Biodiversity and Conservation (2005) 14:23772395

DOI 10.1007/s10531-004-1670-3

Springer 2005

Threat assessment and conservation prioritization

of the herpetofauna of El Salvador
ELI GREENBAUM1,* and OLIVER KOMAR1,2
1

Natural History Museum & Biodiversity Research Center and Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence KS 66045-7561, USA; 2SalvaNATURA,
Programa de Ciencias para la Conservacion, 33 Ave. Sur No. 640, Colonia Flor Blanca, San Salvador,
El Salvador; *Author for correspondence. Present address: Division of Herpetology, The University of
Kansas, Natural History Museum 1345 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS 66045-7561 USA (e-mail:
elig@ku.edu; fax: +1-785-864-5335)
Received 21 November 2003; accepted in revised form 30 March 2004

Key words: Amphibian, Complementarity, El Salvador, Herpetofauna, Inventory completeness,

IUCN Red List categories, Museum data, Reptile
Abstract. We applied the IUCN Red List method for threat assessment to the amphibians and
reptiles of El Salvador, the smallest Central American country. Seventy-six out of 130 species were
found to be threatened or endangered at the national level. In general, most threatened taxa were
aquatic organisms in lowland habitats or cloud-forest specialists in highland areas. The IUCN
method was biased by collecting eort and was unable to classify 25 species that were categorized as
data decient. We used the number and distribution of threatened species and a complementarity
analysis to identify departments in El Salvador that require higher priority for conservation action.
We applied a method for evaluating inventory completeness to our data set, and used species from
reasonably well-surveyed taxonomic groups (Anura and Sauria) to carryout the complementarity
analysis. The anurans (frogs) and saurians (lizards) had been inventoried relatively completely in 10
of 14 departments. The department with the most threatened species (35 of 76 threatened
amphibians and reptiles) is Santa Ana, where many threatened species occur in pine-oak and cloud
forest in Montecristo National Park.

Introduction
Without the benet of lists of locally threatened species, lists of globally
threatened species (IUCN 2002) often are used as a planning resource for
regional conservation eorts. However, global conservation priorities are not
always of concern locally, and conversely, many local conservation priorities
are not of global concern. Many species have yet to be discovered and described (Wilson 1992), and local populations ignored in global analyses may
turn out to be distinct, globally threatened species in future studies. For
example, salamanders of the Bolitoglossa dunni group, once considered to be a
single widespread taxon, recently were shown to include several species with
extremely restricted distributions (McCranie and Wilson 1993; Greenbaum
2004). Moreover, populations that are currently marginal could become future
core populations given the alarming rate at which species are shifting their

2378
ranges in response to global climate changes (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Root
et al. 2003).
Methods for local threat assessments of ora and fauna are not well
established. Lunney et al. (1996) combined ecological criteria with expert
opinions about population trends to determine the conservation status of a
community of Australian herpetofauna. McCranie and Wilson (2002) and
Wilson and McCranie (2003) assessed threat levels for amphibians in Honduras on the basis of each species overall geographic range, ecological distribution, and degree of specialization of reproductive mode, but these
criteria are not easily applied to taxa from other regions where ecological
requirements and life-history traits are dierent or less well known.
Gardenfors et al. (1999) suggested general guidelines for applying IUCN Red
List criteria at national and regional levels; they recommended that, in
addition to the usual Red List criteria, one must also consider whether an
extra-regional population is a source for new immigrants, potentially creating
a rescue eect.
We applied the IUCN criteria (sensu Gardenfors et al. 1999) to a large
compilation of conrmed museum records of amphibians and reptiles in El
Salvador, which is one of the least studied herpetofaunas in Central America.
Relatively few species in El Salvador are of global conservation concern, because most range widely through the Neotropical lowlands; furthermore, El
Salvador is not known to have any nationally endemic (restricted) amphibians
or reptiles. A global classication of threatened reptiles (IUCN 2002) listed six
species (of 98) in El Salvador: four sea turtles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys
imbricata, Lepidochelys olivacea, Dermochelys coriacea), a crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), and a lizard (Abronia montecristoi). Preliminary data from the
recently compiled Global Amphibian Assessment lists four species of threatened frogs (Agalychnis moreletii, Plectrohyla guatemalensis, P. psiloderma, and
P. sagorum) and two species of threatened salamanders (Bolitoglossa salvinii
and B. synoria) that are known to occur in El Salvador (IUCN et al. 2004). The
number of globally threatened species included in a local parks system will
usually be fewer than the number of locally threatened fauna. Setting conservation priorities among existing or potential protected areas based only on
globally threatened species would ignore the importance of locally threatened
populations and lack the resolution provided by a larger set of threatened
species.
Using a complementarity analysis (Kirkpatrick 1983; Williams et al. 1996),
we demonstrate that the results of our IUCN local threat classication can be
used to prioritize conservation areas. Herpetological species lists are unavailable for most conservation areas in El Salvador; thus, we use departments as
surrogates and present species lists for the 14 departments in El Salvador
(Figure 1). To be comparable, species inventories for each area must be relatively complete (Remsen 1994). Therefore, we also applied a method for estimating relative completeness in birds (Gomez de Silva and Medell n 2001) to
herpetofaunal surveys in each of the areas considered.

2379

Figure 1.

The 14 departments of El Salvador.

Materials and methods

Application of IUCN criteria
To assess threat status using IUCN Red List criteria on the Salvadoran
herpetofauna, we followed published guidelines (Gardenfors et al. 1999;
IUCN 2001). Because population size and trend data were not available for
any herpetofaunal taxon in El Salvador, we could not apply Criterion A
(observed, estimated, inferred, projected, or suspected reduction in population size), Criterion C (low estimate of population size and observed, estimated, inferred, projected, or suspected population decline), or Criterion D
(low estimate of population size) to the data set (IUCN 2001). We could not
apply Criterion E (probability of extinction estimate) because no quantitative
analysis on the extinction risk of any taxon in El Salvador has been published. It also was impossible to ascertain whether conspecics from Honduras or Guatemala could aect the extinction risk of populations in El
Salvador through a rescue eect (Gardenfors et al. 1999). The dispersal
abilities of the herpetofauna in El Salvador and surrounding countries are
unknown and likely to vary by taxon (Marsh and Trenham 2001; Green
2003); thus we assumed that all populations in El Salvador were isolated
from conspecics in Guatemala and Honduras for the purposes of our
analysis.

2380
We utilized information about geographic distribution to apply Criterion B
(geographic range parameters; IUCN 2001). If a given taxon occurred from
low to mid elevations, we examined the extent of occurrence (Criterion B1)
because there are potentially no gaps in suitable habitat (IUCN 2001). If a
taxon occurred at mid to high elevations (>600 m), areas between localities
were considered potentially unsuitable, and we examined the area of occupancy
(Criterion B2). Extent of occurrence was estimated by constructing a minimum
convex polygon around the localities for a given taxon and calculating the area
of the polygon (IUCN 2001). Area of occupancy was estimated by assigning
each locality an approximate value of 10 km2 and summing all localities. Our
calculations of extent of occurrence or area of occupancy are given in
Appendix 1.
No taxon was assumed to have a severely fragmented distribution (Criteria
B1a or B2a), but species with 10 localities, 5 localities, or a single locality
satised the latter part of criteria B1a and B2a for vulnerable, endangered, and
critically endangered categories, respectively (IUCN 2001). Because El Salvador has experienced phenomenal human population growth and massive
deforestation (Daugherty 1972), we assumed that all taxa have suered a
continuing decline in the area, extent, and quality of habitat [Criteria B1b(iii)
or B2b(iii)]. Other subcriteria of Criterion B, including continuing declines
[Criteria B1b(i,ii,iv,v) or B2b(i,ii,iv,v)] or uctuations in range size or population size [Criteria B1c(i,ii,iii,iv) or B2c(i,ii,iii,iv)], could not be ascertained
with available data. Finally, we did not distinguish between the categories
Least Concern and Near Threatened, because we did not have enough information to make future predictions about any species.

Introduced and marginal species

Introduced species are not part of the original faunal community and should
not be assigned conservation value. We eliminated from the El Salvador
analysis two introduced reptiles, Hemidactylus frenatus and Ramphotyphlops
braminus. Species at the margins of their global range are likely to be rare
naturally (Brown 1984; Brown et al. 1995) and in some cases, should be
eliminated from local conservation evaluations especially if the disappearance
of a peripheral population will not threaten that species as a whole (Godown
and Peterson 2000). However, if populations outside the area of interest are
suciently small that local impacts may aect the whole species then we recommend including the species in conservation evaluations (see also Samways
2003). In the specic case of amphibians and reptiles, global climatic changes
have the potential to cause dramatic range shifts (Parmesan and Yohe 2003;
Root et al. 2003); range shifts are a serious threat to these taxa, both because
they have rather poor dispersal abilities and, in many areas of the world, have
no suitable habitat in which to move. In the El Salvador analysis, we included
peripheral species because they tended to be regionally endemic or at-risk

2381
habitat specialists and may need conservation action throughout their ranges
(see Appendix 1).
Data sources
We obtained specimen localities from Kohler et al. (in press), a compilation of
about 7000 specimen records of amphibians and reptiles collected at about 70
localities in El Salvador. This source includes approximately 750 specimen
records generated by the authors during eldwork in 2000 and 2001. Additional published locality records and the 21 scientic collections consulted are
given by Kohler et al. (in press). We derived regional species distributions from
Campbell (1999), Duellman (2001), Kohler (2000, 2001, 2003), and McCranie
and Wilson (2002).
Completeness of species lists
Because the number of collecting localities for a species can be biased by
taxonomic focus of collectors, seasonality, collection methods, and other factors, it was critical to use inventory completeness as an indication of nonbiased collection eort for the site-comparison part of this study. We assessed
inventory completeness for the 14 departments in El Salvador by the method
proposed for birds by Gomez de Silva and Medell n (2001). Our test species
included the 52 amphibian and reptile species that occur widely in lowlands
and also in neighboring countries (Appendix 1). We assumed that a complete
inventory would have detected all of these species in every department. The
number of test species collected in each department, relative to the total
number of test species, represents the relative completeness of inventory work
in each department. In general, completeness was relatively high for Anura and
Sauria, and low for Serpentes; thus, we did not include Serpentes in the acrossdepartment comparisons. Given the large dierences in inventory completeness
among major herpetofaunal groups, we also eliminated Gymnophiona, Caudata, Crocodylia, and Testudines from the completeness and complementarity
analyses, because these groups lacked enough widespread species to serve as
test species or to evaluate completeness for these groups. For the purpose of
this demonstration, we arbitrarily chose 75% completeness for Anura and
Sauria combined as a threshold for including a region in the complementarity
analysis. Higher completeness would be preferable for prioritizing potential or
actual protected areas.
Complementarity analysis for geographic prioritization
We ranked several geopolitical areas (departments) in El Salvador for conservation importance, using an iterative, heuristic, complementarity algorithm

2382
(Kirkpatrick 1983; Williams et al. 1996). The algorithm has four steps. (1)
Select the area that protects the most threatened species. (2) Of the areas
that remain, select the one that adds to the system the most additional
threatened species. (3) If two areas contribute the same numbers of additional species (a tie for Step 2), use the number of endangered species added
to the system as a second criterion. If further resolution is required, consider
the overall number of threatened species present. (4) Repeat steps 2 and 3
until all regions have been added to the system. Non-threatened species were
not considered for this analysis, because overall species richness is not always
correlated with rare species richness (Prendergast et al. 1993). The presence/
absence of threatened and endangered amphibians and reptiles in each
department is given in Appendix 1. We evaluated completeness and included
in our analysis only those departments and taxonomic groups (Anura and
Sauria) with reasonably complete inventories (described in the previous
paragraph).

Results
Classication of national threatened status IUCN criteria
Application of the IUCN criteria to the 128 non-introduced taxa of Salvadoran herpetofauna resulted in 27 least-concern, 25 data-decient, 21 vulnerable, 37 endangered, and 18 critically endangered classications
(Appendix 1). Thus, 76 (59.4% of the total) species were classied as
threatened; 17 are amphibians and 59 are reptiles. All of the data-decient
taxa were classied as such because they had small range sizes within El
Salvador, met some of the criteria [decline in habitat quality, B1b(iii) or
B2b(iii)] for vulnerable or endangered, but occurred in more localities than
the limits set by Criteria B1a or B2a (10 locations, vulnerable; 5 locations,
endangered).

Inventory completeness and geographic priorities for conservation

Herpetofaunal species lists for El Salvadors departments varied from 35 to
94% complete (mean 65%) when all test species were included. More sampling
was needed before the conservation status of 9 out of 14 departments could be
assessed, given our criterion of requiring 75% completeness (Figure 2a). When
only frogs and lizards were considered, the mean completeness (across
departments) for these groups was 80% (range 5296%) (Figure 2b). We
eliminated from the analysis four departments with <75% completeness score:
Cabanas 52%, Chalatenango 72%, La Paz 56%, and La Union 68%. The
remaining 10 departments had completeness scores ranging from 76 to 96%
(mean 87%).

2383

Figure 2. Relative completeness of species lists for departments in El Salvador, based on: (a) 52
widespread species from all orders within Amphibia and Reptilia; and (b) 25 widespread species
from the orders Anura and Sauria.

We used the principle of complementarity to prioritize 10 departments

(with >75% completeness score), based on the occurrence of 23 threatened
frogs and lizards. The department with the most threatened frogs and lizards
is Santa Ana (ve critically endangered, ve endangered, and four vulnerable
species, most occurring at Montecristo National Park or San Diego y La
Barra Wildlife Reserve in the northern extremes of the department). Moreover, ve of the threatened species occurring in Santa Ana do not occur in
any other department of El Salvador. No other department approximates

2384
that number Ahuachapan follows with seven threatened species, but three
of these taxa also occur in Santa Ana. The second department selected for
conservation importance was Ahuachapan, which added one critically
endangered and three endangered species to the system. The third department selected was San Salvador, adding to the system two endangered and
one vulnerable species. Two critically endangered species (Plectrohyla
psiloderma and P. sagorum) occur only in Chalatenango, which did not have
a completeness score high enough to be included in the complementarity
analysis.

Discussion
Comparison to the ocial El Salvador list of threatened herpetofauna
In 1998, the government of El Salvador listed 96 amphibian and reptile species
as threatened, based on opinions of local biologists (Ministerio de Agricultura
y Ganader a 1998). The government list had several weaknesses that made it
problematic to evaluate. For example, it did not indicate which of the criteria
used applied to which species, a step useful in permitting future evaluations and
revisions (IUCN 2001). Furthermore, it was not based on the wealth of
specimen locality data now available (Kohler et al. in press). The government
list protected all amphibians (28 species versus 17 in our analysis), probably
because of worldwide concern for declining amphibians (e.g., Barinaga 1990;
Blaustein et al. 1994; Laurance et al. 1996). The government classied 68
reptiles as threatened or endangered, in contrast to our 59. Based on an early
version of the present manuscript, the government revised its ocial list
(Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2004), which now
coincides closely with our analysis.

Geographic prioritization of threatened species in El Salvador

Combined, the western departments of Ahuachapan, San Salvador, and
Santa Ana have populations of 92% of the threatened anuran and saurian
species. These departments contain El Salvadors two largest wildlife reserves,
El Imposible National Park (4000 ha, Ahuachapan) and Montecristo
National Park (2000 ha, Santa Ana). Santa Ana alone had 61% of the
threatened frogs and lizards, and at least 47% (36 of 77 species) of all
threatened amphibians and reptiles. Of the 14 species of threatened frogs and
lizards in Santa Ana, seven were collected in pine-oak and cloud forest at
Montecristo National Park. The other seven were collected in deciduous dry
forest at San Diego y La Barra protected area (ve species), in cloud forest at
Los Volcanes National Park (one species), and outside of protected areas
(one species). In Ahuachapan, which had only 30% of the threatened frogs

2385
and lizards but added the most new species to the conservation areas system,
ve of the seven threatened species were collected in semi-deciduous tropical
forest at El Imposible National Park and two species outside of protected
areas.
The importance of Santa Ana and Ahuachapan departments for herpetofaunal conservation is clearly linked to the presence of the Montecristo and
El Imposible national parks. In fact, these results parallel an analysis of
conservation importance of ten protected areas in El Salvador, based on
presence of locally threatened bird species (Komar 2002), in which Montecristo National Park protected the most threatened species and El Imposible
National Park added the most additional threatened species to the protected
areas system.
Although Chalatenango was not included in the complementarity exercise
because of incomplete inventory data, that department has populations of
several locally threatened species (mostly in the area of Cerro El Pital, El
Salvadors highest peak and one of its few cloud forests) that do not occur in
any other department. This exercise demonstrated two needs: (1) conduct more
inventory work, especially in the four departments with the lowest completeness scores; and (2) improve coverage of the protected areas system to include
areas where threatened species occur, especially in San Salvador and Chalatenango.

Diculties applying IUCN Red List criteria

If population trend data were available for many species of amphibians and
reptiles, the IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2001) would undoubtedly
provide the best estimate of threatened status of these taxa. However, the
sizes and trends of populations of most oral and faunal species are unknown (Holmes 2001). The IUCN criteria do not depend on knowledge of
sizes of, or demographic trends in populations, but they are more dicult
to apply without these data. Such information is especially dicult to
obtain, because long-term studies are often necessary to separate the eects
of natural population uctuations from anthropogenic-caused declines,
especially for amphibians (Pechmann et al. 1991; Marsh 2001; Mart nezSolano et al. 2003). Quantitative analysis of extinction probability, another
IUCN criterion, exists for few species and has rarely been applied to
amphibians and reptiles (Burgman et al. 1993; Stephan et al. 2001). Distributional data for amphibians and reptiles are poor in undersampled
areas, especially in tropical regions (Jorge da Silva and Sites 1995; Duellman 1999), further complicating the application of threat-assessment criteria
to herpetofaunas.
With regard to the El Salvador herpetofauna, the IUCN system depended
mainly on extent of occurrence or area of occupancy because information on
population declines and extinction risk were not available. To be considered

2386
threatened by the IUCN method, species with small ranges (i.e., extent of
occurrence or area of occupancy <20,000 km2) must meet two out of three
subcriteria (under sections B1 or B2). Because of the recent and current huge
human population growth in El Salvador and related impacts on habitat and
climate, we assumed all species to have deteriorating extent and/or quality of
habitat [all species met Criteria B1b(iii) or B2b(iii)]. Species with small numbers of localities (Criteria B1a or B2a), therefore, met criteria for being
threatened.
The extent of occurrence or area of occupancy, however, was highly correlated with the number of collecting localities (Pearson product moment correlation coecient = 0.813, p < < 0.001). Therefore, as collection eort
increased and more localities were known, some species no longer met these
criteria, but rather met the criteria for data decient. More collecting will
clearly cause some of the species we classied as threatened or endangered to
require reclassication as data decient. In fact, many of the data-decient
species are clearly not threatened. An excellent example is Sceloporus malachiticus, an abundant species in highly disturbed habitats of El Salvador, which
we classied as data decient (Appendix 1). Thus, as distribution information
for a given taxon improved, it was more likely to be classied as data decient,
demonstrating the sensitivity (and related bias) of the IUCN method to collecting eort. Although several limitations of the IUCN criteria are demonstrated in this study and others (e.g., Raxworthy and Nussbaum 2000), it is
hoped that these deciencies can be minimized in future IUCN criteria
modications.

Ecology of threatened species in El Salvador

Several general trends in the ecology of threatened amphibians and reptiles in
El Salvador are evident from this analysis. Most turtles and all crocodilians,
species associated with freshwater wetlands and beaches, are threatened. These
habitats are scarce in El Salvador and tend to be centers of anthropogenic
activity. Although turtles and crocodilians have been widely hunted in El
Salvador for meat and skins (Mittermeier 1970), it is possible that these taxa
are poorly represented in collections because of collector bias toward terrestrial
species. A number of cloud forest habitat specialists were classied as threatened because cloud forest in El Salvador is a restricted habitat limited to four
patches totalling about 2400 ha (O. Komar, unpubl. data). Widespread
deforestation in the lowlands around these forest patches probably has caused
climatic impacts (reduced humidity) that threaten the integrity of these habitat
patches (Lawton et al. 2001).
Other ecological patterns, based on life-history characteristics or feeding
ecology, were dicult to discern. While studies of Holarctic amphibians have
associated certain life-history characteristics with extinction risk (Green 2003),
further studies are needed to assess whether those ndings apply to Neotropical

2387
taxa. In general, increased generation time and lower fecundity of amphibians
at higher elevations make their populations more prone to extinction (Morrison and Hero 2003), which is consistent with the threatened status of most
highland amphibians in El Salvador.

Conclusions
The conservation status of any local herpetofauna should be re-evaluated as
new distribution information becomes available. Lists of locally threatened
species are valuable for assigning priorities to conservation areas, especially
when similar lists from other taxonomic groups are also considered (van
Jaarsveld et al. 1998). Moreover, such lists may help identify taxa as
globally threatened. Although endangered species may require special protection, responsible scientic collecting of these species should continue,
especially at new localities. Some of these species may be more widespread
than thought, with relatively few collections because of secretive behavior.
For many rare species, further collecting is needed to improve understanding of their distributions, life histories, and ecology, and to make
possible the assessment of threat levels and prioritization of areas for
conservation.

Acknowledgments
We thank J.L. Carr, W.E. Duellman, J.M. Guayasamin, T. Halliday, A.T.
Peterson, C. Sheil, J.E. Simmons, L. Trueb, and L.D. Wilson for critical
comments on an early version of the manuscript. Simon Stuart kindly provided preliminary, unpublished data from the Global Amphibian Assessment.
We thank the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in El Salvador, the Parque Zoologico Nacional de El Salvador, and SalvaNATURA
for logistical support of eld work in El Salvador. Funding for the authors
surveys of El Salvador herpetofauna was provided by The University of
Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center and the
Panorama Society, with additional funding from The Explorers Club (to
E.G.). O.K. acknowledges the support of a National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellowship, and a Madison and Lila Self Graduate
Research Fellowship.

Amphibia: Gymnophiona
Caeciliidae
Dermophis mexicanus
Amphibia: Caudata
Plethodontidae
Bolitoglossa heiroreias
Bolitoglossa salvinii
Bolitoglossa synoria
Oedipina taylori
Amphibia: Anura
Bufonidae
Bufo canaliferus
Bufo coccifer
Bufo luetkenii
Bufo marinus
Bufo vallicepsa
Centrolenidae
Hyalinobatrachium
eischmannia
Hylidae
Agalychnis moreletii
Hyla robertmertensi
Phrynohyas venulosa
Plectrohyla guatemalensis
Plectrohyla psiloderma
Plectrohyla sagorum
Ptychohyla euthysanota
Ptychohyla salvadorensis

Species

CR B2ab(iii)

9
9
10
1
1
1
3
9

5
37
32
42
1

EN B2ab(iii)
LC
LC
LC
CR B2ab(iii)

EN B2b(iii) = DD
VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2b(iii) = DD

1
1
1
9

11

90
7973
15,917
10
10
10
30
90

10

50
21,000
21,000
21,000
10

10
10
10
7577

8954

X
X
X

+
+ +
+
+ +
+

+ +

+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+ +
+ +

+
+

+ +
+ +
+ +

+
+
+

+
+ +
+

+
+ +
+ +
+ +

+ +

+ +

+
+
+

+
+ +
+ +
+ +

Departments
Number of Area of occupancy/ Test species
localities
extent of occurrence probably occur
in all departments A Ca Ch Cu LL LP LU M SA SM SS SV So U
(km2)

CR B2ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)

VU B1b(iii) = DD

IUCN threat
criteria

Appendix 1. IUCN threat criteria, number of localities, approximate area of distribution, and departmental distribution of the amphibians and reptiles of El
Salvador.

2388

Scinax staueri
Smilisca baudinii
Leptodactylidae
Eleutherodactylus rhodopis
Eleutherodactylus rupinius
Leptodactylus fragilis
Leptodactylus melanonotus
Physalaemus pustulosus
Microhylidae
Gastrophryne usta
Hypopachus barberi
Hypopachus variolosus
Ranidae
Rana forreri
Rana maculata
Rhinophrynidae
Rhinophrynus dorsalis
Reptilia: Crocodylia
Alligatoridae
Caiman crocodilus
Crocodylidae
Crocodylus acutus
Reptilia: Testudines
Cheloniidae
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys olivacea
Dermochelyidae
Dermochelys coriacea
Emydidae
Trachemys venusta
Geoemydidae
Rhinoclemmys pulcherrima
7

3
3
2
1
1

VU B1ab(iii)

VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
EN B1ab(iii)

CR B1ab(iii)

EN B2ab(iii)
18

CR B1ab(iii)

LC

25
22

EN B1ab(iii)

LC
LC

7
5
4

12
26
15
26
34

EN B2b(iii) = DD
LC
LC
VU B1b(iii) = DD
LC

VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)

21
33

VU B1b(iii) = DD
LC

21,000

667

10

8035
7805
1785

16,836

10

1000

21,000
21,000

5740
50
40

120
21,000
21,000
18,496
21,000

16,582
21,000

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X

+
+
+

+ +
+ +

+ +
+ +

+
+

+ +

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+ +
+ +

+
+
+
+

+ +
+ +

+
+

+
+

+ +
+ +

+
+ +

+ +
+ +

+ +
+ +

+ +
+ +

+ +

+ +
+

+
+ +
+
+ +
+ +

+ +
+ +

2389

Kinosternidae
Kinosternon scorpioides
Staurotypus salvinii
Reptilia: Squamata: Sauria
Anguidae
Abronia montecristoi
Celestus atitlanensis
Mesaspis moreletii
Eublepharidae
Coleonyx elegansa
Coleonyx mitratus
Gekkonidae
Gonatodes albogularis
Hemidactylus frenatusb
Phyllodactylus tuberculosus
Gymnophthalmidae
Gymnophthalmus speciosus
Iguanidae
Basiliscus vittatus
Corytophanes percarinatus
Ctenosaura avidorsalis
Ctenosaura similis
Iguana iguana
Norops crassulus
Norops heteropholidotus
Norops macrophallus
Norops sericeus
Norops serranoi

Species

Appendix 1. Continued.

1
8

CR B1ab(iii)
EN B1b(iii) = DD

7
36
7
7
37
21
8
3
20
35
31

EN B2b(iii) = DD

LC
VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
LC
LC
EN B2b(iii) = DD
EN B2ab(iii)
LC
LC
LC

20
1
22

1
2
2

CR B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)

LC
NE
LC

20
3

21,000
8036
15,816
21,000
21,000
80
30
21,000
21,000
21,000

70

21,000
10
21,000

10
3827

10
20
20

21,000
3367

X
X

+ +
+
+

+ +
+
+
+
+ +
+

X
X

+ +

+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+

+ +
+ +

+ +
+
+ +
+ +
+
+
+

+ +

+ +

+
+ +

+ +

+
+

+
+

+ +
+ +
+ +

+
+ +
+ +
+

+ +

+ +

+ +
+ +

+
+ +
+

+ +
+ +
+

+
+

+ +

+ +

+
+

Departments
Number of Area of occupancy/ Test species
localities
extent of occurrence probably occur
A Ca Ch Cu LL LP LU M SA SM SS SV So U
in all departments
(km2)

LC
EN B1ab(iii)

IUCN threat
criteria

2390

Norops tropidonotusa
Sceloporus malachiticus
Sceloporus squamosus
Sceloporus variabilis
Scincidae
Mabuya unimarginata
Mesoscincus managuae
Sphenomorphus assatus
Teiidae
Ameiva undulata
Aspidoscelis deppii
Aspidoscelis motaguae
Xantusiidae
Lepidophyma smithii
Reptilia: Squamata: Serpentes
Boidae
Boa constrictor
Loxocemidae
Loxocemus bicolor
Colubridae
Coniophanes ssidens
Coniophanes piceivittis
Conophis lineatus
Crisantophis nevermanni
Dryadophis dorsalis
Dryadophis melanolomus
Drymarchon corais
Drymobius chloroticusa
Drymobius margaritiferus
Enulius avitorques
Geophis fulvoguttatus
Geophis rhodogaster
Imantodes gemmistratus
48
37
4
11

13

LC
LC
EN B1ab(iii)

EN B2b(iii) = DD

VU B1b(iii) = DD

VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
LC
CR B2ab(iii)
LC
EN B2ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
VU B1ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
9
5
19
1
13
3
8
2
14
10
1
2
7

23
3
11

LC
EN B1ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD

EN B1ab(iii)

1
33
41
25

CR B2ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
LC
VU B1b(iii) = DD

11,709
50
21,000
10
21,000
30
17,142
20
10,611
16,582
10
20
12,627

4706

14,465

110

21,000
21,000
1200

21,000
4145
19,975

10
18,597
21,000
16,607

+ +

X
X
X

+
+
+

+
+

+ +

+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+ +
+
+

+
+
+

+
+ +
+

X
X

X
X
X

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+ +
+
+
+

+ +

+ +
+ +
+

+ +
+
+

+
+ +
+ +
+ +

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+ +

+ +
+

+ +
+ +
+

+ +

+
+
+ +

+ +
+ +

+
+
+

+ +
+ +
+

2391

Lampropeltis triangulum
Leptodeira annulata
Leptodeira nigrofasciata
Leptodeira septentrionalis
Leptodrymus pulcherrimus
Leptophis mexicanus
Leptophis modestusa
Masticophis mentovarius
Ninia espinali
Ninia sebae
Oxybelis aeneus
Oxybelis fulgidus
Pliocercus elapoides
Rhadinaea godmani
Rhadinaea kinkelini
Rhadinaea montecristi
Rhadinaea pilonaorum
Scaphiodontophis annulatus
Scolecophis atrocinctus
Senticolis triaspis
Sibon anthracops
Sibon carri
Sibon nebulatusa
Spilotes pullatus
Stenorrhina freminvillii
Tantilla armillata
Tantilla brevicauda
Tantilla taeniata

Species

Appendix 1. Continued.

VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
EN B1ab(iii)
EN B2b(iii) = DD
CR B1ab(iii)
EN B1b(iii) = DD
EN B2ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
CR B2ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
VU B1b(iii) = DD
VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
CR B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B1ab(iii)
EN B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1b(iii) = DD
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii) = DD
EN B1ab(iii)

IUCN threat
criteria
8
19
5
12
1
6
2
20
1
14
14
7
9
3
1
2
3
4
5
9
2
3
2
9
18
3
7
2

6760
16,072
3903
120
10
3151
20
14,784
10
15,434
18,366
6772
13,074
30
10
20
30
650
2053
13,010
20
30
20
17,117
8560
30
70
750
+ +
+
+
+

X
X
X
X

+
+
+

X
X

+
+

+
+

X
X

X
X
X

+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+
+

+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+
+

+
+ +
+ +
+
+

+ +

+
+

+ +

+ +

+
+

+
+

+
+
+ +

+
+
+
+
+
+

+ +
+
+ +
+ +

+
+
+
+ +

+
+

+
+ +

+
+
+

+ +

Departments
Number of Area of occupancy/ Test species
localities
extent of occurrence probably occur
A Ca Ch Cu LL LP LU M SA SM SS SV So U
in all departments
(km2)

2392

1
8
5
3
5
4
15
4

VU B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)

EN B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
LC
LC

13

VU B1b(iii) = DD

NE

2
3
3
10
3
6

EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B1ab(iii)
VU B1ab(iii)
EN B2ab(iii)
EN B2b(iii) = DD

4643
50
40
21,000
21,000

8419
9121

10

17,142

20
30
3788
9542
30
60

X
X

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+ +

+
+ +

+
+ +

+ +

+ +

+
+
+
+
+

+
+

Abbreviations for IUCN threat criteria follow IUCN (2001); CR, critically endangered; EN, endangered; VU, vulnerable; LC, least concern; DD, data decient; NE, not evaluated.
The IUCN threat criteria column lists the specic criteria that taxa meet; taxa were data decient if they did not meet two of the three subcriteria (B1ac or B2ac) of IUCN
Criterion B. Department abbreviations: A, Ahuachapan; Ca, Cabanas; Ch, Chalatenango; Cu, Cuscatlan; LL, La Libertad; LP, La Paz; LU, La Union; M, Morazan; SA, Santa
Ana; SM, San Miguel; SS, San Salvador; SV, San Vicente; So, Sonsonate; U, Usulutan.
a
Marginal, threatened taxa that occur less than 10 km from the national border and have extensive ranges in neighboring countries.
b
Introduced taxa were not evaluated.

Tantilla vermiformis
Thamnophis fulvusa
Thamnophis proximus
Trimorphodon biscutatus
Tropidodipsas scheri
Tropidodipsas sartorii
Leptotyphlopidae
Leptotyphlops goudotii
Typhlopidae
Ramphotyphlops braminusb
Elapidae
Micrurus nigrocinctus
Pelamis platurus
Viperidae
Agkistrodon bilineatus
Atropoides nummifer
Cerrophidion godmani
Crotalus durissus
Porthidium ophryomegas

2393

2394
References
Barinaga M. 1990. Where have all the froggies gone? Science 247: 10331034.
Blaustein A.R., Hokit D.G., OHara R.K. and Holt R.A. 1994. Pathogenic fungus contributes to
amphibian losses in the Pacic Northwest. Biol. Conserv. 67: 251254.
Brown J.H. 1984. On the relationship between species abundance and distribution of species. Am.
Nat. 124: 255279.
Brown J.H., Mehlman D.W. and Stevens G.C. 1995. Spatial variation in abundance. Ecology 76:
20282043.
Burgman M.A., Ferson S. and Akcakaya H.R. 1993. Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology.
Chapman & Hall, New York.
Campbell J.A. 1999. Distribution patterns of amphibians in Middle America. In: Duellman W.E.
(ed.), Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians: A Global Perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 111210.
Daugherty H.E. 1972. The impact of man on the zoogeography of El Salvador. Biol. Conserv. 4:
273278.
Duellman W.E. 1999. Global distribution of amphibians: patterns, conservation, and future
challenges. In: Duellman W.E. (ed.), Patterns of Distribution of Amphibians: A Global Perspective. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 130.
Duellman W.E. 2001. The Hylid Frogs of Middle America, 2nd ed. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles, Ithaca, New york.
Gardenfors U., Rodr guez J.P., Hilton-Taylor C., Hyslop C., Mace G., Molur S. and Poss S. 1999.
Draft guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List criteria at national and regional levels.
Species 3132: 5870.
Godown M.E. and Peterson A.T. 2000. Preliminary distributional analysis of US endangered bird
species. Biodiv. Conserv. 9: 13131322.
Gomez de Silva H. and Medell n R.A. 2001. Evaluating completeness of species lists for conservation and macroecology: a case study of Mexican land birds. Conserv. Biol. 15: 13841395.
Green D.M. 2003. The ecology of extinction: population uctuation and decline in amphibians.
Biol. Conserv. 111: 331343.
Greenbaum E. 2004. A new species of Bolitoglossa (Amphibia: Caudata: Plethodontidae) from
montane forests in Guatemala and El Salvador. J. Herpetol. 38: 411421.
Holmes E.E. 2001. Estimating risks in declining populations with poor data. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.
USA 98: 50725077.
IUCN 2001. IUCN Red List Categories, Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival
Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of threatened species. <http://www.redlist.org>. Downloaded 6
May 2003.
IUCN Conservation International & Nature Serve 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment.
<www.globalamphibians.org> Accessed 11 December 2004.
Jorgeda Silva N. Jr. and Sites J.W. Jr. 1995. Patterns of diversity of neotropical squamate reptile
species with emphasis on the Brazilian Amazon and the conservation potential of indigenous
reserves. Conserv. Biol. 9: 873901.
Kirkpatrick J.B. 1983. An iterative method for establishing priorities for the selection of nature
reserves: an example from Tasmania. Biol. Conserv. 25: 127134.
Kohler G. 2000. Reptilien und Amphibien Mittelamerikas. Band 1: Krokodile. Schildkroten,
Echsen. Herpeton Verlag, Oenbach, Germany.
Kohler G. 2001. Reptilien und Amphibien Mittelamerikas. Band 2: Schlangen, Doppelschleichen.
Herpeton Verlag, Oenbach, Germany.
Kohler G. 2003. Reptiles of Central America. Herpeton Verlag, Oenbach, Germany.
Kohler G., Vesely M. and Greenbaum E. The Amphibians and Reptiles of El Salvador. Krieger
Publishing Company, Melbourne, Florida, in press.
Komar O. 2002. Priority conservation areas for birds in El Salvador. Anim. Conserv. 5: 173183.

2395
Laurance W.F., McDonald K.R. and Speare R. 1996. Epidemic disease and the catastrophic
decline of Australian rain forest frogs. Conserv. Biol. 10: 406413.
Lawton R.O., Nair U.S., Pielke R.A. Sr. and Welch R.M. 2001. Climatic impact of tropical
lowland deforestation on nearby montane cloud forests. Science 294: 584587.
Lunney D., Curtin A., Ayers D., Cogger H.G. and Dickman C.R. 1996. An ecological approach to
identifying the endangered fauna of New South Wales. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2: 212231.
Marsh D.M. 2001. Fluctuations in amphibian populations: a meta-analysis. Biol. Conserv. 101:
327335.
Marsh D.M. and Trenham P.C. 2001. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation.
Conserv. Biol. 15: 4049.
Mart nez-Solano I., Bosch J. and Garc a-Par s M. 2003. Demographic trends and community
stability in a montane amphibian assemblage. Conserv. Biol. 17: 238244.
McCranie J.R. and Wilson L.D. 1993. A review of the Bolitoglossa dunni group (Amphibia:
Caudata) from Honduras with the description of three new species. Herpetologica 49: 115.
McCranie J.R. and Wilson L.D. 2002. The Amphibians of Honduras. Society for the Study of
Amphibians and Reptiles. Ithaca, New york.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganader a. 1998. Listado Ocial de Las Especies de Fauna Vertebrada
Amenazada y en Peligro de Extincion en El Salvador. Direccion General de Recursos Naturales
y Renovables, Servicio de Parques Nacionales y Vida Silvestre, Soyapango, San Salvador, El
Salvador.
Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganader a. 2004. Listado ocial de especies de fauna silvestre amenazada o en peligro de extincion en El Salvador. Diario Ocial (San Salvador, El Salvador)
363(78): 527.
Mittermeier R.A. 1970. Turtles in Central American markets. Int. Turtle Tortoise Soc. J. 4: 2026.
Morrison C. and Hero J.-M. 2003. Geographic variation in life-history characteristics of
amphibians: a review. J. Anim. Ecol. 72: 270279.
Parmesan C. and Yohe G. 2003. A globally coherent ngerprint of climate change impacts across
natural systems. Nature 421: 3742.
Pechmann J.H.K., Scott D.E., Semlitsch R.D., Caldwell J.P., Vitt L.J. and Gibbons J.W. 1991.
Declining amphibian populations: the problem of separating human impacts from natural
uctuations. Science 253: 892895.
Prendergast J.R., Quinn R.M., Lawton J.H., Eversham B.C. and Gibbons D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335337.
Raxworthy C.J. and Nussbaum R.A. 2000. Extinction and extinction vulnerability of amphibians
and reptiles in Madagascar. Amphibian Reptile Conserv. 2: 1523.
Remsen J.V. Jr. 1994. Use and misuse of bird lists in community ecology and conservation. Auk
111: 225227.
Root T.L., Price J.T., Hall K.R., Schneider S.H., Rosenzweig C. and Pounds J.A. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature 421: 5760.
Samways M.J. 2003. Marginality and national Red Listing of species. Biodiv. Conserv. 12: 2523
2525.
Stephan T., Ulbrich K., Grosse W.-R. and Meyer F. 2001. Modelling the extinction risk of isolated
populations of natterjack toad Bufo calamita. Web Ecol. 2: 4756.
van Jaarsveld A.S., Freitag S., Chown S.L., Muller C., Koch S. and Hull H. et al. 1998. Biodiversity assessment and conservation strategies. Science 279: 21062108.
Williams P., Gibbons D., Margules C., Rebelo A., Humphries C. and Pressey R. 1996. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity
of British birds. Conserv. Biol. 10: 155174.
Wilson E.O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Wilson L.D. and McCranie J.R. 2003. The conservation status of the herpetofauna of Honduras.
Amphibian Reptile Conserv. 3: 633.