Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 2443–2452 | Cite as

Delimiting priorities while biodiversity is lost: Rio’s seasonal killifishes on the edge of survival

  • Wilson J. E. M. Costa
Original Paper

Abstract

The coastal plains of the Rio de Janeiro State, south-eastern Brazil, have been considered an important hotspot of aplocheiloid killifish diversity. A conservation status assessment based on 17 years of field studies directed to record habitat decline indicates that five species of seasonal killifish, Leptolebias marmoratus, Nematolebias papilliferus, Notholebias cruzi, Notholebias fractifasciatus and Ophthalmolebias constanciae, distributed among three areas of endemism, are on the edge of survival. Conservation priority, focusing on five remnant isolated locations where those species occur, was evaluated on the basis of the phylogenetic diversity content of each location established through a phylogenetic base containing data on relationships of 118 cynolebiasine species, including all species endemic to Rio. Data on species diversity for each area and data on morphological uniqueness were subsequently compared and discussed. The Barra de São João pool, in the São João-Cabo Frio area, habitat of Nematolebias whitei, No. cruzi, O. constanciae, concentrates the highest value for conservation proposal, followed by the Inoã pool, in the Maricá area, habitat of Ne. papilliferus and No. fractifasciatus. However, in case of the Barra de São João pool being effectively preserved, it is recommended to concentrate efforts to preserve the Cava swamp as a second priority, since although the latter location showing the lowest individual value, Cava swamp and Barra de São João pool together sum a higher phylogenetic diversity index by preserving more distinct cynolebiasine lineages.

Keywords

Atlantic forest Conservation assessment Conservation prioritization Cyprinodontiformes Killifishes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Claudia Bove and Bruno Costa for help in numerous field studies. Thanks are due to Carlos Cruz for providing copies of old letters and pictures deposited in Smithsonian Institution, Washington. This study was funded by CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—Ministério de Ciência e Tecnologia) and FAPERJ (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro).

Supplementary material

10531_2012_301_MOESM1_ESM.doc (157 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 157 kb)

References

  1. Bove CP, Gil ASB, Moreira CB, Anjos RFB (2002) Hidrófitas fanerogâmicas de ecossistemas aquáticos temporários da planície costeira do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Acta Bot Brasílica 17:119–135Google Scholar
  2. Brook BW, Bradshaw CJA, Koh LP, Sodhi NS (2006) Momentum drives the crash: mass extinction in the tropics. Biotropica 38:302–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Costa WJEM (1984) A ameaça de extinção de peixes anuais raros do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, gênero Cynolebias Steindachner, 1876. Bol Fund Brasil Cons Nat 19:164–166Google Scholar
  4. Costa WJEM (1988) Sistemática e distribuição do complexo de espécies Cynolebias minimus (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae), com a descrição de duas espécies novas. Rev Brasil Zool 5:557–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costa WJEM (1995) Pearl killifishes, the Cynolebiatinae: systematics and biogeography of the neotropical annual fish subfamily. TFH, Neptune CityGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa WJEM (2002a) The neotropical seasonal fish genus Nematolebias (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae: Cynolebiatinae): taxonomic revision, with description of a new species. Ichthyol Explor Freshw 13:41–52Google Scholar
  7. Costa WJEM (2002b) Peixes anuais brasileiros: diversidade e conservação. Editora UFPR, CuritibaGoogle Scholar
  8. Costa WJEM (2002c) Leptolebias marmoratus (Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae: Cynolebiatinae): rediscovery and redescription of a rare, miniaturized forest dwelling seasonal fish from southeastern Brazil. Ichthyol Explor Freshw 13:379–384Google Scholar
  9. Costa WJEM (2006a) Taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships among species of the seasonal, internally inseminating, South American killifish genus Campellolebias (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes: Rivulidae), with the description of a new species. Zootaxa 1227:31–55Google Scholar
  10. Costa WJEM (2006b) Descriptive morphology and phylogenetic relationships among species of the Neotropical annual killifish genera Nematolebias and Simpsonichthys (Cyprinodontiformes: Aplocheiloidei: Rivulidae). Neotrop Ichthyol 4:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa WJEM (2007) Taxonomic revision of the seasonal South American killifish genus Simpsonichthys (Teleostei: Cyprinodontiformes: Aplocheiloidei). Zootaxa 1669:1–134Google Scholar
  12. Costa WJEM (2008) Monophyly and taxonomy of the Neotropical seasonal killifish genus Leptolebias (Teleostei: Aplocheiloidei: Rivulidae), with the description of a new genus. Zool J Linn Soc 153:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costa WJEM (2009) Peixes aploqueilóideos da Mata Atlântica brasileira: história, diversidade e conservação/Aplocheiloid fishes of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: history, diversity and conservation. Museu Nacional UFRJ, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  14. Costa WJEM (2010) Historical biogeography of cynolebiasine annual killifishes inferred from dispersal-vicariance analysis. J Biog 37:1995–2004Google Scholar
  15. Costa WJEM, Lacerda MTC (1988) Identité e redescription de Cynolebias sandrii et de Cynolebias fluminensis (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae). Rev Fr Aquariol 14:127–132Google Scholar
  16. Costa WJEM, Lacerda MTC, Tanizaki K (1988) Description d’une nouvelle espèce de Cynolebias des plaines côtieres du Brésil sud-oriental (Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae). Rev Fr Aquariol 15:21–24Google Scholar
  17. Crozier RH (1992) Genetic diversity and the agony of choice. Biol Conserv 61:11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cruz CAG, Peixoto OL (1983) Novo peixe anual do estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae). Arq Univ Fed Rural do Rio de Janeiro 6:89–93Google Scholar
  19. Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faith DP (1994) Genetic diversity and taxonomic priorities for conservation. Biol Conserv 68:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faria A, Muller H (1937) Especies da familia Cyprinodontidae, Genero Cynopoecilus, constatadas em aguas do Brasil. Rev Naval (Março 1937):98–99Google Scholar
  22. Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C, Baillie JEM (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2:e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000296 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IUCN (2010) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, version 8.1. Standards and Petitions Subcommittee of the IUCN Species Survival Commission [updated at http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/RedList/RedListGuidelines.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2011]
  24. Ladiges W (1934a) Cynopoecilus marmoratus Ladiges. Das Aquarium 1934:73–74Google Scholar
  25. Ladiges W (1934b) Tropische Zierfische. Aquarium Hamburg, HamburgGoogle Scholar
  26. May RM (1990) Taxonomy as destiny. Nature 347:129–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miranda-Ribeiro P (1939) Alguns novos dados ictiológicos da nossa fauna. Bol Biol 4:358–363Google Scholar
  28. Myers GS (1942) Studies on South American fresh-water fishes I. Stanford Ichthyol Bull 2:89–114Google Scholar
  29. Posadas P, Miranda-Esquivel DR, Crisci JV (2001) Using phylogenetic diversity measures to set priorities in conservation: an example from southern South America. Conserv Biol 15:1325–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Redding DW, Mooers AO (2006) Incorporating evolutionary measures into conservation prioritization. Conserv Biol 20:1670–1678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas GH (2008) Phylogenetic distributions of British birds of conservation concern. Proc R Soc B 275:2077–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vane-Wright RI, Humphries CJ, Williams PH (1991) What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol Conserv 55:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vázquez DP, Gittleman JL (1998) Biodiversity conservation: does phylogeny matter? Curr Biol 8:R379–R381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wied-Neuwied APM (1820) Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 bis 1817. Heinrich Ludwig Bronner, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  35. Williams PH, Gaston KJ, Humphries CJ (1994) Do conservationists and molecular biologists value differences between organisms in the same way? Biodivers Lett 2:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson EO (1985) The biological diversity crisis: a challenge to science. Issues Sci Tech 2:20–29Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratório de Sistemática e Evolução de Peixes Teleósteos, Instituto de BiologiaUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations