Abstract
Here, I summarize the recent changes in xenarthran taxonomy, analyze past collection efforts, and discuss knowledge gaps in Amazonian xenarthrans. Currently, there are 39 extant species of xenarthrans, represented by 22 armadillos, 10 anteaters, and 7 sloths: an increase in richness by 18% in the last 15 years. The majority of the new xenarthran species recently recognized have geographic ranges within Amazonia, highlighting the importance of this biome to the evolution of this autochthonous South American group. Nevertheless, studies on Brazilian xenarthrans have been conducted mainly in the Cerrado and Pantanal (for armadillos and anteaters), and Atlantic Forest (for sloths). In the Brazilian Amazon, where fully half of the xenarthran species occur, natural history information is based on few unquantified observations and short-term studies. Past research has concentrated on widely distributed species and in areas close to roads and rivers in the eastern and central portions of the biome. The knowledge gaps are even more alarming when we consider the accelerated deforestation rate in the eastern Amazon, where at least three xenarthran species are endemic. There is vast potential for future projects aiming to explore the taxonomy and ecology of xenarthrans, particularly those studies focusing on Amazonian populations.
Resumo
A superordem Xenarthra inclui tatus, preguiças e tamanduás e representa um dos clados mais antigos de mamíferos placentários. Neste capítulo eu apresento as mudanças recentes na taxonomia dos xenartras, analiso as tendências de esforço amostral na Amazônia brasileira e discuto as lacunas de conhecimento sobre os xenartras amazônicos. Após um longo hiato em estudos de taxonomia de xenartras, a última década representou um grande avanço no reconhecimento de novos táxons. Atualmente existem 39 espécies viventes, representadas por 22 tatus, 10 tamanduás e 7 preguiças, um aumento na riqueza de espécies em 18% nos últimos 15 anos. A maioria dos novos táxons reconhecidos recentemente ocorrem na Amazônia, destacando a importância do bioma para a evolução desse grupo autóctone sulamericano. No entanto, estudos sobre os xenartras brasileiros têm sido conduzidos principalmente nos biomas Cerrado e Pantanal (para tatus e tamanduás) e na Mata Atlântica (para preguiças). Informações sobre história natural das populações presentes na Amazônia brasileira, onde metade das espécies de xenartras viventes ocorre, são baseadas em poucas observações de campo e em estudos de curto prazo. Os registros de xenartras nesse bioma focaram em espécies com uma ampla distribuição, cerca de 55% dos 4335 registros levantados foram de Tamandua tetradactyla (26.4%), Dasypus novemcinctus (16.8%) e Myrmecophaga tridactyla (11.7%). Enquanto as espécies endêmicas da Amazônia possuem o menor número de registros, como Bradypus tridactylus, Choloepus didactylus, Dasypus kappleri, Dasypus beniensis e Dasypus pastasae, que juntos contabilizam apenas 11% de todos os registros no bioma. Além disso, há um claro enviesamento amostral para regiões próximas a estradas e rios nas porções leste e central da Amazônia brasileira. Em particular, os registros estão concentrados no leste dos estados do Pará e Maranhão e em áreas ao redor das cidades de Manaus e Santarém. Grande parte do oeste do estado do Amazonas, sul do Pará, Amapá, Mato Grosso e Rondônia possuem um número baixo de registros. As lacunas de conhecimento são ainda mais alarmantes quando consideramos o acelerado ritmo de desmatamento na Amazônia oriental, onde pelo menos três espécies de xenartras são endêmicas (Cyclopes rufus, C. xinguensis e Dasypus beniensis). As informações apresentadas neste capítulo demonstram que a última década representou um marco no descobrimento de novos xenartras e revelam ainda um grande potencial a ser explorado, principalmente na Amazônia brasileira. O sucesso de ações de conservação dependerá de futuros projetos que visem explorar a taxonomia e ecologia dos tatus, preguiças e tamanduás presentes nesse bioma.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abba AM, Cassini GH, Valverde G et al (2015) Systematics of hairy armadillos and the taxonomic status of the Andean hairy armadillo (Chaetophractus nationi). J Mammal 96(4):673–689. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv082
Aguiar JM, Fonseca GAB (2008) Conservation status of Xenarthra. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 215–231
Alves RRN, Feijó A, Barboza RRD et al (2016) Game mammals of the Caatinga biome. Ethnobiol Conserv 5:1–51. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2016-7-5.5-1-51
Andrade GSM, Rhodes JR (2012) Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol Soc 17(4):14–23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414
Billet G, Hautier L, de Thoisy B, Delsuc F (2017) The hidden anatomy of paranasal sinuses reveals biogeographically distinct morphotypes in the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). PeerJ 5:e3593. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3593
Chiarello AG (2008) Sloth ecology: an overview of field studies. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 269–280
Fearnside PM (2017) Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. In: Hugart HS (ed) Oxford research encyclopedia of environmental science. Oxford University Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.102
Feijó A, Anacleto TC (2021) Taxonomic revision of the genus Cabassous McMurtrie, 1831 (Cingulata: Chlamyphoridae), with revalidation of Cabassous squamicaudis (Lund, 1845). Zootaxa 4974(1):47–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9832-2
Feijó A, Brandão MV (2022) Taxonomy as the first step towards conservation: an appraisal on the taxonomy of medium- and large-sized Neotropical mammals in the 21st century. Zoology 39:e22007. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-4689.v39.e22007
Feijó A, Cordeiro-Estrela P (2016) Taxonomic revision of the Dasypus kappleri complex, with revalidations of Dasypus pastasae (Thomas, 1901) and Dasypus beniensis Lönnberg, 1942 (Cingulata, Dasypodidae). Zootaxa 4170(2):271–297. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4170.2.3
Feijó A, Patterson BD, Cordeiro-Estrela P (2018) Taxonomic revision of the long-nosed armadillos, Genus Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Cingulata). PLoS One 13(4):e0195084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195084
Feijó A, Vilela JF, Cheng J et al (2019) Phylogeny and molecular species delimitation of long-nosed armadillos (Dasypus, Cingulata) supports morphology-based taxonomy. Zool J Linnean Soc 186(3):813–825. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zly091
Feijó A, Patterson BD, Cordeiro-Estrela P (2020) Phenotypic variability and environmental tolerance shed light on the nine-banded armadillo Nearctic invasion. Biol Invasions 22(2):255–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02085-8
Feijó A, Ge D, Wen Z, Xia L, Yang Q (2022) Identifying hotspots and priority areas for xenarthran research and conservation. Divers Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13473
Fernandes-Ferreira H (2014) A caça no Brasil: panorama histórico e atual. Dissertation, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Paraíba
Fonseca MG, Alves LM, Aguiar APD et al (2019) Effects of climate and land-use change scenarios on fire probability during the 21st century in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob Chang Biol 25(9):2931–2946. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14709
Gardner AL (2008) Suborder Vermilingua Illiger, 1811. In: Gardner AL (ed) Mammals of South America, Marsupials, xenarthrans, shrews, and bats, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 168–177
Gardner AL, Naples VL (2008) Family Megalonychidae P. Gervais, 1855. In: Gardner AL (ed) Mammals of South America, Marsupials, xenarthrans, shrews, and bats, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 165–168
Gaudin TJ (1999) The morphology of xenarthrous vertebrae (Mammalia: Xenarthra). Fieldiana 41:1–38
Gaudin TJ, McDonald HG (2008) Morphology-based investigations of the phylogenetic relationships among extant and fossil xenarthrans. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 24–36
Gibb GC, Condamine FL, Kuch M et al (2016) Shotgun mitogenomics provides a reference phylogenetic framework and timescale for living xenarthrans. Mol Biol Evol 33(3):621–642. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msv250
GRDC (2020) Major river basins of the world. Global Runoff Data Centre. 2nd, rev. ext. ed. Koblenz, Germany: Federal Institute of Hydrology (BfG).
Hautier L, Billet G, Eastwood B, Lane J (2014) Patterns of morphological variation of extant sloth skulls and their implication for future conservation efforts. Anat Rec 297(6):979–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.22916
Hautier L, Billet G, de Thoisy B, Delsuc F (2017) Beyond the carapace: skull shape variation and morphological systematics of long-nosed armadillos (genus Dasypus). PeerJ 5:e3650. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3650
Hill RV (2006) Comparative anatomy and histology of xenarthran osteoderms. J Morphol 267(12):1441–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.10490
IUCN (2018) The IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2018–1. www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 8 December 2018
Kirby KR, Laurance WF, Albernaz AK et al (2006) The future of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Futures 38(4):432–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.07.011
Laurance WF, Vasconcelos L, Lovejoy TE (2000) Forest loss and fragmentation in the Amazon: implications for wildlife conservation. Oryx 34(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.2000.00094.x
McNab BK (1980) Energetics and the limits to a temperate distribution in armadillos. J Mammal 61(4):606–627. https://doi.org/10.2307/1380307
McNab BK (1985) Energetics, population biology, and distribution of xenarthrans, living and extinct. In: Montgomery GG (ed) The evolution and ecology of armadillos, sloths and vermilinguas. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp 219–232
Meijer JR, Huijbregts MAJ, Schotten KCGJ, Schipper AM (2018) Global patterns of current and future road infrastructure. Environ Res Lett 13(6):64006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabd42
Meredith RW, Janečka JE, Gatesy J et al (2011) Impacts of the Cretaceous terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science 334(6055):521–524. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211028
Miranda FR, Machado FA, Casali DM, Perini FA, Santos FR (2018) Taxonomic review of the genus Cyclopes Gray, 1821 (Xenarthra: Pilosa), with the revalidation and description of new species. Zool J Linnean Soc 183(3):687–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx079
Ohana JAB (2011) Variação morfológica do tamanduá-mirim, Tamandua tetradactyla (Linnaeus, 1758) (Pilosa, Vermilingua). Master thesis. Universidade do Pará, Belém
Oliveira U, Paglia AP, Brescovit AD et al (2016) The strong influence of collection bias on biodiversity knowledge shortfalls of Brazilian terrestrial biodiversity. Divers Distrib 22(12):1232–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12489
Oliver JD, Jones KE, Hautier L, Loughry WJ, Pierce SE (2016) Vertebral bending mechanics and xenarthrous morphology in the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). J Exp Biol 219(19):2991–3002. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.142331
Patterson B (2001) Fathoming tropical biodiversity: the continuing discovery of Neotropical mammals. Divers Distrib 7(4):191–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2001.00109.x
Patterson B, Pascual R (1968) Evolution of mammals on southern continents: the fossil mammal fauna of South America. Q Rev Biol 43(4):409–451. https://doi.org/10.1086/405916
Patton JL, Pardiñas UFJ, D’Elía G (2015) Mammals of South America, volume 2 – rodents. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Redford KH (1986) Dietary specialization and variation in two mammalian myrmecophages (variation in mammalian myrmecophagy). Rev Chil Hist Nat 59(1):201–208
Redford KH, Wetzel RM (1985) Euphractus sexcinctus. Mamm Species 252:1–4. https://doi.org/10.2307/3503786
Rodrigues FHB, Medri IM, Miranda GHB, Camilo-Alves C, Mourão G (2008) Anteater behavior and ecology. In: Vizcaíno SF, Loughry WJ (eds) The biology of the Xenarthra. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp 257–268
Ruíz-García M, Chacón D, Plese T, Schuler I, Shostell JM (2017) Mitogenomics phylogenetic relationships of the current sloth’s genera and species (Bradypodidae and Megalonychidae). Mitochondrial DNA Part A 29(2):281–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701394.2016.1275602
Santos PM, Bocchiglieri A, Chiarello AG et al (2019) Neotropical Xenarthrans: a data set of occurrence of xenarthran species in the Neotropics. Ecology 100(7):e02663. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2663
Schetino MAA (2017) Análises moleculares em Xenarthra: contribuições para a sistemática filogenética de Tolypeutinae, taxonomia de Cabassous e filogeografia de Bradypus torquatus. Doctoral thesis. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte
Silva JMC, Rylands AB, Fonseca GAB (2005) The fate of the Amazonian areas of endemism. Conserv Biol 19(3):689–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00705.x
Silva SM, Santos PM, Molina KT et al (2020) Wildfire against the survival of Xenarthra: anteaters, armadillos, and sloths. Bol Mus Para Emílio Goeldi Sér Ciênc Nat 15(3):523–532. https://doi.org/10.46357/bcnaturais.v15i3.214
Superina M, Cortés Duarte A, Trujillo F (2018) Connecting research, management, education and policy for the conservation of armadillos in the Orinoco Llanos of Colombia. Oryx 53(1):17–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000790
Voss RS, Fleck DW (2017) Mammalian diversity and Matses ethnomammalogy in Amazonian Peru. Part 2: Xenarthra, Carnivora, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla, and Sirenia. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 2017(417):1–118. https://doi.org/10.1206/00030090-417.1.1
Wetzel RM, Gardner AL, Redford KH, Eisenberg JF (2008) Order Cingulata Illiger, 1811. In: Gardner AL (ed) Mammals of South America, Marsupials, xenarthrans, shrews, and bats, vol 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 128–157
Wilson DE, Reeder DM (2005) Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Wilson R. Spironello, Adrian A. Barnett, Jessica W. Lynch, Paulo E.D. Bobrowiec, and Sarah A. Boyle for the invitation to contribute to this book. During the development of this study, I was supported by the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (Grant: 2019QZKK0402 and 2019QZKK0501) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences President’s International Fellowship Initiative (Grant numbers 2018PB0040/2021PB0021). Professor Teresa Cristina Anacleto kindly reviewed a previous version of this chapter. Her generosity, kindness, and legacy in studies of Brazilian xenarthrans will always be remembered. This work is dedicated to her memory.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Feijó, A. (2023). Xenarthrans of Brazilian Amazonia: Recent Discoveries, Knowledge Gaps, and Conservation Concerns. In: Spironello, W.R., Barnett, A.A., Lynch, J.W., Bobrowiec, P.E.D., Boyle, S.A. (eds) Amazonian Mammals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43071-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43071-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-43070-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-43071-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)