Diversity and distribution of reptiles in Romania
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
The data in this occurrence resource has been published as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A), which is a standardized format for sharing biodiversity data as a set of one or more data tables. The core data table contains 16,527 records.
This IPT archives the data and thus serves as the data repository. The data and resource metadata are available for download in the downloads section. The versions table lists other versions of the resource that have been made publicly available and allows tracking changes made to the resource over time.
Download the latest version of this resource data as a Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A) or the resource metadata as EML or RTF:
The table below shows only published versions of the resource that are publicly accessible.
How to cite
Researchers should cite this work as follows:
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
Researchers should respect the following rights statement:
The publisher and rights holder of this work is ZooKeys. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License.
This resource has not been registered with GBIF
Who created the resource:
Who can answer questions about the resource:
|Bounding Coordinates||South West [43.612, 20.039], North East [48.342, 30.059]|
Reptiles of Romania at species level
|Species||Emys orbicularis, Testudo graeca, Testudo hermanni, Anguis fragilis, Eremias arguta, Lacerta agilis, Darevskia praticola, Lacerta trilineata, Lacerta viridis, Zootoca vivipara, Podarcis muralis, Podarcis tauricus, Ablepharus kitaibelii, Eryx jaculus, Coronella austriaca, Zamenis longissimus, Elaphe sauromates, Dolichophis caspius, Natrix natrix, Natrix tessellata, Vipera ammodytes, Vipera berus, Vipera ursinii|
|Start Date / End Date||1823-01-01 / 2013-01-01|
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from four major sources: published data, museum collections, personal communications from specialists, and our own unpublished field data.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.
|Quality Control||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).|
Method step description: