Conservation Status Assessment of the Amphibians and Reptiles of Uruguay 5
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Conservation status assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of Uruguay 5 Conservation status assessment of the amphibians and reptiles of Uruguay Andrés Canavero1,2,3, Santiago Carreira2, José A. Langone4, Federico Achaval2,11, Claudio Borteiro5, Arley Camargo2,6, Inés da Rosa2, Andrés Estrades7, Alejandro Fallabrino7, Francisco Kolenc8, M. Milagros López-Mendilaharsu7, Raúl Maneyro2,9, Melitta Meneghel2, Diego Nuñez2, Carlos M. Prigioni10 & Lucía Ziegler2 1. Sección Ecología Terrestre, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. ([email protected]; [email protected]) 2. Sección Zoología Vertebrados, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, Uruguay. ([email protected]) 3. Center for Advanced Studies in Ecology & Biodiversity y Departamento de Ecología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. 4. Departamento de Herpetología, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural y Antropología, Uruguay. 5. Río de Janeiro 4058, Montevideo 12800, Uruguay. 6. Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602, USA. 7. Karumbé. Av. Giannattasio km. 30.500, El Pinar, Canelones, 15008, Uruguay. 8. Universidad de la República, and Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay. 9. Museu de Ciência e Tecnologia and Faculdade de Biociências, Pontifica Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. 10. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Intendencia Municipal de Treinta y Tres, Uruguay. 11. In memoriam. ABSTRACT. The native species of amphibians and reptiles of Uruguay were categorized according to the IUCN Red List criteria. Out of 47 amphibian species, seven are listed as Critically Endangered (CR), five as Endangered (EN), one as Vulnerable (VU), three as Near Threatened (NT), and two as Data Deficient (DD); the remaining species are considered to be Least Concern (LC). Among the 64 species of reptiles evaluated, one is listed as Critically Endangered (CR), seven as Endangered (EN), two as Vulnerable (VU), one as Near Threatened (NT) and seven as Data Deficient (DD); the rest are considered to be Least Concern (LC). The use of these results as an additional criterion in the definition of protected areas in Uruguay will contribute towards the conservation of the aforementioned threatened species and their associated ecosystems. KEYWORDS. Thretened species, Red List, herpetofauna, IUCN. RESUMEN. Evaluación del estado de conservación de los anfibios y reptiles del Uruguay. Las especies nativas de anfibios y reptiles de Uruguay fueron categorizadas de acuerdo a los criterios de la Lista Roja de UICN. De las 47 especies de anfibios, siete se encuentran En Peligro Crítico (CR), cinco En Peligro (EN), una Vulnerable (VU), tres Casi Amenazadas (NT), y dos con Datos Deficientes (DD); las especies restantes son consideradas como Preocupación Menor (LC). Entre las 64 especies de reptiles evaluados, una se encuentra en Peligro Crítico (CR), siete En Peligro (EN), dos como Vulnerables (VU), una Casi Amenazadas (NT) y siete con Datos Deficientes (DD); las especies restantes son consideradas como Preocupación Menor (LC). El uso de estos resultados como un criterio adicional en la definición de áreas protegidas en Uruguay contribuirá hacia la conservación de dichas especies amenazadas y sus ecosistemas asociados. PALABRAS CLAVE. Especies amenazadas, Lista Roja, herpetofauna, IUCN. The ultimate goal of conservation biology is to amphibians and 664 of the 8,240 known species of reptiles provide scientific concepts and data to design effective have been assessed on a global scale (IUCN, 2006b). As management strategies for the conservation of a result, 31 % of amphibian and 51 % of reptile species biodiversity. The design of a conservation system/ fell into one of the threat categories. In recent years (from network must be based on sound knowledge of species’ 1996 until 2006), there has been a sustained increase in life histories, as well as an understanding of the the number of species occupying each of the threat functioning of ecosystems and the social component that categories (IUCN, 2006a). interacts with natural environments (PRIMAK & RODRIGUES, As in other regions of the world (see MILLER et al., 2001). Unfortunately, efforts and decisions regarding 2007), evaluate the conservation status of amphibian and conservation are being taken based on a poor knowledge reptile species at a national level has been one of the of the biology of species or the functioning of ecosystems, main interests of Uruguayan herpetologists in the last due to the asymmetries between the time required to years. That interest motivated the publication of several generate such knowledge against the urgency of categorization schemes, such as those proposed by particular conservation actions (SOULÉ & ORIANS, 2001; ACHAVAL & OLMOS (2007), MANEYRO & LANGONE (2001; MCCALLUM, 2007). amphibians), MORALES FAGUNDES & CARREIRA (2001; It was in this context that the IUCN (International snakes), CARREIRA (2004; lizards), and CARREIRA et al. Union for the Conservation of Nature) “Red List of (2007, turtles) using the methodology of RECA et al. (1994), Threatened Species” arose as a tool to help in the rapid which has been widely applied in southern South America assessment and monitoring of the conservation status (GRIGERA & UBEDA, 2000). The process of elaboration of of biodiversity using all available information (HILTON- the Red Lists of Uruguay began with an initiative TAYLOR, 2000). Based on this categorization method, 5,918 spearheaded by the Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay. Iheringia, Sér. Zool., Porto Alegre, 100(1):5-12, 30 de março de 2010 6 CANAVERO et al. With the participation of the IUCN Uruguayan Committee, species, excluding sea turtles, we consider that all species two biodiversity groups were created to bring together have breeding populations and that Uruguayan the researchers working locally on each zoological group: populations may experience a negligible “rescue effect” Amphibia and Reptilia. Each of these working groups from populations outside the country (BROWN & KODRIC- proposed initiatives to complete the categorization of BROWN, 1977; HANSKI & GYLLENBERG, 1993). Thus, based both taxonomic groups at a regional (national) level using on the conceptual scheme for assigning an IUCN Red the IUCN criteria. Later, a Uruguayan Fauna Red List List Category at the regional level (IUCN, 2003), and Workshop, sponsored by the IUCN Regional Office for because it is unlikely that individuals from extra-regional South America (Quito, Ecuador), took place in November populations would be able to survive and reproduce 2000 in Montevideo. A working agenda was set at this within the region, we suggest that, in these cases, the meeting, which resulted in the creation of the Red List of assigned regional category be left unchanged. Since sea Amphibians and Reptiles of Uruguay following the turtles (Caretta caretta (Linnaeus, 1758), Chelonia mydas categories and criteria suggested by IUCN (2003, 2006a). (Linnaeus, 1758), Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz, The aim of this work is to report the results of this 1829), Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli, 1761)) are assessment at national level. considered as visitors, and the conditions outside and within the region are deteriorating (step 2e and 2f in IUCN, MATERIAL AND METHODS 2003), the assigned regional category should be left unchanged (IUCN, 2003). The categorization of amphibian and reptile species We compared the percentages of each threat present in Uruguay followed the criteria established by category for Uruguayan amphibians and reptiles at both the IUCN (2006a) and using the guidelines for the global and regional (national) scales (sensu IUCN, 2006a) application of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (Figs. 1-4). at regional levels (IUCN, 2003). Global categorizations for amphibians were taken from IUCN (2006b) and for RESULTS AND DISCUSSION reptiles from IUCN (2006a). Amphibians nomenclature and systematics followed FAIVOVICH et al. (2005), FROST et al. Of the 47 native amphibian and 64 native reptile (2006), and GRANT et al. (2006). Common names for species evaluated, 23 species were classified in a threat amphibians followed ACHAVAL & OLMOS (2007). The category (CR, EN, VU), four were Near Threatened (NT) nomenclature and systematics of reptiles followed and nine were considered as Data Deficient (DD). So, a CARREIRA et al. (2005) with some modifications: the name total of 75 species could be considered as Least Concern for the genus Echinanthera Cope, 1894 is replaced by (LC), this represents 67.6 % of herpetofauna from Uruguay Taeniophallus Cope, 1895 (SCHARGEL et al., 2005) and (Tabs. I, II). Liophis miliaris semiaureus (Cope, 1862) is replaced by The conservation status of the amphibians of Liophis semiaureus (GIRAUDO et al., 2006). Common Uruguay appears to be critical due to the relatively high names for reptiles follow ACHAVAL & OLMOS (2007) and proportion of Critically Endangered species (CR = 14.9 %), TIPTON (2005). which is twice that of the global average (7.4 %) (STUART The information used as a basis to assess each et al., 2004), and Endangered species (EN =10.6 %). On a species was taken from published sources (ACHAVAL, different note, the low proportion of Data Deficient taxa 2001; CARREIRA et al., 2005; NÚÑEZ et al., 2004) as well as (DD = 4.3 % vs. 24.1 % globally) reflects a relatively well- from personal observations of authors. Introduced developed knowledge of the distribution of the amphibian and reptile species (Lithobates catesbeianus Uruguayan