Biodiversity Literature Repository

Submit to community
Liberated Data
Published March 31, 2021 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Ecología de los anuros de la Sierra de Quila, Jalisco, México: un análisis en dos escalas espaciales

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Universidad de Guadalajara. Centro Universitario de Ciencias Biológicas y Agropecuarias. Camino Ramón Padilla Sánchez No. 2100 Nextipac, Zapopan, Jalisco C.P.45200, oscar.reyna@academicos.udg.mx, martin.huerta@academicos.udg.mx, alejandro.munozu@ academicos.udg.mx * Autor para correspondencia

Description

Reyna-Bustos, Oscar Francisco, Huerta-Martínez, Francisco Martín, Muñoz-Urias, Alejandro (2022): Ecología de los anuros de la Sierra de Quila, Jalisco, México: un análisis en dos escalas espaciales. Caldasia 44 (1): 130-141, DOI: 10.15446/caldasia.v44n1.89182, URL: https://doi.org/10.15446/caldasia.v44n1.89182

Files

source.pdf

Files (2.2 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:415424743d62d4245de72ef245f8a5c3
2.2 MB Preview Download

Linked records

Additional details

Identifiers

LSID
urn:lsid:plazi.org:pub:415424743D62D424FFE7FFF2FFF8FFC3

Cites
Publication: 10.1670/0022-1511(2003)037[0010:QAOHPF]2.0.CO;2 (DOI)
Publication: 10.3897/natureconservation.28.26186 (DOI)
Publication: 10.2307/2399467 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1670/09-040 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1007/s10531-010-9923-9 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1655/0018-0831-76.2.97 (DOI)
Publication: 10.7717/peerj.5897 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1038/35008052 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-12-00068 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1186/s12898-019-0234-z (DOI)
Publication: 10.4322/natcon.2014.008 (DOI)
Publication: 10.21829/azm.2018.3412138 (DOI)
Publication: 10.15517/rbt.v65i3.29440 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1670/14-166 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1643/0045-8511(2000)000[1104:VRTRBB]2.0.CO;2 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.053 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.10.019 (DOI)
Publication: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.028 (DOI)
Has part
Figure: 10.5281/zenodo.15284662 (DOI)
Figure: 10.5281/zenodo.15284664 (DOI)
Figure: 10.5281/zenodo.15284668 (DOI)

References

  • Beard KH, McCullough S, Eschtruth AK. 2003. Quantitative Assessment of Habitat Preferences for the Puerto Rican Terrestrial Frog, Eleutherodactylus coqui J. Herpetol. 37(1): 10-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1670/0022-1511(2003)037[0010:QAO HPF]2.0.CO;2
  • Bevier CR. 1997. Breeding activity and chorus tenure of two neo- tropical hylid frogs. Herpetologica. 53(3): 297-311. doi: https:// www.jstor.org/stable/3893339
  • Berriozabal-Islas C, Ramirez-Bautista A, Cruz-Elizalde R, Hernandez-Salinas U. 2018. Modification of landscape as promo- ter of change in structure and taxonomic diversity of reptile´s communities: an example in tropical landscape in the central region of Mexico. Nat. Conserv. 28: 33-49. doi: https://doi. org/10.3897/natureconservation.28.26186
  • Burbano-Yandi CE, Bolivar-Garcia W, Giraldo A. 2015. Ensam- blajes de anuros en tres zonas con intervencion humana en el Parque Nacional Natural Los Katios (Colombia). Bol. Cient. Mus. Hist. Nat. U. de Caldas. 19: 157-170.
  • Chavez-Avila SM, Casas-Andreu G, Garcia-Aguayo A, Cifuentes- Lemus JL, Cupul-Magana FG. 2015. Anfibios y Reptiles del Estado de Jalisco. Analisis espacial, distribucion y conservacion. Pto. Vallarta: Universidad de Guadalajara, Division de Ciencias Biologicas y Ambientales.
  • Colwell RK. c2019. EstimateS. Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9.1. [Revisada en: 20 Abr 2020] http://viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
  • Crump ML, Scott NJJr. 1994. Visual encounter survey. En: Heyer WR, Donnelly MA, McDiarmid RW, Donnelly, Heyek LC, Foster MS, editores. Measuring and monitoring Biological diversity, Standard Methods for Amphibians. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press. p. 84-91.
  • Duellman WE. 1988. Patterns of species diversity in anuran amphibians in the American tropics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75:79-104. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2399467
  • Duellman WE, Lizana M. 1994. Biology of a sit-and-wait predator, the leptodactylid frog, Ceratophrys cornuta. Herpetologica. 50(1):51-64. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3892875
  • Ferreira RB, Schineider JAP, Teixeira RL. 2012. Diet, fecundity, and use of bromeliads by Phyllodytes luteolus (Anura: Hylidae) in Southeastern Brazil. J. Herpetol. 46(1):19-24. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1670/09-040
  • Flores-Villela O, Garcia-Vazquez UO. 2014. Biodiversidad de reptiles en Mexico. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. Suplemento.85: 467-475.
  • Frias-Alvarez P, Zuniga-Vega JJ, Flores-Villela O. 2010. A gene- ral assessment of the conservation status and decline trends of Mexican amphibians. Biodivers. Conserv. 19(13):3699-3742. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9923-9
  • Garcia E. 2004. Modificaciones al Sistema de Clasificacion Cli- matica de Koppen. Serie Libros No. 6. 5a Edicion. Corregida y Aumentada. Mexico D.F.: Instituto de Geografia. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  • Green DM, Lannoo MJ, Lesbarreres, D, Muths E. 2020. Amphibian Population Declines: 30 Years of Progress in Confronting a Complex Problem. Herpetologica. 76(2): 97-100. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1655/0018-0831-76.2.97
  • Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica. 4(1): 1-9.
  • Hernandez-Salinas U, Ramirez-Bautista A, Stephenson BP, Cruz-Elizalde R, Berriozabal-Islas C, Balderas-Valdivia CJ. 2018. Amphibian life history in a temperate environment of the Mexican Plateau: dimorphism, phenology and trophic ecology of a hylid frog, Hyla eximia (=Dryophytes eximius). PeerJ 6:e5897. doi: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5897
  • Houlahan JE, Findlay CS, Schmidt BR, Meyer AH, Kuzmin SL. 2000. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404(6779):752-755. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/35008052 [ITIS] Integrated Taxonomic Information System. c2021. Integrated Taxonomic Information System on-line database [Revisada en: 17 Feb 2021]. http://www.itis.gov [IUCN] International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. c2019.The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-2.2. [Revisada en: 16 Dic 2019].https://www.iucnredlist.org
  • Jongsma GFM, Hedley RW, Duraes R, Karubian J. 2014. Amphibian diversity and species composition in relation to habitat type and alteration in the Mache -Chindul Reserve, northwest Ecuador. Herpetologica. 70(1): 34-46. doi: https://doi. org/10.1655/HERPETOLOGICA-D-12-00068
  • Khatiwada JR, Zhao T, Chen Y, Wang B, Xie F, Cannatella, DC, Jiang J. 2019. Amphibian community structure along elevation gradients in eastern Nepal Himalaya. BMC Ecol. 19:19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-019-0234-z
  • Landeiro VL, Waldez F, Menin M. 2014. Spatial and environmental patterns of Amazonian anurans: Differences between assemblages with aquatic and terrestrial reproduction, and implications for conservation management. Nat. Conserv. 12(1):42-46. doi: https://doi.org/10.4322/natcon.2014.008.
  • Leyte-Manrique A, Gonzalez-Garcia RLE, Quintero-Diaz GE, Ale- jo-Iturvide F, Berriozabal-Islas C. 2018. Aspectos ecologicos de una comunidad de anuros en un ambiente tropical estacional en Guanajuato, Mexico. Acta Zoo. Mex. 34: 1-14. doi: https://doi. org/10.21829/azm.2018.3412138
  • Luna-Gomez MI, Garcia A, Santos-Barrera G. 2017. Spatial and temporal distribution and microhabitat use of aquatic breeding amphibians (Anura) in a seasonally dry tropical forest in Chamela, Mexico. Rev. Biol. Tr. 65(3): 1082-1094. doi: http://doi. org/10.15517/rbt.v65i3.29440
  • Mageski MM, Ferreira RB, Beard KH, Costa LC, Jesus PR, Medei- ros CC, Ferreira PD. 2016. Bromeliad Selection by Phyllodytes luteolus (Anura, Hylidae): The Influence of Plant Structure and Water Quality Factors. J. Herpetol. 50(1): 108-112. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1670/14-166
  • Marsh DM. 2000. Variable Responses to Rainfall by Breeding Tungara Frogs. Copeia. (4): 1104-1108. doi: https://doi. org/10.1643/0045-8511(2000)000[1104:VRTRBB]2.0.CO;2
  • McCune B, Mefford MJ. 2006. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data.
  • Munoz-Guerrero J, Serrano VH, Ramirez-Pinilla MP. 2007. Uso de microhabitat, dieta y tiempo de actividad en cuatro especies simpatricas de ranas Hilidas neotropicales (Anura: Hylidae). Caldasia. 29(2): 413-425. doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23641777
  • Olson DH, Anderson PD, Frissell CA, Welsh Jr HH, Bradford DF. 2007. Biodiversity management approaches for stream-riparian areas: perspectives for Pacific Northwest headwater forests, microclimates, and amphibians. For. Ecol. Manage. 246(1):81- 107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.053
  • Parra-Olea G, Flores-Villela O, Mendoza-Almeralla C. 2014. Biodiversidad de anfibios en Mexico. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. Supl. 85: S460-S466.
  • Pie MR, Meyer ALS, Firkowski CR, Ribeiro LF, Bornschein MR. 2013. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the distribution of microendemic montane frogs (Brachycephalus spp., Terrarana: Brachycephalidae) in the Brazilian Atlantic Rainfo- rest. Ecol. Modell. 250: 165-176. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolmodel.2012.10.019
  • Rzedowski J. 2006. Vegetacion de Mexico. 1ra. Edicion digital. Mexico, D.F.: Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad.
  • Santiago-Perez AL, Dominguez-Laso M, Rosas-Espinoza VC, Ro- driguez-Canseco JM, coordinadores. 2011. Anfibios y Reptiles de las Montanas de Jalisco: Sierra de Quila. Guadalajara, Jalisco: Universidad de Guadalajara / Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad / Coatzin, A. C./ Sociedad Herpetologica Mexicana, A. C.
  • Santos-Barrera G. 2014. Geographic variation in Incilius occidentalis (Anura: Bufonidae), an endemic toad from Mexico, with a redescription of the species and delimitation of the type locality. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 85(2): 414-428.
  • Santos-Barrera G, Urbina-Cardona JN. 2011. The role of the matrix-edge dynamics of amphibian conservation in tropical montane fragmented landscapes. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 82(2): 679-687.
  • SEMARNAT. c2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMAR- NAT-2010, Proteccion ambiental-Especies nativas de Mexico de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorias de riesgo y especificacio- nes para su inclusion, exclusion o cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. [Revisada en: 10 Feb 2021] https://www.profepa.gob. mx/innovaportal/file/435/1/nom_059_semarnat_2010.pdf
  • Suazo-Ortuno I, Alvarado-Diaz J, Mendoza E, Lopez-Toledo L, Lara-Uribe N, Marquez-Camargo C, Rangel-Orozco JD. 2015. High resilience of herpetofaunal communities in a humanmodified tropical dry forest landscape in western Mexico. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 8, 396-423. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21829/ azm.2018.3412138
  • Villavicencio-Garcia R, Bauche-Petersen P, Gallegos-Rodriguez A, Santiago-Perez AL, Huerta-Martinez FM. 2005. Caracteriza- cion estructural y diversidad de comunidades arboreas de La Sierra de Quila. Ibugana. 13(1): 67-76.
  • Wake DB, Koo MS. 2018. Amphibians. Current Biol. 28(21): R1221-R1242. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.09.028
  • Yanosky AA, Mercolli C, Dixon JR. 1997. Field ecology and population estimates of the veined tree frog (Phrynohyas venulosa) in the eastern chaco of Argentina. Tex. J. Sci. 49(1):41-58.
  • Zar JH. 2014. Biostatistical Analysis. 5th Edition. England: Pear- son Education.