ArticlePDF Available

DIVERSITY OF SNAKE RESCUED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN GREATER JAKARTA METROPOLITAN AREA, INDONESIA

Authors:

Abstract

Development and habitat loss in Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area affected snakes and forced them to adapt in urban areas. Snakes in residential areas might increase encounter rate with humans which lead to human-snake conflict. The objectives of this research were to identify the diversity of snakes in residential areas based on rescue effort and to documents effort of those organizations on how to mitigate human-snake conflict through snake relocation. From 2015-2019, 37 snake species were reported found around residential areas in Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Javan spitting cobra Naja sputatrix and reticulated python Malayopython reticulatus are the most encountered snakes in residential areas. Jakarta has the highest total encounter of snakes compared to other area but Bogor has the highest diversity of snake species. Snake found in residential areas are sometimes "rescued" by snake reptile enthusiasts who formed a group. Most of these group does not have standard operating procedure when rescuing snake. Human-snake conflict can be mitigated by relocation of snakes, education, and translocation, although the impact of translocation should be evaluated further.
Media Konservasi Vol.26 No.3 Desember 2021: 231-238 ISSN: 0215-1677
DOI: 10.29244/medkon.26.3.231-238 E-ISSN: 2502-6313
231
DIVERSITY OF SNAKE RESCUED FROM RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN GREATER JAKARTA
METROPOLITAN AREA, INDONESIA
IRA KHOERUNISA, MIRZA D. KUSRINI*), AND ANI MARDIASTUTI
Department of Forest Resources Conservation and Ecotourism, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB
University,Bogor, 16680, Indonesia
*Email: mirza_kusrini@yahoo.com
Accepted March 16, 2021 / Approved December 23, 2021
ABSTRACT
Development and habitat loss in Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area affected snakes and forced them to adapt in urban areas. Snakes in
residential areas might increase encounter rate with humans which lead to human-snake conflict. The objectives of this research were to identify the
diversity of snakes in residential areas based on rescue effort and to documents effort of those organizations on how to mitigate human-snake conflict
through snake relocation. From 2015-2019, 37 snake species were reported found around residential areas in Jakarta Metropolitan Area. Javan
spitting cobra Naja sputatrix and reticulated python Malayopython reticulatus are the most encountered snakes in residential areas. Jakarta has the
highest total encounter of snakes compared to other area but Bogor has the highest diversity of snake species. Snake found in residential areas are
sometimes “rescued” by snake reptile enthusiasts who formed a group. Most of these group does not have standard operating procedure when
rescuing snake. Human-snake conflict can be mitigated by relocation of snakes, education, and translocation, although the impact of translocation
should be evaluated further.
Key words: Jakarta Metropolitan Area, human-snake conflict, Urban area, snake rescue
INTRODUCTION
Although the population of reptile, including snake,
are globally threatened because of various factors i.e.
habitat loss and degradation and land conversion
(Gibbons et al. 2000), some species of snakes are able to
adapt in residential areas and often encountered by the
residents. Report on the presence of snakes in residential
areas mostly come from overseas i.e. in Africa (Reed &
Krysko 2013), Australia (Shine & Koenig 2001) and
India (Roshnath 2017). Despite almost no report on
snakes in residential areas in Indonesia, Hartanto (2014)
states that Javan spitting cobra (Naja sputatrix), Malayan
pit viper (Calloselasma rhodostoma), and Oriental wolf
snake (Lycodon capucinus) as the most common snakes
around residential areas in Java Island. Mass media also
often reports news about snakes encounters in residential
area, such as the finding of Reticulated pythons
(Malayopython reticulatus) that fell from the roof of a
house in South Jakarta (Maulana 2019) or in the pipes of
a residential area in Bekasi (Fakih 2019).
The appearance of snakes in residential area often
makes people uneasy. According to Davies et al. (2004),
compared to all species of animals in urban community,
snakes are the most undesirable animals around the
house. The existence of a biased perception from the
public about snakes makes this animal difficult to get
protection and conservation efforts (Ceríaco et al. 2012).
As predators and prey in the food chain, the perception
bias ignore the important role of snakes in the ecosystem.
Food scraps and waste from anthropogenic activity can
trigger the emergence of synanthropic animals such as
birds and rats in settlements (McKinney 2008) which
will become diet for snake.
The lack of public knowledge about snakes and
their handling can lead to snakebite incidents. In various
countries, to mitigate human-snake conflicts, there are
volunteers who relocate snakes from residential areas,
i.e. in India (Roshnath 2017) and Australia (Shine &
Koenig 2001). In Indonesia, some residents choose to ask
for help from snake charmers/keeper or volunteers to
move snakes. The existence of these volunteers is
important, not only to help the community but also to
record the types of snakes that are common in
settlements. At present there are no systematic data or
scientific publications showing the diversity of snakes
that are most often found by residents in residential areas
in Indonesia, especially in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok,
Tangerang, and Bekasi (Greater Jakarta Metropolitan
Areas) and communities’ efforts to help mitigate
conflicts between snakes and human. Information on the
diversity of snake species around residential area will
provide initial database for mitigate conflict between
snake and humans in the future. This study aims to
identify the diversity of snake species that are often
encountered by residents in the Jakarta Metropolitan
Areas and report local community efforts to mitigate
human-snake conflict.
RESEARCH METHOD
Study was conducted from April to August 2019 in
the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area (Jakarta, Bogor,
Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi regions). Representatives
Diversity Of Snake Rescued
232
from fourteen organizations which include 8 reptile
enthusiast communities (Aspera Community, Sioux,
Ciliwung Herpetarium, Sahabat Reptil Bekasi, Bogor
Reptile Addicted, Tabu Indonesia, Indonesian Snake
Wagleri, Kelompok Pemerhati Herpetofauna Himakova),
one pest and termites control company in Bogor, and 5
fire departments (Bogor, Jakarta, Depok, Tangerang, and
Bekasi) were interviewed to obtain data from the past 5
years.
We checked uploads regarding snake rescues from
their official social media (Facebook and Instagram) and
also conducted online searching from online news from
January 2015 to August 2019 with area coverage in
Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, and Bekasi. We
recorded information on the time of encounter (date,
month, year), location of the discovery (City/Regency,
District, Village, place of discovery), scientific name,
local name, data source, and other information
considered important for each case. We double checked
online news, to make sure that we did not record the
same incidents.
We collected data on the number and composition
of species found by residents in Greater Jakarta
Metropolitan Areas in 2015-2019. Snakes were classified
based on its envenomation using World Health
Organization category as category one and two. Category
one are common or widespread snakes that its venom
will result in high morbidity, disability, or mortality.
Category two species are snakes with venom capable of
causing morbidity, disability, or death, or for which
epidemiological or clinical data are missing or are less
frequently implicated (WHO 2016; Longbottom et al.
2018). The first category usually given to all venomous
snake from Elapidae, Viperidae and Colubridae. The
second category usually given to snakes with mild local
envenoming like Boiga, Ahaetulla, Cerberus and
Enhydris (WHO 2016). Name of snake follows the
Reptile Database (Uetz and Stylinou 2018).
To determine the efforts made by the communities
and agencies in Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Areas in
finding snakes we interviewed a person from each 10
organizations. Interviews were conducted in a structured
manner to gather information regarding the number of
snake and species rescued, background of snake rescue
activities, snake rescue management, human resources
involved in the rescue and the fate of snake after rescue.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
1. Species compositions and relative abundance
There were 656 reports of snake encounters by
communities in the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area
within four and a half years (January 2015 - August
2019). Comparison with report of snake-human conflict
in online news shows that data from interview is higher
(Table 1).
Number of species reported is 37 species from 9
families, mostly Colubridae. Most common snake found
are javan spitting cobra, Naja sputatrix (204 encounters;
31.1%) and reticulated python, Malayopython reticulatus
(177 encounters; 27%). Similarly, the most widely
reported species in online news are reticulated python
and javan spitting cobra (Table 2). The next ten most
common snakes were Ahaetulla prasina, Lycodon
capucinus, Bungarus candidus, Dendrelaphis pictus,
Coelognathus flavolineatus, C. radiatus, Ptyas korros,
Cylindrophis ruffus. Bogor had the most diverse species
compared to other regions, with 31 species, whereas the
lowest diversity was in Bekasi region (13 species, Table
2).
Snakes were mostly concentrated in densely
populated areas, especially Jakarta, South Tangerang,
Depok, and Bogor City. Bogor Regency, Tangerang
Regency, and Bekasi Regency are relatively sparsely
distributed compared to urban areas. Jakarta had the most
snake encounters (241 encounters) and dominated by
reticulated python (45.2%, Table 2). Bekasi has the
lowest reported snake (65 encounters). Javan spitting
cobra is the most widely reported species in the
Tangerang region (55 individuals, 57.3%) followed by
Depok (51.2%), Bogor (23.2%), and Bekasi (35.4%).
Table 1 Number of snake encounter reports in Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Areas from January 2019 until August
2019.
Sources
Year
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
Organization database
67
56
245
127
612
Online news
5
10
0
0
44
Media Konservasi Vol.26 No.3 Desember 2021: 231-238
233
Table 1 Snake species and percentage of reported by residents in Greater Jakarta residential area in 2015-2019 based on
interview and online news sources. 1 = Jakarta , 2 = Bogor, 3 = Depok; 4 = Tangerang; 5 = Bekasi; Venom:
**= Category 1, #= category 2 (WHO 2016)
No
Species
Percentage
1
2
3
4
5
Colubridae
1
Ahaetulla mycterizans# (n=4)
0
0.6
0
3.1
0
2
Ahaetulla prasina# (n=73)
14.6
13.1
8.1
4.2
7.7
3
Boiga dendrophilla# (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
4
Boiga multomaculata# (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
5
Coelognathus flavolineatus (n=13)
0
5.4
1.2
1
3.1
6
Coelognathus radiates (n=13)
2.1
21.2
2.3
2.1
3.1
7
Dendrelaphis formosus (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
8
Dendrelaphis pictus (n=21)
3.1
2.4
2.3
4.2
6.2
9
Dendrelaphis subocularis (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
10
Gonyosoma oxycephalum (n=4)
0
2.4
0
0
0
11
Liopeltis tricolor (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
12
Lycodon capucinus (n=43)
7.1
7.1
9.3
3.1
4.6
13
Oligodon octolineatus (n=5)
0
0.6
2.3
2.1
0
14
Ptyas carinata (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
15
Ptyas korros (n=11)
0.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
3.1
16
Ptyas mucosa (n=1)
0.4
2.4
2.3
2.1
3.1
17
Rhabdophis subminiatus (n=3)
0
1.8
0
0
0
18
Sibynophis geminatus (n=2)
0.4
0.6
0
0
0
19
Xenochrophis piscator# (n=1)
0
0
0
0
1.5
20
Xenochrophis trianguligerus# (n=4)
0.4
1.2
0
1
0
21
Xenochrophis melanzostus# (n=2)
0.8
0
0
0
0
22
Xenochrophis vittatus# (n=1)
0
1.8
2.3
0
0
Cylindrophiidae
23
Cylindrophis ruffus (n=10)
1.7
3
0
0
1.5
Elapidae**
24
Bungarus candidus (n=24)
2.5
6
1.2
6.3
1.5
25
Bungarus fasciatus (n=2)
0
0.6
0
1
0
26
Bungarus flaviceps (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
27
Calliophis intestinalis (n=2)
0
1.2
0
0
0
28
Naja sputatrix (n=204)
18.4
23.2
51.2
57.3
35.4
29
Ophiophagus hannah (n=4)
0
0
1.2
3.1
0
Homalopsidae#
30
Enhydris enhydris# (n=1)
0.4
0
0
0
0
31
Homalopsis buccata# (n=9)
1.7
1.2
1.2
1
1.5
Pareatidae
32
Pareas carinatus (n=5)
0.4
1.8
1.2
0
0
Pythonidae
33
Malayopython reticulatus (n=177)
45.2
16.7
14.1
8.3
29.2
Viperidae**
34
Calloselasma rhodostoma (n=3)
0.4
1.2
0
0
0
Diversity Of Snake Rescued
234
No
Species
Percentage
1
2
3
4
5
35
Trimeresurus albolabris (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
36
Trimeresurus puniceus (n=1)
0
0.6
0
0
0
Xenopeltidae
37
Xenopeltis unicolor (n=5)
0
1.8
2.3
0
0
Most snake encountered are non-venomous (n
=314, 17 species) from family Colubridae,
Cylindrophiidae, Pareatidae, Pythonidae, and
Xenopeltidae; and dominated by reticulated python
(56.4%). However, category one snakes are also common
(n= 245), dominated by javan spitting cobra (83.3%).
Encounters with category two were low (n=97),
dominated by Asian vine snake (75.3%). Highest report
of non-venomous and category two snakes is in Jakarta
area. Tangerang has the highest reported of category one
snake (n=65) but with the least number of non-venomous
snakes (n=22). Bekasi region, which includes the City
and Regency of Bekasi had lowest encounter of category
one and two snakes (Table 2).
Most report on snake encounters were recorded in
2017 (n=245 reports), with lowest report in 2016 (66
reports). Only 10% of data had detailed record of time
during snake encounter (n=67). Most snake were found
during night time including one before sunrise (n=48), 39
snake were encountered during the day, and 10 snakes
were encountered in the morning. The finding of
reticulated python varied (n=30), mostly in culvert (8),
water pipes (5), ceiling (4), in the yard (4) which include
one carried by water flooding. They were also found in
river banks, inside a shop, inside the toilet, behind table,
crossing the road, in the barrel, around chicken cage, and
coiling car battery. Javan spitting cobra (n=13) were
mostly found inside the house i.e. in the kitchen and
bathroom (6), and outside such as in the garden or
backyard (4), in the chicken coop (2) and among pile of
garbage (1). Other species (n=16) were mostly found
around the yard, in the field, in the house or hiding
between utensils, or were passing on the road.
Species reported in this result offered a snapshot of
population and diversity of snake species in urban
area. There is a possibility that the number of species is
higher, because there are at least 49 species of snakes in
Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang, Bekasi (Greater
Jakarta Metropolitan Area) (Rusli 2016). There are many
factors that affect the result, such as limited access to
snake rescue information, inconsistent and unstructured
recording systems of the organizations, or people's
perceptions and behaviour to snakes.
There are more species reported by organizations’
than online news, which limited only two species, Javan
spitting cobra (N. sputatrix) and Reticulated python (M.
reticulatus). This is presumed because both species are
considered dangerous by the community so it is more
interesting to report on. Naja sputatrix is commonly
known as a highly venomous snake with fatal
bite. Meanwhile, Malayopython reticulatus is a large
snake, which can wrap and swallow humans. Spectacular
cases about pythons pouncing and swallowing humans,
i.e. in Mamuju, West Sulawesi (Fajar 2018) and in
Buton, Southeast Sulawesi (Neke 2019) has been viral in
social media and can indirectly shape the public's
perception that the snake is dangerous and terrorized
humans. The results of evolution have associated snakes
as danger signals so that encounters with snakes activate
fear stimuli (Öhman & Mineka 2003).
The three most common venomous species found
are Javan spitting cobra and Malayan krait Bungarus
candidus, all belong to the Elapidae family and possess
neurotoxins that attack the nervous system, as well as
cardiotoxins with cytotoxins in the Javan spitting
cobra (Kumar et al. 2006). The javan spitting cobra is the
most common species found in the city. The existence
of N. sputatrix in residential areas might be caused by the
abundance of prey in the area, such as small mammals,
frogs, lizards, birds, and snakes. The population density
of prey will be directly proportional to the number of
predator population (McKinney 2008). Naja sputatrix is
a generalist and opportunistic predator that will eat any
prey, including other cobras (Maritz et al. 2018).
Although number of Naja sputatrix encounters in this
report could not be inferred as population, but it is
reasonable to conclude that the abundance of javan cobra
might be supported by lots of prey in the residential
areas. The number of other venomous snakes found are
mostly low, less than 5 incidents, but it also includes the
king cobra Ophiophagus hannah. The species is mostly
found in natural areas (Stuart et al. 2012), however it is
also reported found in area near human settlements not
only in Indonesia but also in India and Hong Kong
(Shankar et al. 2013, Maulidi et al. 2020, Yue et al.
2019). The king cobra is also popular as pet snake, even
in the city (Kusrini et al. 2020), thus making it possible
that accidently loose snake from captivity to roam in
highly urbanized areas.
The occurrence of other abundant snake, such as the
reticulated python also showed the adaptability of the
species to persist in urban area. Malayopython
reticulatus naturally lives in tropical or deciduous
forests, but they were known to live well in gardens and
swamps, and other locations close to water, such as rivers
and lakes (Stuart et al. 2018). It is not uncommon for the
snake to be a suspect in the loss of cattle as it is known to
prey on residents' livestock. This has the potential to
trigger conflicts between snakes and humans.
Media Konservasi Vol.26 No.3 Desember 2021: 231-238
235
Changes in landscapes have negative impact on the
environment, by changing the function of ecosystems
and loss of habitat causing changes in the composition of
wildlife communities and decrease of biodiversity
(Gilbert 1989; McKinney 2002). However, results of this
study show that urban areas are able to sustain various
species of snakes. The abundance of several species
indicates that these species are adaptive. The existence of
snakes also depends on the availability of microhabitats
in urban areas. For example, snakes in Bogor are far
more diverse than other locations. Bogor has varied land
cover in which settlement area are close to vegetated
area, i.e. nearby plantation forest, dry land agricultural
land, dry land mixed with bush land, and rice fields
(Lidiawati et al. 2019). This allows various species of
snakes that live in natural habitats to be accidentally
found around settlements.
One of the problems with the diverse snake around
the human settlements is the increase possibility of snake
bite incidents. Occurrence of snake bite cases is often
associated with human activities such as farming and
gardening activities (WHO 2016). Indonesia only have
one type of snake antivenom called serum anti bisa ular
(SABU) which is a polyvalent drug for three common
venomous species in western part of Indonesia: javan
spitting cobra, banded krait, and malayan pit
viper (WHO 2016). Unfortunately, SABU for other
notable venomous snake species such as malayan krait,
king cobra, and Trimeresurus sp is currently not
available. Considering the high number of venomous
snake encounters in residential areas and lack of public
knowledge of prevention and first aid of venomous snake
bites, snake bite cases in greater Jakarta Metropolitan
Areas could increase in the future.
Of the eight organizations interviewed, almost all
except Termites and Pest Control company, are
voluntarily rescued snakes. Reptile communities are
spread in each region, sometimes one community can
rescue snakes across regions. For example, Tabu
Indonesia who sat in Depok, will also rescues snakes
from Bogor area if needed. The majority of reptile
communities have the same goal, which is to mitigate
conflicts between snakes and humans, prevent snakes
from being killed by the community, prevent snakebite
cases due to mishandling as part of their educational
efforts to inform snakes to the public. Meanwhile, the
Fire Departments work aims at community service, i.e.
mitigate conflict between snakes and humans without the
need to conserve or educating people.
Reptile communities have members with varied
backgrounds, ranging from school children (elementary,
junior high, high school), students from various majors,
and employees. Not all members have educational
background in biology, but they have interest in snakes
as one of the motivations for learning. Some
communities conduct regular basic internal training in
handling snakes and snake bites, such as the Ciliwung
Herpetarium, Aspera Community, Indonesian Wagleri,
Sioux, and the Fire Departments. There are also those
who have participated in training conducted by other
organizations. Sioux Indonesia is an organization that
routinely conducts snake handling training, both for
volunteers who want to join or for the general public. All
organizations on average have the same procedure for
snake rescue assistance. First, they will verify and giving
direction or guidance through phone before coming to
location and then sending their representative to capture
the snake. Lastly, except for fire fighter, they will
educate the community regarding snake in the area.
Pest and Termites Control, Central Jakarta Fire
Department and three reptile communities (Ciliwung
Herpetarium, Tabu Indonesia, Sioux) have a written
standard operational procedures (SOP). For others, even
though there is no written SOP, each member knows the
proper equipment needed such as pouches, sticks, glasses
(specifically for handling Javan spitting cobra) and boots,
and the right techniques. Number of people needed
during rescue operations depends on the species and
location. For example, if relatively large snake such as
reticulated python will require lot of extra energy.
Almost all organizations stipulated at least two people
during rescue operations, except for firefighters based on
their SOP, a team will consist of six people.
Snake captured will be relocated to a place far from
the residential areas. Some were released immediately, as
was done by Pest and Termites Control officers. Some
are taken to the pen to be quarantined first if the snake is
injured, or will be released to a more distant location.
The firefighters usually will contact reptile community to
collect snake. Release sites are selected based on habitat
suitability, prey availability, distance from water sources,
and distance from residential areas. Some species that do
not cause fatalities, such as non-venomous snakes, are
released not far from the residential areas. However,
venomous and large-sized snake are mostly released far
from human settlements. The locations that become
release sites are the Ciliwung or Cisadane river banks,
Mount Malang, Mount Pancar, around Mount Halimun
Salak National Park and Mount Gede Pangrango
National Park, Mount Pancar, Mount Sindur, Tajur, and
Ciputat.
The reptile organizations in Greater Jakarta
Metropolitan Area served as a community for people
with various backgrounds who have interest in
reptiles. They all have a common goal to educate people
and to change perception of snakes by increasing positive
interactions between snakes and humans. This kind of
been conducted in Brazil to minimize fear by increasing
experiences or interaction with snake to reduce fear
(Pinheiro et al. 2016). Therefore, socialization to the
community after relocation becomes important as part of
education to correct perceptions, reduce fear or trauma
after meeting snakes around the house. However, the
Diversity Of Snake Rescued
236
effectiveness of socialization depends on the knowledge
capacity and communication skill of each member.
When relocating snakes, all communities have
informally known what needs to be carried and worn to
handle snakes safely. However, not all organizations
have a written SOPs on snake handling and relocation
management. Apart from the standard contents of the
SOP document, having an SOP is important for every
organization when carrying out activities. The SOP
contains systematic standardized work procedures and is
useful as a guideline for all members when relocating
snakes effectively. Absence of SOPs can lead to
miscommunication, increase the risk of dangerous
events, and can interrupt the transfer of knowledge
between members.
Snakes rescued are usually released. Pest and
Termites Control does not implement a quarantine
system for captured snakes to reduce the cost of
expenditure. It is not clear whether the organization
implementing the quarantine system is doing it properly
or just temporarily storing the snake until it is released
again. Only one community (Ciliwung Herpetarium)
have a complete animal management SOP, including a
quarantine SOP.
After quarantine, snakes are translocated to habitats
that are far from residential areas, a common activity
carried out to mitigate conflicts between animals and
humans (Clemman et al. 2004). Some studies suggest
that translocation over long distances (more than a few
kilometers) can change the normal behaviour patterns of
snakes (i.e. in Crotalus spp., Viperidae) and increase the
risk of snake death (Reinert and Rupert 1999). In
research on Notechis scutatus and Crotalus oreganus,
translocation affects the behavior and spatial ecology of
snakes by expanding the range and increasing movement
(Heiken 2013). This will be a new problem if the snake is
released in the forest that is still close to
settlements. However, Heiken (2013) states that long-
distance translocation in Crotalus oreganus does not
indicate chronic stress or disruption of
thermoregulation. It is likely that each species has a
different response to translocation. The snakes most
often translocated from settlements are highly venomous
snakes (Naja sputatrix, Bungarus sp.) and Malayopython
reticulatus. Little information is available about the
effects of long-distance translocation on these species.
There is no evidence that the selection and
assessment of habitat for snake released has been based
on scientific methods. There is no evaluation of habitat
conditions prior to release and evaluation of individual
snakes after release, so it cannot be assessed whether the
snakes survive or not. Previous studies have consistently
shown low success rates for snake translocation
(Brown et al. 2009; Kingsbury and Attum 2009; Lee and
Park 2011; Nowak et al. 2002; Reinert & Rupert 1999),
although some are showing the success of translocation
(Walker et al. 2009). A more thorough evaluation and
plan are needed to assess the success of translocation,
both in terms of conflict mitigation and conservation. To
support efforts to mitigate the conflict between snakes
and humans, further research is needed regarding the
time pattern of snake encounters in settlements, the
characteristics, behaviour and perceptions of people
when meeting snakes in settlements, as well as the
success rate of translocation and their impact on snake
behaviour. Management of reptile habitat in urban areas
also needed to conserve snakes. This is not the
responsibility of only the community, but also
collaboration from various parties, including
government, research institutions, and other conservation
institutions.
CONCLUSION
Snakes occurrences in Greater Jakarta Area, showed
the ability of snake to adapt in urban areas. As Javan
spitting cobra is one of the most common snake found,
there is a need to prepare for the increase of snake bite
incident. Snake relocation activities and education is a
way to mitigate conflicts between humans and snakes.
Not all organisations have standard SOP for snake
rescue, including translocation activities that have
considered ecological and conservation success.
REFERENCES
Brown JR, Bishop CA, Brooks RJ. 2009. Effectiveness
of short-distance translocation and its effects on
western rattlesnakes. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 73: 419-425.
Ceríaco LM. 2012. Human attitudes towards
herpetofauna: The influence of folklore and negative
values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles
in Portugal. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine. 8 (1): 8.
Clemman N, McGee T, Odgers J. 2004. An insight into
the management of snakes on private properties by
snake controllers and first contact organizations in
Melbourne, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife.
9: 133-142.
Davies RG, Webber LM, Barnes GS. 2004. Urban
wildlife management it’s as much about people!’ in
D. Lunney & S. Burgin (eds). Urban Wildlife: More
than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New
South Wales. Mosman. pp 38-43.
Fajar. 2018. Piton Raksasa Kembali Mangsa Manusia,
Kali ini di Muna, in Fajar from
https://www.fajar.co.id/2018/06/15/piton-raksasa-
kembali-mangsa-manusia-kali-ini-di-muna/. [6
October 2019].
Fakih F. 2019. Ular Sanca Sepanjang Tiga Meter
Ditemukan di Jakarta Utara, in Merdeka, from
https://www.merdeka.com/jakarta/ular-sanca-
sepanjang-tiga-meter-ditemukan-di-jakarta-
utara.html. [7 March 2019].
Media Konservasi Vol.26 No.3 Desember 2021: 231-238
237
Gibbons J, Scott DE, Ryan TJ, Buhlmann KA, Tuberville
TD, Metts BS, Greene JL, Mills T, Leiden Y, Poppy
S, Winne C, 2000. The Global Decline of Reptiles,
Deja Vu Amphibian. Bioscience. 50 (8): 653666.
Gilbert OL. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats.
Chapman and Hall. New York.
Hartanto E. 2014. Studi penyebaran sub-ordo ophidian di
Pulau Jawa dengan menggunakan aplikasi sistem
informasi geospasial (SIG). BSc. Thesis.
Departemen Konservasi Sumberdaya Hutan dan
Ekowisata, Fakultas Kehutanan IPB. Bogor.
Heiken KH. 2013. The behavioural and physiological
effects of long-distance translocation on western
rattlesnakes (Crotalus oreganus). MSc. Thesis.
Faculty of California Polytechnic State University.
California.
Kingsbury BA, Attum O. 2009. Conservation strategies:
captive rearing, translocation, and repatriation, in SJ
Mullin & RA Seigel (eds). Snakes: Ecology and
Conservation. Cornell University Press. New York.
Pp 201-220.
Knight AJ. 2008. “Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my!” how
aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other
concepts predict support for species protection.
Journal of Environmental Psychology. 28 (1): 94-
103.
Kumar V, Maheshwari R, Verma HK. 2006. Toxicity
and symptomatic identification of species involved in
snakebites in the Indian subcontinent. Journal of
Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical
Diseases. 12 (1): 318.
Kusrini M, Palesa SP, Masy’ud B. 2021. Snake pet
ownership in the city: A case study in Greater Jakarta,
Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological
Diversity 22: 17901798.
Lee JH, Park D. 2011. Spatial ecology of translocated
and resident amur ratsnakes (Elaphes chrenckii) in
two mountain valleys of South Korea. Asian
Herpetological Research. 2: 223-229.
Lidiawati I, Hasibuan R, Wijayanti R. 2019. Perubahan
penggunaan lahan kota Bogor. Talenta Conference
Series Agricultural and Natural Resources. 2 (1): 44-
51.
Longbottom J, Shearer FM, Devine M, Alcoba G,
Chappuis F, Weiss DJ, Ray SE, Ray N, Warrell DA,
Ruiz de Castañeda R, Williams DJ, Hay SI, Pigott
DM. 2018. Vulnerability to snakebite envenoming: a
global mapping of hotspots. The Lancet 392: 673
684.
Maulana F. 2019. Ular Piton Ukuran 3 Meter Jatuh dari
Kanopi Rumah Warga Pesanggrahan’, in Detik
https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4452522/ular-piton-
ukuran-3-meter-jatuh-dari-kanopi-rumah-warga-
pesanggrahan. [7 Marh 2019].
Maritz B, Alexander G J, Maritz R A. 2018. The
underappreciated extent of cannibalism and
ophiophagy in African cobras. Ecology Society of
America. 100 (2): https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2522.
Maulidi A, Purnaningsih T, Maulina A, Gunawan YE,
Rizki M. 2020. Short Communication: Herpetofauna
diversity at the University of Palangka Raya,
Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological
Diversity 21: 4509-4514.
McKinney ML. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and
conservation. BioScience. 52: 883-890.
McKinney ML. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species
richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban
Ecosystem. 11: 161176.
Neke D. 2019. Piton Memangsa Manusia Terjadi Lagi,
Wa Sogo Tewas Diterkam dan Dililit Piton 7 Meter,
Kronologinya’, in Tribunnews.
https://www.medan.tribunnews.com/2019/06/06/pito
n-memangsa-manusia-terjadi-lagi-wa-sogo-tewas-
diterkam-dililit-piton-7-meter-kronologinya?page=4.
[October 6, 2019].
Nowak EM, Hare T, McNally J. 2002. Management of
“nuisance” vipers: effects of translocation on western
diamond-backed rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox)’ in G.
W. Schuett G.W., O’Shea M (eds). Venomous snakes
of the world. Princeton University Press. New
Holland. pp. 525-552.
Öhman A, Mineka S. 2003. The malicious serpent:
snakes as a prototypical stimulus for an evolved
module of fear. Current Directions in Psychological
Science. 12 (1): 5-9.
Pinheiro L T, Rodrigues J F M, Nojosa D M B. 2016.
Formal education, previous interaction and perception
influence the attitudes of people toward the
conservation of snakes in a large urban center of
northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine. 12: 25.
Reed RN, Krysko KL. 2013. Invasive and introduced
reptiles and amphibians. Current Therapy in Reptile
Medicine and Surgery. 28: 304-309.
Reinert HK, Rupert RR. 1999. Impacts of translocation
on behaviour and survival of timber rattlesnakes,
Crotalus borridus. Journal of Herpetology. 33: 45-
61.
Roshnath R. 2017. Snake rescues; a conservation effort
in Kannur district. Kongunadu Reseach Journal. 4
(1): 161-165.
Rusli N. 2016. Mengenal Ular Jabodetabek. Bypass.
Bogor.
Shankar PG, Ganesh SR, Whitaker R, Prashanth P. 2013.
King Cobra Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836)
encounters in human-modified rainforests of the
Western Ghats, India. Hamadryad 36: 6268.
Shine R, Koenig J. 2001. Snakes in the garden: an
analysis of reptiles ‘“rescued”’ by community-based
wildlife carers. Biological Conservation. 102 (2001):
271283.
Stuart B, Thy N, Chan-Ard T, Nguyen T Q, Grismer L,
Auliya M, Das I, Wogan G. 2018. Python
Diversity Of Snake Rescued
238
reticulatus’, in The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2018: e.T183151A1730027, from
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2018-
2.RLTS.T183151A1730027.en. [11 February 2021].
Stuart B, Wogan, G, Grismer L, Auliya M, Inger RF,
Lilley R, Chan-Ard T, Thy, N, Nguyen TQ,
Srinivasulu C, Jelić D. 2012. Ophiophagus hannah.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012:
e.T177540A1491874.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012-
1.RLTS.T177540A1491874.en. [11 December 2021].
Uetz P, Stylianou A. 2018. The original descriptions of
reptiles and their subspecies. Zootaxa. 4375: 257
264.
Walker ML, Dorr JA, Benjamin RJ, Pisani GR. 2009.
Successful relocation of a threatened suburban
population of timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus borridus):
combining snake ecology, politics, and education.
IRCF Reptiles and Amphibians. 16: 210-221.
[WHO] World Health Organization. 2016. Guidelines for
the management of snakebites. India: World Health
Organization.
Yue S, Bonebrake TC, Gibson L. 2019. Human-snake
Conflict Patterns in a Dense Urban-Forest Mosaic
Landscape. Herpetological Conservation and
Biology. 14: 143154
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Kusrini MD, Palesa SP, Masy'ud B. 2021. Snake pet ownership in the city: A case study in Greater Jakarta, Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 22: 1790-1798. Snake pets have gained popularity all over the world, including in Indonesia. We conducted an online survey to gather information regarding the characteristics of snake owners, their motivation for keeping snakes, the species owned, and the keepers' knowledge and perception. Google forms were sent to snake owners in the Greater Jakarta area (also known as Jabodetabek), and 69 snake owners responded. Most of the snake owners are in the young adult group (16-25 years) and their motivation to keep snakes comes mostly from them being influenced by their peers, exhibitions and social media. Thirty-nine species of snake from nine families were listed as pets, mostly being snakes that are distributed in Indonesia. Overall, the Pythonidae was the snake family with the most species being selected as pets (65.7%), followed by Colubridae (10.7%) and Viperidae (9.44%). Most snake owners kept non-venomous snakes (83.3%), 12% kept highly venomous snakes, and 4.7% kept mildly-venomous snakes. Most of the keepers had heard about protected species (91.2%). However, when asked to write the names of any protected species, 46% out of 50 people gave incorrect names. The relatively high number of venomous snakes kept (even by those keepers of a young age) indicates the potential risk of envenomation. As yet, there is no system for snake owner licensing in Indonesia, thus it is suggested that, because of the increasing popularity of keeping snakes as pets, owners should be registered, licensed, and monitored.
Article
Full-text available
Summary Background Snakebite envenoming is a frequently overlooked cause of mortality and morbidity. Data for snake ecology and existing snakebite interventions are scarce, limiting accurate burden estimation initiatives. Low global awareness stunts new interventions, adequate health resources, and available health care. Therefore, we aimed to synthesise currently available data to identify the most vulnerable populations at risk of snakebite, and where additional data to manage this global problem are needed. Methods We assembled a list of snake species using WHO guidelines. Where relevant, we obtained expert opinion range (EOR) maps from WHO or the Clinical Toxinology Resources. We also obtained occurrence data for each snake species from a variety of websites, such as VertNet and iNaturalist, using the spocc R package (version 0.7.0). We removed duplicate occurrence data and categorised snakes into three groups: group A (no available EOR map or species occurrence records), group B (EOR map but <5 species occurrence records), and group C (EOR map and ≥5 species occurrence records). For group C species, we did a multivariate environmental similarity analysis using the 2008 WHO EOR maps and newly available evidence. Using these data and the EOR maps, we produced contemporary range maps for medically important venomous snake species at a 5 × 5 km resolution. We subsequently triangulated these data with three health system metrics (antivenom availability, accessibility to urban centres, and the Healthcare Access and Quality [HAQ] Index) to identify the populations most vulnerable to snakebite morbidity and mortality. Findings We provide a map showing the ranges of 278 snake species globally. Although about 6·85 billion people worldwide live within range of areas inhabited by snakes, about 146·70 million live within remote areas lacking quality health-care provisioning. Comparing opposite ends of the HAQ Index, 272·91 million individuals (65·25%) of the population within the lowest decile are at risk of exposure to any snake for which no effective therapy exists compared with 519·46 million individuals (27·79%) within the highest HAQ Index decile, showing a disproportionate coverage in reported antivenom availability. Antivenoms were available for 119 (43%) of 278 snake species evaluated by WHO, while globally 750·19 million (10·95%) of those living within snake ranges live more than 1 h from population centres. In total, we identify about 92·66 million people living within these vulnerable geographies, including many sub-Saharan countries, Indonesia, and other parts of southeast Asia. Interpretation Identifying exact populations vulnerable to the most severe outcomes of snakebite envenoming at a subnational level is important for prioritising new data collection and collation, reinforcing envenoming treatment, existing health-care systems, and deploying currently available and future interventions. These maps can guide future research efforts on snakebite envenoming from both ecological and public health perspectives and better target future estimates of the burden of this neglected tropical disease.
Article
Full-text available
By August 2017 an estimated 13,047 species and subspecies of extant reptiles have been described by a total of 6,454 papers and books which are listed in a supplementary file. For 1,052 species a total of 2,452 subspecies (excluding nominate subspecies) had been described by 2017, down from 1,295 species and 4,411 subspecies in 2009, due to the elevation of many subspecies to species. Here we summarize the history of these taxon description beginning with Linnaeus in 1758. While it took 80 years to reach the first 1,000 species in 1838, new species and subspecies descriptions since then have been added at a roughly constant rate of 1000 new taxa every 12-17 years. The only exception were the decades during World Wars I and II and the beginning of this millennium when the rate of descriptions increased to now about 7 years for the last 1,000 taxa. The top 101 most productive herpetologists (in terms of “taxon output”) have described more than 8,000 species and subspecies, amounting to over 60% of all currently valid taxa. More than 90% of all species were described in either English (68.2%), German (12.7%) or French (9.3%).
Article
Full-text available
Snakes can be found near human habitation because of different reasons of which abundance of prey (rodents) is the major fact. This draws conflict between snakes and humans. Even though snakes are protected with Indian Wildlife Act of 1972, they are generally regarded dangerous creatures to man and whenever spotted deserve no mercy. Hence, recues of the snake is an important factor for conserving the species. Trends in the population of snakes are difficult to monitor due to its sporadic distribution and secretive nature of snakes. Lack of knowledge about the population concerns any conservational plans. This data attempt to document the diversity, population and seasonality of the snakes rescued in Kannur by Rapid response team from October 2011 to October 2014 in Kannur district. A total of 1427 snakes comprising 16 species were rescued in Kannur district of which 65% were venomous snakes. Indian Spectacled Cobra (Naja naja; 44.1%) were found to be common venomous snake encountered in the district. Russell's Viper (Daboia russelii; 14.8%), Common Krait (Bungarus caeruleus; 3.4%), King Cobra (Ophiophagus Hannah;2.5%) and few cases of Malabar Pit-Viper (Trimeresurus malabaricus;0.1%), Common Cat Snake (Boiga trigonata;0.2%) and Forsten's Cat snake (Boiga forsteni;0.1%) are the other venomous species.. Indian Rock Python (Python molurus; 30.1%) was the commonly rescued non-venomous snake in Kannur. Other non-venomous snakes were Rat snake (Ptyas mucosa; 1.8%), Common Trinket snake (Coelognathus helena; 1.3%), Wolf snake (Lycodon aulicus; 0.4%), Common Kukri (Oligodon arnensis; 0.1%), Common sand boa (Eryx conicus; 0.3%) and Red sand boa (Eryx johnii; 0.5%). Seasonal variations in the number of rescued snakes were discussed. Knowledge of activity pattern of the snake in the district can be used for successful management and conservational plans. Waste management, rodent control, reducing hideout places etc were suggested to decrease the number of snakes entering into house compound. Promoting awareness about the local snake among the public is as important as rescue activities. The increase in rescue call by 40% in 2013 can be taken as one of the successes of the awareness programs conducted across the district.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The attitudes and perceptions of people toward animals are influenced by sociodemographic factors, such as formal education and gender, and by personal experience. Understanding these interactions is critical for the establishment of conservation strategies for animals that have conflictual relationships with humans, such as snakes. Our study aims to explain how perceptions and the human fear of snakes vary and are influenced by formal education and gender. In addition, it aims to show how prior interaction with these animals influence these perceptions and the human fear toward snakes and how these perceptions and fear influence the importance of conservation of these animals. Methods: We collected data from June 2010 to December 2013 using questionnaires given to 1142 visitors of a scientific serpentarium (Núcleo Regional de Ofiologia da Universidade Federal do Ceará) in the municipality of Fortaleza, northeastern Brazil. Results and Discussion: Negative perceptions toward snakes were less frequent according to an increase in levels of schooling. Women had more negative perceptions and were more afraid of snakes than were men. Prior interaction with snakes decreased the occurrence of negative perceptions and reduced the level of human fear of these animals.People with negative perceptions classified the conservation of snakes as not important and were more afraid of these animals. Understanding the relationship between sociodemographic factors, prior experiences, perceptions, fear, and the importance given to conservation can help to better understand human attitudes toward snakes. Conclusions: Environmental education activities considering gender differences, involving preliminary interaction with snakes and focusing on priority targets identified in our study, such as people with low formal education, can increase the efficiency of measures for the conservation of these animals.
Article
Maulidi A, Purnaningsih T, Maulina A, Gunawan YE, Rizki M. 2020. Short Communication: Herpetofauna diversity at University of Palangka Raya, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 21: 4509-4514. Research on herpetofauna at the University of Palangka Raya (UPR) is vital as there has been no official data so far and remains to be anecdotal evidence from various members of the university. The present study aimed to analyze and report the herpetofauna diversity on the Tunjung Nyaho Campus. It was conducted between October 2019 and November 2019. Herpetofauna data were collected using the Visual Encounter Survey (VES) method. Diurnal and nocturnal surveys were carried out between 07:00-10:00 and 19:00-22:00, respectively. The results showed that as many as 12 species of herpetofauna were present, including six species of reptiles from six families and six species of amphibians from four families. Comparative diversity analyses of these species, unburned, post-burnt, and around building, indicated that the unburned area had a relatively high diversity (2.06) compared to the other two (0.86 and 0.88, respectively). However, the evenness index (E) for the herpetofauna community in all three locations was > 0.70. The resulting species list from this study consisted of two species with threatened statuses under the IUCN Red List, i.e., Ophiophagus hannah (VU), and Cuora amboinensis (EN).
Article
It is incredibly challenging to study the natural feeding habits of snakes. Snakes are themselves secretive and rarely observed in the wild, and they feed relatively infrequently, making observations of feeding scarce. As a result, scientific understanding of snake dietary ecology (beyond simple prey lists) remains remarkably superficial outside of a few species. In this context, our own research sets out to understand how feeding and competition for spatially‐ and temporally‐patchy resources drives interspecific competition between two species of African snakes and how those processes might change in the future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.