Biodiversity survey reveals severe landscape fragmentation affecting urban amphibian and reptile communities, indicating that small green patches are critical for Andean conservation.
The accelerated loss of biodiversity is one of the major concerns for conservation actions. In Colombia, much of the urban and cultivated areas are concentrated in the Andean region, a global biodiversity hotspot that retains less than 15% of its original forest cover. In this region, biodiversity studies are not often performed in urban environments. Here, this study presents information about the diversity and composition of amphibians and reptiles in green and urbanized areas of the city of Manizales, in the Central Andes of Colombia. To document the diversity and changes in the presence of amphibians and reptiles in these areas of Manizales, we performed fieldwork, literature searches, and a review of specimens from biological collections. Additionally, we incorporated a spatial analysis of ecological connectivity based on the Local Climate Zones (LCZ) classification. We recorded 30 species (10 amphibians, 20 reptiles), 16 endemic to Colombia, and two threatened species. Craugastoridae was the most diverse amphibian family (5 spp.), while for reptiles it was Colubridae (11 spp.). Field surveys yielded 291 individuals across 17 species, with Pristimantis thectopternus being the most abundant amphibian, and Pholidobolus marianus the most common reptile. As expected, reptiles exhibited greater urban tolerance than amphibians. Notably, the smallest green area sampled exhibited the highest species richness values, suggesting that factors other than area size may be more important than area size in supporting amphibian and reptile diversity. LCZ analysis revealed significant landscape fragmentation. Our results highlight the critical importance of conserving urban green areas and suggest that the LCZ framework represents a promising tool for biodiversity conservation planning in rapidly urbanizing Andean ecosystems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cardona‐Galvis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: