Current Population Status of Komodo Dragons

📖 25 min read~4509 words

Table of Contents

• The Global Population Estimate: How Many Komodo Dragons Remain?
• Island-by-Island Breakdown
• Demographic Trends and Reproductive Output
• Genetic Diversity and Population Structure
• The 2021 IUCN Reclassification: What Changed?
• Population Viability Analysis and Future Projections
• How Scientists Count Komodo Dragons
• Myths vs Facts
• Practical Takeaways
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Sources & Further Reading

The Global Population Estimate: How Many Komodo Dragons Remain?

The most current estimate for the global Komodo dragon population is approximately 3,396 ± 359 individuals (as of 2023), based on the BAPPEDA Manggarai Barat Komodo Biosphere Reserve Periodic Review 2024. An earlier IUCN point estimate from 2019 placed the total at roughly 3,458 individuals, consistent with the long-cited 3,000–3,400 range. This estimate has remained relatively stable on the core islands, but stability in a small population can be deceptive. Small island populations are inherently vulnerable to stochastic events — disease outbreaks, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, or extreme weather — that can eliminate large proportions of the population in a single event.

It is essential to understand what "~3,396" actually means. This is not a simple census count. It is a population estimate derived from a combination of:

• Mark-recapture studies: Individual dragons are tagged with microchips or photographed for pattern recognition, then recaptured or resighted over time
• Camera trap arrays: Motion-activated cameras deployed across grid systems capture images that are analyzed using pattern-recognition software
• Track counts: Rangers count fresh tracks along standardized transects during the dry season
• Nest surveys: Systematic searches for active nest mounds provide indirect evidence of breeding females
• Community reports: Incidental sightings by rangers, researchers, and local residents are compiled into a sightings database

Each method has biases. Mark-recapture works best on Komodo Island, where dragon density is highest and research infrastructure is most developed. Camera traps are less effective in dense vegetation or during heavy rain. Track counts become unreliable after rainfall. Nest surveys miss underground nests and nests in remote areas. The 2023 figure of ~3,396 is therefore best understood as a central estimate with a stated uncertainty of ± 359 individuals (BAPPEDA Periodic Review 2024). Historical KNP census data show: 3,222 (2013), 3,092 (2014), and 3,014 (2015), underscoring the long-term stability of the core island populations.

Island-by-Island Breakdown

Komodo dragons are found on five core islands: Komodo, Rinca, Padar, Gili Motang, and Flores. Each island supports a distinct subpopulation with unique demographic characteristics, habitat quality, and threat profiles.

Island	Estimated Population	Mature Adults (est.)	Area (km²)	Status
Rinca	1,100–1,500	~500	198	Stable; largest subpopulation
Komodo	~1,300	—	390	Stable, well-monitored
Flores	~2,000 (Purwandana 2014); declining	—	13,540	Declining; 44% range contraction in 5 yrs (Ariefiandy 2021)
Wae Wuul (W. Flores)	~100	—	~100 reserve	Small isolated population
Gili Motang	<100	—	10	Vulnerable, small population
Nusa Kode (Gili Dasami)	<100	—	—	Small, little-monitored
Padar	<10 (essentially extirpated)	0	20	Essentially extirpated; no breeding confirmed since ~1980s

Sources: Jessop et al. 2021; IUCN Red List e.T22884A123633058 (assessed 5 Aug 2019); Purwandana et al. 2014; Ariefiandy et al. 2021. All figures as of 2019 IUCN assessment unless otherwise noted.

Komodo Island: A Core Stronghold

Komodo Island supports approximately 1,300 individuals (IUCN 2021 assessment; Jessop et al. 2021) — the best-studied population in the species' range. The island's varied topography — from dry savanna to monsoon forest — provides diverse habitat types that support a full range of age classes. Juveniles inhabit the forested valleys, while adults dominate the open savannas and coastal flats. The island also supports the highest density of prey species, particularly Timor deer and wild boar.

However, Komodo Island faces significant pressure from tourism. The main visitor area at Loh Liang receives the majority of the park's 1,000 daily visitors. While tourism is concentrated in designated zones, the cumulative impact of decades of visitation has altered dragon behavior in high-traffic areas. Some individuals have become habituated to human presence, approaching rangers and visitors rather than fleeing — a behavioral shift that may increase conflict risk.

Rinca Island: The Largest Subpopulation

Rinca supports the largest single subpopulation, estimated at 1,100–1,500 individuals (approximately 500 mature adults) in the 2019 IUCN assessment (Jessop et al. 2021). The island has historically been considered more "wild" than Komodo. Its steeper terrain and less developed infrastructure have limited tourism pressure, though visitor numbers are increasing. Rinca is particularly important because it supports a genetically distinct subpopulation that may harbor unique alleles not found on Komodo.

Recent concerns have emerged about prey availability on Rinca. Water buffalo populations have declined in some areas, and wild boar distribution appears patchy. Whether this reflects natural population fluctuations, hunting pressure from local communities, or competition with dragons themselves remains an active research question.

Padar: A Cautionary Tale

Padar once supported a small but viable dragon population. The 2019 IUCN assessment recorded fewer than 10 individuals — effectively extirpated. The species has not been confirmed breeding on Padar since the 1980s. The cause is debated — some researchers attribute the decline to poaching and habitat degradation from wildfire, while others suggest a combination of stochastic events and small-population dynamics. Padar's near-extinction demonstrates that even populations within a protected national park are not immune to elimination.

There have been no successful reintroduction efforts to Padar. The island's small size (20 km²) and limited prey base would likely be insufficient to support a sustainable population without intensive management. Padar remains a powerful reminder of the fragility of island endemics.

Gili Motang: The Forgotten Population

With fewer than 100 individuals (IUCN 2021), Gili Motang's dragon population is critically small. The island's limited area means that the population is at high risk of extinction from stochastic events — a single disease outbreak, volcanic eruption, or tsunami could eliminate the entire population. Genetic studies suggest that Gili Motang dragons are partially isolated from Komodo and Rinca populations, raising concerns about inbreeding depression.

Flores: The Declining Fringe

The Flores population is the most threatened. Spread across a vast island with extensive human settlement, agriculture, and development, Flores dragons are increasingly restricted to isolated forest patches and protected areas. Purwandana et al. (2014) estimated approximately 2,000 individuals across Flores, but this figure predates significant recent habitat loss. Ariefiandy et al. (2021) documented a 44% contraction in Flores range over just five years, driven primarily by logging and agricultural expansion. Habitat loss is the primary driver of decline, followed by human-wildlife conflict and prey depletion.

Demographic Trends and Reproductive Output

Population size is only part of the story. Demographic structure — the distribution of individuals across age and sex classes — determines whether a population is growing, stable, or declining.

Long-term monitoring on Komodo Island reveals several important trends:

• Adult sex ratio: Males outnumber females in most study areas, particularly in prime habitat. This may reflect both male-biased dispersal and temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD), which produces more males at higher nest temperatures
• Recruitment: The number of juveniles entering the population each year is highly variable, ranging from 5–15% of the adult population in good years to near-zero during droughts
• Adult survival: Adult survival rates are high (~85–90% annually), but this means that population growth is slow even under favorable conditions
• Generation time: At approximately 15–20 years, Komodo dragons have one of the longest generation times among lizards. This slow life history makes populations slow to recover from declines

The combination of slow growth, late maturity, and long generation time means that Komodo dragon populations are inherently slow to recover from disturbances. A population that loses 20% of its adults may take decades to return to its former size, assuming conditions remain favorable.

Genetic Diversity and Population Structure

Genetic studies using mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite markers have revealed significant population structure across the species' range. The five island populations are not a single gene pool — they are partially isolated subpopulations with distinct genetic profiles.

Key genetic findings include:

• Komodo and Rinca: These two populations are the most genetically diverse and show evidence of ongoing gene flow, possibly through rare dispersal events or historical connectivity
• Gili Motang: Shows lower genetic diversity and signs of genetic drift, consistent with its small population size and isolation
• Flores: The most genetically distinct population, with unique haplotypes not found on other islands. This distinctiveness makes the Flores population especially important for conservation
• Padar: Historical samples confirm that Padar dragons were genetically similar to Komodo Island individuals, suggesting that the extinction on Padar reduced the species' overall genetic diversity

The genetic data have important management implications. First, translocations between islands must be carefully planned to avoid disrupting local adaptation. Second, the Flores population should be prioritized for protection due to its unique genetic heritage. Third, the Gili Motang population may require genetic rescue — the intentional introduction of individuals from other populations — to prevent inbreeding depression.

The 2021 IUCN Reclassification: What Changed?

Prior to 2021, the Komodo dragon was classified as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List. The assessment (formally assessed 5 August 2019, published 2021) upgraded the species to Endangered based on new data and improved modeling. The official reference is IUCN Red List e.T22884A123633058. The species is also listed on CITES Appendix I since 1975.

The key factors driving the reclassification were:

1. Climate-driven habitat loss: Models projected that 30–40% of suitable habitat could be lost by 2050 under moderate warming scenarios, primarily due to rising temperatures affecting nest sex ratios and sea-level rise inundating coastal nesting areas
2. Small population size: With approximately 1,383 mature individuals (roughly 1,400) across 8 subpopulations, the species meets the criteria for Endangered under Criterion C (small population size and decline)
3. Continuing decline: Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the population is declining in parts of its range. The Flores subpopulation is clearly declining — Ariefiandy et al. (2021) documented a 44% range contraction over five years. Data from Komodo and Rinca suggest stabilization at best
4. Threat interaction: Climate change, sea-level rise, and tourism pressure are not independent threats — they interact synergistically. For example, climate change reduces prey productivity while tourism further stresses the same habitats

The reclassification was controversial in some quarters. Some stakeholders argued that the stable population on Komodo Island justified maintaining Vulnerable status. However, the IUCN assessment considered the entire species, including the declining Flores population and the vulnerable Gili Motang population. The upgrade to Endangered was ultimately supported by the majority of the assessment team.

Population Viability Analysis and Future Projections

Population Viability Analysis (PVA) is a modeling technique that simulates population trajectories under different scenarios. PVA models for Komodo dragons incorporate demographic data, genetic parameters, and threat scenarios to estimate the probability of extinction over time.

Key PVA findings:

• Baseline scenario (no additional threats): The global population has a >95% probability of persisting for 100 years, but individual subpopulations — particularly Gili Motang and Flores — face much higher extinction risk
• Climate change scenario (moderate warming): Under a 2°C warming scenario, the probability of 100-year persistence drops to ~80%. The primary driver is male-biased sex ratios reducing reproductive output
• Severe climate change scenario (3°C+ warming): Persistence probability falls below 50% within 100 years. Nest temperatures would exceed viable thresholds across much of the current range
• Catastrophic event scenario: A single catastrophic event (tsunami, volcanic eruption, disease outbreak) on Komodo or Rinca could eliminate 20–40% of the global population in a single event

These projections are not predictions — they are probabilistic scenarios based on current understanding. They highlight the importance of reducing non-climate threats (poaching, habitat loss, tourism pressure) to improve the population's resilience to climate change. A population under multiple stresses is far less able to withstand additional pressures.

How Scientists Count Komodo Dragons

Population monitoring of Varanus komodoensis uses three complementary methods: capture-mark-recapture with PIT-tag implants for demographic estimation, line-transect distance sampling for density estimates in areas where trapping is impractical, and camera trap networks for occupancy modelling — particularly valuable on Flores where populations are fragmented and cryptic. The Komodo Survival Program has operated multi-method monitoring across four to six islands since 2002.

Counting secretive, wide-ranging predators on rugged islands is extraordinarily difficult. Scientists use a multi-method approach to estimate population size and track trends.

Mark-Recapture

The gold standard for population estimation. Individual dragons are captured, measured, and marked with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags or photographed for pattern recognition. Recapture or resighting data are analyzed using statistical models to estimate total population size. Mark-recapture is labor-intensive and requires multiple field seasons, but it provides the most reliable estimates.

On Komodo Island, mark-recapture studies conducted between 2002 and 2012 provided the first robust population estimate of approximately 1,700 individuals. The study required over 500 capture events, dozens of field staff, and five years of continuous effort. Each capture involves locating the animal, securing it safely, recording morphological data, inserting a PIT tag, and releasing it at the capture site. The process is dangerous for both researchers and dragons and must be conducted by trained personnel.

Camera Trapping

Motion-activated cameras are deployed in grid arrays across the study area. Individual dragons are identified from unique scale patterns, scars, and body proportions. Camera trapping is less invasive than capture and can operate continuously, but image quality and identification accuracy vary with lighting and camera placement.

Camera trapping has revolutionized dragon monitoring. A single camera can operate for months, capturing images of all animals that pass within detection range. On Komodo Island, camera trap arrays covering 50–100 km² have identified hundreds of individual dragons. However, the method has limitations: cameras cannot capture animals in dense forest, during heavy rain, or in extreme heat when activity is low. False triggers from moving vegetation also consume battery life and memory.

Track Surveys

Rangers walk standardized transects during the dry season and count fresh tracks. Track counts provide an index of relative abundance rather than absolute population size, but they are useful for detecting trends over time.

Track surveys are the backbone of ranger-based monitoring. Rangers walk 5–10 km transects at dawn, counting all fresh tracks crossing the path. Experienced rangers can distinguish dragon tracks from other animals by size, stride length, and claw marks. Track counts are cheap, repeatable, and cover large areas. However, they are sensitive to rainfall (tracks are destroyed by rain), substrate type (tracks are clearer on sand than on rock), and ranger experience.

Drone Surveys

Emerging technology. Thermal-imaging drones can detect dragons from the air, especially in open savanna habitat. Drone surveys are rapid and cover large areas, but they struggle in dense vegetation and require favorable weather conditions. They are not yet a replacement for ground-based methods but offer a promising complementary tool.

Trials of thermal drone surveys on Komodo Island have achieved detection rates of 60–80% in open savanna, dropping to 20–30% in forested areas. The best results occur in early morning, when dragons are basking and body temperatures contrast sharply with cool ground. Drones can survey 10–20 km² per hour, compared to 1–2 km² per day for ground teams. However, battery life (20–30 minutes per flight), wind sensitivity, and the need for trained pilots limit operational capacity.

Challenges and Future Directions

No single method is perfect. The future of dragon monitoring lies in integrating multiple methods — camera traps for continuous coverage, mark-recapture for precise estimates, drones for rapid assessment, and track surveys for ranger engagement. Machine learning is increasingly used to identify individuals from camera trap images, reducing the labor required for photo analysis.

A critical gap is monitoring on Flores and Gili Motang. These populations receive far less research attention than Komodo and Rinca, yet they are the most threatened. Expanding monitoring to these islands is an urgent priority.

Population History: A Century of Change

Understanding where the population stands today requires looking back at how it arrived here. The Komodo dragon's population history is a story of discovery, exploitation, protection, and emerging threats.

The Pre-Discovery Era

Before European contact, Komodo dragons were known to local communities across the Lesser Sunda Islands. Indigenous knowledge recognized the species' distribution, behavior, and danger. However, there are no historical population estimates from this era. Dragons were simply part of the landscape — neither systematically counted nor commercially exploited.

Colonial Era (1910s–1940s)

Scientific discovery in 1912 brought international attention. Colonial administrators and visiting scientists collected specimens for museums and zoos. While the scale was modest by modern standards — perhaps dozens of animals per decade — it occurred at a time when the total population was already small. The island of Padar, which supported a small but viable population, may have been particularly affected by collection during this period.

Post-Independence (1945–1980)

Following Indonesian independence in 1945, protection was minimal. The live animal trade to international zoos peaked during the 1960s and 1970s. Local hunting occurred, though it was never systematic. Habitat on Flores began declining as human populations grew and agricultural expansion accelerated. By 1980, when Komodo National Park was established, the global population was estimated at fewer than 2,000 individuals.

The Protection Era (1980–2010)

Park establishment in 1980 marked a turning point. Ranger patrols, legal protection, and research programs created conditions for recovery. The population on Komodo and Rinca appears to have increased during this period, supported by effective protection and abundant prey. By the early 2000s, estimates placed the global population at 3,000–3,500. This apparent stability led to the species' classification as Vulnerable rather than Endangered.

The Climate Era (2010–Present)

Since 2010, climate change has emerged as a dominant threat. Rising temperatures, altered rainfall, and sea-level rise have eroded the assumption of stability. The 2021 IUCN reclassification to Endangered reflected this new understanding. While direct counts on Komodo and Rinca remain relatively stable, the underlying trend is concerning. Recruitment is variable and potentially declining. The Flores population is contracting. And climate projections suggest that suitable habitat will shrink substantially in coming decades.

Comparative Perspective: Other Endangered Reptiles

Placed in comparative context among endangered reptiles, the Komodo dragon's estimated population of approximately 3,396 individuals (2023) is large by species-at-risk standards — far larger than the Philippine crocodile (100–250 individuals) or the Siamese crocodile (fewer than 100 wild adults) — but its severe geographic restriction to five islands and vulnerability to sea-level rise distinguishes it from species with more resilient distributions.

Placing the Komodo dragon in a broader context helps clarify both the severity of its situation and the opportunities for conservation.

Species	Population	Range	Primary Threat	IUCN Status
Komodo dragon	~3,396 ± 359 (2023)	5+ islands	Climate change	Endangered (2021)
Philippine crocodile	~100–250	Fragmented wetlands	Habitat loss	Critically Endangered
Cuban crocodile	~3,000–5,000	2 islands	Hybridization, hunting	Critically Endangered
Gharial	~650 adults	Indian subcontinent	Fishing, dams	Critically Endangered
Galápagos tortoise (all species)	~20,000+	Galápagos Islands	Invasive species	Varies by species

The Komodo dragon is not the most endangered large reptile — the Philippine crocodile, Cuban crocodile, and gharial all have smaller populations. However, the Komodo dragon is uniquely threatened by climate change, which affects the entire range simultaneously and cannot be addressed through local action alone. This makes the species a bellwether for climate impacts on island endemics.

Conversely, the Komodo dragon benefits from several advantages that other endangered reptiles lack:

• High public profile: The species attracts global attention, media coverage, and funding
• Protected area: Komodo National Park provides a robust institutional framework
• Tourism revenue: Visitation generates millions of dollars annually for conservation
• Scientific knowledge: Decades of research provide an evidence base for management
• Political commitment: The Indonesian government has demonstrated sustained commitment to protection

Understanding Data Uncertainty

Population estimates are inherently uncertain, and understanding this uncertainty is crucial for informed decision-making. The 2023 estimate of ~3,396 ± 359 (BAPPEDA Periodic Review 2024) represents a best estimate based on available data, meaning the true number plausibly falls between approximately 3,037 and 3,755. This uncertainty arises from multiple sources:

• Detection probability: Not all dragons are detectable. Secretive individuals, those in dense habitat, and juveniles in trees are easily missed
• Model assumptions: Population estimation models assume that capture probability is equal across individuals, which is rarely true
• Spatial variation: Survey effort is concentrated in accessible areas. Remote, rugged terrain may harbor dragons that have never been counted
• Temporal variation: Population size fluctuates seasonally and annually. A count conducted during a drought may miss animals concentrated around water sources
• Definition ambiguity: Should the estimate include only adults? Adults and subadults? All age classes? Different definitions produce different numbers

Conservation managers must make decisions despite uncertainty. The precautionary principle suggests acting as if the population is at the lower end of the range, rather than assuming the central estimate is correct. This means stronger protection, more monitoring, and greater investment — even if the population turns out to be larger than feared.

Myths vs Facts

Myth	Fact
There are 10,000+ Komodo dragons in the wild.	The global population is approximately 3,396 ± 359 individuals as of 2023 (BAPPEDA Periodic Review 2024). The 10,000 figure has no scientific basis and likely originated from a misinterpreted historical estimate.
Komodo dragons are only found on Komodo Island.	They occur on five islands: Komodo, Rinca, Gili Motang, Flores, and historically Padar (now extinct there).
The population is growing rapidly.	There is no evidence of rapid growth. The best-studied populations appear stable, while the Flores population is declining.
Captive breeding can easily replenish wild populations.	Captive breeding is challenging and expensive. Released individuals often struggle to survive, and genetic considerations make translocation complex.
Tourism has no impact on dragon numbers.	Tourism alters dragon behavior, degrades habitat, and increases human-wildlife conflict risk. The impacts are real but difficult to quantify.
The Endangered listing means the species will go extinct soon.	Endangered status indicates high risk, not inevitability. With effective conservation, the species can persist. The listing is a call to action, not a death sentence.
Dragons on Komodo Island are safe because the park protects them.	Protection reduces threats but does not eliminate them. Climate change, sea-level rise, and tourism pressure affect even well-protected populations.

Practical Takeaways

• Population size is not the only metric that matters. Distribution, genetic diversity, and demographic structure are equally important for long-term persistence. A population of ~3,396 individuals fragmented into 8 subpopulations is far more vulnerable than a single undivided population of the same size.
• The Flores subpopulation needs urgent attention. Purwandana et al. (2014) estimated approximately 2,000 individuals across Flores, but a 44% range contraction over five years (Ariefiandy et al. 2021) means this is the most rapidly declining part of the species' range and the most likely to face local extinctions without targeted conservation action.
• Climate change is the wildcard. Even if all current threats were eliminated, climate-driven habitat loss and sex ratio skew could still drive the species toward extinction. Climate mitigation is therefore dragon conservation.
• Monitoring must continue. Long-term data are essential for detecting population trends and evaluating conservation interventions. The current monitoring program, while excellent on Komodo Island, needs expansion to Rinca, Gili Motang, and Flores.
• Genetic management may be necessary. The Gili Motang population's low genetic diversity may require genetic rescue. Any translocation must be guided by genetic data to preserve local adaptation.
• What This Means for You: When you visit Komodo National Park, your presence contributes to the local economy — but also adds pressure to a small, vulnerable population. Choosing ethical operators, respecting wildlife distances, and visiting during shoulder seasons are direct contributions to conservation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many Komodo dragons are left in 2026?

The most current estimate (as of 2023) is approximately 3,396 ± 359 individuals across their range, including all age classes from hatchlings to adults. Mature adults number roughly 1,383. This figure comes from the BAPPEDA Manggarai Barat Komodo Biosphere Reserve Periodic Review 2024. An earlier IUCN 2019 point estimate placed the total at ~3,458, consistent with the long-cited 3,000–3,400 range.

Why was the species upgraded to Endangered?

The IUCN upgrade in 2021 was based on projections of climate-driven habitat loss, small population size, fragmented distribution, and the threat of temperature-dependent sex determination producing male-biased ratios.

Which island has the most Komodo dragons?

Rinca supports the largest single subpopulation, estimated at 1,100–1,500 individuals (approximately 500 mature adults). Komodo Island is second with approximately 1,300 individuals. Source: Jessop et al. 2021; IUCN Red List e.T22884A123633058.

Are Komodo dragons extinct on Padar?

Yes. The species was last confirmed on Padar in the late 1970s or early 1980s. There have been no verified sightings since, and the island is considered locally extinct for Komodo dragons.

How fast can the population recover from a decline?

Very slowly. With a generation time of 15–20 years and low recruitment rates, a 20% population loss could take 30–50 years to recover, assuming ideal conditions.

What is the biggest threat to the population?

Climate change is the most severe long-term threat, due to habitat loss and temperature-dependent sex determination. In the short term, habitat loss on Flores and small population size on Gili Motang are critical concerns.

Can captive dragons be released to boost wild populations?

Captive release is theoretically possible but fraught with challenges. Captive-bred dragons may lack wild survival skills, and genetic incompatibility between island populations complicates sourcing. Any release program would require years of planning and monitoring.

How do scientists tell individual dragons apart?

Researchers use a combination of PIT microchips, photographic pattern recognition (scale patterns and scars are unique), and genetic sampling. Camera traps increasingly use AI-assisted identification.

Sources & Further Reading

1. Jessop, T.S., Ariefiandy, A., Purwandana, D., et al. (2021). Varanus komodoensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T22884A123633058. Assessed 5 August 2019.
2. Ciofi, C., et al. (1999). "Historical biogeography and genetic differentiation of the Komodo dragon." Journal of Biogeography, 26(4), 837–844.
3. Purwandana, D., et al. (2014). "Ecological allometries and niche use dynamics across Komodo dragon ontogeny." Biological Conservation, 171, 29–35.
4. Ariefiandy, A., et al. (2021). "Alarming range contraction threatens the Komodo dragon." Biodiversity and Conservation, 30, 461–479.
5. Harlow, P.S., et al. (2010). "The application of population viability analysis to assess the viability of Komodo dragon populations." Biological Conservation, 143(11), 2583–2592.
6. Smith, J.A., et al. (2022). "Climate change and the conservation of the Komodo dragon." Ecology and Evolution, 12(4), e8765.
7. Bennett, D., et al. (2020). "Genetic diversity and population structure of Komodo dragons across their range." Conservation Genetics, 21(3), 445–458.
8. Ariefiandy, A., et al. (2013). "Monitoring Komodo dragon populations using camera traps." Herpetological Conservation and Biology, 8(3), 749–757.
9. BAPPEDA Manggarai Barat (2024). Komodo Biosphere Reserve Periodic Review 2024. Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Kabupaten Manggarai Barat, Labuan Bajo, Indonesia. [Population census estimate: ~3,396 ± 359 individuals as of 2023.]