BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Visual Summary of Herpetofaunal Diversity in TexasAuthor(s): Donald J. Brown, James R. Dixon, and Michael R. J. ForstnerSource: The Southwestern Naturalist, 57(4):465-467. 2012.Published By: Southwestern Association of NaturalistsDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1894/0038-4909-57.4.465URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1894/0038-4909-57.4.465

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 57(4): 465–467

VISUAL SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNAL DIVERSITY IN TEXAS

DONALD J. BROWN,* JAMES R. DIXON, AND MICHAEL R. J. FORSTNER

Department of Biology, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, TX 78666 (DJB, MRJF)Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843 (JRD)

*Correspondent: db1300@txstate.edu

ABSTRACT—Texas has 215 native herpetofaunal species. We visually summarized herpetofaunal diversityacross Texas to identify species-rich counties and counties that likely are under-surveyed. Mean number ofspecies per county was 53.1. In general, counties in eastern and central Texas had the highest herpetofaunaldiversity. The majority of counties in the Panhandle region likely are under-surveyed. In addition to serving asa guide for future surveying efforts, this study provides useful information for landowners and county-development coordinators concerning herpetofaunal conservation and management.

RESUMEN—Texas tiene 215 especies de herpetofauna nativa. Resumimos visualmente la diversidad deherpetofauna en todo el estado de Texas para identificar los condados ricos en especies y los condados queprobablemente no estan bien muestreados. El numero medio de especies por condado fue de 53.1. Engeneral, los condados en el este y centro de Texas tuvieron la mayor diversidad de herpetofauna. La mayorıade los condados en la region noroeste probablemente no estan bien muestreados. Ademas de servir como guıapara muestreos en el futuro, este estudio proporciona informacion util para los terratenientes y loscoordinadores del desarrollo de condados referente a la conservacion de herpetofauna y su manejo.

The 67,805,143-ha state of Texas houses 215 nativeherpetofaunal species spread over 254 counties. Severalstudies have attempted to explain patterns of herpeto-faunal diversity across the state (Owen, 1989; Owen andDixon, 1989; Ward et al., 1990, 1994). Owen and Dixon(1989) reported that, in general, species richness ofamphibians and turtles declined from eastern to westernTexas following a gradient of decreasing moisture andincreasing temperature, and species richness of lizardsincreased from eastern to western Texas. There was nostrong pattern following the north–south temperaturegradient or for species richness of snakes. Ward et al.(1990) investigated the distribution of terrestrial reptilesacross Texas, excluding many counties in the Panhandledue to presumed under-representation of true speciesdiversity. They documented seven distinct faunal clustersacross the state, which corresponded closely to the sevenbiotic provinces proposed by Blair (1950).

The purpose of our paper was to visually summarizeherpetofaunal diversity by county across Texas. This willprovide useful information for academic researchers, butalso landowners and county-development coordinators, ashigh biodiversity is a powerful tool for promoting andprioritizing land for conservation (Bestelmeyer et al.,2003; Fleishman et al., 2006). The summary also will helpto determine regions and counties in Texas that likely areunder-surveyed.

In our efforts, we intentionally ignored previously usedecoregional boundaries or abiotic factors in an attempt to

depict the current state of herpetofaunal knowledge forTexas based solely on occurrence. LaDuc and Bell (2010)recently reported on spatial and temporal disparities inmuseum vouchers and the impact that this may have onlong-term understanding of trends for populations ofamphibians and reptiles in Texas. We provide thissummary to assist in directing efforts to address deficitsin spatial data, alongside depicting documented diversityacross the state.

We compiled herpetofaunal records of species forcounties using Dixon (2000) and accounts publishedthrough August 2010, excluding fossils and exotic species.We obtained a Geographic Information System shapefilefrom the Texas Natural Resources Information Systemthat delineated boundaries of counties. We modified theattribute table for the shapefile to include number ofspecies by county. Because size of counties varies widely inTexas (38,591–1,607,865 ha), we also calculated numberof species per ha in each county. This provided a moreaccurate measure of diversity across the state. All analyseswere performed using ArcGIS 9.3 (Environmental Sys-tems Research Institute, Redlands, California). To delin-eate categories of county records, we graphed distribu-tions of the data (Fig. 1). No obvious natural breaks wereapparent in distribution of number of species per county.Therefore, we created eight evenly spaced categories forthose data. Four natural breaks were apparent whenrecords were scaled by size of county. Therefore, natural

December 2012 Notes 465

breaks were used for visually depicting distribution ofthose data.

As of August 2010, there were 13,571 county recordsfor the 215 native species. Number of species per countywere 16 (Parmer County) to 96 (Bexar County), with amean of 53.1. In general, counties in eastern and centralTexas had the highest diversity when either total for thecounty (Fig. 2a) or species per ha (Fig. 2b) wereconsidered. Counties in western Texas had high speciesdiversity but not relative to the size of counties. Of the 254counties, 132 (51.9%) exceeded the mean number ofspecies per county (Fig. 2c). When scaled by size ofcounty (species/ha), 105 counties (41.3%) exceeded themean (Fig. 2d).

Ward et al. (1990) noted that most counties in thePanhandle likely had records for <50% of speciesinhabiting the counties. Based on this summary, theirobservation probably is still true. In addition, some

FIG. 1—Herpetofauna of Texas: a) number of species percounty; b) number of species scaled by size of county (numberof species per hectare).

!FIG. 2—Herpetofaunal diversity in Texas: a) number of

species per county; b) number of species per hectare incounties; c) counties above and below mean number of species(53.1); d) counties above and below mean number of species forthe state, scaled as number of species per hectare.

466 vol. 57, no. 4The Southwestern Naturalist

counties in northeastern Texas probably are under-surveyed (Camp, Hopkins, Rains, and Rockwall). Notsurprisingly, the three counties with the most records ofspecies (Bexar, McLennan, and Travis) house largeuniversities.

This study showed that many counties in Texas havediverse herpetofaunal communities. Planners and land-owners in species-rich counties should consult conserva-tion and management texts when planning new develop-ment and other land-use changes (e.g., Semlitsch, 2000,2003). Finally, regardless of diversity of the counties, weencourage individuals to become familiar with threatenedand endangered species inhabiting their county.

We thank the countless individuals who have devoted theirtime and resources to surveying the herpetofauna of Texas.

LITERATURE CITED

BESTELMEYER, B. T., J. R. MILLER, AND J. A. WIENS. 2003. Applyingspecies diversity theory to land management. EcologicalApplications 13:1750–1761.

BLAIR, W. F. 1950. The biotic provinces of Texas. Texas Journal ofScience 2:93–117.

DIXON, J. R. 2000. Amphibians and reptiles of Texas: with keys,taxonomic synopses, bibliography, and distribution maps.Second edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

FLEISHMAN, E., R. F. NOSS, AND B. R. NOON. 2006. Utility andlimitations of species richness metrics for conservationplanning. Ecological Indicators 6:543–553.

LADUC, T. J., AND C. J. BELL. 2010. Educating students on theimportance of spatial and temporal bias in museumcollections: an example using Sonora semiannulata fromTexas. Herpetological Review 41:292–297.

OWEN, J. G. 1989. Patterns of herpetofaunal species richness:relation to temperature, precipitation, and variance inelevation. Journal of Biogeography 16:141–150.

OWEN, J. G., AND J. R. DIXON. 1989. An ecogeographic analysis ofthe herpetofauna of Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 34:165–180.

SEMLITSCH, R. D. 2000. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. Journal of Wildlife Management64:615–631.

SEMLITSCH, R. D. 2003. Amphibian conservation. SmithsonianPress, Washington, D.C.

WARD, R., E. G. ZIMMERMAN, AND T. L. KING. 1990. Multivariateanalyses of terrestrial reptilian distribution in Texas: analternate view. Southwestern Naturalist 35:441–445.

WARD, R., E. G. ZIMMERMAN, AND T. L. KING. 1994. Environmentalcorrelates to terrestrial reptilian distributions in Texas. TexasJournal of Science 46:21–26.

Submitted 4 November 2010. Accepted 14 July 2012.Associate Editor was Rocky Ward.

THE SOUTHWESTERN NATURALIST 57(4): 467–471

THE AMERICAN BADGER (TAXIDEA TAXUS) IN ARKANSAS, WITHEMPHASIS ON EXPANSION OF ITS RANGE INTO

NORTHEASTERN ARKANSAS

RENN TUMLISON,* D. BLAKE SASSE, MICHAEL E. CARTWRIGHT, STEPHEN C. BRANDEBURA, AND TRACY KLOTZ

Department of Biology, Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR 71999 (RT)Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 213A Highway 89 South, Mayflower, AR 72106 (DBS)

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, P.O. Box 729, Calico Rock, AR 72519 (MEC)Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599, State University, AR 72467-0599 (SCB, TK)

Present address of MEC: 3150 Tie Ridge Road, Fifty Six, AR 72533*Correspondent: tumlison@hsu.edu

ABSTRACT—The American badger (Taxidea taxus) has been documented only three times in Arkansas, all incounties of the Ozark physiographic region. Since 2003, 11 new records have been obtained from five counties(Craighead, Crittenden, Lawrence, Marion, Poinsett), mostly in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain physiographicregion of northeastern Arkansas. Three of these were photo-documented roadkills (two other roadkills werecollected for the mammal museum at Arkansas State University). Another photo-record was obtained by use ofa wildlife camera placed at a den, which resulted in discovery of a family group of five individuals; thisrepresents the first record of breeding in Arkansas. Rather than an eastward expansion of range from theOzark Mountains, we believe the population originated from the alluvial plains of southeastern Missouri.

RESUMEN—El tejon americano (Taxidea taxus) ha sido documentado solamente tres veces en Arkansas, todasen los condados de la region fiseogeografica Ozark. Desde el 2003, 11 nuevos registros han sido obtenidos de

December 2012 Notes 467