The efficiency of indicator groups for the conservation of amphibians in theBrazilianAtlanticForest

Abstract

The adequate selection of indicator groups of biodiversity is an important aspect of the systematic conservation planning. However, these assessments differ in the spatial scales, in the methods used and in the groups considered to accomplish this task, which generally produces contradictory results. The quantification of the spatial congruence between species richness and complementarity among different taxonomic groups is a fundamental step to identify potential indicator groups. Using a constructive approach, the main purposes of this study were to evaluate the performance and efficiency of eight potential indicator groups representing amphibian diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Data on the geographic range of amphibian species that occur in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest were overlapped to the full geographic extent of the biome, which was divided into a regular equal-area grid. Optimization routines based on the concept of complementarily were applied to verify the performance of each indicator group selected in relation to the representativeness of the amphibians in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest as a whole, which were solved by the algorithm “simulated annealing,” through the use of the software MARXAN. Some indicator groups were substantially more effective than others in regard to the representation of the taxonomic groups assessed, which was confirmed by the high significance of the data (F = 312.76; P < 0.01). Leiuperidae was considered as the best indicator group among the families analyzed, as it showed a good performance, representing 71% of amphibian species in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest (i.e., 290 species), which may be associated with the diffuse geographic distribution of their species. In this sense, this study promotes understanding of how the diversity standards of amphibians can be informative for systematic conservation planning on a regional scale.

Characterizing surrogacy performance in the systematic conservation planning of riverine networks

“…fishes (FI)) or semi-aquatic groups (e.g. amphibians) were implemented in terrestrial or lacustrine environments (Bilton, McAbendroth, Bedford, & Ramsay, 2006;Campos, Trindade-Filho, Brito, Llorente, & Solé, 2014;Dobson, Rodriguez, Roberts, & Wilcove, 1997;Grantham et al, 2010;Lawler, White, Sifneos, & Master, 2003;Lombard, 1995). To our knowledge, no study to date has investigated crosstaxon congruence in river networks and in a diverse array of freshwater groups to characterize their utility as surrogates in priorityarea selection.…”

Functional traits explain amphibian distribution in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…On the other hand, habitat characteristics influence the spatial and temporal distributions of species (Campos, Trindade-Filho, Brito, Llorente, & Solé, 2014;Ferreira, Beard, & Crump, 2016;Figueiredo, Storti, Lourenço-de-Moraes, Shibatta, & Anjos, 2019;Hawkins, 2001). Thus, historical dispersal can be understood using environmental data of the localities at which species have been recorded and the geographical boundaries that restrict them (Gaston, 1991).…”

Of people and toads: Local knowledge about amphibians around a protected area in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

“…From these, 543 are endemic to the Atlantic Forest (Haddad et al 2013). The main threats are anthropogenic-derived habitat destruction, conversion into agricultural areas and urbanisation (Campos et al 2014).…”

“…Amphibians are, on one hand, commonly regarded as distasteful animals (Ceríaco 2012). On the other hand, their ecological relevance is often acknowledged (Gardner et al 2007;Campos et al 2013Campos et al , 2014. In this study, we aim to describe the ethnobiological relationships of a community living within a protected area with the amphibians that surround them: what are their princi-ples and values regarding amphibians?…”