Gaps in the Protection of the Reptiles of Myanmar—Threat Status, Endemism, Protected Area Coverage, and One Plan Approach Conservation
缅甸爬行动物保护中的空白——受威胁状况、稀缺性、保护区覆盖及“一体化保护计划”方法
ABSTRACT
enHerein, we improve the knowledge about Burmese terrestrial reptile diversity and its distribution with focus on threatened and endemic species providing recommendations for improved conservation measures. Out of the 212 assessed species, 20% are Burmese endemics. Of those, almost 10% are microendemics that have only been reported from one specific locality and almost 40% are regional endemics, some with very restricted distributions, which are particularly threatened. Almost 25% of all assessed species are listed as threatened or potentially threatened in the IUCN Red List. In endemics, this number increases to 50.0%. The richness of all terrestrial reptile species is consistently high, and their distribution is mostly even across Myanmar with exceptions in the northern coastal regions and in the central dry zone reaching down to the lowlands in the southern part above Mon State and Tanintharyi Region. Threatened taxa are similarly distributed but with peaks in the western Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests, Kayah–Karen montane rain forest, and in the Tenesserim–South Thailand semi-evergreen rain forest. Endemism is generally even across the country with peaks in the east and south. Analysis of protected areas revealed that the majority of all species extant in Myanmar may occur in at least one protected area, but 10% are only covered by one single protected area, while in threatened and potentially threatened categories 25.0% of the taxa have been reported exclusively from outside protected areas. In endemic species this number increases to more than 30%. CITES lists 16.0% of all species, most of them in Appendix II. According to the ZIMS database, almost 50% of all threatened and potentially threatened terrestrial reptiles are represented in zoos, with breeding successes in the last 12 months for 60%. The vast majority of 88% of all Burmese endemic species are not kept in ex situ populations, suggesting that the implementation of the One Plan Approach proposed by the IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG) needs to be improved to protect the unique herpetofauna. A list of the most threatened species in need of conservation actions is provided.
摘要
zh本文旨在提升对缅甸陆栖爬行动物多样性及其分布的认识, 重点关注受威胁和特有种, 并为改进保护措施提供建议。在评估的212个物种中, 20%为缅甸特有种。其中, 近10%为仅分布于单一地点的狭域特有种, 近40%为区域特有种, 部分物种分布范围极为有限, 面临较高的受威胁风险。在所有评估物种中, 近25%被列入IUCN红色名录的受威胁或潜在受威胁类别。在特有种中, 这一比例上升至50.0%。缅甸陆栖爬行动物的物种丰富度普遍较高, 分布总体均匀, 但北部沿海地区和中部干旱地带 (延伸至孟邦和德林达依省南部的低地) 除外。受威胁类群的分布模式类似, 但在西部米佐拉姆-曼尼普尔-克钦雨林、克耶-克伦山地雨林以及德林达依-泰国南部半常绿雨林中达到峰值。特有性在全国范围内分布较为均匀, 东部和南部地区尤为突出。对保护区的分析表明, 缅甸现存的大多数物种可能至少分布于一个保护区内, 但10%的物种仅覆盖于单一保护区, 而在受威胁和潜在受威胁类群中, 25.0%的类群仅分布于保护区外。在特有种中, 这一比例上升至30%以上。CITES名录中列出了16.0%的物种, 其中大多数被列入附录II。根据ZIMS数据库, 近50%的受威胁和潜在受威胁陆栖爬行动物在动物园中有圈养记录, 其中60%在过去12个月内成功繁殖。然而, 88%的缅甸特有种未在迁地种群中得到保护, 这表明亟需改进国际自然保护联盟 (IUCN) 保护规划专家组 (CPSG) 提出的“一体化保护计划”方法, 以保护这一独特的爬行动物区系。本文还提供了需要采取保护行动的最受威胁物种清单。
简明语言摘要
zh本研究评估了缅甸爬行动物多样性及其分布的相关知识, 重点提出了针对濒危物种和/或仅分布于该地区的物种的保护建议。研究发现, 缅甸分布有212种爬行动物, 其中20%为特有种。在这些物种中, 约一半面临种群下降和/或灭绝的风险。全国范围内, 单位面积的物种数量预期较高且分布较为均匀, 但北部沿海地区和中部干旱地带除外。这一分布模式在受威胁物种中同样显著。缅甸特有物的分布也相对均匀, 东部和南部地区的特有性较高。从物种在保护区内的分布来看, 大多数物种可能至少分布于一个保护区内。然而, 25%的受威胁物种只分布于保护区外。通过对动物园数据库的评估, 约一半的物种已被圈养, 其中60%在过去一年中成功繁殖。然而, 大多数仅分布于缅甸的受威胁物种目前未被圈养。因此, 国际自然保护联盟 (IUCN) 保护规划专家组 (CPSG) 提出的“一体化保护计划”方法的实施亟需加强。
Summary
enIn this study, the knowledge of Burmese reptile diversity and occurrence was assessed highlighting recommendations for conservation, especially for species at risk and/or species only occurring in this area. We found 212 species which are distributed in Myanmar, with 20% of them occurring only here. Among them, about half of them can be considered as at risk of population declines and/or extinction. Across the country, expected species numbers per area is high and mostly equally distributed, with exceptions in the northern coastal regions and the central dry zone. This pattern is also evident in the distribution of threatened species. The distribution of species occurring only in Myanmar is also comparatively even with areas of higher degrees of endemism in the east and south. Looking at the occurrence of species in protected areas, most of the species may occur in at least one protected area. However, among the species at risk 25% have been recorded exclusively outside of protected areas. Assessing a zoo database, about half of them are already in holdings, with 60% having successful reproduction during the last year. However, the majority of threatened species occurring only in Myanmar is currently not in holdings. Here, the implementation of the One Plan Approach proposed by the IUCN Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG) needs to be improved.
-
Practitioner Points
- ∘
Diversity of reptiles is considered high in Myanmar, although future research efforts will likely result in the discovery of previously neglected taxa.
- ∘
Recommendations for improvement of the protected area network are provided.
- ∘
To improve conservation, a list of the most threatened species in need of ex-situ and in-situ actions is provided
- ∘
-
缅甸的爬行动物多样性较高, 但未来的研究可能会发现以往被忽视的类群。
-
本文提出了优化保护区网络的建议。
-
为加强保护力度, 研究列出了一份亟需迁地保护和就地保护措施的极危物种名录。
1 Introduction
As the world is experiencing a global biodiversity crisis with up to one million plant and animal species facing extinction in the coming decades because of human activities (Tollefson 2019), at least 1829 out of 10,196 reptile species (21.1%) are globally threatened (Cox et al. 2022). To prevent species extinction, experts agree that it is crucial to take immediate drastic actions to conserve habitats (Tollefson 2019). A recent study suggests that beyond the 15.1% of currently protected global terrestrial area, it would need an additional 35.3% of critical sites to protect biodiversity and stabilize the climate (Dinerstein et al. 2020). Considering the limited resources available, it is necessary to set priorities for nature conservation measures. Identifying biodiversity hotspots such as Myanmar is a typical approach.
Myanmar is the northwesternmost country in mainland Southeast Asia and a global hotspot with high biodiversity and many endemic species. However, Myanmar's protected terrestrial and inland water areas (PAs) cover only 44,289 km2 (6.6%) of the total land area of 673,079 km2 (UNEP WCMC 2022a). There has been extensive herpetological research on certain groups and regions, particularly in recent decades (e.g., Levitón et al. 2003; Platt et al. 2018; Zug 2022), but the knowledge of Myanmar's reptile fauna remains incomplete. According to IUCN (2022a), Myanmar's reptile diversity includes 316 species. Thus, the present study aimed to analyze the species richness and distribution of Myanmar's terrestrial reptiles, the conservation status, and PA coverage to provide recommendations for prioritization of conservation actions.
Following the One Plan Approach to Conservation of the IUCN's Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG), which aims to combine different approaches such as in and ex situ conservation measures to create one comprehensive conservation plan for the species (Conservation Planning Specialist Group 2022), we also analyzed ex situ conservation activities, namely the global representation of Burmese reptiles in zoo holdings.
We expected that the distribution areas of many threatened, potentially threatened, and endemic species are not covered by PAs. Those species that benefit from sanctuary protection are expected to be protected by only one single PA. Endemic species that are listed in an IUCN threat category were assumed to be threatened by human impacts, and we assumed that not all of the threatened and endemic reptiles occurring in Myanmar are currently covered by One Plan Approach conservation measures, such as ex situ breeding.
2 Methods
2.1 Species List
This study focuses on the extant native terrestrial reptile species of Myanmar. Sea snakes and sea turtles, as well as introduced or extirpated species, were excluded from the analysis. To compile a species list, we used Zug (2022) as the primary reference for turtle and crocodile species, Wogan et al. (2008) for Squamata, and Levitón et al. (2003) for venomous snake species. For the endemism analysis Stuart and Thorbjarnarson (2003), the IUCN Red List, and Uetz et al. (2021) were inquired. We further consulted species information from IUCN (2022a), the Reptile Database (Uetz et al. 2021, 2023), and individual publications. In case of contradictory or unclear data the most recent source was considered.
The species list includes three special cases. Gongylosoma scriptum was added despite its IUCN (2022a) status Possibly Extinct. Trimeresurus kanburiensis is known with certainty from Kanchanaburi Province in western Thailand, on the border with Myanmar (Sumontha et al. 2021). Due to this close geographic proximity, the species also likely occurs in adjacent Kayin State, Myanmar, but has not yet been documented there (Levitón et al. 2003; IUCN 2022a). Since this is an Endangered species, which has potential to be recorded from Myanmar in the future, we have included it in our analyses. Malayemys macrocephala is currently not proven to occur in Myanmar, but in Thailand directly bordering Tanintharyi State, Myanmar (IUCN 2022a) and was documented by Platt et al. (2017) in southern Tanintharyi (Zug 2022), so could be marginally occurring and be recorded again in Myanmar in the future.
Seven species listed in Zug (2022) were not included in the species list for being introduced to or likely extirpated in Myanmar. Trachemys scripta is native to southern central North America and thus does not naturally occur in Myanmar (Uetz et al. 2021; Zug 2022). Apart from reports from the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the occurrence of the Crocodylia Crocodylus palustris and Gavialis gangeticus in Myanmar cannot be confirmed and these species are presumed to be extirpated in Myanmar (IUCN 2022a; Zug 2022). Similarly, the recent occurrence of four Testudines formerly reported in Myanmar is questionable. For Batagur affinis and Melanochelys tricarinata, there are no confirmed records for Myanmar (IUCN 2022a; Zug 2022). Batagur baska is possibly extinct in Myanmar since its last record is from a single individual living in a pagoda pond in 2019 (IUCN 2022a; Zug 2022). The presence of Heosemys annandalii in Myanmar is uncertain (IUCN 2022a; Zug 2022); thus, this species was not included in the species list as well.
The final species list of all terrestrial reptile species that occur in Myanmar does not contain subspecies and species that are present on the Coco and Sunda Islands but not on mainland Myanmar. All species were listed together with their IUCN Red List status, population trend (IUCN 2022a), the date of the last assessment, and the references that indicate their distribution in Myanmar. In addition, endemic species were listed together with the grade of endemism and the location in Myanmar.
2.2 Distribution/Spatial Data
The spatial polygons of the distribution of the species were compiled by and downloaded from IUCN (2022a). Eleven taxa were missing spatial information in Myanmar. Their habitats were separately mapped based on literature: Boiga quincunciata, Chrysopelea paradisi, Eutropis dissimilis, Eutropis rudis, Gekko kuhli, Lygosoma haroldyoungi, and Python brongersmai. The four species Amyda ornata, Hemidactylus tenkatei, Indotyphlops jerdoni, and T. kanburiensis have been excluded from the richness analysis due to missing coordinates. The PA information of Myanmar was taken from UNEP WCMC (2022a) and IUCN (2022a). The global ecoregions classification was based on Olson et al. (2001).
2.3 Endemism
We considered different categories of endemism: species that only occur in one single location, for example, a specific spot on a riverbank, are considered as microendemic species (ME). Species that are extant in one terrestrial ecoregion of the country or in one spot on both sides of an ecoregional or country border are counted as regional endemics (RE). Taxa that are distributed in two or more different ecoregions or on the border between Myanmar and an adjacent country and also in at least one more location in Myanmar are classified as country endemics (CE).
2.4 Data Analysis and Visualization
Our data set was analyzed using R version 4.2.0 and the additional packages “raster” (Hijmans et al. 2022), “shapefiles” (Stapler 2013), and “rredlist” (Gearty and Chamberlain 2020). Figures were created using QGIS version 3.22.7. Lists and charts were created with Microsoft Excel.
To compare the distribution of PAs with localities of all extant, threatened, and endemic species, species richness analyses were performed measuring the number of species in grid cells of 100 × 100 m. Therefore, we used range polygons provided by IUCN as baseline and computed the occurrence of preferred habitat types as stated in the respective species accounts by IUCN based on a high-resolution habitat map provided by Jung et al. (2020). Additionally, the number of species potentially occurring in PAs was computed. As proposed by Crisp et al. (2001), the relative habitat size of all species in a grid cell, corrected with the total number of species in this cell was calculated as corrected weighted endemism (CWE). For this index, species were weighted by the inverse of their range size. Therefore, species with smaller range sizes were weighted more strongly than those with large ranges. Subsequently, this value was divided by the local species richness in the grid cell.
2.5 Conservation Status Analysis
The conservation status of each species was extracted from the IUCN Red List (2022a) between August 15 and August 31, 2022 for Squamata and the four Testudines Geochelone platynota, Indotestudo elongata, Manouria emys and M. impressa, and on July 27, 2023 for the remaining Testudines and C. porosus. We differentiated between the following categories: DD (Data Deficient), LC (Least Concern), NT (Near Threatened), VU (Vulnerable), EN (Endangered), CR (Critically Endangered), EW (Extinct in the Wild) (IUCN 2022a).
- 1.
Population size reduction.
- 2.
Geographic range in the form of either extent of occurrence (EOO) and/or area of occupancy (AOO).
- 3.
Small population size and decline.
- 4.
Very small or restricted population.
- 5.
Quantitative analysis indicating the probability of extinction in the wild.
Additionally, it was checked whether a species was listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices. The data were assessed on August 31, 2022.
2.6 Zoo Database Analysis
The Zoological Information Management System (ZIMS, Species360) is an online and real-time database, which currently covers more than 1200 aquariums, zoos, universities, research and governmental members, and holds knowledge of more than 22,000 species (Species360 2022a). Collection information from the ZIMS database was used to gain an overview of threatened and endemic terrestrial reptiles occurring in Myanmar, which are held in zoos worldwide. For that purpose, the number and sex of kept individuals, keeping institutions, and successful reproduction within the last 12 months were extracted on August 18, 2023. It is possible that the ZIMS data does not exactly represent the actual ex situ situation, as some data may be obsolete or have not yet been entered in the database, and some institutions do not participate in ZIMS. In case a species could not be found in ZIMS, the Reptile Database (Uetz et al. 2023) was consulted to identify potential synonyms. In those cases, and whenever a species was found but no holding record was available, a search in the zoo species list (ZTL) database was performed. ZTL is a webpage that collects and catalogs information about the current and former vertebrate populations of zoos and other public animal facilities as well as about the individual animal species in the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) area (Zootierliste 2022).
3 Results
3.1 The Terrestrial Reptile Fauna of Myanmar
In total, 212 terrestrial reptile species were recorded in Myanmar (see Appendix), accounting for 1.8% of all globally recorded reptile species (n = 12,060: Uetz et al. 2023). Most of the species (n = 187) belonged to the order Squamata, 24 belonged to the order Testudines, only 1 species was representative of the Crocodylia (Figure 1a).
3.2 Distribution and Richness
The richness of terrestrial reptile species is consistently high across the country, with exceptions in the northern coastal regions and in the central dry zone reaching down to the lowlands in the southern part, that is, the Mon State and the Tanintharyi regions. To the north, the highest species richness can be found in the ecoregions of the northern triangle subtropical forests and Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests. To the east the northern Indochina subtropical forests harbor the most species. Another peak in species richness can be found in the southern Tanintharyi Region in coastal and evergreen rain forests. On the west side of the country the coastal and Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests and the Chin Hills–Arakan Yoma montane forests are species-rich ecoregions (Figure 2).
The distribution of threatened species is generally similar but with peaks in the western Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests, Kayah–Karen montane rain forest, and in the Tenesserim–South Thailand semi-evergreen rain forest (Figure 2).
Our analysis of the distribution of terrestrial reptile species occurring in PAs revealed that the three PAs containing the most species in total are the Gulf of Mottama (n = 117), the Hukaung Valley Wildlife Sanctuary (n = 107), and the Taninthayi Nature Reserve (n = 105). Most PAs potentially harbor between 70 and 90 species. The least richness of taxa (n = 57) is distributed in the Moscos Islands Wildlife Sanctuary in the south of Myanmar (Figure 2).
The highest number of threatened species occur in the Gulf of Mottama (n = 16) and the Kaylatha Wildlife Sanctuary (n = 14). Each of the 13 threatened taxa occur in the Taninthayi Nature Reserve, Meinmahla Kyun Wildlife Sanctuary, Kyeikhtiyoe Wildlife Sanctuary, Meinmahla Kyun Wildlife Sanctuary, and Se Taung Wildlife Sanctuary. The Hkakaborazi National Park in the Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows of Myanmar harbors the lowest number of threatened reptile species (n = 2) (Figure 2).
Mapping the CWE, the distribution of CWE is generally even across the country with peaks in the east and south of Myanmar. These areas include the eastern part of the Northern Indochina subtropical forests, southern parts of coastal rain forests as well as Irrawaddy moist deciduous forests and Tenasserim-South Thailand semi-evergreen rain forests. The Eastern Himalayan alpine shrub and meadows and Nujiang Langcang Gorge alpine conifer and mixed forests show the lowest value for CWE (Figure 2).
3.3 Endemism
About 44 of the 212 (20.8%) terrestrial reptile species of Myanmar are endemic (Table 1). Out of the 24 turtle species, 7 (29.2%) are endemic, belonging to the families Geoemydidae, Trionychidae (3 species each, 42.9%), and Testudinidae (1 species, 14.2%), while the other 37 endemics are representatives of the order Squamata. Among those, the family Gekkonidae is most species rich (16 species, 42.1%), followed by Colubridae (9 species, 23.7%), Agamidae (5 species, 13.2%), Elapidae (3 species, 7.9%), Scincidae (2 species, 5.2%), and Viperidae and Pythonidae with one species each (2.6% each) (Figure 1a). Analyzing their spatial distributions, 23 species (52.3%) are CE, 17 (38.6%) RE, and 4 (9.1%) microendemics (Table 1).
| IUCN red list | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Threat status: | Status older than 10 years | LC | NT | VU | EN | CR | DD | ||
| 162 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 19 | ||||
| 80 | Not threatened: 164 | Threatened: 29 | |||||||
| Threatened and potentially threatened: 48 | |||||||||
| 212 | |||||||||
| Endemism | Non-endemic: | 67 | 142 | 18 | 8 | ||||
| 26 | |||||||||
| 168 | |||||||||
| CE: 23 | Endemic: | 13 | 22 | 11 | 11 | ||||
| RE: 17 | 22 | ||||||||
| ME: 4 | 44 | ||||||||
| In situ: protected area (PA) coverage | Covered by one PA: | Endemic: | 5 | 5 | 2 | ||||
| 12 | |||||||||
| Non-endemic: | 6 | 1 | 3 | ||||||
| 10 | |||||||||
| Total: | 11 | 6 | 5 | ||||||
| 11 | |||||||||
| 22 | |||||||||
| Covered by one or more PA: | Endemic: | 21 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 36 | |||||||||
| Non-endemic: | 121 | 12 | 8 | ||||||
| 141 | |||||||||
| total: | 142 | 22 | 13 | ||||||
| 35 | |||||||||
| 177 | |||||||||
| Not covered: | Endemic: | 1 | 1 | 6 | |||||
| 8 | |||||||||
| Non- endemic: | 21 | 5 | 0 | ||||||
| 26 | |||||||||
| Total: | 22 | 6 | 6 | ||||||
| 12 | |||||||||
| 34 | |||||||||
| CITES | Total listed: 34 | Appendix I: | 5 | Appendix II: | 30 | ||||
3.4 IUCN Red List Status
Of the 212 assessed species, 29 (13.7%) are listed as threatened: 9 VU, 10 each EN and CR. Nineteen species (9.0%) are DD. Counting those DD species as potentially threatened increases the percentage to 22.6% (n = 48) (Figure 1b). In 80 out of 212 cases (37.7%), the statuses are older than 10 years (Table 1).
Out of all threatened and potentially threatened species occurring in Myanmar, 19 (39.6%) belong to the order Testudines and 29 (60.4%) to the Squamata. Among the former the family Geoemydidae is the richest in species with 9 (47.4%) species, followed by Trionychidae (5 species, 26.3%), Testudinidae (4 species, 21.1%), and Platysternidae with 1 species (5.3%). Among the latter the family Gekkonidae comprises 11 (33.3%) of the threatened species, followed by Colubridae with 4 species (12.1%), Elapidae and Viperidae with 3 species each (9.1%), Pythonidae, Varanidae, and Agamidae with 2 species each (6.1%), and Sibynophiidae and Natricidae with 1 species each (3.1%) (Figure 1a).
Out of the 44 endemic terrestrial reptile species of Myanmar, 11 (25.0%) are listed as threatened: 3 VU, 4 each EN and CR. One-quarter of the endemic species are listed as DD (25.0%, n = 11). Including those, the percentage of threatened endemic species increases to 50.0% (n = 22) (Figure 1b). In 13 out of 44 cases (29.5%), the statuses are older than 10 years (Table 1).
Focusing on threatened and potentially threatened endemic species, five species (22.7%) belong to the order Testudines, two each (each 40.0%) in the families Geoemydidae and Trionychidae and one (20.0%) in the family Testudinidae, while 17 (77.3%) are part of the Squamata. Amidst the Squamata the family Gekkonidae comprises 10 (58.8%) threatened species, followed by Colubridae with three (17.7%) and Agamidae, Elapidae, Pythonidae, and Viperidae with one species each (5.9%) (Figure 1a). For all 11 threatened endemic species (25%), the IUCN Red List status was justified by naming a criterion (IUCN 2022a).
Cyrtodactylus brevidactylus, C. wakeorum, and Naja mandalayensis occur in severely fragmented or very few habitats with a continuing decline in the area, extent and/or quality of their habitats, and are hence listed as threatened under criterion B1ab(iii). In these cases, this is caused by rock extraction, logging and deforestation. N. mandalayensis is additionally suffering a continuing decline in the number of mature individuals (criterion B1ab(v)), which is a result of commercial exploitation for food and medicine. T. kanburiensis is listed under criterion B1ab(iv) due to a continuous decline in the number of its locations. Batagur trivittata, Cyrtodactylus chrysopylos, and Python kyaiktiyo have very small or restricted populations and are therefore listed under criterion D. B. trivittata is additionally listed under the criteria A2bcd and B1ab(i, ii, iii)+2ab(i, ii, iii), because it is suffering an extreme population reduction to one remaining subpopulation consisting of less than a dozen mature individuals due to collection of eggs, juveniles, and adults, resulting in a similarly extreme decline in EOO and AOO while it is also threatened by a decline in habitat quality and extent due to gold dredging and a planned hydroelectric reservoir. The number of mature individuals of C. chrysopylos is below 1000. Python kyaiktiyo has a very restricted AOO. It is only known from one location, the Kyaiktiyo Wildlife Sanctuary at Yetagon Myaung, Mon State (IUCN 2022a). According to IUCN (2022a) it is heavily traded for skin, food, and medicine as well as illegal pet trade. G. platynota is listed under criterion A1cd. It was formerly Extinct In The Wild as there had been an extensive loss of individuals through over-collection and habitat loss. These reasons for the decline have now been ceased and the species has been successfully reintroduced. The testudines Chitra vandijki, Morenia ocellata, and Nilssonia formosa are listed under the criterion A2cd + 4 cd. They have and probably will further be experiencing population reduction continually caused by exploitation and habitat loss (IUCN 2022b).
3.5 CITES
In total, 34 out of 212 (16.0%) assessed species are listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (Table 1). The turtle species C. vandijki, G. platynota, M. ocellata and Platysternon megacephalum and the crocodile C. porosus are listed in Appendix I. B. trivittata, Cuora amboinensis, C. mouhotii, Cyclemys fusca, C. oldhamii, Dogania subplana, Gekko gecko, Heosemys depressa, H. grandis, H. spinosa, I. elongata, Lissemys punctata, L. scutata, M. macrocephala, M. emys, M. impressa, Melanochelys trijuga, Naja kaouthia, N. mandalayensis, N. siamensis, N. formosa, Ophiophagus hannah, Pelochelys cantorii, Python bivittatus, P. brongersmai, P. kyaiktiyo, Siebenrockiella crassicollis, Varanus dumerilii, and Varanus rudicollis are listed in Appendix II (UNEP WCMC 2022b).
3.6 In Situ Protection of Terrestrial Reptiles/Protected Area Coverage
All species with available data are included. Species may not occur here if their distribution is not covered by PAs, if their habitats are not within PAs or if no habitat information is provided by IUCN. The distribution areas of 35 (16.5%) out of 212 analyzed terrestrial reptile species are not covered by PAs in Myanmar (Table 1). To provide a clearer overview the results of the protected area coverage analysis have been subclassified into threatened and DD species as well as threatened and DD endemic species.
First, of the 29 threatened species, 22 (75.8%) are covered by PAs. The currently known distribution of the threatened species T. kanburiensis lies outside of Myanmar and is therefore not covered by Burmese PAs (Figure S1). The other species are Heosemys spinosa, L. punctata, M. emys, Pelochelys cantorii, and S. crassicollis (all CE, Table 1, Figure S1). There is no habitat information provided by IUCN (2022a) for Amyda ornata (CE).
Of the 19 species listed as DD, 13 (68.4%) are covered by PAs. The distribution area of six (31.6%) species is outside of PAs: the gecko species Cyrtodactylus consobrinoides, C. lenya, C. payarhtanensis, the agamid species Diploderma hamptoni, and the colubrid snake species Lycodon kundui and Oligodon hamptoni (Table 1 and Figure S2). All these mentioned species are endemic.
Of the 22 non-threatened endemic species, 21 (95.5%) are covered by PAs. One species (4.5%), Oligodon mcdougalli, only occupies two relatively small habitats along the west coast, which are not covered by PAs (Table 1 and Figure S3). Of the 11 threatened endemic species, 10 (90.9%) are covered by PAs (Table 1).
Of the 212 analyzed species, 22 (10.3%) taxa were covered by only one PA (Table 1). This is 12.4% of all species covered by PAs (n = 177). Six of the 22 (27.2%) species are listed as threatened: two each VU, EN, and CR. Five (22.7%) are DD. Twelve (54.5%) species are endemic. Five (41.7%) of the mentioned threatened species are endemic. Two (16.7%) endemic species are DD.
Of all 212 analyzed species, 34 (16.0%) taxa are not covered by PAs (Table 1). Six of them (17.6%) are listed as threatened: one VU, three EN, and two CR. Six (17.6%) are DD. Eight (23.5%) species are endemic. One of those species, T. kanburiensis, is listed as EN (12.5%). All the mentioned DD species are endemic.
3.7 Ex Situ Keeping of Burmese Reptiles
A total of 24 Burmese endemics and threatened terrestrial non-endemic reptile species occurring in Myanmar are kept in ex situ populations according to the ZIMS database (Table 2). Seven (29.2%) of them belong to the order Squamata and 17 (70.8%) to the Testudines.
| Breeding success | Individuals | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Order (endemicity) | species (IUCN assessment) | Continent | Institutions | Institutions | Individuals | Male | Female | Other | Total |
| Testudines (non-endemic) | Cuora amboinensis (EN) | Asia | 17 | 1 | 97 | 60 | 74 | 489 | 806 |
| Europe | 29 | 3 | 5 | 39 | 44 | 63 | |||
| North America | 13 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 12 | 9 | |||
| Oceania | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Cuora mouhotii (EN) | Asia | 5 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 56 | |||
| Europe | 7 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15 | |||
| North America | 5 | 5 | 7 | 8 | |||||
| Cyclemys oldhamii (EN) | Asia | 3 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 13 | |||
| Europe | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Heosemys depressa (CR) | Asia | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 34 | |||
| Europe | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||
| North America | 5 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 9 | |||
| Heosemys grandis (CR) | Asia | 12 | 2 | 19 | 51 | 58 | 225 | 481 | |
| Europe | 19 | 1 | 5 | 23 | 33 | 55 | |||
| North America | 8 | 15 | 8 | 13 | |||||
| Heosemys spinosa (EN) | Asia | 5 | 5 | 5 | 17 | 159 | |||
| Europe | 16 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 21 | 15 | |||
| North America | 13 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 19 | 36 | |||
| Oceania | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Indotestudo elongata (CR) | Asia | 17 | 3 | 140 | 120 | 152 | 508 | 953 | |
| Europe | 27 | 1 | 4 | 42 | 41 | 27 | |||
| North America | 10 | 1 | 2 | 18 | 7 | 13 | |||
| Oceania | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 4 | |||
| Lissemys punctata (VU) | Asia | 8 | 34 | 42 | 43 | 121 | |||
| North America | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Manouria emys (CR) | Asia | 7 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 14 | 39 | 107 | |
| Europe | 6 | 0 | 4 | 15 | |||||
| North America | 5 | 5 | 5 | 17 | |||||
| Manouria impressa (EN) | Asia | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 31 | |||
| Europe | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||
| North America | 5 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 7 | |||
| Pelochelys cantorii (CR) | Europe | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | ||||
| Platysternon megacephalum (CR) | Asia | 3 | 3 | 1 | 21 | 57 | |||
| Europe | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |||
| North America | 6 | 2 | 4 | 15 | |||||
| Siebenrockiella crassicollis (EN) | Asia | 10 | 11 | 9 | 31 | 121 | |||
| Europe | 11 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 24 | 25 | |||
| North America | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Testudines (endemic) | Batagur trivittata (CR) | Asia | 1 | 9 | 12 | 21 | |||
| Geochelone platynota (CR) | Asia | 8 | 1 | 1 | 65 | 20 | 24 | 299 | |
| Europe | 10 | 21 | 1 | 19 | |||||
| North America | 19 | 2 | 17 | 52 | 47 | 50 | |||
| Lissemys scutata (LC) | Asia | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Morenia ocellata (EN) | Asia | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Squamata (non-endemic) | Elaphe taeniura (VU) | Asia | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 65 | ||
| Europe | 22 | 1 | 2 | 17 | 14 | 17 | |||
| North America | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| Naja siamensis (VU) | Asia | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 25 | |||
| Europe | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
| North America | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Oceania | 1 | 5 | 3 | ||||||
| Ophiophagus hannah (VU) | Africa | 2 | 5 | 2 | 95 | ||||
| Asia | 9 | 14 | 7 | 2 | |||||
| Europe | 9 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 4 | |||
| North America | 28 | 1 | 3 | 25 | 16 | 6 | |||
| Oceania | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
| Python bivittatus (VU) | Africa | 7 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 458 | |||
| Asia | 29 | 1 | 1 | 30 | 31 | 65 | |||
| Europe | 78 | 47 | 51 | 71 | |||||
| North America | 61 | 43 | 31 | 10 | |||||
| Oceania | 8 | 1 | 3 | 13 | 17 | 5 | |||
| South America | 10 | 10 | 4 | ||||||
| Varanus dumerilii (DD) | Asia | 1 | 2 | 10 | |||||
| Europe | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | |||||
| North America | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Varanus rudicollis (DD) | Asia | 2 | 2 | 12 | |||||
| Europe | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |||||
| Squamata (endemic) | Trimeresurus kanburiensis (EN) | Europe | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | ||
| North America | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Nineteen out of 26 (73.1%) threatened and potentially threatened non-endemic species are kept in zoos (Table 2). These are Cuora amboinensis, C. mouhotii, Cyclemys oldhamii, Elaphe taeniura, H. depressa, H. grandis, H. spinosa, I. elongata, L. punctata, M. emys, M. impressa, Naja siamensis, Ophiophagus hannah, Pelochelys cantorii, Platysternon megacephalum, Python bivittatus, S. crassicollis, V. dumerilii, and V. rudicollis. The largest population exists for I. elongata with 953 kept individuals worldwide. P. cantorii represents the smallest kept group with four individuals. Most threatened and potentially threatened non-endemic species are held in Asia and Europe (n = 18), followed by North America (n = 16), Oceania (n = 6), Africa (n = 2), and South America (n = 1) (Table 2). There have been breeding successes in the last 12 months for 13 threatened and potentially threatened non-endemic species (50.0%) (Table 2): C. amboinensis, C. mouhotii, E. taeniura, H. depressa, H. grandis, H. spinosa, I. elongata, M. emys, M. impressa, O. hannah, P. megacephalum, P. bivittatus, and S. crassicollis. I. elongata was bred in six institutions, C. amboinensis in five institutions. H. grandis and H. spinosa were each bred in three institutions, M. impressa, O. hannah, and P. bivittatus in two institutions each. C. mouhotii, E. taeniura, H. depressa, M. emys, P. megacephalum, and S. crassicollis were each bred in one institution.
Eight out of 29 (27.6%) threatened species are currently not represented in ex situ holdings (Table 3). The number of DD species currently not represented in ex situ holdings is 17 out of 19 (89.5%) (Table 3).
| Order | Species | IUCN status |
|---|---|---|
| Testudines | Amyda ornata | VU |
| Chitra vandijki | CR | |
| Nilssonia formosa | CR | |
| Squamata | Blythia reticulata | DD |
| Cyrtodactylus brevidactylus | EN | |
| Cyrtodactylus chrysopylos | VU | |
| Cyrtodactylus consobrinoides | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus feae | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus lenya | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus mandalayensis | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus payarhtanensis | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus russelli | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus tamaiensis | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus variegatus | DD | |
| Cyrtodactylus wakeorum | EN | |
| Diploderma hamptoni | DD | |
| Japalura sagittifera | DD | |
| Lycodon kundui | DD | |
| Naja mandalayensis | VU | |
| Oligodon hamptoni | DD | |
| Oligodon torquatus | DD | |
| Protobothrops kaulbacki | DD | |
| Python kyaiktiyo | VU | |
| Sibynophis bistrigatus | DD | |
| Trimeresurus medoensis | DD |
Five (11.4%) out of 44 endemic species are kept in zoos according to ZIMS (Table 2): G. platynota with 299 individuals, B. trivittata with 21 individuals, T. kanburiensis with seven individuals, M. ocellata with two individuals, and Lissemys scutata with one individual. All except T. kanburiensis are held in Asia, G. platynota and T. kanburiensis have ex situ populations in Europe and North America. In all, 28.8% (n = 86) of G. platynota individuals are kept in the John L. Behler Chelonian Conservation Center. Only G. platynota had breeding successes in the last 12 months (Table 2). It was bred in the Singapore Zoo in Singapore, the Dallas Zoo in Texas, and in the afore mentioned John L. Behler Chelonian Conservation Center. The additional search in the zoo species list database did not generate any further results.
4 Discussion
Our analysis of the reptile fauna of Myanmar revealed that there are currently 212 known terrestrial reptile species, which accounts for 1.8% of all globally recorded reptile species. This number highlights Myanmar as a global biodiversity hotspot. However, a Web of Science query with the terms Myanmar AND reptile* in March 2025 resulted in 89 papers, with 41 of them published after 2020 suggesting that the actual number might be higher as it can be expected that further research will result in the discovery of further taxa as research on the herpetofauna of Myanmar has only recently increased.
The richness analysis comprising all species disclosed that the highest richness can be found in the Northern Triangle subtropical forests, Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests, Northern Indochina subtropical forests, southern Tanintharyi Region in coastal and evergreen rain forests, the coastal and Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests and the Chin Hills–Arakan Yoma montane forests. Additionally, the Kayah–Karen montane and Tenesserim–South Thailand semi-evergreen rain forests are rich in threatened species. By comparing this distribution pattern with the allocation of the PAs in Myanmar, a discrepancy becomes evident. The currently established PAs are spread over the country, commonly not focusing on reptile species-rich areas. Areas hosting a high number of threatened reptiles in the eastern and southeastern regions reaching down the Malay Peninsula are lacking protection. The same applies to the areas there containing peaks in endemic species richness. The richness analysis focusing on species covered by PAs showed that the PAs in the south of Myanmar contain the highest number of threatened species. At the same time the total area covered by PAs in the south is very low compared to the ones in other areas of the country. To save a high number of threatened and endemic species it is recommended to prioritize the southern parts of Myanmar for conservation efforts in the shape of PA establishment.
Through our endemism analysis, we discovered that 44 of the 212 (20.8%) terrestrial reptile species of Myanmar are endemic. In total, 23 species of them (52.3%) are CE, 17 (38.6%) RE, and 4 (9.1%) microendemics.
Although ME species naturally have a higher extinction risk because their distribution range is very restricted, it was assumed that not all the analyzed ME are covered by an IUCN Red List threat status. Indeed, the analysis shows discrepancies. Cyrtodactylus lenya and C. payarhtanensis are ME species listed as DD. Due to their very restricted distribution pattern and missing PA coverage they are vulnerable to sudden changes in their environment and therefore are recommended to get an IUCN protection status. Additionally, in this context the species C. consobrinoides and C. tamaiensis also need to receive a protection status. They are listed as DD and are RE with very small regional distribution patterns, which are not covered by PAs.
It was assumed that all endemic species listed as LC in the IUCN Red List are at least CE or RE with a wider distribution. Cyrtodactylus gansi, O. mcdougalli, and Sphenomorphus orientalis are examples of LC species which are RE with rather restricted distributions. The habitats of C. gansi and S. orientalis are partly inside the Natmataung National Park in the west of Myanmar. O. mcdougalli only inhabits two relatively small spots at the coast not covered by PAs. Considering the current anthropogenic climate change and the resulting global sea level rise there is a potential risk of expulsion in the next decades or sooner. Small distribution areas generally hold an increased risk of that or even of extinction because human influences or natural events could quickly change the environment and in consequence the whole habitat of a species. Summing this up, the recommendation for C. gansi and S. orientalis is consideration to change their status to at least NT. The assessment for the classification of O. mcdougalli as LC has been made in 2011 and is therefore outdated. Considering the sparse distribution, a threatened category is recommended here to set a basis for further protection measures.
The analysis showed that 78.6% of all distribution areas of (potentially) threatened and endemic species are covered by PAs. The species T. kanburiensis, which is assumed to occur across the border, would be covered by the Taninthayi Nature Reserve. Therefore, it can be reasoned that all Burmese endemic species listed as threatened are covered by PAs. The distribution range of the CR M. emys and Pelochelys cantorii are not covered by PAs, which reveals the need for in situ protection. Focusing on DD and therefore potentially threatened taxa, the known distributions of six species, Cyrtodactylus consobrinoides, C. lenya, C. payarhtanensis, D. hamptoni, L. kundui and O. hamptoni, are outside of PAs. All of them are REs with highly restricted distribution areas, making them vulnerable to environmental changes. Hence, the recommendation for these species is to assign them as threatened species in the IUCN Red List to set a base for further conservation actions. Of the 22 evaluated endemic species which are listed as non-threatened (LC, NT) 21 are covered by PAs. The only taxon which is not is O. mcdougalli.
It was assumed that threatened endemic species are threatened by human impacts. There have been 11 cases in which the IUCN names a criterion as reason for their assessment: B. trivittata, C. vandijki, C. brevidactylus, C. chrysopylos, C. wakeorum, G. platynota, N. mandalayensis, M. ocellata, N. formosa, Python kyaiktiyo and G. platynota. In 10 out of 11 cases the reasons for the threat status of the species were direct human impacts like rock extraction, logging, deforestation, commercial exploitation for food and medicine, over-collection, and illegal pet trade. These circumstances are threats that could drive the species to CR, EW, or EX in a short time. In the case of C. chrysopylos the very low number of mature individuals is referable to the restricted occurrence in a single cave. According to IUCN (2022a) threats in the surrounding forest are not likely to have significant impacts on this gecko. Nevertheless, research is recommended to confirm that the risk for extinction is not higher than presently recognized (IUCN 2022a).
Interestingly, the species Cyrtodactylus chrysopylos is listed as VU by IUCN (2022a), but the species in fact is quite common and seemingly deserves a listing update (L. Grismer, pers. comm.). Our data suggest a significant update of the species list retrieved from the IUCN Red List. The IUCN aim to update the status of species at least every 10 years was not realized in 37.7% of all reviewed cases, which highlights the fact that Myanmar is a country that is not in the focus of many researchers and nature conservationists around the world. In the 21st century there have been different field records and regional herpetological inventories (e.g., Levitón et al. 2003; Platt et al. 2018; Zug 2022), which are an important contribution to improve knowledge about the Burmese herpetofauna.
The CITES listing analysis revealed that only 34 out of 212 (16.0%) assessed species are listed. By assessing the threat status of all species, it becomes clear that there are more species that should be included in one of the convention's appendices. A suggested orientation for this is provided in the list of the 13 most threatened species (see Table 4).
The analysis confirmed that 10.4% of the analyzed species are only covered by a single PA. For non-endemic taxa listed as LC, this is usually sufficient since they are considered to be widely spread and protected in more than one country. Such a low level of protection is problematic for (potentially) threatened and endemic species. PAs are fixed in their location and therefore vulnerable to negative influences like human impacts or severe natural events. For a species in need of conservation, it is therefore beneficial to be protected by more than one PA. In Myanmar, the majority (54.5%) of species only covered by one PA are endemic. In all, 58.3% of those are (potentially) threatened: B. trivittata, C. brevidactylus, C. chrysopylos, C. feae, C. tamaiensis, C. wakeorum, and Python kyaiktiyo. Especially for these reptiles it would be beneficial to be protected in other distribution areas as well, in addition to the one PA they are currently living in.
The number of PAs in Myanmar is currently both below the global average of 15.1% and the 50% goal (Dinerstein et al. 2020). Since Myanmar is a biodiversity hotspot, applying this goal to the country could ensure the survival of rare threatened and endemic species, providing them with a safe space to grow in individual numbers and build stable populations, which would support the stability of the ecosystems.
The zoo database analysis confirmed that not all (potentially) threatened and endemic reptiles occurring in Myanmar are currently benefitting from One Plan Approach conservation. In total, 88.6% of endemics and 26.9% of (potentially) threatened non-endemic species are not kept in ex situ populations. The lists in the ex situ keeping results are suggested to serve as an overview of the species that would make sense to be kept and bred in stations or zoos, since they are either listed as threatened or DD and not currently represented in zoos around the world.
Non-endemic species that are kept in large numbers are not specifically restricted to Myanmar, and thus founders of ex situ populations may derive from other countries and not explicitly from Myanmar. This applies to I. elongata, Cuora amboinensis, Python bivittatus, Heosemys grandis, H. spinosa, Lissemys punctata, S. crassicollis, M. emys, Ophiophagus hannah, and Elaphe taeniura. For some species kept ex situ the problem is that a substantial proportion of the entire zoo population either consists of only male or female groups, single individuals or one single couple. This prevents or impedes breeding successes and will eventually lead to the death of the population held in those institutions if they do not choose to get fitting individuals or give their animals to other zoos with suitable population structures. This is the case for Cyclemys oldhamii, Lissemys punctata, L. scutata, Naja siamensis, Manouria impressa, M. ocellata, Pelochelys cantorii, Varanus dumerilii, V. rudicollis, and T. kanburiensis. The biggest population exists for I. elongata with 953 individuals. Approximately half of them (n = 420) live in the Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity. While such centers are a useful approach to increase the total number of individuals, in another step it would be important to distribute a number of those animals to other institutions and therefore establish more populations in different places, because in case of an emergency occurring to a particular conservation center a large portion of the ex situ population would be lost at once. The same applies for the Critically Endangered Myanmar Roofed Turtle, B. trivittata, that is considered one of the 25 most endangered turtle species. Once on the brink of extinction with fewer than a dozen individuals remaining, the species now numbers close to a thousand held individuals; and efforts to supplement wild populations are ongoing with experimental releases of head-started turtles (Stanford et al. 2018); a good example for the potential of One Plan Approach conservation through linking ex situ with in situ activities. Currently the ex situ population is mainly kept in four assurance colonies (three in Myanmar and one in Singapore), and there are only 12 individuals kept in ZIMS institutions.
The smallest populations are kept for the threatened and potentially threatened species H. depressa (n = 34) (CR), also listed among the 50 most threatened turtle species worldwide (Stanford et al. 2018); M. impressa (n = 31) (EN), N. siamensis (n = 21) (VU), C. oldhamii (n = 13) (EN), V. rudicollis (n = 12) (DD), V. dumerilii (n = 10) (DD), P. cantorii (n = 4) (CR), M. ocellata (n = 2) (EN), L. scutata (n = 1) (LC), and the Burmese RE T. kanburiensis (n = 7) (EN). For those species it would make sense to build larger and more stable assurance populations. The only endemic taxa kept are B. trivittata, G. platynota, L. scutata, M. ocellata, and T. kanburiensis. In total, 28.8% of all kept individuals of G. platynota are part of one conservation center. G. platynota, the Burmese Star Tortoise, endemic to the dry zone of central Myanmar, represents another example of successful ex situ conservation breeding (Figure 3). The species is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN Red List and a few years ago it was considered to be functionally extinct in the wild. The reasons for this were mainly collection of individuals for food, for the use in traditional Asian medicine and for the international pet trade as well as destruction of its habitat. In a last attempt to prevent the species from extinction, a National Action Plan was established in 2012. The species was successfully reproduced in large numbers in captive breeding centers in Myanmar and subsequently reintroduced to two closely guarded wildlife sanctuary sites resulting in an increasing, breeding population (Platt et al. 2017; Stanford et al. 2018). Being among the 25+ most threatened turtle species worldwide, G. platynota was also prioritized in the Regional Collection Plan for Chelonians by the EAZA (Goetz et al. 2019). The first ex situ breeding events in European zoos succeeded in 2011 in Rotterdam Zoo and Zájezd Zoo Park. Subsequently, in 2018 the species was bred in Cologne Zoo, with the parent individuals deriving from a large confiscation in 2011 (Rauhaus et al. 2021). The rescue and subsequent breeding of these individuals that were most likely stolen either from one of the breeding centers in Myanmar or caught from the wild for the illegal pet trade could finally contribute to the establishment of an official European Endangered Species Program (EEP) to build up a managed assurance colony among European zoos.
Today, the species is held in 10 European zoos. Ex situ colonies outside of the origin country could prove important in the future to serve as additional assurance populations, for example, in case of disease outbreaks or in the current situation of political unrest in Myanmar. For most endemic species, there is no ex situ conservation at all. For ME, threatened or potentially threatened species such as C. brevidactylus, C. chrysopylos, C. lenya, and C. payarhtanensis this means a considerable risk for extinction if their current habitat becomes uninhabitable. For these species it is strongly recommended to establish populations in zoos as soon as possible. Also, the attempt for REs should be to build populations in zoos since many of them only inhabit small regional areas which are not covered by PAs. This is the case for O. mcdougalli, C. consobrinoides, C. tamaiensis, D. hamptomi, L. kundui, and O. hamptoni.
The fact that Burmese ecosystems are widely undisturbed and understudied highlights potential for more research in this country. There are many species whose presence in Myanmar is uncertain and there are also species that are yet undescribed and therefore not listed at all in the IUCN Red List and in this study.
Summing up the results of the analyses of this study, a list was created containing the 13 species that are most in need of conservation efforts (Table 4). Not included in our analyses was Trimeresurus ayeyarwadyensis, a species which just recently was described after our analyses were already done and the manuscript finalized (Chan et al. 2023). The species so far was found at Hlawga Park in the Yangon region and Pyapon and Myaungmya districts in the Ayeyarwady region. It is a good example underlining the previously mentioned, widely unexplored state of Burmese herpetodiversity.
| Species Name | IUCN status | Grade of endemism | PA coverage | Threats | Recommended conservation actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyrtodactylus brevidactylus | EN | ME | C (1) | Rock extraction; hotel construction. | Ex situ conservation. |
| Cyrtodactylus chrysopylos | VU | ME | C (1) | Research to identify threats in the surrounding forest; ex situ conservation. | |
| Cyrtodactylus lenya | DD | ME | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Cyrtodactylus payarhtanensis | DD | ME | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Oligodon mcdougalli | LC | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status (needs update); ex situ conservation. | |
| Cyrtodactylus consobrinoides | DD | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Cyrtodactylus tamaiensis | DD | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Manouria emys | CR | NC | Exploitation; forest loss; subsistence collection; poaching. | PA coverage; education and protection projects in situ. | |
| Diploderma hamptoni | DD | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Lycodon kundui | DD | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Oligodon hamptoni | DD | RE | NC | PA coverage; IUCN threat status; ex situ conservation. | |
| Cyrtodactylus wakeorum | EN | RE | C (1) | Logging. | More PA coverage; ex situ conservation. |
| Python kyaiktiyo | VU | RE | C (1) | Trade; used as medicine; illegal pet trade. | Research; education and protection projects in situ; ex situ conservation. |
5 Conclusions
Our analysis of Myanmar's reptile fauna highlights both the high biodiversity of the country and its existing protection gaps. Myanmar is a major biodiversity hotspot although research efforts on its herpetofauna have just started and future research will likely result in higher species numbers. Despite the relatively even species richness within the country, our results suggest that threatened and endemic species often occur in regions with low protected area coverage, especially in the southern and eastern parts of the country. Nearly 25% of the assessed species are considered threatened or potentially threatened, according to the IUCN. Especially among endemics of which about 30% are not covered by protected areas. Our results highlight that IUCN's One Plan Approach is currently not sufficiently implemented for Myanmar's reptiles. While almost 50% of threatened or potentially threatened species are in zoological facilities, the majority of endemic species are absent from ex situ programs which could be important back-up populations. Focus of further efforts should be on species characterized by small distribution areas to develop long-term conservation strategies. Our study shows the urgent need for better integration of protected areas with targeted species conservation programs closing conservation gaps to secure Myanmar's reptile population in the long term.
Author Contributions
Carolin Scholten: writing – original draft, visualization, investigation, formal analysis, data curation. Aurelia Richter: writing – review and editing, investigation, formal analysis, data curation. Aung Lin: writing – review and editing, validation. Myint Kyaw Thura: validation, writing – review and editing. Anna Rauhaus: methodology, writing – review and editing, resources, investigation. Lee Grismer: investigation, writing – review and editing, validation, data curation. Thomas Ziegler: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, supervision, resources, validation, project administration. Dennis Rödder: methodology, conceptualization, writing – review and editing, visualization, software, formal analysis, supervision, data curation, project administration.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Morris Flecks who helped with the design of the figures. Comments of Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz, Luu Vinh, Pham The Cuong, and Ursula Bott helped to improve the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix
See Table A1.
| Species name | IUCN status | Population trend | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acanthosaura crucigera | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz et al. (2021), Trivalairat et al. (2020) |
| Acanthosaura lepidogaster | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz et al. (2021) |
| Ahaetulla nasuta | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Ahaetulla prasina | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Archelaphe bella | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Schulz et al. (2011) |
| Argyrophis diardii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021b), Zug and Mulcahy (2020) |
| Argyrophis muelleri | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Azemiops feae | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Blythia reticulata | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz et al. (2021), Biakzuala et al. (2021) |
| Boiga cyanea | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz et al. (2021) |
| Boiga multomaculata | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz et al. (2021) |
| Boiga ochracea | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Boiga quincunciata | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Ganesh et al. (2021) |
| Boiga siamensis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Boiga walli | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Bronchocela burmana | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021b), Mulcahy et al. (2021) |
| Bungarus bungaroides | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Bungarus fasciatus | LC | Stable | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Bungarus flaviceps | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Bungarus magnimaculatus | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Bungarus multicinctus | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Bungarus niger | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Calamaria pavimentata | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021b), Hecht et al. (2013) |
| Calliophis maculiceps | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Calotes chincollium | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Vindum et al. (2003) |
| Calotes emma | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Saijuntha et al. (2020) |
| Calotes htunwini | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Gowande et al. (2021) |
| Calotes irawadi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Gowande et al. (2021) |
| Calotes jerdoni | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Giri et al. (2019) |
| Calotes mystaceus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Hartmann et al. (2013) |
| Calotes versicolor | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Zug et al. (2010) |
| Chrysopelea ornata | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Chrysopelea paradisi | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Cnemaspis siamensis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021b), Khandekar et al. (2020) |
| Coelognathus flavolineatus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Coelognathus radiatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Cristidorsa planidorsata | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus annandalei | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus ayeyarwadyensis | NT | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Cyrtodactylus brevidactylus | EN | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus brevipalmatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Cyrtodactylus chrysopylos | VU | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus consobrinoides | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus feae | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus gansi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus lenya | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Connette et al. (2017) |
| Cyrtodactylus mandalayensis | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Mahony (2009) |
| Cyrtodactylus oldhami | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus payarhtanensis | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus peguensis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus russelli | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus slowinskii | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Liu and Rao (2021) |
| Cyrtodactylus tamaiensis | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Mahony (2009) |
| Cyrtodactylus variegatus | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Kunya et al. (2014), Das (2010) |
| Cyrtodactylus wakeorum | EN | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Bauer (2003) |
| Daboia siamensis | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Dasia olivacea | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Geissler and Kupfer (2019) |
| Dendrelaphis biloreatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Dendrelaphis cyanochloris | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Dendrelaphis nigroserratus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Dendrelaphis pictus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Dendrelaphis subocularis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Dendrelaphis walli | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Diploderma hamptoni | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Denzer et al. (2019) |
| Dopasia gracilis | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Draco blanfordii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Wogan et al. (2008) |
| Draco maculatus | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Draco taeniopterus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Goldberg and Grismer (2015) |
| Elaphe cantoris | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Elaphe taeniura | VU | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Euprepiophis mandarinus | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Eutropis dissimilis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Datta-Roy et al. (2015) |
| Eutropis multifasciata | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Barley et al. (2015) |
| Eutropis quadricarinata | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Amarasinghe et al. (2017) |
| Eutropis rudis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Amarasinghe et al. (2020) |
| Gehyra mutilata | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Gekko gecko | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Gekko kuhli | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Gekko lionotum | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Geochelone platynota | CR | Increasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Gongylosoma scripta | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Gonyosoma oxycephalum | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Gonyosoma prasinum | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), David et al. (2022) |
| Hebius clerki | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Hebius modestus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), David et al. (2021) |
| Hemidactylus aquilonius | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Hemidactylus brookii | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Hemidactylus frenatus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Bauer et al. (2013) |
| Hemidactylus garnotii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Bauer et al. (2013) |
| Hemidactylus karenorum | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a); Uetz (2021); Srianthan et al. (2018) |
| Hemidactylus platyurus | LC | Increasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Zug et al. (2007) |
| Hemidactylus tenkatei | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Mahony (2011) |
| Hemidactylus thayene | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Rösler and Scheidt (2013) |
| Hemiphyllodactylus yunnanensis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Heinicke et al. (2011) |
| Indotestudo elongata | CR | Decreasing | Zug (2022) |
| Indotyphlops albiceps | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Neang et al. (2017) |
| Indotyphlops braminus | LC | Increasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Indotyphlops jerdoni | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Indotyphlops porrectus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Isopachys borealis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Japalura sagittifera | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Denzer et al. (2019) |
| Leiolepis belliana | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Ananjeva et al. (2007) |
| Leiolepis peguensis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Promnun et al. (2021) |
| Liopeltis frenatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Liopeltis stoliczkae | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lipinia vittigera | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Bucklitsch et al. (2012) |
| Lycodon aulicus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lycodon capucinus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021); Ngo et al. (2022) |
| Lycodon davisonii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lycodon fasciatus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lycodon jara | LC | Stable | Wogan et al. (2008) |
| Lycodon kundui | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lycodon septentrionalis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Neang et al. (2014) |
| Lycodon subcinctus | LC | Wogan et al. (2008) | |
| Lycodon zawi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lygosoma albopunctata | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Lygosoma anguinum | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Zug and Miller (2016) |
| Lygosoma haroldyoungi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Chuaynkern et al. (2013) |
| Lygosoma lineolatum | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Lygosoma popae | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Manouria emys | CR | Decreasing | Zug (2022) |
| Manouria impressa | EN | Decreasing | Zug (2022) |
| Naja kaouthia | LC | Decreasing | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Naja mandalayensis | VU | Decreasing | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Naja siamensis | VU | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oligodon albocinctus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Hasan et al. (2013) |
| Oligodon catenatus | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Oligodon cinereus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Oligodon cruentatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Oligodon cyclurus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oligodon dorsalis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Oligodon fasciolatus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Oligodon hamptoni | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oligodon mcdougalli | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oligodon planiceps | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Green (2010) |
| Oligodon splendidus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oligodon theobaldi | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Green (2010) |
| Oligodon torquatus | DD | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Ophiophagus hannah | VU | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Oreocryptophis porphyraceus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Ovophis monticola | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Pareas carinatus | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Pareas hamptoni | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Vogel (2010) |
| Pareas margaritophorus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Vogel et al. (2020) |
| Pareas monticola | LC | Stable | Wogan et al. (2008) |
| Plagiopholis blakewayi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Plagiopholis nuchalis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Protobothrops jerdonii | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Protobothrops kaulbacki | DD | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Protobothrops mucrosquamatus | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Psammodynastes pulverulentus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Miller and Zug (2016) |
| Psammophis indochinensis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Hartmann et al. (2011) |
| Pseudocalotes kakhienensis | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Pseudocalotes kingdonwardi | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Ananjeva et al. (2007) |
| Pseudocalotes kingdonwardi | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Harvey et al. (2017) |
| Pseudoxenodon macrops | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Ptyas doriae | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Meetei et al. (2018) |
| Ptyas korros | NT | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Ptyas mucosa | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Ptyas nigromarginata | LC | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Gernot and Sjon (2013) |
| Ptyctolaemus collicristatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Schulte et al. (2004) |
| Ptyctolaemus gularis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Karunarathna et al. (2020) |
| Python bivittatus | VU | Decreasing | IUCN (2022a) |
| Python brongersmai | LC | Increasing | IUCN (2022a), Zug et al. (2011) |
| Python kyaiktiyo | VU | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Zug et al. (2011) |
| Rhabdophis himalayanus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Das et al. (2021) |
| Scincella doriae | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Datta-Roy et al. (2013) |
| Scincella melanosticta | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Scincella punctatolineata | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Scincella reevesii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Datta-Roy et al. (2013) |
| Scincella victoriana | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Wogan et al. (2008) |
| Sibynophis bistrigatus | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Wogan et al. (2008) |
| Sibynophis collaris | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Sinomicrurus macclellandi | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003), IUCN (2022a), Mirza et al. (2020) |
| Sphenomorphus indicus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), T. Nguyen et al. (2015) |
| Sphenomorphus orientalis | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Subdoluseps bowringii | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a); Uetz (2021) |
| Takydromus sexlineatus | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Toenayar novemcarinata | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Trimeresurus albolabris | LC | Stable | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Trimeresurus erythrurus | LC | Stable | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Trimeresurus fucatus | LC | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Vogel et al. (2004) |
| Trimeresurus gumprechti | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
| Trimeresurus kanburiensis | EN | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Sumontha et al. (2021) |
| Trimeresurus medoensis | DD | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Trimeresurus popeiorum | LC | Unknown | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Trimeresurus purpureomaculatus | LC | Stable | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Trimeresurus stejnegeri | LC | Stable | Levitón et al. (2003) |
| Varanus dumerilii | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Koch et al. (2013) |
| Varanus rudicollis | DD | Unknown | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021), Koch et al. (2013) |
| Xenopeltis unicolor | LC | Stable | IUCN (2022a), Uetz (2021) |
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from ZIMS. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from the author(s) with the permission of ZIMS.
