Research Article
Print
Research Article
Taxonomic diversity of amphibians (Amphibia, Anura) and reptiles (Reptilia, Testudines, Squamata) in a heterogeneous landscape in west-central Mexico: a checklist and notes on geographical distributions
expand article infoVerónica Carolina Rosas-Espinoza‡, Eliza Álvarez-Grzybowska‡, Arquímedes Alfredo Godoy González‡, Ana Luisa Santiago-Pérez‡, Karen Elizabeth Peña-Joya§, Fabián Alejandro Rodríguez-Zaragoza‡, Leopoldo Díaz Pérez‡, Francisco Martín Huerta Martínez‡
‡ Universidad de Guadalajara, Zapopan, Mexico
§ Universidad de Guadalajara, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Corresponding author: Francisco Martín Huerta Martínez ( martin.huerta@academicos.udg.mx )

Academic editor: Uri García-Vázquez
© 2024 Verónica Carolina Rosas-Espinoza, Eliza Álvarez-Grzybowska, Arquímedes Alfredo Godoy González, Ana Luisa Santiago-Pérez, Karen Elizabeth Peña-Joya, Fabián Alejandro Rodríguez-Zaragoza, Leopoldo Díaz Pérez, Francisco Martín Huerta Martínez.
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: Rosas-Espinoza VC, Álvarez-Grzybowska E, Godoy González AA, Santiago-Pérez AL, Peña-Joya KE, Rodríguez-Zaragoza FA, Díaz Pérez L, Huerta Martínez FM (2024) Taxonomic diversity of amphibians (Amphibia, Anura) and reptiles (Reptilia, Testudines, Squamata) in a heterogeneous landscape in west-central Mexico: a checklist and notes on geographical distributions. ZooKeys 1211: 29-55. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1211.122565
ZooBank: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:6B1977D8-A2B0-4CCA-A3BE-76E876AE0C38
Open Access

Abstract

In Mexico, land use changes have significantly impacted the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in a negative way. In light of this, we evaluate the alpha and beta components of the taxonomic diversity of amphibians and reptiles in a heterogeneous landscape in west-central Mexico. Additionally, we provide a checklist of amphibian and reptile species recorded over nine years of observations within the studied landscape and surrounding areas. The land cover/use types with the highest species richness and alpha taxonomic diversity differed between amphibians and reptiles. Overall beta taxonomic diversity was high for both groups, but slightly higher in reptiles. This taxonomic differentiation mainly corresponded to a difference in the turnover component and was greater in pristine habitats compared to disturbed ones. The checklist records 20 species of amphibians (ten of which are endemic) and 48 of reptiles (30 endemics). Additionally, the study expands the known geographical distribution range of one species of frog and three species of snakes. Our findings suggest that heterogeneous landscapes with diverse land cover/use types can provide essential habitats for the conservation of amphibian and reptile species.

Key words

Crops, herpetofauna, Jalisco state, native vegetation, range extension

Introduction

Amphibians and reptiles are abundant and diverse components of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, serving various ecological functions (Pough et al. 2004; Wells 2007). Mexico harbors 418 species of amphibians (AmphibiaWeb 2023; Ramírez-Bautista et al. 2023) and 1,044 of reptiles (Ramírez-Bautista et al. 2023; Uetz 2024), which account for 4.9% of the world’s amphibians and 8.9% of its reptiles. Besides, 65% of the amphibians and 57% of the reptiles are endemic to Mexico, occurring predominantly in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and the Balsas Depression (Ochoa-Ochoa and Flores-Villela 2006).

Human pressure on natural environments has been intensifying mainly with agricultural landscapes becoming increasingly dominant. Land-use changes threaten biodiversity, primarily through habitat loss and degradation (Fischer and Lindenmayer 2007; Sayer et al. 2013; Davison et al. 2021). Amphibians and reptiles have very distinct physiologies, biologies, and ecological traits (Pough et al. 2004; Wells 2007). As a result, they tend to differ in their responses to environmental disturbances (Koleff and Guyer 2008). Particularly amphibians are often more susceptible to these changes due to their permeable skin, and their communities can show significant shifts in taxonomic and functional diversity (Ernst et al. 2006; Ernst and Rödel 2008). In disturbed environments, amphibian and reptile communities are less diverse than in pristine or protected ones mainly due to microhabitat loss, lack of food (Gardner et al. 2007; Trimble and Aarde 2014; Thompson et al. 2015) competition, predation, spread of diseases from invasive species (Bucciarelli et al. 2014; Kraus 2015; Falaschi et al. 2020), in addition to habitat alteration and hybridization (Falaschi et al. 2020). Also, disturbed habitats can lead to significant species turnover at the landscape scale, favoring generalist or invasive species while also sustaining a few native species (Wanger et al. 2010).

One approach used to quantify the taxonomic complexity of species assemblages at the local level and to evaluate the response of organisms to spatial gradients and differentiation at the regional level has been to analyze the alpha (local) and beta (turnover) diversity of these assemblages (Baselga 2010; Jost et al. 2011).The more traditional diversity measures (e.g., species richness, Shannon index, Jaccard index, etc.) of alpha and beta diversity (often referred to as ecological) assume that all species carry the same weight (Magurran 2004; Chao et al. 2010), and thus fail to consider taxonomic diversity of species and their evolutionary past (Gaston and Spicer 2004). As a result, methods have been developed to add this dimension (Warwick and Clarke 1995). Alpha and beta diversity can be assessed by incorporating supra-specific levels associated with each species (e.g., genus, family, and order) to capture information on their phylogenetic diversity and their ecological and evolutionary histories (Warwick and Clarke 1998; Nipperess et al. 2010; Carvalho et al. 2012). This approach can even be used with large assemblages that lack species-level phylogenies (Izsak and Price 2001; Carvalho et al. 2012).

The alpha component of taxonomic diversity consists in the distinctiveness of taxa which measures the degree of taxonomic relatedness of species present in each sample, a reflection of the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that have contributed to taxonomic composition (Warwick and Clarke 1998). Beta taxonomic diversity can be divided into turnover (replacement) and differences in richness (loss or gain) components (Baccaro et al. 2007; Carvalho et al. 2012). The measure of differences in richness is useful to understand how habitat conditions affect communities and, when assessing highly heterogeneous landscapes, the patchiness of the species that inhabit them (Melo et al. 2009; Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014).

Our understanding of taxonomic diversity of amphibians and reptiles in Mexico has been enriched by several studies. Cruz-Elizalde et al. (2014) showed that the richest environments for reptile species in the Chihuahuan Desert were not taxonomically diverse. Hernández-Salinas et al. (2023), who measured taxonomic and functional diversity in amphibian and reptile communities in six vegetation types in Durango, found that vegetation types that had more complex family and genera networks differed between the two groups. Díaz de la Vega-Pérez et al. (2019) recorded high amphibian and reptile dissimilarities between habitats at La Malinche National Park. Many have reported high overall values of taxonomic beta diversity for amphibians and reptiles compared to other vertebrate groups (Koleff et al. 2008; Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014; Calderón-Patrón et al. 2016). However, between these two groups Calderón-Patrón et al. (2016) recorded higher beta diversity (species) and beta taxonomic diversity (species and associated taxonomic levels) for reptiles and Ochoa-Ochoa et al. (2014) obtained this same result particularly for the central and northwest regions of Mexico.

Although in Mexico amphibians and reptile species have been documented as disappearing because of human activity such as habitat fragmentation, pollution, pet trade, invasive species, emerging diseases, and global warming, they are still the less well-studied vertebrate groups (Ceballos et al. 2015). In this study, we report on 1) the spatial variation of alpha (Warwick and Clarke 1998) and beta (Carvalho et al. 2012) taxonomic diversity of amphibians and reptiles in a heterogeneous landscape in west-central Mexico, and 2) a checklist including some species’ geographic range extensions. We first hypothesized that species richness and alpha taxonomic diversity of amphibians and reptiles would be highest in the same habitats across the heterogeneous landscape. Secondly, we predicted a lower species richness and taxonomic diversity in the land use types of corn and sugarcane crops for both groups and, for amphibians, higher species richness, and alpha taxonomic diversity in the riparian habitat surrounded by tropical dry forest (RH-TDF). We made these predictions because habitat complexity, the presence of permanent water (especially for amphibians), and less habitat disturbance encourage patterns of higher species richness and taxonomic distinctiveness. Thirdly, we expected beta diversity to be high for both groups due to the heterogeneity of the landscape, and for it to be higher for amphibians than reptiles with a strong turnover component due to their lower mobility as reported in previous work. Finally, we predicted higher dissimilarities between the land use types and the land cover types for both groups.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study area consisted of different land cover/use types within the municipalities of Ahualulco de Mercado (main population 20°42'6.84″N, 103°58'24.96″W) and Teuchitlán (20°40'59.88″N, 103°50'51.72″W), both located in the west-central state of Jalisco, México (Fig. 1). The territory of Ahualulco de Mercado ranges in elevation between 1280 and 2600 m a.s.l. The weather is semi-warm / semi-humid, with a mean annual temperature of 20.5 °C and average minimum and maximum temperatures of 7.9 °C and 33.3 °C, respectively. The average annual precipitation is 900 mm, with a cumulative average of 643.27 mm ( IIEG 2023a). In Teuchitlán, the elevation ranges between 1247 and 2392 m a.s.l. The weather is semi-dry / semi-warm, with a mean annual temperature of 21.2 °C and average maximum and minimum temperatures of 33.5 °C and 8.4 °C, respectively (IIEG 2023b). Mean annual precipitation is 948 mm, with an average accumulated precipitation of 634.56 mm; rain occurs mainly in the summer, and dry periods happen during spring and winter (IIEG 2023b). We selected the following ten main land cover/use types (sampling sites): sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbated tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF) and pine-oak forest (POF) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. 

A study area in Jalisco, Mexico B sampling points in the landscape. Sampling plots (C, D). Codes: sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbed tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical dry forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF) and pine-oak forest (POF) (modified after Rosas-Espinoza et al. 2022).

The municipalities of Ahualulco de Mercado and Teuchitlán have similar territorial areas of 235.25 and 211.18 square kilometers, respectively. The two neighboring municipalities share a broad valley. The predominant land use types are agricultural and livestock activity, covering 60% of its surface, followed by secondary vegetation at 17% (IIEG 2023a, 2023b). The SCF land use type was located between 1258 and 1390 m a.s.l. Both municipalities are important for sugarcane production in Jalisco (SIAP 2018). The C was found on the lower slopes of the mountains between 1250 and 1440 m a.s.l. Clearing events for agriculture have occurred in these areas since pre-Columbian times. The predominant crops are rainfed corn, Zea mays, and Agave tequilana (Santiago-Pérez 2023).

The RH-C land cover type is found between 1265 and 1270 m a.s.l. along a stretch of the Teuchitlán River. The dominant tree species were Salix humboldtiana, Fraxinus uhdei, Ficus insipida, Lysiloma acapulcense, Baccharis salicifolia, Salix taxifolia, Arundo donax and Scirpus californicus. One riverbank is used for crops, the other for recreational activities. HPTDF, with a high disturbance level, was found between 1200 and 1500 m a.s.l., and the dominant tree species were Acacia farnesiana, A. pennatula, Prosopis laevigata, and Pithecellobium dulce. The TDF was found between 1200 and 1700 m a.s.l. and included Bursera bipinnata, Ipomoea murucoides, L. acapulcense, Opuntia fuliginosa, and Tecoma stans as dominant species (García-Martínez and Rodríguez 2018). The TDF had both temporary and permanent water bodies, but some areas were deforested, so C and SCF were established instead (Rosas-Espinoza et al. 2022). The TDF in the archaeological zone of Guachimontones (1300 to 1482 m a.s.l.) had frequent Bursera fagaroides, B. bipinnata, B. palmeri, Ipomoea intrapilosa, Heliocarpus terebinthinaceus, Guazuma ulmifolia, Eysenhardtia polystachya, and Leucaena leucocephala (Santiago-Pérez 2023).

The RH-TDF had permanent streams. It was found between 1450 and 1750 m a.s.l. and was dominated by L. acapulcense, Lippia umbellata, Eysenhardtia polystachya and I. intrapilosa. The RH-TF had both permanent and temporal streams. It was located between 1500 and 1800 m a.s.l., and the dominant tree species were Salix bonplandiana, Quercus magnoliifolia, Q. splendens, Q. obtusata, Aiouea pachypoda, and Oreopanax peltatus (García-Martínez and Rodríguez 2018). The dominant tree species in SV-TF (1550–1750 m a.s.l.) were I. intrapilosa, T. stans, A. farnesiana, Verbesina greenmanii, Solanum madrense, and Senna foetidissima (García-Martínez and Rodríguez 2018). An artificial pond had water yearly (Rosas-Espinoza et al. 2022). The OF was found between 1500 and 1900 m a.s.l., with Quercus resinosa, Q. magnoliifolia, Q. castanea, and Q. gentry as the dominant tree species. The POF was found between 1800 and 2590 m a.s.l. The predominant tree species were Q. resinosa, Pinus oocarpa, P. devoniana, and P. lumholtzii (García-Martínez and Rodríguez 2018).

Amphibian and reptile surveys for taxonomic diversity measurements

We established circular diurnal (500 m2 each one) and rectangular nocturnal (10,000 m2) survey plots in each land cover/use type. The diurnal plots were separated 400 m of distance from each one. At each plot an intensive unrestricted visual search was carried out on the microhabitats preferred by these reptile species in each point count (i.e., logs and rocks). We recorded all individuals observed, and when possible, measured and photographed them. They were later released at the capture site. We conducted nine, monthly, samplings of the amphibian and reptile communities from July 2011 to August 2012 in TDF, RH-TDF, RH-TF, SV-TF, OF, and POF. Additionally, we surveyed both groups of taxa for eight months from September 2012 to September 2013 in SCF, RH-C, C, and HPTDF. Once a month during the day, we surveyed 12,500 m2 in TDF, RH-TDF, and RH-TF; 15,000 m2 in SCF, C, and HPTDF; 17,500 m2 in SV-TF; 25,000 m2 in OF and POF; and 22,500 m2 in RH-C. And at night we surveyed 10,000 m2 in each land cover/use type.

Amphibian and reptile checklist and distribution extensions

We included in the checklist all species whose presence within the study area or surroundings was confirmed by direct observation between August 2011 and December 2020. To corroborate a species’ identity, we took and deposited photographs in the Colección Herpetológica of the Museo de Zoología in the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza, Universidad Autónoma de México. We followed Frost (2023) for the taxonomy of amphibians, Uetz (2024) and Zaher et al. (2019) for that of the reptiles, and CONABIO (2023) for common names. We considered various scientific sources to determine the endemism of amphibians and reptiles (e.g., Cruz-Sáenz et al. 2017; Johnson et al. 2017; Frost 2023; AmphibiaWeb 2023; Ramírez-Bautista et al. 2023). We consulted the Mexican government threatened species list NOM-059 (SEMARNAT 2019), IUCN (2024) and Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS; Wilson et al. 2013a, 2013b) to establish each species’ conservation status. We used the species distribution maps published by the Red List of Threatened Species of the IUCN (2024) and records from Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). We measured the distance of our records to the closest observations in the region. We determined a species range extension when an observation was made at least 20 km in a straight line from the nearest record.

Statistical analysis of the taxonomic diversity

We generated monthly matrices of presence-absence of amphibian and reptile species. We determined sampling effort in each land/use type and the whole study area using sample-based rarefaction curves using the non-parametric estimators Chao 2, Jackknife 1, and Jackknife 2. All rarefaction curves were built using 10,000 randomizations without replacement. We performed these analyses using EstimateS 9.1.0 (Colwell 2013).

Alpha taxonomic diversity

We measured the alpha component of taxonomic diversity by computing taxonomic distinctness. It takes into consideration the degree of taxonomic relatedness among species in each sample as a reflection of the ecological and evolutionary mechanisms that contribute to taxonomic composition (Warwick and Clarke 1998). To quantify the degree of taxonomic relatedness among species in the various land covers/use types, we calculated the average taxonomic distinctness (Delta, Δ+) and its variation (Lambda, Λ+) (Warwick and Clarke 1995; Clarke et al. 2014) per land cover/use type for all amphibians and reptiles’ assemblages. We built a five-level taxonomic aggregation matrix that included species, genus, family, order, and phylum. We used the same weight for all taxonomic levels (ω = 1). We created the models with a 95% confidence interval by carrying out 10,000 permutations and with a ratio of 1.2 species (Clarke and Warwick 1998). All analyses (∆ + and Λ+) were performed using PRIMER 7.0.21 and PERMANOVA +1 (Clarke and Gorley 2015).

Beta taxonomic diversity

We measured the beta component of taxonomic diversity by calculating and partitioned taxonomic beta into turnover (β.3) and differences in richness (βrich) components following Baccaro et al. (2007) and Carvalho et al. (2012). Bcc represents the total dissimilarity (1 – Jaccard’s similarity coefficient) split between the components of dissimilarity (β.3) and dissimilarity due to differences in richness (βrich). We considered four supra-specific levels (species, genus, family, and order) for both groups. We assessed taxonomic beta diversity and partitioning of components using the “BAT” package (Cardoso et al. 2024) and Carvalho et al. (2012) script. We performed these analyses using the R studio program R-project 4.1.1 (R Development Core Team 2022).

Results

We recorded 20 species of amphibians and 39 of reptiles in the study area between August 2011 and September 2013. The average sampling effort for amphibians was 81.8% of representativity for the study area and that for reptiles, 80.5% (Fig. 2). The average sampling effort varied between 61% and 95.6% of representativity between all land cover/use types for amphibians, and between 65.3% and 97.6% for reptiles (Suppl.material 1: table S1).

Figure 2. 

Sample-based rarefaction curves for amphibians and reptiles generated using presence-absence data, showing observed and expected species for the different land cover/use types using non-parametric estimators. Codes: sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbated tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF), pine-oak forest (POF), and number of species observed (Sobs).

Alpha taxonomic diversity

Numerically, we recorded the lowest amphibian species richness in POF (three species) compared to the highest richness in HPTDF (eight), RH-C (nine), and RH-TDF (ten). Medium species richness was recorded in OF (five), TDF (five), RH-TF (six), CO (six), SCF (seven), and SV-TF (seven). In contrast, we recorded the lowest species richness for reptiles in RH-TF (five), CA (seven), C (seven), and POF (nine). SV-TF (18) had the highest richness. Medium species richness was registered in RH-TDF (10), OF (12), HPTDF (12), RH-C (13), and TDF (14).

The average taxonomic distinctness for amphibians and reptiles had all the ∆+ and Λ+ values within the probability funnels (p>0.05) (Fig. 3), which indicates that the alpha taxonomic richness of amphibians and reptiles was within the model’s expectations.

Figure 3. 

Average taxonomic distinctness (Δ+) and its variance (Λ+) by land cover/use type of A amphibians and B reptiles in a heterogeneous landscape at west-central Mexico.

Beta taxonomic diversity

The taxonomic beta diversity of amphibians and reptiles was high overall in both groups, being slightly higher in reptiles (βmulti = 0.70) than in amphibians (βmulti = 0.60). The turnover component (β.3 = 0.43 and β.3 = 0.32, respectively) was the most significant contributor to taxonomic differentiation in all comparisons. In turn, the two groups had a low contribution from the differences in richness component (βrich = 0.27 for reptiles and βrich = 0.27 for amphibians) (Fig. 4A, C).

Figure 4. 

Taxonomic beta diversity of amphibians and reptiles considering the turnover (β.3) and differences in richness (βrich) components by land cover/use types A total and B paired beta diversity of amphibians; and C total and D paired beta diversity of reptiles. Codes: sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbated tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF) and pine-oak forest (POF).

In contrast, amphibians and reptiles had divergent patterns in regard to beta diversity (both turnover and richness differences) in pairwise comparisons between land cover/use types. Only POF and OF showed differences in richness in amphibians and reptiles without the turnover component (Fig. 4B, D).

For amphibians, the pairwise comparisons with the highest beta taxonomic diversity were between POF and SCF (0.92), POF and RH-C (0.86), and TDF and SCF (0.82), while the lowest were between RH-C and SCF (0.19), SV-TF and RH-TF (0.26), and RH-TF and TDF (0.35). The comparisons with the highest turnover were between SV-TF and C (0.69), SV-TF and SCF (0.81), RH-TF and SCF, and SV-TF and HPTDF (0.77 respectively) (Fig. 4B). In these comparisons the component with the greatest contribution to differentiation was differences in richness in POF and RH-TDF (0.77), POF and RH-C (0.86), and POF and HPTDF (0.73). Some of the comparisons consisted only in the replacement component, like HPTDF and SCF (0.60), SV-TF and C (0.69), and OF and TDF (0.50). Likewise, RH-C and SCF (0.19), POF and OF (0.33), POF-SV-TF (0.52), and POF and RH-TDF (0.77) were only represented by differences in richness.

In relation to land cover/use types taxonomic beta diversity among reptiles was highest when comparing RH-TF and C (0.17), RH-TF and RH-C (0.54), and POF-C (0.11). The comparisons with the lowest values were POF-OF (0.21), HPTDF and RH-C (0.10), RH-TDF and TDF (0.20). The comparisons with the highest contribution of turnover component were between POF-C (0.11), RH-TF and C (0.17), and POF-SCF (0.05) comparisons, and for differences in richness component were between SV-TF and RH-TF (0.63), RH-TF and RH-C (0.54), and RH-TF-TDF (0.52). Similarly to amphibians, the comparison between POF-OF (0.21) was uniquely represented by differences in richness (Fig. 4D).

Amphibian checklist and geographic expansion distributions

During nine years of observations, we recorded 20 species of amphibians belonging to 14 genera, nine families, and one order. The families with the highest species richness were Hylidae (seven species), Craugastoridae (three species) and Ranidae (three species). Ten of these species are endemic and under some protection category. Four species are under the Special Protection category, and one is under the Threatened category (SEMARNAT 2019). IUCN threat categories included two species that are considered Endangered and one, Vulnerable (UICN 2024). With respect to the Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS), ten species are classified under low (L) vulnerability, seven species under medium (M), and one under high (H) vulnerability categories (Table 1).

Table 1.
Download as
CSV
XLSX

Checklist of amphibians and reptiles (August 2011 to December 2020) present in the various land/use types in a heterogenous landscape in west-central Mexico. Codes: sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbed tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF), pine-oak forest (POF), endemic to Mexico (E), exotic (F), Special Protection (Pr), Threatened (A), Least Concern (LC), Near Threatened (NT), Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN), Low (L), Medium (M), High (H), records with distribution range extensions (*).

Taxonomic hierarchies and species Common name Endemism Conservation status SCF RH-C C HPTDF TDF RH-TDF RH-TF SV-TF OF POF Other land cover/use
AMPHIBIA
Order Anura
Craugastoridae
Craugastor cf. hobarthsmithi (Taylor, 1937) Smith’s pigmy tropical frog E EN, LC, L X X X X
Craugastor occidentalis (Taylor, 1941) Taylor’s Barking Frog E LC, M X X X X X X X
Craugastor augusti (Dugès, 1879) Barking Frog LC, L X X X X X X X
Eleutherodactylidae
Eleutherodactylus sp. X X X X X X
Bufonidae
Incilius occidentalis (Camerano, 1879) Pine Toad E LC, M X X X
Rhinella horribilis (Wiegmann, 1833) Giant Marine Toad L X X X X
Hylidae
Exerodonta smaragdina (Taylor, 1940) Emerald Tree Frog E Pr, LC, M X
Dryophytes arenicolor (Cope, 1866) Canyon Tree Frog LC, L X X X X
Dryophytes eximius (Baird, 1854) Mountain Tree Frog E LC, M X X
Sarcohyla hapsa* Campbell, Brodie, Caviedes-Solis, Nieto-Montes de Oca, Luja, Flores-Villela, Garcia-Vazquez, Sarker & Wostl, 2018 Northern Streamside Tree Frog E Pr, LC, L X
Smilisca baudinii (Duméril & Bibron, 1841) Common Mexican treefrog LC, L
Smilisca fodiens (Boulenger, 1882) Lowland Burrowing Tree Frog LC, L
Tlalocohyla smithii (Boulenger, 1902) Dwarf Mexican Tree Frog E LC, M
Leptodactylidae
Leptodactylus melanonotus (Hallowell, 1861) Black Jungle-Frog LC. L X X X
Microhylidae
Hypopachus variolous (Cope, 1866) Mexican Narrow-mouthed Toad LC, L X
Phyllomedusidae
Agalychnis dacnicolor (Cope, 1864) Mexican Giant Tree Frog E LC, M X
Ranidae
Rana cf. forreri (Boulenger, 1883) Forrer’s leopard frog Pr, LC, L X
Rana neovolcanica Hillis & Frost, 1985 Transverse Volcanic Leopard Frog E A, NT, M X X X X X
Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 Big-footed Leopard Frog E Pr, VU, H X
Scaphiopodidae
Spea multiplicate (Cope, 1863) Mexican Spadefoot LC, L X
REPTILIA
Orden Squamata
Anguidae
Elgaria kingii Gray, 1838 Arizona Alligator Lizard Pr, LC, M X X X X
Anolidae
Anolis nebulosus (Wiegmann, 1834) Clouded Anole E LC, M X X X X X X X X X
Geckonidae
Hemidactylus frenatus Duméril & Bibron, 1836 Asian House Gecko F X
Iguanidae
Ctenosaura pectinata (Wiegmann, 1834) Mexican Spinytail Iguana E A, H X X X X X X
Phrynosomatidae
Sceloporus dugesii Bocourt, 1874 Duges’ Spiny Lizard E LC, M X X
Sceloporus heterolepis Boulenger, 1895 Dorsalkeel Spiny Lizard E LC, H X X X X X X
Sceloporus horridus Wiegmann, 1834 Horrible Spiny Lizard LC, M X X X X X
Sceloporus nelson Cochran, 1923 Nelson’s Spiny Lizard E LC, M X
Sceloporus torquatus Wiegmann, 1828 Torquate Lizard E LC, M X
Sceloporus spinosus Wiegmann, 1828 Eastern Spiny Lizard E LC, M X
Sceloporus utiformis Cope, 1864 Antesator E LC, H X X X X X
Urosaurus bicarinatus (Duméril, 1856) Tropical tree lizard E LC, M X X X
Phyllodactylidae
Phyllodactylus lanei Smith, 1935 Lane’s Leaf-toed Gecko E LC, H X
Scincidae
Plestiodon dugesii (Thominot, 1883) Duges’ Skink E Pr, VU, H X X X X
Plestiodon callicephalus (Bocourt, 1879) Mountain Skink LC, M X X
Teiidae
Aspidoscelis costatus (Cope, 1878) Western Mexico Whiptail E Pr X X X X
Aspidoscelis communis (Cope, 1878) Colima Giant Whiptail E Pr, LC, M X
Boidae
Boa sigma (Smith, 1943) Boa A, LC, M X X
Colubridae
Masticophis mentovarius (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854) Neotropical Whip Snake E LC, L X X X X X
Drymarchon melanurus (Duméril, Bibron & Duméril, 1854) Blacktail Cribo LC, L X X X X
Lampropeltis ruthveni* Blanchard, 1920 Ruthvens Kingsnake A, NT, H X X X X
Leptophis diplotropis (Günther, 1872) Pacific Coast Parrot Snake E A, LC, H X
Masticophis bilineatus (Jan, 1863) Sonoran Whipsnake LC, M X
Oxybelis aeneus (Wagler, 1824) Mexican Vine Snake L X X
Pituophis deppei (Duméril, 1853) Mexican Bull Snake E A, LC, H X X
Senticolis triaspis (Cope, 1866) Green Rat Snake LC, L X X
Sonora mutabilis Stickel, 1943 Mexican Groundsnake E LC, H X
Tantilla bocourti (Günther, 1895) Bocourt’s Black-headed Snake E LC, L X X X
Trimorphodon tau Cope, 1870 Mexican Lyre Snake E LC, M X X
Dipsadidae
Diadophis punctatus (Linnaeus, 1766) Ring-necked snake LC, L X X
Hypsiglena torquata (Günther, 1860) Sinaloan Nightsnake Pr, LC, L X
Imantodes gemmistratus* (Cope, 1861) Central American Tree Snake Pr, L X
Leptodeira maculata (Hallowell, 1861) Southwestern Cat-eyed Snake E Pr, LC, L X
Leptodeira splendida Günther, 1885 Splendid Cat-eyed Snake E Pr, LC, H X X
Rhadinaea Hesperia Bailey, 1940 Western Graceful Brown Snake E LC, M X X
Rhadinaea taeniata (Peters, 1863) Pine-Oak Snake E LC, M X
Elapidae
Micrurus distans* Kennicott, 1860 West Mexican Coral Snake E Pr, LC, H X X X
Leptotyphlopidae
Rena humilis Baird & Girard, 1853 Western Blind Snake LC, L X X
Natricidae
Thamnophis copei* (Dugès, 1879) Cope’s mountain meadow snake E Pr, VU, H X
Storeria storerioides (Cope, 1866) Mexican Brown Snake E LC, M X X X
Thamnophis eques (Reuss, 1834) Mexican Garter Snake A X X
Thamnophis melanogaster (Peters, 1864) Blackbelly Garter Snake E A, LC, L X
Thamnophis cyrtopsis (Kennicott, 1860) Black-necked Garter Snake A, LC, L X X X
Typhlopidae
Indotyphlops braminus (Daudin, 1803) Bootlace Snake F X X X
Viperidae
Agkistrodon bilineatus Günther, 1863 Cantil Viper Pr, NT, M X X X
Crotalus Basiliscus (Cope, 1864) Basilisk Rattlesnake E Pr, LC, H X X X
Crotalus triseriatus Wagler, 1830 Western Dusky Rattlesnake E H X
Order Testudines
Kinosternidae
Kinosternon integrum Le Conte, 1854 Mexican Mud Turtle E Pr, M X X X

We documented extensions in the known distribution range of Sarcohyla hapsa (Suppl.material 1: fig. S1A). Sarcohyla hapsa is endemic to western Mexico (Campbell et al. 2018). It was observed in September 2011 in the RH-TF at 1842 m a.s.l. (20°38,58'N, 104°3,14'W). This species was recently split from the widespread Mexican hylid Sarcohyla bistincta (Campbell et al. 2018). This extends the known distribution by 38 km from its closest record, base La Ciénega, Sierra de Quila (Rosas-Espinoza et al. 2013; GBIF 2023a) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S2).

Reptile checklist and geographic expansion distributions

We recorded 48 species of reptiles belonging to 34 genera, 17 families, and two orders (Table 1). The families with the highest species richness were Colubridae (11 species), Phrynosomatidae (eight species), Dipsadidae (seven species) and Natricidae (five species). More than half of these species are endemic to Mexico (62.5%). All the species are native to Mexico except Hemidactylus frenatus and Indotyphlops braminus, which are native to the Eastern Hemisphere. According to the Mexican species protection list, 21 species are in a category of risk, of which 13 are under Special protection and eight are Threatened (SEMARNAT 2019). IUCN threat categories classify two species as Endangered, one as Vulnerable, and two as Near Threatened (UICN 2024). According to the EVS (Wilson et al. 2013a), 12 species are under low (L) vulnerability, 18 species under medium (M), and 14 are below the high (H) vulnerability categories (Table 1).

We documented extensions in the known distribution range of three species of reptiles. Lampropeltis ruthveni was observed in September 2011 in SV-TF (20°40'01"N, 103°52'23"W) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S1B). There are a few records of this species in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. Its distribution is extended by at least 44 km from its closest known record near Sierra de Quila, Jalisco (GBIF 2023b) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S3A).

Thamnophis copei is endemic to Mexico (Suppl.material 1: fig. S1C). It was observed in September 2012 at HPTDF (20°41,52'N, 103°49,35'W). This extends the known distribution range of the species by 39 km from La Quemada, Jalisco (GBIF 2023c) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S3B).

Imantodes gemmistratus was observed in September 2012 in HPTDF (20°41’,41"N, 103°50'33"W) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S1D). This extends its known distribution by 36 km from 2.3 km presa El Texcalame, (GBIF 2023d) (Suppl.material 1: fig. S3C).

Discussion

We achieved high sampling efforts for both amphibians and reptiles at all sites, so the samples can be considered representative of both groups. Support for this assessment comes also from having recorded the same number of species of amphibians in another seven years of non-systematic surveys and species observations within the study area. In contrast, the number of species of reptiles increased from 39 to 48 species, the earlier systematic survey (August 2011 to September 2013) detected 81% of the reptile species present there.

Alpha taxonomic diversity

Monitoring taxonomic diversity has been proposed as a tool to develop ecosystem management plans, ecological restoration projects, and the creation of protected areas (Somerfield et al. 2008), and guide conservation strategies in areas where biodiversity loss is occurring at an accelerated rate (Hernández-Salinas et al. 2023). In the present work, we obtained sound estimates of the alpha taxonomic diversity of amphibians and reptiles in the different land cover/use types. This may have been helped by the fact that the study area consists of a heterogeneous landscape with different land cover types with temperate and tropical native vegetation. Although, the HPTDF had a high level of disturbance, it is known that secondary TDF in human-dominated landscapes can support substantial amphibian diversity (Suazo-Ortuño et al. 2015). Moreover, animals can move between patches with native vegetation and crops to seek shelter (when there is vegetation cover), food, or to reproduce (during the rainy season). Iglesias-Carrasco et al. (2023) reported that monocultures and poly-specific plantations affect the conservation and ecological value of these habitats to both amphibian and reptile communities detrimentally and alter the evolutionary processes shaping these communities. In contrast, forests with lower impact disturbances can, to some extent, serve as reservoirs of species. Another important factor to consider is the resilience of species to disturbance, since some species populations do not seem to be affected as markedly as others.

Only the RH-C (five species) had higher taxonomic distinctiveness of amphibians than expected from the model. RH-TDF (ten species) and SCF (four species) had the highest alpha taxonomy diversity within the model. TDF did not have the highest alpha taxonomic richness against what we expected, even though it is recognized as a neotropical ecosystem with an important amphibian richness (23% of Mexican amphibians) (Ceballos and García 1995). Suazo-Ortuño et al. (2011) and Álvarez-Grzybowska et al. (2020) reported that TDF in western Mexico sheltered a high amphibian richness but only during the rainy season. Hromada et al. (2021) highlighted the importance of water for amphibians. Even when water quality was reduced, they found that amphibian diversity was higher in ponds surrounded by low-intensity agricultural areas influenced by the surrounding forest and pasture. Our alpha taxonomic results for amphibians are consistent with the observation that amphibians are highly associated with water (Wells 2007). Additionally, it has been reported that diversity is higher in tropical ecosystems compared to temperate ones. The high taxonomic diversity in the SCF may be assisted by its proximity to the RH-TDF and the fact that amphibians can move between land cover/use types, especially during the rainy season.

Almost all the land cover/use types used by reptiles had a higher alpha taxonomic distinctiveness than the average within the model. These results suggest that reptiles can maintain high alpha taxonomic diversity even in heterogeneous landscapes. SCF (nine species), RH-C (14 species), and RH-TF (seven species) had the highest alpha taxonomic diversity within the model, and RH-TDF (eight species) and HPTDF medium ones (24 species). Agricultural systems can vary greatly in structure; uniform agroecosystems like monocultures exhibit shallow levels of biodiversity (Altieri and Nicholls 2004), while more complex agroecosystems shelter high biodiversity (Isbell et al. 2017). However, in a landscape context, certain cultivated areas can function as buffer zones at natural edges (Gascon et al. 2004) or as corridors between native habitat fragments (García et al. 2006). SCF had high alpha taxonomic diversity probably because this crop provides continuous cover for years (approximately six years) and shelters a high population of rodents and other prey such as lizards, frogs, and toads that can serve as food for snakes. RH-C, RH-TF, and RH-TDF also provided habitat, water, and food availability for different species. It has been reported that TDF shelters 34% of Mexican reptiles (Ceballos and García 1995), and even secondary TDF harbors high reptile’ diversity (Suazo-Ortuño et al. 2015), as we found in HPTDF.

Beta taxonomic diversity

Factors that contribute to different components of beta diversity in amphibians and reptiles include the physiological limits of the species (βrich) and speciation processes (β.3), especially in taxa with low mobility (Baselga et al. 2012). The heterogeneous mosaic arrangement with patches of arable areas, forest remnants, and the temperate-tropical configuration in the study area helps explain high beta diversity values for both groups (Ceballos and García 1995; Baselga 2010). Additionally, elevation has been considered a strong promoter of beta taxonomic diversity because it promotes contrasting characteristics within the gradient of vegetation types that change with elevation (Baselga et al. 2012; Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014).

For the region evaluated, the turnover component (β.3) contributed the most to taxonomic differentiation because of the configuration with abrupt changes in patches mentioned earlier. Because of the narrow distribution ranges of amphibians and reptiles, this is consistent with previous work (Baselga et al. 2012; Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014; Rodríguez et al. 2019). However, it has been observed that differences in richness component (βrich) can be major in groups with low mobility not only with respect to nesting, but also gain or loss of species among the sites evaluated (Carvalho et al. 2012; Calderón-Patrón et al. 2016), as was the case with amphibians where both components contributed almost equally to diversity of taxonomic differentiation.

Taxonomic beta diversity can also be expected to differ between groups with different evolutionary histories; notably, it has been reported that amphibians show higher taxonomic beta diversity due to dispersal limitations and their dependence on water bodies (Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014; Calderón-Patrón et al. 2016). However, we observed the opposite pattern, with reptiles showing the highest taxonomic beta diversity of the two groups. This could be due to the study area being a highly heterogeneous region with disturbed areas promoting greater spatial differentiation for reptiles.

The relationship between alpha and beta taxonomic diversity remains poorly understood (Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014). In the present study, the reptiles had the highest species richness and beta diversity. However, amphibians showed the highest average taxonomic distinctiveness (at the 90% level) because of the inclusion of members of different orders and families. In contrast, the supra-specific levels of reptiles differed at a 70% level at the genus and family level.

Although paired comparisons between the two groups reveal differences in beta diversity, we also documented common responses. In amphibians, the highest beta diversity occurred between conserved (POF, TDF) and disturbed (SCF, RHC) habitats. This reflects a high sensitivity to local disturbance, especially considering that this group was strongly influenced by the differences in richness component of beta diversity, as in the case of the comparison of POF with RH-C (one of the comparisons with the highest beta diversity). This indicates that despite shared taxa, supra-specific levels are aggregated to cause differences in richness between the paired comparisons. In the same way, in reptiles, we found that the comparisons with the highest beta diversity occurred between conserved (RH-TF, POF) and disturbed (C, RH-C) habitats, showing a consistent pattern with a predominance of the turnover component. This resulted from changes in the taxa set between these habitats. These results suggest that disturbance could become more important for taxonomic beta diversity of amphibians and reptiles than temperate vs. tropical conditions, given its high potential to threaten species and populations, acting more aggressively than the evolutionary history of species (Ochoa-Ochoa et al. 2014).

Amphibians and Reptiles checklist and geographic range extensions

Our work found that the study area shelters 40.4% and 28.1% of Jalisco’s state amphibians (52 species) and reptiles (171 species), respectively (Cruz-Sáenz et al. 2017). This finding highlights the region’s significance for conserving amphibians and reptiles. The 68 species (20 and 48 amphibians and reptiles, respectively) observed in this study were higher than in nearby natural areas with similar land cover types, for example La Primavera Forest (with the presence of POF, OF, RH, and TDF) with 56 species (17 amphibians and 39 reptiles) (Reyna-Bustos et al. 2007) and Tequila Volcano (pine forest, POF, OF, RH, TDF, Mountain cloud forest, grassland) with 32 species (10 amphibians and 22 reptiles) (Rojo-Guti érrez et al. 2022). Conversely, the species richness was comparable to that of Sierra de Quila (oak pine forest, OF, RH, and TDF), with 69 species (23 amphibians and 46 reptiles) (Santiago-Pérez et al. 2012). Salcido-Rodríguez et al. (2023) reported 18 amphibians and 47 reptile species (65 species total) for Sierra de Tesistán with land cover types POF, OF, and secondary vegetation in the ecotone between OF and TDF. Finally, Flores-Covarrubias et al. (2012) reported 20 amphibians and 40 reptiles (61 species) for the TDF, Thorn scrub, OF, POF, grassland, secondary vegetation, and agricultural lands in Hostotipaquillo. The diversity of amphibians and reptiles observed in this study underlines the richness of the herpetofauna in the area, even though it is a heterogeneous landscape with crops.

Many of the recorded species (56.5%) in this heterogeneous landscape are endemic to Mexico. This was true for more than half of the species of reptiles, highlighting the area’s role in conserving existing native biodiversity. This could be due to its geographical position and the influence of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt which, through the complexity of the landscape, promotes processes of speciation and endemism and is considered one of the most diverse zones in the country (Flores-Villela 1993). We observed two exotic species in the study area: the snake I. braminus and the lizard H. frenatus. According to CONABIO (2020), exotic species are Mexico’s third most significant threat to biodiversity. The dangers associated with their presence in the study area remain unknown (Farr 2011). Also, according to NOM-059 (2019), IUCN (2024) and Wilson (2013a, 2013b), 73% of the species (11 amphibians and 39 reptiles) are under some protection status, highlighting the importance of the existing matrix of different habitats (especially different native vegetation types) to shelter endemic amphibians and reptiles or those with conservation concerns.

Knowing the local distribution of species is essential to monitor and manage local wildlife (Pisanty et al. 2016) as well as the first step in biodiversity conservation. In this study, we found species with a wide distribution in Mexico (e.g., A. nebulosus, Pituophis deppei, and Kinosternon integrum) or in west-central Mexico (e.g., Phyllodactylus lanei, Sceloporus dugesii, and Sonora mutabilis), as well as others with very restricted ones, like S. hapsa, L. ruthveni, and T. copei. Extensions in the distribution range of one amphibian and three reptile species shows that Mexico’s west-central region has not been studied enough towards the mountain areas within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and the Sierra Madre Occidental.

Conclusions

We found that the amphibian and reptile taxonomic diversity in the studied landscape results from i) remnants of native vegetation, even with some level of disturbance, ii) the existence of a heterogeneous matrix with different land cover/use types, albeit with a higher number of land cover types, iii) availability of water during the whole year in some of the land cover types, iv) connectivity between areas allowing the animals to move between different land cover/use types. Finally, the proximity of the study area to mountainous areas like La Primavera or Tequila Volcano is probably another factor to consider. These mountains are natural areas that harbor wildlife and that might act as species pools that could disperse to the study area.

Recommendations

Knowing the distribution of species at different spatial scales, having complete checklists, and analyzing diversity in its various facets at both alpha and beta levels are essentials for species management and conservation. Variation in alpha and beta taxonomic diversity presents a challenge for conservation strategies and management plans as they need to consider differences between sites. It is vital to consider endemic species, particularly those under conservation categories or those associated with native vegetation cover types with low disturbance, so management practices can encourage their presence and abundance. In this sense, preserving remaining natural forests and those with different levels of disturbance is necessary for conserving amphibian and reptile communities. Moreover, this study highlights the need for specific conservation strategies and recommendations to be integrated into broader landscape-level conservation planning. Nowadays, the great rate of land cover changes highlights the need to promote the existence of a connected heterogeneous landscape with different land cover/use types, thus enhancing the ability to conserve amphibians and reptiles. The other patches can offer shelter, water, and food permanently or temporarily. Even more, encouraging the connection among different land cover/use types will ensure that amphibians and reptiles can move between patches of this matrix.

Acknowledgments

We thank Uri Omar García Vázquez and Matias Domínguez Laso for helping as with the digital deposits of the species photographs in the Museo de Zoología in the Facultad de Estudios Superiores Zaragoza, UNAM. We are grateful to Leobardo Padilla Miranda and Ericka Blanco Morales (Centro Interpretativo Guachimontones Phil Weigand), Mónica Ureña Díaz (Ayuntamiento de Teuchitlán 2012–2015), Ricarda Orozco Wences (Restaurant Soky) and Edgar Lucke Gracián (Hacienda Labor de Rivera). We thank Jachar Aguirre, Alvaro Urzúa, Héctor Franz, Jesús Navarro, and Ramón Vázquez for their field assistance. We are grateful to Robert Cushman, Jocelyn Hudon, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and reviews which significantly improved the manuscript’s quality.

Additional information

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethical statement

No ethical statement was reported.

Funding

Funding support for this research project were provided through Leobardo Padilla Miranda and Ericka Blanco Morales (Centro Interpretativo Guachimontones Phil Weigand), Mónica Ureña Díaz (Ayuntamiento de Teuchitlán 2012-2015), Ricarda Orozco Wences (Restaurant Soky) and Edgar Lucke Gracián (Hacienda Labor de Rivera).

Author contributions

Conceptualization: VCRE, FARZ, ALSP. Data curation: VCRE, AAGG, EAG, ALSP. Formal analysis: VCRE, EAG, ALSP. Investigation: VCRE, ALSP, EAG, AAGG. Methodology: FARZ, VCRE, ALSP, EAG, KEPJ, FMHM, LDP. Project administration: VCRE, ALSP. Writing-review and editing: VCRE, FMHM, KEPJ, FARZ.

Author ORCIDs

Verónica Carolina Rosas-Espinoza https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8595-3203

Eliza Álvarez-Grzybowska https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3580-3869

Arquímedes Alfredo Godoy González https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6313-0238

Ana Luisa Santiago-Pérez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7494-9129

Karen Elizabeth Peña-Joya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7237-5894

Fabián Alejandro Rodríguez-Zaragoza https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0066-4275

Leopoldo Díaz Pérez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0271-9257

Francisco Martín Huerta Martínez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6923-3425

Data availability

All of the data that support the findings of this study are available in the main text or Supplementary Information.

References

  • Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2004) An agroecological basis for designing diversified tropical cropping systems. Journal of Crop Improvement 11(1–2): 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J411v11n01_05
  • Álvarez-Grzybowska E, Urbina-Cardona N, Córdova-Tapia F, García A (2020) Amphibian communities in two contrasting ecosystems: Functional diversity and environmental filters. Biodiversity and Conservation 29(8): 2457–2485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01984-w
  • Barrett K, Guyer C (2008) Differential responses of amphibians and reptiles in riparian and stream habitats to land use disturbances in western Georgia, USA. Biological Conservation 141(9): 2290–2300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.06.019
  • Baselga A, Gómez-Rodríguez C, Lobo JM (2012) Historical legacies in world amphibian diversity revealed by beta diversity’s turnover and nestedness components. PLoS ONE 7(2): e32341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032341
  • Bucciarelli GM, Blaustein AR, Garcia TS, Kats LB (2014) Invasion complexities: The diverse impacts of nonnative species on amphibians. Copeia 2014(4): 611–632. https://doi.org/10.1643/OT-14-014
  • Calderón-Patrón JM, Goyenechea I, Ortiz-Pulido R, Castillo-Cerón J, Manriquez N, Ramírez-Bautista A, Rojas-Martínez AE, Sánchez-Rojas G, Zuria I, Moreno CE (2016) Beta Diversity in a Highly Heterogeneous Area: Disentangling Species and Taxonomic Dissimilarity for Terrestrial Vertebrates. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0160438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160438
  • Campbell JA, Brodie ED, Caviedes-Solis IW, Nieto-Montes de Oca A, Luja VH, Flores-Villela O, García-Vázquez UO, Sarker GC, Wostl E (2018) Systematics of the frogs allocated to Sarcohyla bistincta sensu lato (Cope, 1877), with description of a new species from Western Mexico. Zootaxa 4422(3): 366–384. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4422.3.3
  • Carvalho JC, Cardoso P, Gomes P (2012) Determining the relative roles of species replacement and species richness differences in generating beta-diversity patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21(7): 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00694.x
  • Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM (2015) Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances 1(5): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400253
  • Chao A, Chiu CH, Jost L (2010) Phylogenetic diversity measures based on Hill numbers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Science 27: 365 (1558): 3599–3609. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0272
  • Clarke KR, Gorley RN (2015) PRIMER v7: user manual/tutorial. PRIMER-E Ltd. , Plymouth, United Kingdom, 296 pp.
  • Cruz-Elizalde R, Ramírez-Bautista A, Johnson JD, Moreno CE (2014) Community structure of reptiles from the southern portion of the Chihuahuan Desert Region, Mexico. North-Western Journal of Zoology 10(1): 173–182.
  • Cruz-Sáenz D, Muñoz-Nolasco F, Mata-Silva V, Johnson J, García-Padilla E, Wilson L (2017) The herpetofauna of Jalisco, Mexico: Composition, distribution, and conservation. Mesoamerican Herpetology 4: 23–118.
  • Davison C, Rahbek W, Morueta‐Holme N (2021) Land‐use change and biodiversity: Challenges for assembling evidence on the greatest threat to nature. Global Change Biology 27(21): 5414–5429. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15846
  • Díaz de la Vega-Pérez AH, Jiménez-Arcos VH, Centenero-Alcalá E, Méndez-de la Cruz FR, Ngo A (2019) Diversity and conservation of amphibians and reptiles of a protected and heavily disturbed forest of central Mexico. ZooKeys 830: 111–125. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.830.31490
  • Ernst R, Rödel MO (2008) Patterns of community composition in two tropical tree frog assemblages: Separating spatial structure and environmental effects in disturbed and undisturbed forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology 24(2): 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467407004737
  • Ernst R, Linsenmair KE, Rödel MO (2006) Diversity erosion beyond the species level: Dramatic loss of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 133(2): 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.028
  • Flores-Covarrubias E, Lazcano D, Cruz-Sáenz D (2012) Notes on the Herpetofauna of Western Mexico 6: Amphibians and Reptiles of Hostotipaquillo, Jalisco, Mexico. Bulletin Chicago Herpetological Society 47(2): 21–26.
  • Flores-Villela O (1993) Herpetofauna of Mexico: distribution and endemism. In: Ramamoorthy TP, Bye R, Lot A, Fa J (Eds) Biological diversity of Mexico: origins and distributions. Oxford University Press, New York, 253–280.
  • García EC, Damon A, Sánchez HC, Soto PL, Ibarra NG (2006) Bat diversity in montane rainforest and shaded coffee under different management regimes in southeastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biological Conservation 132(3): 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.027
  • Gardner TA, Barlow J, Peres CA (2007) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles. Biological Conservation 138(1–2): 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.017
  • Gascon C, da Fonseca GAB, Sechrest W, Billmark KA, Sanderson J (2004) Biodiversity conservation in deforested and fragmented tropical landscapes: an overview. In: Schroth G, da Fonseca GAB, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN (Eds) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington DC, Island Press, 15–32.
  • Gaston KJ, Spicer JI (2004) Biodiversity: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Australia.
  • GBIF [Global Biodiversity Information Facility] (2023a) Sarcohyla hapsa Campbell, Brodie, Caviedes-Solis, Nieto-Montes de Oca, Luja, Flores-Villela et al. 2018. GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei [accessed via GBIF.org on 11 January 2024]
  • GBIF [Global Biodiversity Information Facility] (2023b) Lampropeltis ruthveni GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei [accessed via GBIF.org on 11 January 2024]
  • GBIF [Global Biodiversity Information Facility] (2023d) Imantodes gemmistratus (Cope, 1861) GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. https://doi.org/10.15468/39omei [accessed via GBIF.org 11 January 2024]
  • Hernández-Salinas U, Cruz-Elizalde R, Ramírez-Bautista A, Wilson LD, Berriozabal-Islas C, Johnson JD, Mata-Silva V (2023) Taxonomic and functional diversity of the amphibians and reptile communities of the state of Durango, Mexico. Community Ecology 24(2): 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42974-023-00145-7
  • Hromada SJ, Iacchetta MG, Beas BJ, Flaherty J, Fulbright MC, Wild KH, Scott AF, Gienger CM (2021) Low-Intensity Agriculture Shapes Amphibian and Reptile Communities: Insights from a 10-Year Monitoring Study. Herpetologica 77(4): 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1655/Herpetologica-D-20-00007.1
  • Iglesias-Carrasco M, Medina I, Ord TJ (2023) Global effects of forest modification on herpetofauna communities. Conservation Biology 37(1): e13998. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13998
  • Isbell F, Adler PR, Eisenhauer N, Fornara D, Kimmel K, Kremen K, Letourneau DK, Liebman M, Polley HW, Quijas S, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2017) Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems. Journal of Ecology 105(4): 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12789
  • Iszak C, Price ARG (2001) Measuring β-diversity using a taxonomic dissimilarity index, and its relation to spatial scale. Marine Ecology Progress Series 215: 69–77. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps215069
  • Johnson JD, Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, García-Padilla E, DeSantis DL (2017) The endemic herpetofauna of Mexico: Organisms of global significance in severe peril. Mesoamerican Herpetology 4: 544–620.
  • Jost L, Chao A, Chazdon RL (2011) Compositional similarity and β (beta) diversity. In: Magurran A, McGill BJ (Eds) Biological diversity: frontiers in measurement and assessment. Oxford University Press, New York, 66–87.
  • Koleff P, Soberón J, Arita HT, Dávila P, Flores-Villela O, Golubov J, Halffter G, Lira-Noriega A, Moreno CE, Moreno E, Munguía M, Murguía M, Navarro-Sigüenza A, Téllez O, Ochoa-Ochoa L, Peterson AT, Rodríguez P (2008) Patrones de diversidad espacial en grupos selectos de especies. In: Sarukhán J (Ed.) Capital natural de México, Vol. I, Conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. Conabio, México, D. F., 323–364.
  • Magurran AE (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 256 pp.
  • Nyelele C, Murwira A, Shekede MD, Mugabe PH (2014) Woodland fragmentation explains tree species diversity in an agricultural landscape of Southern Africa. Tropical Ecology 55: 365–374.
  • Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Flores-Villela O (2006) Áreas de diversidad y endemismo de la herpetofauna mexicana. UNAM-CONABIO, DF, México, 211 pp.
  • Ochoa-Ochoa L, Munguía M, Lira-Noriega A, Sánchez-Cordero V, Flores-Villela O, Navarro-Sigüenza A, Rodríguez P (2014) Spatial scale and beta diversity of terrestrial vertebrates in México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 85(3): 918–930. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.38737
  • Pisanty I, Urquiza-Haas E, Vargas-Mena AA, Ruiz GSP, Urquiza-Hass T, García MG (2016) Instrumentos de conservación in situ en México: logros y retos. In: Sarukán J, Pisanty I (Eds) Capital natural de México, vol. IV: Capacidades humanas e institucionales. CONABIO, México, 245–302.
  • Pough FH, Andrews R, Cadle JE, Crump ML, Savitzki AH, Wells KD (2004) Herpetology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 726 pp.
  • R Development Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  • Ramírez-Bautista A (1994) Manual y claves ilustradas de los anfibios y reptiles de la región de Chamela, Jalisco, México. Cuadernos 23, Instituto de Biología, UNAM, DF, México, 127 pp.
  • Ramírez-Bautista A, Torres-Hernández LA, Cruz-Elizalde R, Berriozabal-Islas C, Hernández-Salinas U, Wilson LD, Johnson JD, Porras LW, Balderas-Valdivia CJ, González-Hernández AJX, Mata-Silva V (2023) An updated list of the Mexican herpetofauna: With a summary of historical and contemporary studies. ZooKeys 1166: 287–306. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1166.86986
  • Reyna-Bustos OF, Ahumada CIT, Vazquez HO (2007) Anfibios y reptiles del bosque La Primavera: guía ilustrada. Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, México, 125 pp.
  • Rodríguez P, Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Munguía M, Sánchez-Cordero V, Navarro-Sigüenza AG, Flores-Villela OA, Nakamura M (2019) Environmental heterogeneity explains coarse–scale β–diversity of terrestrial vertebrates in Mexico. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210890
  • Rojo-Gutiérrez JR, Salcido-Rodríguez I, Amaral-Medrano DA, Cruz-Sáenz D, Rodríguez-López A, Lazcano D, Fuckso LA, Wilson LD (2022) Notes on the Herpetofauna of Western Mexico 27: Amphibians and Reptiles of Palo Gordo, Sierra de Tesistán, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 57(6): 109–113.
  • Rosas-Espinoza VC, Rodríguez-Canseco JM, Santiago-Pérez AL, Ayón-Escobedo A, Domínguez-Laso M (2013) Distribution of some amphibians from central western Mexico: Jalisco. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 84(2): 690–696. https://doi.org/10.7550/rmb.31945
  • Rosas-Espinoza VC, Peña-Joya KE, Álvarez-Grzybowska E, Godoy-González AA, Santiago-Pérez AL, Rodríguez-Zaragoza FA (2022) Amphibian Taxonomic and Functional Diversity in a Heterogeneous Landscape of West-Central Mexico. Diversity 14(9): 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14090738
  • Salcido-Rodríguez I, Hernández-Valadez FI, Castillo-Franco AE, Cruz-Sáenz D, Hernández-Juárez EE, Lazcano D, Fucsko LA, Wilson LD (2023) Notes on the Herpetofauna of Western Mexico 31: Herpetofauna from Sierra de Tesistán, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 58(10): 165–171.
  • Santiago-Pérez AL (2023) El hábitat del sitio arqueológico Guachimontones. In: Alvarez-Gryzbowska E, Rosas-Espinoza VC, Santiago-Pérez AL (coords.) Los Anfibios y reptiles de Jalisco: Guachimontones y alrededores de Teuchitlán. Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, México, 27–31.
  • Santiago-Pérez AL, Domínguez-Laso M, Rosas-Espinoza VC, Rodríguez-Canseco JM (2012) Anfibios y Reptiles de las montañas de Jalisco: Sierra de Quila. Orgánica Editores, CONABIO, México, 228 pp.
  • Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund JL, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C, Oosten CV, Buck LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110(21): 8349–8356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110
  • Somerfield PJ, Clarke KR, Warwick RM, Dulvy NK (2008) Average functional distinctness as a measure of the composition of assemblages. –. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65(8): 1462–1468. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsn118
  • Suazo-Ortuño I, Alvarado-Díaz J, Mendoza E, López-Toledo L, Lara-Uribe N, Márquez-Camargo C, Paz-Gutiérrez JG, Rangel-Orozco JD (2015) High resilience of herpetofaunal communities in a human-modified tropical dry forest landscape in western Mexico. Tropical Conservation Science 8(2): 396–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291500800208
  • Taylor E (1942) Mexican snakes of the genera Adelophis and Storeria. Herpetologica 2(4): 75–79.
  • Thompson ME, Nowakowski AJ, Donnelly MA (2015) The importance of defining focal assemblages when evaluating amphibian and reptile responses to land use. Conservation Biology 30(2): 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12637
  • Trimble MJ, Aarde RJ (2014) Amphibian and reptile communities and functional groups over a land-use gradient in a coastal tropical forest landscape of high richness and endemicity. Animal Conservation 17(5): 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12111
  • Wanger TC, Iskandar DT, Motzke I, Brook BW, Sodhi NS, Clough Y, Tscharntke T (2010) Effects of land-use change on community composition of tropical amphibians and reptiles in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology 24(3): 795–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01434.x
  • Warwick RM, Clarke KR (1995) New biodiversity measures reveal a decrease in taxonomic distinctness with increasing stress. Marine Ecology Progress Series 129: 301–305. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps129301
  • Wells KD (2007) The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 1400 pp.
  • Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD (2013a) A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Special Mexico Issue. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7: 1–47.
  • Wilson LD, Mata-Silva V, Johnson JD (2013b) A conservation reassessment of the amphibians of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Special Mexico Issue. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 7: 97–127.
  • Zaher H, Murphy RW, Arredondo JC, Graboski R, Machado-Filho PR, Mahlow K, Montingelli GG, Quadros AB, Orlov NL, Wilkinson M, Zhang YP, Grazziotin FG (2019) Large-scale molecular phylogeny, morphology, divergence-time estimation, and the fossil record of advanced caenophidian snakes (Squamata: Serpentes). PLoS ONE 14(5): e0216148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216148

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 

Supplementary information

Verónica Carolina Rosas-Espinoza, Eliza Álvarez-Grzybowska, Arquímedes Alfredo Godoy González, Ana Luisa Santiago-Pérez, Karen Elizabeth Peña-Joya, Fabián Alejandro Rodríguez-Zaragoza, Leopoldo Díaz Pérez, Francisco Martín Huerta Martínez

Data type: docx

Explanation note: table S1. Sample-based rarefaction curves generated using presence-absence data for both amphibians and reptiles. We report observed and expected species by land cover/use type using non-parametric estimators. Codes: sugar cane field (SCF), riparian habitat surrounded by crops (RH-C), cornfield (C), highly perturbated tropical dry forest (HPTDF), tropical dry forest (TDF), riparian habitat surrounded by tropical forest (RH-TDF), riparian habitat surrounded temperate forest (RH-TF), secondary vegetation surrounded by temperate forest (SV-TF), oak forest (OF), pine-oak forest (POF) and number of species observed (Sobs). fig. S1. Species with the documented range extensions. A Sarcohyla hapsa B Lampropeltis ruthveni C Thamnophis copei D Imantodes gemmistratus in a heterogeneous landscape in west-central Mexico. All photos by Eliza Álvarez-Grzybowska, except B) by Aldo Dávalos Martínez. fig. S2. Records of Sarcohyla hapsa in Jalisco state (black triangles, GBIF 2023a). The red star shows our record of range extension for S. hapsa. fig. S3. Records of A Lampropeltis ruthveni B Thamnophis copei, and C Imantodes gemmistratus in Jalisco state (black triangles, GBIF 2023). The red stars show our records of range extension for these different species. The colored areas are published distributions (IUCN 2024).

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.
Download file (4.65 MB)
login to comment