Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
DÉBORA L. SILVANO∗ AND MAGNO V. SEGALLA†
∗
Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Brası́lia 70068-900, DF, Brasil,
email [email protected]
†Instituto Hórus de Desenvolvimento e Conservação Ambiental, Rua Dr. Manoel Pedro 495/906, Curitiba 80035-030, Paraná, Brasil
Abstract: Brazil is the world leader in amphibian diversity, with 765 species, most of which have been
described in the last 40 years. The Brazilian Official List of Threatened Species and the results of a workshop
for the Global Amphibian Assessment indicate that 26 species are threatened. The majority of these occur in
the Atlantic Forest, one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. The main threat to amphibians is the destruction of
their habitats through deforestation, conversion into agricultural land, mining, wildfires, and infrastructure
development and urbanization. In Brazil little is known about other causes of amphibian decline observed
worldwide, such as pesticides, infectious diseases, climate change, invasive species, or wildlife trade. Brazilian
conservation policies include such important legal instruments as the Official List of Threatened Species and
the selection of priority areas for conservation measures in all of Brazil’s major biomes. Although there is
little information on geographic distributions and the natural history and ecology of the large majority of the
currently recognized species, a number of important regional studies for amphibian conservation are under
way. New species are discovered each year.
Conservación de Anfibios Brasileños
Resumen: Brasil es el lı́der mundial en diversidad de anfibios, con 765 especies, la mayorı́a de las cuales
han sido descritas en los últimos 40 años. La Lista Brasileña Oficial de Especies Amenazadas y los resultados
de un taller para la Evaluación Global de Anfibios indican que 26 especies están amenazadas, la mayorı́a de
ellas ocurre en el Bosque Atlántico, uno de los sitios de importancia para la biodiversidad global. La principal
amenaza a los anfibios es la destrucción de sus hábitats por la deforestación, conversión a tierras agrı́colas,
minerı́a, fuego no controlado, desarrollo de infraestructura y urbanización. En Brasil se conoce poco sobre otras
causas de la declinación de anfibios observadas en todo el mundo, como pesticidas, enfermedades infecciosas,
cambio climático, especies invasoras o comercio de vida silvestre. Las polı́ticas Brasileñas de conservación
incluyen importantes instrumentos legales como la Lista Oficial de Especies Amenazadas y la selección de
áreas prioritarias para la conservación en todos lo biomas principales de Brasil. Existe escasa información
sobre la distribución geográfica y la historia natural y ecologı́a de la gran mayorı́a de las especies reconocidas
actualmente, aunque se está desarrollando un importante número de estudios regionales para la conservación
de anfibios. Cada año se descubren nuevas especies.
Species Diversity
From the 1960s to the present, 313 species of Brazilian
amphibians were described, doubling the number described in the previous 200 years. Ninety-seven species
have been described in the last 10 years. (This includes
only species with Brazilian type localities, not those de-
scribed from specimens obtained in other countries but
occurring in Brazil.)
The Earth Summit Rio-92 inspired intensive worldwide efforts to compile information on biological diversity (Lewinsohn & Prado 2002). The Global Biodiversity report of the World Conservation Monitoring Center (Groombridge 1992) indicated that Brazil is home to
Paper submitted November 19, 2004; revised manuscript accepted December 29, 2004.
653
Conservation Biology, Pages 653–658
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
654
Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
502 species of amphibians. Lewinsohn and Prado (2002)
counted about 600, but 731 species were listed and their
status assessed at the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN)
Global Amphibian Assessment (GAA) held in 2003 (IUCN
et al. 2004). Unsatisfied, the Brazilian Herpetological Society (SBH) attempted to compile a more comprehensive
list of Brazilian amphibian species in 2004. The result
placed Brazil at the top of the world’s amphibian diversity charts: 765 species in three orders, 13 families, and
98 genera (SBH 2004). Brazil’s list includes 737 anurans,
27 caecilians, and a single salamander. By comparison,
Colombia has registered 698 species of amphibians and
Ecuador has 447 (IUCN et al. 2004). The total number
of species known for the New World is 3,046, of 5,743
amphibians worldwide.
Nevertheless, Brazil’s amphibians, especially the caecilians and salamanders, are poorly known. Little information exists on their geographic distributions, natural history, life histories, or ecology. Enormous areas of Brazil
have yet to be inventoried, and there are many localities where surveys have been insufficient. Many of the
sites known for their particular richness have been studied for many years and coincide with protected areas or
are otherwise easily accessed for periodic inventories. Additionally, numerous surveys and collections remain unpublished or in the gray literature. The paradox is that
the opportunities and academic incentives for publishing
species lists—whether simple or annotated—are limited,
even though they are vital to understanding Brazil’s biodiversity and the biogeography of the group, and to appreciating the appropriate strategies for their conservation (Haddad 1998). Taxonomic collections are evidently
an important tool (Shaffer et al. 1998), but information
on abundance is rare. It is therefore difficult to reconstruct the history that is vital to understanding current
trends and declines. In addition, large numbers of unidentified specimens reside in museums and collections. All of
these aspects frustrate attempts to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the composition, geography, and
demographics of Brazil’s amphibian fauna, which are so
necessary for its conservation.
Threatened Species
The first Brazilian threatened species list to include amphibians appeared in 1989. It registered a single species,
Paratelmatobius gaigeae, with another eight recorded
in an appendix of “data deficient but possibly threatened” (Bernardes et al. 1990). Hyla izecksohni, now
categorized as critically endangered, and Phrynomedusa
fimbriata, currently considered extinct according to the
IUCN (2001) criteria and categories, were included.
The most recent revision of the Official List of Species
Threatened with Extinction was written in 2002 (IBAMA
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Silvano & Segalla
2003). It listed 15 amphibians as threatened and 1 as extinct, all from the Atlantic Forest (Table 1). Ninety more
were categorized as data deficient. Eight species were
listed as critically endangered, 7 of which (Phyllomedusa ayeaye, Hyla cymbalum, Hyla izecksohni, Scynax
alcatraz, Holoaden bradei, Paratelmatobius lutzi, and
Odontophrynus moratoi) are known only from single
sites in the states of Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Minas
Gerais in the southeast. One (Melanophryniscus macrogranulosus) is known only from its type locality in the
far south of Brazil. Four species were ranked as endangered: Adelophryne maranguapensis is restricted to the
Serra de Maranguape in Ceará; Physalaemus soaresi is restricted to the Horto Florestal de Santa Cruz, Itaguaı́, Rio
de Janeiro; Hylomantis granulosa occurs in a number
of northeastern localities; and Thoropa petropolitana occurs in the Serra dos Órgãos, Rio de Janeiro. The three vulnerable species were Adelophryne baturitensis, which
is restricted to Serra de Baturité, Ceará; Thoropa lutzi,
which occurs in Rio de Janeiro, Espı́rito Santo, and Minas
Gerais; and Melanophryniscus dorsalis, which is found
along the coast in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul.
Phrynomedusa fimbriata, evidently extinct, was known
only from Paranapiacaba, São Paulo, but has not been seen
for more than 80 years. Most of the species listed have restricted or highly fragmented ranges—they suffer from
loss of habitat or have been extremely difficult to find.
Until the 1980s, conservation efforts were largely restricted to the actions of the federal government. In the
last two decades, the states themselves have become increasingly active in this sense, and a number have taken
the initiative of drawing up their own threatened species
lists, explicitly to support the setting of conservation priorities. The first state list of threatened amphibians was
drawn up by the secretary of the environment of the state
of Paraná in 1995 (SEMA 1995), followed in the same year
by Minas Gerais (Machado et al. 1998) and later by São
Paulo (SEMA 1998), Rio de Janeiro (Bergallo et al. 2000a),
and Rio Grande do Sul (Marques et al. 2002; Garcia &
Vinciprova 2003). The state of Paraná reviewed its 1995
list in 2004 (Segalla & Langone 2004). In all, 34 amphibians have been categorized as threatened as a result of
these state assessments. Forty-seven more were classified
as near threatened or data deficient.
In 2003 the IUCN, the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International, Conservation
International of Brazil, and several other institutions organized a workshop specifically to map the geographic
ranges and examine the status of the Brazilian amphibians (part of the GAA, a worldwide effort to assess all
amphibian species against IUCN’s [2001] Red List criteria
[IUCN et al. 2004]; Table 1). National and international
experts assessed 731 species. Six were considered critically endangered, 6 endangered, 12 vulnerable, 1 extinct,
21 near threatened, and 205 data deficient. They are listed
as such on the IUCN’s 2004 Red List (IUCN 2004).
Silvano & Segalla
Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
655
Table 1. Threatened Brazilian amphibians on the List of Brazilian Fauna Threatened with Extinction and according to the Global Amphibian
Assessment (GAA).∗
Species
Bufonidae
Atelopus spumarius
Dendrophryniscus carvalhoi
Melanophryniscus dorsalis
Melanophryniscus macrogranulosus
Melanophryniscus montevidensis
Dendrobatidae
Colostethus olfersioides
Hylidae
Hemiphractus johnsoni
Hyla cymbalum
Hyla izecksohni
Hylomantis granulose
Phrynomedusa fimbriata
Phyllomedusa ayeaye
Scinax alcatraz
Leptodactylidae
Adelophryne baturitensis
Adelophryne maranguapensis
Euparkerella robusta
Euparkerella tridactyla
Holoaden bradei
Odontophrynus moratoi
Paratelmatobius lutzii
Physalaemus atlanticus
Physalaemus soaresi
Thoropa lutzi
Thoropa petropolitana
Microhylidae
Chiasmocleis carvalhoi
Dasypops schirchi
Oreophrynella quelchii
Brazilian official
list 2002
GAA 2003
States
VU
EN
VU
VU
VU
Roraima, Amazonas, Amapá, Pará
Espı́rito Santo
Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina
Rio Grande do Sul
Rio Grande do Sul
DD
VU
Alagoas, Bahia, Espı́rito Santo, Minas Gerais,
Rio de Janeiro, Sergipe
CR
CR
CR
EX
CR
CR
EN
CR
CR
LC
EX
CR
CR
Acre
São Paulo
São Paulo
Pernambuco
São Paulo
Minas Gerais
São Paulo
VU
EN
VU
VU
CR
CR
DD
VU
EN
EN
VU
Ceará
Ceará
Espı́rito Santo
Espı́rito Santo
Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro
São Paulo
Minas Gerais
São Paulo
Rio de Janeiro
Espı́rito Santo, Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro
Espı́rito Santo, Rio de Janeiro
EN
VU
VU
Bahia, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo
Bahia, Espı́rito Santo
Roraima
VU
VU
VU
VU
CR
CR
CR
EN
VU
EN
∗ Abbreviations: CR, critically endangered; EN, endangered; VU, vulnerable; EX, extinct; DD, data deficient; LC, least concern. Categories defined
in IUCN (2001).
Combining the two assessments—Brazil’s official list
and that of the GAA—we arrive at a total of 26 threatened
species and 1 extinct species in 16 Brazilian states (Table
1). Of those threatened, 23 occur in the Atlantic Forest
and three in Amazonia. A recent analysis of the threatened amphibians throughout South America shows that
although all countries have threatened species, they are
concentrated in two distinct areas: the Cordilheira dos
Andes, between Colômbia and Ecuador, and the central
region of the Atlantic Forest, between the states of Rio de
Janeiro and São Paulo (Young et al. 2004).
A notable aspect of the threatened species lists is the
large number of species considered data deficient—the
Brazilian list contains 90 and IUCN’s 2004 Red List has
189. The number of species in this category indicates directions and subjects for future studies. Two-thirds of the
species on IUCN’s list of data-deficient species have been
described in the last 10 years. Information must be obtained as soon as possible on the status of these species
to avoid their listing as threatened entirely, or largely, be-
cause of the lack of timely or appropriate measures for
their protection.
Principal Threats
Reports of declines in amphibian populations began to
appear from different parts of the world in the second
half of the 1980s. The main cause is undoubtedly habitat
destruction, but the prevalence of pathological chytrid
fungi is also a significant cause (Young et al. 2004). Additionally factors (such as water pollution and contamination from agrotoxic chemicals, climate change, invasive
species, ultraviolet radiation, and illegal wildlife trade) act
alone or synergistically (Young et al. 2001, 2004). The results of the GAA show that, as a group, amphibians are
considerably more threatened than either birds or mammals (Stuart et al. 2004).
Relatively few publications address amphibian population declines in Brazil (Heyer et al. 1988; Weygoldt 1989;
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
656
Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
Bertoluci & Heyer 1995; Guix et al. 1998; Pombal & Haddad 1999; Izecksohn & Carvalho-e-Silva 2001; Eterovick et
al. 2005), although there are many anecdotal and informal
reports of abundant species becoming scarce. Population
declines in Brazil are poorly documented and understood
because of a lack of knowledge of the species’ biology,
little or no long-term monitoring, and, not least, the enormous size of Brazil and the complexity and diversity of its
amphibian species and their habitats.
Most reports of declines come from the Atlantic Forest, one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al.
2000). The Atlantic Forest reports include high-elevation
populations in the Serra do Mar in São Paulo (Heyer et
al. 1988; Bertoluci & Heyer 1995; Young et al. 2004); in
Santa Teresa, Espı́rito Santo ( Weygoldt 1989); in Tijuca
and Teresópolis in Rio de Janeiro (Heyer et al. 1988; Weygoldt 1989; Izecksohn & Carvalho-e-Silva 2001; Young et
al. 2004); in the Itatiaia National Park in the Serra da
Mantiqueira (Heyer et al. 1988; Guix et al. 1998; Pombal & Haddad 1999); and in montane Atlantic Forest in
Paraná (Young et al. 2004; Eterovick et al. 2005) and Ceará
(Eterovick et al. 2005). Fire seems to have caused declines
in Linhares, Espı́rito Santo (Papp & Papp 2000). Eterovick
et al. (2005) have offered the first reports of declines for
two species in areas of high elevation in the Cerrado in
the Serra do Cipó, Minas Gerais. In all, there are reports of
declines and disappearances for 30 species in the Atlantic
Forest. This is, however, an incomplete and preliminary
assessment, and there are no doubts that a major increase
in monitoring and research efforts is needed to obtain a
more realistic understanding of the scope and seriousness
of the situation.
In Brazil habitat loss is the most visible and probably the
main threat to amphibians. Deforestation, the advance of
the agricultural frontier, mining, wildfires, and development projects (e.g., dams, highways, industry, housing)
are the main causes of habitat loss. Although varying in
extent, all Brazilian biomes are now severely affected, especially the Atlantic Forest, where fragmented forest remnants constitute the 8% that remains (SOS Mata Atlântica
2002).
The Cerrado (bush savanna of Central Brazil) is also
a hotspot, and amphibian habitats have been widely destroyed throughout (Myers et al. 2000; Sala et al. 2000).
Little is known of its amphibian fauna (Colli et al. 2002;
Diniz-Filho et al. 2004). Recent estimates indicate that
only 34% of the original vegetation remains and that it
will disappear completely over the next 30 years under present development regimes. Habitat losses here
are primarily a result of traditional crops giving way to
enormous mechanized plantations of soybean, cotton,
corn, millet, sorghum, and sunflowers (Machado et al.
2004).
Approximately 88% of the Amazonian forests remain
(WWF-Brasil 2004), although annual deforestation is as
high as 20,000 km2 , and enormous areas are becoming
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Silvano & Segalla
increasingly vulnerable to wildfires (Fearnside 2005). As
in the other biomes, little information is available on the
status of the amphibians occurring there (Azevedo-Ramos
& Galatti 2002).
The chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) is an important cause of amphibian declines (Young
et al. 2004). Although it has yet to be documented in
Brazil, it has been recorded in other South American countries (Ron & Merino 2000; Bonaccorso et al. 2003; Mazzoni et al. 2003; Hanselmann et al. 2004). The fungus
affects mainly species associated with streams at mid to
high elevations (Berger et al. 1998; Longcore et al. 1999).
Most of the amphibian declines recorded in Brazil have
been of high-elevation species, but there have been no
efforts to locate the fungus as a possible cause.
Likewise, little or nothing is known about the effects of
pesticides or other agrotoxic chemicals, climate change,
invasive species, or the extent or seriousness of wildlife
trade in amphibians. Throughout the country, pesticide
use is largely indiscriminate and uncontrolled; climate
change effects have been identified in some regions; and
although little has been published, there are records of
alien invasive species (e.g., Rana catesbeiana) in the
south and southeast, which may be affecting native amphibian populations (Guix 1990; Borges-Martins et al.
2002). Additionally, although known to occur, there is
no quantitative data on trade in Brazilian amphibians.
Conservation and Research Initiatives
Species’ declines and extinctions in South America occur
because many of the countries in the region lack adequate and effective conservation policies (Juncá 2001).
The rapid declines of numerous amphibians underscore
the need for a rapid expansion of research programs and
emergency strategies for their conservation, especially in
regions where little information is available on their diversity, distribution, and abundance, as in Brazil (Young et al.
2001). Because of this, Brazil’s 1989 threatened species
list—although including only one amphibian species—
served to draw attention to the large number believed
to be in trouble but for which there was too little information (IBAMA 1989; Bernardes et al. 1990). The 2002
revision resulted in 15 amphibians being listed as threatened nationwide (IBAMA 2003).
The threatened species list is having considerable impact in Brazil, providing as it does the backbone for all
environmental legislation that touches on biodiversity
conservation. A number of states also have taken the
initiative of drawing up official threatened species lists,
generating publications that provide valuable syntheses
and incentives for research and conservation measures
(Rylands 1998; Bergallo et al. 2000a, 2000b). Garcia
and Vinciprova (2003), for example, reviewed amphibian
Silvano & Segalla
diversity and presented information on the threats to and
distribution and status of 10 amphibians considered vulnerable in the state of Rio Grande do Sul.
The Brazilian government held five major workshops
from 1998 to 2000. These workshops defined priority areas for biodiversity conservation and conservation measures in five major biomes as part of the Project for
the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Brazilian Biological Diversity (MMA 2002). In all, 180 priority areas
were identified for amphibian and reptiles combined,
most (101) in the Atlantic Forest and southern grasslands. Forty-six priority areas were identified in Amazonia, 19 in the Caatinga, and 14 in the Pantanal and
Cerrado.
Azevedo-Ramos and Galatti (2002) review our current
understanding of amphibian diversity in the Brazilian
Amazon and indicate the need for protected areas in a
number of regions so as to take in diverse habitats along
north-south and east-west axes as a means of maximizing
the numbers of species covered in areas where species
turnover is high even over short distances. In Amazonia,
patterns of endemism and the occurrence of threatened
species do not stand alone as the best indicators for locating protected areas for amphibians. When determining
priority areas for inventories and the location of new protected areas for amphibians, patterns of development; the
degradation, destruction, and conversion of habitats; and
the existence of already established protected areas must
also be considered.
Following a macroscale biogeographical analysis, DinizFilho et al. (2004) recently proposed a regional system of
areas potentially important for the conservation of anuran
amphibians in the Cerrado. They identified 10 regions in
Central Brazil where conservation efforts and inventories
should be concentrated. The rates of deforestation and
the advance of the agricultural frontier in the Amazon and
the Cerrado underscore the need for urgent action for the
conservation of numerous restricted-range and endemic
species.
Based on the results of the GAA (summarized in Stuart et al. 2004), Young et al. (2004) suggest a number of
measures for amphibian conservation in South America.
They stress the importance of strict habitat protection but
also make recommendations on needed public policies,
captive breeding, environmental education, research on
infectious diseases, and surveys. They also suggest new
research approaches for the species-by-species identification of key problems that are causing amphibian decline.
Acknowledgments
We thank A. B. Rylands for his comments, revisions, and
the version in English, and D. Church for his critical review.
Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
657
Literature Cited
Azevedo-Ramos, C., and U. Galatti. 2002. Patterns of amphibian diversity
in Brazilian Amazonia: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 103:103–111.
Bergallo, H. G., C. F. D. Rocha, M. L. S. Alves, and M. van Sluys, editors.
2000a. A fauna ameaçada de extinção do estado do Rio de Janeiro.
Editora da Universidae Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (in
Portuguese).
Bergallo, H. G., C. F. D. Rocha, M. van Sluys, and M. A. S. Alves. 2000b. As
listas de fauna ameaçada: as discrepâncias regionais e a importância e
significado de listas. Pages 11–15 in H. G. Bergallo, C. F. D. Rocha, M.
A. S. Alves, and M. van Sluys, editors. A fauna ameaçada de extinção
do estado do Rio de Janeiro. Editora da Universidae Estadual do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Berger, L., et al. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and
Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
95:9031–9036.
Bernardes, A. T., A. B. M. Machado, and A. B. Rylands. 1990. Fauna
brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Bertoluci, J., and W. R. Heyer. 1995. Boracéia update. Froglog 14:3.
Bonaccorso, E., J. M. Guayasamin, D. Méndez, and R. Speare. 2003.
Chytridiomycosis in a Venezuelan anuran (Bufonidae: Atelopus cruciger). Herpetological Review 34:331–334.
Borges-Martins, M., M. Di-Bernardo, G. Vinciprova, and J. Measey. 2002.
Geographic distribution. Rana catesbeiana. Herpetological Review
33:319.
Colli, G. R., R. P. Bastos, and A. F. B. Araujo. 2002. The character and dynamics of the Cerrado herpetofauna. Pages 223–239 in P. S. Oliveira
and R. J. Marquis, editors. The Cerrados of Brazil: ecology and natural history of a neotropical savanna. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., L. M. Bini, C. M. Vieira, M. C. Souza, R. P. Bastos, D.
Brandão, and L. G. Oliveira. 2004. Spatial patterns in species richness
and priority areas for conservation of anurans in the Cerrado region,
Central Brazil. Amphibia-Reptilia 25:63–75.
Eterovick, P. C., A. C. O. Q. Carnaval, D. M. Borges-Nojosa, D. L. Silvano,
M. V. Segalla, and I. Sazima. 2005. An overview of amphibian declines
in Brazil with new records from Serra do Cipó, state of Minas Gerais.
Biotropica: (in press).
Fearnside, P. M. 2005. Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: history, rates
and consequences. Conservation Biology 19:680–688.
Garcia, P. C. de A., and G. Vinciprova. 2003. Anfı́bios. Pages 147–164
in C. S. Fontana, G. A. Bencke, and Roberto E. Reis, editors. Livro
vermelho da fauna ameaçada de extinção no Rio Grande do Sul.
Edipucrs, Port Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Groombridge, B., organizer. 1992. Global diversity: status of the Earth’s
living resources: a report compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Chapman and Hall, London.
Guix, J. C. 1990. Introdução e colonização de Rana catesbeiana Shaw,
1802 em um pequeno vale no municı́pio de Suzano (SP), sudeste do
Brasil. Grupo de Estudos Ecológicos Série Documentos 2:32–34 (in
Portuguese).
Guix, J. C., A. Montori, G. A. Llorente, M. A. Carretero, and X. Santos.
1998. Natural history and conservation of bufonids in four Atlantic
rainforest areas of Southeastern Brazil. Herpetological Natural History 6:1–12.
Haddad, C. F. B. 1998. Biodiversidade dos anfı́bios no estado de
São Paulo. Pages 16–26 in R. M. C. Castro, editor. Biodiversidade do estado de São Paulo, Brasil. Série Vertebrados. Fundação
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo (in
Portuguese).
Hanselmann, R., A. Rodrı́guez, M. Lampo, L. Fajardo-Ramos, A. A.
Aguirre, A. M. Kilpatrick, J. P. Rodrı́guez, and P. Daszak. 2004. Presence of an emerging pathogen of amphibians in introduced bullfrogs
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
658
Conservation of Brazilian Amphibians
Rana catesbeiana in Venezuela. Biological Conservation 120:115–
119.
Heyer, W. R., A. S. Rand, C. A. G. Cruz, and O. L. Peixoto. 1988. Decimations, extinctions, and colonizations of frog populations in southeast
Brazil and their evolutionary implications. Biotropica 20:230–235.
IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis). 1989. Portaria no. 1.522 de 19 de dezembro de 1989.
Lista Official da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção. IBAMA, Brası́lia.
IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais
Renováveis). 2003. Instrução Normativa no. 3 de 27 de maio de
2003. Lista das Espécies da Fauna Brasileira Ameaçada de Extinção.
IBAMA, Brası́lia.
IUCN ( World Conservation Union). 2001. IUCN red list categories and
criteria: version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland,
Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
IUCN ( World Conservation Union). 2004. 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United
Kingdom. Available from http://www.redlist.org (accessed November 2004).
IUCN ( World Conservation Union), Conservation International, and
NatureServe. 2004. Global amphibian assessment. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom. Available from
http://www.globalamphibians.org (accessed November 2004).
Izecksohn, E., and S. P. Carvalho-e-Silva. 2001. Anfı́bios do municı́pio do
Rio de Janeiro. Editora UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese).
Juncá, F. A. 2001. Declı́nio mundial das populações de anfı́bios. Sitienbus
série Ciências Biológicas 1:84–87 (in Portuguese).
Lewinsohn, T. M., and P. I. Prado. 2002. Biodiversidade brasileira: sı́ntese
do estado atual do conhecimento. Editora Contexto, São Paulo (in
Portuguese).
Longcore, J. E., A. P. Pessier, and D. K. Nichols. 1999. Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis gen. and sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians.
Mycologia 91:219–227.
Machado, A. B. M., G. A. B. da Fonseca, R. B. Machado, L. M. S. Aguiar,
and L. V. Lins, editors. 1998. Livro vermelho das espécies ameaçadas
de extinção da fauna de Minas Gerais. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo
Horizonte, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Machado, R. B., M. B. Ramos Neto, P. G. P. Pereira, E. F. Caldas, D. A.
Gonçalves, N. S. Santos, K. Tabor, and M. Steininger. 2004. Estimativas de perda da área do Cerrado brasileiro. Report. Conservation
International, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Marques, A. A. B., C. S. Fontana, E. Vélez, G. A. Bencke, M. Schneider, and
R. E. Reis. 2002. Lista das Espécies da Fauna Ameaçadas de Extinção
no Rio Grande do Sul. Decreto n◦ 41672, 11 de junho de 2002.
FZB/MCT-PUCRS/PANGEA, Porto Alegre, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Mazzoni, R., A. A. Cunningham, P. Daszak, A. Apolo, E. Perdomo, and
G. Speranza. 2003. Emerging pathogen of wild amphibians in frogs
(Rana catesbeiana) farmed for international trade. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9:995–998.
MMA (Ministério do Meio Ambiente). 2002. Biodiversidade brasileira:
avaliação e identificação de áreas e ações prioritárias para a conservação, utilização sustentável e repartição dos benefı́cios da biodiversidade nos biomas brasileiros. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e
Florestas, MMA, Brası́lia (in Portuguese).
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005
Silvano & Segalla
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature, London 403:853–858.
Papp, M. G., and C. O. G. Papp. 2000. Decline in a population of
the treefrog Phyllodytes luteolus after fire. Herpetological Review
31:93–95.
Pombal, J. P., Jr., and C. F. B. Haddad. 1999. Frogs of the genus Paratelmatobius (Anura: Leptodactylidae) with descriptions of two new
species. Copeia 1999:1014–1026.
Ron, S. R., and A. Merino. 2000. Amphibian declines in Ecuador:
overview and first report of chytridiomycosis from South America.
Froglog 42:2–3.
Rylands, A. B. 1998. Threatened species lists for Brazilian states.
Neotropical Primates 6:129–130.
Sala, O. E., et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.
Science 287:1770–1774.
Segalla, M. V., and J. A. Langone. 2004. Anfibios. Pages 539–577 in S. B.
Mikich and R. S. Bérnils, editors. Livro vermelho da fauna ameaçada
no estado do Paraná. Instituto Ambiental do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil
(in Portuguese).
Shaffer, H. B., R. N. Fisher, and C. Davidson. 1998. The role of natural history collections in documenting species declines. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 13:27–30.
SBH (Sociedade Brasileira de Herpetologia). 2004. Lista oficial de
espécies de anfı́bios do Brasil (in Portuguese). Sociedade Brasileira
de Herpetologia. Available from http://www.sbherpetologia.org.
br/checklist/anfı́bios.htm (accessed December 2004).
SEMA (Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente). 1995. Lista vermelha
de animais ameaçados de extinção no estado do Paraná. SEMA,
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, Curitiba,
Brazil (in Portuguese).
SEMA (Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente). 1998. Fauna ameaçada
no estado de São Paulo. Centro de Editoração, SMA, Série Documentos Ambientais, São Paulo (in Portuguese).
SOS Mata Atlântica. 2002. Atlas da Mata Atlântica (in Portuguese).
SOS Mata Atlântica, São Paulo. Available from http://www.
sosmataatlantica.org.br/?secao = atlas (accessed November 2004).
Stuart, S. N., J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, B. E. Young, A. S. L. Rodrigues,
D. L. Fischman, and R. W. Waller. 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783–
1786.
WWF ( World Wide Fund for Nature)-Brasil. 2004. Principais ameaças
ao bioma Amazônia. WWF-Brasil, Brası́lia (in Portuguese). Available
from http://www.wwf.org.br (accessed November 2004).
Weygoldt, P. 1989. Changes in the composition of mountain stream frog
communities in the Atlantic mountains of Brazil: frogs as indicators
of environmental deteriorations? Studies on Neotropical Fauna and
Environment 243:249–255.
Young, B., et al. 2001. Population declines and priorities for amphibian conservation in Latin America. Conservation Biology 15:1213–
1223.
Young, B. E., S. N. Stuart, J. S. Chanson, N. A. Cox, and T. M. Boucher.
2004. Disappearing jewels: the status of New World amphibians.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.