Geology topics

John B. Iverson

Publications and source records attributed to John B. Iverson.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2022

Diverse aging rates in ectothermic tetrapods provide insights for the evolution of aging and longevity

Comparative studies of mortality in the wild are necessary to understand the evolution of aging; yet, ectothermic tetrapods are underrepresented in this comparative landscape, despite their suitability for testing evolutionary hypotheses. We present a study of aging rates and longevity across wild tetrapod ectotherms, using data from 107 populations (77 species) of nonavian reptiles and amphibians. We test hypotheses of how thermoregulatory mode, environmental temperature, protective phenotypes, and pace of life history contribute to demographic aging. Controlling for phylogeny and body size, ectotherms display a higher diversity of aging rates compared with endotherms and include phylogenetically widespread evidence of negligible aging. Protective phenotypes and life-history strategies further explain macroevolutionary patterns of aging. Analyzing ectothermic tetrapods in a comparative context enhances our understanding of the evolution of aging.

Science↗

USGS2021

A watershed moment: Analysis of sub-basins refocuses the geography of turtle conservation across the globe

Conservation planners use a variety of decision-making tools, many of which require identifying and prioritizing spatial units based on their biodiversity and levels of imperilment. Turtles are highly imperiled, but present schemes for determining global priority areas are focused mostly on broad regional scales. We conduct the first global evaluation of turtle biodiversity and imperilment at a sub-basin level to identify geographically smaller areas of high conservation value, and compare with these existing prioritizations. We employed two spatial analyses—bivariate maps and local indicator of spatial association (LISA)—to identify and prioritize sub-basin clusters based on multiple biodiversity and conservation metrics in addition to species richness. Most high-priority sub-basin clusters were located along tropical and subtropical coastlines. A new area of global significance for turtle conservation was identified in southwest India. Many sub-basins of the Indomalayan Realm were clustered as high or intermediate priority, with large clusters of high-priority sub-basins also in tropical Australasia. Other high and intermediate priority sub-basin clusters were found in the Afrotropical, Neotropical, and Nearctic realms, often in previously recognized turtle biodiversity hotspots. Many conservation-priority sub-basins with high turtle-species richness and endemism are in lowland and coastal areas where endemics (some from ancient lineages) are imperiled in association with a high human footprint. Our findings reiterate the global significance of Asia as a key area of chelonian conservation need, while identifying focal areas across the globe where the need for targeted turtle conservation is especially great.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2020

Turtle biogeography: Global regionalization and conservation priorities

Defaunation in the Anthropocene has created a need to focus limited conservation resources on geographically-explicit areas with high conservation significance. Priority conservation areas are often defined as those with high biodiversity – hotspots. While these conservation areas are critical to securing global biodiversity, prevailing approaches for their delineation are often qualitative. Here, we demonstrate the benefits of a clade-specific approach that improves conservation. We use the distinct, imperiled clade of turtles (tortoises and freshwater turtles) to delineate biogeographical regions and characterize their comparative levels of biodiversity and conservation values. We produce a quantitative, revisable map of 63 global turtle regions and identify several turtle regions, mostly in the Indomalayan turtle realm, that are high-priority conservation regions. While our high-priority turtle regions include those previously reported in the literature as turtle hotspots, we also describe a new priority conservation region in Southeast Asia (Yangtze-Huang He-Xi Yiang) which has both high species and endemism richness. Although not considered a high or intermediate conservation priority, our analyses delineated another previously unidentified turtle hotspot – the Kalahari Basin-Rift Valley. Additionally, we identify several turtle regions, largely in Central America, with intermediate conservation priority. Our results reveal that many turtle hotspots represent complex biogeographical areas with high inter-regional β -diversity, and several of these turtle-hotspots occur in transition zones with high biogeographical complexity. In these cases, inter-regional conservation efforts will be necessary to ensure turtle biodiversity conservation.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2019

Understanding reproductive allometry in turtles: A slippery “slope”

Measures of reproductive output in turtles are generally positively correlated with female body size. However, a full understanding of reproductive allometry in turtles requires logarithmic transformation of reproductive and body size variables prior to regression analyses. This allows for slope comparisons with expected linear or cubic relationships for linear to linear and linear to volumetric variables, respectively. We compiled scaling data using this approach from published and unpublished turtle studies (46 populations of 25 species from eight families) to quantify patterns among taxa. Our results suggest that for log–log comparisons of clutch size, egg width, egg mass, clutch mass, and pelvic aperture width to shell length, all scale hypoallometrically despite theoretical predictions of isometry. Clutch size generally scaled at ~1.7 to 2.0 (compared to an isometric expectation of 3.0), egg width at ~0.5 (compared to an expectation of 1.0), egg mass at ~1.1 to 1.3 (3.0), clutch mass at ~2.5 to 2.8 (3.0), and pelvic aperture width at 0.8–0.9 (1.0). We also found preliminary evidence that scaling may differ across years and clutches even in the same population, as well as across populations of the same species. Future investigators should aspire to collect data on all these reproductive parameters and to report log–log allometric analyses to test our preliminary conclusions regarding reproductive allometry in turtles.

Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2018

Global conservation status of turtles and tortoises (order Testudines)

We present a review and analysis of the conservation status and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) threat categories of all 360 currently recognized species of extant and recently extinct turtles and tortoises (Order Testudines). Our analysis is based on the 2018 IUCN Red List status of 251 listed species, augmented by provisional Red List assessments by the IUCN Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (TFTSG) of 109 currently unlisted species of tortoises and freshwater turtles, as well as re-assessments of several outdated IUCN Red List assessments. Of all recognized species of turtles and tortoises, this combined analysis indicates that 20.0% are Critically Endangered (CR), 35.3% are Critically Endangered or Endangered (CR+EN), and 51.9% are Threatened (CR+EN+Vulnerable). Adjusting for the potential threat levels of Data Deficient (DD) species indicates that 56.3% of all data-sufficient species are Threatened. We calculated percentages of imperiled species and modified Average Threat Levels (ATL; ranging from Least Concern = 1 to Extinct = 8) for various taxonomic and geographic groupings. Proportionally more species in the subfamily Geoemydinae (Asian members of the family Geoemydidae) are imperiled (74.2% CR+EN, 79.0% Threatened, 3.89 ATL) compared to other taxonomic groupings, but the families Podocnemididae, Testudinidae, and Trionychidae and the superfamily Chelonioidea (marine turtles of the families Cheloniidae and Dermochelyidae) also have high percentages of imperiled species and ATLs (42.9–50.0% CR+EN, 73.8–100.0% Threatened, 3.44–4.06 ATL). The subfamily Rhinoclemmydinae (Neotropical turtles of the family Geoemydidae) and the families Kinosternidae and Pelomedusidae have the lowest percentages of imperiled species and ATLs (0%–7.4% CR+EN, 7.4%–13.3% Threatened, 1.65–1.87 ATL). Turtles from Asia have the highest percentages of imperiled species (75.0% CR+EN, 83.0% Threatened, 3.98 ATL), significantly higher than predicted based on the regional species richness, due to much higher levels of exploitation in that geographic region. The family Testudinidae has the highest ATL (4.06) of all Testudines due to the extinction of several species of giant tortoises from Indian and Pacific Ocean islands since 1500 CE. The family Testudinidae also has an ATL higher than all other larger polytypic families (≥ 5 species) of Reptilia or Amphibia. The order Testudines is, on average, more imperiled than all other larger orders (≥ 20 species) of Reptilia, Amphibia, Mammalia, or Aves, but has percentages of CR+EN and Threatened species and an ATL (2.96) similar to those of Primates and Caudata (salamanders).

Chelonian Conservation and Biology↗

USGS2016

The biogeography of threatened insular iguanas and opportunities for invasive vertebrate management

Iguanas are a particularly threatened group of reptiles, with 61% of species at risk of extinction. Primary threats to iguanas include habitat loss, direct and indirect impacts by invasive vertebrates, overexploitation, and human disturbance. As conspicuous, charismatic vertebrates, iguanas also represent excellent flagships for biodiversity conservation. To assist planning for invasive vertebrate management and thus benefit threatened iguana recovery, we identified all islands with known extant or extirpated populations of Critically Endangered and Endangered insular iguana taxa as recognized by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. For each island, we determined total area, sovereignty, the presence of invasive alien vertebrates, and human population. For the 23 taxa of threatened insular iguanas we identified 230 populations, of which iguanas were extant on 185 islands and extirpated from 45 islands. Twenty-one iguana taxa (91% of all threatened insular iguana taxa) occurred on at least one island with invasive vertebrates present; 16 taxa had 100% of their population(s) on islands with invasive vertebrates present. Rodents, cats, ungulates, and dogs were the most common invasive vertebrates. We discuss biosecurity, eradication, and control of invasive vertebrates to benefit iguana recovery: (1) on islands already free of invasive vertebrates; (2) on islands with high iguana endemicity; and (3) for species and subspecies with small total populations occurring across multiple small islands. Our analyses provide an important first step toward understanding how invasive vertebrate management can be planned effectively to benefit threatened insular iguanas.

Book chapter↗

USGS2015

Comment on Spracklandus Hoser, 2009 (Reptilia, Serpentes, ELAPIDAE): request for confirmation of availability of the generic name and for the nomenclatural validation of the journal in which it was published (Case 3601; BZN 70:234–237; 71:30–38; 133-135,181-182 ,252-253)

In Case 3601 Raymond Hoser has asked the Commission to validate for the purposes of nomenclature the name Spracklandus Hoser, 2009, and ‘the journal in which it was published,’ issue 7 of the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH). We note that the entire run of AJH has been written, edited, and published solely by Hoser. Although his requests to the Commission were presented as narrow and, in his words, ‘routine matters,’ we are convinced that they represent an important tipping-point with broad implications of major concern for zoological taxonomy and nomenclature as a whole and, by extension, the greater scientific community. Since Hoser’s actions and works have failed to follow scientific best practices (e.g. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group, 2007, 2014; Kaiser et al., 2013; Kaiser, 2014) and both the Commission’s general Recommendations and Code of Ethics in Appendix A, the global herpetological community has widely rejected his taxonomic decisions and resultant nomenclature. This has unfortunately caused a confusing dual nomenclature to develop in the herpetological community, with most boycotting or ignoring Hoser’s 700+ new names coined in the AJH, while he and a few personal followers actively promote their usage. We believe that suppression of the name Spracklandus , and all issues of AJH, is the only effective way to bring this contentious and confusing issue to resolution. The plenary power available under Article 81.1 of the Code exist specifically to allow the Commission to make rulings in individual cases that disturb stability and cause confusion, whether the works are Code-compliant or not. We maintain that it is in the interest of nomenclatural stability, not only for herpetology, but for all of zoological taxonomy, that the plenary power be invoked to declare the works in AJH unavailable, regardless of any narrow interpretation of their technical Code-compliance. We present our arguments for rejection of the validity of AJH in the following commentary. In view of the wide-reaching implications of this case for all of zoology, and reflecting the deep and broad-based community concern over these issues, our contributing authors include 70 global scientific leaders and accomplished amateurs from a wide variety of zoological disciplines.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature↗