Undiagnosed Cryptic Diversity in Small, Microendemic Frogs (Leptolalax) from the Central Highlands of Vietnam

Abstract

A major obstacle in prioritizing species or habitats for conservation is the degree of unrecognized diversity hidden within complexes of morphologically similar, “cryptic” species. Given that amphibians are one of the most threatened groups of organisms on the planet, our inability to diagnose their true diversity is likely to have significant conservation consequences. This is particularly true in areas undergoing rapid deforestation, such as Southeast Asia. The Southeast Asian genus Leptolalax is a group of small-bodied, morphologically conserved frogs that inhabit the forest-floor. We examined a particularly small-bodied and morphologically conserved subset, the Leptolalax applebyi group, using a combination of molecular, morphometric, and acoustic data to identify previously unknown diversity within. In order to predict the geographic distribution of the group, estimate the effects of habitat loss and assess the degree of habitat protection, we used our locality data to perform ecological niche modelling using MaxEnt. Molecular (mtDNA and nuDNA), acoustic and subtle morphometric differences revealed a significant underestimation of diversity in the L. applebyi group; at least two-thirds of the diversity may be unrecognised. Patterns of diversification and microendemism in the group appear driven by limited dispersal, likely due to their small body size, with several lineages restricted to watershed basins. The L. applebyi group is predicted to have historically occurred over a large area of the Central Highlands of Vietnam, a considerable portion of which has already been deforested. Less than a quarter of the remaining forest predicted to be suitable for the group falls within current protected areas. The predicted distribution of the L. applebyi group extends into unsurveyed watershed basins, each potentially containing unsampled diversity, some of which may have already been lost due to deforestation. Current estimates of amphibian diversity based on morphology alone are misleading, and accurate alpha taxonomy is essential to accurately prioritize conservation efforts.

A new species of the genus Leptolalax (Anura: Megophryidae) from Mt. Gaoligongshan of western Yunnan Province, China

“…Intensified survey efforts in recent years and the use of an integrated approach incorporating morphological, molecular and acoustic data have resulted in continued discovery new species in the region, in particularly from Indochina (eg. Poyarkov et al 2015a andRowley et al 2015b). Future herpetological exploration and study in southern China will likely continue uncovering new Leptolalax species from the region.…”

“…Species of the genus Leptolalax are small frogs inhabiting the forest floor in montane evergreen forest, and cryptic in both coloration and behavior (Rowley et al 2015b). Intensified survey efforts in recent years and the use of an integrated approach incorporating morphological, molecular and acoustic data have resulted in continued discovery new species in the region, in particularly from Indochina (eg.…”

Evolution in karst massifs: Cryptic diversity among bent-toed geckos along the Truong Son Range with descriptions of three new species and one new country record from Laos

“…Recent studies indicate, however, that certain environments and/or life histories might promote the evolution of cryptic diversity (Bickford et al 2007). Evidence for the former hypothesis is provided by new discoveries of a group of cryptic frog species in the central highlands of Vietnam (Rowley et al 2015). These highlands belong to the Truong Son Range (or Annamite Mountains) where Luu et al (2014bLuu et al ( , 2015b recently also uncovered cases of multiple cryptic diversity in the genus Gekko.…”

Situación Actual De La Base De Datos Genéticos De Vertebrados De La Región Loreto, Perú

“…Como por ejemplo 93 especies de la Clase Peces poseen secuencias nucleotídicas vs. 800 especies taxonómicamente registradas (Ortega et al, 2012); 64 vs. 216 de anfibios (Pitman et al, 2013); 7 vs. 170 de reptiles (Pitman et al, 2013); 105 vs. 914 de aves y 34 vs. 267 de mamíferos (Pitman et al, 2013). La ausencia de estos datos genéticos en la mayoría de las especies de vertebrados en Loreto no permite una estimación apropiada de la diversidad biológica como reportado en otros estudios (Fouquet et al, 2007;Angulo & Icochea, 2010;Fouquet et al, 2014;Rowley et al, 2015;Ferrão et al, 2016).…”