Next Article in Journal
Composition and Spatial Distribution of Benthic Foraminifera from Two Tropical Estuaries (7° S, Brazil)
Previous Article in Journal
Impacts of Climate Change on Suitable Habitat Areas of Larix chinensis in the Qinling Mountains, Shaanxi Province, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/d17030141
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Conserved Forests and Disturbed Areas: A Comparison in Southern Mexico

by
Keila Estefani Sánchez-López
1,
Cintia Natalia Martín-Regalado
2,3,*,
Rosa María Gómez-Ugalde
1,* and
Emilio Martínez-Ramírez
3
1
Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca, Tecnológico Nacional de México, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, Oaxaca 71230, Mexico
2
Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencia y Tecnología, Ciudad de Mexico 03940, Mexico
3
Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional Unidad Oaxaca, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, Oaxaca 71230, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(3), 141; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030141
Submission received: 16 January 2025 / Revised: 13 February 2025 / Accepted: 17 February 2025 / Published: 20 February 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Increasingly, conserved forests have become disturbed areas due to activities such as agriculture and livestock grazing. Landscape transformation leads to changes in biodiversity. Therefore, in this study, we compared the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in conserved areas (pine forest, oak-pine forest, and pine-oak forest) and disturbed areas in the Mixteca Oaxaqueña, southern Mexico. Fieldwork was conducted between July 2016 and June 2017, covering both the rainy and dry seasons. A total of eight amphibian species included in 5 families and 6 genera and 28 reptile species were recorded, distributed across 11 families and 21 genera. The pine-oak forest and the disturbed area exhibited the highest species richness of herpetofaunal, with 22 species each (4 amphibians and 18 reptiles), and were the most similar to each other with 14 species in common. Twelve amphibian and reptile species are classified in some risk category according to national and international standards. Twelve amphibian and reptile species are classified in some risk category according to national and international standards. The minimal difference in diversity observed in disturbed areas compared to that in pine forest and pine-oak forest suggests that the impact of changes in vegetation cover on amphibian and reptile diversity is relatively minor and not severe. However, the presence of 22 species in the disturbed areas (nine species considered in the risk category by Mexican environmental legislation) highlights the importance of implementing restoration strategies and monitoring the species that persist in disturbed areas. This study represents a significant contribution to the knowledge of amphibians and reptiles in both conserved and disturbed areas in the Mixteca Oaxaqueña, a region with limited available information on this biological group.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Forests are considered sources of ecosystem services, including the regulation of water, nitrogen, and carbon cycles at both local and global levels [1]. Specifically, temperate forests cover approximately 16% of the global forested area [2,3]. In Mexico, temperate forests are the most widely distributed forest cover [4,5], with the presence of oak forests, pine forests, and pine-oak forests, as well as other coniferous species [6]. These ecosystems are under significant anthropogenic pressure [7], largely due to unsustainable exploitation practices [1]. Generally, the threats faced by temperate forests include severe climatic events, wildfires, pests, diseases, and habitat fragmentation [8], all of which cause spatial and temporal losses of species [9]. In landscapes with varying degrees of transformation, remnants of vegetation persist that can still support significant biodiversity, although they are unsustainable in the long term [10], leading to what is known as delayed extinction [11,12,13]. Since such extinctions occur generations after fragmentation, they represent an “extinction debt” [14], an ecological cost of current habitat destruction [15]. Consequently, in current fragmented and disturbed landscapes, populations of many species are expected to be on a trajectory toward extinction even without any additional habitat loss [16]. In this context, estimating biological diversity in both natural and anthropogenic modified environments provides crucial information for conservation decision-making [17] and highlights processes of biotic impoverishment in human altered environments [18,19,20].
Mexico is a region with a significant debt and risk of extinction for amphibians and reptiles [21]. This phenomenon requires attention, especially in a country recognized for its high biological diversity [22]. Some studies in Mexico on fragmented and/or disturbed temperate forests have shown that, while amphibians and reptiles are affected by fragmentation, these sites still have the potential to preserve herpetofaunal communities similar to those in large, conserved forests or landscapes [9,23]. In southeastern Mexico, the state of Oaxaca has the highest herpetofaunal diversity, with 480 species [24], and a significant presence of temperate forests. In general, most temperate forests in Oaxaca exhibit some degree of anthropogenic alteration, which can significantly impact species with limited geographical ranges that are sensitive to disturbances [25].
However, this region has experienced changes in vegetation cover that affect the habitat of native fauna. Specifically, the Mixteca Oaxaqueña experiences high rates of environmental degradation caused by overexploitation of forest resources, overgrazing, and abandonment of traditional soil and water conservation practices, which has led to an accelerated process of desertification [26,27,28,29] and fragmented landscapes with bare matrices or agricultural fields with remnants of natural vegetation [30]. Despite land-use changes in this region, areas with conserved natural vegetation can still be observed within the fragmented landscape [28]. This highlights the need to assess the composition, diversity, and species richness of amphibians and reptiles in conserved habitats, such as temperate forests, and transformed areas. In the present study, we aimed to understand and compare the diversity of amphibian and reptile species in conserved forests (pine forest, oak-pine forest, and pine-oak forest) and disturbed areas within the Mixteca Alta landscape. Considering the types of vegetation and the disturbed areas present in the study area, we anticipated that the distribution of amphibians and reptiles would be influenced by the seasonal period and environmental disturbance, as reported in other studies (e.g., [31,32]).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is in the municipality of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Nochixtlán, within the Mountains and Valleys of the West physiographic subprovince (Figure 1). This subprovince is the largest in Oaxaca (21,263 km2) and is commonly referred to as the “Mixteca” to denote the region inhabited by the Mixtec people [33]. This area features rugged topography with small valleys; the most extensive of these is the Nochixtlán-Yanhuitlán valley [34]. The extreme coordinates of Santo Domingo Nuxaá are situated between latitudes 17°05′ and 17°15′ N and longitudes 96°58′ and 97°11′ W, with an elevation ranging from 1600 to 2700 m [35].
The predominant climates in the region are temperate semi-humid with summer rainfall and semi-warm semi-humid with summer rainfall [36]. The types of vegetation reported in the Mixteca [37], following Rzedowski’s classification [38] include Pinus and Quercus forests, xerophytic scrublands, palm groves, and small areas of tropical deciduous forest. Specifically, three types of vegetation were identified in the study area: pine forest, oak-pine forest, and pine-oak forest (Figure 1). The pine forest is located at the highest elevations, ranging from 2250 to 2700 m, and is dominated by several species of the genus Pinus (e.g., P. douglasiana, P. chiapensis, P. ayacahuite; [39]). The pine-oak forest is found between 1840 and 2440 m and is characterized by the presence of several species of Pinus, with Quercus species occurring secondarily. The oak-pine forest is located between 1750 and 2360 m, with the most representative species primarily from the genus Quercus and Pinus species occurring secondarily. According to INEGI [35], field observations, and consultations with local inhabitants to confirm historical and current land-use patterns, the disturbed areas are primarily represented by induced grasslands, resulting from agricultural and livestock activities (24.83%); agriculture, with bean and maize crops (7.25%); and small population centres (0.18%). The induced grasslands are the result of historical deforestation for the expansion of livestock farming, while the bean and maize crops reflect traditional agricultural activity in the region.

2.2. Field Work

Between July 2016 and June 2017, monthly visits were conducted, each lasting five days. During each visit, amphibian and reptile species were recorded in disturbed areas, pine forest, oak-pine forest, and pine-oak forest. The search was intensive and random, with a sampling effort of 8 h per each coverage type per month. The total sampling effort amounted to 768 h, distributed as 96 person-hours for each of the four vegetation types. Surveys were carried out during both day and night to maximise the detection of species with different activity patterns. During each visit, two people participated, and methods such as visual surveys, as well as the inspection of natural refuges (logs, rocks, and leaf litter), were employed. Each observed specimen was recorded with the date, time, geographic location, microhabitat, and cover type. Four microhabitat categories proposed by Gutiérrez-Mayén and Salazar-Arenas [40] were considered: (1) terrestrial (including organisms found on the ground, excluding those near water bodies), (2) arboreal (including organisms found on shrubs and trees), (3) riparian (including organisms located near and within water bodies), and (4) saxicolous (those found on rocks, walls, and crevices). Specimens were identified to the species level using dichotomous keys of Casas-Andreu & McCoy, [41]; Flores-Villela et al. [42]; Köhler & Heimes [43]; Campbell & Lamar [44]; Oliver-López et al. [45]; Canseco-Márquez & Gutiérrez-Mayén [46]. However, due to the limitations of the morphological method and the need for molecular analysis, two species are identified only to the genus level. Taxonomic arrangement was done following the classification proposed by Mata-Silva et al. [24], incorporating nomenclatural changes based on the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS; https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt, accessed on 20 December 2024)). All collected specimens were deposited in the Vertebrate Collection of the Instituto Tecnológico del Valle de Oaxaca and are covered by a collection permit issued by the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Office SGPA/DGVS/07/189/16).

2.3. Data Analysis

The data were grouped based on the rainfall recorded during the study period (rainy: May–November; dry: December–April). The sample completeness is measured by sample coverage (the proportion of the total number of individuals that belong to the species detected in the sample [47,48,49]. Whittaker curves, or rank-abundance curves [50,51] were constructed to evaluate the abundance and evenness of amphibians and reptiles across the four cover types. The number of species and individuals per species recorded in each vegetation type and disturbed areas were used to create these curves. The curves were plotted according to the logarithm of the proportion of each species p(n/N), with the data ordered from the most abundant species to the least abundant. Sampling completeness for each cover types and between seasons was assessed, varying from 0 (low completeness) to 1 (high completeness) [49].
Species diversity between both seasons and across cover types was estimated using the effective number of species [48,49], where q = 0 species richness; q = 1 includes all species weighted by their proportional abundance in the community; and q = 2 refers to the most abundant species [48]. Completeness and diversity analyses were conducted using the iNEXT online program [52,53], employing a non-asymptotic interpolation and extrapolation approach based on sample size. We use a bootstrap resampling method to compute the standard error and confidence interval of any estimator involved in the analysis. The default number of bootstrap replications was 100.
To assess the similarities in species composition of amphibians and reptiles across cover types, a similarity dendrogram was constructed using the Jaccard index in the Past Program. Furthermore, a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis was performed to visualize and support the differences among the four areas. Similarity between cover types was calculated with the Bray-Curtis indices with an abundance species matrix. NMDS was performed using the package vegan [54].
Finally, total β diversity and its turnover and nestedness components between sites were measured based on the Jaccard index [55]. Total β diversity (βju), turnover β diversity (βtu), and nestedness β diversity (βne) were calculated. These parameters were computed using the betapart package [55] in R (version 3.3.3.), using the incidence-based pair-wise dissimilarities function beta.pair.
The conservation status of the species was recorded based on the IUCN Red List [56] and the Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059 by the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources SEMARNAT [57]. Finally, the endemism assignment was based on Mata-Silva et al. [24].

3. Results

A total of 818 individuals (185 amphibians and 633 reptiles) were recorded, representing five families, six genera, and eight species of amphibians and 11 families, 21 genera, and 28 species of reptiles. The most represented family and genus were Phrynosomatidae and Sceloporus, with seven and six species, respectively (Table 1). The total richness by microhabitat type was highest for terrestrial habitats with 34 species, followed by riparian with 17, saxicolous with 11, and arboreal with five. Regarding cover types, the pine-oak forest and disturbed area had the highest species richness, with 22 species each, followed by the pine forest and oak-pine forest with 20 and 17 species, respectively (Table 2 and Table 3). During the dry season, 30 species of amphibians and reptiles were recorded, while 32 species were recorded during the rainy season (Table 2 and Table 3).
The sample coverage was over 90% for all four cover types; when considering both the rainy and dry seasons, the representativeness percentage approached 100% for both (Figure 2). These high proportions indicate that our surveys sampled the communities accurately.

3.1. Species Abundance

Rank-abundance curves revealed that the dominant species in the oak-pine forest and disturbed area was S. spinosus, while N. quercorum was the dominant species in the pine-oak forest and L. spectabilis in the pine forest. In two environments (disturbed area and oak-pine forest), species of the genus Thamnophis (e.g., T. chrysocephalus and T. cyrtopsis) were infrequent, while in the pine forest, the two species of the genus Thorius were present, and in the pine-oak forest, Phrynosoma braconnieri was prominent (Figure 3).

3.2. Species Richness and Diversity

Interpolation and extrapolation analyses did not reveal differences in species richness (0D) between the oak-pine forest and the disturbed areas, as their confidence intervals for the disturbed area were clearly different from the other cover types, while the diversity of the pine forest and the oak-pine forest was very similar (Figure 4 and Table S1 in Supplementary Material).
The NMDS ordination plots not suggested differences in species composition between the pine forest, oak-pine forest, and pine-oak forest. However, the disturbed area presented differences because the turtle species Kinosternon integrum was abundant and characteristic of this cover type (Figure 5)

3.3. Beta Diversity

The similarity dendrogram, based on the Jaccard method, reveals two groups with higher similarity in amphibian and reptile species composition. One group consists of the oak-pine forest and the disturbed area, with a 50% similarity, while the other group includes the pine-oak forest and the pine forest, with a 45% similarity (Figure 6).
Regarding total β diversity, the highest values were observed between the pine forest and the disturbed area (0.72). The species turnover component contributed more to the total β diversity than the nestedness component, and this same pattern was observed for the other cover type pairs (Figure 7).

3.4. Conservation Status and Endemism

Of the 36 amphibian and reptile species listed in this study, 11 are classified under some risk category according to NOM-059 [57], representing 27% of the recorded species. Among these, two are endemic to Oaxaca (Anolis quercorum and Thamnophis bogerti) and 19 are endemic to Mexico (e.g., Craugastor mexicanus and Kinosternon integrum). Additionally, the presence of the genus Thorius suggests the possibility of two other species endemic to Oaxaca. In this regard, NOM-059 [57] includes this genus with nine species in the category of special protection (including Thorius narisovalis, distributed in the Mountains and Valleys of the West [24,33] and one species as endangered. The International Union for Conservation of Nature [56] lists Pseudoeurycea mixteca as vulnerable under criteria, and the rest of the amphibian and reptile species recorded in this study as least concern (Table 2 and Table 3).

4. Discussion

In this study, we compared the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in conserved temperate forests (oak-pine forest, pine forest, and pine-oak forest) and disturbed areas. Although the sampling effort applied across the four cover types and the two seasons (rainy and dry) was high and acceptable for this biological group [58,59], we found that the species richness of amphibians and reptiles was low compared to other similar studies in Oaxaca (e.g., [60,61,62,63]) and other regions of Mexico (e.g., [64,65]). This may be directly influenced by the regional species pool [66], which is relatively low (127 amphibian and reptile species [24,33] compared to other physiographic subprovinces (e.g., Sierra Madre of Oaxaca with 227 species; [24]). The study area hosts eight species of amphibians and 28 species of reptiles, representing 28.3% of the amphibians and reptiles recorded in the Mountains and Valleys of the West physiographic subprovince and 7.5% of the herpetofaunal of the Mexican state of Oaxaca [24].
The Mountains and Valleys of the West is characterized by complex topography, including mountain systems, intermontane valleys, and wide altitudinal variation [26]. Such landscape heterogeneity can limit the distribution of certain species, particularly those with specific ecological requirements, such as narrow altitudinal ranges or preferences for particular habitats. An example of this is the record of five previously unreported species.
In this subprovince, in addition to the vegetation types included in this study, cloud forests and tropical deciduous forests are also present [67]. Cloud forests support a high diversity of amphibians [68] and reptiles [69], many of which have distributions restricted to this habitat [68,69]. For instance, species of the genera Pseudoeurycea, Thorius, and Bolitoglossa are closely associated with cloud forests, as are various species of frogs [68]. Among reptiles, the families Anguidae and Phrynosomatidae are notably well-represented in this type of vegetation [69].
The lack of sampling in these vegetation types, as well as the limited altitudinal range covered in this study, could explain the absence of previously reported taxa. Casas et al. [70] emphasise that the greatest diversity of amphibians and reptiles in the region occurs between sea level and 1000 metres of altitude, an altitudinal range not included in this study. Given that many species exhibit specific altitudinal distributions, the exclusion of this range may have resulted in the absence of records for taxa that depend on lower-elevation habitats.
Of the 36 species recorded, five reptile species (Sceloporus siniferus, Aspidoscelis deppii, Boa constrictor, Conopsis megalodon, Imantodes gemmistratus) are added to those previously reported by Mata-Silva et al. [24] for the physiographic subprovince Mountains and Valleys of the West, increasing the total by 5.15%, resulting in a total of 97 reptile species. Notably, the presence of the genus Thorius is significant, as it is considered the most threatened amphibian genus globally [71].
The presence of the genus Thorius is of particular interest due to its extreme miniaturisation, with some species being among the smallest salamanders in the world [72]. This phenomenon has led to a high degree of morphological conservatism, where many species share characteristics that make them morphologically indistinguishable [73]. This morphological similarity greatly complicates identification based solely on physical traits. Therefore, accurate identification of Thorius species requires the use of molecular techniques to distinguish between species within the genus [71,72].
Based on the observed external characteristics, the two recorded individuals appear to be different species; however, we cannot conclude that either belongs to the three species of Thorius currently recorded for the Mountains and Valleys of the West physiographic subprovince ([24] T. narisovalis, T. longicaudus, T. tlaxiacus). To date, Thorius spp. is reported for the Sierra Madre of Oaxaca (12 species), Mountains and Valleys of the West (3 species), Southern Sierra Madre (2 species), and Mountains and Valleys of the Center (1 specie) [24,33]. Additionally, Parra-Olea et al. [71] mentioned three unnamed species previously reported by Rovito et al. [72] as distributed in Oaxaca. In this context, the genus Thorius has been crucial in establishing the biological importance of both Mesoamerica and Oaxaca due to its level of endemism [73], which is restricted to the states of Oaxaca, Veracruz, Puebla, and Guerrero [71,74].
Sixty-three percent of the amphibian species were recorded in riparian microhabitats (e.g., Pseudoeurycea mixteca and Thorius spp.), with the highest abundance of records belonging to the genus Lithobates. Only five amphibian species were recorded in a single microhabitat (e.g., Eleutherodactylus nitidus as terrestrial and Lithobates zweifeli as riparian). This reflects the habitat specialization of this biological group. On the other hand, five reptile species (18%) were found in all four types of microhabitats considered (e.g., Anolis quercorum and four species of the genus Sceloporus); these species are considered habitat generalists, as they constantly move in search of food [62]. Fifteen reptile species (54%) were recorded in only one microhabitat (e.g., Gerrhonotus liocephalus, Phrynosoma braconnieri, Boa constrictor, Kinosternon integrum), which may be influenced by their small population sizes and difficult observation, particularly in the case of Boa constrictor, which was only recorded once during the study period. In general, riparian, and terrestrial microhabitats were the most utilized by amphibians and reptiles, respectively, which is consistent with reports from other studies in Oaxaca (e.g., [60,62,75]).
The presence of Thorius spp. specimens in contrasting microhabitats (riparian and terrestrial) within the conserved forests of the study area suggest that moisture may be limiting their distribution, particularly since historical records of the genus indicate it as a terrestrial microhabitat specialist [71,76,77].
The species observed in all four cover types were, for amphibians, only Lithobates spectabilis, and for reptiles, Anolis quercorum, Sceloporus grammicus, and Sceloporus spinosus. The latter two are well-known for their wide distribution [31]. The results reveal that the pine-oak forest and the disturbed area exhibit high herpetofaunal diversity. The minimal difference in species diversity recorded in the disturbed area compared to the conserved forests suggests that the disturbed area still provides favorable conditions for the presence of amphibians and reptiles, as has been mentioned by other studies (e.g., [23]). However, this may also reflect what is known as a non-linear ecological response of species to habitat loss and fragmentation at the landscape level [12]. In this regard, Figueiredo et al. [11] suggest that the degree of habitat transformation and life history traits may prolong individual survival, population dynamics, and metapopulation persistence, maintaining populations under deteriorating conditions. Specifically, the disturbed environment may offer amphibians and reptiles access to food and breeding sites, as suggested by Aldape-López & Santos-Moreno [78]. Disturbed areas with minimal vegetation cover facilitate the observation and capture of less mobile species [32,78] such as Kinosternon integrum. Despite the above, it is noteworthy that 14 species of amphibians and reptiles were not found in the disturbed areas, likely because they are unable to tolerate environmental changes [32]. However, species at risk of extinction in the disturbed areas (six species under special protection and three threatened species) highlight the importance of implementing restoration strategies in these environments.
In two cover types (oak-pine forest and pine-oak forest), amphibian species richness was higher during the rainy season (May-October), while reptile species richness was greater during the dry season across all four cover types. This suggests that seasonality plays an important role in the presence and detectability of amphibians and reptiles, with reptiles generally being more susceptible to changes in temperature and amphibians being more affected by changes in water availability [79,80].
As observed in the rank-abundance curves, the pine forest is distinctly dominated by less common or rare species (lower end of the curve), as reported in other studies in Oaxaca (e.g., [78]). This suggests that this environment exhibits less evenness in species abundances compared to other cover types, which have a greater number of dominant species (upper end of the curves). Lizards of the genus Sceloporus and species of the genus Anolis were the only ones recorded in all four cover types and were also the most abundant in this study. This finding aligns with reports from other studies (e.g., [60,81]), which indicates that these lizard species are commonly found across various microhabitats and cover types due to their ability to exploit multiple habitats.
The similarity values for amphibians and reptiles among different cover types are intermediate, ranging between 45 and 50% of the recorded species according to the Jaccard index. These similarity values suggest that half of the amphibian and reptile species occur in more than one environment (e.g., oak-pine forest and disturbed area). Conversely, the pine forest is the environment with the most exclusive species (Pseudoeurycea mixteca and Thorius spp.), indicating that the environmental conditions prevailing in this habitat are quite favorable for these amphibian species, such as water bodies, which are essential for their biological cycle [82,83].
The pattern of total beta diversity obtained for all pairs of cover types reveals that the highest values were observed between the pine forest and the disturbed area. This suggests that the species turnover component contributes more significantly than the nestedness component. This finding is consistent with the study by Calderón-Patrón et al. [84] in Oaxaca, which suggests that amphibian species replacement is the major contributor to the high beta diversity observed in the region.
Recognizing that Oaxaca is the most diverse state in terms of amphibians and reptiles, protecting species that are either classified under any risk category or endemic to the state is considered a priority. In this regard, the presence of Thamnophis bogerti, a species endemic to Oaxaca, which was recorded only during the dry season in the pine forest, is of particular interest. However, this species has been reported to be widely distributed in oak woodland, pine-oak forest, and pine-oak madrone forest exclusively in the Sierra Madre of Oaxaca and the Mountains and Valleys of the West [24,85]. It is important to note that, while the identification of Thorius specimens to the species level is not yet available, 26 out of the 29 recognized species of this genus are classified as critically endangered and exhibit population declines [55]. Although the expansion of agricultural fields, pastures, and forest plantations has invaded natural habitats, exerting additional pressure on ecosystem health [86], the remaining vegetation still preserves significant biodiversity. This is supported by the present study, which compares diversity between conserved forests and disturbed areas in a biodiversity rich region in southern Mexico. However, the region has faced severe pressures leading to land-use changes, necessitating ongoing monitoring of amphibian and reptile diversity, especially considering that 15.62% of the recorded species were exclusive to the disturbed area, three of which, Boa constrictor, Thamnophis chrysocephalus, and Thamnophis cyrtopsis, are classified as threatened [56].

5. Conclusions

Contrary to our expectations (greater amphibian and reptile richness in conserved environments), our results revealed that not only conserved areas, but also disturbed areas exhibit a high amphibian and reptile diversity. This suggests that habitat fragmentation processes in the study area still provide exceptional conditions for the presence of the observed species, despite being situated in a region undergoing significant changes in its vegetation cover. These and other findings from the study underscore the ecological importance of the region, which still harbors substantial biological richness. Therefore, there is a need to promote restoration strategies that support the conservation of species that remain in the Mixteca Oaxaqueña, in southern Mexico.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17030141/s1, Table S1. Diversity values of herpetofaunal cover types in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Mexico: Number of individuals (n); Number of species observed (S. obs.); Diversity of order q refers to Hill number: species richness order 0 (0D); exponential of Shannon entropy index (1D); inverse of the Simpson index (2D); Estimated sample coverage for a sample of size (SC).

Author Contributions

K.E.S.-L., fieldwork; C.N.M.-R. and R.M.G.-U., design, performed the analysis and wrote the document; E.M.-R., editing the document and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially supported by Tecnológico Nacional de México: Apoyo a la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica en los Programas Educativos de los Institutos Tecnológicos Federales y Centros through the Project 6615.18P.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Material.

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the results of the Bachelor’s thesis in Biology that the first author presented at the Institute of Technology of the Valley of Oaxaca. We thank B. Sánchez for his valuable support during the field work, E. García-Padilla for help in the identification of some amphibian species and M.C. Lavariega for reviewing this document and draw up the study map. C.N.M.-R. and R.M.G.-U. acknowledge the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI) for its recognition and support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of the World’s Forests 2022. Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies, 1st ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; pp. 1–148. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hansen, M.C.; Stehman, S.V.; Potapov, P.V. Quantification of global gross forest cover loss. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 8650–8655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 Key Findings; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  4. Galicia, L.; Chávez-Vergara, B.M.; Kolb, M.; Jasso-Flores, R.I.; Rodríguez-Bustos, L.A.; Solís, L.E.; Guerra de la Cruz, V.; Pérez-Campuzano, E.; Villanueva, A. Perspectivas del enfoque socioecológico en la conservación, el aprovechamiento y pago de servicios ambientales de los bosques templados de México. Madera Bosques 2018, 24, e2421443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Galicia, L.; Potvin, C.; Messier, C. Maintaining the high diversity of Pine and Oak Species in Mexican Temperate Forests: A new management approach combining functional zoning and ecosystem adaptability. Can. J. For. Res. 2015, 45, 1358–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rzedowski, J. Diversidad y orígenes de la flora fanerogámica de México. Acta Bot. Mex. 1991, 14, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gilliam, F.S. Forest ecosystems of temperate climatic regions: From ancient use to climate change. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 871–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rawat, M.; Singh, R.; Sharma, J.; Saklani, H.; Chand, T.; Bhatt, I.D.; Pandey, R. An overview of the functioning of temperate forest ecosystems with particular reference to Himalayan temperate forest. Trees For. People 2022, 8, 100230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cabrera-Guzmán, E.; Reynoso, V.H. Amphibian and reptile communities of rainforest fragments: Minimum patch size to support high richness and abundance. Biodivers. Conserv. 2012, 21, 3243–3265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Halley, J.M.; Monokrousos, N.; Mazaris, A.D.; Newmark, W.D.; Vokou, D. Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic groups. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 12283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Figueiredo, L.; Krauss, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Sarmento Cabral, J. Understanding extinction debts: Spatio–temporal scales, mechanisms and a roadmap for future research. Ecography 2019, 42, 1973–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hanski, I. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio 2011, 40, 248–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tilman, D.; May, R.M.; Lehman, C.L.; Nowak, M.A. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 1994, 371, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kuussaari, M.; Bommarco, R.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Helm, A.; Krauss, J.; Lindborg, R.; Öckinger, E.; Pärtel, M.; Pino, J.; Rodà, F.; et al. Extinction debt: A challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009, 24, 564–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Tilman, D.; Clark, M.; Williams, D.R.; Kimmel, K.; Polasky, S.; Packer, C. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 2017, 546, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Krauss, J.; Bommarco, R.; Guardiola, M.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Helm, A.; Kuussaari, M.; Lindborg, R.; Öckinger, E.; Pärtel, M.; Pino, J.; et al. Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 597–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Primack, R.C.; Vidal, O. Introducción a la Biología de la Conservación; Fondo de Cultura Económica, Ediciones Científicas Universitarias: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2019; pp. 149–241. [Google Scholar]
  18. Naeem, S.; Duffy, J.E.; Zavaleta, E. The functions of biological diversity in an age of extinction. Science 2012, 336, 1401–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Naeem, S. Biotic impoverishment. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2013, 1, 000015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Naeem, S.; Bruner, S.G.; Missirian, A. Environmental risk in an age of biotic impoverishment. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, R1164–R1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chen, Y.; Peng, S. Evidence and mapping of extinction debts for global forest-dwelling reptiles, amphibians and mammals. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ramírez-Bautista, A.; Torres-Hernández, L.A.; Cruz-Elizalde, R.; Berriozabal-Islas, C.; Hernández-Salinas, U.; Wilson, L.D.; Johnson, J.D.; Porras, L.W.; Balderas-Valdivia, C.J.; González-Hernández, A.J.X.; et al. An updated list of the Mexican Herpetofauna: With a summary of historical and contemporary studies. Zookeys 2023, 1166, 287–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Russildi, G.; Arroyo-Rodríguez, V.; Hernández-Ordóñez, O.; Pineda, E.; Reynoso, V.H. Species- and community-level responses to habitat spatial changes in fragmented rainforests: Assessing compensatory dynamics in amphibians and reptiles. Biodivers. Conserv. 2016, 25, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mata-Silva, V.; Garcia-Padilla, E.; Rocha, A.; Desantis, D.L.; Johnson, J.D.; Ramirez-Bautista, A.; Wilson, L.D. A reexamination of the herpetofauna of Oaxaca, Mexico: Composition update, physiographic distribution, and conservation commentary. Zootaxa 2021, 4996, 201–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Williams, J.N.; Rivera-García, R.; Salas-Morales, S.H. Biogeografía, ecosistemas y vegetación. In La biodiversidad en Oaxaca: Estudio de Estado; Gómez Hernández, C.V., Nájera Cordero, K.C., Cruz Medina, J., Eds.; CONABIO: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 273–278. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ortíz-Pérez, M.A.; Hernández-Santana, J.; Figueroa, J. Reconocimiento fisiográfico y geomorfológico. In Biodiversidad de Oaxaca; García-Mendoza, A.J., Ordóñez, M.J., Briones-Salas, M., Eds.; Instituto de Biología, UNAM-Fondo Oaxaqueño para la Conservación de la Naturaleza-World Wildlife Fundation: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2004; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  27. Altieri, M.A.; Fonseca, S.A.; Caballero, J.J.; Hernández, J.J. Manejo del Agua y Restauración Productiva en la Región Indígena Mixteca de Puebla y Oaxaca; Martínez, J., Ed.; The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  28. Boege, E.; Carranza, T. La agricultura sostenible campesino-indígena frente a la Mixteca Alta. In Agricultura Sostenible Campesino-Indígena, Soberanía Alimentaria y Equidad de Género; Boege, E., Carranza, T., Eds.; Programa de Intercambio, Diálogo y Asesoría en Agricultura Sostenible y Soberanía Alimentaria, Pan para el Mundo, Xilotl, SC: México City, Mexico, 2009; pp. 87–138. [Google Scholar]
  29. Williams-Linera, G.; Alvarez-Aquino, C.; Suárez, A.; Blundo, C.; Smith-Ramírez, C.; Echeverria, C.; Cruz-Cruz, E.; Bolados, G.; Armesto, J.J.; Heinemann, K.; et al. Experimental analysis of dryland forest restoration techniques. In Principles and Practice of Forest Landscape Restoration: Case Studies from the Drylands of Latin America; Newton, A.C., Tejedor, N., Eds.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 131–182. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cruz-Cruz, E. Terraces to reforest degraded lands in Oaxaca, Mexico. In Principles and Practice of Forest Landscape Restoration: Case Studies from the Drylands of Latin America; Newton, A.C., Tejedor, N.G., Eds.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 140–142. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cruz-Elizalde, R.; Ramírez-Bautista, A. Diversidad de reptiles en tres tipos de vegetación del Estado de Hidalgo, México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2012, 83, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Illescas-Aparicio, M.; Clark-Tapia, R.; González-Hernández, A.; Vásquez-Díaz, P.R.; Aguirre-Hidalgo, V. Diversidad y riqueza herpetofaunística asociada al bosque de manejo forestal y áreas de cultivo, en Ixtlán de Juárez, Oaxaca. Acta Zool. Mex. 2016, 32, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mata-Silva, V.; Johnson, J.D.; Wilson, D.; García-Padilla, E. The herpetofauna of Oaxaca, Mexico: Composition, physiographic distribution, and conservation Status. Mesoam. Herpetol. 2015, 2, 6–61. [Google Scholar]
  34. González-Leyva, A. Geografía, lingüística, arqueología e historia de la Mixteca Alta antes de la conquista española. Anu. Hist. 2012, 1, 45–66. [Google Scholar]
  35. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía). Compendio de Información Geográfica Municipal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca 2010; INEGI: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2010; pp. 1–9.
  36. García, E. Modificaciones al Sistema de Clasificación de Köppen, 5th ed.; Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, México, 2004; pp. 50–75. [Google Scholar]
  37. García Mendoza, A.; Tenorio Lezama, P.; Reyes Santiago, J. El endemismo en la flora fanerogámica de la Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca-Puebla, México. Acta Bot. Mex. 1994, 27, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rzedowski, J. Vegetación de México, 1st ed.; digital; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2006; pp. 160–379. [Google Scholar]
  39. Del Castillo, R.F.; Pérez de la Rosa, J.A.; Vargas Amado, G.; Rivera García, R. Coníferas. In Biodiversidad de Oaxaca; García-Mendoza, A., Ordóñez, M.d.J., Briones-Salas, M., Eds.; Instituto de Biología, UNAM-Fondo Oaxaqueño para la Conservación de la Naturaleza-World Wildlife Foundation: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2004; pp. 141–158. [Google Scholar]
  40. Gutiérrez-Mayén, M.G.; Salazar, J.A. Herpetofauna de los municipios de Camocuautla, Zapotitlán de Méndez y Huitzilan de Serdán, de la Sierra Norte de Puebla. In Inventarios Herpetofaunísticos de México: Avances en el Conocimiento de su Biodiversidad; Ramírez-Bautista, A., Canseco-Márquez, L., Mendoza-Quijano, F., Eds.; Publicaciones de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2006; pp. 197–223. [Google Scholar]
  41. Casas-Andreu, G.; McCoy, C.J. Anfibios y Reptiles de México: Claves Ilustradas Para Su Identificación; Limusa: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 1979; pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
  42. Flores-Villela, O.A.; Quijano-Mendoza, F.; González Porter, G. Recopilación de claves para la determinación de anfibios y reptiles de México. Publ. Espec. Mus. Zool. 1995, 10, 1–285. [Google Scholar]
  43. Köhler, G. Stachelleguane: Lebensweise, Pflege, Zucht; Herpeton: Offenbach, Germany, 2002; pp. 1–174. [Google Scholar]
  44. Campbell, J.A.; Lamar, W.W.; Brodie, E.D. The Venomous Reptiles of the Western Hemisphere; Comstock Pub. Associates: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 1–870. [Google Scholar]
  45. Oliver-López, L.; Woolrich Piña, G.A.; Lemos Espinal, J.A. La Familia Bufonidae en México; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2009; pp. 1–139. [Google Scholar]
  46. Canseco-Márquez, L.; Gutiérrez-Mayen, G. Anfibios y Reptiles del Valle de Tehuacán-Cuicatlán; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Fundación para la Reserva de la Biósfera Cuicatlán A.C., Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, México.: Puebla, Mexico, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cultid-Medina, C.; Escobar, F. Pautas para la estimación y comparación estadística de la diversidad biológica (QD). In La Biodiversidad en un Mundo Cambiante: Fundamentos Teóricos y Metodológicos para su Estudio; Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo/Libermex México City: Pachuca, Mexico, 2019; pp. 175–202. [Google Scholar]
  48. Jost, L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 2006, 113, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chao, A.; Jost, L. Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: Standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 2012, 93, 2533–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Magurran, A.E. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 1–179. [Google Scholar]
  51. Feinsinger, P. Designing Field Studies for Biodiversity Conservation; The Nature Conservancy, Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 1–212. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chao, A.; Gotelli, N.J.; Hsieh, T.C.; Sander, E.L.; Ma, K.H.; Colwell, R.K.; Ellison, A.M. Rarefaction and extrapolation with hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol. Monogr. 2014, 84, 45–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chao, A.; Ma, K.H.; Hsieh, T.C. User’s Guide for INEXT Online: Software for interpolation and extrapolation of species diversity. Code 2016, 30043, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  54. Oksanen, J. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2010. Available online: http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/. (accessed on 29 August 2024).
  55. Baselga, A.D.; Orme, S.; Villeger, J.; De Bortoli, F.; Leprieur. Betapart: Partitioning Beta Diversity into Turnover and Nestedness Components. R Package Version 1.5.1. 2018. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=betapart. (accessed on 29 August 2024).
  56. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org. (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  57. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Modificación del Anexo Normativo III, Lista de Especies en riesgo de la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección Ambiental-Especies Nativas de México de Flora y Fauna Silvestres-Categorías de Riesgo y Especificaciones para su Inclusión, Exclusión o Cambio-Lista de Especies en Riesgo, Publicada el 30 de Diciembre de 2010. 2019. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/index_111.php?year=2019&month=11&day=14. (accessed on 22 March 2024).
  58. Moreno, C.E.; Halffter, G. Spatial and temporal analysis of α, β and γ diversities of bats in a fragmented landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 367–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pineda, E.; Halffter, G. Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: Frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 117, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Martín-Regalado, C.N.; Gómez-Ugalde, R.M.; Cisneros-Palacios, M.E. Herpetofauna del Cerro Guiengola, Istmo de Tehuantepec, Oaxaca. Acta Zool. Mex. 2011, 27, 359–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rioja-Paradela, T.; Carrillo-Reyes, A.; Castañeda, G.; López, S. Diversidad herpetofaunística al norte de la Laguna Inferior, Istmo de Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, México. Acta Zool. Mex. 2013, 29, 574–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Martín-Regalado, C.N.; Lavariega, M.C.; Gómez-Ugalde, R.M.; Rodríguez-Pérez, C. Anfibios y reptiles de la Sierra de Cuatro Venados, Oaxaca, México. Arx. Miscel Laània Zool. 2016, 14, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Simón-Salvador, P.R.; Arreortúa, M.; Flores, C.A.; Santiago-Dionicio, H.; González-Bernal, E. The role of indigenous and community conservation areas in herpetofauna conservation: A preliminary list for Santa Cruz Tepetotutla, Oaxaca Mexico. Zookeys 2021, 1029, 185–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Aguilar-López, J.L.; Canseco-Márquez, L. Herpetofauna del municipio de las Choapas, Veracruz, México. Bol. Soc. Herpetol. Mex. 2006, 14, 20–37. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vite-Silva, V.D.; Ramírez-Bautista, A.; Hernández-Salinas, U. Diversidad de anfibios y reptiles de la Reserva de la Biosfera Barranca de Metztitlán, Hidalgo, México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2010, 81, 473–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wiens, J.J.; Donoghue, M.J. Historical Biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004, 19, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Torres-Colín, R. Tipos de Vegetación. In Biodiversidad de Oaxaca; García-Mendoza, A., Ordóñez, M.d.J., Briones-Salas, M., Eds.; Instituto de Biología, UNAM-Fondo Oaxaqueño para la Conservación de la Naturaleza-World Wildlife Foundation: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2004; pp. 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gual-Díaz, M.; Goyenechea-Mayer-Goyenechea, I. Anfibios en el bosque mesófilo de montaña en México. In Bosques Mesófilos de Montaña de México: Diversidad, Ecología y Manejo; Gual-Díaz, M., Rendón-Correa, A., Eds.; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2014; pp. 249–262. [Google Scholar]
  69. Goyenechea Mayer-Goyenechea, I.; Gual-Díaz, M. Reptiles en el bosque mesófilo de montaña en México. In Bosques mesófilos de Montaña de México: Diversidad, Ecología y Manejo; Gual-Díaz, M., Rendón-Correa, A., Eds.; Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2014; pp. 263–278. [Google Scholar]
  70. Casas-Andreu, G.; Méndez-de la Cruz, F.R.; Camarillo, J.L. Anfibios y reptiles de Oaxaca. Lista, distribución y conservación. Acta Zool. Mex. 1969, 69, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Parra-Olea, G.; Rovito, S.M.; García-París, M.; Maisano, J.A.; Wake, D.B.; Hanken, J. Biology of Tiny Animals: Three new species of minute salamanders (Plethodontidae: Thorius) from Oaxaca, Mexico. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rovito, S.M.; Parra-Olea, G.; Hanken, J.; Bonett, R.M.; Wake, D.B. Adaptive radiation in miniature: The minute salamanders of the Mexican Highlands (Amphibia: Plethodontidae: Thorius). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2013, 109, 622–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hanken, J.; Wake, D.B. A seventh species of minute salamander (Thorius: Plethodontidae) from the Sierra de Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico. Herpetologica 2001, 57, 515–523. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wake, D.B.; Lynch, J.F. The Distribution, ecology, and evolutionary history of plethodontid salamanders in tropical America. Bull Nat. Hist. Mus. L.A. Co. 1976, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar]
  75. Townsend-Peterson, A.; Canseco-Márquez, L.; Contreras-Jiménez, J.L.; Escalona-Segura, G.; Flores-Villela, O.; García-López, J.; Hernández-Baños, B.; Jiménez-Ruiz, C.A.; León-Paniagua, L.; Mendoza -Amaro, S.; et al. A preliminary biological survey of Cerro Piedra Larga, Oaxaca, Mexico: Birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and plants. An. Inst. Biol. Ser. Zool. 2004, 75, 439–466. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hanken, J.; Wake, D.B. Biology of tiny animals: Systematics of the minute salamanders (Thorius: Plethodontidae) from Veracruz and Puebla, México, with descriptions of five new species. Copeia 1998, 1998, 312–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aguilar-López, J.L.; Melgarejo-Vélez, Y.; Canseco-Márquez, L. Ampliación del ámbito geográfico de Thorius troglodytes (Hanken &, 1998) en el estado de Puebla, México. Acta Zool. Mex. 2015, 31, 321–323. [Google Scholar]
  78. Aldape-López, C.T.; Santos-Moreno, A. Efecto del manejo forestal en la herpetofauna de un bosque templado del Occidente de Oaxaca, México. Rev. Biol. Trop. 2016, 64, 931–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. García, A.; Cabrera-Reyes, A. Estacionalidad y estructura de la vegetación en la comunidad de anfibios y reptiles de Chamela, Jalisco, México. Acta Zool. Mex. 2008, 24, 91–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pough, F.H.; Andrews, R.M.; Cadle, J.E.; Crump, M.L.; Savitzky, A.H.; Wells, K.D. Herpetology, 4th ed.; Sinauer Associates: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 1–774. [Google Scholar]
  81. Durán-Servín, L.S. Contribución al conocimiento de la alimentación de la lagartija Sceloporus grammicus (Reptilia: Phrynosomatidae) en la localidad de la Palma, municipio de Isidro Fabela, estado de México. Rev. Zool. 2012, 23, 9–20. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zug, G.R.; Vitt, L.; Caldwell, J.P. Herpetology: An Introductory Biology of Amphibians and Reptiles, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2001; pp. 1–630. [Google Scholar]
  83. Luja, V.H.; López, J.A.; Cruz-Elizalde, R.; Ramírez-Bautista, A. Herpetofauna inside and Outside from a Natural Protected Area: The case of Reserva Estatal de La Biósfera Sierra San Juan, Nayarit, Mexico. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 21, 15–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Calderón-Patrón, J.M.; Peña-Joya, K.E.; Téllez-López, J.; Canales-Gómez, E.P. Dissimilarity among species and higher taxa of amphibians in a hotspot of biodiversity and endemism in the neotropics. Diversity 2024, 16, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rossman, D.A.; Burbrink, F. Species limits within the Mexican garter snakes of the Thamnophis godmani Complex. Occas. Pap. Mus. Nat. Sci. La. State Univ. 2005, 1, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. United Nations Environment Programme; International Resource Panel. Global Resources Outlook 2024—Bend the Trend: Pathways to a Liveable Planet as Resource Use Spikes; International Resource Panel: Nairobi, Kenya, 2024; pp. 1–181. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 17 00141 g001
Figure 1. Location and cover types in the study area.
Figure 1. Location and cover types in the study area.
Diversity 17 00141 g001
Diversity 17 00141 g002
Figure 2. Sample coverage by cover type for the herpetofaunal of the study area. The continuous lines are interpolation models. Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals obtained by a bootstrap method.
Figure 2. Sample coverage by cover type for the herpetofaunal of the study area. The continuous lines are interpolation models. Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals obtained by a bootstrap method.
Diversity 17 00141 g002
Diversity 17 00141 g003
Figure 3. Rank-abundance curves. The composition of amphibians and reptile communities was evaluated by cover types: (a) disturbed area, (b) pine forest, (c) oak-pine forest, and (d) pine-oak forest. The Y-axis represents the logarithm of the proportion of each species.
Figure 3. Rank-abundance curves. The composition of amphibians and reptile communities was evaluated by cover types: (a) disturbed area, (b) pine forest, (c) oak-pine forest, and (d) pine-oak forest. The Y-axis represents the logarithm of the proportion of each species.
Diversity 17 00141 g003
Diversity 17 00141 g004
Figure 4. Diversity values of herpetofaunal in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Mexico: number of individuals (n); observed species richness. Diversity of order q refers to Hill number: species richness order 0 (0D); exponential of Shannon entropy index (1D); inverse of the Simpson index (2D). Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals obtained by a bootstrap method.
Figure 4. Diversity values of herpetofaunal in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Mexico: number of individuals (n); observed species richness. Diversity of order q refers to Hill number: species richness order 0 (0D); exponential of Shannon entropy index (1D); inverse of the Simpson index (2D). Shaded areas indicate 95% confidence intervals obtained by a bootstrap method.
Diversity 17 00141 g004
Diversity 17 00141 g005
Figure 5. A non-metric scaling (NMDS) analysis by cover types for the herpetofaunal of study area.
Figure 5. A non-metric scaling (NMDS) analysis by cover types for the herpetofaunal of study area.
Diversity 17 00141 g005
Diversity 17 00141 g006
Figure 6. Dendrogram of similarity based on the Jaccard coefficient, showing the composition of amphibians and reptiles across four cover types in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico. The y-axis shows the similarity value ranging from 0–1. The y-axis shows the similarity value ranging from 0–1.
Figure 6. Dendrogram of similarity based on the Jaccard coefficient, showing the composition of amphibians and reptiles across four cover types in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico. The y-axis shows the similarity value ranging from 0–1. The y-axis shows the similarity value ranging from 0–1.
Diversity 17 00141 g006
Diversity 17 00141 g007
Figure 7. Values of the components of species turnover and nestedness; the sum of both represents the total beta diversity of the different cover types in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico. Cover type: pine forest (PF), disturbed area (DA), oak-pine forest (OPF), pine-oak forest (POF).
Figure 7. Values of the components of species turnover and nestedness; the sum of both represents the total beta diversity of the different cover types in Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico. Cover type: pine forest (PF), disturbed area (DA), oak-pine forest (OPF), pine-oak forest (POF).
Diversity 17 00141 g007
Table 1. Current composition of the herpetofaunal of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Table 1. Current composition of the herpetofaunal of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
OrdersFamiliesGeneraSpecies
Anura445
Caudata123
Subtotals568
Squamata102027
Testudines111
Subtotals112128
Totals162736
Table 2. Distribution of the amphibians of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Table 2. Distribution of the amphibians of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
SpeciesCTMT
DAPFOPFPOF
Anura
Bufonidae
1.Incilius occidentallis * (Camareno, 1879)R, D RRR, T, S
Craugastoridae
2.Craugastor mexicanus * (Brocchi, 1877) R, DRR, DT, R, S
Eleutherodactylidae
3.Eleutherodactylus nitidus (Peters, 1870) RT
Ranidae
4.Lithobates spectabilis * (Hillis & Frost, 1985)R, DR, DRDR, T
5.Lithobates zweifeli * (Hillis, Frost & Webb, 1984)R, D R R
Caudata
Plethodontidae
6.Pseudoeurycea mixteca V Canseco-Márquez and Gutiérrez-Mayén, 2005 D T
7.Thorius sp1 D T
8.Thorius sp2 D R
* = species endemic to Mexico. IUCN Red List: V = vulnerable. Cover types (CT): disturbed area (DA), pine forest (PF), oak-pine forest (OPF), and pine-oak forest (POF). Microhabitat type (MT): riparian (R), terrestrial (T), and saxicolous (S). Rainy season (R) and dry season (D).
Table 3. Distribution of the reptiles of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Table 3. Distribution of the reptiles of Santo Domingo Nuxaá, Oaxaca, Mexico.
SpeciesCTMT
DAPFOPFPOF
Squamata
Anguidae
9.Abronia gadovii *,Pr (Boulenger, 1913) R, D RT, R
10.Gerrhonotus liocephalus Wiegmann, 1828 R R, DT
Dactyloidae
11.Anolis quercorum ** Fitch, 1978R, DR, DR, DR, DT, R, A, S
Phrynosomatidae
12.Phrynosoma braconnieri *,Pr Duméril & Bocourt, 1870 R RT
13.Sceloporus aureoles * H. M. Smith, 1942DR, D R, DT, S, R
14.Sceloporus Formosus * Wiegmann, 1834RR, D R, DT, R, A, S
15.Sceloporus grammicus Pr Wiegmann, 1828RR, DDR, DT, R, A, S
16.Sceloporus jalapae * Günther, 1980R, D RRT, S, R
17.Sceloporus siniferus Cope, 1869R R, DR, DT, R, A, S
18.Sceloporus spinosus * Wiegmann, 1828R, DRR, DR, DT, R, A, S
Scincidae
19.Plestiodon brevirostris * (Günther, 1860) R, DR, DR, DT
Teiidae
20.Aspidoscelis deppii (Wiegmann, 1834)R, D R, DR, DR, T, S
21.Holcosus undulatus * (Wiegmann, 1834) R T
Boidae
22.Boa constrictor A,* Linnaeus, 1758R T
Colubridae
23.Conopsis megalodon * (Taylor & Smith, 1942) R, D RT
24.Lampropeltis polyzona Cope, 1860R T
25.Pituophis lineaticollis (Cope, 1861)R, DRR, D T, S
26.Salvadora intermedia *,Pr Hartweg, 1940R RT
27.Tantilla rubra Pr Cope, 1876R, D RT
Dipsadidae
28.Imantodes gemmistratus Pr (Cope, 1861)R T
29.Leptodeira septentrionalis Kennicott, 1859 DT
30.Rhadinaea taeniata * (Peters, 1863) DR T
Natricidae
31.Storeria storerioides * (Cope, 1865)RRR T
32.Thamnophis bogerti Rossman and Burbrink, 2005 ** D T
33.Thamnophis chrysocephalus *,A (Cope, 1885)DR, D DT, R
34.Thamnophis cyrtopsis A (Kennicott, 1860)R, D R T, R
Viperidae
35.Crotalus molossus Pr (Baird & Girard, 1853)D R, DRT, R
Testudines
Kinostemidae
36.Kinosternon integrum *,Pr LeConte, 1854R, D T
* = species endemic to Mexico. ** = species endemic to Oaxaca. Norma Oficial Mexicana: A = threatened and Pr = subject to special protection. Cover types (CT): disturbed area (DA), pine forest (PF), oak-pine forest (OPF), and pine-oak forest (POF). Microhabitat type (MT): riparian (R), terrestrial (T), saxicolous (S), and arboreal (A). Rainy season (R) and dry season (D).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-López, K.E.; Martín-Regalado, C.N.; Gómez-Ugalde, R.M.; Martínez-Ramírez, E. Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Conserved Forests and Disturbed Areas: A Comparison in Southern Mexico. Diversity 2025, 17, 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030141

AMA Style

Sánchez-López KE, Martín-Regalado CN, Gómez-Ugalde RM, Martínez-Ramírez E. Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Conserved Forests and Disturbed Areas: A Comparison in Southern Mexico. Diversity. 2025; 17(3):141. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030141

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-López, Keila Estefani, Cintia Natalia Martín-Regalado, Rosa María Gómez-Ugalde, and Emilio Martínez-Ramírez. 2025. "Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Conserved Forests and Disturbed Areas: A Comparison in Southern Mexico" Diversity 17, no. 3: 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030141

APA Style

Sánchez-López, K. E., Martín-Regalado, C. N., Gómez-Ugalde, R. M., & Martínez-Ramírez, E. (2025). Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Conserved Forests and Disturbed Areas: A Comparison in Southern Mexico. Diversity, 17(3), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030141

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop