Are local and traditional ecological knowledge suitable tools for informing the conservation of threatned amphibians in a biodiversity hotspot.

Abstract

Globally, amphibians are declining more rapidly than any other vertebrate group. A general shortage of funding for the support of focused scientific studies led us to investigate local and traditional ecological knowledge as an alternative data source for amphibian conservation. In this context, we undertook a questionnaire-based interview survey with forest-dwelling indigenous and non-indigenous communities across the Anamalai Hills, within the southern Western Ghats of India, to gather ecological knowledge on three cryptic and threatened frog species. Our results suggest that local communities possess ecological knowledge of frogs and that the magnitude of this knowledge is influenced by gender, community type, education, and age. Accuracy of local knowledge was primarily influenced by the morphological distinctiveness of the focal species, but cultural
association and utilisation were also important factors especially for the enigmatic purple frog Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis, which has uses in medicine and amulets.

Full text

Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 3
INTRODUCTION
India harbours exceponal diversity and endemism of
amphibians, with a total of 459 species (Frost, 2020).
Most amphibian studies have focused on taxonomy and
systemacs (e.g. Van Bocxlaer et al., 2009; Biju et al., 2011,
2014) rather than populaon status, ecology and threats
to these species. In the absence of resources for focused
scienc studies, alternave data collecon approaches to
understand key amphibian conservaon parameters need to
be idened and tested.
Communies develop an array of knowledge and
management strategies to exploit the local natural resources
on which they depend (Berkes et al., 2000). The collecon
and assessment of such knowledge from untrained observers
therefore represents a potenally cost-eecve approach to
understand the biology, distribuon, populaon status, and
potenal threats for otherwise poorly-known and potenally
threatened amphibian species. This approach may be
parcularly important for species that are dicult to detect
using standard scienc survey methods, that have limited
acvity paerns, and/or are rare or possibly exnct (Anadón
et al., 2009; Turvey et al., 2010; Meijaard et al., 2011; Stuart,
2012; Ziembicki et al., 2013).
The knowledge that local communies possess can be
classied as either tradional ecological knowledge (TEK),
a composite set of beliefs, informaon and pracces that
are handed over from one generaon to another, or local
ecological knowledge (LEK), the observaons gathered by an
individual over a lifeme (Gadgil et al., 1993; Berkes et al.,
2000; Gilchrist et al., 2005). These two knowledge categories
dier; TEK oen relates to beliefs towards species that can
lead to their protecon, culling or ulisaon (Stacey et al.,
2012). Whereas LEK, by being observaonal in nature, can
assist in understanding species occurrence, abundance,
habitat use and threats (Gilchrist et al., 2005; Anadón et
al., 2010; Lescureux et al., 2011), especially for globally
threatened and/or elusive species for which very few data
are otherwise available (Turvey et al., 2014, 2015; Pan et al.,
2015). LEK is parcularly useful for understanding status and
threats for large-bodied, morphologically disnct species
(Turvey et al., 2014) or economically or culturally important
species (Jones et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2015). However,
collecng and interpreng data about focal species from
untrained respondents to establish baselines for conservaon
is not straighorward (Gilchrist et al., 2005). TEK and LEK
data can be aected by errors around species idencaon
or associated encounter details (e.g. ming recall), negave
reporng bias, retrospecve bias, exaggeraon, and/or
varying data breadth and quality depending on species and
respondent (Davis & Wagner, 2003; Gilchrist et al., 2005;
McKelvey et al., 2008; O’Donnell et al., 2010).
Under the Forest Rights Act of India, 2006, indigenous
communies in the Western Ghats are permied to
harvest non-mber forest products and freshwater sh
sustainably. Indigenous communies in the Western Ghats
region of Kerala have been found to ulise 54 wild animal
taxa, primarily freshwater sh, herpetofauna and small
mammals, for meat and tradional medicine (Kanagavel et
al., 2016). Amphibians are known to be used by indigenous
communies across the Western Ghats and in other parts of
India for medicinal purposes (Tiwari et al., 2013; Narzary &
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The Herpetological Bulletin 153, 2020: 3-13
Are local and tradional ecological knowledge suitable tools for
informing the conservaon of threatened amphibians in
biodiversity hotspots?
ARUN KANAGAVEL1*, SETHU PARVATHY1, BENJAMIN TAPLEY2, NITHULA NIRMAL1, GAYATHRI
SELVARAJ3, RAJEEV RAGHAVAN4, CASSANDRA MURRAY2, NISHA OWEN2 & SAMUEL T. TURVEY2
1Conservaon Research Group, St. Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi 682 018, India
2Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, NW1 4RY, UK
3Laboratory for the Conservaon of Endangered Species, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad 500 048, India
4Department of Fisheries Resource Management, Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, Kochi 682 506, India
*Corresponding author e-mail: arun.kanagavel@gmail.com
hps://doi.org/10.33256/hb153.313
ABSTRACT - Globally, amphibians are declining more rapidly than any other vertebrate group. A general shortage of funding
for the support of focused scienc studies led us to invesgate local and tradional ecological knowledge as an alternave data
source for amphibian conservaon. In this context, we undertook a quesonnaire-based interview survey with forest-dwelling
indigenous and non-indigenous communies across the Anamalai Hills, within the southern Western Ghats of India, to gather
ecological knowledge on three crypc and threatened frog species. Our results suggest that local communies possess ecological
knowledge of frogs and that the magnitude of this knowledge is inuenced by gender, community type, educaon, and age.
Accuracy of local knowledge was primarily inuenced by the morphological disncveness of the focal species, but cultural
associaon and ulisaon were also important factors especially for the enigmac purple frog Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis,
which has uses in medicine and amulets.

4 Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020)
Bordoloi, 2014; Thomas & Biju, 2015; Kanagavel et al., 2016)
and are also the focus of legends and taboos (Harpalani et al.,
2015). The area therefore oers an opportunity to invesgate
the LEK and TEK of amphibians, within a wider connental
context where baseline data on amphibian species diversity
and distribuons are very limited (Molur, 2008). We focused
on three poorly-known threatened frog species from
southern India, all idened as EDGE (Evoluonarily Disnct
and Globally Endangered) species for conservaon (Isaac et
al., 2012). We aimed to assess whether LEK and TEK can be
eecve tools for gathering ecological knowledge to inform
future amphibian-based conservaon iniaves in the
Western Ghats.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Our study was undertaken in three adjoining areas of the
Anamalai Hills (Kerala and Tamil Nadu States), within the
southern Western Ghats; Valparai (municipality), Topslip
(Forest Range) and Munnar (town). These locaons are
bordered by several protected areas, reserve forests, and
private forest fragments (Fig. 1). The primary vegetaon of
this area, which historically comprised tropical rainforest,
has now been transformed into a mosaic of plantaons
interspersed with fragmented patches of original evergreen
forest (Raman & Mudappa, 2003).
Both indigenous (Kadar, Mudhuvar, Malasar, Malai
Malasar, Pulayar) and non-indigenous forest-dwelling
communies live in the study area. Indigenous communies
are dened by their historical occupancy of the area,
geographic isolaon, disncve culture and ancient cultural
traits (MTA, 2012). Non-indigenous communies are mostly
recent selers from other regions of India. Both indigenous
and non-indigenous communies work with the State Forest
Department or as labourers in farms and plantaons, and
collect non-mber forest products (Chandi, 2008; Surendran
& Sekhar, 2011). The populaon of the area has a higher
proporon of non-indigenous than indigenous individuals
(>13:1; Chandi, 2008; DCO, 2011).
Three threatened EDGE amphibians, endemic to the
study area were selected as focal species: the purple frog
(Nasikabatrachidae: Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis, Fig. 2A),
the black microhylid frog (Microhylidae: Melanobatrachus
indicus, Fig. 2B), and the toad-skinned frog (Ranixalidae:
Walkerana phrynoderma, Fig. 2C) (Table 1). These three
species vary in their morphological disncveness and in the
availability of scienc knowledge about them. This provides
a useful framework for assessing correlates of potenal
LEK and TEK variaon and usefulness. Nasikabatrachus
sahyadrensis was described sciencally in 2003 but was
already known by indigenous communies and is relavely
well studied (Aggarwal, 2004; Table 2). This fossorial frog is
morphologically disnct, and is only acve above the soil for
the annual two-week breeding season (Biju & Bossuyt, 2003;
Thomas et al., 2014). It has been consumed by indigenous
communies for decades, and these communies possess
considerable knowledge about its behaviour and lifecycle
(Thomas & Biju, 2015). Melanobatrachus indicus is
Arun Kanagavel et al.
Figure 1. Map of the study area in the southern Western Ghats of India

2004a; Kanagavel et al., 2018). It has been the focus of a
published scienc study and it is known to occur at mid and
high elevaons with dense canopy cover (Kanagavel et al.,
2018). There are no published accounts of the species being
ulised by people.
We conducted quesonnaire-based interview surveys
from August 2013 to May 2016, where LEK data correspond
to species presence, associated habitats and locaons while
Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 5
disncvely paerned but is rarely encountered and not well
studied; some data are available on habitat associaons, but
its reproducve biology is unknown (Daltry & Marn, 1997;
Kanagavel & Tapley, 2013; Table 2) and there are no published
accounts of the species being ulised by people. Walkerana
phrynoderma is an uncommon, rainforest-dependent,
ground-dwelling brown frog that bears a supercial
resemblance to several other frogs in the region (Biju et al.,
Are local and tradional knowledge suitable tools for conservaon of threatened amphibians?
Figure 2. Focal frog species for the study - A. Purple frog N. sahyadrensis, B. Black microhylid frog M. indicus, C. Toad-skinned frog W. phrynoderma
Scienc Name StatuskHabitat1Community Type
& No.mUlisaon Typen
1Nasikabatrachus
sahyadrensisa, b, c
EN Fossorial, acve above the
ground only for a few weeks
during the monsoon
Kadar (27) Adults and larvae are consumed specically by children and infants
as medicine for skin-based ailments, cold, cough, throat infecon,
asthma, measles, chicken pox and stomach pain. They are consumed
aer cooking or aer drying and/or powdered or vapours from
burning the dried frog are inhaled. Fat ssue/mucous lining is applied
on external wounds. Small-sized individuals, skin, limbs, or digit ends
are used as amulets for children to reduce fear, when they are unable
to sleep at night or who do not speak or walk well.
2Melanobatrachus
indicusa, d, e
EN Fallen bark and leaf lier
close to streams
Kadar (1) For those who have a problem with walking, the frog is ed within a
small sack and worn around the individual’s neck.
3Walkerana
phrynodermaa, f
CR Leaf lier Kadar (0), Mudhu-
van (0)
Since it is confused with Duaphrynus sp., this species and others
in the same genus could be used as medicine to cure skin burns and
other skin-based body ailments.
4Rhacophorus
pseudomalabaricusg
CR Understory of rainforests Kadar (1) Used as medicine for coughs and as amulets for children who do not
speak or walk well
5Raorchestes
jayaramih
NE 2m above the ground in
forest undergrowth
Kadar (3) Used as medicine for coughs, as general medicine for children and as
amulets for children who do not speak or walk well
6Raorchestes
beddomiih
NT Moist forest patches,
wayside vegetaon and tea
plantaon
Kadar (3) Used as medicine for coughs, as general medicine for children and as
amulets for children who do not speak or walk well
7Duaphrynus
melanosctusi
LC Wide range of habitats Kadar (2),
Mudhuvan (1),
Non-indigenous
communies (1)
Used as medicine to cure skin burns and other skin-based body
ailments
8Indosylvirana sp.jLeaf lier and streams in
open secondary and primary
forests
Kadar (3) Used during the rainy season as bait for shing
9Hoplobatrachus
gerinusf
LC Close to streams, lakes,
pools and farms
Non-indigenous
communies (5)
Meat is consumed
10 Fejervarya sp. Close to water bodies,
muddy areas
Kadar (1),
Mudhuvan (1),
Non-indigenous
communies (1)
Used as bait to catch sh and crabs
11 Euphlycs sp. Water bodies Kadar (1),
Mudhuvan (1),
Non-indigenous
communies (1)
Used as bait to catch sh and crabs
Table 1. Details of how anuran species are ulised by local communies in the Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats, India
aFocal species of this study; bBiju, 2004; cGururaja, 2012; dBiju et al., 2004b; eKanagavel & Tapley, 2013; fBiju et al., 2004a; gVasudevan & Dua, 2000; hBiju &
Bossuyt, 2009; ivan Dijk et al., 2004; jBiju et al., 2014; kIUCN Red List Category- CR: Crically Endangered, EN: Endangered, NT: Near Threatened, LC: Least Concern,
NE: Not Evaluated; lHabitat according to published scienc literature; mNumber of respondents who consumed the species; addionally, ve respondents used
any frog available as bait for capturing sh and crabs; nThis informaon is from the current study

6 Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020)
TEK data correspond to the vernacular names of species and
to their ulisaon. Interviews were held with forest-dwelling
indigenous and non-indigenous communies across the three
localies. We selected 16 selements (Valparai=6, Topslip=5,
Munnar=5) for surveying using a targeted sampling strategy
and then selected the respondents at each selement
using a convenience sampling strategy (Newing, 2011). We
undertook a door-to-door survey where each household
was visited and conducted interviews face to face in local
languages (Tamil or Malayalam). Aer introducing ourselves,
we interviewed any consenng individual over the age of 18.
There were both male and female interviewers; to reduce
gender-related respondent bias, female respondents were
interviewed only by female interviewers (Newing, 2011).
We used a standard quesonnaire composed of open
ended and closed quesons (see Supplementary Material)
for all interviews. Interviews took a maximum of 20 minutes
to complete. Firstly, we recorded each respondent’s socio-
economic characteriscs. We then showed each respondent
un-labelled photographs of the three focal amphibian
species, in the same sequence in all interviews. Aer each
photograph was shown, we asked respondents whether they
had seen the species, and if they had, about its vernacular
name and the associated habitats and locaons in which
they had seen it. We then asked respondents whether any
frogs were ulised, and if so, which species and the type of
ulisaon. Since we did not know if frog ulisaon in general
was a sensive topic or not, we used both direct and indirect
quesoning approaches, asking both whether respondents
ulised frogs themselves and whether they knew of anyone
else who ulised them. Finally, we asked respondents
whether and why they visited forests, and then asked two
separate quesons about whether they were interested in
protecng forests and frogs in their area.
If respondents were only able to provide very general
informaon (e.g. species is “found everywhere” or is
found “in the forests of Kerala”), we considered such data
unreliable and excluded them from further analysis. Since
W. phrynoderma resembles several other frog species, we
cross-checked habitat details reported by respondents with
the limited scienc informaon available for this species
(Kanagavel et al., 2018), and only retained informaon from
respondents who reported the specic habitat requirements.
We calculated the frequency of respondents who had seen
Scienc name Vernacular namebCommunity typecAccurate habitats associated
with species occuranced
Unreliable habitats
associated with speciesd
Known scienc
informaon
Nasikabatrachus
sahyadrensis
Koraan/Koaan* (Kadar)
= 26
Mannu/Manal tavala* (soil/
sand frog; Malasar, Pulayar)
= 8
No name = 15
Kunjunni*+ (Mudhuvan) = 11
Makkan/Makachi tavala+
(non-indigenous) = 2
Koku tavala* (beaked frog;
Malasar) = 1
Kuyi aamai* (turtle-like;
Malasar) = 1
Kadar = 27
Mudhuvan = 19
Malai Malasar,
Malasar & Mannan
= 11
Pulayar = 4
Non-indigenous = 2
Within the ground and/or
found it during digging = 38
First rains, rainy season, rains
accompanied by thunder,
lightning or hail = 30
Stream & stream bank = 10
Forests = 3
Plantaons & Selement = 4
Water cavity within rewood
= 1
On ground = 1
In water = 1
Forests of Kerala = 1
Don’t know anything
else = 3
Fossorial, acve above
the ground only for a
few weeks during the
monsoon, found close
to forest streams with
rocky pools (Zachariah
et al., 2012)
Melanobatra-
chus indicus
No name = 14
Velladichi tavala* (close to
water; Kadar) = 4
Thotri tavala* (Kadar) = 2
Peckachi tavala* (Kadar) = 1
Karin tavala* (black frog;
Kadar) = 1
Mara tavala+ (tree frog; Mud-
huvan) = 1
Kadar = 13
Mudhuvan = 7
Malai Malasar,
Malasar & Mannan
= 2
Pulayar = 1
Non-indigenous = 0
Stream and water body = 12
Forest = 6
Rocks & leaf lier = 4
Trees = 3
Bamboo = 2
On rocks and ground = 2
Dry areas = 2
On green plants = 1
Everywhere = 2 Fallen bark close to
streams in semi-
evergreen forest
(Kanagavel & Tapley,
2013)
Walkerana
phrynoderma
No name = 2
Porkan tavala* (warty frog;
Kadar) = 1
Vadakan tavala+ (Mannan) = 1
Metru tavala* (Kadar) = 1
Kadar = 3
Mudhuvan = 0
Malai Malasar,
Malasar & Mannan
= 1
Pulayar = 1
Non-indigenous = 0
Evergreen forest = 5
Ground, leaf lier = 3
Close to stream = 2
Mist covered area = 1
Stream, water body &
wetland=44
Ground, leaf lier,
crevice, rock, grass, bush,
bamboo = 18
Forest = 15
Houses, plantaons,
elds, well = 12
Everywhere = 8
Rainy season = 4
Don’t know anything
else = 9
Leaf lier in evergreen
forest at 1300-
1700m asl, where
canopy cover is high
(Kanagavel et al., 2018)
Table 2. Numbers of responses contribung local ecological knowledge on the three focal anuran species and the reliability of response
relave to the scienc literaturea
a To safeguard the species, the names of locaons have not been menoned in this table. Researchers and conservaonists can apply to the authors for this
informaon; b Only those vernacular names associated with accurate LEK data have been menoned. The meanings for some of the vernacular names were not
known by the respondents. The indigenous community that uses the specic name has been menoned in italics. The names correspond to two local languages
– Tamil* and Malayalam+; c The total number of respondents belonging to each community type who could accurately idenfy the specic focal species; d The
dierent habitats have been grouped and the total number of respondents for each group has been menoned
Arun Kanagavel et al.

Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 7
Figure 3. A QUEST decision-tree detailing the socio-economic characteriscs that inuence whether local individuals have encountered - A.
Purple frog N. sahyadrensis, B. Black microhylid frog M. indicus, and C. Toad-skinned frog W. phrynoderma
each focal species in relaon to the habitat associaons of
each species. We assessed reported vernacular names for
each species to understand local folk taxonomy of amphibians
(cf. Atran et al., 1997).
We explored the relaonship between species detecon
and socio-economic characteriscs of respondents using
a QUEST decision-tree (Brewer & Rabeni, 2011, Lin & Fan,
2019), to idenfy appropriate ‘experts’ for informing future
LEK surveys. Decision-tree analyses assist in establishing
classicaons and QUEST was chosen in this case since it
can handle variables with mulple categories. It uses Anova
F and Chi-square tests to select variables for spling and
the resultant tree was pruned using the CART algorithm.
Then in order to idenfy appropriate audience groups
towards whom future conservaon iniaves could be
targeted, we calculated the frequency of ulisaon of
dierent anuran species by respondents and people they
knew. These frequencies were explored using a binomial
logisc regression model followed by ad-hoc analysis of
deviance (Bond et al., 2017) to show the inuence of socio-
economic characteriscs, experience of seeing focal species,
and frequency of forest visits, on amphibian ulisaon.
Respondent interest in protecng frogs was analysed, also
using a binomial logisc regression model, incorporang
respondent socio-economic characteriscs, experience
of seeing focal species and ulising frogs, and interest in
protecng forests. The stascal analyses were undertaken
using IBM SPSS Stascs 21.0 and R version 3.3.0.
RESULTS
A total of 113 quesonnaires were completed with 1 to
15 respondents based at 16 dierent selements (Table
3). Of the respondents most were male (65 %, n=73) and
most belonged to the Kadar and Mudhuvan indigenous
communies (58 %, n=66). Many had no formal educaon
(48 %, n=54) and the majority were involved in non-mber
forest product collecon, daily-wage labour or farming for
their daily livelihood (59 %, n=67). Most visited forests (81
%, n=92) to collect non-mber forest products and fuelwood
(76 %, n=86) or for temporary work related to the Forest
Department (19 %, n=22).
Local ecological knowledge
Of the three focal amphibian species, W. phrynoderma
had reportedly been seen by the greatest number of
respondents (77.9 %, n=88), followed by N. sahyadrensis
Figure 4. Interest in protecng forests and frogs by local communies
in the southern Western Ghats
Are local and tradional knowledge suitable tools for conservaon of threatened amphibians?

8 Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020)
(59.3 %, n=67) and M. indicus (22.1 %, n=25). However,
following crical vericaon of W. phrynoderma reports with
published ecological data, we only considered ve reports
(4.4 % of respondents) to represent reliably idened records
of this species. Conversely, we only excluded four reports of
N. sahyadrensis and two reports of M. indicus on the basis
of dubious idencaon (nal reliable species totals: N.
sahyadrensis, 55.8 %, n=63; M. indicus, 20.4 %, n=23). While
a greater proporon of respondents from Topslip reported
N. sahyadrensis (78.9 %, n=15) followed by Valparai (53.7 %,
n=29) and Munnar (47.5 %, n=19), M. indicus was reported
mostly by respondents from Valparai (29.6 %, n=16) followed
by Munnar (15.0 %, n=6) and Topslip (5.3 %, n=1). Walkerana
phrynoderma was mostly reported from Valparai (7.4 %,
n=4) followed by Munnar (2.5 %, n=1). Of the three focal
species, only N. sahyadrensis was idened by respondents
belonging to non-indigenous communies (16.7 %, n=2;
Table 3). Respondents who were able to idenfy the focal
species frequently provided informaon on locaons where
the species occurred in the study area (Table 2). Respondents
described N. sahyadrensis as being found beneath the ground
(n=38) and mostly encountered during the rainy season
(n=30), coming out of the ground only to lay eggs and calling
by making loud noises beneath the soil. Respondents reported
that M. indicus was associated with streams and water bodies
(n=12) while W. phrynoderma was known from evergreen
forests (n=5).
Decision tree analysis indicated dierent demographic
predictors associated with increased likelihood of detecng
each of the three focal amphibian species. For N. sahyadrensis,
respondent gender (P<0.01) was the most powerful
predictor, with men more likely to have encountered the
species than women (Fig. 3A). Within the subset of female
respondents, community type (P=0.04) further improved
the predicve power of the model, with female Kadar
respondents more likely to have encountered the species
than female respondents from other communies. Within
the subset of female, non-Kadar communies, educaon
(P<0.01) further improved the model, with respondents
lacking formal educaon more likely to have encountered
the species. For M. indicus, community type (P=0.01) was
instead the most powerful predictor, with Kadar respondents
again more likely to have encountered the species (Fig. 3B).
Within the subset of non-Kadar communies, educaon
(P<0.01) further improved the predicve power of the model,
with respondents lacking formal educaon again more likely
to have encountered the species. For W. phrynoderma, age
was the only signicant predictor (P=0.04), with respondents
above 45 years of age more likely to have encountered the
species (Fig. 3C).
Tradional ecological knowledge
Vernacular names used for N. sahyadrensis were either
culturally signicant or based on morphology or habitat,
whereas M. indicus mostly did not have a local name,
although some respondents referred to it by its habitat or
colour (Table 2). Vernacular names used for W. phrynoderma
were based on its morphology (Table 2), and respondents
used the same vernacular name for other common species of
the families Ranixalidae and Bufonidae (‘chori/pori thavala’
n=20), leading to frequent misidencaon with such species
and inaccurate ecological associaon with water bodies,
wetlands, and habitats close to human selements.
Thirty-eight respondents (33.6 %) reported that they
ulised frogs themselves, mostly N. sahyadrensis (n=27).
A larger proporon of respondents from Valparai ulised
frogs (38.9 %, n=21) followed by Munnar (30.0 %, n=12) and
Topslip (26.3 %, n=5). The focal species were ulised only
by the Kadar indigenous communies (Table 1). Other non-
focal anurans were also mostly ulised by the Kadars and to
a small extent by Mudhuvans. Non-indigenous communies
depended on common, widely distributed species (Table
1). Frogs were used for general consumpon and medicine
(n=28), as amulets to reduce fear among children (n=12),
and as bait to catch freshwater sh and crabs (n=8) (Table
1). Only indigenous communies ulised amphibians for
tradional medicine while non-indigenous communies used
them for general consumpon and as bait (Table 1). Thirty-
two respondents (28.3 %) stated that they knew of other
individuals or communies that ulised frogs, including N.
sahyadrensis, Hoplobatrachus gerinus and Indosylvirana
sp., which were eaten and used as medicine (n=23), as
bait for shing (n=6), or for other reasons (n=3, perceived
export of frog legs). Analysis of deviance performed on the
logisc regression model revealed that community type
(df = 5, P<0.001) and gender (df = 1, P<0.001) were the
most stascally signicant factors predicng ulisaon of
Socioeconomic
characterisc Descripon No. of respondents by group
(n=113)
1 Interview
locality
Regions in which
respondents were
residing
Munnar = 40
Topslip = 19
Valparai = 54
2Age Respondent’s age
in years
18-30 = 35
31-45 = 35
46 & above = 38
Don’t know = 5
3 Gender Male or female Male = 73
Female = 40
4 Educaon Maximum formal
educaon aained
None = 54
Primary Educaon (1st -5th) = 23
Secondary Educaon & above
= 36
5 Occupaon Main livelihood of
the respondent
Labourer/Farmer/NTFP* collec-
on = 67
Other occupaons = 10
Forest Department work = 14
Housewife/ Rered/ Not work-
ing = 22
6 Community
type
Indigenous/non-
indigenous com-
munity to which
the respondent
belonged
Kadar = 29 (Topslip = 6, Val-
parai= 23)
Mudhuvan = 37 (Munnar = 24,
Valparai = 13)
Malai Malasar, Malasar & Man-
nan = 18
Pulayar = 17 (Munnar = 6,
Topslip = 12
Non-indigenous communies
= 12 (Munnar = 10, Topslip = 1,
Valparai = 1)
Table 3. Descripon of the socio-economic characteriscs and the
numbers of quesonnaire respondents from local communies in
the Anamalai Hills, Western Ghats, India
*Non-mber forest product
Arun Kanagavel et al.

Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 9
frogs (Table 4), with ulisaon more common in the Kadar
community and by men.
Local support for conserving forests and frogs
Respondents were more interested in protecng forests than
frogs (Fig. 4). Respondent interest in protecng forests was
the most stascally signicant factor predicng interest
in protecng frogs (df=1, P<0.001) followed by interview
locality (Table 5). Respondent interest in protecng frogs
was nested within their interest in protecng forests, as all
respondents who wanted to protect frogs also wanted to
protect forests and not vice versa, and interest in protecng
frogs was higher at Topslip (72.2 %) and Valparai (71.4 %)
than at Munnar (42.1 %).
DISCUSSION
Local ecological knowledge
LEK has not oen been gathered to provide researchers
with informaon about herpetofauna. Community-based
surveys have rarely been used to assess the conservaon
status or to obtain other conservaon-relevant data for
amphibians, and so far, have only been applied to very large-
bodied “charismac” taxa such as the giant salamander
(Andrias davidianus) (Pan et al., 2015). Indeed, researchers
have somemes previously ignored LEK of amphibians, as in
the case of the enigmac N. sahyadrensis, which was well
known to local communies long before its formal scienc
descripon (Aggarwal, 2004). Our study demonstrates that
despite this lack of past aenon, LEK can be a suitable tool
for collecng conservaon-relevant informaon on focal
amphibian species, in this case especially for N. sahyadrensis.
Accurate collecon of LEK has been shown in previous studies
to be greatly improved if the focal species is morphologically
disnct and easily idenable even to non-trained observers,
is non-crypc, and has an exclusive vernacular name (Anadón
et al., 2009; Pillay et al., 2011). Of the three focal species
included in our study, N. sahyadrensis and M. indicus are both
morphologically disnct, and each indigenous community
had an exclusive vernacular name for N. sahyadrensis, which
could account for why it was locally the best known of the
three focal species. Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis was also
the only focal species that was known among non-indigenous
communies and this reveals its potenal as an eecve
conservaon agship among local communies (Kanagavel
et al., 2017a) who dwell close to forests. Conversely, W.
phrynoderma resembles many other frogs, and had no
consistently used vernacular name, consequently the
majority of LEK that we collected for W. phrynoderma was
considered to be unreliable. We conclude that LEK-based
surveys may only provide limited data on morphologically
indisnct amphibian species. Accuracy of idencaon may
have been improved if we had used control images of locally
occurring amphibian species that are morphologically similar
to W. phrynoderma, and we encourage further invesgaon
of the ability of local respondents to dierenate between
similar species using this approach in future LEK-based
amphibian surveys.
Our results help to idenfy local expert groups who possess
greater levels of knowledge about dierent focal amphibian
species. These groups could be preferenally targeted in
future studies that aim to collect addional amphibian-related
data. In our study, men provided LEK that corresponded
more closely with exisng knowledge of N. sahyadrensis
than women, possibly because men are more involved with
hunng acvies in the Western Ghats (Kanagavel et al.,
2016), and likely visit forests more frequently. The Kadar
communies had beer knowledge of both N. sahyadrensis
and M. indicus, possibly because they have greater cultural
df Deviance Residual
df
Residual
deviance P(>Chi)
Null 96 127.95
Interview
localitya
2 2.57 94 125.38 0.276
Age 2 3.08 92 122.31 0.215
Gender 1 11.45 89 106.08 <0.001
Educaon 2 4.78 90 117.53 0.092
Community 5 33.58 84 72.49 <0.001
N. sahyadrensis
sighng
1 2.47 83 70.02 0.116
M. indicus
sighng
1 0.02 82 70.00 0.897
W. phrynoderma
sighng
1 1.12 81 68.89 0.291
Forest visit 1 0.97 80 67.91 0.324
Table 4. The inuence of several explanatory variables on the
ulisaon of frogs (dependent variable). Analysis of deviance
performed on a logisc regression model ed to explain the eect
of explanatory variables listed in the table. The result indicates
signicant change in deviance (P<0.05) with the addion of the
variables ‘Gender’ and ‘Community’ type to the model.
df Deviance Residual
df
Residual
deviance P(>Chi)
Null 96 128.97
Interview
localitya
2 8.51 94 120.46 0.014
Age 2 1.16 92 119.30 0.560
Gender 1 3.79 91 115.51 0.051
Educaon 2 2.20 89 113.31 0.333
Community 5 10.42 84 102.89 0.064
N. sahyadrensis
sighng
1 2.79 83 100.10 0.095
M. indicus
sighng
1 0.01 82 100.09 0.915
W. phrynoderma
sighng
1 0.93 81 99.16 0.335
Forest visit 1 0.12 80 99.04 0.731
Use of frogs 1 2.75 79 96.29 0.098
Protecng
forestse
1 41.92 78 54.38 <0.001
Table 5. The inuence of several explanatory variables on interest of
local communies in protecng frogs (dependent variable). Analysis
of deviance performed on a logisc regression model ed to explain
the eect of explanatory variables listed in the table. The result
indicates signicant change in deviance (P < 0.05) with the addion
of the variables ‘Interview locality’ and interest in ‘Protecng forests’
to the model.
Are local and tradional knowledge suitable tools for conservaon of threatened amphibians?

10 Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020)
associaons with N. sahyadrensis. Their livelihoods are
more forest-dependent and both the species occur in their
tradional lands, increasing the possibility of encountering
them. The posive relaonship between respondent age and
level of LEK about W. phrynoderma is consistent with the well-
known phenomenon seen in many LEK studies where older
respondents are more knowledgeable of local environmental
condions (e.g., Papworth et al., 2009; Turvey et al., 2010).
The demographic predictors varied for the three amphibians
which could be explained by the dierent local distribuon
ranges of the species that may not be present within the
tradional lands occupied by all the communies. Moreover,
the communies also dier in their extent of dependence
on forests and the frequency of their visits to surrounding
forests. This means that ‘expert’ groups would vary based
on the species concerned and more relevant data could
be collected across mulple species by focusing on major
predictors, e.g. males, the Kadar community, respondents
above 45 years of age etc..
Tradional ecological knowledge
Folk nomenclatures are based on morphology, use of the
species, social constructs, economic importance, and
ecology (Newmaster et al., 2007; Ulicsni et al., 2013; Berlin,
2014). For large plants and animals, vernacular names are
mostly exclusive for a species, since the majority of species
within these groups are disnctly idenable (Atran, 1998;
Souza & Begossi, 2007; Ulicsni et al., 2013). However, this
is not the case for small vertebrates, many of which appear
supercially similar to untrained observers. Hence they are
typically grouped together under a single name, making
indigenous taxonomy less reliable for species-specic
idencaon (Forth, 2009; Beaudreau et al., 2011). In our
study, N. sahyadrensis is well recognised among numerous
indigenous and non-indigenous communies and has
disnct vernacular names that are based on culturally
signicant aributes and direct awareness of the species by
each indigenous community. This disncve and charismac
amphibian may therefore represent a potenal agship
species for building local community interest in amphibians
and their conservaon (Bowen-Jones & Entwistle, 2002).
Melanobatrachus indicus is disnct and associated
with specic vernacular names based on body colour and
habitat. However, it is relevant only for the Kadar community
who themselves associated with it lile, resulng in
reduced ecological knowledge of the species. Although W.
phrynoderma was found to have only a general vernacular
name based on body morphology and colour which is shared
with many other anuran species, this frog grouping was
known to local communies as these species are incorrectly
perceived to be pests of cardamom (Elaaria cardamomum),
a major high-value crop in the region (Kanagavel & Parvathy,
2014; Kanagavel et al., 2017b). The dierences between the
local communies in how they refer to the three focal species
highlight the role of cultural and ulitarian values in shaping
TEK as well as LEK (Atran, 1998; Beaudreau et al., 2011).
TEK of amphibian ulisaon is beer documented
than LEK detailing amphibian ecology, since amphibians
are ulised by many cultures world-wide and for many
dierent reasons (Adeola, 1992; Alves & Souto, 2011). Our
study highlights the tradional and subsistence use of frogs
by indigenous communies in the Western Ghats. It also
reveals the cultural associaon of indigenous communies
with frogs from their intricate ulisaon in tradional
medicine. This use is absent in non-indigenous communies
who are recent selers from other parts of the country.
Frog ulisaon did not appear to be a sensive issue in
the communies invesgated in our study, as respondents
appeared happy to discuss this subject openly. The raonale
for the use of frogs among indigenous communies in this
study, especially in treang skin burns, was similar to that
reported for other communies from North India (Negi &
Palyal, 2007). Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis was the most
notable species ulised by indigenous communies in the
region, and this should be taken into consideraon while
formulang conservaon plans for this species. Our results
idenfy disnct user groups and raonale for ulisaon of this
endangered frog, providing an important baseline for further
research, stakeholder discussions (Kanagavel et al., 2013),
and development of culturally appropriate conservaon
intervenons. We recommend that more research should be
focused on the use of amphibians by local communies, to
idenfy more species that may be important to communies
and for which useful knowledge may therefore be collected.
Local support for conserving forests and frogs
Although there has been an increase in scienc research on
Indian amphibians, there is very lile awareness about the
status of amphibians among regional forest departments
(Kanagavel et al., 2017c) and local communies; two groups
of stakeholders that are integral to successful amphibian
conservaon. Interest in amphibian protecon among local
communies has, unl now, not been well-understood. Our
results suggest that for an amphibian-based community
conservaon iniave to be eecve, it must be linked
to protecon of forests, since a signicant proporon of
community livelihoods depend directly on the connued
presence of forests, and local respondents were only
interested in frog conservaon within the wider concept of
forest protecon. Such programmes could be iniated at
Topslip and Valparai as determined by our study since the
interest of respondents in protecng frogs was greater at
these localies. Respondents at Munnar showed a reduced
interest in frog conservaon, due to the widespread
mispercepon of frogs as pests of cardamom (Kanagavel
et al., 2017b). Clearly an educaonal campaign to improve
the prole of frogs among local communies is required in
Munnar (Kanagavel et al., 2017a).
Our study demonstrates that the knowledge of local
communies can potenally be used to gather reliable
informaon on the ecology and distribuon of amphibian
species that are morphologically disncve, have a specic
local name, and are associated with specic cultural and/or
ulitarian values. We also highlight paerns of folk ulisaon
of frogs in the southern Western Ghats and provide new
insights into respondent typology that can assist in future
LEK-related amphibian research.
Arun Kanagavel et al.

Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 11
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Carly Waterman, Cath Lawson, Craig Turner,
Jack Tordo, Je Dawson, K.V. Gururaja, Olivia Couchman
and Stuart Paerson for their support in designing and
conducng the study; Nithin Divakar for assisng in
data collecon; Sandeep Das and Elangovan for helping
with species informaon; and Christopher Michaels and
Rajan Amin for helping with data analysis. The study was
undertaken with ocial research permissions from the Tamil
Nadu and Kerala Forest Departments (WL5/28696/2012,
WL5(A)/16458/2014, WL 10-15417/2014, WL 10-
15417/15). The study was nancially supported by the ZSL
EDGE Fellowship (2012), Ruord Small Grant for Nature
Conservaon (17771-2), Idea Wild, Conservaon Leadership
Programme-Future Conservaonist Award 2015 (03234915)
to AK and the Mohammed Bin Zayed Species Conservaon
Fund (12253920).
REFERENCES
Adeola, M.O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their
parts in the culture, religious fesvals, and tradional
medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental Conservaon 19:
125-134.
Aggarwal, R.K. (2004). Ancient frog could spearhead
conservaon eorts. Nature 428: 467-467.
Alves, R.R. & Souto, W.M. (2011). Ethnozoology in Brazil:
current status and perspecves. Journal of Ethnobiology
and Ethnomedicine 7: 22.
Anadón, J.D., Giménez, A., Ballestar, R. & Pérez, I. (2009).
Evaluaon of local ecological knowledge as a method
for collecng extensive data on animal abundance.
Conservaon Biology 23: 617-625.
Anadón, J.D., Giménez, A. & Ballestar, R. (2010). Linking
local ecological knowledge and habitat modelling to
predict absolute species abundance on large scales.
Biodiversity and Conservaon 19: 1443-1454.
Atran, S., Esn, P., Coley, J. & Medin, D. (1997). Generic
species and basic levels: Essence and appearance in folk
biology. Journal of Ethnobiology 17: 17-43.
Atran, S. (1998). Folk biology and the anthropology of science:
Cognive universals and cultural parculars. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 21: 547-609.
Beaudreau, A.H., Levin, P.S. & Norman, K.C. (2011). Using
folk taxonomies to understand stakeholder percepons
for species conservaon. Conservaon Leers 4: 451-463.
Berkes, F., Folke, C. & Colding, J. (Eds). (2000). Linking Social
and Ecological Systems: Management Pracces and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 476 pp.
Berlin, B. (2014). Ethnobiological Classicaon: Principles of
Categorizaon of Plants and Animals in Tradional
Sociees. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 354 pp.
Biju, S.D. (2004a). Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis. The IUCN
Red List of Threatened Species v. 2015.2. (26 February
2017; hp://www.iucnredlist.org/details/58051/0)
Biju, S.D. & Bossuyt, F. (2003). New frog family from India
reveals an ancient biogeographical link with the
Seychelles. Nature 425: 711-714.
Biju, S.D. & Bossuyt, F. (2009). Systemacs and phylogeny of
Philautus Gistel, 1848 (Anura, Rhacophoridae) in the
Western Ghats of India, with descripons of 12 new
species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 155:
374-444.
Biju, S.D., Sonali, G., Mahony, S., Wijayathilaka, N., Senevirathne,
G. & Meegaskumbura, M. (2014). DNA barcoding,
phylogeny and systemacs of golden-backed frogs
(Hylarana, Ranidae) of the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka
biodiversity hotspot, with the descripon of seven new
species. Contribuons to Zoology 83: 269-335.
Biju, S.D., van Bocxlaer, I., Mahony, S., Dinesh, K.P.,
Radhakrishnan, C., Zachariah, A., Giri, V.B. & Bossuyt,
F. (2011). A taxonomic review of the night frog genus
Nycbatrachus Boulenger, 1882 in the Western Ghats,
India (Anura: Nycbatrachidae) with descripon of twelve
new species. Zootaxa 3029: 1-96.
Biju, S.D., Vijayakumar, S.P. & Dua, S. (2004a). Indirana
phrynoderma. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
v. 2015.2. (26 February 2017; www.iucnredlist.org/
details/58314/0)
Biju, S.D., Vasudevan, K., Bhuddhe, G.D., Dua, S., Srinivasulu,
C. & Vijayakumar, S.P. (2004b). Melanobatrachus indicus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. 2014.3. (26
February 2017; www.iucnredlist.org/details/13032/0)
Bond, M.E., Valenn-Albanese, J., Babcock, E.A., Abercrombie,
D., Lamb, N.F., Miranda, A., Pikitch, E.K. & Chapman, D.D.
(2017). Abundance and size structure of a reef shark
populaon within a marine reserve has remained stable
for more than a decade. Marine Ecology Progress Series
576: 1-10.
Bowen-Jones, E. & Entwistle, A. (2002). Idenfying appropriate
agship species: the importance of culture and local
contexts. Oryx 36: 189-195.
Brewer, S.K. & Rabeni, C.F. (2011). Interacons between
natural-occurring landscape condions and land use
inuencing the abundance of riverine smallmouth bass,
Micropterus dolomieu. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquac Sciences 68: 1922-1933.
Chandi, M. (2008). Tribes of the Anamalais: Livelihood and
Resource-Use Paerns of Communies in the Rainforests
of the Indira Gandhi Wildlife Sanctuary and Valparai
Plateau. Nature Conservaon Foundaon, Mysore. 83 pp.
Daltry, J.C. & Marn, G.N. (1997). Rediscovery of the black
narrow-mouthed frog, Melanobatrachus indicus
Beddome, 1878. Hamadryad 22: 57-58.
Davis, A. & Wagner, J.R. (2003). Who knows? On the
importance of idenfying “experts” when researching
local ecological knowledge. Human Ecology 31: 463-489.
[DCO] Directorate of Census Operaons. (2011). Tamil Nadu
Census – 2011. DCO. (accessed 26 February 2017; www.
census.tn.nic.in/census2011data/PPT_taluk_data_nal.pdf)
Dijk, P.P.V., Iskandar, D., Lau, M.W.N., Huiqing, G., Baorong,
G., Kuangyang, L., Wenhao, C., Zhigang, Y., Chan, B.,
Dua, S., Inger, R., Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & Khan,
M.S. (2004). Duaphrynus melanosctus. The IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species. v. 2015.2. (26 February 2017;
www.iucnredlist.org/details/54707/0)
Are local and tradional knowledge suitable tools for conservaon of threatened amphibians?

12 Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020)
Forth, G. (2009). Symbolic birds and ironic bats: Variees of
classicaon in Nage folk ornithology. Ethnology 48: 139-
159.
Frost, D.R. (2020). Amphibian species of the world: an online
reference. v. 6.1 American Museum of Natural
History, New York (accessed 13 April 2020; hps://
amphibiansoheworld.amnh.org/index.php)
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous
knowledge for biodiversity conservaon. Ambio 22: 151-
156.
Gilchrist, G., Mallory, M. & Merkel, F. (2005). Can local
ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management?
Case studies of migratory birds. Ecology and Society 10: 20.
Gururaja, K.V. (2012). Pictorial Guide to Frogs and Toads of
the Western Ghats. Bengaluru: Gubbi Labs LLP. 153 pp.
Harpalani, M., Parvathy, S., Kanagavel, A., Euvathingal, L. &
Tapley B. (2015). Note on range extension, local
knowledge and conservaon status of the Crically
Endangered Anamalai gliding frog Rhacophorus
pseudomalabaricus in the Cardamom Hills of Western
Ghats, India. Herpetological Bullen 133: 1-6.
Isaac, N.J.B., Redding, D.W., Meredith, H.M. & Sa, K. (2012).
Phylogenecally-informed priories for amphibian
conservaon. PLoS ONE 7: e43912.
Jones, J.P., Andiamarovololona, M.M., Hockley, N., Gibbons,
J.M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2008). Tesng the use of
interviews as a tool for monitoring trends in the harvesng
of wild species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1205-1212.
Kanagavel, A. & Parvathy, S. (2014). So in India, even frogs like
spice in their food! FrogLog 22: 18.
Kanagavel, A., Parvathy, S., Chundakal, A.P., Dahanukar, N.
& Tapley, B. (2018). Distribuon and habitat associaons
of the Crically Endangered frog Walkerana phrynoderma
(Anura: Ranixalidae), with an assessment of potenal
threats, abundance, and morphology. Phyllomedusa:
Journal of Herpetology 17: 21-37.
Kanagavel, A. & Tapley, B. (2013). Defensive behaviour of
Melanobatrachus indicus (Anura: Microhylidae) in the
Western Ghats, India. Herpetology Notes 6: 607-608.
Kanagavel, A., Pandya, R., Prithvi, A. & Raghavan, R. (2013).
Mul-stakeholder percepons of eciency in biodiversity
conservaon at limited access forests of the southern
Western Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5: 4529-
4536.
Kanagavel, A., Parvathy, S., Nameer, P.O. & Raghavan, R.
(2016). Conservaon implicaons of wildlife ulizaon by
indigenous communies in the southern Western Ghats
of India. Journal of Asia-Pacic Biodiversity 9: 271-291.
Kanagavel, A., Eluvathingal, L.M., Parvathy, S., Kotharambath,
R. & Das, S. (2017a). Potenal agship species for
improving support and garnering aenon towards
amphibian conservaon in the Western Ghats, India. In
Diversity & Ecology of Amphibians of India, ENVIS Bullen:
Wildlife & Protected Areas, Vol. 19, pp. 271-292, Das, A.
(Ed.). Dehradun: Wildlife Instute of India.
Kanagavel, A., Parvathy, S., Nirmal, N., Divakar, N. & Raghavan,
R. (2017b). Do frogs really eat cardamom? Understanding
the myth of crop damage by amphibians in Western
Ghats, India. Ambio 46: 695-705.
Kanagavel, A., Parvathy, S. & Divakar, N. (2017c). Educaon
workshops improve the ability of forest departments to
idenfy amphibians in Western Ghats, India. Conservaon
Evidence 14: 21.
Lescureux, N., Linnell, J.D., Mustafa, S., Melovski, D., Stojanov,
A., Ivanov, G., Avukatov, V., von Arx, M. & Breitenmoser,
U. (2011). Fear of the unknown: local knowledge and
percepons of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in western
Macedonia. Oryx 45: 600-607.
Lin, C.L. & Fan, C.L. (2019). Evaluaon of CART, CHAID, and
QUEST algorithms: a case study of construcon defects
in Taiwan. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building
Engineering 18: 539-553.
Meijaard, E., Mengersen, K., Buchori, D., Nurcahyo, A.,
Ancrenaz, M., Wich, S., Atmoko, S.S.U, Tiju, A., Prasetyo,
D., Nardiyono, Hadiprakrasa, Y., Christy, L., Wells, J.,
Albar, G. & Marshall, A.J. (2011). Why don’t we ask? A
complementary method for assessing the status of great
apes. PloS one 6: e18008.
[MTA] Ministry of Tribal Aairs (2012). Arcle 342 Scheduled
Tribes. MTA. (13 February 2017; hp://tribal.nic.in/
Content/DenionpRroles.aspx)
Molur, S. (2008). South Asian amphibians: taxonomy, diversity
and conservaon status. Internaonal Zoo Yearbook 42:
143-157.
McKelvey, K.S., Aubry, K.B. & Schwartz, M.K. (2008). Using
anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species:
the illusion of reality and a call for evidenary standards.
BioScience 58: 549-555.
Narzary, J. & Bordoloi, S. (2014). Ethnozoological pracces
on frogs of Bodo tribe from Kokrajhar district, Assam,
India. American Journal of Ethnomedicine 1: 2348-9502.
Negi, C.S. & Palyal, V.S. (2007). Tradional uses of animal and
animal products in medicine and rituals by the Shoka
Tribes of district Pithoragarh, Uaranchal, India. Studies
on Ethno-Medicine 1: 47-54.
Newing, H. (2011). Conducng Research in Conservaon: A
Social Science Perspecve. London: Routledge. 376 pp.
Newmaster, S.G., Subramanyam, R., Balasubramaniyam, N.C.
& Ivano, R.F. (2007). The mul-mechanisc taxonomy
of the Irulas in Tamil Nadu, South India. Journal of
Ethnobiology 27: 233-255.
O’Donnell, K.P., Pajaro, M.G. & Vincent, A.C.J. (2010). How
does the accuracy of sher knowledge aect seahorse
conservaon status? Animal Conservaon 13: 526-533.
Pan, Y., Wei, G., Cunningham, A.A., Li, S., Chen, S., Milner-
Gulland, E.J. & Turvey, S.T. (2015). Using local ecological
knowledge to assess the status of the Crically Endangered
Chinese giant salamander Andrias davidianus in Guizhou
Province, China. Oryx 50: 257-264.
Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009).
Evidence for shiing baseline syndrome in conservaon.
Conservaon Leers 2: 93-100.
Pillay, R., Johnsingh, A.J.T, Raghunath, R. & Madhusudhan,
M.D. (2011). Paerns of spaotemporal change in large
mammal distribuon and abundance in the southern
Western Ghats, India. Biological Conservaon 144: 1567-
1576.
Raman, T.R.S & Mudappa, D. (2003). Bridging the gap: Sharing
Arun Kanagavel et al.

Herpetological Bullen 153 (2020) 13
Please note that the Supplementary Material for this arcle is available online via the Herpetological Bullen website:
hps://thebhs.org/publicaons/the-herpetological-bullen/issue-number-153-autumn-2020
responsibility for ecological restoraon and wildlife
conservaon on private lands in the Western Ghats.
Social Change 33: 129-141.
Souza, S.P. & Begossi, A. (2007). Whales, dolphins or shes?
The ethnotaxonomy of cetaceans in São Sebasão, Brazil.
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 3: 9.
Stacey, N.E., Karam, J., Meekan, M.G., Pickering, S. & Ninef,
J. (2012). Prospects for whale shark conservaon in Eastern
Indonesia through bajo tradional ecological knowledge
and community-based monitoring. Conservaon &
Society 10: 63-75.
Stuart, S.N. (2012). Responding to the amphibian crisis: too
lile, too late. Alytes 29: 9-12.
Surendran, A. & Sekar, C. (2011). A comparave analysis on
the socio-economic welfare of dependents of the
Anamalai Tiger reserve (ATR) in India. Margin: The Journal
of Applied Economic Research 5: 361-379.
Thomas, A., Suyesh, R., Biju, S.D. & Bee, M.A. (2014). Vocal
behavior of the elusive purple frog of India
(Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis), a fossorial species
endemic to the Western Ghats. PloS one 9: e84809.
Thomas, A. & Biju SD. (2015). Tadpole consumpon is a
direct threat to the endangered purple frog,
Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis. Salamandra 51: 252-258.
Tiwari, B.P., Tripathi, V.K. & Azmi, H.K. (2013). The role of
medicinal amphibians in relaon to health care among
the Gond tribal of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Life
Sciences 3: 55-56.
Turvey, S.T., Barre, L.A., Yujiang, H.A.O., Lei, Z., Xinqiao, Z.,
Xianyan, W., Yadong, H., Kaiya, Z., Hart, T. & Ding, W.
(2010). Rapidly shiing baselines in Yangtze shing
communies and local memory of exnct species.
Conservaon Biology 24: 778-787.
Turvey, S.T., Fernández-Secades, C., Nuñez-Miño, J.M., Hart,
T., Marnez, P., Brocca, J.L. & Young, R.P. (2014). Is local
ecological knowledge a useful conservaon tool for
small mammals in a Caribbean mulcultural landscape?
Biological Conservaon 169: 189-197.
Turvey, S.T., Trung, C.T., Quyet, V.D., Nhu, H.V., Thoai, D.V.,
Tuan, V.C.A, Hoa, D.T., Kacha, K., Sysomphone, T., Wallate,
S., Hai, C.T.T, Thanh, N.V. & Wilkinson, N.M. (2015).
Interview-based sighng histories can inform regional
conservaon priorizaon for highly threatened crypc
species. Journal of Applied Ecology 52: 422–433.
Ulicsni, V., Svanberg, I. & Molnar, Z. (2013). Folk knowledge of
non-domesc mammals among ethnic Hungarians in
North-Western Romania. North-Western Journal of
Zoology 9: 383-398.
Van Bocxlaer, I., Biju, S.D., Loader, S.P. & Bossuyt, F. (2009).
Toad radiaon reveals into-India dispersal as a source of
endemism in the Western Ghats-Sri Lanka biodiversity
hotspot. BMC evoluonary Biology 9: 131.
Vasudevan, K. & Dua, S.K. (2000). A new species of
Rhacophorus (Anura: Rhacophoridae) from the Western
Ghats, India. Hamadryad 25: 21-28.
Zachariah, A., Abraham, R.K., Das, S., Jayan, K.C. & Alg, R.
(2012). A detailed account of the reproducve strategy and
developmental stages of Nasikabatrachus sahyadrensis
(Anura: Nasikabatrachidae), the only extant member of
an archaic frog lineage. Zootaxa 3510: 53-64.
Ziembicki, M.R., Woinarski, J.C.Z. & Mackey, B. (2013).
Evaluang the status of species using indigenous
knowledge: novel evidence for major nave mammal
declines in northern Australia. Biological Conservaon
157: 78-92.
Accepted: 27 June 2020
Are local and tradional knowledge suitable tools for conservaon of threatened amphibians?