http://ipt.pensoft.net/resource?r=reptiles_romania
Diversity and distribution of reptiles in Romania
Laurentiu
Rozylowicz
Chelonia Romania
Senior Researcher
1 N Balcescu, 010041
Bucharest
010041
RO
0745177968
laurentiu.rozylowicz@g.unibuc.ro
0000-0001-7174-032X
Laurentiu
Rozylowicz
Chelonia Romania
Senior Researcher
Bucharest
Bucharest
010041
RO
0745177968
laurentiu.rozylowicz@g.unibuc.ro
0000-0001-7174-032X
2020-03-01
eng
Occurence data from Cogălniceanu D, Rozylowicz L, Székely P, Samoilă C, Stănescu F, Tudor M, Székely D, Iosif R (2013) Diversity and distribution of reptiles in Romania. ZooKeys 341: 49-76 https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.341.5502
Occurrence
GBIF Dataset Type Vocabulary: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/dataset_type.xml
Observation
GBIF Dataset Subtype Vocabulary: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/dataset_subtype.xml
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License.
Romania
20.039
30.059
48.342
43.612
1823
2013
Reptiles of Romania at species level
species
Emys orbicularis
species
Testudo graeca
species
Testudo hermanni
species
Anguis fragilis
species
Eremias arguta
species
Lacerta agilis
species
Darevskia praticola
species
Lacerta trilineata
species
Lacerta viridis
species
Zootoca vivipara
species
Podarcis muralis
species
Podarcis tauricus
species
Ablepharus kitaibelii
species
Eryx jaculus
species
Coronella austriaca
species
Zamenis longissimus
species
Elaphe sauromates
species
Dolichophis caspius
species
Natrix natrix
species
Natrix tessellata
species
Vipera ammodytes
species
Vipera berus
species
Vipera ursinii
irregular
Laurentiu
Rozylowicz
Chelonia Romania
Senior Researcher
1 N Balcescu, 010041
Bucharest
010041
RO
0745177968
laurentiu.rozylowicz@g.unibuc.ro
0000-0001-7174-032X
see https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.341.5502
Romania
We extracted the occurrence records from four major sources: published data, museum collections, personal communications from specialists, and our own unpublished field data. The records were primarily stored and managed in a Microsoft Access database, and later imported it in an ESRI file geodatabase using ArcGIS Desktop 10.1 (ESRI, CA). We checked for data quality by (1) filtering the database for doubtful and erroneous records, (2) aggregating the known localities to a finer resolution, and (3) assessing the bias in sampling effort. Our own data were collected over a period of almost 25 years and it involved a large variety of methods. Since the majority of studies carried out were of ecology, the detailed distribution data was not made available in the resulting publications.
We aggregated the occurrence records to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid system at a spatial resolution of 25 km2 (UTM 5 × 5 km). The records with a spatial resolution of ≤ 25 km2 were assigned the corresponding UTM 5 × 5 km grid cell code using primarily the UTM index of localities (Lehrer and Lehrer 1990). The species occurrences with a spatial resolution of > 25 km2 were assigned only one grid cell code based on expert knowledge of the species’ habitat requirements (Scott et al. 2002, Franklin 2009) and visual help from the available satellite imagery and an overlaid KMZ file with the UTM 5 × 5 km grid in Google Earth v. 7.0.2 (Google Inc., CA). In order to georeference all records in the geodatabase in ArcGIS Desktop, we created a relationship between the table with species occurrence records and the UTM 5 × 5 km polygon feature class based on the grid cell code as a common attribute.
The distribution records that could not be georeferenced to an actual locality or toponym (e.g., occurrences assigned to mountain ranges, geographical provinces or hydrographic basins) or records with unspecified taxa within genera were not included in the geodatabase. Other doubtful or erroneous records such as species out of their known range or vagrant individuals sensu IUCN (2001) were also discarded.
The species taxonomy considered in the present paper is based on Speybroeck et al. (2010). Due to rapid changes in taxonomy, we did not analyze the subspecies in our study, except for Vipera (Acridophaga) ursinii, to which detailed studies have confirmed the relevance of taxonomic unit (Ferchaud et al. 2012). While the taxonomic status of Anguis fragilis is still under debate, we considered the species complex as a single species (Gvoždík et al. 2010). We encountered a similar problem for Vipera (berus) nikolskii; therefore we did not examine it separately from Vipera berus (Zinenko et al. 2010).
2020-01-17T16:54:36.178+02:00
dataset
Cogălniceanu D, Rozylowicz L, Székely P, Samoilă C, Stănescu F, Tudor M, Székely D, Iosif R (2020): Diversity and distribution of reptiles in Romania. v1.1. ZooKeys. Dataset/Occurrence. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.341.5502
http://ipt.pensoft.net/resource?id=reptiles_romania/v1.1.xml