Research Article |
Corresponding author: Ignacio Minoli ( minoli@cenpat-conicet.gob.ar ) Academic editor: Aaron Bauer
© 2015 Ignacio Minoli, Mariana Morando, Luciano Javier Avila.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Minoli I, Morando M, Avila LJ (2015) Reptiles of Chubut province, Argentina: richness, diversity, conservation status and geographic distribution maps. ZooKeys 498: 103-126. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.498.7476
|
An accurate estimation of species and population geographic ranges is essential for species-focused studies and conservation and management plans. Knowledge of the geographic distributions of reptiles from Patagonian Argentina is in general limited and dispersed over manuscripts from a wide variety of topics. We completed an extensive review of reptile species of central Patagonia (Argentina) based on information from a wide variety of sources. We compiled and checked geographic distribution records from published literature and museum records, including extensive new data from the LJAMM-CNP (CENPAT-CONICET) herpetological collection. Our results show that there are 52 taxa recorded for this region and the highest species richness was seen in the families Liolaemidae and Dipsadidae with 31 and 10 species, respectively. The Patagónica was the phytogeographic province most diverse in species and Phymaturus was the genus of conservation concern most strongly associated with it. We present a detailed species list with geographical information, richness species, diversity analyses with comparisons across phytogeographical provinces, conservation status, taxonomic comments and distribution maps for all of these taxa.
Biogeography, diversity, herpetofauna, conservation, central Patagonia, Argentina
Precise estimation of species’ geographic ranges based on accurate taxonomic identification is central for species-focused studies and conservation and management plans (
The northern and central areas of Patagonia have changed since the 1890s and have undergone steady change as a result of human activity, but there has been no clear understanding of the resulting effects on biodiversity. Over the twentieth century, business activities such as oil extraction, mining and ranching have caused changes in different ecosystems of this area. In particular, sheep overgrazing (
Vertebrate surveys and the elaboration of regional lists provide basic information, not only for systematic and biogeographic studies, but also for wildlife conservation plans, natural management and bio-ecological studies. This study is the first reptile inventory with detailed and updated geographic distributional data for Central Patagonia, Chubut Province. We compiled and checked geographic distribution records from published literature and museum records, including extensive new data from the LJAMM-CNP (CENPAT-CONICET) herpetological collection. We performed a spatial analysis considering all sampled localities, and two species richness analyses: 1) related to sampled areas within a grid, and 2) related to phytogeographic provinces. Furthermore, we analyzed species diversity within phytogeographic provinces along with a dissimilarity index among them, and also detailed geographic information for reptile occurrence based on administrative (political) units called Departments. Additionally, we discuss all the geographic records considered erroneous or outdated on a separate taxonomic section.
The study area of this work is comprised in the Chubut Province (Argentina), with a central-latitudinal location between 42°00'–46°00'S and 72°08'–63°35'W, covering approximately 224,686 km2 divided into 15 administrative departments (
Extensive biological surveys began in early 1998 and continued until 2011, with field trips made at different representative areas of Chubut province. Most specimens were collected in the vicinity of roads and the majority of snake records are from individuals found killed by vehicles. Each record has a voucher number with a species identity assigned, date and place of origin. Collection sites were geographically referenced using a Garmin GPS 12™ Global Position Device. The systematic classification for families was according to
We constructed a hexagonal cell grid (
We compiled a total of 2,842 reptile presence records (Fig.
A Presence of reptiles recorded for central Patagonia, based on a spatial grid. Blue gradient grid: representing the number of localities sampled within each cell; brown lines: roads from a vector line shapefile; department’s names and main geographic references are presented B Species richness of reptiles recorded for central Patagonia, analyzed based on a spatial grid. Green gradient grid: representing the richness within each cell C Species richness of reptile recorded for central Patagonia, analyzed based on phytogeographic provinces. White circles: representing the richness within each phytogeographic province polygon; map legend: total species per phytogeographic province. References: magenta dots: localities with accurate location information.
Presence of reptiles for Chubut province. References: A = LJAMM-CNP, B = museum or literature, C = both. Departments: 1 = Biedma, 2 = Cushamen, 3 = Escalante, 4 = Florentino Ameghino, 5 = Futaleufú, 6 = Gaiman, 7 = Gastre, 8 = Languiñeo, 9 = Mártires, 10 = Paso de Indios, 11 = Rawson, 12 = Río Senguer, 13 = Sarmiento, 14 = Tehuelches, 15 = Telsen, 16 = Without department information, 17 = phytogeographic provinces (PS – Subantártica, PP – Patagónica, PDM – del Monte).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AMPHISBAENIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Amphisbaena plumbea (Fig. |
C | C | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||||
Amphisbaena kingii (Fig. |
B | B | PDM | ||||||||||||||
CHELONIIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Chelonia mydas (Fig. |
B | PP | |||||||||||||||
DIPSADIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Paraphimophis rustica | B | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||||||
Erythrolamprus sagittifer sagittifer (Fig. |
B | A | B | B | PDM | ||||||||||||
Xenodon semicinctus | B | ||||||||||||||||
Oxyrhopus rhombifer (Fig. |
B | B | PDM | ||||||||||||||
Phalotris bilineatus (Fig. |
B | PDM | |||||||||||||||
Philodryas patagoniensis (Fig. |
C | A | A | A | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||
Philodryas psammophidea | B | B | PDM | ||||||||||||||
Philodryas trilineata (Fig. |
C | A | A | A | B | PDM | |||||||||||
Pseudotomodon trigonatus (Fig. |
C | C | A | A | B | PP, PDM | |||||||||||
Tachymenis chilensis (Fig. |
B | C | B | PP | |||||||||||||
LEIOSAURIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Diplolaemus bibronii (Fig. |
B | C | C | C | C | A | A | B | PP | ||||||||
Diplolaemus darwinii (Fig. |
C | C | A | B | PP | ||||||||||||
Diplolaemus sexcinctus (Fig. |
A | A | A | A | B | PP | |||||||||||
Leiosaurus bellii (Fig. |
C | B | B | A | A | A | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||
Pristidactylus nigroiugulus (Fig. |
A | A | A | C | C | PP, PDM | |||||||||||
PHYLLODACTYLIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Homonota darwinii (Fig. |
C | A | C | A | A | A | A | A | C | C | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||
TEIIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Aurivela longicauda (Fig. |
C | A | PDM | ||||||||||||||
VIPERIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Bothrops ammodytoides (Fig. |
B | B | A | B | PP, PDM |
Presence of Liolaemidae taxa for Chubut province. References: A = LJAMM-CNP, B = museum or literature, C = both. Departments: 1 = Biedma, 2 = Cushamen, 3 = Escalante, 4 = Florentino Ameghino, 5 = Futaleufú, 6 = Gaiman, 7 = Gastre, 8 = Languiñeo, 9 = Mártires, 10 = Paso de Indios, 11 = Rawson, 12 = Río Senguer, 13 = Sarmiento, 14 = Tehuelches, 15 = Telsen, 16 = Without department information, 17 = phytogeographic provinces (PS – Subantártica, PP – Patagónica, PDM – del Monte).
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LIOLAEMIDAE | |||||||||||||||||
Liolaemus bibronii (Fig. |
A | A | C | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | A | B | PP, PDM | |||
Liolaemus boulengeri (Fig. |
B | C | A | C | B | B | A | C | A | A | C | A | C | A | B | PP, PDM | |
Liolaemus camarones (Fig. |
C | PP | |||||||||||||||
Liolaemus canqueli (Fig. |
A | A | A | C | B | PP, PDM | |||||||||||
Liolaemus chehuachekenk (Fig. |
A | A | A | A | A | PP, PDM | |||||||||||
Liolaemus darwinii (Fig. |
C | A | A | C | C | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||
Liolaemus elongatus (Fig. |
A | A | C | A | A | C | C | A | B | PP, PS | |||||||
Liolaemus fitzingerii (Fig. |
B | C | C | A | A | A | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||
Liolaemus gracilis (Fig. |
C | A | A | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||||
Liolaemus kingii (Fig. |
A | C | A | C | C | C | C | A | B | PP, PS | |||||||
Liolaemus kriegi (Fig. |
B | B | PP | ||||||||||||||
Liolaemus lineomaculatus (Fig. |
C | C | C | A | B | PP, PS | |||||||||||
Liolaemus morandae (Fig. |
C | A | PP | ||||||||||||||
Liolaemus melanops (Fig. |
C | A | C | A | C | C | B | PP, PDM | |||||||||
Liolaemus petrophilus (Fig. |
A | A | A | C | C | A | A | PP, PDM | |||||||||
Liolaemus pictus argentinus (Fig. |
A | A | B | PS | |||||||||||||
Liolaemus rothi (Fig. |
A | A | C | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||||
Liolaemus senguer (Fig. |
A | C | C | PP | |||||||||||||
Liolaemus shehuen (Fig. |
C | PP, PDM | |||||||||||||||
Liolaemus somuncurae (Fig. |
A | PP | |||||||||||||||
Liolaemus telsen (Fig. |
C | PP, PDM | |||||||||||||||
Liolaemus uptoni (Fig. |
C | PP | |||||||||||||||
Liolaemus xanthoviridis (Fig. |
A | C | B | A | A | C | B | PP, PDM | |||||||||
Phymaturus calcogaster (Fig. |
C | PP, PDM | |||||||||||||||
Phymaturus camilae (Fig. |
B | PP | |||||||||||||||
Phymaturus castillensis (Fig. |
B | PP | |||||||||||||||
Phymaturus felixi (Fig. |
C | PP | |||||||||||||||
Phymaturus indistinctus (Fig. |
C | B | PP | ||||||||||||||
Phymaturus patagonicus (Fig. |
B | C | C | B | PP, PDM | ||||||||||||
Phymaturus somuncurensis (Fig. |
C | B | PP | ||||||||||||||
Phymaturus videlai (Fig. |
B | PP |
Reptile list records based on the information source: A) number of family records from the LJAMM-CNP collection, B) number of family records from literature and museum information, C) number of total records per family, D) number of genera per family, E) number of species per genus.
Families | A (n = 2222) | B (n = 620) | C (n = 2832) | D (n = 18) | E (n = 52) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amphisbaenidae | 4 | 10 | 14 | 1 | 2 |
Cheloniidae | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Dipsadidae | 35 | 54 | 89 | 8 | 10 |
Leiosauridae | 96 | 66 | 162 | 3 | 5 |
Liolaemidae | 1840 | 462 | 2302 | 2 | 31 |
Phyllodactylidae | 244 | 9 | 253 | 1 | 1 |
Teiidae | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Viperidae | 2 | 16 | 18 | 1 | 1 |
The families that showed the highest species number were Liolaemidae and Dipsadidae with 31 and 10 species respectively (Table
Reptile records for political department based on the information source: A) number of family records from the LJAMM-CNP collection, B) number of family records from literature and museum information, C) total records per political department.
Political departments | A (n = 2222) | B (n = 620) | C (n = 2842) | Area km2 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Biedma | 169 | 63 | 232 | 12920.36 |
Cushamen | 76 | 28 | 104 | 16312.96 |
Escalante | 174 | 13 | 187 | 14286.51 |
Florentino Ameghino | 139 | 48 | 187 | 15866.99 |
Futaleufú | 31 | 12 | 43 | 9162.13 |
Gaiman | 28 | 32 | 60 | 11633.59 |
Gastre | 104 | 11 | 115 | 15996.02 |
Languiñeo | 150 | 36 | 186 | 14798.94 |
Mártires | 96 | 5 | 101 | 15645.31 |
Paso de Indios | 326 | 84 | 410 | 22232.58 |
Rawson | 32 | 17 | 49 | 4151.81 |
Río Senguer | 134 | 29 | 163 | 22868.47 |
Sarmiento | 86 | 26 | 112 | 14543.86 |
Tehuelches | 81 | 21 | 102 | 14594.87 |
Telsen | 596 | 68 | 664 | 19459.08 |
Without department information | 0 | 127 | 127 | ---- |
The cells from central-east of Telsen (e.g. 35 and 34 localities) and west of Gastre (14 localities) Departments and the area around Puerto Madryn city (22 localities), represent the most over-sampled regions of Central Patagonia (Fig.
The highest reptile diversity was recorded for the Patagónica province (H = 2.98898; D = 0.9330269), while the lowest diversity was found for the Subantártica province (H = 1.232643; D = 0.6632653, Table
Species diversity in central Patagonia, Argentina: PS) Subantártica province, PP) Patagónica province, PDM) del Monte province.
Diversity | Species richness (S) | Shannon-Weaver’s index (H) | Simpson’s index (D) |
---|---|---|---|
PS | 4 | 1.232643 | 0.6632653 |
PP | 42 | 2.98898 | 0.9330269 |
PDM | 30 | 2.513668 | 0.8555218 |
Jaccard index (djk) | PS | PP | PDM |
PS | 0 | 0.9943445 | 1 |
PP | 0.9943445 | 0 | 0.8839369 |
PDM | 1 | 0.8839369 | 0 |
We recorded five zoogeographical novelties: (1) First record of Pseudotomodon trigonatus for Telsen Department; (2) southernmost record of Liolaemus gracilis in Argentina and first vouchered presence for Gaiman Department; (3) first records of L. kingii for Cushamen, Escalante, Futaleufú, Languiñeo, Paso de Indios, Río Senguer and Tehuelches Departments; (4) first records of L. rothi for Cushamen and Gastre Departments; (5) first records of Phymaturus indistinctus for Río Senguer Department. The reptile species list for Chubut province is detailed in Tables
Based on the reptile species list for Chubut province and updated species distribution detailed above; we provide specific comments for published records for which we detected problems:
We did not consider
We did not take into account the records of Liolaemus ceii (Donoso-Barros, 1971) for Nahuel Pan, Futaleufú Department, cited as the southernmost limit of this species by
We did not consider the records for Liolaemus kingii for Península Valdés (CENAI 1761), L. lineomaculatus (CENAI 1768 = JD-Z 1589) for Puerto Madryn and L. melanops (CENAI 854 = JD-Z 1734) for Sierra Cuadrada from
Liolaemus wiegmannii (
We did not consider the records IBA-UNC N°1142, 1076, 1075 CNP N°28, 33–4, 79 for Liolaemus goetschi (
We did not include on a map the reference for Liolaemus lineomaculatus Boulenger, 1885 MLP.S. 2106 (
We consider that, the taxonomic identity for the records of Liolaemus xanthoviridis (
Knowledge about world biodiversity remains inadequate because most species living on Earth are still not formally described (the Linnean shortfall) and because geographical distributions of most species are poorly understood and usually contain many gaps (the Wallacean shortfall;
Some biases are evident in our study; north-central and northeastern areas of the Chubut province have a high number of data because they were more intensively sampled due to their proximity to our research center, or because they were used in several ecological studies and have easy access by road or trails (Fig.
The spatial occurrence of Homonota darwinii is fragmented across the studied area with two distributional gaps: a western strip and central and eastern areas of the Chubut province (Fig.
The most remarkable results from a conservation status standpoint are that only one taxon (Chelonia mydas) is considered endangered, seven of the eight Phymaturus species are vulnerable and Psuedotomodon trigonatus is data deficient (Fig.
Imagery source: Blue Marble Next Generation (true-color), Web Map Service (WMS) layer from CREAF MAP SERVER (open-gis), EPSG: 4326. A Records of Cheloniidae, Dipsadidae and Viperidae. Green dot: Chelonia mydas; light blue dot: Erythrolamprus sagittifer sagittifer; magenta dot: Phalotris bilineatus; red dots: Bothrops ammodytoides; orange dots: Oxyrhopus rhombifer; black dots: Pseudotomodon trigonatus; blue dots: Philodryas patagoniensis; yellow dots: P. trilineata; grey dots: Tachymenis chilensis B Records of lizards. Black dots: Amphisbaena plumbea; light blue dot: A. kingii; red dot: Aurivela longicauda; magenta dots: Diplolaemus bibronii; blue dots: D. darwinii; orange dots: D. sexcinctus; yellow dots: Leiosaurus bellii; green dots: Pristidactylus nigroiugulus C Records of Homonota darwinii D Records of some Liolaemus species. Blue dots: Liolaemus bibronii; red dots: L. boulengeri E Records of some Liolaemus species. Magenta dots: Liolaemus camarones; black dots: L. canqueli; green dots: L. chehuachekenk; orange dots: L. darwinii; light blue dots: L. elongatus; yellow dots: L. fitzingerii; blue dots: L. gracilis; white dots: L. shehuen F Records of some Liolaemus species. Light blue dots: Liolaemus kingii; red dot: L. kriegi; yellow dots: L. lineomaculatus; green dots: L. melanops; magenta dots: L. morandae; blue dots: L. petrophilus G Records of some Liolaemus species. Magenta dots: Liolaemus pictus argentinus; orange dots: L. rothi; green dots: L. senguer; yellow dot: L. somuncurae; light blue dots: L. telsen; blue dots: L. uptoni; red dots: L. xanthoviridis H Records of Phymaturus species. Red dots: Phymaturus calcogaster; white dot: P. camilae; green dot: P. castillensis; blue dot: P. felixi; yellow dots: P. indistinctus; light blue dots: P. patagonicus; orange dots: P. somuncurensis; magenta dot: P. videlai.
In summary, the systematic knowledge of several groups are essential to conservation decisions (see
Past and present members of the Grupo de Herpetología Patagónica for help in field and laboratory tasks, in special to C. H. F. Pérez, L. Camporro, N. Frutos, M. L. Kozykariski, N. Feltrin (in memorian), M. F. Breitman, C. D. Medina, J. Goldman, C. A. Durante, R. Neyro Martínez and M. Olave for field trips; Cotti, V. Paiaro and M. Nicola help us in field trips. F. Lobo for museum and L. C. Belver for specimens data; U. Pardiñas, J. Pardiñas, M. Carrera and D. E. Udrizar Sauthier for donation of some snakes specimens; A. M. Beeskow and A. L. Hardtke, for their opinions on spatial analyses and all curators of the consulted collections. Financial support for field work was provided by a CONICET fellowship issued to I. Minoli, grants from ANPCYT (FONCYT PICT 2006-00506, 33789, 2011-0784, 1397, and CONICET (PEI 2001-6397, PIP 2005-6469), several small grants from Brigham Young University (including Monte L. Bean Museum, College of Agriculture and Biology, Department of Biology, Kennedy Center for International Studies, (granted to J.W. Sites Jr.), and mainly from the National Science Foundation grant “Partnership for International Research and Education” award (OISE 0530267) for support for collaborative research on Patagonian biodiversity granted to the following institutions (listed alphabetically): Brigham Young University, Centro Nacional Patagónico, Dalhousie University, Darwinion Botanical Institute, Universidad Austral de Chile, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Universidad de Concepción, and University of Nebraska (issued to J. Johnson).
Specimens examined from LJAMM-CNP herpetological collection
Data type: Portable Document Format (pdf).
Explanation note: Specimens examined from LJAMM-CNP herpetological collection, museum voucher and bibliography data for the reptile’s distribution in Chubut province, Patagonia, Argentina. Additional figures of the results section.