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
2020-06-23 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from four major sources: published data, museum collections, personal communications from specialists, and our own unpublished field data.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/v1.2.xml