CONSERVATION

Recommendations

Info

Conservation reassessment of Mexican amphibians Dermophis oaxacae. The endemic Oaxacan caecilian is distributed in Colima, Jalisco, Michoacán, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Chiapas. Its EVS has been calculated as 12, placing it in the middle portion of the medium vulnerability category, and its IUCN status as Data Photo by Jacobo Reyes-Velasco. species assessed as DD with those occupying the threat categories (CR, EN, and VU) to arrive at a total of 249 species (65.9% of the total amphibian fauna). The EVS range for these DD species (12–18) falls within that for the threat species as a whole (7–19) and the mean for all the four categories becomes 15.1, the same as that for the EN species alone. So, if the DD species can be considered “threat species in disguise,” then close to two-thirds of the Mexican amphibian species would be considered under the threat of extinction. The EVS for the 17 Mexican amphibian species that have not been evaluated by the IUCN range from 6 to 18 tion interest, inasmuch as the EVS of nine of them falls into the range of high vulnerability. Based on the pattern of relationships between the LC species and their corresponding EVS, this IUCN category apparently has become a “dumping ground” for a sizable number of Mexican amphibians (91; 24.1% of the amphibian fauna) and like Wilson et al. (2013: 22) concluded for Mexican reptiles, we concur that “A more discerning look at both the LC and NE species might demonstrate that many should be partitioned into other IUCN categories, rather than the LC.” The range of EVS values for this category (3–17) is almost as broad as the range of EVS (3–19) for amphibians as a whole; 37 (40.7%) of these 91 species are relegated to the low vulnerability range (3–9), 41 (45.0%) to the medium vulnerability range, and 13 (14.3%) to the high vulnerability range. Again, these results indicate that the LC category likely has been used rather indiscriminately and that the EVS algorithm provides a more useful conservation measure than the IUCN system of categories. Comparison of EVS Values for Mexican Amphibians and Reptiles One of our major reasons for writing this paper was to determine the EVS values for Mexican amphibians, so they could be compared to those calculated for Mexican reptiles in Wilson et al. (2013). Thus, we summarized the data in Table 2, and reduced them to the major group level in Table 4. We also reduced the data in Wilson et al. (2013: table 2) and placed them in our Table 4. The data in this table indicate that the range of EVS values are comparable for amphibians (3–19) and reptiles (3–20). The EVS for the number of amphibian species essentially increases until a score of 15 is reached (53 species), and at 16 drops considerably (21 species) only to spike back up at 17 and 18 (50 and 48 species, respectively). The highest EVS value (19) was assigned to a single species (the fringe-limbed hylid Ecnomiohyla echinata). For the reptiles, the numbers and percentages also increase, with the peak (126 [15.1%]) reached at an Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org 112 August 2013 | Volume 7 | Number 1 | e69
Wilson et al. EVS of 16, and decreasing rapidly thereafter. As with amphibians, only a single species (the soft-shelled turtle Apalone atra) was assigned the highest EVS (20). When the EVS values are arranged into low, medium, and high categories, the numbers and percentages of species are as follows (amphibians, followed by reptiles): low = 50 (13.2%), 99 (11.8%); medium = 106 (28.0%), 269, (32.2%); and high = 222 (58.8%), 468, (56.0%). The percentages for these two groups are comparable and arranged in the same order. The greatest concern is that in both amphibians and reptiles more than one-half of the species fall into the upper portion of the high vulnerability category, indicating that the Mexican herpetofauna is seriously imperiled. Of the major groups of amphibians and reptiles, Mexican salamanders were judged the most imperiled. Of the 139 species known from the country, 121 (87.1%) were assessed in the high vulnerability category. The compa- half of that for salamanders. Among the reptiles, lizards were judged more threatened than snakes. Of the lizards, 247 (60.4%) fall within the high vulnerability category; Turtles, although fewer in numbers, are more threatened than other reptiles, with 33 species (78.6%) in the high vulnerability category. knowledged widely as threatened on a global basis, a fair accounting of the worldwide conservation status of most reptiles remains unavailable. Our use of the EVS measure for Mexican amphibians and reptiles demonstrates that both groups are in grave peril, and we expect that this situation will worsen exponentially in the coming decades. Discussion Global amphibian population decline has occupied the attention of herpetologists since the late 1980s (Gascon et al. 2007). In the years that followed, the Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) was undertaken (Stuart et al. 2004), which uncovered the startling conclusions discussed in the Introduction. As noted in the foreword the breadth of amphibian losses worldwide and made it clear that business as usual—the customary conservation approaches and practices—were not working.” As a result, an Amphibian Conservation Summit was convened in September 2005, which resulted in a putatively comprehensive Amphibian Conservation Action Plan (ACAP; Gascon et al. 2007). The ACAP declaration proposed (p. 59) that, “Four kinds of intervention are needed to conserve amphibians, all of which need to be started immediately: 1. Expanded understanding of the causes of declines and extinctions 2. Ongoing documentation of amphibian diversity, and how it is changing 3. Development and implementation of long-term conservation programmes 4. Emergency responses to immediate crises.” We maintain that the ACAP does an admirable job of examining many of the issues directly related to amphibian decline, but this examination essentially stops after considering the proximate symptoms of the problem. Nonetheless, as noted by Wilson and Townsend (2010: 774), “problems created by humans, i.e., overpopulation and its sequelae, are not solved by treating only their symptoms, e.g., organismic endangerment.” Consequently, trying to deal with a symptom of overpopulation and resource overuse and abuse, such as amphibian decline, will create only limited short-term responses, instead of lasting solutions to the fundamental problems tied to the impact of humans. Thus, ultimately, amphibian decline will not be successfully addressed. The fundamental problem is that humans have not created a sustainable existence for themselves. Understanding why not is simple through examination of the principles of sustainability elaborated by Miller and Spoolman (2012: 6), as follows: relying on solar energy, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. the sun and on natural resources and natural services (natural capital) provided by the earth. and degrading more of the earth’s natural capital. tion growth, wasteful and unsustainable resource use, poverty, and not including the harmful environmental costs of resource use in the market prices of goods and services. determining whether we live unsustainably or more sustainably. ral income without depleting or degrading the natural capital that supplies it.” Living unsustainably is a consequence of unregulated human population growth that generates the overuse and abuse of renewable and non-renewable resources, and dependence on a cost-accounting system that ignores factoring in clean up expenses in determining how goods and services are priced. Life-sustaining resources are not distributed equitably among people, but along a scale ranging from very high to very low. Poverty is the consequence of existing at the low end of the scale, where people are unable to meet their basic needs for adequate food and water, clothing, or shelter (Raven and Berg 2004). Amphib. Reptile Conserv. | http://redlist-ARC.org 113 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 and 108: Wilson et al. How will humans react
Page 109 and 110: Wilson et al. Nonetheless, building
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: Wilson et al. We noted in Wilson et
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?