Non-native species dominate herpetofaunal community patterns in both native and non-native habitat patches in urban Miami-Dade County

  • Stephanie L. ClementsEmail author
  • Shantel V. L. Catania
  • Christopher A. Searcy
Original Paper


Land use change and invasive species are two of the leading causes of native biodiversity loss, yet our understanding of how these interact in urban centers is limited. In South Florida (USA), urbanization and increased anthropogenic pressure has led to massive land conversion and species introductions. South Florida has the largest number of established non-native reptile and amphibian species in the world, while detection of many native species has decreased. Native species may be adapted to the unique and rare habitats of South Florida such as the pine rocklands, which have been reduced to 2% of their original extent. We conducted surveys for reptiles and amphibians in 15 pairs of native/non-native parks to examine the interaction between habitat modification and herpetofaunal invasion. Less than 10% of the individuals recorded were native, and we found no difference in the relative abundance or richness of native species between native and non-native parks. Community analyses indicate that only 9% of the total variance in herpetofaunal community composition is between native and non-native parks, and that even this difference is driven by non-native species. The brahminy blind snake (Ramphotyphlops braminus), the most widely introduced snake species in the world, is the best indicator of native habitat patches, and two invasive lizards from the Caribbean (Anolis sagrei and A. equestris) are the best indicators of non-native habitat. These results demonstrate that non-native reptiles and amphibians dominate both non-native and native habitat patches in Miami-Dade County.


Amphibian Conservation Florida Fragmentation Invasive species Reptile 



We are grateful to Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department and the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program for providing the necessary permits. We are also thankful to the individual reserve managers of each of the 30 parks. We thank Emily Powell and Diego Ocampo for their assistance with field surveys, Kasey Kiesewetter for assistance with the statistical analyses and for providing the R code for the connectivity analysis, and Al Uy, Ken Feeley, and Michelle Afkhami for feedback and improvements to the manuscript. Finally, we thank the University of Miami and the William H. Evoy Fund for financial support of this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animals rights

Procedures involving animals were approved under IACUC protocol number 17-059 at the University of Miami in accordance with the ASIH/HL/SSAR Guidelines for use of live amphibians and reptiles in field research.


This work was conducted under a permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (#LSSC-16-0013) and under a permit from Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation Department (#268).

Supplementary material

10530_2019_1934_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 13 kb)


  1. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
  2. Atmar W, Patterson BD (1993) The measure of order and disorder in the distribution of species in fragmental habitat. Oecologia 96:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beninde J, Veith M, Hochkirch A (2015) Biodiversity in cities needs space: a meta-analysis of factors determining intra-urban biodiversity variation. Ecol Lett 18:581–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bickford D, Ng TH, Qie L et al (2010) Forest fragment and breeding habitat characteristics explain frog diversity and abundance in Singapore. Biotropica 42:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley KA, Martin SA (2012) Pine rockland initiative program. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Delray Beach, pp 1–171Google Scholar
  6. Brothers TS, Spingam A (1992) Forest fragmentation and alien plant invasions of central Indiana old-growth forests. Conserv Biol 6:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byers JE (2002) Impact of non-indigenous species on natives enhanced by anthropogenic alteration of selection regimes. Oikos 97:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clavero M, García-Berthou E (2005) Invasive species are a leading cause of animal extinctions. Trends Ecol Evol 29:110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colautti RI, Grigorovich IA, MacIsaac HJ (2006) Propagule pressure: a null model for biological invasions. Biol Invasions 8:1023–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Amore A, Hemingway V, Wasson K (2010) Do a threatened native amphibian and its invasive congener differ in response to human alteration of the landscape? Biol Invasions 12:145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies RG, Orme CDL, Olson V et al (2006) Human impacts and the global distribution of extinction risk. Proc R Soc B 273:2127–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis MA, Grime JP, Thompson K (2000) Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invasibility. J Ecol 88:528–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson DE, Hostetler ME (2006) Herpetofaunal use of edge and interior habitats in urban forest remnants. Urban Habitats 5:103–125Google Scholar
  14. Diamond JM, Heinen JT (2016) Conserving rare plants in locally-protected urban forest fragments: a case study from Miami-Dade County, Florida. Urban for Urban Green 20:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Didham RK, Hammond PM, Lawton JH et al (1998) Beetle species responses to tropical forest fragmentation. Ecol Monogr 68:295–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Didham RK, Tylianakis JM, Gemmell NJ et al (2007) Interactive effects of habitat modification and species invasion on native species decline. Trends Ecol Evol 22:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drinnan IN (2005) The search for fragmentation thresholds in a Southern Sydney Suburb. Biol Conserv 124:339–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Enge KM, Robson MS, Krysko KL (2004) Reptile surveys of pine rockland habitat in six Miami-Dade County parks. Florida Sci 67:194–204Google Scholar
  19. Ewers RM, Didham RK (2006) Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation. Biol Rev 81:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feeley K (2003) Analysis of avian communities in Lake Guri, Venezuela, using multiple assembly rule models. Oecologia 137:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández-Juricic E (2002) Can human disturbance promote nestedness? A case study with breeding birds in urban habitat fragments. Oecologia 131:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forys EA, Allen CR (1999) Biological invasions and deletions: community change in south Florida. Biol Conserv 87:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gann GD, Collaborators (2017) The floristic inventory of south Florida database online. 2011–2017. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Delray BeachGoogle Scholar
  24. Gerber GP, Echternacht AC (2000) Evidence for asymmetrical intraguild predation between native and introduced Anolis lizards. Oecologia 124:599–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghosh AK (2006) On optimum choice of k in nearest neighbor classification. Comput Stat Data Anal 50:3113–3123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gimeno I, Vilà M, Hulme PE (2006) Are islands more susceptible to plant invasion than continents? A test using Oxalis pes-caprae L. in the western Mediterranean. J Biogeogr 33:1559–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giraud C, Coron C, Julliard R (2016) Capitalizing on opportunistic data for monitoring relative abundances of species. Biometrics 72:649–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gordon DR (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecol Appl 8:975–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK (2011) Estimating species richness. Biol Divers Front Meas Assess 12:39–53Google Scholar
  30. Hecnar SJ, Casper GS, Russell RW et al (2002) Nested species assemblages of amphibians and reptiles on islands in the Laurentian Great Lakes. J Biogeogr 29:475–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalogirou S (2017) lctools: local correlation, spatial inequalities, geographically weighted regression and other tools. R package version 0.2-6. Accessed 21 May 2018
  32. Kjoss VA, Litvaitis JA (2001) Community structure of snakes in a human-dominated landscape. Biol Conserv 98:285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kraus F (2015) Impacts from invasive reptiles and amphibians. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 46:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krysko KL, Burgess JP, Rochford MR et al (2011) Verified non-indigenous amphibians and reptiles in Florida from 1863 through 2010: outlining the invasion process and identifying invasion pathways and stages. Zootaxa 3028:1–64Google Scholar
  35. Lever C (2003) Naturalized reptiles and amphibians of the world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Lomolino MV, Weiser MD (2001) Towards a more general species-area relationship: diversity on all islands, great and small. J Biogeogr 28:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Losos JB, Marks JC, Schoener TW (1993) Habitat use and ecological interactions of an introduced and a native species of Anolis lizard on Grand Cayman, with a review of the outcomes of anole introductions. Oecologia 95:525–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM et al (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maron JL, Marler M (2008) Field-based competitive impacts between invaders and natives at varying resource supply. J Ecol 96:1187–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maskell LC, Bullock JM, Smart SM et al (2006) The distribution and habitat associations of non-native plant species in urban riparian habitats. J Veg Sci 17:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2016) PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 7. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  43. Mckinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. M-D Parks’ Natural Areas Management Division (2010) Natural areas inventory. M-D Parks’ Natural Areas Management Division, Miami-Dade CountyGoogle Scholar
  45. Mendenhall CD, Frishkoff LO, Santos-Barrera G et al (2014) Countryside biogeography of neotropical reptiles and amphibians. Ecology 95:856–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller TJ, Quintana-Ascencio PF, Maliakal-Witt S, Menges ES (2012) Metacommunity dynamics over 16 years in a pyrogenic shrubland. Conserv Biol 26:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nielsen AB, van den Bosch M, Maruthaveeran S, van den Bosch CK (2014) Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban Ecosyst 17:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Okamoto T, Kuriyama T, Goka K (2013) An impact assessment of the alien lizard Plestiodon japonicus (Scincidae, Reptilia) on a threatened island population of the native lizard P. latiscutatus at an early phase of the biological invasion. Biol Invasions 15:2029–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peck JE (2016) Multivariate analysis for ecologists: step-by-step, 2nd edn. MjM Software Design, Gleneden BeachGoogle Scholar
  50. Pineda E, Halffter G (2004) Species diversity and habitat fragmentation: frogs in a tropical montane landscape in Mexico. Biol Conserv 117:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Poos MS, Jackson DA (2012) Addressing the removal of rare species in multivariate bioassessments: the impact of methodological choices. Ecol Indic 18:82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R  Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  53. Riley SPD, Busteed GT, Kats LB et al (2005) Effects of urbanization on the distribution and abundance of amphibians and invasive species in southern California streams. Conserv Biol 19:1894–1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodríguez-Gironés MA, Santamaría L (2006) A new algorithm to calculate the nestedness temperature of presence-absence matrices. J Biogeogr 33:924–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rose S (1997) Influence of suburban edges on invasion of Pittosporum undulatum into the bushland of northern Sydney, Australia. Aust J Ecol 22:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheffer M, van Geest GJ, Zimmer K et al (2006) Small habitat size and isolation can promote species richness: second-order effects on biodiversity in shallow lakes and ponds. Oikos 112:227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schoereder JH, Galbiati C, Ribas CR et al (2004) Should we use proportional sampling for species-area studies? J Biogeogr 31:1219–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shu X, Zhang W, Li B et al (2016) Major factors affecting the distribution of anuran communities in the urban, suburban and rural areas of Shanghai, China. Asian Herpetol Res 7:287–294Google Scholar
  59. Smith KG (2006) Patterns of nonindigenous herpetofaunal richness and biotic homogenization among Florida counties. Biol Conserv 127:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V et al (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walther BA, Moore JL (2005) The concept of bias, precision and accuracy, and their use in testing the performance of species richness estimators, with a literature review of estimators. Ecography 28:815–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Watling JI, Donnelly MA (2008) Species richness and composition of amphibians and reptiles in a fragmented forest landscape in northeastern Bolivia. Basic Appl Ecol 9:523–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wegener JE (2017) Genetic, demographic and ecological factors contributing to the evolution of Anolis lizard populations. University of Rhode Island. Open Access Dissertations. Paper 658. Accessed 10 Dec 2017
  64. Welsh AH, Lindenmayer DB, Donnelly CF (2013) Fitting and interpreting occupancy models. PLoS One 8:pe52015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. White AW, Burgin S (2004) Current status and future prospects of reptiles and frogs in Sydney’s urban-impacted bushland reserves. In: Lunney D, Burgin S (eds) Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, pp 109–123Google Scholar
  66. Winfree R, Dushoff J, Crone EE et al (2005) Testing simple indices of habitat proximity. Am Nat 165:707–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. With KA (2002) The landscape ecology of invasive spread. Conserv Biol 16:1192–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations