Research Article |
Corresponding author: Colin T. Strine ( ajarncolinpromma@gmail.com ) Academic editor: Johannes Penner
© 2017 Russell Gray, Colin T. Strine.
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:
Gray R, Strine CT (2017) Herpetofaunal assemblages of a lowland broadleaf forest, an overgrown orchard forest and a lime orchard in Stann Creek, Belize. ZooKeys 707: 131-165. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.707.14029
|
Understanding and monitoring ecological impacts of the expanding agricultural industry in Belize is an important step in conservation action. To compare possible alterations in herpetofaunal communities due to these anthropogenic changes, trapping arrays were set in a manicured orchard, a reclaimed orchard and a lowland broadleaf forest in Stann Creek district at Toucan Ridge Ecology and Education Society (TREES). Trapping efforts were carried out during the rainy season, from June to September, 2016, during which time the study site was hit by a category one hurricane between sampling sessions. Trapping yielded 197 individual herpetofauna and 40 different species overall; 108 reptile captures (30 species) and 88 amphibian captures (ten species). Reptiles and amphibians were more abundant in the lowland broadleaf forest and the manicured orchard area. Amphibian species diversity was relatively similar in each habitat type. Reptile captures were most diverse in the Overgrown Orchard Forest (OGF) and Overgrown Orchard Riparian Forest (OGR) and least diverse in the Lowland Broadleaf Forest (LBF). The findings of this study suggest that reptile and amphibian sensitivity to anthropogenically altered areas is minimal when enveloped by natural habitat buffers, and additionally, that extreme weather events have little impact on herpetofauna communities in the area.
Amphibians, funnel-traps, human-altered habitats, passive-trapping, reptiles, lowland broadleaf forest
Negative effects of agricultural development are well known for a number of taxa across the neotropics (
The Stann Creek district of Belize (Fig.
Biodiversity conservation is necessary in Central America and the whole of the neotropics in order to maintain ecosystem functions (
Five major ecological assemblages characterize Central American herpetofauna: 1) humid tropical, 2) arid tropical, 3) humid montane, 4) arid montane and 5) high montane; the humid tropical assemblages of lowland habitat areas contain highest species richness and endemism (
Therefore, the objective of this study was to monitor herpetofauna assemblages in forested areas and various anthropogenic altered areas in order to compare any possible differences in community structure. Comparisons of this nature test the hypothesis of whether or not agricultural land clearings reduce herpetofauna diversity and richness, and if so, whether or not reclamation of these habitats restores diversity and richness. An imperative facet of wildlife conservation is the understanding of how anthropogenic change affects fauna. It is with this understanding that proper conservation methods and mitigation techniques can be implemented.
Study site.—The study site was chosen at Toucan Ridge Ecology and Education Society (TREES) located between DMS; 17°03'07.98–17°02'46.16N, 88°34'14.43–88°33'44.66 W; WGS84 (Fig.
Toucan Ridge Ecology and Education Society (TREES) habitat map showing the Heavily Manicured Orchard (HMO), Overgrown Orchard Forest (OGF), Lowland Broadleaf Forest (LBF), and Overgrown Orchard Riparian Forest (OGR) areas, including locations where trapping arrays were set. Additionally, the map indicates the large stream which runs through the property and smaller streams that can be found throughout the forested areas.
Site selection and herpetofaunal sampling.—Herpetofaunal assemblages were assessed and monitored within four habitats using drift fence and funnel trapping systems. These study sites included: 1) a heavily manicured lime orchard (HMO), 2) an old orange orchard overgrowth forest (OGF), 3) an old orange orchard overgrowth forest with an adjacent riparian forest area (OGR) and 4) a virgin lowland broadleaf forest area disturbed only by walking trails (LBF). Both reclaimed orchard study sites have been undisturbed for approximately 15 years. Each habitat chosen for sampling in the study was identified and verified by knowledge of the current owners of the property, caretakers who have managed it since early 2000, and additionally by updated habitat analysis conducted over the span of three years (V. Kilburn and M. Charette, pers. comm. May 2015). We used previously conducted habitat analysis of the TREES property from former interns who used several plots with transect lines running through them in order to determine habitat diversity through Gap Analysis, using vegetation as key biodiversity elements.
Trapping arrays (one per study site) were constructed in convenient sample sites within the chosen study areas that conformed to three major requirements: 1) Besides the HMO, each end of drift fence arrays should be ≥10 m from any walking trails; 2) trapping arrays should be 30–40 m from the large stream running through the property and 3) the trapping arrays should be placed on relatively flat ground to prevent fence wings from being placed in a levy, valley or dip, in order to avoid flood risk which could result in mortality of trapped fauna.
The trapping array in the HMO was set in a secluded part of the orchard area (DDM; 17°03.144N, 088°34.148W; WGS84) at an elevation of approximately 177.394 m. This area was regularly manicured, though did not experience the same amount of human interference as other parts of the orchard as a transit and fruit harvesting area. This was an important factor to avoid human interference with traps. The OGF trapping system (DDM; 17°03.030N, 088°34.046W; WGS84) was set at an elevation of approximately 190.5 m, 10m away from a trail system that leads to the adjacent broadleaf forest area. The second trapping system in the overgrown orchard habitat (OGR) was set in a riparian zone approximately 119.9 m from the OGF trapping system (DDM; 17°03.050N, 88°34.138W; WGS84) at an elevation of 186.8 m. The Lowland Broadleaf Forest trapping array was set deep into the heavily forested area (DDM; 17°03.028N, 88°34.044W; WGS84) at an elevation of 192.0 m.
In order to cover sufficient surface area for trapping herpetofauna, each of the fences were set up in a ‘Y’ shaped formation, with the one wing of the ‘Y’ facing west, one facing south east and the other wing extending to the north west, the length of the formation running perpendicular to the nearby stream. Each wing of the array was 10 m in length and approximately 1 m high, relative to the terrain it crosses; the bottom of the fence were buried approximately 10–15 cm to reduce chances of fossorial and sub-fossorial herpetofauna from evading capture. Fencing material was 1.2 m black nylon mesh material which was supported by bamboo stakes set at every meter from the vertex of the array; bamboo stakes were cut at approximately 1.4 m in length to allow for the 1 m height to be maintained when set in the ground and buried; nylon fencing material was attached and secured to the bamboo via zip-ties and staples. Each of the four drift fence arrays were set with 12 funnel traps. Outer trap openings, on the ends of the drift fence, faced inward toward the vertex of the array and the inner trap openings faced away from the vertex. Traps were double-funnel and assembled using aluminium mesh screen material, with a 60 cm long entry chamber and a 70 cm long holding chamber; chamber height and width was approximately 30×30cm. Wire and staples were used to hold shape and secure the canters and ends of the traps. Funnel openings were approximately 6-8 cm in diameter and were fitted with a flap to reduce capture escape probability. Trap ends were secured with removable wire for convenient fauna release. All traps had the front lip buried in the soil to reduce trap avoidances; traps within HMO area or open canopy areas of the OGF and OGR were covered with a white sheet to prevent direct sunlight and overheating of trapped fauna and reduce risk of stress and fatality. Traps and fence damage issues were repaired and addressed on a same-day basis when needed. Trapping sample sessions ran for 14 days each month of the rainy season between June and late September, 2016 for a total of eight weeks of sampling. These dates were chosen in order to capture and assess herpetofauna during their most active period of the year. According to the historical temperature and rainfall averages recorded between 1991 and 2015 on The Climate Change Knowledge Portal by the
Environmental variables.—In order to better understand the chosen study sites and the area surrounding the trapping systems, habitat variables were taken into account. We conducted a micro/macro-habitat analysis at each study site. Macro-habitat data was collected by measuring and forming a 10×10 m quadrat at the end of each wing of the drift fence array with colored flagging tape. Once the quadrats were established, several participating assistants walked, at a full arm’s length apart from each other through the quadrat and collected plants to be identified in order to find the dominant vegetative species in the habitat area. Plant identification was verified with the assistance of Belizean botanist David Tzul using the Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Belize, with Common Names and Uses (Balick 2000) and Trees of Belize (
Microhabitat data was collected at each of the four study sites to evaluate understory vegetation, ground cover/composition and canopy cover. A 1×1m quadrat divided into four equal sub-sections was used to evaluate understory vertical vegetation density, leaf/grass cover and composition, and canopy cover. The quadrat was placed beside the 12 traps of each array. To evaluate standing vegetation, a 2m measuring pole was placed in the centres of the four subsections in the quadrat and touch points were tallied within every 20 cm (
Comparison of microhabitat variables averaged from 12 points at each sampling site pre/post Hurricane Earl (note: HMO grass is regularly manicured and not constant, therefore it is ranked “-” on the chart for litter (%) and depth analysis; vertical vegetation density was factored in with exceptions (≤ 20 cm)); Before (B) and After (A) vertical vegetation values are shown side-by-side in the table.
Microhabitat variable | HMO | OGF | OGR | LBF | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD (±) | Mean | SD (±) | Mean | SD (±) | Mean | SD (±) | |
Canopy cover (%) pre | 23 | 30 | 91 | 4 | 77 | 24 | 98 | 1 |
Canopy cover (%) post | 12 | 12 | 44 | 27 | 13 | 28 | 95 | 3 |
Leaf Litter (%) pre | - | - | 59 | 22 | 51 | 30 | 56 | 25 |
Leaf Litter (%) post | - | - | 87 | 12 | 87 | 12 | 75 | 28 |
Litter depth (cm) pre | - | - | 7.02 | 60 | 4.90 | 2.24 | 2.98 | 1.61 |
Litter depth (cm) post | - | - | 2.69 | 95 | 1.71 | 1.42 | 2.05 | 1.36 |
Vertical Vegetation Density (Number of touch points) | ||||||||
0–20 cm(B:A) | - | - | 1.75:0.17 | 4.94:0.58 | 0.75:0.08 | 1.76:0.29 | 3.91:0.58 | 3.5:0.67 |
20–40 cm(B:A) | 0.58:0.08 | 1.16:0.29 | 1.33:1.25 | 3.70:2.93 | 0.08:0.5 | 0.29:0.67 | 0.5:0.5 | 1:0.90 |
40–60 cm(B:A) | 0.08:0 | 0.29:0 | 0.43:0.08 | 0.67:0.29 | 0.33:0.58 | 0.78:1.16 | 0:0.08 | 0:0.28 |
60–80 cm(B:A) | 0.08:0.08 | 0.29:0.28 | 0.25:0.08 | 0.62:0.29 | 0.08:0.17 | 0.29:0.39 | 0:0.25 | 0:0.62 |
80–100 cm(B:A) | 1.67:0.33 | 0.58:0.78 | 0.17:0.08 | 0.58:0.29 | 0.41:0 | 0.67:0 | 0:0.08 | 0:0.29 |
100–150 cm(B:A) | 0.67:0.42 | 1.62:1.0 | 0.5:0.5 | 0.80:1 | 0.75:0.58 | 0.97:0.79 | 0.5:0.58 | 1.24:0.90 |
150–200 cm (B:A) | 0.45:0.08 | 1.44:0.29 | 1.5:0.5 | 2.39:0.67 | 1.08:0.5 | 1.31:1.24 | 1.08:0.25 | 1.44:0.62 |
As another measure of environmental variable analysis, we took general micro-climate data (temperature and Relative Humidity [RH]) at each plotted site every day during trap checks (between 0800h and 1000h) using a HTC-1 temperature and humidity meter (Temperature Accuracy: Â ± 1°C; Humidity Range :10-99%; RH accuracy: 60% Â ± 5% RH). Along with this, we recorded rain data each day at 0800h and 2000h from a plastic rain gauge set in an open area.
Data analysis.—We performed all statistical analyses in RStudio V. 0.99.903 using packages “vegan” and “BiodiversityR” (
Habitat variation.—Habitat variations were recorded using the micro/macro-habitat analysis for each of the four habitat areas studied:
Heavily Manicured Orchard.—The HMO had an average temperature of 31.15°C and an average RH of 76.2% throughout the duration of the study. The soil was relatively dry in comparison to the other plotted areas and was covered in grass rather than leaf litter as groundcover, the open area was thinly spotted with Citrus aurantifolia lime trees covered in water bearing Aechmea sp. bromeliads. There were no canopies over the trapping systems; however there were dense canopy edges (> 2 m) on the west and north-west wings. After the hurricane, large trees fell over top of the north-west wing providing a heavily shaded canopy area over two of the traps.
Overgrown Orchard Forest.—The OGF habitat area had an average temperature of 27.45 °C and average RH of 84.1% throughout the duration of the study. The ground of this site was covered in leaf litter and moist soil which turns to soft mud after rains. Vegetation consisted of small scattered bryophytes and lycophytes with dominant tree species being Cupania sp. The site was covered by relatively heavy canopy with an extensive liana complex extending from tree to tree. Following the hurricane, the canopy cover decreased and tangled liana complexes hung large concentrations of vegetation over the centre and west wing of the trapping system.
Overgrown Orchard/Riparian Forest.—The vegetation, soil composition and canopy cover in the OGR were relatively similar to the OGF habitat with the exception of a small wetland area, composed of a thick patch Costus sp. and shallow muddy water approximately 15-25 cm in depth, approximately >5m from the end of the west wing and extending further past the 10×10 quadrat area documented. The site had an average temperature of 26.71 and average humidity of 84.3% throughout the study. After the hurricane, the canopy cover was significantly altered with nearly all vegetation falling away from the trapping array and none overhanging, as has occurred in the other sites.
Lowland Broadleaf Forest.—The canopy cover of the LBF was very heavy; soil was moist; ground cover consisted of leaf litter, scattered bryophytes, lycophytes and many sapling trees. Scattered Bactris major and large Attalea cohune were surrounding the trapping system; the dominant tree species were Xylopia sp., Hirtella Americana, and Vochisia hondurensis. The site had an average temperature was 26.89 °C and RH was 83.2% throughout the study. After the study, there was very little alteration to the vegetation in the study site, assumedly the thick vegetation levels inhibited and broke down the heavy winds.
Microhabitat variables pre/post hurricane.—In order to show the difference in canopy changes from Hurricane Earl which occurred after two of the four sample sessions, we took canopy cover data before and after hurricane Earl (Fig.
Pre/post hurricane species richness and diversity.—The analysis of each habitat studied shows that although habitat areas were significantly altered after the hurricane there were no significant comparable differences in capture rates, species richness or diversity (Fig.
Before the hurricane, the trapping system in the LBF yielded six species (12 individuals); HMO yielded 12 species (20 individuals); OGF yielded ten species (eleven individuals) and OGR yielded 8 species (10 individuals). Amphibian captures before the hurricane in the LBF yielded 4 species (18 individuals); HMO yielded 4 species (17 individuals); OGF yielded 2 species (2 individuals) and OGR yielded 2 species (6 individuals). Post-hurricane reptiles in the LBF yielded 10 species (15 individuals); HMO yielded 8 species (12 individuals); OGF yielded ten species (14 individuals) and OGR yielded 11 species (14 individuals). Post-hurricane amphibian captures in the LBF yielded 4 species (20 individuals); HMO yielded 4 species (17 individuals); OGF yielded 3 species (6 individuals) and OGR yielded 2 species (3 individuals).
Capture rates.—During this study, trapping efforts yielded 197 individual herpetofauna and 40 different species overall; 108 reptile captures (30 species) and 89 amphibian captures (ten species) (Table
Amphibian and reptile pecies captured in each habitat type throughout the study.
Family | Species | Habitat type | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMO | OGF | OGR | LBF | Total | ||
Ranidae | Lithobates brownorum | 3 | 1 | 4 | ||
Lithobates juliani | 2 | 2 | ||||
Lithobates vaillanti | 18 | 2 | 12 | 32 | ||
Craugastoridae | Craugastor chac | 7 | 7 | |||
Craugastor sabrinus | 1 | 1 | ||||
Bufonidae | Incilius valliceps | 3 | 12 | 7 | 15 | 37 |
Rhinella horribilis | 1 | 1 | ||||
Eleutherodactylidae | Eleutherodactylus leprus | 1 | 1 | |||
Hylidae | Smilisca baudinii | 2 | 2 | |||
Plethodontidae | Bolitoglossa dofleini | 1 | 1 | |||
Kinosternidae | Kinosternon leucostomum | 2 | 2 | |||
Corytophanidae | Basiliscus vittatus | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
Xantusiidae | Lepidophyma flavimaculatum | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
Dactyloidae | Norops lemurinus | 4 | 4 | |||
Gekkonidae | Coleonyx elegans | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8 | |
Scincidae | Scincella cherriei | 8 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 14 |
Marisora brachypoda | 1 | 1 | ||||
Teiidae | Holcosus undulatus | 1 | 1 | |||
Colubridae | Coniophanes fissidens | 1 | 1 | |||
Coniophanes imperialis | 2 | 2 | ||||
Drymarchon melanurus | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
Drymobius margaritiferus | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Imantodes cenchoa | 1 | 1 | ||||
Lampropeltis abnorma | 1 | 1 | ||||
Leptodeira polysticta | 1 | 1 | ||||
Leptophis ahaetulla | 1 | 1 | ||||
Leptophis mexicanus | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
Mastigodryas melanolomus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
Ninia diademata | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||
Ninia sebae | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 9 | |
Phrynonax poecilonotus | 3 | 1 | 4 | |||
Pliocercus elapoides | 1 | 1 | ||||
Rhadinaea decorata | 1 | 1 | ||||
Scaphiodontophis annulatus | 1 | 1 | ||||
Sibon nebulatus | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | ||
Spilotes pullatus | 1 | 1 | ||||
Tantilla hendersoni | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Tropidodipsas sartorii | 1 | 1 | ||||
Xenodon rabdocephalus | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
Viperidae | Bothrops asper | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | |
Elapidae | Micrurus diastema | 2 | 1 | 3 | 6 | |
Micrurus hippocrepis | 4 | 1 | 9 | 14 | ||
Grand Totals | 58 | 41 | 33 | 65 | 197 |
Reptile and amphibian capture rates were analysed per plot-night for differences between habitat areas (Fig.
Rank abundances.—Amphibian rank abundance curves between the four sites show no cogent species richness in amphibians (Fig.
Amphibian rank abundance curves (using the logarithm of abundances) for the Heavily Manicured Orchard (HMO), Overgrown Orchard Forest (OGF), Overgrown Orchard Riparian Forest (OGR) and Lowland Broadleaf Forest (LBF); the three most abundant species captured in each site is labeled in each of the four plots.
Reptile rank abundance curves (using the logarithm of abundances) for the Heavily Manicured Orchard (HMO), Overgrown Orchard Forest (OGF), Overgrown Orchard Riparian Forest (OGR) and Lowland Broadleaf Forest (LBF) study sites; the three most abundant species captured in each site is labeled in each of the four plots.
Shannon-Wiener diversity indexes, means and standard deviations of reptiles and amphibians between each sample site are compared.
Forest Type | Amphibians | Reptiles | ||||
Average observed species | Average Shannon Diversity | SD (±) | Average observed species | Average Shannon Diversity | SD (±) | |
Heavily Manicured Orchard | 2.6 | 1.00 | 5.54 | 0.5 | 3.26 | 0.63 |
Overgrown Orchard Forest Overgrown | 1.6 | 0.82 | 3.71 | 0.46 | 2.97 | 0.69 |
Orchard Riparian Forest | 0.9 | 0.52 | 2.23 | 0.43 | 2.83 | 0.68 |
Lowland Broadleaf Forest | 3.70 | 1.30 | 5.64 | 0.48 | 3.07 | 0.66 |
Species richness and diversity.—Both species richness and diversity contrasted significantly between reptiles and amphibians in each habitat site (Fig.
Reptiles had comparatively higher species richness and diversity in each habitat with HMO and LBF showing similarities in their richness, although HMO is slightly higher in diversity. Diversity is highest in OGF and lowest in LBF; richness is highest in HMO and lowest in OGR. The curves appear to indicate there is significant probability of discovering unseen species in their extrapolated richness values.
There were no significant differences in reptile diversity between each of the habitats studied, (ANOVA; F = 0.661, P = 0.869); similarly, amphibians too showed no significant difference in diversity of captured species in each habitat (ANOVA; F = 0.258, P = 0.854).
Possibility of unseen species.—We calculated values using the Chao 2 richness estimator and Abundance-based Coverage Estimation (A.C.E.) in order to estimate extrapolated richness values in each habitat for reptile species (
Extrapolated richness estimates evaluated through Chao1 index and Abundance-based Coverage Estimator (A.C.E.)
Forest Type | Reptiles | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
observed species | Chao1 Index | SE (±) | A.C.E. | SE (±) | |
Heavily Manicured Orchard | 14 | 16.50 | 2.89 | 21.39 | 2.64 |
Overgrown Orchard Forest Overgrown | 18 | 29.0 | 8.46 | 34.61 | 2.39 |
Orchard Riparian Forest | 15 | 26.25 | 9.52 | 34.13 | 2.95 |
Lowland Broadleaf Forest | 13 | 22.33 | 8.82 | 32.3 | 3.82 |
A total of 56 trap nights, spanning four months of the rainy season, yielded 40 species of herpetofauna (197 individuals); 108 reptile captures (30 species) and 88 amphibian captures (ten species). Trapping systems captured 49 frogs (seven species), 38 toads (two species), and only one species of salamander. Gulf coast toads Incilius valliceps and ranid frogs from the Lithobates genus were the most abundant amphibians captured (Lithobates vaillanti being the most abundant species); Rhinella horribilis (HMO), Craugastor sabrinus (OGF), Eleutherodactylus leprus (HMO) and Bolitoglossa dofleini (LBF) were the rarest, with only one individual of each species being caught in traps. In regards to reptiles, traps captured 74 snakes (25 species), 10 lizards (4 species), 8 geckos (1 species), 15 skinks (2 species) and two turtles (1 species).
Since the study sites were restricted to the TREES property, the trapping systems were all within close proximity to one another (μ = 267.6 m). In addition to this, there are several variations in habitat types; some are drastic (i.e., heavily manicured orchard areas bordering unaltered broadleaf forest areas), whereas some can be as miniscule as vegetation variations (i.e., lowland santamaria variant and lowland negrito-nargusta variant) within the broadleaf forest area (
Herpetofaunal species diversity exhibited some extent of variation between the habitats studied; species richness was higher in reptiles than amphibians. Individual captures were highest in the LBF (n = 65) and HMO (n = 58) and lowest in the OGR (n = 33); diversity of species was highest in OGF (n=22) and relatively similar in HMO (n = 19), LBF (n = 18) and OGR (n = 17). Since this study only utilized standard Y-shaped funnel trapping system per habitat, incorporating pitfall traps and using different or modified funnel traps/drift fence configurations could increase trapping potential, particularly for anurans (Crosswhite 1999;
As this project was run for a single season, there are a number of cautions necessary for interpreting our dataset. The richness and abundance estimates may have been inflated or deflated by temporary boom and bust cycles of prey items during this particular season. It is also possible that we simply had an anomalous season and therefore recommend more extensive monitoring through a longer sampling period. Multi-year studies allow for monitoring survivorship of marked individuals, and trends in both activity and movement throughout the seasons, making them more robust. However, our study is intended as a snapshot view of the herpetofaunal communities within the different forest types of the study area in hopes to generate more interest for community level research within Belize, and to provide a baseline dataset from which to work.
The findings of this study can be used in conjunction with future herpetology and ecology work within the Belize in regards to community structure in anthropogenically-altered habitat areas. Monitoring efforts of herpetofauna in various habitats may assist in the creation of feasible conservation methods. Overall, there is now evidence of the effectiveness of drift fence and funnel trapping system use to monitor herpetofauna in Belize. Furthermore, the limitations of this study regarding lack of previous replicate studies, spatial autocorrelations, and changing environmental variables are understood.
The suitability of funnel traps in conjunction with drift fences is known to be an effective passive capture method for monitoring terrestrial herpetofauna (Dorcas and Williams 2009;
Hurricane Earl significantly effected study site vegetation (i.e. canopy cover and standing vegetation), though didn’t significantly alter capture diversity. One possible result of post-hurricane habitat alterations were the captures of two individuals of Tantilla hendersoni, a data deficient species of centipede eating snake known from only one prior individual record (
Predated fauna may also account for species capture data to be reduced. R. Gray and A. Pelletier observed a Micrurus hippocrepis captured underneath a trap in the OGF, seemingly attempting to access the Ninia sebae captured within. This leads to the assumption that some herpetofauna trap-mates could potentially have been taken by other predatory herpetofauna, as many of the snake species caught are known to have diets consisting of lizards, skinks, frogs, toads and other snakes (
A study by
Intensive trapping studies should be implemented throughout the year to collect additional data on seasonal variations of herpetofauna in Belize. Herpetofauna that are of conservation concern in Belize (Table
Herpetofauna species that occur in Belize considered as a concern for conservation (Critically Endangered = CE; Endangered = EN; Vulnerable = V; Near Threatened = NT; Lower Risk/Conservation Dependant = LR/CD).
REPTILES | |||
---|---|---|---|
Species Name | Common Name | Conservation Status | Status Authority |
Dermatemys mawii | Central American River Turtle | CE |
|
Chelydra rossignonii | Yucatan Snapping Turtle | V |
|
Rhinoclemmys areolata | Furrowed Wood Turtle | NT |
|
Crocodylus moreletii | Morlete’s Crocodile | LR/CD |
|
Crocodylus acutus | American Crocodile | V |
|
Celestus rozellae | Rozella’s Lesser Galliwasp | NT |
|
Phyllodactylus insularis | Belize Leaf-tailed Gecko | V |
|
Agkistrodon bilineatus | Cantil | NT |
|
AMPHIBIANS | |||
Species Name | Common Name | Conservation Status | Status Authority |
Lithobates juliani | Maya Mountain Frog | NT |
|
Smilisca cyanosticta | Blue Spotted Mexican Treefrog | NT |
|
Incilius campbelli | Campbell’s Forest Toad | NT |
|
Craugastor laticeps | Broadheaded Rainfrog | NT |
|
Craugastor chac | Chac’s Rainfrog | NT |
|
Craugastor sandersoni | Sanderson’s Streamfrog | EN |
|
Craugastor sabrinus | Long-legged Streamfrog | NT | IUCN SSC 2016 |
Craugastor psephosypharus | Limestone Rainfrog | V |
|
Bolitoglossa dofleini | Mushroom-tongue Salamander | NT |
|
Eleutherodactylus leprus | Leprus Chirping Frog | V |
|
Agalychnis moreletii | Morelet’s Treefrog | CE |
|
We would like to express gratitude to the Forest Department of Belize for providing permissions for this research project (Scientific Collection/Research Permit Act No. 14/2000; Ref. No. WL/1/1/16(48) and to Mathieu Charette and Vanessa Kilburn, the directors of TREES for making this study possible by providing lodgings and facilitating research efforts on their property. We would also like to acknowledge Zach Dunseith, Ryan Dickson, Antoine Pelletier, Mathilde Poirier and Mireille Levesque for their tireless assistance with data records and field work. Finally, we would like to thank César Barrio-Amorós/Doc Frog Photography (César Luis Barrio Amorós www.docfrogphotography.com, email: cesarlba@yahoo.com) for the photos provided of Scincella cherriei and L. vaillanti.
Common captures during study
Data type: Occurrence Data
Explanation note: Photos of reptiles and amphibians most commonly captured during the study. Information is provided regarding the habitats each species was caught in during the study, their IUCN Redlist conservation status, and EVS scores according to