182 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment A few amphibians and reptiles extend their distribution into the Arctic, such as this moor frog Rana arvalis of Eurasia. Photo: Konstantin Mikhailov. 183 Chapter 5 Amphibians and Reptiles Authors Sergius L. Kuzmin and David F. Tessler Contents Summary ..............................................................184 We have lizards. We have seen them this year even at 5.1. Introduction .......................................................184 » the upper reaches of ‘Afanas’ki’. 5.2. Status of knowledge ..............................................184 Leader of the Saami indigenous obschina ‘Piras’ in the Kola 5.2.1. Historical overview ..........................................184 Peninsula, Andrey Yulin on northwards expansion of lizards; 5.3. Status and trends .................................................185 Zavalko & Mustonen (2004). 5.3.1. Species richness and distribution ............................185 5.3.1.1. Eastern hemisphere species �������������������������185 5.3.1.2. Western hemisphere species �������������������������186 5.3.2. Status .......................................................187 5.3.3. Trends ......................................................187 5.3.4. Prospects ...................................................187 5.4. Conclusions and recom mendations ...............................189 5.4.1. Sensitive areas and hotspots .................................189 5.4.2. Key knowledge gaps ........................................189 5.4.3. Recommended conservation actions ........................189 5.4.3.1. Research recommendations �������������������������189 5.4.3.2. Conservation action recommendations ..............189 Acknowledgements ....................................................189 References .............................................................189 184 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment SUMMARY 5.2. STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE The herpetofauna of the Arctic is depauperate relative The first scientific records of Arctic amphibians are from to temperate and tropical regions. Only five amphibians expeditions in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since and a single reptile range into the Arctic, and none are then, despite intensive study of Arctic regions, little circumpolar. All Arctic amphibian and reptile taxa are attention has been paid to understanding the distribu- currently categorized as ‘Least Concern’ according to tion and ecology of Arctic amphibians and reptiles. IUCN criteria. However, basic survey and inventory data Few works on the distribution, morphology, genetics, for these species are lacking across most of the Arctic, phenology, development, hibernation and diet of Arctic and there are few quantitative data on abundance, status amphibians have been published. or trends for Arctic herpetofauna. At the same time, isolated populations of amphibians and reptiles in the Amphibians and reptiles reach Arctic regions only on the Arctic exist at or near their current physiological limits periphery of their ranges, where their overall abundance and likely face a number of escalating challenges stem- is low. Due to their limited dispersal capabilities and ming primarily from habitat alteration. because their distributions are defined by fine-scale microhabitat associations, their actual distributions may be quite patchy (Olson 2009). Because focused research 5.1. INTRODUCTION on amphibian and reptile biology in the Arctic is scarce, much of the data available were obtained as a by-product Although amphibians and reptiles account for nearly of other efforts. 15,000 species worldwide, only five amphibians and a single reptile are found in the Arctic. The majority 5.2.1. Historical overview of Arctic herpetofauna are found in the eastern hemi- sphere; there are no circumpolar taxa (Tab. 5.1). Am- Historical information on the Arctic distributions of phibian species richness (number of species) in the Arctic amphibians and reptiles is very limited. To date, there is as low as in desert regions. Amphibians and reptiles have been only two published studies on the historical are phylogenetically the oldest of terrestrial vertebrates, phylogeography of Arctic herpetofauna using molecular and their limited representation in the Arctic is due in techniques. large measure to their poikilothermic physiology (body temperature determined by ambient conditions). Poyarkov & Kuzmin (2008) investigated molecular genetics in the Siberian newt throughout its range and A number of recent publications have suggested ma- found that patterns of genetic differentiation of Siberian jor changes to herpetological systematics (Frost et al. populations are likely the result of repeated processes of 2006, Roelants et al. 2007), but because these proposed colonization of new territories during inter-glacial ep- changes are not yet universally accepted and many names ochs and subsequent retreats into more temperate belts remain in a state of flux, we follow stable herpetological during glacial peaks. Following the peak of the most taxonomy as described in Collins & Taggart (2002) and recent glacial maximum, the Siberian newt likely first Kuzmin & Semenov (2006). colonized territories in E Siberia, followed by coloniza- tion events west towards the Urals and east towards Eastern hemisphere taxa: Beringia and Kamchatka. Dispersal to the north and Siberian newt Salamandrella keyserlingii west appears to have taken place very quickly. Common frog Rana temporaria Moor frog Rana arvalis In North America, an investigation of the historic phy- Siberian wood frog Rana amurensis logeography of the wood frog using mitochondrial genes Common lizard Lacerta vivipara suggests a post glacial range expansion that differs from Western hemisphere taxa: most other herpetofaunal taxa on the continent (Lee- Wood frog Rana sylvatica Yaw et al. 2008). The wood frog appears to have radiated Table 5.1. Amphibian and reptile taxa of the Arctic. ‘Redlisted’ denotes taxa on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. * denotes known trends over the past 10-20 years. Region Orders Families Genera Species Sub species Stable* Increasing* Decreasing* No Info.* Redlisted Arctic 2 3 3 5 – ? – – 5 0 WH Arctic 1 1 1 1 – ? – – 1 0 WH high Arctic – – – – – ? – – – 0 WH low Arctic 1 1 1 1 – ? – – 1 0 EH Arctic 2 3 3 4 – ? – – 4 0 EH high Arctic – – – – – ? – – – 0 EH low Arctic 2 3 3 4 – ? – – 4 0 Chapter 5 • Amphibians and Reptiles 185 Figure 5.1. Known locations of Eastern Hemisphere Arctic amphibian and reptile species. Colored dots indicate known locations: Red dots represent Siberian Newt; Blue connotes the common frog; yellow signifies Siberian wood frog; Pink indicates moor frog; and brown signifies common lizard. The graphic only includes data from the vicinity of the Arctic and sub-Arctic and is not indicative of the global distribution of these species. Data from Amphibians of the former USSR, Databank ® 0229803415 and Gasc et al. 1997. from a number of high-latitude refugia in what is now species richness of amphibians and reptiles appears to be the northeastern United States, while most amphibians zero or one. currently found in western and northwestern North America appear to have radiated from lower-latitude ref- 5.3.1.1. Eastern hemisphere species ugia to the west. Colonization following the last glacial maximum appears to have been rapid, with expansion to The Siberian newt is the most widespread amphibian the north and northwest (Arctic Alaska and most of sub- species in the Arctic and sub-Arctic (Fig. 5.1), and has Arctic Canada) having occurred from a single putative the widest geographical range of any recent amphibian refugium near the edge of the Laurentide ice-sheet in species, c. 12 million km2. The northernmost habitats present-day Wisconsin, while radiation into sub-Arctic of the Siberian newt consist of grass-undershrub-lichen- Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador took place from moss bogs and low shrub-moss and grass-moss tundras. another refugium near the Appalachian Mountains in the The newt penetrates the Arctic in the area of the polar vicinity of Pennsylvania. Urals and eastwards, and is found along the Khatanga River on the Taimyr Peninsula just south of the low Arctic (Kuzmin 1994). It reaches the Arctic Ocean in 5.3. STATUS AND TRENDS some areas of the Republic of Sakha-Yakutia, in par- ticular, near Chukochya Guba in Nizhnekolymskii. The 5.3.1. Species richness and distribution Amguema River in the Shmidtovskii District of Chukot- ka marks the northeastern extent of its distribution. Maximum Arctic amphibian and reptile richness, three species, occurs south of the Yamal Peninsula, where Frogs Rana spp. are more narrowly distributed in the the European common frog and moor frog coexist with Arctic than the Siberian newt. The common frog and the Siberian newt. The moor frog and common frog the moor frog are mainly inhabitants of Europe but both are sympatric on the Kanin Peninsula and in the Vor- range eastwards to the Urals, with the moor frog found kuta region, while the Siberian newt and Siberian wood into E Siberia. The common frog crosses into the low frog both inhabit the Khaiyr Settlement in Republic of Arctic only in the northernmost peninsulas of Norway Sakha-Yakutia. Throughout the remainder of the Arctic, (Gasc et al.1997) and along the eastern slope of the polar 186 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment Urals at the southern border of the Yamal Peninsula, in The common lizard is the only reptile species found in the Priuralskii District of Yamal-Nenetskii Autonomous the Arctic.