CONSERVATION

Recommendations

Info

Conservation reassessment of Mexican amphibians Incilius pisinnus. The Michoacán toad, a state endemic, is known only from the Tepalcatepec Depression. This toad’s EVS has individual came from Apatzingán. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. Craugastor hobartsmithi. The distribution of the endemic Smith’s pygmy robber frog is along the southwestern portion of the Mexican Plateau, from Nayarit and Jalisco to Michoacán and the state of México. Its EVS has been determined as 15, placing it in the lower portion of the high vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Endangered. This individual is from the Sierra de Manantlán in Jalisco. Photo by Iván Trinidad Ahumada-Carrillo. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org 100 August 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e69
Wilson et al. Nonetheless, building a sustainable society requires steps that only a few people appear willing to take. Thus, efforts by conservation biologists to reverse biodiversity decline, including amphibian population decline, must proceed with the realization that we will only be designing short-term solutions that deal with the symptoms of the problems rather than their causes. Within this realization, we undertake the following reassessment of the conservation status of the amphibians of Mexico. A Revised Environmental Vulnerability Measure In conducting a conservation reassessment of Mexican reptiles, Wilson et al. (2013) revised the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS) from that used in various the EVS measure for use with Mexican amphibians, especially by substituting the human persecution scale used for reptiles with a reproductive mode scale, as did Wilson and McCranie (2004) and other authors who used this measure with Central American amphibians (see Wilson et al. 2010). Wilson et al. (2013) indicated that the EVS measure originally was designed for use in cases where the details of the population status of a species, upon which many of the criteria for IUCN status categorization depend, were not available, as well as to provide an estimate of the susceptibility of amphibians and reptiles to future environmental threats. The advantages for using the EVS measure are indicated below (see EVS for Mexican amphibians). The EVS algorithm we developed for use with Mexican amphibians consists of three scales, for which the values are added to produce the Environmental Vulner- bution, as follows: 1 = distribution broadly represented both inside and outside Mexico (large portions of range are both inside and outside Mexico) 2 = distribution prevalent inside Mexico, but limited outside Mexico (most of range is inside Mexico) 3 = distribution limited inside Mexico, but prevalent outside Mexico (most of range is outside Mexico) 4 = distribution limited both inside and outside Mexico (most of range is marginal to areas near border of Mexico and the United States or Central America) 5 = distribution within Mexico only, but not restricted to vicinity of type locality 6 = distribution limited to Mexico in the vicinity of type locality The second scale deals with ecological distribution, as follows: 1 = occurs in eight or more formations 2 = occurs in seven formations 3 = occurs in six formations 5 = occurs in four formations 6 = occurs in three formations 7 = occurs in two formations 8 = occurs in one formation The third scale is concerned with the type of reproductive mode, as follows: 1 = both eggs and tadpoles in large to small bodies of lentic or lotic water 2 = eggs in foam nests, tadpoles in small bodies of lentic or lotic water 3 = tadpoles occur in small bodies of lentic or lotic water, eggs outside of water 4 = eggs laid in moist situation on land or moist arboreal situations, direct development, or viviparous 5 = eggs and tadpoles in water-retaining arboreal bro- Once these three components are added, their EVS can range from 3 to 19. Wilson and McCranie (2004) allocated the range of scores for Honduran amphibians into three categories of vulnerability to environmental degradation, as follows: low (3–9); medium (10–13); and high (14–19). We use the same categorization. Recent Changes to the Mexican Amphibian Fauna Our knowledge of the composition of the Mexican amphibian fauna keeps changing due to discovery of new species and the systematic adjustment of certain known species, which adds or subtracts from the list of taxa that appeared in Wilson et al. (2010). Since that time, the following seven species have been described or resurrected: Incilius aurarius: Mendelson et al. 2012. Journal of Herpetology 46: 473–479. New species. Incilius mccoyi: Santos-Barrera and Flores Villela. 2011. Journal of Herpetology 45: 211–215. New species. Craugastor saltator: Hedges et al. 2008. Zootaxa 1737: 1–182. Resurrected from synonymy of C. mexicanus. Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org 101 August 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e69
Page 1 and 2:
Published in the United States of A
Page 3 and 4:
Copyright: © 2013 Wilson. This is
Page 5 and 6:
Copyright: © 2013 Johnson et al. T
Page 7 and 8:
field, they managed to secure prese
Page 9 and 10:
Xenosaurus tzacualtipantecus. The Z
Page 11 and 12:
Wilson et al. construido ocho recom
Page 13 and 14:
Wilson et al. terms of taxonomic br
Page 15 and 16:
Wilson et al. which many of the cri
Page 17 and 18:
Wilson et al. The following 18 taxa
Page 19 and 20:
Wilson et al. Rhadinella lachrymans
Page 21 and 22:
Table 1. IUCN Red List categorizati
Page 23 and 24:
Wilson et al. evaluated on the webs
Page 25 and 26:
Families Number of species Environm
Page 27 and 28:
Wilson et al. Crotalus catalinensis
Page 29 and 30:
Wilson et al. Xantusia sanchezi. Th
Page 31 and 32:
Wilson et al. of the reptiles of Me
Page 33 and 34:
Wilson et al. fully comply with the
Page 35 and 36:
Wilson et al. Diversidad y Endemism
Page 37 and 38:
Wilson et al. Appendix 1. Compariso
Page 39 and 40:
Wilson et al. Barisia herrerae* EN
Page 41 and 42:
Wilson et al. Anolis unilobatus NE
Page 43 and 44:
Wilson et al. Sceloporus heterolepi
Page 45 and 46:
Wilson et al. Plestiodon callicepha
Page 47 and 48:
Wilson et al. Xantusia gilberti* NE
Page 49 and 50:
Wilson et al. Salvadora bairdi* LC
Page 51 and 52:
Wilson et al. Geophis juarezi* DD 6
Page 53 and 54:
Wilson et al. Rena boettgeri* NE 5
Page 55 and 56:
Wilson et al. Crotalus viridis LC 1
Page 57 and 58: Copyright: © 2013 Porras et al. Th
Page 59 and 60: Taxonomy and conservation of the co
Page 61 and 62: Fig. 3. Young adult Agkistrodon b.
Page 63 and 64: Porras et al. Fig. 8. Young Agkistr
Page 65 and 66: Porras et al. Molecular Assessment
Page 67 and 68: Porras et al. Fig. 12. Character ma
Page 69 and 70: Porras et al. Fig. 14. Distribution
Page 71 and 72: Porras et al. Agkistrodon howardglo
Page 73 and 74: pectinata (threatened), and Eretmoc
Page 75 and 76: Porras et al. Literature Cited Acev
Page 77 and 78: Porras et al. Species. Version 2012
Page 79 and 80: Taxonomy and conservation of the co
Page 81 and 82: Coloration of neonates/juveniles: s
Page 83 and 84: Copyright: © 2013 Reiserer et al.
Page 85 and 86: Taxonomy and conservation of beaded
Page 97 and 98: Área de Protección de Fauna y Flo
Page 105 and 106: Pseudoeurycea naucampatepetl. The C
Page 107: Wilson et al. How will humans react
Page 111 and 112: Wilson et al. Charadrahyla tecuani:
Page 113 and 114: Wilson et al. threatened, near exti
Page 115 and 116: Wilson et al. These data from the I
Page 117 and 118: Wilson et al. An EVS of 14, at the
Page 119 and 120: Wilson et al. We noted in Wilson et
Page 121 and 122: Wilson et al. EVS of 16, and decrea
Page 123 and 124: Wilson et al. 4. Finding ways to us
Page 125 and 126: Wilson et al. Museum, University of
Page 127 and 128: Species Wilson et al. Appendix 1. C
Page 129 and 130: Wilson et al. Eleutherodactylus niv
Page 131 and 132: Wilson et al. Smilisca baudinii LC
Page 133 and 134: Wilson et al. Bolitoglossa rufescen
Page 135 and 136: Wilson et al. Thorius troglodytes*
Page 137 and 138: Copyright: © 2013 Alvarado-Díaz e
Page 139 and 140: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Incilius pisi
Page 141 and 142: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Materials and
Page 143 and 144: Alvarado-Díaz et al. The lowest me
Page 145 and 146: Alvarado-Díaz et al. efforts, inas
Page 147 and 148: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Squamata (153
Page 149 and 150: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Pituophis lin
Page 151 and 152: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Geoemydidae (
Page 153 and 154: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Ambystoma vel
Page 155 and 156: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Ambystoma dum
Page 157 and 158: Alvarado-Díaz et al. Exerodonta sm
Page 159 and 160:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Sceloporus to
Page 161 and 162:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Tropidodipsas
Page 163 and 164:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Barisia imbri
Page 165 and 166:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Leptotyphlopi
Page 167 and 168:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Corytophanida
Page 169 and 170:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. (the NE speci
Page 171 and 172:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Crotalus basi
Page 173 and 174:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Xenodontidae
Page 175 and 176:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. of the state
Page 177 and 178:
Alvarado-Díaz et al. Stuart SN, Wi
Page 179:
CONTENTS Administration, journal in
show all

CONSERVATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?