| Literature DB >> 31497670 |
Esteban Avigliano1,2, Juan Jose Rosso3, Dario Lijtmaer4, Paola Ondarza5, Luis Piacentini4, Matías Izquierdo6, Adriana Cirigliano7, Gonzalo Romano8, Ezequiel Nuñez Bustos4, Andres Porta4, Ezequiel Mabragaña3, Emanuel Grassi9, Jorge Palermo8,10, Belen Bukowski4, Pablo Tubaro4, Nahuel Schenone1.
Abstract
Along many decades, protected environments were targeted by the scientific community for ecological research and for the collection of scientific information related to environmental aspects and biodiversity. However, most of the territory in hotspot regions with weak or even non legal protection has been left aside. These non-protected areas (NPA) could host high biodiversity values. This paper addresses how scientific effort on a NPA (CIAR) of 700 ha from the Atlantic Rain Forest, generates new information and tools for large-scale environmental and biodiversity management in NPAs. Information published during the last decade was summarized and complemented with subsequent novel data about biodiversity (new species, first records, DNA and chemical analyses, etc.). The results showed: 1 new genus (arachnid), 6 new species and several putative new species (fish and arthropod), 6 vulnerable species (bird and mammal) and 36 first records for Argentina (fish, arthropod, platyhelminth and fungi). When compared with protected natural areas of the same biome, the CIAR showed highly valuable aspects for fauna and environment conservation, positioning this NPA as a worldwide hotspot for some taxa. Indeed, when compared to international hotspots in a coordinated Malaise trap program, the CIAR showed 8,651 different barcode index numbers (∼species) of arthropods, 80% of which had not been previously barcoded. Molecules like Inoscavin A, with antifungal activity against phytopathogens, was isolated for the first time in Phellinus merrillii fungi. The study of major threats derived from anthropic activities measured 20 trace elements, 18 pesticides (i.e. endosulfans, chlorpyrifos, DDTs, HCHs) and 27 pharmaceuticals and drugs (i.e. benzoylecgonine and norfluoxetine) in different biotic and abiotic matrices (water, sediment, fish and air biomonitors). This integrated data analysis shows that biodiversity research in NPA is being undervalued and how multidisciplinary and multi-taxa surveys creates a new arena for research and a pathway towards sustainable development in emerging countries with biodiversity hotspots.Entities:
Keywords: Agrochemical; Conservation; Ecology; Environmental sciences; Hotspot; Legal protection; Monitoring; Pesticides
Year: 2019 PMID: 31497670 PMCID: PMC6722266 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Fig. 1Non-protected semi-natural area studied under a restoration program, CIAR (red arrow). ARF, Atlantic Rain Forest; 1, Iguazú National Park; 2, Urugua-í reserve; 3, Yabotí reserve, and 4, Salto Encantado Park. Satellite images show in increment of the vegetal coverage from 2010 to 2019. Map data: Google, DigitalGlobe.
Pesticide concentrations in surface water (ng/L) and bottom sediments (ng/g dry wet) from the Ramos Creek (mean ± standard deviation).
| Surface water | Bottom sediments | |
|---|---|---|
| Trifluralin | 0.0002 ± 0.00016 | 0.0002 ± 0.00001 |
| Chlorothalonil | 0.0033 ± 0.0015 | 0.00064 ± 0.00064 |
| Chlorpyriphos | 0.30 ± 0.14 | 0.74 ± 0.13 |
| α-HCH | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.05 ± 0.02 |
| γ-HCH | 0.08 ± 0.04 | <dl |
| ƩHCHs | 0.23 ± 0.04 | 0.05 ± 0.02 |
| Heptachlor | <dl | 0.09 ± 0.04 |
| Hept. epoxide | 0.07 ± 0.03 | <dl |
| ƩHeptachlors | 0.07 ± 0.03 | 0.09 ± 0.04 |
| γ-chlordane | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
| α-chlordane | 0.03 ± 0.01 | <dl |
| ƩChlordanes | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
| α-endosulfan | 3.71 ± 1.63 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| β-endosulfan | 0.36 ± 0.17 | <dl |
| ƩEndosulfans | 4.07 ± 2.37 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 0.16 ± 0.08 | <dl | |
| 0.35 ± 0.16 | <dl | |
| ƩDDTs | 0.51 ± 0.13 | <dl |
dl: detection limit.
Fig. 2Representation of some new species, first records and vulnerable species found at CIAR. New species: Hoplias misionera (a), Neotrops poguazu (b), Poeciliophysis pratensis (c); first record: Phylacia turbinate (d), Vacerra bonfilius (e); vulnerable species: Leopardus pardalis (f); Cabassous tatouay (g), Celeus galeatus (h). The pictures b and h were yielded by C. Grismado and J. M. Lammertink, respectively.
Administrative and biological aspects of selected large protected (Yabotí) and small Non-protected semi-natural area (CIAR) in the middle Uruguay River drainage (see Fig. 1).
| Yabotí | CIAR | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes | |||
| Area (ha) | 221,155 | 700 | |
| Year of creation | 1993 | 2010 | |
| Fish assemblages | |||
| Orders | 4 | 4 | |
| Families | 16 | 14 | |
| Species | 65 | 46 | |
| New species (a) | 6 | 1 (c) | |
| New records (b) | 2 | 3 | |
| (a) Species with type material collected in the natural area | |||
| (b) Species firstly recorded for Argentina | |||
| (c) Putative new undescribed species | |||
Most notorious Fungal species found and their putative used.
| Order | Species | Uses |
|---|---|---|
| Pezizales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Ecological association with | |
| Agaricales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Edible | |
| Agaricales | Medicinal | |
| Agaricales | Medicinal and Edible | |
| Auriculariales | Edible | |
| Auriculariales | Edible | |
| Auriculariales | Edible | |
| Phallales | Edible | |
| Polyporales | Medicinal | |
| Polyporales | Medicinal | |
| Polyporales | Edible | |
| Polyporales | Medicinal | |
| Polyporales | Edible | |
| Polyporales | Cultural use (pedernal) | |
| Polyporales | Cultural use (traditional Guaraní pipes) | |
| Polyporales | Edible | |
| Polyporales | Edible | |
| Polyporales | Cultural use (nNatural colourant) | |
| Polyporales | Medicinal |
Pesticide concentrations found in epiphytic plants (ng/g dry wet) from the reserve (mean ± standard deviation).
| Leaves | Moses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t0: background | t1: 30 months later | Bioaccumulation (t1--t0) | |||
| Chlorpyriphos | 13.4 ± 3.25 | 19.4 ± 0.48 | 6 | Chlorpyriphos | 29.7 ± 11.6 |
| α-HCH | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.11 | α-HCH | <dl |
| γ-HCH | 0.16 ± 0.06 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.01 | γ-HCH | 1.31 ± 1.40 |
| ƩHCHs | 0.26 ± 0.13 | 0.38 ± 0.02 | 0.16 | ƩHCHs | 1.31 ± 1.40 |
| Heptachlor | 0.08 ± 0.04 | <dl | <dl | <dl | |
| Hept. epoxide | <dl | <dl | <dl | <dl | |
| ƩHeptachlors | 0.08 ± 0.04 | <dl | <dl | ƩHeptachlors | <dl |
| α-chlordane | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.07 | α-chlordane | <dl |
| γ-chlordane | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.09 | 0.03 | γ-chlordane | <dl |
| ƩChlordanes | 0.16 ± 0.11 | 0.26 ± 0.11 | 0.10 | ƩChlordanes | <dl |
| α-endosulfan | 0.25 ± 0.12 | 0.63 ± 0.19 | 0.38 | α-endosulfan | 1.25 ± 0.52 |
| β-endosulfan | <dl | 0.10 ± 0.03 | β-endosulfan | <dl | |
| endosulfan sulfate | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 0.62 ± 0.41 | 0.52 | endosulfan sulfate | <dl |
| ƩEndosulfans | 0.35 ± 0.08 | 1.35 ± 0.30 | 1.0 | ƩEndosulfans | 1.25 ± 0.52 |
| 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.42 ± <dl | 0.34 | <dl | ||
| 0.66 ± 0.02 | 0.61 ± <dl | -0.05 | 0.70 ± 0.80 | ||
| ƩDDTs | 0.74 ± 0.03 | 1.03 ± 0.14 | 0.29 | ƩDDTs | 0.70 ± 0.80 |
dl: detection limit.