Amphibians in the Region of Murcia (SE Iberian peninsula ... - Raco

More documents

Recommendations

Info

38 Egea–Serrano et al.Table 3. Scores for two dimensions extractedby multiple correspondence analysis forindependent variables: E. Eigenvalue. (Forabbreviations see table 2.)Tabla 3. Puntuaciones para las dos dimensionesextraídas por el análisis de correspondenciamúltiple para las variables independientes. (Paralas abreviaturas ver tabla 2.)Table 4. Scores for amphibian speciesexisting in the region of Murcia for thevariables risk of extinction (RE) and extensionof distributiion (E).Tabla 4. Puntuaciones de las especies deanfibios presentes en la región de Murciapara las variables riesgo de extinción (RE) yextensión de distribución (E).Dimension 1 Dimension 2Variable (E = 0.63) (E = 0.44)P 0.682 0.911RS 0.369 0.031EN 0.687 0.059HB 0.954 0.939H 0.234 0.229MA 0.308 0.260AE 0.917 0.485AD 0.943 0.937BH 0.770 0.067TU 0.499 0.551Species RE ES. salamandra 3 4A. dickhilleni 3 4A. obstetricans 3 4D. jeanneae 3 5B. calamita 1 2B. bufo 2 3P. punctatus 2 3P. cultripes 2 4R. perezi 1 1salamandra, A. dickhilleni, A. obstetricans and D.jeanneae. However, when the IUCN Red ListCriteria are applied to these species at a worldwidelevel (UICN, 2001), only A. dickhhilleni isdescribed as vulnerable (IUCN, 2004). Nevertheless,the group formed by the above speciesshows a higher risk of extinction than the otherstudied species when the IUCN Red List Criteriaat country level (UICN, 2003) are applied(Pleguezuelos et al., 2002).The degree of agreementbetween this classification and our resultswas good. In relation to the remaining speciesstudied, although they have not been evaluatedat a worldwide level (IUCN, 2004), when theIUCN Red List Criteria are applied at countrylevel (UICN, 2003) they are not classified separately(Pleguezuelos et al., 2002); they all show alow risk of extinction (Least Concern). In contrastwith this classification, the index applied at aregional level in the present study identified agroup of species exposed to a low–medium riskof extinction (B. bufo, P. punctatus and P. cultripes)and another group with a low risk of extinction(R. perezi and B. calamita). This difference demonstratesthe importance of a spatial scale inevaluating a taxon´s risk of extinction.If a species in a region is considered threatened(as is the case of S. salamandra, A.dickhilleni, A. obstetricans and D. jeanneae inMurcia) measures must be taken to ensure theconservation of these populations in this territory.Such measures should include the conservationof traditional farming practices because thesewould contribute to preserving terrestrial habitatssuitable for the adult individuals of many species,as well as water bodies where many species canfinish their larval development, as suggested byseveral authors (París et al., 2002; Martínez–Solano et al., 2004; unpublished data).The importance of mountain systems in amphibianconservation in the Region of Murcia is clear.Most areas whose conservation has been consideredpriority in the present study (80%) are locatedin the main mountains of the study area, and havebeen proposed as Sites of Community Interest(Baraza, 1999). However, only 12% of the proposedpriority conservation areas are included withinRegional Parks (Baraza, 2003), the current legallyprotected areas.Mateo (2002) showed some of these mountainswere valuable areas for herpetofauna conservation,although amphibian and reptile species were consideredtogether. These areas are characterized byhabitats of community interest, such as Tetraclinisarticulata, Quercus ilex, Quercus rotundifolia,Juniperus phoenicea, or Juniperus thurifera forests(Baraza, 1999), whose distribution range in thestudy area is restricted. According to our results,the area showing the most noticeable lack of protectionis the north eastern part of the study area, aterritory where only three out of the 12 squaresestablished as priority conservation areas are includedin Sites of Communitary Interest or RegionalParks.
Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 29.1 (2006) 39WHXHYGNWGXGUTM5 x 5 kmFig. 2. Distribution of areas of the highest conservation priority in the Region of Murcia.Fig. 2. Distribución de las áreas prioritarias de conservación en la Región de Murcia.The fact that most priority squares are concentratedin the northwestern area of the region, wherethey coincide with different protected areas, emphasisesthe biological value of this territory. Inaddition, the value of this area increases becauseof its cultural importance from the point of view oftraditional land use conservation (Pérez &Lemeunier, 2003).Finally, it should be mentioned that most of thepriority conservation areas suggested in this workare isolated as a consequence of the severe habitatdestruction that the Region of Murcia has undergone,and continues to undergo, as a consequenceof irrigation crop expansion (Martínez & Esteve,2003). Such severe environmental degradation meansthat only species showing low ecological requirements,such as R. perezi, can survive, and it impliesthat most of the amphibian populations present inthe study area will remain isolated. Since ensuringcolonization and genetic flow from nearby populationsis an essential measure in amphibian conservation(Semlitsch, 2002), habitat restoration programmesneed to be undertaken to provide suitable habitatsfor different amphibian species. This would formbiological corridors that make individual migrationsfeasible. These aspects should be taken into considerationwhen amphibian populations in the Region ofMurcia are subjected to management and/or recoveryprogrammes.AcknowledgementsPart of this research was supported by the EnvironmentalService of the Autonomous Governmentof Murcia, Spain. We thank members ofGroup of Investigation Aquatic Vertebrates Conservationof the Zoology and Physical AnthropologyDepartment of the University of Murcia fortheir help in field sampling. We also thank PhilipThomas for the English translation.ReferencesAlcobendas, M. & Buckley, D., 2002. Salamandrasalamandra. In: Atlas y Libro Rojo de los Anfibiosy Reptiles de España: 55–57 (J. M. Pleguezuelos,R. Márquez & M. Lizana, Eds.). Dirección Generalde Conservación de la Naturaleza, Madrid.Andreone, F. & Luiselli, L., 2000. The Italianbatrachofauna and its conservation status: astatistical assessment. Biological Conservation,96: 197–208.Arntzen, J. W. & García–París, M., 1995. Morphologicaland allozyme studies of midwife toads(genus Alytes) including the description of twonew taxa from Spain. Contribution to Zoology,65: 5–34.Baraza, F. (Coord.), 1999. Los hábitats comunitarios
Page 1 and 2: Animal Biodiversity and Conservatio
Page 3 and 4: Animal Biodiversity and Conservatio
Page 8 and 9: 40 Egea-Serrano et al.en la Región

Amphibians in the Region of Murcia (SE Iberian peninsula ... - Raco

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?