Bioone.org will be down for maintenance on 16 May, 2022 from 18:00-22:00 Pacific US. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
1 November 2010 Reevaluation of the Geographical Distribution of Bradypus tridactylus Linnaeus, 1758 and B. variegatus Schinz, 1825
Nadia de Moraes-Barros, Ana Paula Giorgi, Sofia Silva, João Stenghel Morgante
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The confusing nomenclatural history of Bradypus tridactylus and B. variegatus has led to incorrect taxonomic attributions through time and, consequently, errors in range map inferences. In this note, we reevaluate the geographical distribution of B. tridactylus and B. variegatus based on museum specimens, field observations, and literature records of sloths. Our analyses revealed considerable range differences when compared to previous distribution inferences. For instance, B. tridactylus is restricted to the Guyana shield, and in Brazil it is only found north of the Amazon River and east of Negro River. Additional analysis using an Ecological Niche Modeling technique, and considering only bioclimatic and topographic variables, predicted that potential suitable areas for B. tridactylus are mostly limited by cold temperatures. However, when comparing our model to the present time distribution of forests we observed that the suitable area for B. tridactylus may be smaller than predicted by the model.

Introduction

The living three-toed sloths are classified in four species, Bradypus pygmaeus Anderson and Handley, 2001, B. torquatus Illiger, 1811, B. tridactylus Linnaeus, 1758, and B. variegatus Schinz, 1825. They only occur in the Neotropics, and most of them are exclusive to distinct biomes, except for B. variegatus that can be found from the forests of Nicaragua to the Atlantic Rainforest in southern Brazil (Hayssen, 2010). Bradypus pygmaeus and B. torquatus are considered endangered. The former is endemic to the Isla Escudo de Veraguas, Province of Bocas del Toro in Panama, while the latter only occurs in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Bradypus tridactylus is only found in the north-central region of South America (Anderson and Handley, 2001).

The pale-throated sloth B. tridactylus and the brownthroated sloth B. variegatus have a long and confusing nomenclatural history. Bradypus tridactylus was first named by Linnaeus (1758), and this is the currently used scientific name of the pale-throated sloth. Schinz referred to the brown-throated sloth when naming B. variegatus in the early 19th century (Schinz, 1825). However, in the following years the name “B. tridactylus” was attributed to the brown-throated sloth by different authors, the last being Ávila-Pires and Gouveia (1977). As a result, the name B. tridactylus referring to the brown-throated sloth has been adopted in many papers, especially those published before 1970. For instance, Vieira (1953) described the fauna observed in different localities of Alagoas state, northeastern Brazil, during two expeditions in 1951 and 1952. The author registered four brownthroated sloths, which he classified as B. tridactylus, following the valid nomenclature for that time. Only in the 1980's, the name B. variegatus was used again for the brown-throated sloth. Wetzel (1982) reviewed the nomenclature, described the synonymy, named B. variegatus as the brown-throated sloth, and recognized nine subspecies. For a detailed description of B. tridactylus and B. variegatus nomenclature see Hayssen (2009, 2010).

Despite the solved nomenclature, a recent study based on morphological criteria and molecular data revealed about 30% taxonomic misidentification between the pale and the brown-throated sloth in museum collections (Moraes-Barros et al., in press). Part of these misidentifications can be explained by the lack of taxonomic updating in museum collection specimens. A critical outcome of these misidentifications and the confusing nomenclature is the inferred geographical distribution of B. tridactylus and B. variegatus. Based on this previous misidentification study (Moraes-Barros et al., in press) and considering the need of an updated range map of these sloth species, we reevaluated the historical and recent specimen records, elaborated a corrected map of the geographic distributions of B. tridactylus and B. variegatus, and generated a predictive model of B. tridactylus distribution using an ecological niche modeling technique.

Methods

Range map

We used specimen records obtained from museum collections, field expeditions, and literature to elaborate a range map for B. tridactylus and B. variegatus. The data set of museum specimens consisted of morphologically reviewed sloths. We thus only used records of specimens which could be undoubtedly identified. The criteria used to classify specimens are described in Anderson and Handley (2001). We included specimens described in Anderson and Handley (2001) and reviewed sloths from the following museums: IEPA — Instituto de Pesquisas Cientí ficas e Tecnológicas do Estado do Amapá, Amapá, Brazil; MN — Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil; MPEG — Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belém, PA, Brazil; MVZ — Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; and MZUSP — Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Data from field expeditions encompassed direct observations and individuals captured in order to collect biological samples for molecular biology studies. These expeditions were carried out from 2001 to 2009 and included members of our research group and coworkers. Data obtained from literature that represented localities distinct from those listed in museum collections were added to the final data set (Table 1). The use of data recovered from literature was particularly difficult. Because of the confusing taxonomic history of B. tridactylus and B. variegatus, we considered taxa names keeping in mind that the nomenclature differed over time. We therefore compared the described taxa name in each publication and updated it to the current valid name whenever needed. Some publications were not considered because their reported occurrences could not be confirmed.

Predictive model of geographical distribution — ecological niche modeling

We used Maxent v.3.3.1 (Phillips et al., 2006; < http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent>) to generate a predictive model of B. tridactylus distribution. Collection localities were compiled from Anderson and Handley (2001) and from sources given in Table 1. We used 19 bioclimatic parameters of current climate from the WorldClim dataset version 1.4 (Hijmans et al., 2005) at 1 km resolution. These metrics are derived from monthly temperature and rainfall climatologies and represent biologically meaningful variables for characterizing species range (Nix, 1986). In addition to the bioclimatic variables, we also used a topographic variable derived from remote sensing data. Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) digital elevation data at 90 m resolution were aggregated to 1 km resolution in order to be added as environmental predictor in the Maxent runs. Besides mean elevation, the standard deviation based on 90 m data was also included as an indicator of surface ruggedness.

We did not use forest cover data as environmental predictor due to the characteristics of our species data set. The majority of data is composed by historical records from several museums. According to the ecological niche modeling literature, museum records are very useful in many studies, including the case presented here, but in order to build a consistent model, the species occurrence period must match the period of the environmental variables (Graham et al., 2004).

Results and Discussion

The collected data constitute a view of historical and present-time occurrence of the pale and the brownthroated sloths (Fig. 1, Table 1). Although data are available about where these sloths are found, few studies indicate were they do not occur. Some records obtained from museum specimens represent historical occurrences of species and localities that today are no longer suitable for sloths, mostly because of anthropogenic effects; an example is the State of Paraná in Brazil. There is only one record for B. variegatus in Paraná (Table 1) and today the species is considered extinct in this state due to deforestation (Mikich and Bérnils, 2004). A similar situation is found in northern Argentina, where records of B. variegatus date from the 1910's and 1920's (Onelli, 1913; Massoia, 1980; FMNH21672 — Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, USA). There are, however, no recent records of sloths from this country. As pointed out by Redford and Eisenberg (1992), the southern limit of this species' range is poorly known.

Some other localities still bear suitable habitats for sloths, as has been shown in recent studies in the remaining Atlantic Forest fragments of Pernambuco, Brazil (Silva Jr. and Pontes, 2008), northern Ecuador (Ríos, 2001), and southeastern Caracas region, Venezuela (Castillo and Sales, 2006). Nevertheless, information about the presence and absence of sloths at the present time is not complete and accurate. We therefore opted to present a range map that reflects the total distribution area, depicted from all recorded past and present occurrences (Fig. 1). We did not consider the fact that some localities within this total area may no longer be inhabited by sloths and discuss this point below.

The updated range map of B. variegatus shows that contrary to previous descriptions (Gardner, 2007; Hayssen, 2010), this species is found north of the Amazon and in northwestern Brazil, between the Negro and Branco rivers (Fig. 1). Similarly, there are differences between the previously inferred distribution of B. tridactylus and the range map presented in Fig. 1. Most of this divergence is due to taxonomic misidentifications (Moraes-Barros et al., in press). Its area of distribution is smaller than previously described, as the species does not occur south of the Amazon River, an area that Gardner (2007) had included in his range map of B. tridactylus. The pale-throated sloth is also absent west of the Negro River and southeastern Venezuela, which differs from the range map presented by Chiarello et al. (2008). Therefore, B. tridactylus is restricted to the Guiana shield region and is sympatric with B. variegatus only along the northern margin of the Amazon River (Fig. 1).

The range map presented in Fig. 1 provides only an estimated area of continuous distribution of these sloth species. To properly evaluate the present-time distribution and reveal possible isolated populations, recent records of species presence and absence are needed. This kind of study demands time and intensive field work. In the case of sloths their arboreal habits, slow movements, and time spent in the canopy make direct observation difficult, thus limiting the recording of occurrences. Hence, as shown by Moreno and Plese (2006), Ecological Niche Modeling techniques can be used as a tool to determine the potential distribution of sloth species. These authors modeled the current distribution of B. variegatus in Colombia, highlighting suitable and non-suitable areas for the species. Phillips et al. (2006) used ecological niche modeling based on maximum entropy (Maxent) to generate predictive models of species distribution for two Neotropical mammals, Microryzomys minutus (Rodentia: Muridae) and B. variegatus. The modeled distribution of B. variegatus through the entire Neotropical region predicted suitable areas encompassing different biomes. Within Brazil, most of the suitable areas were predicted in the Amazon rainforest and Atlantic forest, although areas within the Cerrado biome were also considered suitable. In fact, there are recent records of B. variegatus in the Cerrado domain (Table 1), which indicates that forested regions within this biome should not be discarded as occurrence localities for this species.

Figure 1.

Reevaluated range map of B. variegatus and B. tridactylus. Black circles and red triangles represent occurrence records for B. variegatus and B. tridactylus, respectively. These records are described in Table 1.

f01_53.eps

Table 1.

Description of B. tridactylus (bold) and B. variegatus localities used to infer geographic distribution, except for localities described in Anderson and Handley (2001). Species records are based on museum collections (museum acronyms) and literature (references). We also considered data from field studies carried out from 2001 to 2009, including direct observations (*) and individuals captured for blood or tissue sampling (biological samples deposited in Labec DNA and Tissue Collection).

t01a_53.gif

continued.

t01b_53.gif

Figure 2.

Predicted potential geographic distribution of B. tridactylus produced with 19 bioclimatic parameters and 2 topographic variables derived from remote sensing imagery. Colors represent habitat suitability and probability of the species' occurrence.

f02_53.eps

We followed Phillips et al. (2006) and generated a predictive model of B. tridactylus distribution. After running Maxent (Fig. 2), we observed that the environmental variables that presented the largest contributions to defining the potential areas of occurrence for B. tridactylus were minimum temperature of coldest month (64% of contribution), temperature seasonality (11%), mean temperature of coldest quarter (5%), and topography (5%). The climatic variables that limit B. tridactylus occurrence are all related to cold temperatures, which is supported by the fact that sloths are not fully homeothermic (Britton and Atkinson, 1938).

While the model behavior and results fit the data set and applied parameters (AUC = 0.98), it is important to mention that an inexistent gap is shown in Fig. 2 in the Amapá region (northern Brazil). This gap can be attributed to the environmental variable “minimum temperature of the coldest month” that is corrupted in that region. As mentioned before, the bioclimatic variables were obtained through the WorldClim dataset (Hijmans et al., 2005), which is based on an interpolation of climate station data spread all over the world. As there are only a few stations in the Amapá region, interpolation will produce unprecise results. We believe that this might be the reason for the environmental layer being corrupted in that exact region.

As shown in Fig. 2, the model predicts the existence of a highly suitable area between Colombia and Venezuela. There are, however, no occurrence records for any of the sloth species from this region (see Fig. 1). This may be attributed to the lack of field efforts, and thus occurrence data, due to geopolitical issues. In our model, northern Venezuela was also predicted as suitable for B. tridactylus. Sloth occurrences in that region were, however, only recorded for B. variegatus. Important variables such as geographical barriers, competition, and preying are not considered in these models. The fact that environmental features of a particular area fit the attributes of the species' niche therefore does not necessarily mean that sloths indeed inhabit the area. Due to the arboreal habits of sloths, it is also important to include forest cover in these analyses. In a preliminary analysis, we superimposed a map of present-time forested areas to our predictive model. We observed that some areas predicted as suitable for B. tridactylus are no longer covered with forests, indicating that the total suitable region for this sloth's occurrence may be smaller than suggested by our model (data not shown).

In this study, we reevaluated the range of the brown and the pale-throated sloth. Although ecological niche models, such as Maxent, have been great assets in identifying potential areas of species occurrence and in supporting research in several fields, we wish to emphasize that they are tools that will never replace field efforts. In the case of sloths, predictive models can help defining areas for field investigations, and thus contribute to a better comprehension of the species. This is particularly interesting for B. tridactylus due to the lack of studies on population genetics and phylogeography, which have already been performed for B. variegatus (Moraes-Barros et al., 2002, 2006, 2007).

References

1.

A. L. M. J. A. Amorim , A. A. Amorim Jr. , J. B. Messias , Jr. V. A. Silva and M. K. Berinson 2004. Anatomical aspects of the placenta of the sloth Bradypus variegatus, Schinz, 1825. Int. J. Morphol. 22: 9–18. Google Scholar

2.

R. P. Anderson and C. O. Handley 2001. A new species of three-toed sloth (Mammalia: Xenarthra) from Panama, with a review of the genus Bradypus. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 114: 1–33. Google Scholar

3.

F. D. Ávila-Pires and E. Gouveia 1977. Mamíferos do Parque Nacional do Itatiaia. Bol. Mus. Nac, Rio de Janeiro, Zool. 291: 1–29. Google Scholar

4.

A. A. Barnett and A. C. Cunha 1994. Notes on the small mammals of Ilha de Maracá, Roraima State, Brazil. Mammalia 58: 131–137. Google Scholar

5.

B. M. Bezerra , A. S. Souto , L. G. Halsey and N. Schiel 2008. Observation of brown-throated threetoed sloths: mating behaviour and the simultaneous nurturing of two young. J. Ethol. 26: 175–178. Google Scholar

6.

S. W. Britton and W. E. Atkinson 1938. Poikilothermism in the sloth. J. Mammal. 19: 94–99. Google Scholar

7.

R. Castillo and V. Salas 2006. Estado de Conservación del Parque Nacional Macarao. In: BioParques: Asociación Civil para la Conservación de los Parques Nacionales. Programa de Observadores de Parques, < http://www.bioparques.org>, < http://www.parkswatch.org>. Google Scholar

8.

A. Chiarello and Members of the IUCN/SSC Edentate Specialist Group. 2008. Bradypus tridactylus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. < www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 15 July 2010. Google Scholar

9.

A. Chiarello 1999. Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic forest on mammal communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 89: 71–82. Google Scholar

10.

F. Dantas-Torres , D. R. A. Ferreira , L. M. Melo , P. C. P. Lima , D. B. Siqueira , L. C. R. Albuquerque , A. V. Melo and J. A. C. Ramos 2010. Ticks on captive and free-living wild animals in northeastern Brazil. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 50: 181–189. Google Scholar

11.

W. A. Fischer , M. B. Ramos-Neto , L. Silveira and A. T. Jacomo 2004. Human transportation network as ecological barrier for wildlife on Brazilian Pantanal-Cerrado corridors. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation , C. L. Irwin , P. Garrett and K. P. McDermott (eds.), pp. 182–194. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Google Scholar

12.

A. L. Gardner 2007. Mammals of South America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Google Scholar

13.

C. H. Graham , S. Ferrier , F. Huettman , C. Moritz and A. T. Peterson 2004. New developments in museum-based informatics and applications in biodiversity analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19: 497–503. Google Scholar

14.

V. Hayssen 2009. Bradypus tridactylus (Pilosa: Bradypodidae). Mamm. Species 839: 1–9. Google Scholar

15.

V. Hayssen 2010. Bradypus variegatus (Pilosa: Bradypodidae). Mamm. Species 42(850): 19–32. Google Scholar

16.

R. J. Hijmans , S. E. Cameron , J. L. Parra , P. G. Jones and A. Jarvis 2005. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climat. 25: 1965–1978. Google Scholar

17.

P. Lara-Ruiz and A. C. Srbek-Araújo 2006. Comportamento potencialmente reprodutivo da preguiça-comum, Bradypus variegatus (Xenarthra: Bradypodidae): observações de campo. Edentata 7: 44–46. Google Scholar

18.

C. Linnaeus 1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Editio decima, reformata Vol. 1. Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm, Sweden. Google Scholar

19.

M. A. Lopes and S. F. Ferrari 2000. Effects of human colonization on the abundance and diversity of mammals in eastern Brazilian Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1658–1665. Google Scholar

20.

E. Massoia 1980. Mammalia de Argentina. 1. Los mamíferos silvestres de la provincia de Misiones. Iguazú 1: 15–43. Google Scholar

21.

S. B. Mikich and R. S. Bérnils 2004. Livro Vermelho da Fauna Ameaçada no Estado do Paraná.http://www.pr.gov.br/iap>. Downloaded on 13 July 2010. Google Scholar

22.

N. Moraes-Barros , J. A. B. Silva and J. S. Morgante In Press. Morphology, molecular phylogeny, and taxonomic inconsistencies in the study of Bradypus sloths (Pilosa: Bradypodidae). J. Mammal. 92: in press. Google Scholar

23.

N. Moraes-Barros , C. Y. Miyaki and J. S. Morgante 2002. Genetic diversity in different populations of sloths assessed by DNA fingerprinting. Braz. J. Biol. 62: 503–508. Google Scholar

24.

N. Moraes-Barros , J. A. B. Silva , C. Y. Miyaki and J. S. Morgante 2006. Comparative phylogeography of the atlantic forest endemic sloth (Bradypus torquatus) and the widespread three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus) (Bradypodidae, Xenarthra). Genetica 126: 189–198. Google Scholar

25.

N. Moraes-Barros , C. Y. Miyaki and J. S. Morgante 2007. Identifying management units in non-endangered species: the example of the sloth Bradypus variegatus Schinz, 1825. Braz. J. Biol. 6: 829–837. Google Scholar

26.

S. Moreno and T. Plese 2006. The illegal traffic in sloths and threats to their survival in Colombia. Edentata 7: 10–18. Google Scholar

27.

H. Nix 1986. A Biogeographic Analysis of Australian Elapid Snakes. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Google Scholar

28.

C. Onelli 1913. Biología de algunos mamíferos argentinos. Rev. Jardín Zool. 9: 77–142. Google Scholar

29.

S. J. Phillips , R. P. Anderson and R. E. Schapire 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190: 231–259. Google Scholar

30.

M. R. Prado , E. C. Rocha and G. M. L. Giudice 2008. Mamíferos de médio e grande porte em um fragmento de Mata Atlântica, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rev. Árvore 32: 741–749. Google Scholar

31.

K. H. Redford and J. F. Eisenberg 1992. Mammals of the Neotropics, Volume 2: The Southern Cone: Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Google Scholar

32.

G. Z. Ríos 2001. Sustentabilidad de la cacería de subsistencia: el caso de cuatro comunidades Quichuas em la Amazonía nororiental ecuatoriana. J. Neotrop. Mammal. 8: 59–66. Google Scholar

33.

A. I. Roldan and J. A. Simonetti 2001. Plant-mammal interactions in tropical Bolivian forests with different hunting pressures. Conserv. Biol. 15: 617–623. Google Scholar

34.

H. R. Schinz 1825. Das Thierreich eingetheilt nach dem Bau der Thiere als Grundlage ihrer Naturgeschichte und der vergleichenden Anatomie. Vol. 4. J. G. Cotta, Stuttgart and Tübingen, Germany. Google Scholar

35.

A. P. Silva Jr. and A. R. M. Pontes 2008. The effect of a mega-fragmentation process on large mammal assemblages in the highly-threatened Pernambuco Endemism Centre, north-eastern Brazil. Biodivers. Conserv. 17: 1455–1464. Google Scholar

36.

S. Solari , V. Pacheco , L. Luna , P. M. Velazco and B. D. Patterson 2006. Mammals of the Manu Biosphere Reserve. In: Mammals and Birds of the Manu Biosphere Reserve, Peru , B. D. Patterson , D. F. Stotz and S. Solari (eds.), pp. 13–23. Fieldiana: Zoology, new ser., no. 110. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Google Scholar

37.

J. R. Stallings , G. A. B. Fonseca , L. P. S. Pinto , L. M. S. Aguiar and E. L. Sábato 1991. Mamíferos do Parque Florestal Estadual do Rio Doce, Minas Gerais, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Zool. 7: 663–677. Google Scholar

38.

B. Urbani and C. Bosque 2007. Feeding ecology and postural behaviour of the three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus flaccidus) in northern Venezuela. Mamm. Biol. 72: 321–329. Google Scholar

39.

C. C. Vieira 1953. Sobre urna coleção de mamíferos do Estado de Alagoas. Arq. Zool. Est. S. Paulo 8: 209–222. Google Scholar

40.

R. M. Wetzel 1982. Systematics, distribution, ecology, and conservation of South American edentates. In: Mammalian Biology in South America , M. A. Mares and H. H. Genoways (eds.), pp. 345–375. Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Google Scholar
Nadia de Moraes-Barros, Ana Paula Giorgi, Sofia Silva, and João Stenghel Morgante "Reevaluation of the Geographical Distribution of Bradypus tridactylus Linnaeus, 1758 and B. variegatus Schinz, 1825," Edentata 11(1), 53-61, (1 November 2010). https://doi.org/10.1896/020.011.0110
Published: 1 November 2010
JOURNAL ARTICLE
9 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
Bradypus
ecological niche modeling
geographical distribution
sloths
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top