Herpetofauna of Protected Areas in the Caatinga VII: Aiuaba Ecological Station (Ceará, Brazil)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Herpetology Notes, volume 11: 929-941 (2018) (published online on 11 November 2018) Herpetofauna of protected areas in the Caatinga VII: Aiuaba Ecological Station (Ceará, Brazil) Taís Borges Costa1, Daniel Orsi Laranjeiras1, Francis Luiz Santos Caldas 2, Daniel Oliveira Santana1, Cristiana Ferreira da Silva4, Edna Paulino de Alcântara4, Samuel Vieira Brito1, Jéssica Yara Galdino1, Daniel Oliveira Mesquita1, Renato Gomes Faria2, Frederico Gustavo Rodrigues França3, Robson Waldemar Ávila4, and Adrian Antonio Garda5,* Abstract. We provide a list of amphibians and reptiles recorded in a strict protection area in the Brazilian semiarid Caatinga, the Aiuaba Ecological Station, Ceará State, Brazil. We conducted herpetofauna surveys totaling 110 days of fieldwork using pitfall trap arrays, glue traps, and active searches. We recorded 57 species distributed in 23 families: 16 lizards, 1 amphisbaena, 17 snakes, 20 amphibians, and 3 chelonians. Rarefaction curves for snakes and all herpetofauna combined suggest that species richness may still be underestimated for the area, while amphibian and lizard species numbers are similar to values suggested by diversity estimators. Despite its relatively small area, the Aiuaba Ecological Station serves as a herpetofaunal refuge, protecting a representative set of Caatinga species. Keywords. Anura, Squamate reptiles, chelonians, distribution, conservation Introduction The Caatinga originally covered 10% of the Brazilian territory, but today over 60% of its area is covered by The Caatinga biome is the largest patch of Seasonally anthropogenic ecosystems (Silva et al., 2017). The Dry Tropical Forests (STDF), a highly fragmented biome comprises the states of Ceará, most of Paraíba, biome widespread from Mexico to Argentina (Prado, Rio Grande do Norte and Pernambuco, southeastern 2000). Protected areas in the Caatinga encompass 7.4% Piauí, western Alagoas and Sergipe, northern and of the biome (Silva et al., 2017), but most are among the least restrictive category in Brazil, known as APA (Área de Proteção Ambiental, or Environmental Protection Area), and all are critically underfunded (Oliveira and Bernard, 2017). Moreover, the Caatinga is also the least protected of Brazilian biomes, with under 2% of its 1 Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Centro de Ciências Exatas territory inserted in strict protection areas (Fonseca et e da Natureza, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, al., 2017). Cidade Universitária, 58051-000, João Pessoa, PB, Brasil. 2 For a long time, the Caatinga’s fauna and flora were Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Departamento de Biologia, Laboratório de Cordados (Herpetologia/Ictiologia), Cidade considered poor and with few endemic species and, Universitária, Av. Marechal Rondon, s/n, Jardim Rosa Elze, hence, given low priority for conservation (Vanzolini, 49100-000, São Cristóvão, SE, Brasil. 1976). This first impression resulted from insufficient 3 Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Centro de Ciências inventories and was gradually abandoned as recent Aplicadas e Educação, Departamento de Engenharia e Meio studies reported much higher species richness and Ambiente, 58297-000, Rio Tinto, PB, Brasil. significant rates of endemism (Araujo and Silva, 2017; 4 Universidade Regional do Cariri, Departamento de Ciências Carmignotto and Astúa, 2017; Garda et al., 2017; Lima Físicas e Biológicas. Rua Cel. Antonio Luiz Pimenta, et al., 2017; Mesquita et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the 63105100, Crato, CE, Brasil. 5 Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Laboratório Caatinga is still neglected, receiving less financial de Anfíbios e Répteis-LAR, Departamento de Botânica, support, less scientific and conservation initiatives, Ecologia e Zoologia, Centro de Biociências, Campus and having fewer research groups compared with other Universitário, Lagoa Nova,59078-900, Natal, RN, Brasil. biomes in Brazil (Santos et al., 2011). * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] 930 Taís Borges Costa et al. amphibian and reptile species richness in the Caatinga (Garda et al., 2017; Mesquita et al., 2017). Still, many areas of the biome are understudied, and knowledge gaps can hamper conservation strategies and resource use prioritization. The present study integrates the results of three independent field surveys to provide a comprehensive list of herpetofauna species for Aiuaba Ecological Station in Ceará State, Brazil. Our results show a high diversity of frogs and reptiles in a lowland area of Caatinga that now likely represents one of the best sampled areas for amphibian and reptiles in the biome. Material and Methods Figure 1. Aiuaba Ecological Station, Ceará, Brazil. The Study area.—The Aiuaba Ecological Station is a strict numbers 1 to 12 refer to the sampling points. Legend: 1 = first use protection area located in Aiuaba Municipality, set of pitfall traps; 2, 8, 10, 11, 12 = active search points; 7 = Ceará State, Brazil (6° 35’ 58.1”S, 40° 07’ 20.5”W; Fig. rock outcrop area near the dam; 3 = second set of pitfalls; 4 1). It encompasses 11,525 hectares between latitudes = third set of pitfalls; 5 = fourth set of pitfalls; 6 = fifth set of 06° 35’ and 06° 40’S and longitudes 40° 07’ and 40° pitfalls; 9 = protected area head office. 20’W. It is inserted in the “Sertão dos Inhamuns” and “Depressão Sertaneja Setentrional”, presenting litholic soils and flat reliefs where erosive formations are more frequent and phyllites are the predominant rocks central Bahia, and northern Minas Gerais (Prado, 2003). (Velloso et al., 2002; Medeiros, 2004). The area is also It is one of the most degraded biomes in Brazil (Leal predominantly covered by arboreal Caatinga, although et al., 2005), and most of the local economy depends presenting other phytophysiognomies like carrasco, on public services, with the lowest human development dense arboreal Caatinga, and arboreal-shrubby Caatinga indicators in the country (Silva et al., 2017). complex (Oliveira et al., 1983; Medeiros, 2004). The For a long time, the scarcity of inventories with rainy period usually occurs from October to April, with adequate description of sampling efforts and comparable mean annual precipitation ranging from 590 to 684 mm methodologies in the Caatinga contributed to the lack and mean annual temperatures from 25.3°C to 25.9°C of knowledge about its herpetofauna (Rodrigues, 2003; (Velloso et al., 2002; Medeiros, 2004). Albuquerque et al., 2012; Guedes et al., 2014). Some Sampling methods.—We conducted surveys during standardized inventories were recently conducted different periods of the dry and rainy seasons (Table 1), in protected areas like Estação Ecológica Raso da totaling 110 days of fieldwork. We used a combination Catarina-BA (Garda et al., 2013), Parque Nacional da of different sampling methods, including active Serra da Capivara-PI (Cavalcanti et al., 2014), Parque searches, occasional encounters, pitfall traps with drift Nacional do Catimbau-PE (Pedrosa et al., 2014), fences, funnel traps, and glue traps. Funnel and glue Estação Ecológica do Seridó-RN (Caldas et al., 2016), traps were implemented only in the September/October and Parque Nacional da Chapada da Diamantina-BA 2013 survey, while the remaining methods were used in (Magalhães et al., 2015). all surveys (Table 1). These studies helped improve comparisons between Survey I— One of us (SVB) conducted two 10-day the herpetofaunas in different regions in the biome, surveys in the dry (October-November) and rainy (April- besides contributing directly to the knowledge of May) seasons (Table 1), using 120 pitfall traps arranged Protected Area’s amphibian and reptile faunas. These in Y shape connected with 5m plastic drift fences and concerted efforts, along with other studies providing equally distributed in 3 areas (40 traps pear area). Day lists and distribution data for many localities (Loebmann and night actives searches were also conducted by two and Haddad, 2010; Moura et al., 2010; Roberto et al., researchers to complement trap captures. 2013; Roberto and Loebmann, 2016), have allowed a Survey II— One of us (RWA) coordinated eight 5-day recent re-evaluation of the geographic distribution of surveys using a standardized protocol of the Biodiversity Herpetofauna of protected areas in the Caatinga VII: Aiuaba Ecological Station 931 Table 1. SamplingTable 1. procedures Sampling procedures used in three used separate in three field separate surveys field for surveys herpetofauna for herpetofauna species atspecies the Aiuaba at the AiuabaEcological Station, Ceará State,Ecological Brazil. Details Station, on duration,Ceará State, sampling Brazil. methods, Details on season, duration, and samplingtraps used methods, are given season, for each and survey. traps used are given for each survey. Survey Year Month Days in Sampling Methods Number and Season field volume of traps I 2010 October 10 pitfall traps with drift 30 arrays (four 30L- Dry season fences buckets/array) Y shape I 2011 April 10 pitfall traps with drift 30 arrays (four 30L- Rainy fences buckets/array) Y season shape II 2012 June and 5+5 pitfall traps with drift 10 arrays (eight 60L Rainy/dry September fences, visual searches buckets/array) season straight line III 2013 September 30 pitfall traps with drift 37 arrays, (4 buckets, Dry season and fences, visual searches, 60L, per array), Y October hoop traps and glue shape traps, II 2013 January 5+5 pitfall traps with drift 10 arrays (eight 60L Rainy and April fences, visual searches buckets/array) season straight line II 2013 June 5 pitfall traps with drift 10