lo b a tra c hus tigerinus Polypedates maculatus 0.8880 0.0864 0.1144 0.1211 0.0520 0.0689 0.0729 0.0094 0.0868 0.01158 0.0060 0.0006 0.0006 Ramanella variegata 0.0180 0.0239 0.0253 0.0065 0.0019 Microhyla rubra 0.2418 0.2855 0.3003 0.0386 0.0370 Microhyla ornata 0.5857 0.7729 0.1054 0.0635 Kaloula taprobanica 0.1430 0.1888 0.1999 0.0257 0.0155 Dutta p hry nus scaber 0.0872 0.0081 0.0022 0.0002 0.0004 0.1373 0.1099 0.1121 0.0143 0.0088 Hoplobatrachus tigerinus Polypedates maculatus Uperodon systoma Dutta p hry nus melanostictus R a m anella variegata Mic ro h y l a rubra Microhyla ornata Kaloula taprobanica Duttaphry n u s scaber 0.6341 0.6709 Fejervarya sp. Upero d o n systo ma 0.8183 and the first Indian record in 72 years. Therefore it’s necessary to aware the people of Mannampndal village regarding the importance of the area in herpetofaunal research. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to thank teachers and other staff member of department of Wildlife Biology for their support and 0.0001 0.2881 0.0246 0.0053 0.8893 0.0080 0.0220 0.2678 0.3720 0.0652 0.1741 0.00004 0.2978 0.0220 0.0046 0.0030 0.2348 0.1110 0.0266 0.6187 0.5966 help during the study period. We are thankful to S.R. Chandramouli for his support, suggestion, providing research papers and identification of species during study. Thankful to Samrat Sengupta for providing research papers on Niche ecology. We would also like to thank Dr. Abhijit Das for providing instructions and research papers. We are especially thankful to Jayanta Kumar Roy (RARABN) for providing research papers and preparation of map. 82 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 Nath et al. REFERENCES Ganesh, S. R. and Chandramouli, S. R. 2010. Rediscov ery of Hemidactylus scabriceps (Annandale, 1906) (Reptilia: Sauria: Gekkonidae) from Eastern Tamil Nadu, India. Russian Journal of Herpetology 17(1): 70 – 74. Adams, M. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian de cline: Exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Man agement 63: 1162-1171. Aengals, R. Sathish Kumar, V.M. and Palot, M. J. 2011. Updated Checklist of Indian Reptiles. Zoological Survey of India. zsi.gov.in/ checklist/ Reptiles. Ali, A.M.S., Asokan, S., Manikannan, R. and Rad hakrishnan, P. 2011. Checklist and nesting patterns of avifauna in and around Mayiladuthurai region, Tamil Nadu, I ndia. Journal of Threatened Taxa 3(6): 1842– 1850. Biju, S. D. 2001. A Synopsis to the frog fauna of West ern Ghats, India. Indian Society for Conserva tion Biology. Occasional Publication 1: 1-24. Colwell, R. K., and D. J. Futuyma. 1971. On the meas urement of niche breadth and overlap. Ecol ogy 52:567-576. 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. 1997. A Field Guide to the frogs and toads of the Western Ghats. Part III. Cobra 29:1-13. Daniels, R. J. R., 2000. Reptiles and amphibians of Kar nataka. Cobra 42: 1-11. Daniels, R.J.R. 2001. Snakes of Tamil Nadu: a status report. Cobra 44: 11–17. Daniel, J. C., 2002. The Book of Indian Reptiles and Amphibians. Bombay Natural History Society, Oxford University Press, Mumbai: 238pp. Daniels, R. J. R., 2005. Amphibians of Peninsular India. Universities Press, Hyderabad, India: 286. Das, I., 2002. A Photographic Guide to Snakes and other Reptiles of India. New Holland publications, London, UK: 144 pp. Desbiez, A. L. J., Santos, S. A. S., Keuroghlian, A. and Bodmer, R. E. 2009. Niche partitioning among White-lipped Peccaries (Tayassu pecari), Col lared Peccaries (Pecari tajacu), and feral pigs (Sus scrofa). Journal of Mammalogy 90 (1):119–128. Dinesh, K.P., Radhakrishnan, C., Gururaja, K.V., Deuti, K. and Bhatta, G. 2011. A Checklist of Am phibia of India. Zoological Survey of India. zsi.gov.in/checklist/Amphibia. Dutta, S. K. 1997. Amphibian species of India and Sri Lanka (checklist and bibliography). Odyssey Publishing House Bhubaneswar. xiii + 342 + xxii pp. Fauth, J.E., Crother, B. I. and Slowinski, J. B.1989. Elevational Patterns of Species Richness, Evenness, and Abundance of the Costa Rican Leaf-Litter Herpetofauna. Biotropica 21(2): 178-185 Ganesh, S.R. and Chandramouli, S.R. 2007. A Study of the herpetofaunal community in Mannampandal, Nagapatinam District, Tamil Nadu. Cobra 1(4): 33–43. Ganesh, S. R. and Chandramouli, S. R. 2011. Report of some noteworthy specimens and species of Herpetofauna from South-east India. Taprobanica 3(1): 5-10. Inger, R.F., Shaffer, H.B., Koshy, M. and Badke, R. 1984. A report on the collection of amphibians and reptiles from the Ponmudi, Kerala, South India. Journal of Bombay natural History So ciety 81:406-427; 551-570. MacArthur, R. 1955. Fluctuations of Animal Popula tions and a Measure of Community Stability. Ecology 36 (3): 533-536. MacArthur, R. H., and Levins, R. 1967. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. American Naturalist 101:377-385. McNaughton, S.J. and Wolf, L.L. 1979. General Ecol ogy. 2nd ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY. Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B., Molnár, T. 2004. Changes in carabid beetle assemblages along an urbanization gra dient in the city of Debrecen, Hungary. Landscape Ecology 19: 747–759. Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Gen eral Systematics 3: 36–71. Marsh, D. M., and Trenham, P. C. 2001. Metapopula tion dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conservation Biology 15:40-49. Nath, A. Singha, H. and Das, A. 2011. Snakes of Bon gaigaon Municipality Area, Assam, India. Rep tile Rap 13: 9-13. Meentemeyer, V. and Box, E.O. 1987. Scale effects in landscape studies. In Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. Edited by M.G. Turner. Springer-Verlag, New York.. pp. 15-34. Pianka, E. R. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 53-74. Pielou, E. C.1975. Ecological diversity. WileyInterscience New York. Purkayastha, J., Das, M. and Sengupta, S. 2011. Urban herpetofauna: a case study in Guwahati City of Assam, India. Herpetology Notes 4: 195-202. Schoener, T. W. 1974. Resource partitioning in ecologi cal communities. Science 185:27-39. Semlitsch, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildl ife Management 64: 615-63. Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. 1949. The mathematic cal theory of communication, University of Il linois press, Urbana. Simpson, E. M. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688. Smith, M. A. 1943. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Vol-III Serpentes. Taylor and Francis publications, London : 583. Trenham, P.C. and Shaffer, H. B. 2005. Amphibian up land habitat use and its consequences for population viability. Ecological Applications 15(4): 1158-1168. 83 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 Herpetofaunal assemblage in Cauvery delta United Nations. 2004. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2003 Revision. United Nations Publication sales No. E.04.XIII.6 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. Wake, D. B. 1991. Declining amphibian populations: a global phenomenon? Science 253:860. Plate 1. Some Anurans at Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu. A. Duttaphrynus melanostictus B. Duttaphrynus scaber C. Polypedates maculatus D. Uperodon systoma E. Ramanella variegata F. Kaloula taprobanica G. Microhyla rubra H. Microhyla ornata I. Sphaerotheca breviceps J. Sphaerotheca rolandae Plate 2. Some Saurians and turtle at Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu. A. Hemidactylus triedrus B. Lygosoma albopunctata C. Calotes calotes D. Varanus bengalensis E. Melanochelys trijuga 84 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012 Nath et al. Plate 3. Some Serpents at Mannampandal, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu. A. Amphiesma stolatum B. Dendrelaphis tristis C. Ahaetulla nasuta D. Lycodon aulicus E. Oligodon taeniolatus F. Ptyas mucosa G. Naja naja H. Bungarus caeruleus I. Daboia russelii 85 AJCB Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-85, 2012