1. Introduction
The Department of Beni (hereafter, Beni) is the second largest department by land area (e.g., 213,564 km2; Figure 1; [1]) in Bolivia and is situated in the northeastern portion of the country. The boundary of Beni comprises a significant section of the Bolivia–Brazil border. For example, the northeastern boundary consists of ~767 km of Bolivian–Brazilian borderlands, while the remaining boundary is surrounded by (from north to south) the departments of Pando, La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz. Beni is comprised of eight political provinces which include José Ballivián (40,444 km2), Iténez (36,576 km2), Yacuma (34,686 km2), Moxos (33,316 km2), Vaca Díez (22,434 km2), Mamoré (18,706 km2), Marbán (15,126 km2), and Cercado (12,276 km2) [1,2]. The human population in Beni is estimated at 507,095 [1], which makes Beni the second least populated department in Bolivia (after the department of Pando).
Climate—The climate in Beni is broadly considered tropical, moist, and humid, and receives an average of 99–240 cm of rainfall annually, making it one of the wettest regions in Bolivia ([3];
Beni is characterized by three different climates; Tropical wet savanna, Tropical monsoon, and Tropical rainforest as categorized by the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system [8]. There is a modest amount of variability in temperature and precipitation between the three Bolivian climate zones with the highest average monthly precipitation in Beni occurring in January where some areas can receive as much as 350 mm of rain. Similarly, temperatures range from lows and highs of 24.7 °C to 27.0 °C, respectively, with the warmest temperatures recorded in September and October (
Ecoregions and vegetation—The department of Beni contains two main ecoregions; Amazonia and the Brasilian-Paranaense [9,10,11]. The Amazonia ecoregion comprises both terra firma (non-flooded) forest and várzea (seasonally flooded areas) [10,12]. Fabaceae, Lecythidaceae, Sapotaceae, Myristicaceae and Arecaceae are among the most important plant families in both terra firme and várzea forests [10,13,14]. The Brasilian-Paranaense ecoregion (also referred to as seasonally flooded savannas and cerrado [15]) comprises a large central region of Beni [9,10]. An interesting and important characteristic landscape element of this ecoregion is forest islands (i.e., islands of forest habitat surrounded by grassland savannah; [16,17]). Fabaceae, Melastomataceae, Poaceae, Cyperaceae and Arecaceae are among some of the most important plant families in this ecoregion [10,18].
Ecology and biodiversity—The ecology and biodiversity of Bolivia are significantly understudied in comparison to many other places throughout the world. More specifically, biodiversity in Beni, especially that of reptiles, is among the poorest reported, cataloged, and shared of all Bolivian departments [19]. Much of the lack of biodiversity knowledge in Bolivia is attributable to the diverse landscape that results in limited or difficult accessibility for field studies [20,21,22], as well as issues related to educational access and socioeconomics [19]. The aforementioned landscape and climate diversity are thought to be a major contributing factor to the department’s high level of biodiversity [7,22]. In particular, Beni is known to host an increased level of reptile diversity, and can be considered a hotspot not only in Bolivia, but also at continental (i.e., South America) and global scales [2,22]. Much of this diversity is thought to result from the convergence of the aforementioned ecotypes and the reptile species that are representative of each [22]. The megadiversity present in Bolivia makes the task of documentation and cataloging much more monumental in comparison to many other places throughout the world that have been more thoroughly studied. As a result, and in particular, little is known of the reptile biodiversity of Bolivia, and even less so in Beni. Many studies over past decades have focused on documenting species occurrence as a foundation of ecological knowledge of the country; however, there have been fewer studies that have focused on specific scientific research questions, including those related to conservation.
As noted by Wilson et al. [23], interest in determining the conservation status of the world’s reptiles grew following the recognition that reptiles are essential components of natural ecosystems and the publication by Gibbons et al. [24], which concluded that reptile species are declining on a global scale due to causes such as habitat loss and degradation, introduced invasive species, disease, unsustainable use, and global climate change. However, knowledge of these topics in Bolivia still lags behind many other countries in Latin America and globally. Given the megadiversity present in Bolivia and Beni, scientists must continue to document and study it, while also proactively addressing issues related to its conservation.
In consideration of existing knowledge gaps and the need for a better understanding of conservation in Bolivia, our study specifically aims to provide a comprehensive review of reptile species found in Beni, along with their associated conservation status and environmental vulnerability. By compiling this information, we seek to contribute to the development of effective conservation policies and management strategies in Beni and throughout Bolivia. Additionally, we aim to raise awareness of the importance of conserving reptile biodiversity in the region, as well as identify patterns of reptile biodiversity that are crucial for prioritizing conservation actions and the overall development of biodiversity infrastructure.
2. Materials and Methods
Creating the list of reptiles—We created a list of reptile species for Beni based on the work detailed by Eversole et al. [19], an examination of the available relevant and verifiable literature, online specimen databases (e.g., VertNet, iDigBio, Arctos), and consulting museum databases from within Bolivia and globally (Table S1). Names for reptile species follow Uetz et al. [25]. Similar to the methodology described by Lemos-Espinal et al. [26], we included species only if we could confirm records through documented museum voucher specimens. As such, our resulting list differs (e.g., as the result of inclusion or non-inclusion of species) from previous reports on the herpetofauna of Beni that included field observations, photographic records, or erroneous and questionable specimen records. As a result, there are undoubtedly species that occur or have been previously reported from Beni that are not included in our list and subsequent analysis as a result of our inclusion criteria. However, our conservative approach highlights the need for increased specimen-based research in Bolivia and promotes best practices for species documentation and verifiability of research results.
Conservation status and environmental vulnerability score—For each species, we recorded conservation status based on available data from the IUCN Red List [27] and calculated an Environmental Vulnerability Score (EVS; [23,28]). For the IUCN classifications, we categorized each species as extinct (EX), extinct in the wild (EW), critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU), near threatened (NT), least concern (LC), data deficient (DD), and not evaluated (NE). For use in Bolivia, we modified the EVS measure to reflect the physiographic characteristics of Bolivia and Beni, similar to previous studies conducted in the Neotropics [23,26]. We calculated the score for each species as described by Wilson et al. [23].
The EVS algorithm modified for use in Bolivia consists of three scales, for which the values are added to produce the EVS metric [23]. The first scale incorporates a geographic distribution score (DS) based on the following categories:
1 = distribution broadly represented both inside and outside Bolivia (large portions (≥30%) of the range are both inside and outside Bolivia)
2 = distribution prevalent inside Bolivia, but limited outside Bolivia (most (≥50%) of the range is inside Bolivia)
3 = distribution limited inside Bolivia, but prevalent outside Bolivia (most (≥50%) of the range is outside Bolivia)
4 = distribution limited both inside and outside Bolivia (most (≥50%) of the range is marginal to areas near the border of Bolivia and surrounding countries (e.g., Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, and Peru)).
5 = distribution only within Bolivia, but not restricted to the vicinity of the type locality
6 = distribution limited to Bolivia in the vicinity of the type locality
The second scale incorporated ecological distribution or habitat score (HS) based on the number of habitat types occupied, as follows:
1 = occurs in seven or more types
2 = occurs in six types
3 = occurs in five types
4 = occurs in four types
5 = occurs in three types
6 = occurs in two types
7 = occurs in one type
The third scale incorporates a human persecution score (HP) as follows:
1 = fossorial, usually escape human notice
2 = semifossorial, or nocturnal arboreal or aquatic, nonvenomous and usually non-mimicking, sometimes escape human notice
3 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, generally ignored by humans
4 = terrestrial and/or arboreal or aquatic, thought to be harmful, might be killed on sight
5 = venomous species or mimics thereof, killed on sight
6 = commercially or non-commercially exploited for hides, meat, eggs and/or the pet trade
We added the score for each of these three components to obtain the EVS metric, which can range from 3 to 20. Wilson and McCranie [28] divided the range of scores into three categories of vulnerability as follows: low (3–9); medium (10–13); and high (14–19). We used a similar categorization, with the high category ranging from 14–20.
Statistical analysis—After the calculation of the EVS score, we placed each species in high, medium, and low environmental vulnerability categories based on the results. To investigate the differences between the three scores (DS, HS, and HP) and their potential influence on the associated EVS calculations and vulnerability classifications, we conducted Kruskal–Wallis tests using the “kruskal.test” function from the base R “stats” package in R studio [29]. We performed this test within each environmental vulnerability category (high, medium, low). We chose non-parametric tests as they do not rely on any assumptions about the distribution of the data and are more robust for datasets that are non-continuous and have non-normal distributions.
Following the Kruskal–Wallis tests, we performed pairwise comparisons between the score groups (DS, HS, and HP) using Dunn’s tests for each environmental vulnerability classification using the “dunnTest” function from the “FSA” package [30] and applied the Bonferroni correction to control for multiple comparisons, adjusting the p-values accordingly. We considered all results significant at p ≤ 0.01.
3. Results
We found a total of 169 species of reptiles, belonging to three orders and twenty-five families that have been documented and vouchered from the department of Beni (Table 1 and Table S1).
Using the EVS measure, we found that of the 169 species, 30 species (17.8%) were classified as high vulnerability (5 crocodilians, 3 lizards, 16 snakes, 6 testudines), 115 species (68.1%) were classified as medium vulnerability (0 crocodilians, 39 lizards, 74 snakes, 2 testudines), and 24 species (14.2%) were classified as low vulnerability (0 crocodilians, 12 lizards, 2 snakes, 0 testudines) (Table 1; Figure 2A,B). Following IUCN categories, we found that of the 169 species, 3 species (1.8%) were classified as vulnerable (VU; all testudines), 1 species (0.6%) was classified as near threatened (NT; Atractus occipitoalbus), 162 species (95.9%) were classified as least concern (LC; 5 crocodilians, 53 lizards, 100 snakes, 5 testudines), 2 species (1.2%) were classified as not evaluated (NE; 1 snake, 1 testudines), and 1 species (0.6%) was classified as data deficient (DD; Bothrops sonene) (Table 1).
For the high vulnerability category, we found significant differences between the three scores that were used to calculate the total EVS metric (χ2 = 52.066, df = 2, p < 0.001; Figure 3). Results of the Dunn’s tests showed significant differences between DS and HP (Z = −2.51, p = 0.036), DS and HS (Z = −7.11, p < 0.001), and HP and HS (Z = −4.60, p < 0.001) (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). More specifically, the HS score had significantly higher values than both the DS and HP scores, and the DS score had higher values than the HP score (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6).
For the medium vulnerability category, we found significant differences between the three scores that were used to calculate the EVS metric (χ2 = 223.71, df = 2, p < 0.001; Figure 2B). The Dunn’s test results showed significant differences for all group comparisons. For example, we found that DS and HP (Z = −4.76, p < 0.001), DS and HS (Z = −14.66, p < 0.001), and HP and HS (Z = −9.90, p < 0.001) were significantly different (Figure 3, Figure 7 and Figure 8). For species of medium vulnerability, the HS score had significantly higher values, followed by the HP score, while the DS score had the lowest values (Figure 3, Figure 7 and Figure 8).
For the low vulnerability category, we found significant differences between the three scores that were used to calculate the EVS score (χ2 = 55.835, df = 2, p < 0.001; Figure 2B). The Dunn’s test indicated significant differences between DS and HP (Z = −4.47, p < 0.001), DS and HS (Z = −7.42, p < 0.001), and HP and HS (Z = −2.95, p = 0.009) (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6). Additionally, we found that the HS score had the highest values, followed by the HP score, and the DS score, which had the lowest values (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6).
4. Discussion
Our comprehensive assessment of reptile biodiversity in the Beni Department, Bolivia, highlights the importance of understanding species-specific vulnerability to develop well-informed conservation priorities. Overall, our results demonstrate that Beni hosts a notable amount of reptile diversity across several taxonomic scales that are important to the ecological identity of the region. More specifically, our analysis revealed significant differences between the three scores (i.e., DS, HP, and HS) used to calculate the EVS across the high, medium, and low environmental vulnerability categories, highlighting the complexity and nuance of reptile biodiversity and associated environmental vulnerability in this region. By considering the multiple dimensions of vulnerability, researchers and policymakers can better tailor conservation strategies to address the unique needs of each species, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of these efforts by developing more precise and accurate management and conservation strategies [31,32,33]. As threats to global biodiversity continue to increase via anthropogenic pressures on ecosystems and environmental change, accurate and robust conservation assessments are imperative. Our results can serve as a resource for researchers, conservationists, and policymakers working toward the conservation of these species, not only in the Beni Department of Bolivia, but throughout all areas where these species occur.
The first step in understanding the ecology of a particular area and establishing avenues for effective conservation is determining baseline species occurrence [34], which is often severely limited in South American countries [35]. Our compilation of reptile species occurrence indicates that Beni is a biodiversity hotspot as it relates to reptile species richness. The extraordinary diversity and species richness of reptiles in Beni is a result of the distinct ecological attributes that characterize the region. Beni is a collective mosaic of diverse habitats, which provide an ecological stage rich in microhabitats and environmental gradients, encompassing a broad spectrum of ecosystems ranging from expansive wetlands and savannas, to various forest types [36,37]. Each of these ecosystems is comprised of a unique set of biotic and abiotic factors, which offer distinctive niches that can be exploited by a wide array of reptile species. The intricate interplay between the diverse reptile life histories, their adaptive traits, and the varying environmental characteristics within these habitats likely allow for the coexistence of a multitude of species, thereby likely contributing to the region’s exceptional reptile species richness [22,38]. Similar to many regions in Bolivia, the Department of Beni, due largely to geographic location, serves as a biogeographical crossroad where different bioregions converge [39,40]. This convergence facilitates a significant degree of species overlap, a phenomenon that further influences the region’s biodiversity [22,38]. The overlap of species from distinct biogeographical origins leads to increased diversity and the possibility of novel ecological interactions, which can in turn catalyze further diversification and speciation processes. Therefore, conservation action has the potential to conserve not only species but important ecological and evolutionary processes as well [41], which appear to be the foundation of a large amount of reptile biodiversity (and likely biodiversity as a whole) in Beni. Overall, the unique combination of habitat diversity and biogeographical convergence exemplifies Beni as a hotspot for reptile biodiversity in the Neotropics and highlights the need for future research and attention on the conservation and development of this region’s biodiversity infrastructure.
A likely explanation for the fewer number of high vulnerability species or species that fell into IUCN categories of concern is that there is a small number of endemic reptiles in the Beni, and very few in Bolivia in comparison to many of the larger countries in Latin America. As such, it appears that the wider distributions and broader habitat niches of the species assessed in our analyses promote resiliency among the majority of reptiles in Beni. The small number of high-vulnerability species coupled with the large number of species categorized as LC by the IUCN is positive; however, the large number of species categorized as medium vulnerability warrants a watchful eye on reptiles in Beni by conservationists and researchers in the future.
Our results suggest complex vulnerabilities among the reptile species found in Beni. For example, high-vulnerability species displayed elevated habitat specificity and threat scores, coupled with limited distribution. The increased susceptibility of these species to environmental changes and anthropogenic pressures, such as habitat degradation and overharvesting, are cause for conservation concern and increased monitoring. The unique ecological needs and potential of these species to act as indicators for environmental disturbances justifies their prioritization in conservation strategies not only in Beni, but throughout the entirety of their range. Several species in the high vulnerability category were crocodilians and testudines which appear to be particularly vulnerable not only because of their habitat specificity, but also due to exploitation for meat, hides, eggs, etc. These species may uniquely benefit from extra oversight or community-based conservation management relative to commercial markets, human use, and harvest, which have the potential to integrate socioeconomic needs with conservation goals [42]. Additionally, several of the high-vulnerability species (e.g., Viperid snakes), appear to be vulnerable due to increased human persecution driven by fear (i.e., unwarranted killing), a common human–wildlife coexistence issue [43]. For these species, education on their ecological importance and the development of strategies to reduce or mitigate negative human–wildlife conflict would be a beneficial approach to reducing environmental vulnerability and conserving populations [43].
Species classified as medium-vulnerability demonstrated more resiliency due to expanded distributional ranges and reduced habitat specificity. This category was also characterized by elevated threat scores, which indicate susceptibility to pressures such as increased risk of human persecution and overharvesting. Their perceived resilience, potentially creating an illusion of security, highlights the importance of monitoring and proactive measures to prevent unnoticed or gradual population declines. Species within the low vulnerability category exhibited extensive distribution, lower habitat specificity, and lower human persecution and threat scores. However, even these species should not be disregarded in conservation planning. Environmental changes or the emergence of new threats could rapidly change their vulnerability status, thus underlining the need for their continued monitoring and inclusion in conservation initiatives.
In addition to the EVS measure, we also included the IUCN classification for each species evaluated. Several species were identified as vulnerable, near threatened, not evaluated, or data deficient, often due to poorly understood or unquantified pressures. Some of the discrepancies between the EVS and IUCN classifications highlight the complex and multifaceted threats influencing species viability, vulnerability, and conservation status, which demonstrates the need for continued research to fill existing knowledge gaps. However, it should be pointed out that the IUCN classifications and EVS scores should not be viewed through the same lens. For example, IUCN classifications are calculated based on precise, often population level, data and reflect contemporary conservation status of species and are considered both objective and comprehensive. Additionally, the IUCN classification system categorizes species based on the entirety of a species’ range, with little to no consideration of particular geographic areas within those ranges. The EVS score is a rapid measurement of a species’ potential vulnerability, rather than current status; therefore, it is a forward-looking metric rooted in broadscale species characteristics. It is important for conservationists, researchers, and policy makers to consider both measures when developing or applying conservation strategies.
Following our results, priority should be given to species classified as high vulnerability by the EVS measure, particularly those also identified as vulnerable or near threatened by the IUCN. For medium and low-vulnerability species, ongoing monitoring should be implemented to detect any shifts or changes in vulnerability status. Additionally, research efforts should focus on addressing existing knowledge gaps, particularly for species classified as not evaluated or data deficient via IUCN.
Our results also demonstrate the distinct vulnerabilities of species within the high vulnerability category, characterized by elevated HS scores. These species exhibited a heightened susceptibility to modifications in their habitat, possibly due to their unique ecological requirements or limited adaptive capacities. Habitat modification and change due to activities such as deforestation, agricultural development, and urbanization are the leading causes of changes in and loss of biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems [35,44,45,46]. Furthermore, the biodiversity of tropical regions is thought to be more sensitive and susceptible to these habitat modifications [35]. This demonstrates the need to develop and promote habitat protection measures to ensure the persistence of high-vulnerability species. Potential strategies should include the delineation and formal establishment of new protected areas, as well as the expansion or improvement of current protected areas. The establishment of protected areas has been found to be an effective strategy when implemented correctly (i.e., when networks of protected areas are established) [47,48,49]. Active enforcement of habitat integrity within these protected zones is also critical, with stringent measures against activities detrimental to habitat quality and connectivity. Additionally, in regions where habitat degradation or fragmentation has already occurred, habitat restoration projects could be instrumental in improving or reviving the ecological health and suitability of these areas, thereby further benefiting high-vulnerability species.
Species that fell within the medium and low vulnerability categories, as indicated by their relatively lower HS scores, appear to possess a broader tolerance to habitat variations. This resilience could be attributed to their adaptability, diversified diet, or generalist habitat preferences. However, it is important to note that while these species may not directly require habitat protection measures to the same degree as high-vulnerability species, they are nonetheless vital components of their ecosystems. Therefore, conservation measures targeting these species should aim to maintain and enhance ecosystem diversity and resilience. Such an approach could involve not only the protection of various habitat types but also of landscape connectivity and increased monitoring activities, thereby promoting the coexistence of multiple species and enhancing overall ecosystem stability. This approach to habitat protection and management in Beni will not only aid in conserving reptile biodiversity but also contribute significantly to the overall ecological integrity of the region.
The vulnerability of reptiles in Beni likely extends beyond the inherent biological and ecological characteristics of these species. Climate change and anthropogenic activities also have the potential to dramatically reshape the landscapes of Beni and compound the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitats, which pose a threat to many reptile species. Given these multifaceted challenges, there is an imperative need for the development and implementation of integrated conservation strategies that account for the conservation needs of reptiles along with the demands of sustainable development. These strategies should place a strong emphasis on minimizing habitat destruction and fragmentation, promoting sustainable land-use practices, and integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies into conservation planning.
5. Conclusions
It is important to note that our list of reptile species is likely not comprehensive due to the limited amount of baseline surveys that have been conducted in Beni and throughout Bolivia. It is likely that additional species will continue to be reported from Beni (e.g., range extensions and species new to science) in the future. Future research in Bolivia must focus on the comprehensive and rigorous documentation of species occurrence to better understand the country’s biodiversity and more precisely implement strategies to conserve and manage it. Furthermore, our results highlight the need for a nuanced, species-specific approach to conservation of reptiles in Beni. Considering the diverse habitats and unique biogeographical position of the region, Beni hosts an extraordinary richness of reptile species, each with its unique vulnerabilities and ecological requirements. The EVS score coupled with the IUCN classifications provides a comprehensive framework to understand these species-specific vulnerabilities and inform effective conservation strategies. The high-vulnerability species, characterized by unique ecological requirements and heightened susceptibility to environmental changes, warrant immediate prioritization. Additionally, the medium and low-vulnerability species, though presumably more resilient, warrant continued monitoring and proactive measures to prevent unnoticed or gradual population declines. Furthermore, we recommend the establishment and continued enforcement of protected areas, habitat restoration projects, and sustainable land-use practices to enhance habitat protection that will benefit conservation in Beni. This multi-faceted and balanced approach to conservation, tailored to the distinctive characteristics of each species and the region, is necessary for the successful conservation of the reptile species in Beni and across the Neotropics.
Conceptualization, C.B.E., R.L.P., L.R.R. and D.E.L.; methodology, C.B.E. and R.L.P.; software, C.B.E.; formal analysis, C.B.E.; investigation, C.B.E., R.L.P., L.R.R. and D.E.L.; resources, C.B.E. and R.L.P.; data curation, C.B.E., R.L.P. and L.R.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B.E.; writing—review and editing, C.B.E., R.L.P., L.R.R. and D.E.L.; visualization, C.B.E.; supervision, C.B.E., R.L.P. and L.R.R.; project administration, C.B.E. and R.L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas under collection permits No. 0120/2022 and with the Stephen F. Austin State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) under approval #2022-005.
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and
We thank the General Directorate of Biodiversity and Protected Areas for collection permits No. 0120/2022 and the Centro de Investigación de Recursos Acuáticos (CIRA) Universidad Autónoma del Beni “José Ballivian” for logistical support. We also thank Museo de Historia Natural “Noel Kempff Mercado”, (Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia), Colección Boliviana de Fauna (La Paz, Bolivia), and Museo de Historia Natural Alcide d’Orbigny (Cochabamba, Bolivia) for assistance with data, information, and for access to museum specimens.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
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.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Habitat map of Bolivia. The Department of Beni and associated provinces (black outline in primary map, red in secodary map) in the South American country of Bolivia. Source: ArcGIS Online (ArcPro 2.6.2, Esri, Redlands, CA, USA).
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. (A) Stacked bar graph of the number of reptile species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized into high, medium, and low environmental vulnerability across taxonomic groups, and (B) Violin plots representing the density of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for reptile species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia across taxonomic groups.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. (A) Stacked bar graph of the number of reptile species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized into high, medium, and low environmental vulnerability across taxonomic groups, and (B) Violin plots representing the density of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for reptile species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia across taxonomic groups.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Box plots of Distribution scores (DS), Habitat Scores (HS) Human Persecution Scores (HP), and associated Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for reptile species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia across vulnerability categories.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Alluvial plot of structure and composition of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for species of crocodilians and testudines from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized as high and medium vulnerability.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Alluvial plot of structure and composition of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for lizard species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized as high and low vulnerability.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Alluvial plot of structure and composition of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for snake species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized as high and low vulnerability.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Alluvial plot of structure and composition of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for lizard species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized as medium vulnerability.
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Alluvial plot of structure and composition of Environmental Vulnerability Scores (EVS) for snake species from the Department of Beni, Bolivia categorized as medium vulnerability.
List of reptile species documented via voucher specimens from the Department of Beni, Bolivia, their associated Distribution Scores (DS), Habitat Scores (HS), Human Persecution Scores (HP), Environmental Vulnerability Score (i.e., the sum of DS, HS, and HP Scores), IUCN classifications, and IUCN assessment of population status. Species names followed by (*) identify those where specimens from Beni exist, but the records are unverifiable or questionable.
| Order | Family | Species | Authority | DS | HS | HP | EVS | Vulnerability | IUCN | Pop. Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crocodilia | Alligatoridae | Caiman crocodilus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Stable |
| Caiman yacare | (Daudin, 1801) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Melanosuchus niger | (Spix, 1825) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Paleosuchus palpebrosus | (Cuvier, 1807) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Paleosuchus trigonatus | (Schneider, 1801) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Squamata | Alopoglossidae | Alopoglossus brevifrontalis | (Boulenger, 1912) | 1 | 7 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk |
| Amphisbaenidae | Amphisbaena alba | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Amphisbaena angustifrons | Cope, 1861 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Amphisbaena bolivica | (Mertens, 1929) | 4 | 7 | 3 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Amphisbaena camura | Cope, 1862 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Amphisbaena fuliginosa | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Aniliidae | Anilius scytale | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 3 | 3 | 5 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | |
| Boidae | Boa constrictor | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 | Low | LC | Decreasing | |
| Corallus hortulana | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Epicrates cenchria | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Epicrates crassus | Cope, 1862 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Eunectes beniensis | (Dirksen, 2002) | 6 | 5 | 6 | 17 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Eunectes murinus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 6 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Colubridae | Adelphostigma occipitalis | (Jan, 1863) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | |
| Apostolepis nigroterminata | Boulenger, 1896 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Apostolepis tenuis | Ruthven, 1927 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | DD | Unk | ||
| Atractus elaps | (Günther, 1858) | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Atractus emmeli | (Boettger, 1888) | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Atractus occipitoalbus | (Jan, 1862) | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | NT | Unk | ||
| Atractus torquatus | (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854) | 3 | 5 | 2 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Chironius carinatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Chironius exoletus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Chironius flavolineatus | (Jan, 1863) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Chironius fuscus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Chironius laurenti | (Dixon, Wiest and Cei, 1993) | 6 | 6 | 4 | 16 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Chironius multiventris | Schmidt and Walker, 1943 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Chironius quadricarinatus | (Boie, 1827) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Chironius scurrulus | (Wagler, 1824) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Clelia clelia | (Daudin, 1803) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Dendrophidion dendrophis | (Schlegel, 1837) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Dipsas bucephala | (Shaw, 1802) | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Dipsas catesbyi | (Sentzen, 1796) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Dipsas mikanii | (Schlegel, 1837) | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Dipsas peruana | (Boettger, 1898) | 4 | 7 | 3 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Dipsas turgida | (Cope, 1868) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Drepanoides anomalus | (Jan, 1863) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Drymarchon corais | (Boie, 1827) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Drymobius rhombifer | (Günther, 1860) | 3 | 7 | 4 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Drymoluber dichrous | (Peters, 1863) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus aesculapii | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus almadensis | (Wagler, 1824) | 3 | 4 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus dorsocorallinus | (Esqueda, Natera, La Marca and Ilija-Fistar, 2007) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Erythrolamprus miliaris | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus poecilogyrus | (Wied-Neuwied, 1824) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 | Low | LC | Increasing | ||
| Erythrolamprus reginae | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 4 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus taeniogaster | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Erythrolamprus typhlus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Helicops angulatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Helicops leopardinus | (Schlegel, 1837) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Helicops polylepis | (Günther, 1861) | 3 | 6 | 4 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Hydrodynastes gigas | (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Hydrops triangularis | (Wagler, 1824) | 3 | 5 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Imantodes cenchoa | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Leptodeira annulata | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Leptophis ahaetulla | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Leptophis bolivianus | Oliver, 1942 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 16 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Leptophis nigromarginatus | (Gunther, 1866) | 3 | 6 | 4 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Lygophis dilepis | Cope, 1862 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Lygophis flavifrenatus | Cope, 1862 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Lygophis lineatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Lygophis meridionalis | (Schenkel, 1901) | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Lygophis paucidens * | Hoge, 1953 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 14 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Mastigodryas boddaerti | (Sentzen, 1796) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Mussurana bicolor | (Peracca, 1904) | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxybelis aeneus | (Wagler, 1824) | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxybelis fulgidus | (Daudin, 1803) | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxyrhopus guibei | Hoge and Romano 1977 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxyrhopus melanogenys | (Tschudi, 1845) | 3 | 6 | 4 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxyrhopus petolarius | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Oxyrhopus rhombifer | Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Oxyrhopus trigeminus | Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Palusophis bifossatus | (Raddi, 1820) | 1 | 6 | 5 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Philodryas olfersii | (Lichtenstein, 1823) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Philodryas viridissima | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 3 | 6 | 4 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Phrynonax polylepis | (Peters, 1867) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Pseudoboa coronata | Schneider, 1801 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Pseudoeryx plicatilis | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Pseustes poecilonotus | (Günther, 1858) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Psomophis genimaculatus | (Boettger, 1885) | 4 | 6 | 4 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Rhinobothryum lentiginosum | (Scopoli, 1785) | 3 | 7 | 4 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Siphlophis compressus | (Daudin, 1803) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Spilotes pullatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 4 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Spilotes sulphureus | (Wagler, 1824) | 1 | 6 | 4 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Tantilla melanocephala | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Thamnodynastes lanei | Bailey, Thomas and Da Silva, 2005 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Thamnodynastes pallidus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 7 | 4 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Xenodon merremi | (Wagler, 1824) | 1 | 4 | 5 | 10 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Xenodon rabdocephalus | (Wied-Neuwied, 1824) | 1 | 6 | 5 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Xenodon semicinctus * | (Duméril, Bibron and Duméril, 1854) | 3 | 5 | 5 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Xenodon severus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 3 | 7 | 5 | 15 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Xenopholis werdingorum | Jansen, Álvarez and Köhler, 2009 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Dactyloidae | Anolis fuscoauratus | D’Orbigny, 1837 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Anolis meridionalis | Boettger, 1885 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Anolis ortonii | Cope, 1868 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Anolis punctatus | Daudin, 1802 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Low | LC | Unk | ||
| Anolis tandai * | Avila-Pires, 1995 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Diploglossidae | Diploglossus fasciatus | (Gray,1831) | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | |
| Ophiodes intermedius * | Boulenger, 1894 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Ophiodes striatus | Spix (1824) | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9 | Low | LC | Unk | ||
| Elapidae | Micrurus annellatus | Peters, 1871 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 14 | High | LC | Unk | |
| Micrurus diana | Roze, 1983 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 18 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Micrurus lemniscatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 5 | 10 | High | LC | Decreasing | ||
| Micrurus spixii | Wagler, 1824 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Micrurus surinamensis | (Cuvier, 1816) | 3 | 6 | 5 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | ||
| Gekkonidae | Hemidactylus mabouia | (Moreau de Jonnès, 1818) | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Gymnophthalmidae | Bachia dorbignyi | (Duméril and Bibron, 1839) | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | |
| Cercosaura argulus | Peters, 1862 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Low | LC | Unk | ||
| Cercosaura eigenmanni * | (Griffin, 1917) | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Cercosaura manicata | O’Shaughnessy, 1881 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Cercosaura ocellata | Wagler, 1830 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Cercosaura parkeri | (Ruibal, 1952) | 2 | 7 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Cercosaura schreibersii | Wiegmannnnnn, 1834 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Potamites ocellatus | (Sinitsin, 1930) | 6 | 6 | 2 | 14 | High | VU | Decreasing | ||
| Iphisa elegans | Gray, 1851 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Potamites ecpleopus | (Cope, 1875) | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Iguanidae | Iguana iguana | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 6 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | |
| Leptotyphlopidae | Epictia albipuncta | (Burmeister, 1861) | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Epictia australis | (Freiberg and Orejas-Miranda, 1968) | 4 | 5 | 1 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Epictia tenella | (Klauber, 1939) | 3 | 6 | 1 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Phyllodactylidae | Phyllopezus pollicaris | (Spix, 1825) | 3 | 5 | 2 | 10 | Medium | LC | Unk | |
| Thecadactylus solimoensis | Bergmann and Russell, 2007 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Polychrotidae | Polychrus acutirostris | (Spix, 1825) | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Polychrus liogaster | Boulenger, 1908 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 10 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Scincidae | Copeoglossum nigropunctatum | (Spix, 1825) | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | Low | LC | Decreasing | |
| Manciola guaporicola | (Dunn, 1935) | 4 | 6 | 2 | 12 | Medium | LC | Decreasing | ||
| Notomabuya frenata | (Cope, 1862) | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Varzea altamazonica | Miralles, Barrio-Amoros, Rivas, Chaparro-Auza, 2006 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Varzea bistriata | (Spix, 1825) | 2 | 7 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Sphaerodactylidae | Chatogekko amazonicus * | (Andersson, 1918) | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | |
| Gonatodes hasemani | (Griffin, 1917) | 4 | 7 | 2 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Gonatodes humeralis | (Guichenot, 1855) | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Teiidae | Ameiva ameiva | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Kentropyx altamazonica | (Cope, 1875) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Kentropyx calcarata | Spix, 1825 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Salvator merianae | Duméril and Bibron, 1839 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Tupinambis teguixin | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 4 | 6 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Tropiduridae | Plica plica | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 3 | 7 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | |
| Plica umbra | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 6 | 3 | 10 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Stenocercus caducus | (Copes, 1862) | 2 | 6 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Stenocercus prionotus | Cadle, 2001 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 15 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Stenocercus roseiventris | D’Orbigny in Duméril and Bibron, 1837 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Tropidurus chromatops | Harvey and Gutberlet, 1998 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11 | Medium | LC | Decreasing | ||
| Tropidurus Etheridgei * | Cei, 1982 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Tropidurus melanopleurus | Boulenger, 1902 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Tropidurus oreadicus * | Rodrigues, 1987 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Tropidurus spinulosus | (Cope, 1862) | 4 | 6 | 3 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Uranoscodon superciliosus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 2 | 7 | 3 | 12 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Typhlopidae | Amerotyphlops brongersmianus | (Vanzolini, 1976) | 1 | 6 | 2 | 9 | Low | LC | Stable | |
| Amerotyphlops reticulatus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 8 | Low | LC | Stable | ||
| Viperidae | Bothriopsis bilineatus | (Wied-Neuwied, 1821) | 2 | 6 | 5 | 13 | Medium | LC | Stable | |
| Bothrops atrox | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 5 | 5 | 11 | Medium | LC | Stable | ||
| Bothrops matogrossensis | (Amaral, 1925) | 1 | 6 | 5 | 12 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Bothrops sanctaecrucis | Hoge, 1966 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 18 | High | LC | Decreasing | ||
| Bothrops sonene | Carrasco et al. 2019 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 18 | High | NE | Unk | ||
| Crotalus durissus | (Linnaeus, 1758) | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9 | Low | LC | Unk | ||
| Lachesis muta | (Linnaeus, 1766) | 1 | 7 | 5 | 13 | Medium | LC | Unk | ||
| Testudines | Chelidae | Chelus fimbriata | (Schneider, 1783) | 3 | 7 | 6 | 16 | High | LC | Unk |
| Phrynops geoffroanus | (Schweigger, 1812) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Platemys platycephala | (Schneider, 1792) | 3 | 7 | 6 | 16 | High | LC | Unk | ||
| Kinosternidae | Kinosternon scorpioides | (Linnaeus, 1766) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Stable | |
| Podocnemididae | Podocnemis expansa | (Schweigger, 1812) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | LC | Unk | |
| Podocnemis unifilis | (Troschel, 1848) | 1 | 7 | 6 | 14 | High | VU | Unk | ||
| Testudinidae | Chelonoidis carbonaria | (Spix, 1824) | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 | Medium | NE | Unk | |
| Chelonoidis denticulatus | (Linnaeus, 1766) | 1 | 5 | 6 | 12 | Medium | VU | Unk |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. INE. Boletín Estadístico Producto Interno Bruto al Segundo Trimestre. 2020; Available online: https://www.ine.gob.bo/index.php/publicaciones/boletin-estadistico-producto-interno-bruto-alsegundo-trimestre-2020/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
2. Embert, D. Distribution, Diversity, and Conservation Status of Bolivian Reptiles. Ph.D. Dissertation; Rheinischen Friedrichs-Wilhelms-Universitat Bonn: Bonn, Germany, 2007; 429.
3. Aliaga-Rossel, E. Distribution and abundance of the river dolphin (Inia geoffrensis) in the Tijamuchi River, Beni, Bolivia. Aquat. Mamm.; 2002; 28, pp. 312-323.
4. Larrea-Alcázar, D.M.; Embert, D.; Aguirre, L.F.; Ríos-Uzeda, B.; Quintanilla, M.; Vargas, A. Spatial patterns of biological diversity in a neotropical lowland savanna of northeastern Bolivia. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2011; 20, pp. 1167-1182.
5. Erickson, C.L. The domesticated landscapes of the Bolivian Amazon. Time and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands; Balée, W.L.; Erickson, C.L. Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 235-278.
6. Walker, J.H. Pre-Columbian ring ditches along the Yacuma and Rapulo Rivers, Beni, Bolivia: A preliminary review. J. Field Archaeol.; 2008; 33, pp. 413-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346908791071141]
7. Erickson, C.L. The transformation of environment into landscape: The historical ecology of monumental earthwork construction in the Bolivian Amazon. Diversity; 2010; 2, pp. 618-652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d2040619]
8. Beck, H.E.; Zimmermann, N.E.; McVicar, T.R.; Vergopolan, N.; Berg, A.; Wood, E.F. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data; 2018; 5, 180214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.214] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30375988]
9. Navarro, G. Vegetación y Unidades Biogeográficas. Geografía Ecológica de Beni. Vegetación y Ambientes Acuáticos; Navarro, G.; Maldonado, M. Editorial Centro de Ecología Difusión Simón I. Patiño: Cochabamba, Bolivia, 2002; pp. 1-500.
10. Navarro, G. Clasificación de la Vegetación de Bolivia; Centro de Ecología Difusión Simón I. Patiño: Santa Cruz, Bolivia, 2011.
11. Navarro, G.; Ferreira, W. Biogeografía de Bolivia. Libro Rojo de Parientes Silvestres de Cultivos de Bolivia; Moraes, M.; Mostacedo, B.; Altamirano, S. Viceministerio de Medio Ambiente, Biodiversidad y Cambio Climático (VMABCC), Plural Editores: La Paz, Bolivia, 2009; pp. 23-39.
12. Myster, R.W. The Physical Structure of Forests in the Amazon Basin: A Review. Bot. Rev.; 2016; 82, pp. 407-427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12229-016-9174-x]
13. Bredin, Y.K.; Hawes, J.E.; Peres, C.A.; Haugaasen, T. Structure and composition of Terra Firme and Seasonally Flooded Várzea Forests in the Western Brazilian Amazon. Forests; 2020; 11, 1361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f11121361]
14. Moraes, R. Flora de Palmeras de Bolivia; 2nd ed. Universidad Mayor de San Andrés: La Paz, Bolivia, 2020.
15. Ibisch, P.L.; Beck, S.G.; Gerkmann, B.; Carretero, A. Ecoregiones y ecosistemas. Biodiversidad: La Riqueza de Bolivia; Ibisch, P.L.; Me, G. Editorial FAN: Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2003; pp. 47-88.
16. Langstroth, R.P. Forest Islands in an Amazonian Savanna of Northeastern Bolivia. Ph.D. Dissertation; University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; 452.
17. Langstroth, R.P. Biogeography of the Llanos de Moxos: Natural and anthropogenic determinants. Geogr. Helv.; 2011; 66, pp. 183-192. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gh-66-183-2011]
18. Haase, R.; Beck, G. Structure and composition of savanna vegetation in northern Bolivia: A preliminary report. Brittonia; 1989; 41, pp. 80-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2807594]
19. Eversole, C.B.; Powell, R.L.; Lizarro, D.; Moreno, F.; Vaca, G.C.; Aparicio, J.; Crocker, A.V. Introduction of a novel natural history collection: A model for global scientific collaboration and enhancement of biodiversity infrastructure with a focus on developing countries. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2019; 28, pp. 1921-1931. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01765-0]
20. Steinberg, P. Environmental Leadership in Developing Countries: Transnational Relations of Biodiversity Policy in Costa Rica and Bolivia; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
21. Moravec, J.; Aparicio, J. Notes on the herpetofauna of Nacebe (Provincia Abuna, Departamento Pando, Bolivia). Časopis Národního Muz. Řada Přírodovědná; 2004; 173, pp. 13-28.
22. Eversole, C.B.; Powell, R.L.; Lizarro, D.; Crocker, A.V.; Vaca, G.C.; Quintana, P.L. Herpetofauna of the Reserva de la Biósfera Estación Biológica del Beni and the Chimane Reserve Indigenous Territory, Bolivia. Neotrop. Biodivers.; 2021; 7, pp. 146-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23766808.2021.1920294]
23. Wilson, L.D.; Mata-Silva, V.; Johnson, J.D. A conservation reassessment of the reptiles of Mexico based on the EVS measure. Amphib. Reptile Conserv.; 2013; 7, pp. 1-47.
24. Gibbons, J.W.; Scott, D.E.; Ryan, T.J.; Buhlmann, K.A.; Tuberville, T.D.; Metts, B.S.; Greene, J.L.; Mills, T.; Leiden, Y.; Poppy, S. et al. The global decline of reptiles, déja vu amphibians. BioScience; 2000; 50, pp. 653-666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0653:TGDORD]2.0.CO;2]
25. Uetz, P.; Freed, P.; Aguilar, R.; Reyes, F.; Kudera, J.; Hošek, J. The Reptile Database. 2023; Available online: http://www.reptile-database.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
26. Lemos-Espinal, J.A.; Smith, G.R.; Rorabaugh, J. A conservation checklist of the amphibians and reptiles of Sonora, Mexico, with updated species lists. ZooKeys; 2019; 829, pp. 131-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.829.32146] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30914839]
27. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2022. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019; Available online: http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 15 December 2023).
28. Wilson, L.D.; McCranie, J.R. The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras. Amphib. Reptile Conserv.; 2004; 3, pp. 6-33. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15029252]
29. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).
30. Ogle, D.H.; Doll, J.C.; Wheeler, P.; Dinno, A. FSA: Fisheries Stock Analysis. R Package Version 0.9.1. 2021; Available online: https://github.com/droglenc/FSA (accessed on 15 December 2023).
31. Gardner, T.A.; Barlow, J.; Chazdon, R.; Ewers, R.M.; Harvey, C.A.; Peres, C.A.; Sodhi, N.S. Prospects for tropical forest biodiversity in a human-modified world. Ecol. Lett.; 2009; 12, pp. 561-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01294.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19504750]
32. Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Andelman, S.J.; Bakarr, M.I.; Boitani, L.; Brooks, T.M.; Cowling, R.M.; Fishpool, L.D.C.; da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Hoffmann, M. et al. Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature; 2006; 440, pp. 221-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02422] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15071592]
33. Mace, G.M.; Collar, N.J.; Gaston, K.J.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Akçakaya, H.R.; Leader-Williams, N.; Stuart, S.N. Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv. Biol.; 2008; 22, pp. 1424-1442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x]
34. Beng, K.C.; Corlett, R.T. Applications of environmental DNA (eDNA) in ecology and conservation: Opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2020; 29, pp. 2089-2121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-01980-0]
35. Tan, W.C.; Herrel, A.; Rödder, D. A global analysis of habitat fragmentation research in reptiles and amphibians: What have we done so far?. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2023; 32, pp. 439-468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-022-02530-6]
36. Foster, R.B.; Parker, T.A., III; Gentry, A.H.; Emmons, L.H.; Chicchon, A.; Schulenberg, T.; Rodriguez, L.; Lamas, G.; Ortega, H.; Icochea, J. et al. The Tambopata-Candamo Reserved Zone of Southeastern Peru: A Biological Assessment; Rapid Assessment Program Working Paper 6 Conservation International: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; 184.
37. Gentry, A.H.; León, B. Tambopata region, Peru. Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for Their Conservation; Davis, S.D.; Heywood, V.H.; Herrera-Macbryde, O.; Villa-Lobos, J.; Hamilton, A.C. WWF and IUCN: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 355-359.
38. Laurencio, D.; Malone, J.H. The amphibians and reptiles of Parque Nacional Carara, a transitional herpetofaunal assemblage in Costa Rica. Herpetol. Conserv. Biol.; 2009; 4, pp. 120-131.
39. Köhler, J.; Price, A.H. New species of Eleutherodactylus (Anura: Leptodactylidae) from cloud forest of Bolivia. Copeia; 2000; 2000, pp. 516-520. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1643/0045-8511(2000)000[0516:NSOEAL]2.0.CO;2]
40. Reichle, S.; Embert, D. New species of Clelia (Colubridae) from the inter-Andean dry valleys of Bolivia. J. Herpetol.; 2005; 39, pp. 379-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1670/121-03A.1]
41. Crandall, K.A.; Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P.; Mace, G.M.; Wayne, R.K. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evol.; 2000; 15, pp. 290-295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01876-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856956]
42. Campos-Silva, J.V.; Hawes, J.E.; Andrade, P.C.M.; Peres, C.A. Unintended multispecies co-benefits of an Amazonian community-based conservation program. Nat. Sustain.; 2018; 1, pp. 650-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0170-5]
43. Onyishi, I.E.; Nwonyi, S.K.; Pazda, A.; Prokop, P. Attitudes and behaviour toward snakes on the part of Igbo people in southeastern Nigeria. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 763, 143045. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143045] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33121773]
44. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.; 2003; 34, pp. 487-515. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419]
45. Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Hill, S.L.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Senior, R.A.; Börger, L.; Bennett, D.J.; Choimes, A.; Collen, B. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature; 2015; 520, pp. 45-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature14324]
46. Böhm, M.; Collen, B.; Baillie, J.E.M.; Bowles, P.; Chanson, J.; Cox, N.; Hammerson, G.; Hoffmann, M.; Livingstone, S.R.; Ram, M. et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol. Conserv.; 2013; 157, pp. 372-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.015]
47. Urbina-Cardona, J.N.; Loyola, R.D. Applying niche-based models to predict endangered-hylid potential distributions: Are neotropical protected areas effective enough?. Trop. Conserv. Sci.; 2008; 1, pp. 417-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/194008290800100408]
48. Le Saout, S.; Hoffmann, M.; Shi, Y.; Hughes, A.; Bernard, C.; Brooks, T.M.; Bertzky, B.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Stuart, S.N.; Badman, T. et al. Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation. Science; 2013; 342, pp. 803-805. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1239268]
49. Cazalis, V.; Princé, K.; Mihoub, J.B.; Kelly, J.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Rodrigues, A.S.L. Effectiveness of protected areas in conserving tropical forest birds. Nat. Commun.; 2020; 11, 4461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18230-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32929068]
50. Bergmann, P.J.; Russell, A.P. Systematics and biogeography of the widespread Neotropical gekkonid genus Thecadactylus (Squamata), with the new description of a new cryptic species. Zool. J. Linn. Soc.; 2007; 149, pp. 339-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00251.x]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Powell, Randy L 2 ; Rivas, Luis R 2 ; Lizarro, Dennis E 2 1 Arthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State University, 419 E College Street, Nacogdoches, TX 75962, USA
2 Centro de Investigación de Recursos Acuáticos (CIRA), Universidad Autónoma del Beni José Ballivián, Trinidad 080101, Beni, Bolivia