Corresponding author: Gibrán Sánchez-Hernández (
Natural Protected Areas (
Natural Protected Areas (
The federal
Categories and main characteristics of the Mexican Natural Protected Areas, including their representativeness in Chiapas.
Categories | Mexico | Chiapas | Characteristics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extension in ha |
|
Extension in ha (%) | ||
Flora and Fauna Protection Area | 40 | 6,996,864.1 | 4 | 24,980.7 (0.36) | Its focus is towards the species conservation. The objective is to conserve the habitats where wild flora and fauna live, develop and evolve. |
Natural Resources Protected Area | 8 | 4,503,345.2 | 2 | 198,551.5 (4.41) | Areas dedicated to the preservation and protection of soils, watersheds and natural resources of forestlands. It includes protection areas of national water bodies, especially when they are used to supply human populations. |
Natural Monument | 5 | 16,269.1 | 2 | 6,978.7 (42.90) | Specific sites that contain natural elements with an exceptional value of aesthetic, historical or scientific type. Extractive type exploitation is banned. |
National Park | 67 | 16,220,099.3 | 3 | 29,583.4 (0.18) | They are sites with ecosystems that have mainly scenic beauty, historical, scientific, educational and recreational value, that preserve special flora and fauna and that present, above all, aptitude for tourism development. |
Biosphere Reserve | 44 | 62,952,750.5 | 7 | 932,095.8 (1.48) | They are established in places that represent the diversity of the country’s ecosystems. Representativeness is also taken into account in terms of biological diversity and the presence of endemic, threatened or endangered species. |
Sanctuary | 18 | 150,193.3 | 1 | 212.5 (0.14) | They stand out for maintaining a high species richness or species of restricted distribution in delimited sites. This includes ravines, relicts, caves, cenotes, caletas and other specific geographical units |
Total | 182 | 90,839,521.5 | 19 | 1,192,402.6 (1.3) |
The dung beetles of the subfamily
In order to understand the links between ecological functions and ecosystem services they offer, some authors have proposed the subfamily
Published studies on dung beetles species occurring in the federal
Characteristics of the 19 federal Natural Protected Areas decreed in Chiapas1.
Categories | Name | Acronym | Year of decree | Extension (ha) | Main vegetation types* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Flora and Fauna Protected Area | Agua Azul | APFFAA | 1980 | 2,580 | TRF |
Chan-Kin | APFFCK | 1992 | 12,184.98 | TRF, MRF, SV, HV | |
Metzabok | APFFM | 1998 | 3,841.47 | TRF, ECF, OF, SV | |
Nahá | APFFN | 1998 | 3,368.36 | TRF, MRF, ECF | |
Natural Resources Protected Area | La Frailescana | APRNF | 1997 | 177,546.17 | TDF, TRF, MRF |
Villa Allende | APRNVA | 1939 | 21,005.27 | TDF, ECF, MRF, OF | |
Natural Monument | Yaxchilán | MNY | 1992 | 2,621.25 | TRF |
Bonampak | MNB | 1992 | 4,357.42 | TRF, MRF, ECF | |
National Park | Cañón del Sumidero | PNCS | 1980 | 21,789.42 | TDF, MRF, XV, SV |
Lagunas de Montebello | PNLM | 1959 | 6,022 | OF, ECF, SV | |
Palenque | PNP | 1981 | 1,772 | TRF, G | |
Biosphere Reserve | Lacan-Tun | REBILA | 1992 | 61,873.96 | TRF, HV |
Selva El Ocote | REBISO | 1982 | 101,288.15 | TRF, MRF, SV | |
El Triunfo | REBITRI | 1990 | 119,177.29 | ECF, TRF | |
La Encrucijada | REBIEN | 1995 | 144,868.16 | M, MRF, TDF, CD | |
La Sepultura | REBISE | 1995 | 167,309.86 | OF, PF, OPF, MRF, SV | |
Montes Azules | REBIMA | 1978 | 331,200 | TRF, MRF, POF, ECF | |
Volcán Tacaná | REBIVTA | 2003 | 6,378.37 | ECF, MRF | |
Sanctuary | Playa de Puerto Arista | SPPA | 1986 | 212.48 | CD, M, HV, TDF |
TRF: tropical rainforest; MRF: mountain rainforest; TDF: tropical deciduous forest; ECF: evergreen cloud forest; PF: pine forest; POF: pine-oak forest; OPF: oak-pine forest; SV: secondary vegetation; XV: xerophytic vegetation; HV: hydrophilic vegetation; M: mangrove; CD: coastal dunes; G: grassland. 1
The records obtained from the GBIF database come from the following entomological collections:
The list of species obtained was reviewed and updated according to the supra-generic designation proposed by
We use simple linear regressions to determine the influence of the number of publications in each NPA and its area size (has) with the number of species that each one recorded. This analysis was performed in the R software (
A total of 112 species and seven subspecies belonging to 23 genera, seven tribes and four subtribes of the subfamily
List of the dung beetle species registered in the Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas, Mexico.
Species |
|
Resources |
---|---|---|
|
||
PNLM, PNP, REBIMA | ||
PNLM, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
1 |
REBIVTA |
|
PNLM, REBIMA, REBIVTA | ||
* |
REBIMA | |
* |
REBISO | |
REBISO, REBIVTA, APRNVA | ||
REBIMA, MNB, MNY | ||
*2 |
PNP |
|
MNB, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
* |
PNCS, REBISO, APRNVA | |
MNB, MNY, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
PNP, REBIMA, MNY | ||
MNB, REBIMA | ||
* |
REBIVTA |
|
|
||
* |
PNCS, APRNVA | |
MNB, PNLM, PNCS, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, APRNVA | ||
|
||
REBIMA, REBIVTA, APRNVA | ||
MNB, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, MNY | ||
APRNVA | ||
* |
APFFN, REBIMA, REBISO | |
* |
MNB, APFFN, APRNVA, REBIMA, REBISO | |
* |
REBISO | |
REBIMA | ||
* |
REBIVTA | Matthews 1961; |
APRNVA, REBIVTA, PNCS | ||
PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY, APRNVA, PNCS | ||
APRNF, PNLM, REBISO, REBISE, APFFN, REBIMA, REBITRI, MNY, REBIVTA, APRNVA | ||
*1 |
PNLM |
|
*1 |
REBITRI, REBIVTA | |
PNLM, PNP, PNCS, REBIMA, REBISO, APRNF, REBITRI, APRNVA, | ||
REBIMA, REBISE, REBITRI, REBIVTA | ||
PNLM, PNCS, PNP, REBIMA, APRNF, REBISE, APRNVA, REBISO, REBITRI, REBIVTA | ||
REBISO |
|
|
APRNVA, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY | ||
1 |
REBIMA, REBISO | |
* |
PNLM, REBISO | |
|
||
APRNVA | ||
PNP, REBIMA | ||
REBISO, REBITRI | ||
REBISO, PNCS, PNP, REBIMA, REBIVTA, MNY, APRNVA | ||
APRNVA | ||
MNB, PNP, MNY, REBISO, REBIMA | ||
PNCS, REBIMA, PNP, REBISO, REBISE, MNY, APRNVA | ||
PNLM, APRNVA, PNCS | ||
APRNVA, PNCS | ||
PNCS, REBIEN | GBIF 2019 | |
APRNVA, PNCS, PNLM, REBISE, REBISO | ||
PNCS, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO | ||
REBIMA | ||
* |
APRNVA | |
REBISO |
|
|
MNY, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
MNB, MNY, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
MNB, MNY, PNCS, PNP, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, APRNVA | ||
* |
PNLM | |
REBISO, MNY | ||
* |
REBISO, REBIMA, APRNVA |
|
REBISO |
|
|
REBIMA, APRNVA | ||
PNLM, REBISO, REBITRI, REBIVTA | ||
PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNB, MNY, APRNVA | ||
PNCS, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, REBITRI, MNY, APRNVA | ||
PNLM, PNP, MNY, APRNVA, REBIMA, REBISO, REBITRI, REBIVTA | ||
MNY, PNP, REBIMA | ||
APRNVA, PNCS, PNP | ||
|
||
APFFM, MNB, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY | ||
MNB, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY | ||
REBIMA, REBISO, | ||
APRNF, PNLM, PNCS, PNP, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, REBIVTA | ||
* |
MNB |
|
MNB, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, APRNVA, MNY | ||
REBIMA | GBIF 2019 | |
REBIMA |
|
|
|
||
REBISE, REBISO, REBITRI, APRNVA, REBIVTA | ||
|
||
REBISO, REBITRI, SPPA, PNP, APRNVA, APRNF | ||
REBIMA, APRNVA | ||
REBISO, REBIVTA | ||
PNLM, PNCS, REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, REBITRI, PNP, MNY, APRNVA | ||
REBISE | GBIF 2019 | |
1 |
APFFN, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY, PNP | |
REBISE | GBIF 2019 | |
* |
REBISE, REBITRI | |
REBIMA | ||
PNP | GBIF 2019 | |
PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY, APRNVA | ||
PNLM, REBISE, REBITRI, REBIVTA | ||
PNLM, REBIMA, REBISO | ||
REBISE, REBITRI, PNP | GBIF 2019 | |
APRNVA, PNCS, PNP, REBISE, REBITRI | ||
REBIMA, REBISO, REBIVTA, PNP, MNY | ||
PNP, REBISO, APRNVA | ||
REBISO | ||
PNP | GBIF 2019 | |
* |
REBIMA, REBISE, REBISO, MNY, PNP | |
REBIMA, PNP | GBIF 2019 | |
PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY | ||
PNP | GBIF 2019 | |
APRNVA, APFFN | ||
REBIMA, REBISO | ||
|
||
MNB, PNP, REBIVTA, REBIMA, REBISO, MNY, APRNVA | ||
MNB, REBIMA, REBISO, PNP | ||
REBITRI | Edmonds and Zidek 2010; GBIF 2019 | |
MNY, PNLM, REBISE, REBITRI | ||
REBISE, APRNVA, PNCS | ||
MNB, PNCS, PNLM, PNP, REBIMA, REBISO, REBIVTA, MNY, APRNVA | ||
REBIVTA | ||
REBIMA | ||
MNY |
|
|
REBISO, REBIVTA, APRNVA | ||
MNB, MNY, PNP, PNLM REBIMA, REBISO | ||
REBISE, REBISO, REBITRI, PNCS, APRNVA | ||
PNLM, PNCS, APRNVA | ||
MNB, REBIMA, REBISO, PNP | ||
|
||
REBITRI |
*Species/subspecies described from organisms collected in Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas. #Invasive species. 1Least concern and 2Near threatened in the
Number of species registered by genus in the Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas.
A total of 47 publications provided records of 104 species, of which 48.9% (n = 23) corresponded to taxonomic studies, 31.9% (n = 15) were ecological/faunistic works and only 19.2% (n = 9) presented geographic distribution data. For its part, the GBIF database presented records that corresponded to 94 species.
Of the 19
Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas grouped into five categories according to the number of species they register. See acronym in Table
Simple linear regression analysis between the (
Number of species and genera of
A high specificity of species was found for the
Faunistic similarity analysis of dung beetles between the Natural Protected Areas of Chiapas. Only
The 112 species reported in the federal natural protected areas correspond to 91% of the
REBIVTA, the reserve with the lowest faunistic affinity in the study, is located in an area with Central American influence that emerged during the volcanism in the Pliocene (
PNP, REBISO, MNY, REBIMA and MNB, formed a faunistic complex of rain forests located on the gulf slope with a high percentage of similarity (above 70%). They became a group of reserves clearly different from the other group formed by the interaction of two areas (PNCS and APRNVA) characterized by dry forests. Both
We consider that seven species cited by some of the reviewed works do not have a presence in Chiapas, or that their distribution needs to be confirmed in some of the reserves studied. The reports of
Gomez et al. (2017) reported to
Similarly,
We also consider that
Biodiversity monitoring in natural protected areas represents an integral component to assess its performance and provide the information necessary for effective management (
Due to the great variety of ecological functions in which they intervene (
On the other hand, conservation efforts through
In Chiapas, the ecosystem-scale conservation approach through corridors that link protected areas has recently emerged. An example of this is the “Complejo Selva Zoque of Natural Protected Areas”, whose objective is to enable the connectivity and conservation of biodiversity between five protected areas, three federal
Data presented in this work can be used as a reference to monitor dung beetle communities in the
We are grateful to Bridget Davis for reviewing the English grammar of the manuscript. We also thank the two reviewers and subject editor for their useful comments and suggestions to the manuscript. Finally, we want to recognize the work that the Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (