Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PeerJ logoLink to PeerJ
. 2018 Jan 4;6:e4202. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4202

Amphibian and reptile biodiversity in the semi-arid region of the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, Mexico

Andrea J Roth-Monzón 1,2,✉, Andrés Alberto Mendoza-Hernández 1, Oscar Flores-Villela 1
Editor: John Measey
PMCID: PMC5756618  PMID: 29312825

Abstract

Current global changes are putting both biodiversity and the processes that depend on it at risk. This is especially true for semi-arid regions and the flagship groups that inhabit them, such as amphibians and reptiles. Semi-arid regions are often thought to have lower biodiversity and thus have been overlooked, resulting in the underestimation of their biological richness. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct an inventory of amphibians and reptiles in the semi-arid municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Mexico, and analyze its biodiversity in relation to the seasons, vegetation and microhabitat. During a year of fieldwork, we found 24 species in the area, most of them of low abundance, and one of which was recorded for the first time for the state of Hidalgo. We documented five amphibian species and 19 reptile species. We also found that observed species richness was higher in the rainy season and in xeric scrub vegetation, although only the season differences were significant according to rarefaction curves. Our findings highlight the importance of seasonality and vegetation type for the species that inhabit this semi-arid region. This study broadens our understanding of the importance of semi-arid regions and, by extension, that of other areas with similar characteristics.

Keywords: Seasonality, Conservation, Biodiversity, Semi-arid regions, Xeric-scrub, Microhabitat, Amphibians, Reptiles

Introduction

Current global changes are affecting both human societies and biodiversity assemblages, putting many of the ecosystem processes that depend upon biodiversity at risk (Díaz et al., 2006; Ceballos et al., 2015). Biodiversity provides several benefits to ecosystems including ecological efficiency, ecosystem stability and ecosystem productivity, among others (Cardinale et al., 2012). Thus, it is important to know, conserve and maintain biodiversity before it is lost (Cardinale et al., 2012). Although in recent years greater efforts have been made to document and protect biodiversity, there is still the need to continue such efforts (Purvis & Hector, 2000).

Priority should be given to important species and regions that have been recognized as conservation flagships or are understudied regions for biodiversity. Drylands, such as deserts, semi-arid regions and arid regions, comprise one natural biome that is at risk (Davies et al., 2012; Bastin et al., 2017). The vulnerability of these regions is a result not only of human development that reduces their area, but also of climate change and land use practices that may lead to desertification (Davies et al., 2012). Furthermore, drylands have been largely neglected in the literature (Bastin et al., 2017; Durant et al., 2012). Because conservation policies are species driven (Agapow et al., 2004) efforts to maintain and study biodiversity focus on “hot spots” and tropical forest that maximize the number of species conserved (Myers et al., 2000). However, dryland biomes cover approximately 41.5% of the Earth, can contain some of the most threatened species and can house an important number of endemic species (Flores-Villela & Gerez, 1994; Davies et al., 2012; Bastin et al., 2017; Durant et al., 2012).

Drylands are also of great importance for certain taxonomic groups that are found more commonly in these types of environments (Davies et al., 2012). Reptile species are known to be associated with arid climates and niches (Pie, Campos & Duran, 2017; Davies et al., 2012). The study of these environments can be particularly important for such taxonomic groups. About 60% of Mexico is comprised of semi-arid regions (Rzedowski, 1996), a type of dryland, and the country has the second-highest biodiversity of amphibians and reptiles species in the world (Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez, 2004; Llorente-Bousquets & Ocegueda, 2008). Therefore, it is important to document the species of amphibian and reptiles in such semi-arid regions, especially in light of their recent decline due to degradation of their natural habitats (Velázquez, Mas & Palacio-Prieto, 2010).

The municipality of Nopala de Villagrán is a semi-arid region (as defined by the aridity index, see methods) in the state of Hidalgo that is located in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, a highly endemic area where 78.3% of the species of amphibians and reptiles that occur there are endemic (Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez, 2007). Furthermore, the number of municipal-level natural reserves in Hidalgo has been increased from 29 to 33, including one in the municipality of Nopala that covers 1,753.7 ha of an area known as Cerro Nopala-Hualtepec (COEDEH, 2009). However, because municipal-level natural reserves were only recently instituted in Mexico, most lack full legal accreditation and management programs based on species inventories (Bezaury-Creel & Gutiérrez Carbonell, 2009), making it important to determine exactly what biodiversity is being preserved in these areas.

Although some biological inventories that assess amphibian and reptile biodiversity have already been carried out in Hidalgo, they have been conducted mainly in the northern areas due to the natural reserves located there (CONANP, 2003; CONANP, 2006; CONANP, 2007; COEDEH, 2009; Ramírez-Bautista et al., 2014). The municipality of Nopala de Villagrán is located in the southwestern portion of the state, in which only one previous study has been carried out (Gómez Mendoza, 2007).

The aim of this study was to document the biodiversity of amphibians and reptiles in the semi-arid municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, and to describe the current patterns of biodiversity with respect to the type of vegetation, seasonality and microhabitat. Identifying and describing the distribution of these amphibians and reptiles will make it possible to inform conservation decisions and management strategies for this and other similar regions in Mexico.

Materials and Methods

Our study was designed to determine the diversity of amphibians and reptiles in the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán in the southwestern part of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico (20°18′, 20°09N; 99°31′, 99°51W; INEGI, 2002), at an elevation of 2,400 m a.s.l. (Fig. 1). The municipality is a semi-arid region as determined by the aridity index, i.e., the ratio of mean annual precipitation to annual global terrestrial precipitation (Ponce, Pandey & Ercan, 2000), as its index falls between 0.25 and 0.5.

Figure 1. Location of the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Blue dots with numbers show the location of the sites surveyed in this study. Black outline indicates the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán. Green area is the Reserva Cerro Nopala-Hualtepec. Image Spot January 2015 Google Maps and location of the Cerro Nopala-Hualtepec taken from Rivas et al. (2009), polygon obtained from http://www.conacyt.gob.mx/cibiogem/index.php/anpl/hidalgo.

Nopala de Villagran is a relatively small municipality with 342.305 km2 and a population with approximately 15,666, with the biggest towns with populations <2,500. This is a rural area that is economically supported by farming, the main crops in the municipality are, in order of importance: corn (Zea mays), beans, forage oats and agave (INEGI , 2013). The municipality is located in the biogeographical sub-province of the Plains and Highlands of Querétaro and Hidalgo, a sub-providence situated on the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt. The climate in the area is temperate subhumid, with a dry season from December to May and a wet season from June to November. The mean annual temperature is 14.7 °C, with a typical minima of 12.8 °C and a maxima of 17.3 °C, and rainfall is 615 mm (INEGI, 2002), making it a semi-arid region (Schlesinger et al., 1990; Ponce, Pandey & Ercan, 2000). There is no permanent surface water or streams in the area and sinkholes depend only on rainfall (Camacho-Camacho, 2005), so there are differences in the vegetation due to the seasonality of the area that create differences in humidity (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Difference in xeric scrub vegetation in the dry and rainy season.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Photograph (A) is locality 16, Cerro Maravillas during the dry season. Photograph (B) is the same locality during the rainy season. Photographs by A.A. Mendoza-Hernández.

We conducted field surveys (non-selective searches and visual surveys; Crump & Scott, 1994) monthly for a year from March 2008 to February 2009 with the permission of the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FAUT-0015). This allowed us to examined temporal variation, as both precipitation and temperature vary throughout the year in the municipality that can affect the distribution and activity of amphibians and reptiles. We surveyed a total of 17 localities in order to represent most of the municipality (Fig. 1). All localities were surveyed at least twice and as broadly as possible. For four days per month, three people spent at least eight hours per day conducting surveys. Active searches where focused on types of habitats and microhabitats preferred by amphibians and reptiles in order to find the most possible. All microhabitats (e.g., under rocks, under vegetation, on rocks, on trees and bushes) were searched for amphibians and reptiles. Likewise both morning, afternoon and nighttime searches were conducted to cover different periods through the day. The 17 localities were used as a reference during fieldwork, but searches were not constrained to a transect or quadrant, as the focus was to cover the municipality as a whole and search exhaustively to obtain the most complete species list possible. We covered on average 124 ha for each locality in each sampling trip, with a lower range of 60 ha and an upper of 304 ha covered in a single visit.

All specimens collected or observed inside the municipality for which proper identification to the species level was possible were included on our species list. Representative voucher specimens were collected for each species, identified to the species level and deposited in the “Museo de Zoología Alfonso L. Herrera” collection at the Facultad de Ciencias at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (MZFC, UNAM; Appendix S1). Taxonomic names follow “the amphibian species of the world” (Frost, 2017) for amphibians and Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez (2004) for reptiles.

A species accumulation curve was plotted based on the monthly increments in the number of species collected. To assess sampling effort, the model that best fits the data and the expected number of species occurring in the area were calculated using the Species Accumulation program (Días-Fránces & Soberón, 2005). The models predict the expected number of species that could be encountered in the municipality if sampling effort was increased, using the occurrence of species in the municipality as a proxy for the sampling effort.

For each specimen collected and observed we recorded data regarding: (1) vegetation, based on the three types of vegetation found in the municipality (xeric scrub, oak forest and croplands: mostly corn and agave); (2) season (rainy and dry); and (3) microhabitat, based on nine categories modified from Duellman (1965) and Vargas-Santamaría & Flores-Villela (2006). These microhabitat categories were terrestrial (on the ground), arboreal (on trees or vegetation above 1.5 m), scrubby (on trees or vegetation below 1.5 m), riparian (near streams or water), aquatic (in water), saxicolous (around rocks), human areas (on human-related objects), fossorial (buried), and decaying trunks (under fallen tree trunks).

To test for differences in species richness for each taxonomic group (amphibians and reptiles) by vegetation (xeric scrub, oak forest and croplands) and seasonality (dry and rainy) we performed a sample size rarefaction curve (Chao & Jost, 2012; Chao et al., 2014). This approach allows us to compare species richness even when differences in sampling effort occur, as it is possible to extrapolate the smallest samples and compare species richness estimates at equal sample coverage by using abundance data as a surrogate for sampling effort. As suggested by Chao et al. (2014) rarefaction curves were extrapolated to double the abundance of the smallest sample, but considering the abundance of the highest sample that is being compared (Chao et al., 2014). Therefore, the extrapolation was extended to the highest abundance sample possible in each rarefaction curve, whether it was doubling the abundance of the smallest sample or using the abundance of the highest sample being compared. We conducted the rarefaction curves using the R package iNEXT (Hsieh, Ma & Chao, 2016), with a bootstrap of 300 replicates (as suggested by Chao et al., 2014) to estimate 95% confidence intervals. We compared the vegetation preference of the species of Nopala that are endemic to Mexico with those that are not, using the Webb index (Webb, 1984; Ochoa-Ochoa & Flores-Villela, 2006), where a value between 0 and 1 indicates fewer endemic species than non-endemic species, a value of 1 indicates the same number of endemic and non endemic species and a value higher than 1 indicates more endemic species than non-endemic species. This allowed us to determine which vegetation type had the greatest proportion of endemic species for the area under study. We also compared vegetation similarity by using the Chao Jaccard similarity index (Chao et al., 2005) for all possible pairs of the three vegetation types in the municipality. We chose this index as it is more robust to unequal samples (Chao et al., 2005), which are likely in our study since priority was given to sampling most of the municipality, in which the distribution of the types of vegetation is unequal. The Chao Jaccard similarity index was calculated using the package SpadeR (Chao, Ma & Hsieh, 2015).

We made rank abundance curves in the package BiodiversityR (Kindt & Coe, 2005) for both amphibians and reptiles separately among vegetation types and season. We plotted the relative abundance on a logarithmic scale against the rank order of the species from most to least abundant. We then visually assessed the rank abundance curves to determine the pattern of dominance by vegetation and season, as well as the differences in the abundance pattern present at each vegetation type and season. All statistical analyses were conducted using the R package (R Core Team, 2013).

Results

We recorded 24 species (five amphibians and 19 reptiles) in the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán. The amphibians are grouped into four families and four genera, and the reptiles in six families and ten genera (Table 1). Among these species, we found one snake that had not been previously recorded for the state of Hidalgo, until we conducted this study: Lampropeltis ruthveni (Roth-Monzón Flores-Villela, Mendoza-Hernández & Flores-Villela, 2011). The snake L. ruthveni was, however, known to inhabit the neighboring states of Michoacán, Jalisco and Querétaro (Garstka, 1982; Mara, 1995). None of the species found are considered endemic to the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, but 12 species are endemic to Mexico (two amphibians and 10 reptiles; Table 1; Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez, 2007). Furthermore, all of the species found are considered native to Mexico (IUCN, 2017). At Nopala de Villagrán, we documented 13.11% of the amphibian and reptile species reported for Hidalgo based on the list by Ramírez-Bautista et al. (2014). Thirteen reptile species collected fall into two of the risk categories established by Mexican federal law, with eight receiving special protection and five being classified as Endangered (SEMARNAT, 2010; Table 1). All the species present in the municipality have been assessed by the IUCN Red list. Most are considered Least Concern (21 species) and only three species fall in a different risk category (Table 1; IUCN, 2017).

Table 1. List of species in the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, indicating which are endemic and their protection category according to both the Mexican federal law (NOM-059-SEMARNAT, 2010) and the IUCN Red list (IUCN, 2017).

Class Protection category
Order Family Species Mexican protection IUCN Endemic
Amphibia Eleutherodactylidae Eleutherodactylus verrucipes Pr VU E
Anura Hylidae Dryophytes eximius LC
Dryophytes arenicolor LC
Ranidae Lithobates montezumae Pr LC E
Scaphiopodidae Spea multiplicata LC
Reptilia Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus microlepidotus Pr LC E
Squamata Sceloporus mucronatus LC E
Sceloporus scalaris LC
Sceloporus spinosus LC E
Sceloporus torquatus LC E
Teiidae Aspidoscelis gularis LC
Colubridae Coluber schotti LC
Conopsis lineata LC E
Conopsis nasus LC E
Lampropeltis ruthveni A NT E
Pituophis deppei A LC
Salvadora bairdi Pr LC E
Natricidae Thamnophis cyrtopsis A LC
Thamnophis eques A LC
Thamnophis melanogaster A EN
Viperidae Crotalus aquilus Pr LC E
Crotalus molossus Pr LC
Testudines Kinosternidae Kinosternon hirtipes Pr LC
Kinosternon integrum Pr LC E
Open in a new tab

Notes.

Abbreviations for Endemic are

E
endemic, blank, non-endemic; for the Mexican protection
Pr
Special protection
A
Endangered, blank, no protection category; for the IUCN: LC, Least Concern
NT
Near Threatened
VU
Vulnerable
EN
Endangered

The accumulation curve for sampling effort reached an asymptote in the sixth month, suggesting that the number of species encountered remained constant regardless of an increase in sampling effort. The exponential model expected the number of species collected in this study; while the Clench model suggested an additional six species could be encountered in the municipality if sampling effort was increased (Fig. 3). Furthermore, the sample coverage from the rarefactions curves was above 90%, indicating effective sampling of all vegetation types and seasons. Richness was higher for amphibians and reptiles in the rainy season with eight species exclusive to this season, while only two were exclusive to the dry season (Table 2). The higher richness in the rainy season was significant for both amphibians and reptiles, as shown by the non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals in the rarefaction curves (Fig. 4). As seen in such curves the difference was greater for amphibians than reptiles.

Figure 3. Species accumulation curve of amphibians and reptiles collected in the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, Mexico with the expected number of species from the Clench and Exponential model.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Red dots are the number of species collected this study; the exponential model is the black line and the Clench model is the dashed line.

Table 2. Species list for the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo, showing the number of individuals in each vegetation type, season and microhabitat.

SpeciesRank−AbudanceCode Season Vegetation Microhabitat
D R MX OF CL Ter Sax Arb Scr Rip Aqu Fos DecT Hum
Hyla eximia1 78 263 272 23 42 291 8 6 3 2 3
Hyla arenicolor2 9 107 106 5 5 59 53 3 4
Lithobates montezumae3 14 13 1 7 1 4
Spea multiplicata4 16 12 4 16
Eleutherodactylus verrucipes5 5 4 1 5
Sceloporus microlepidotus6 71 57 92 29 8 50 19 38 6 5
Sceloporus mucronatus7 68 85 104 32 7 56 87 1 2
Sceloporus spinosus8 14 35 40 6 3 36 4 4 2
Sceloporus torquatus9 20 59 58 12 10 31 37 2 6
Sceloporus scalaris10 8 8 8
Aspidoscelis gularis11 3 3 3
Conopsis lineata12 24 17 29 6 2 37 2 1
Conopsis nasus13 7 8 14 1 12 3
Thamnophis eques14 3 20 10 6 6 21 1
Salvadora bairdi15 2 6 7 3 8 2
Crotalus aquilus16 4 2 4 2 3 2
Pituophis deppei17 6 5 1 6
Thamnophis melanogaster18 7 6 1 5 2
Coluber schotti19 4 2 4 3
Lampropeltis ruthveni20 2 2 1 1
Thamnophis cyrtopsis21 2 2 2
Crotalus molossus22 1 1 2 3
Kinosternon integrum23 2 15 9 5 6 7 8
Kinosternon hirtipes24 1 1 1
Open in a new tab

Notes.

The microhabitats are

Ter
on the ground
Sax
saxicolous
Arb
arboreal
Scr
scrubby
Rip
riparian
Aqu
aquatic
Fos
fossorial
DecT
decaying trunks
Hum
human areas

Vegetation types

XS
xeric scrub
OF
oak forest
CL
croplands

Season

R
rainy
D
dry

Figure 4. Individual based rarefaction curves for species of amphibians (A–B) and reptiles (C–D) by vegetation (A–C) and season (B–D).

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Vegetation types: XS, xeric scrub; OF, oak forest; CL, croplands.

The highest richness for both amphibians and reptiles was found in the xeric scrub, followed by the oak forest and croplands (Table 2). However, the differences in richness were not significant as both amphibian and reptile rarefaction curves showed great overlap in confidence intervals (Chao et al., 2014, Fig. 4). Additionally, the rarefaction curve for reptiles showed that when sampling is equalized the croplands could have higher richness than the xeric scrub vegetation (Fig. 4). This was not the case for amphibians in which the xeric scrub remained the richest vegetation (Fig. 4). In terms of endemic species the oak forest had proportionally more species endemic to Mexico with a Webb index of 2.75, it had more endemic than non-endemic. The xeric scrub had a Webb index of 1.2, indicating almost the same number of endemic to non-endemic. Finally, croplands had fewer endemic species that non-endemic ones as indicated by its Webb index of 0.85.

Vegetation types also varied in species composition, since seven species were restricted to only one type of vegetation. Five species of reptiles were restricted to the xeric scrub, but the only species from which we collected more than two individuals was the lizard Aspidocelis gularis. One species was restricted to the oak forest the lizard Sceloporus scalaris. Finally, the snake Coluber schotti was observed only in croplands (Table 2). Eight species showed a less restricted habitat and occupied two vegetation types. Five species were found in xeric scrub and oak forest, and three species were found in xeric scrub and croplands. Only nine species were distributed in all vegetation types, most of them being lizards (four species; Table 2). However, the Chao Jaccard similarity index showed that species composition was very similar for all pairwise comparison of vegetation types (Mean ± SE, MX-OF 0.91 ± 0.03, MX-CL 0.90 ± 0.03, OF-CL 0.81 ± 0.04).

In general, both amphibians and reptiles showed a preference for the terrestrial microhabitat, as all species were found there except the rattlesnake C. aquilus (Table 2; saxicolous and scrub habitats). The aquatic microhabitat was the second most commonly used by amphibians, while for reptiles it was the saxicolous microhabitat. The only microhabitat that had species exclusive to it was the terrestrial, with nine species (Table 2). However, four reptile species were represented by three or fewer individuals (Aspidoscelis gularis, Thamnophis cyrtopsis, Crotalus molossus, Kinosternon hirtipes). No amphibians were found in the arboreal microhabitat or human areas, and no reptiles were found in the riparian microhabitat.

The rainy season was not only the richest in the number of species of amphibians and reptiles but also in abundance, as the number of individuals found was at least twice that observed in the dry season. The rank-abundance curves for amphibians show that overall two species are the most abundant in the municipality regardless of vegetation and season, the frog Dryophytes eximia and the frog Dryophytes arenicolor (Fig. 5). Although as mentioned above, the number of individuals for this two species did increase in the rainy season (Table 2). For reptiles the rank abundance curve showed different patterns for vegetation and season. However, it is interesting that although they are subtle differences, three species of the Spiny lizard (Sceloporus) were always present in the higher abundances, suggesting that they are dominant in all vegetation types and seasons. Subtle differences existed in the order of dominance of this three species for each vegetation type and the displacement of the lizard S. torquatus to fourth rank by the snake Conopsis lineata in the dry season (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Rank abundance curves for species of amphibians (A–B) and reptiles (C–D) by vegetation (A–C) and season (B–D).

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Vegetation types: XS, xeric scrub; OF, oak forest; CL, croplands. Rank abundance codes can be found in Table 2.

Discussion

The herpetofaunal richness recorded for the study area is relatively high, since most of the other semi-arid regions surveyed in the state of Hidalgo report a lower number of species (Camarillo & Casas-Andreu, 1998 (Zacualtipán and Huayacocotla); Hernández Pérez, 1998 (Metztitlán); Gómez Mendoza, 2007 (Tepeji del Río de Ocampo)), while those that report more species have covered much larger areas (Mendoza-Quijano, 1990; Camarillo & Casas-Andreu, 2001; Huitzil Mendoza, 2007; Hernández Salinas, 2009; Vite-Silva, Ramírez-Bautista & Hernández-Salinas, 2010). This means that our study reports higher richness for a considerably smaller area. For example, only 31 species have been reported in the section of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt that crosses Hidalgo (Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez, 2007), but the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán alone has almost the same number of species (24) in a much smaller area. In addition, we found a species previously unreported for Hidalgo, the snake Lampropeltis ruthveni (Roth-Monzón Flores-Villela, Mendoza-Hernández & Flores-Villela, 2011).

According to the exponential model of the species accumulation curve and the sample coverage from the rarefaction curves, our sampling for the municipality in all vegetation types and seasons can be scored as “good”. However, the Clench model indicates that more species could have been collected with increased sampling effort, since the curve is not asymptotic. These likely included the lizard Sceloporus parvus, which was collected just outside the municipality’s limits, and the Mole salamander (Ambystoma sp.), which was observed during the fieldwork though no voucher was obtained for species identification (probably A. velasci). Another species that is probably present is the lizard Phrynosoma orbiculare, which has been mentioned by the local people of the town of Nopala. Other species potentially occurring in the study area due to geographic proximity are: the lizard Barisia imbricata, the coral snake Micrurus tener and the rattlesnake Crotalus polystictus (Matias Ferrer, 2004; Campos Rodríguez, 2005; Zaldívar-Riverón, NietoMontesde Oca & Laclette, 2005; Ramírez-Bautista et al., 2014).

Our rarefaction curves show that there were no significant differences among vegetation for both amphibians and reptile richness (Chao et al., 2014). Nevertheless, for reptiles the rarefaction curves indicated that if sampling was equalized, croplands would have had a higher richness (Fig. 4). This implies that for reptiles our study conforms on croplands being species rich, probably because of the multitude of microhabitats they can provide and sources of food as has been found on other studies (Martínez-Castellanos, 1994; Salazar-Arenas, 2001; González-Hernández & Garza-Castro, 2006; Fernández-Badillo & Mayer-Goyenechea, 2010). This was not the case for amphibians in which xeric scrub was indicated by the rarefaction curves to have the higher species richness (Fig. 4). The pattern may not hold for amphibians due to aggressive farming practice in the municipality (i.e., fertilizers and heavy machinery are used, there is extensive clearing of the vegetation cover and cyclic burning). Such differences in management and type of crop have been reported to cause differences in species richness (Salazar-Arenas, 2001; González-Hernández & Garza-Castro, 2006) and amphibians have been reported to be more sensitive to such conditions (Brühl et al., 2013; Böll, et al., 2013).

The lack of significant differences between vegetation types for both amphibians and reptiles could be due to a homogenous distribution of the amphibians and reptiles in the municipality. Given that the Jaccard- Chao similarity index among vegetation for species richness was above 80%, indicating that the vegetation types shared several species. Although unique species were found for all vegetation types, those found in the xeric scrub could be unique to this vegetation due to their low abundance (less than three individuals). Nevertheless, in both croplands and oak forest a unique species was found for which low abundance did not seem to be the reason for the resulting pattern. Additionally, oak forest and croplands had the lowest similarity (80%). This can be related to unique microenvironmental characteristics of each vegetation type (Atauri & Lucio, 2001; Tews, Brose & Jeltsch, 2003; Martins, Proença & Pereira, 2014)) or to a lack of ability to acclimate or access the different vegetations, as has been shown in the case of the lizard Sceloporus scalaris which may be affected by goat grazing and thus likely avoids such human impacted areas (Bock, Smith & Bock, 1990). An increase in human activity as seen in the area could have implications for this non-share species.

Furthermore, the oak forest had the highest proportion of endemic species as indicated by the Webb index (2.75). Oak forest is known for its importance for endemic vertebrates in Mexico (Flores-Villela & Gerez, 1994; Canseco-Márquez, 1996), for which its loss can have conservational implications. Nevertheless, the Jaccard-Chao similarity index for the xeric scrub with both the oak forest and croplands was high (90%), meaning that the xeric scrub may support almost all current species in the municipality.

Our data show that seasonality is an important factor in the richness of amphibians and reptiles. The rarefaction plots showed that the differences in richness were significant and higher for the rainy season for both taxonomic groups (Fig. 4). Furthermore, during the rainy season, amphibians were able to enter areas disturbed by human activity, such as roads and cattle pastures, a behavior that has been observed previously in other amphibians (Santos-Barrera & Flores-Villela, 2004). Other studies have suggested that reptile distributions are constrained by temperature and amphibian by humidity (Navas, 2002; Buckley, Hurlbert & Jetz, 2012; Chen, 2013; Ortiz-Yusty, Páez & Zapata, 2013). This pattern is matched by amphibians in Nopala de Villagrán, but not by reptiles, since mean temperature by season does not vary greatly (14.5 to 14.7 °C; INEGI, 2002). However, it is possible that reptile distributions may be restricted by food availability. Differences in prey availability have been found in previous studies (Luiselli, 2006; Whitfield & Donnelly, 2006; García, 2008), making the dry season an ideal time for insects and the rainy season for amphibians and fishes, in such way that changes in food items could be the reason for the reptile distribution pattern found in the municipality. This hypothesis should be tested, as the present study did not directly measure food preference. Nonetheless, it is based on the different species found in the municipality, in which more lizard species were found in the dry season, while more snake species were found in the rainy season. This pattern seems to match food habits, as lizards are known to feed on invertebrates more often than snakes (Vitt et al., 2003; Shine & Wall, 2007).

Microhabitat use for amphibians also suggested humidity is a limiting factor, since amphibians were found active when condition permitted or in water related microhabitats (aquatic and riparian; Table 2). A few individuals of the frog Dryophytes eximia were found in fossorial and decaying trunks, these are not considered typical microhabitats for this species since they have not been reported in other general accounts of D. eximia (Duellman, 2001; Hammerson & Canseco-Márquez, 2010; AmphibianWeb, 2013). This species may seek these microhabitats to protect itself from dehydration, and if so this microhabitat may be important to consider for future inventories, especially in drylands.

Almost all of the reptile species preferred on the terrestrial microhabitat, which is not unusual since they were found basking on the ground or hiding under rocks. However, those that were found utilizing only one microhabitat were also found in one vegetation type and most of them were also the least abundant (Table 2; Fig. 5). This may suggest that such vegetation unique microenvironment restricts their distribution or that their low abundance is why they where found in such restrictive conditions (Fig. 5). The one species of reptile found in an unusual microhabitat was the rattlesnake Crotalus aquilus as it is usually found in rocky or grassland areas (Armstrong & Murphy, 1979; Campbell & Lamar, 2004; Meik, Mociño Deloya & Setser, 2007). However, during our fieldwork it was found basking on agave plants at a height of approximately one meter. This association with agave plants is known to the IUCN (Mendoza-Quijano & Quintero Díaz, 2007), and there are other observations on rattlesnakes (C. triseriatus) a meter above the ground (Rebón-Gallardo & Flores-Villela, 2015), thus this behavior may be a more common than currently thought. The use of agaves by this snake could be an important aspect to consider in the future, especially in relation to conservation, since agave is an economically important resource in Mexico, particularly in semi-arid regions like the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán (CONABIO, 2005; García-Herrera, Méndez-Gallegos & Talavera-Magaña 2010).

Most of the species were not found in human areas, except for four species of Spiny lizards (Sceloporus). These four Spiny lizards may be generalists capable of adapting to disturbed habitats, given that they were usually dominant according to our rank-abundance curves in all the vegetation types and seasons (Fig. 5; see dry season for exception). This type of behavior has been reported for at least one of these species (Sceloporus microlepidotus; Vega-López & Álvarez, 1992; Ramírez-Bautista et al., 2009). Likewise, all other species of amphibians that were among the highest rank in relative abundance (Dryophytes eximia and D. arenicolor; Fig. 5) were found in all vegetation types and seasons, which may mean they are better able to withstand the seasonal changes in temperature and humidity.

The species reported in this study fill an important geographic gap in our knowledge of amphibian and reptile diversity in the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. The information obtained may be of use in developing a management program for the municipal reserve of Cerro Nopala that was decreed, and thus help preserve amphibians, reptiles and other animal groups. Clearly, additional studies are necessary to better understand the habits of amphibians and reptiles in semi-arid regions, and the impact of humans on them, since these often ignored areas shelter a considerable diversity of amphibians and reptiles.

Supplemental Information

Appendix S1. Species list with MZFC accession numbers for each individual collected.
Click here for additional data file. (106.7KB, docx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4202/supp-1

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following people for assistance in the field: Jaime Castro-Navarro, Israel Solano-Zavaleta, Kareen Ramirez, Itzue Caviedes-Solis and Luis Felipe Vázquez. We thank Edmundo Pérez-Ramos for helping identify specimens, the authorities of the municipality of Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo for allowing us to conduct our investigation there, and Rolando García-Bustos and his family for their hospitality. The UNAM-Canada English writing course, Paul Kersey Johnson, Austin Morrell, Andrew Thompson and Ashley Smith aided in the editing and revising of this manuscript. Spencer Ingley and Miriam Benabib for helpful comments. The manuscript was revised by Bianca Delfosse.

Funding Statement

This research was partially funded by the National Science Foundation: DEB-0613802 awarded to Jonathan Campbell and Oscar Flores-Villela. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Andrea J. Roth-Monzón conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper, fieldwork, id specimens, data acquisition.

Andrés Alberto Mendoza-Hernández performed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper, field work, id specimens.

Oscar Flores-Villela conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Field Study Permissions

The following information was supplied relating to field study approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Collecting permits were issued by the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (permit # FAUT-0015).

Data Availability

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The data is included in Table 2.

References

  • Agapow et al. (2004).Agapow P-M, Bininda-Emonds O, Crandall K, Gittleman JL, Mace G, Marshall J, Purvis A. The impact of species concept on biodiversity. Quarterly Review of Biology. 2004;79:161–179. doi: 10.1086/383542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • AmphibianWeb (2013).AmphibianWeb Information on amphibian biology and conservation. Berkeley, California. 2013. [November 2012]. https://amphibiaweb.org https://amphibiaweb.org
  • Armstrong & Murphy (1979).Armstrong BL, Murphy JB. The natural history of Mexican rattlesnakes. Special Publication of the University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. 1979;5:1–88. [Google Scholar]
  • Atauri & Lucio (2001).Atauri JA, Lucio JV. The role of landscape structure in species richness distribution of birds, amphibians, reptiles and lepidopterans in Mediterranean landscapes. Landscape Ecology. 2001;16(2):147–159. doi: 10.1023/A:1011115921050. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Bastin et al. (2017).Bastin J-F, Berrahmouni N, Grainger A, Maniatis D, Mollicone D, Moore R, Patriarca C, Picard N, Sparrow B, Abraham EM, Aloui K, Atesoglu A, Attore F, Bassüllü Ç, Bey A, Garzuglia M, García-Montero LG, Groot N, Guerin G, Laestadius L, Lowe AJ, Mamane B, Marchi G, Patterson P, Rezende M, Ricci S, Salcedo I, Diaz AS-P, Stolle F, Surappaeva V, Castro R. The extent of forest in dryland biomes. Science. 2017;356(6338):635–638. doi: 10.1126/science.aam6527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bezaury-Creel & Gutiérrez Carbonell (2009).Bezaury-Creel J, Gutiérrez Carbonell D. Áreas naturales protegidas y desarrollo social en México. In: Capital natural de México, vol. II: Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad; México: 2009. pp. 385–431. [Google Scholar]
  • Bock, Smith & Bock (1990).Bock CE, Smith HM, Bock JH. The effect of livestock grazing upon abundance of the lizard, Sceloporus scalaris, in southeastern Arizona. Journal of Herpetology. 1990;24:445–446. doi: 10.2307/1565072. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Böll, et al. (2013).Böll S, Schmidt BR, Veith M, Wagner N, Rödder D, Weimann C, Kirschey T, Lötters S. Anuran amphibians as indicators of changes in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems following GM crop cultivation: a monitoring guideline. BioRisk. 2013;8:39–51. doi: 10.3897/biorisk.8.3251. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Brühl et al. (2013).Brühl AC, Schmidt T, Pieper S, Alscher A. Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: an underestimated cause of global decline. Scientific Reports. 2013;3:1135. doi: 10.1038/srep01135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Buckley, Hurlbert & Jetz (2012).Buckley LB, Hurlbert AH, Jetz W. Broad-scale ecological implications of ectothermy and endothermy in changing enviroments. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2012;21:873–885. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00737.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Camacho-Camacho (2005).Camacho-Camacho G. BSc Thesis. 2005. El Museo Comunitario de Nopala de Villagrán, Hidalgo: una propuesta alternativa museopedagógica. 140 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Camarillo & Casas-Andreu (1998).Camarillo JL, Casas-Andreu G. Notas sobre la herpetofauna del área comprendida entre Zacualtipán, Hidalgo y Huayacocotla, Veracruz. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Serie Zoología. 1998;69:231–237. [Google Scholar]
  • Camarillo & Casas-Andreu (2001).Camarillo JL, Casas-Andreu G. Anfibios y reptiles del Parque Nacional El Chico, Hidalgo, México. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Serie Zoología. 2001;72:105–123. [Google Scholar]
  • Campbell & Lamar (2004).Campbell JA, Lamar WW. The venomous reptiles of the western hemisphere. Cornell University Press; New York: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • Campos Rodríguez (2005).Campos Rodríguez JI. BSc Thesis. 2005. Los reptiles de Hidalgo de la colección de herpetozoarios en la E. N. C. B. 219 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Canseco-Márquez (1996).Canseco-Márquez L. BSc Thesis. 1996. Estudio preliminar de la herpetofauna en la cañada de Cuicatlán y cerro Piedra Larga, Oaxaca. 180 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Cardinale et al. (2012).Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper EU, Perrings C, Venial P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzing AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486:59–67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ceballos et al. (2015).Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, Pringle RM, Palmer TM. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances. 2015;1(5):e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chao et al. (2005).Chao A, Chazdon RL, Colwell RK, Shen T-J. A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecology Letters. 2005;8:148–159. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00707.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Chao & Jost (2012).Chao A, Jost L. Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology. 2012;93(12):2533–2547. doi: 10.1890/11-1952.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Chao et al. (2014).Chao A, Gotelli NJ, Hsieh TC, Sander EL, Ma KH, Colwell RK, Ellison AM. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological Monographs. 2014;84(1):45–67. doi: 10.1890/13-0133.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Chao, Ma & Hsieh (2015).Chao A, Ma KH, Hsieh TC. SpadeR: species prediction and diversity estimation with R. http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/wordpress/software_download/ 2015
  • Chen (2013).Chen Y. Habitat suitability modeling of amphibians species in southern and central China: enviromental correlates and potential richness mapping. Science China Life Sciences. 2013;56:476–484. doi: 10.1007/s11427-013-4475-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • CONANP (2003).Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) Programa de manejo Reserva de la Biosfera Barranca de Metztitlán. Mexico City: CONANP; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • CONANP (2006).Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) Programa de conservación y manejo Parque Nacional El Chico. Mexico City: CONANP; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • CONANP (2007).Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP) Estudio previo justificativo Parque Nacional Los Mármoles. Mexico City: CONANP; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • CONABIO (2005).Comisión para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Mapa Mezcales y Diversidad. Mexico City: CONANP; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • COEDEH(2009).Consejo Estatal de Ecología de Hidalgo (COEDEH) Áreas Naturales Protegidas. 2009. http://coedeh.hidalgo.gob.mx. [9 March 2009]. http://coedeh.hidalgo.gob.mx
  • Crump & Scott (1994).Crump M, Scott NJ. Visual encounter survey. In: Heyer W, Donelley MA, McDiarmid RA, Hayek LC, Foster MC, editors. Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C.: 1994. pp. 84–92. [Google Scholar]
  • Davies et al. (2012).Davies J, Poulsen L, Schulte-Herbrüggen B, Mackinnon K, Crawhall N, Henwood WD, Dudley N, Smith J, Gudka M. Conserving dryland biodiversity. IUCN; Gland: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • Días-Fránces & Soberón (2005).Días-Fránces E, Soberón J. Statistical estimation and model selection of species-accumulation functions. Conservation Biology. 2005;19:569–573. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00453.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Díaz et al. (2006).Díaz S, Fargione J, Stuart Chapin III F, Tilman D. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLOS Biology. 2006;4:e277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Duellman (1965).Duellman WE. A biogeographic account of the herpetofauna of Michoacán, Mexico. Publication of the Museum of Natural History of the University of Kansas. 1965;15:627–709. [Google Scholar]
  • Duellman (2001).Duellman WE. The hylid frogs of Middle America. Vol. 1. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles; Ithaca: 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • Durant et al. (2012).Durant SM, Pettorelli N, Bashir S, Woodroffe R, Wacher T, De Ornellas P, Ransom C, Abáigar T, Abdelgadir M, El Alqamy H, Beddiaf M, Belbachir F, Belbachir-Bazi A, Berbahs AA, Beudels-Jamar R, Boitani L, Breitenmoser C, Cano M, Chardonnet P, Collen B, Cornforth WA, Cuzin F, Gerngross P, Haddane B, Hadjeloum M, Jacobson A, Jebali A, Lamarque F, Mallon D, Minkowski K, Monfort S, Ndoassal B, Newby J, Ngakoutou BE, Niagate B, Purchase G, Samaila S, Samna AK, Sillero-Zubiri C, Soultan AE, Stanley Price MR, Baillie JEM. Forgotten biodiversity in desert ecosystems. Science. 2012;336(6087):1379–1380. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6087.1379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fernández-Badillo & Mayer-Goyenechea (2010).Fernández-Badillo L, Goyenechea Mayer-Goyenechea I. Anfibios y reptiles del valle del Mezquital, Hidalgo, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad. 2010;81(3):705–712. [Google Scholar]
  • Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez (2004).Flores-Villela O, Canseco-Márquez L. Nuevas especies y cambios taxonómicos para la herpetofauna de México. Acta Zoológica Mexicana. 2004;20:115–144. [Google Scholar]
  • Flores-Villela & Canseco-Márquez (2007).Flores-Villela O, Canseco-Márquez L. Riqueza de la Herpetofauna. In: Luna I, Morrone JJ, Espinosa D, editors. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2007. pp. 407–420. [Google Scholar]
  • Flores-Villela & Gerez (1994).Flores-Villela O, Gerez P. Biodiversidad y conservación en México: vertebrados, vegetación y uso de suelo. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • Frost (2017).Frost DR. American Museum of Natural History; New York: 2017. [10 March 2017]. [Google Scholar]
  • García (2008).García A. The use of habitat and time by lizards in a tropical deciduous forest in western Mexico. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment. 2008;43:107–115. doi: 10.1080/01650520701735282. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • García-Herrera, Méndez-Gallegos & Talavera-Magaña(2010).García-Herrera JE, Méndez-Gallegos JS, Talavera-Magaña D. El genero agave spp. En México: Principales usos de importancia socioeconómica y agroecológica. Revista de Salud Pública y Nutrición. 2010;5:109–129. [Google Scholar]
  • Garstka (1982).Garstka WR. Systematics of the Mexicana species group of the colubrid genus Lampropeltis, with an hypothesis [of] mimicry. Breviora. 1982;466:1–35. [Google Scholar]
  • Gómez Mendoza (2007).Gómez Mendoza J. BSc Thesis. 2007. Contribución al conocimiento de la herpetofauna del municipio de Tepeji del Río de Ocampo, Hidalgo; p. 64 p. [Google Scholar]
  • González-Hernández & Garza-Castro (2006).González-Hernández AJ, Garza-Castro JM. Herpetofauna del municipio de Nuevo Urecho, Michoacán, México. In: Ramírez-Bautista A, Canseco-Márquez L, Mendoza-Quijano F, editors. Inventarios Herpetofaunísticos de México: Avances en el conocimiento de su biodiversidad. Vol. 3. 2006. pp. 140–151. (Publicaciones de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana). [Google Scholar]
  • Hammerson & Canseco-Márquez (2010).Hammerson G, Canseco-Márquez L. Dryophytes eximia. 2010. [2012]. IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org .
  • Hernández Pérez (1998).Hernández Pérez E. BSc Thesis. 1998. La Herpetofauna de Metztitlán, Hidalgo, México: Problemática e importancia. 49 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Hernández Salinas (2009).Hernández Salinas U. MSc Thesis. 2009. Estudio herpetofaunístico del estado de Hidalgo, México. 152 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Hsieh, Ma & Chao (2016).Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A. iNEXT: an R package for interpolation and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers) Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2016;7(12):1451–1456. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Huitzil Mendoza (2007).Huitzil Mendoza JC. BSc Thesis. 2007. Herpetofauna de dos localidades en la región Norte de Zimpán, Hidalgo; p. 92 p. [Google Scholar]
  • INEGI (2002).Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) Cuaderno Estadístico Municipal: Nopala de Villagrán. INEGI; Aguascalientes City: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • INEGI (2013).Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) Anuario estadístico y geográfico de Hidalgo. INEGI; Aguascalientes City: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • IUCN (2017).IUCN The IUCN Red List of threatened species. 2017. [17 October 2017]. Version 2017-2. http://www.iucnredlist.org .
  • Kindt & Coe (2005).Kindt R, Coe R. Tree diversity analysis: a manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); Nairobi: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • Llorente-Bousquets & Ocegueda (2008).Llorente-Bousquets J, Ocegueda S. Estado del conocimiento de la biota. In: Capital Natural de México, vol. I: Conocimiento actual de la biodiversidad. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad; México: 2008. pp. 283–322. [Google Scholar]
  • Luiselli (2006).Luiselli L. Interspecific relationship between two species of sympatric Afrotropical water snakes in relation to a seasonally fluctuating food resource. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 2006;22:91–100. doi: 10.1017/S0266467405002877. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Mara (1995).Mara WP. Captive care and propagation of Lampropeltis ruthveni: Ruthven’s kingsnake. Reptile & Amphibian Magazine. 1995;1995:46–51. [Google Scholar]
  • Martínez-Castellanos (1994).Martínez-Castellanos R. BSc Thesis. 1994. Herpetofauna de la Reserva Ecológica El Ocote, municipio de Ocozocoautla, Chiapas, México. 145 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Martins, Proença & Pereira (2014).Martins SI, Proença V, Pereira HM. The unusual suspect: land use is a key predictor of biodiversity patterns in the Iberian Peninsula. Acta Oecologica. 2014;61:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.actao.2014.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Matias Ferrer (2004).Matias Ferrer N. BSc Thesis. 2004. Los anfibios y los reptiles venenosos del estado de México con base a la colección de anfibios y reptiles de la E.N.C.B. 180 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Meik, Mociño Deloya & Setser (2007).Meik JM, Mociño Deloya E, Setser K. New distribution records for the Querétaro dusky rattlesnake Crotalus aquilus (Viperidae), with comments on morphology and habitat use. Western North American Naturalist. 2007;67:601–604. doi: 10.3398/1527-0904(2007)67[601:NDRFTQ]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Mendoza-Quijano (1990).Mendoza-Quijano F. BSc Thesis. 1990. Estudio herpetofaunístico en el transecto Zacualtipan-Zoquizoquiapan-San Juan Meztitlan, Hidalgo. 97 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Mendoza-Quijano & Quintero Díaz (2007).Mendoza-Quijano F, Quintero Díaz G. Crotalus aquilus. 2007. [2012]. IUCN 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org .
  • Myers et al. (2000).Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, Da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 2000;403:853–858. doi: 10.1038/35002501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Navas (2002).Navas CA. Herpetological diversity along Andean elevational gradients: links with physiological ecology and evolutionary physiology. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A. 2002;133:469–485. doi: 10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00207-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ochoa-Ochoa & Flores-Villela (2006).Ochoa-Ochoa LM, Flores-Villela O. Áreas de diversidad y endemismo de la herpetofauna Mexicana. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Ciencias, Comisión Nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad; México: 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • Ortiz-Yusty, Páez & Zapata (2013).Ortiz-Yusty CE, Páez V, Zapata FA. Temperature and precipitation as predictors of species richness in northen Andean amphibians from Colombia. Caldasia. 2013;35:65–80. [Google Scholar]
  • Pie, Campos & Duran (2017).Pie MR, Campos LLF, Meyer ALS, Duran A. The evolution of climatic niches in squamate reptiles. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Science. 2017;284(1858):20170268. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.0268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ponce, Pandey & Ercan (2000).Ponce VM, Pandey RP, Ercan S. Characterization of drought across the climatic spectrum. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering. 2000;5:222–224. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2000)5:2(222). [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Purvis & Hector (2000).Purvis A, Hector A. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature. 2000;405:212–219. doi: 10.1038/35012221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Ramírez-Bautista et al. (2009).Ramírez-Bautista A, Hernádez-Salinas U, García-Vázquez UO, Leyte-Manrique A, Canseco-Márquez L. Herpetofauna del Valle de México: diversidad y conservación. Comisión Nacional para el conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad; México: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • Ramírez-Bautista et al. (2014).Ramírez-Bautista A, Hernández-Salinas U, Cruz-Elizalde R, Berriozabal-Islas C, Lara-Tufiño D, Goyenechea Mayer-Goyenechea I, Castillo-Cerón JM. Los anfibios y reptiles de Hidalgo, México: diversidad, biogeografía y conservación. Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana; México: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • R Core Team (2013).R Core Team . R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna: 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • Rebón-Gallardo & Flores-Villela (2015).Rebón-Gallardo F, Flores-Villela O, Ortíz-Ramírez DR. Predation of nestling house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) by a dusky rattlesnake, Crotalus aquilus, in Hidalgo, Mexico. Revista Mexicana De Biodiversidad. 2015;86:550–552. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2015.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Rivas et al. (2009).Rivas MIA, Díaz JDG, Rueda JAT, Hinojosa EB, Valdés AR. Propuesta de ordenamiento ecológico territorial, considerando escenarios de cambio climático. Caso de estudio en la Caldera Huchiapan, Hidalgo. Espaciotiempo. 2009;4:10–28. [Google Scholar]
  • SEMARNAT(2010).Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) 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. 2010 Lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial, segunda sección.
  • Roth-Monzón Flores-Villela, Mendoza-Hernández & Flores-Villela (2011).Roth-Monzón AJ, Mendoza-Hernández AA, Flores-Villela OA. Lampropeltis ruthveni (Serpentes: Colubridae) from the state of Hidalgo, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist. 2011;56:430–431. [Google Scholar]
  • Rzedowski (1996).Rzedowski J. Vegetación de México. México City: Editorial Limusa; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • Salazar-Arenas (2001).Salazar-Arenas J. BSc Thesis. 2001. Herpetofauna de tres municipios de la Sierra Norte de Puebla (Camocuautla, Huitzilan y Zapotitlán) p. 70 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Santos-Barrera & Flores-Villela (2004).Santos-Barrera G, Flores-Villela O. Lithobates montezumae. [2012];2004 IUCN 2013 The IUCN Red List of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org .
  • Schlesinger et al. (1990).Schlesinger WH, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL, Huenneke LF, Jarrell WM, Virginia RA, Whitford WG. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science. 1990;247:1043–1048. doi: 10.1126/science.247.4946.1043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Shine & Wall (2007).Shine R, Wall M. Why is intraespecific niche partitioning more common in snake then in lizards? In: Reilly SM, McBrayer LD, Miles DB, editors. Lizard ecology: the evolutionary cosequences of foraging mode. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 2007. pp. 173–208. [Google Scholar]
  • Tews, Brose & Jeltsch (2003).Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F. Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography. 2003;31:79–92. doi: 10.1046/j.0305-0270.2003.00994.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Vargas-Santamaría & Flores-Villela (2006).Vargas-Santamaría F, Flores-Villela O. Estudio herpetofaunístico en el Playón de Mexiquillo y áreas adyacentes en la costa sur del Estado de Michoacán, México. In: Ramírez-Bautista A, Canseco-Márquez L, Mendoza-Quijano F, editors. Inventarios herpetofaunísticos de México: avances en el conocimiento de su biodiversidad. Publicaciones de la Sociedad Herpetológica Mexicana 3; 2006. pp. 110–139. [Google Scholar]
  • Vega-López & Álvarez (1992).Vega-López AA, Álvarez ST. La herpetofauna de los volcanes Popocatepetl e Iztaccihuatl. Acta Zoológica Mexicana. 1992;51:1–128. [Google Scholar]
  • Velázquez, Mas & Palacio-Prieto (2010).Velázquez A, Mas J-F, Bocco G, Palacio-Prieto JL. Mapping land cover changes in Mexico, 1976–2000 and applications for guiding environmental management policy. Bocco J-F, editor. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 2010;31:152–162. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9493.2010.00398.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Vite-Silva, Ramírez-Bautista & Hernández-Salinas (2010).Vite-Silva VD, Ramírez-Bautista A, Hernández-Salinas U. Diversidad de anfi bios y reptiles de la Reserva de la Biosfera Barranca de Metztitlán, Hidalgo, México. Revista Mexicana De Biodiversidad. 2010;80:473– 485. [Google Scholar]
  • Vitt et al. (2003).Vitt LJ, Pianka ER, Cooper WE, Schwenk K. History and the global ecology of squamate reptiles. The American Naturalist. 2003;162(1):44–60. doi: 10.1086/375172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Webb (1984).Webb RG. Herpetogeography in the Mazatlan-Durango region of the Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. In: Siegel RA, Hunt LE, Knight JL, Zuchlang NL, editors. Vertebrate, ecology and systematics. Lawrence: University of Kansas Publications Museum of Natural History; 1984. pp. 217–247. [Google Scholar]
  • Whitfield & Donnelly (2006).Whitfield SM, Donnelly MA. Ontogenic and seasonal variation in the diets of a Costa Rican leaf-litter herpetofauna. Journal of Tropical Ecology. 2006;22:409–417. doi: 10.1017/S0266467406003245. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • Zaldívar-Riverón, NietoMontesde Oca & Laclette (2005).Zaldívar-Riverón A, Nieto-Montes de Oca A, Laclette JP. Phylogeography and evolution of dorsal pattern in the Mexican endemic lizard genus Barisia (Anguidae: Gerrhonotinae) Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research. 2005;43:243–257. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00308.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix S1. Species list with MZFC accession numbers for each individual collected.
Click here for additional data file. (106.7KB, docx)
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.4202/supp-1

Data Availability Statement

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The data is included in Table 2.

Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc

RESOURCES