Research Article |
Corresponding author: Raciel Cruz-Elizalde ( cruzelizalde@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Franco Andreone
© 2017 Victor H. Luja, Jesús A. López, Raciel Cruz-Elizalde, Aurelio Ramírez-Bautista.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Luja VH, López JA, Cruz-Elizalde R, Ramírez-Bautista A (2017) Herpetofauna inside and outside from a natural protected area: the case of Reserva Estatal de la Biósfera Sierra San Juan, Nayarit, Mexico. Nature Conservation 21: 15-38. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.21.12875
|
Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) includes important species richness, and it is assumed that these are the best areas for biodiversity conservation. There are certain doubts, however, about the effectiveness of the NPAs in developing countries, where economic resources for conservation are scarce and NPAs are not monitored and managed efficiently. In the present study we assessed the species richness, diversity, abundance, and functional guilds of amphibians and reptiles inside and outside of the NPA Reserva Estatal de la Biósfera Sierra San Juan (REBSSJ), Nayarit, Mexico. Our results showed that species numbers of amphibian and reptiles were higher outside than inside the reserve, as well the individual number distributed among species, except for lizard species. Analyses of functional guilds showed that both richness and functional dispersion were greater in amphibians and reptiles outside the reserve. Likewise, outside the reserve we recorded a higher species number with some category of risk at the national level (NOM-059), international level (IUCN), and also by using the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) algorithm. The results suggest that areas outside of the reserve are crucial to the maintenance of regional biodiversity, due to high complementarity with species composition inside of the reserves. These data can be used to implement conservation measures that include a new demarcation of the reserve and the consideration of surrounding areas to include a great number of species.
Amphibians, abundance, conservation, diversity, natural protected area, reptiles
Worldwide, the creation of Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) has been one of the major measures to conserve biodiversity (
In spite of the high number of NPAs registered currently, most of them have been established in an arbitrary way, because in most cases there is a lack of basic biological information of the species that are in these areas (
The REBSSJ is located at the westernmost extreme of the Mexican Transvolcanic Belt, in Sierra San Juan, which constitutes a geomorphological unit separated of this biogeographic province (
The amphibians and reptiles from this region have been poorly studied. The only previous study for the site is a catalogue of the species of this group by
In order to assess the effectiveness of this NPA, the objectives of this study are: (i) to determine species richness, abundance, functional richness, functional equality, and functional dispersion of amphibians and reptiles inside and outside of the REBSSJ, and (ii) to compare diversity patterns inside and outside of the REBSSJ. This work is important because in spite of being a protected area, diverse anthropic activities are conducted within its boundaries, such as coffee and avocado cultivation, without supervised regulation or estimation of the impact on biodiversity. Thus our hypothesis of work is that because the natural protected area is surrounded by zones highly transformed; therefore there will be a different number of species and communities composition of amphibians and reptiles, with low number of species outside of reserve.
The study area is located in Sierra San Juan in the central portion of the state of Nayarit, and comprises part of the municipalities of Tepic, Xalisco, and San Blas (21°20'–21°32'N; 104°53'–105°03'W; datum WGS84; Figure
This study was carried out between June 2012 and August 2015. Surveys were conducted during each month in a systematic way by dedicating a whole day of sampling for searching the amphibians and reptiles inside and outside of the reserve. For each day, random surveys of the specimens were made by two people, which began from 09:00 to 14:00 h, and from 17:00 to 22:00 h (10 h/man by 2 persons = 20 man hours). Total sampling was an effort of 1520 man-hours equally distributed inside and outside of the reserve (760 h/man each one). Amphibians and reptiles were searched for during the hikes by checking all habitats and microhabitats types, such as under rocks and logs and within litter, holes, and crevices (
In order to estimate the completeness of the inventory of the amphibians and reptiles from inside and outside the reserve, we constructed a species accumulation curve (
Species diversity of amphibians and reptiles was assessed inside and outside of the reserve by effective species number according to the method proposed by
To assess beta diversity between areas we used the complementarity index (
Finally, to assess the functional diversity (FD) we collected information (on literature and databases) about four specific traits: i) Habits (terrestrial, arboreal, terrestrial semi arboreal and terrestrial freshwater), ii) Diet (insects, insects and small mammals, insects and vegetables, small mammals, lizards and rodents, amphibians, small rodents, amphibians and lizards, lizards and snakes, lizards and small mammals, fish and aquatic insects), iii) Activity (diurnal, nocturnal, diurnal and nocturnal), and iv) Foraging mode (active or sit-and-wait). To obtain the values of FD, three measures as response variables were calculated using multivariate methods, one that uses information presence or absence of each species (functional richness, Fr), and two measures that incorporate information on the abundance of species (functional equity, Fe) and functional dispersion (Fd). This method was chosen because functional characterization of the assemblage is achieved by considering jointly these three components (
Species composition of the Sierra San Juan is 55 in total. Five families, 10 genera, and 15 species represent amphibians, whereas reptiles are represented by 18 families, 32 genera, and 40 species (Table
List of species of amphibians and reptiles of Sierra San Juan, Nayarit, and Biosphere Reserve Sierra San Juan (RBSSJ) (X = occurrence). The code of each species used in the curves of rank-abundance (Code) is provided. Also, E = endemic to Mexico, protection category according to the Mexican Official Standard NOM-059 (Pr = Special protection, A = endangered), and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, Lc = Leas Concern, Dd = Deficient data, V = Vulnerable, NT = Near Threatened, NC = Not Consider), are provided. The population status (STAT POP; S = Stable, I = Increasing, U = Unknown, D = Decreasing, NC = Not Consider) and the value of environmental vulnerability index according to
Species | Code | Endemism | NOM-059 | IUCN | STAT POP | EVS | Inside RBSSJ | Outside RBSSJ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Class Amphibia | ||||||||
Order Anura | ||||||||
Family Bufonidae | ||||||||
Incilius mazatlanensis | 1 | E | Lc | S | 12 (M) | X | ||
Rhinella marina | 2 | Lc | I | 3 (L) | X | |||
Family Craugastoridae | ||||||||
Craugastor augusti | 3 | Lc | S | 8 (L) | X | |||
C. occidentalis | 4 | E | DD | U | 13 (M) | X | X | |
C. pygmaeus | 5 | Vu | D | 9 (L) | X | X | ||
C. vocalis | 6 | E | Lc | D | 13 (M) | X | ||
Family Eleutherodactylidae | ||||||||
Eleutherodactylus nitidus | 7 | E | Lc | S | 12 (M) | X | X | |
E. pallidus | 8 | E | Pr | DD | U | 17 (H) | X | X |
Family Hylidae | ||||||||
Agalychnis dacnicolor | 9 | E | Lc | S | 13 (M) | X | ||
Exerodonta smaragdina | 10 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 12 (M) | X | |
Sarcohyla bistincta | 11 | E | Pr | Lc | D | 9 (L) | X | X |
Smilisca baudinii | 12 | Lc | S | 3 (L) | X | |||
Tlalocohyla smithii | 13 | E | Lc | D | 11 (M) | X | ||
Family Ranidae | ||||||||
Lithobates magnaocularis | 14 | E | Lc | U | 12 (M) | X | X | |
L. pustulosus | 15 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 9 (L) | X | |
Class Reptilia | ||||||||
Order Testudines | ||||||||
Family Geoemydidae | ||||||||
Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima | 16 | A | NC | NC | 8 (L) | X | X | |
Family Kinosternidae | ||||||||
Kinosternon integrum | 17 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 11 (M) | X | X |
Order Squamata | ||||||||
Family Anguidae | ||||||||
Elgaria kingii | 18 | Pr | Lc | S | 10 (M) | X | X | |
Family Dactyloidae | ||||||||
Anolis nebulosus | 19 | E | Lc | S | 13 (M) | X | X | |
Family Gekkonidae | ||||||||
Hemidactylus frenatus | 20 | Lc | S | X | X | |||
Family Helodermatidae | ||||||||
Heloderma horridum | 21 | A | Lc | D | 11 (M) | X | ||
Family Iguanidae | ||||||||
Ctenosaura pectinata | 22 | E | A | NC | NC | 15 (H) | X | |
Family Phrynosomatidae | ||||||||
Sceloporus asper | 23 | E | Pr | Lc | D | 14 (H) | X | X |
S. horridus | 24 | E | Lc | S | 11 (M) | X | ||
S. melanorhinus | 25 | Lc | S | 9 (L) | X | |||
S. torquatus | 26 | Lc | S | 11 (M) | X | |||
S. unicanthalis | 27 | E | NC | NC | ? | X | ||
S. utiformis | 28 | E | Lc | S | 15 (H) | X | X | |
Family Scincidae | ||||||||
Plestiodon sp | 29 | E | NC | NC | ? | X | X | |
Family Teiidae | ||||||||
Aspidoscelis costata | 30 | E | Pr | NC | NC | 11 (M) | X | X |
Holcosus sinister | 31 | NC | NC | ? | X | X | ||
Family Boidae | ||||||||
Boa sigma | 32 | E | A | NC | NC | 10 (M) | X | X |
Family Colubridae | ||||||||
Coluber mentovarius | 33 | Lc | U | 6 (L) | X | |||
Drymarchon melanurus | 34 | Lc | S | 6 (L) | X | X | ||
Drymobius margaritiferus | 35 | NC | NC | 6 (L) | X | |||
Lampropeltis triangulum | 36 | A | NC | NC | 7 (L) | X | X | |
Leptophis diplotropis | 37 | E | A | Lc | S | 14 (H) | X | |
Mastigodryas melanolomus | 38 | Lc | S | 6 (L) | X | X | ||
Oxybelis aeneus | 39 | NC | NC | 5 (L) | X | |||
Senticolis triaspis | 40 | Lc | S | 6 (L) | X | |||
Tantilla calamarina | 41 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 12 (M) | X | |
Trimorphodon tau | 42 | Lc | S | 13 (M) | X | X | ||
Family Dipsadidae | ||||||||
Geophis dugesii | 43 | Lc | U | 13 (M) | X | |||
Leptodeira splendida | 44 | E | Lc | U | 14 (H) | X | ||
Rhadinaea hesperia | 45 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 10 (M) | X | X |
R. taeniata | 46 | E | Lc | S | 13 (M) | X | X | |
Sibon nebulatus | 47 | NC | NC | 5 (L) | X | |||
Family Elapidae | ||||||||
Micrurus distans | 48 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 14 (H) | X | |
M. proximans | 49 | E | Pr | Lc | U | 18 (H) | X | X |
Family Leptotyphlopidae | ||||||||
Rena humilis | 50 | Lc | S | 8 (L) | X | X | ||
Family Natricidae | ||||||||
Storeria storerioides | 51 | E | Lc | S | 11 (M) | X | ||
Family Typhlopidae | ||||||||
Indotyphlops braminus | 52 | NC | NC | ? | X | |||
Family Viperidae | ||||||||
Agkistrodon bilineatus | 53 | Pr | NT | D | 11 (M) | X | ||
Crotalus basiliscus | 54 | E | Pr | Lc | S | 16 (H) | X | X |
C. campbelli | 55 | E | NC | NC | ? | X |
In this area was carried out 39 samplings, in which we recorded 34 species (seven amphibians and 27 reptiles; Table
In this area we recorded a total of seven amphibian species. The ACE and Chao 1 estimators predicted seven species each (Figure
According to abundance, for amphibians, rank–abundance curves indicated that the dominant species inside of the reserve was Craugastor occidentalis, and the species with less dominance was C. augusti (Figure
Species-accumulation curve for amphibians (a) and reptiles (b) inside of REBSSJ. Observed richness, species represented by a single individual (singletons), species with two individuals (doubletons), and estimated species (ACE and Chao 1).
In this area we carried out 39 samplings. The species list for this area consists of 47 species (14 amphibians and 33 reptiles; Table
Outside of REBSSJ was recorded a total of 14 amphibian species. Non-parametric estimators ACE and Chao 1 predicted 14 species each (Figure
Respect to abundance, in amphibians, Exerodonta smaragdina was the most abundant species, followed by C. occidentalis (Figure
According to the values of completeness, we observed similar values of species composition of amphibians and reptiles in both inside and outside environments. Among amphibians, the completeness value between sites was 0.60, and among reptiles 0.50, which indicates an intermediate complementarity in species composition among these environments.
In general, a high pattern in species richness, diversity, and abundance of amphibians and reptiles was found outside rather than inside the reserve (Table
Summary of values of diversity and abundance by taxonomic group registered inside and outside REBSSJ, Nayarit, Mexico.
Group | Total species | Species richness | Abundance | True diversity | Shared species | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
inside | outside | inside | outside | inside | outside | |||
Amphibians | 15 | 7 | 14 | 680 | 1199 | 2.33 | 9.6 | 6 |
Tortoises | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 | |||
Lizards | 14 | 11 | 11 | 937 | 834 | 4.42 | 7.96 | 8 |
Snakes | 24 | 14 | 20 | 30 | 64 | 2.35 | 16.47 | 10 |
Totals | 55 | 34 | 47 | 1651 | 2105 |
Graphic comparison of the number of species (total and by taxonomic group) inside and outside of REBSSJ.
Functional richness, functional equality, and functional dispersion indices were higher for amphibians outside the reserve (Table
Outside the reserve we recorded a higher species number under some category of risk in national regulation according the NOM-059 (DOF 2010), also by the international list of the IUCN, and by using Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) algorithm (Table
Number of species under different risk categories indicated by the national and international regulations (NOM-059,
Normative | Category | Amphibians | Reptiles | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
inside | outside | inside | outside | ||
IUCN | Least concern | 4 | 11 | 19 | 21 |
Vulnerable | 1 | 1 | |||
Near Threatened | 1 | ||||
Deficient Data | 2 | 2 | |||
Not Consider | 8 | 11 | |||
Population status (IUCN) | Decreasing | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
Stable | 2 | 6 | 15 | 17 | |
Increasing | 1 | ||||
Unknown | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |
Deficient data | 8 | 11 | |||
Endemisms | Endemic | 5 | 11 | 15 | 16 |
No endemic | |||||
NOM-059 | Pr | 2 | 4 | 8 | 9 |
A | 4 | 5 | |||
EVS | Low | 3 | 5 | 5 | 11 |
Medium | 3 | 8 | 12 | 11 | |
High | 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | |
No evaluated | 4 | 3 |
The herpetofauna of Nayarit had been ignored for a long time (
Inside of REBSSJ was found a lower species number than outside of this NPA. This pattern is similar to that seen in other studies that analyzed species richness and abundance of species from different biological groups inside and outside of a NPA as mammals (
Inside the REBSSJ we recorded a lower species number of amphibian and reptiles, with Craugastor of the former group the dominant genus. Species of this genus are associated with temperate environments, such as pine forest and pine-oak forest, which were dominant in this area of the reserve (
It is well known that the NPAs are important for nature conservation (
Among snakes, a high number of species and individuals were found outside of the reserve. This phenomenon is explained by the high dispersal capacity of this group of reptiles, species of which have a larger home range than do lizard species (
Studies on fragmented tropical environments show that the transformation of environments reduces the alpha diversity, but increase the diversity at a landscape level (
In addition to remarkable differences in species richness and abundance of amphibian and reptiles between sites, outside the reserve we recorded higher scores of functional diversity in both amphibians and reptiles. Such differences suggest a more complex network of interactions among the components of biodiversity outside the reserve. Outside the reserve there is a more heterogeneous landscape, which gives the species the opportunity to diversify in terms of guilds (habitat, food, or habits). Therefore, if these sites are not considered within the measures of conservation, biodiversity will be severely eroded. Finally, outside the reserve we found a major species number under some category of protection of the
Our results suggest that in addition to protecting the area designated as NPA’s, studies in surrounding areas should be carried out to consider the possibility of protecting a greater amount of habitat that should include semi-deciduous tropical forest and cloud forest to conserve a higher number of species (
Land use change is the main cause of the loss of diversity in the last decades (
Herpetofauna inside of the NPA´s have been analyzed in several studies from tropical environments of the world (
Considering to the results showed in this study, where outside of the NPA is reported a higher number of species, higher functional diversity, and higher species number under high categories of conservation, we suggest the following measures to be considered in future studies that compare the herpetofauna inside and outside of an NPA´s: i) to analyze the status of conservation under different national (e. g., NOM-059), and international regulations (e.g., IUCN) of the species (
Thanks go to Jorge Chaparro and family for their help in the field, and to Paul López, the owner of “La Noria” ranch, for his logistic support. Several people donated via crowdfunding to support the last part of the fieldwork: Beatriz Luja, Beatriz Molina, Azucena Loza, Jesús Loc, Jacobo Reyes; thank you very much all. We also thank Larry David Wilson for his language review and comments to improve the manuscript, and Christian Berriozabal for his help with some data analysis. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments that improved our manuscript.