Annotated Checklist and Conservation Status of Mammal Species in Sarpang District, Bhutan

Bhutan has a total geographical area of 38,394 Km² located in between the Indo-Malayan and Palearctic region, out of which 51.44% (19750.75 km²) of its total geographical area has been designated as the protected area. However, none of the districts have a structured baseline checklist of mammal species documented till date. Therefore, Sarpang Forest Division under the Department of Forests and Park Services had carried out five rigorous camera trap surveys including a nationwide tiger survey that covers representable areas of the district from 2014 till 2020. The survey shows that district has 36 mammal species that belong to 18 families under seven orders. Felidae and Cervidae families has the highest species abundance (n = 17%), while, Canidae, Herpestidae, Leporidae, Manidae, Melinae, Muridae, Mustelidae, Tupaiidae, Proboscidae, Pteromyidae, Suidae and Ursidae were the lowest (n = 3%). Above all, Sarpang homed 29.90% of total mammal species of Bhutan, out of which 3% of mammal species were categorized under Critically Endangered, 14% Endangered, 14% Vulnerable, 22% Near Threatened, and 47% Least Concern as per IUCN Red List. However, only 20 mammal species are listed under CITES and nine in Schedule I of Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan, 1995. Therefore, landscape-based planning such as the Division-based Conservation & Management plan; periodic monitoring of wildlife species using camera traps, and validation of Schedule I species are suggested for long-term conservation and management of globally threatened species inside the landscape of Sarpang district in Bhutan

New Herpetofaunal Records from the Kingdom of Bhutan Obtained through Citizen Science

Social media has, in the past decade, emerged unexpectedly as a powerful tool in citizen science (Liberatore et al. 2018). Whether unintended or formally integrated, it offers, among other benefits, mass participation in activities such as data collection in inventories, monitoring, or natural history observations (Tulloch 2013). It can be argued that such activities often do not consume taxpayers’ contributions, as formal research projects tend to do, and can provide a cost-effective means of data collection (Goldstien et al. 2014). The vast number of (and rapidly rising) online resources and virtual specialists available to identify samples serve as references and reviewers of such data, increasing the speed over traditional forms of data collection (e.g., scientific publishing) and providing the capacity to absorb multiple opinions. Nonetheless, challenges that remain in citizen science programs are directing the data towards priority scientific objectives and needs, and achieving high standards in data quality (Ambrose-Oji et al. 2014)