in Sri Lanka - Ministry of Environment

a lack of human resources skilled and interested in managing captive populations. Captivebreeding and reintroduction are clearly actions of last resort, but given a track record of 19extinctions and many more species being listed as threatened, it is one that needs to beconsidered at least for some Sri Lankan species. A starting point would be the accumulation oflocal climatic and water quality data, together with in situ observations of activity patterns, dietresource utilization, breeding behaviour and larval development, together with an assessmentof threats at each life-history stage. Such a programme would also need to examine possiblein situ options, such as improved upstream water-quality management and the maintenanceof riparian vegetation. With these data in hand, an informed judgment could be made withregard to restoring degraded former habitats for a rigorous reintroduction programme. Even ifex situ measures were not to be implemented immediately, the importance of developing themethodologies for this cannot be over-emphasized.The keys provided by Dutta & Manamendra-Arachchi (1996); Manamenrda-Arachchi &Pethiyagoda (2005) and Meegaskumbura & Manamendra-Arachchi (2005) facilitate theidentification of all currently known Sri Lankan amphibians. With names and diagnosesavailable for these species, reliable work could commence on assessing populations, habitatrequirements and distributions with a view to improving conservation practices. By offeringonly protection, the present regulatory framework discourages engagement with this faunaby scientists and interested citizens. The threats to amphibians in Sri Lanka however, willpersist regardless of how effectively they are protected. The need of the hour is science-basedconservation that seeks to address threats such as environmental pollution, climate changesand habitat degradation.References:Blaustein, A. R., Hokit, D. G., O’Hara, R. K. & Holt, R. A., (1994). Pathogenic fungus contributes to amphibian lossesin the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation, 67(3), pp.251–254.Bossuyt, F., Meegaskumbura, M., Beenaerts, N., Gower, D. J., Pethiyagoda, R., Roelants, K., Mannaert, A.,Wilkinson, M., Bahir, M. M., Manamendra-Arachchi, K., Ng, P. K. L., Schneider, C. J., Oommen O. V. &Milinkovitch, M. C., (2004). Local endemism within the Western Ghats–Sri Lanka Biodiversity Hotspot. Science,306(5695), pp.479–481.Dutta, S. K. & Manamendra-Arachchi, K., (1996). The amphibian fauna of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Wildlife HeritageTrust of Sri Lanka,Gunawardena, E. R. N., Rajapakshe, U., Nandasena, K. A. & Rosier, P. T. W., (1998). Water quality issues inthe uplands of Sri Lanka. In: H.P.M. Gunasena, ed. 1998. Proceedings of the final workshop: University ofPeradeniya — Oxford Forestry Institute Link Project. Peradeniya: Faculty of Agriculture, Univ. Peradeniya,pp.37–44.Kiesecker, J. M., Balustein A. R. & Belden, L. K., (2001). Complex causes of amphibian population declines. Nature,410, pp.681–684.Kirtisinghe, P., (1957). The Amphibia of Ceylon. Colombo: Published by the author.Manamendra-Arachchi, K. & Pethiyagoda, R., (2005). The Sri Lankan shrub-frogs of the genus Philautus Gistel,1848 (Ranidae: Rhacophorinae), with description of 27 new species. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement,12, pp.163–303.Meegaskumbura, M. & Manamendra-Arachchi, K., (2005). Descriptions of eight new species of shrub frogs (Ranidae:Rhacophorinae: Philautus) from Sri Lanka. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement, 12, pp.305–338.Meegaskumbura, M., Bossuyt, F., Pethiyagoda, R., Manamendra-Ararchchi, K., Bahir, M., Milinkovitch, M. C. &Schneider, C. J., (2002). Sri Lanka: an amphibian hotspot. Science, 298(5592), p.379.Meegaskumbura, M. & Manamendra-Ararchchi, K., (2011). Two new species of shrub frogs (Rhacophoridae:Pseudophilautus) from Sri Lanka. Zootaxa, 2747, pp.1–18.Pethiyagoda, R. & Manamendra-Arachchi, K., (1998). Occasional Papers of the Wildlife Heritage Trust, 2: EvaluatingSri Lanka’s amphibian diversity. Colombo: Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka.90