768 M. M. Torres‐Martínez et al.
FIG. 1 Extent of occurrence (EOO) of Coendou vestitus, with (a) protected areas within the EOO, indicating the two records in protected areas, and (b) forest coverage in 2016–2017.
known taxa based on information on inferred habitat loss and restricted distribution, to avoid assigning a Data De- ficient category. The current IUCN information (Weksler et al., 2016) is incomplete (with AOO and EOO unknown) because it includes data for only from two localities (Voss, 2015). The periodic re-evaluation of a species’ Red List status is an important tool for the planning, monitoring and man- agement of biodiversity conservation (Hoffmann et al., 2010; Angulo et al., 2019). Besides being an endemic and rare species, our findings
confirm that C. vestitus is restricted to an ecosystem in which habitat is being lost and there are continuing threats from anthropogenic transformation (Thiollay, 1996;Armen- teras et al., 2003;Anguloetal., 2019). The Eastern Cordillera comprises 40%of Andean ecosystems, but only 27%ofits ori- ginal vegetation cover remains. Although this region is charac- terized by high species richness and endemism it is one of the least known and least protected ecosystems (Armenteras et al., 2003;Rodríguez-Erazo et al., 2010).Habitat loss affects the per- sistence of small mammals, which play important ecological roles, for example as seed dispersers of pioneer species, and in trophic and predator–prey relationships (Decher, 1997; Brose et al., 2006;Limaetal., 2010;Tsaietal., 2016). Although C. vestitus has previously been considered a
rare species because of the scarcity of records (Ramírez- Chaves et al., 2016), there are other reasons for it to be con- sidered rare (Cofré & Marquet, 1999). Although other por- cupines in Colombia are known from fewer specimens (e.g. C. ichillus), they are not endemic to the country, having a wider distribution (Voss, 2015). Our confirmation of rarity is based on a combination of apparent low local population density, a small range, occurrence in only one habitat type, and small body size. In general, small-sized species of Coendou (e.g. C. ichil- lus, C. roosmalenorum and C. vestitus) have more restricted
distributions in the northern part of South America com- pared to the larger species that have only one type of quills in adulthood (e.g. C. prehensilis and C. bicolor; Voss, 2015). The rarity of C. vestitus is perhaps associated with homo- plastic functional traits such as the presence of three types of hairs in adulthood (i.e. with less protection against preda- tors than species with a body fully-covered by quills) (Voss et al., 2013) and small body size (Gaston & Blackburn, 1995; Yu &Dobson, 2000). Several species of African small mam- mals have been categorized as rare or Vulnerable (Schlitter, 1989; Decher, 1997) because their size could influence preda- tor–prey relationships (Brose et al., 2006; Tsai et al., 2016). In this context, additional morphological characters may confer an adaptive advantage to large Coendou species: a body mostly covered by quills in adulthood provides a pos- sible advantage against predators (Scharf et al., 2000; Speed &Ruxton, 2005), the swollen nasofrontal sinuses protect the brain, and a larger tail facilitates arboreal locomotion, as ob- served in C. bicolor and C. prehensilis (Voss et al., 2013;Voss, 2015). The morphological and/or evolutionary reasons for the restricted range of small-sized Coendou are, however, as yet unclear, and require further research. Although 106 genera, 333 species and 61 subspecies of ro-
dents are considered threatened and have high endemism (Ceballos & Brown, 1995; Amori & Gippoliti, 2001, 2003, IUCN, 2020) a relatively lower per cent of rodents are categorized as threatened compared to other mammalian groups (Ceballos & Brown, 1995; IUCN, 1997; Amori & Gippoliti, 2001). No Coendou species are as yet categorized as threatened (IUCN, 2017): six are categorized as Data Deficient, including C. vestitus, and eight as Least Concern. The only locations of C. vestitus within protected areas
are in the 2.44 km2 Nature Reserve Parque Natural Chicaque and the 0.45 km2 Natural Civil Society Reserve Tenasuca de Pedro Palo, which together correspond to
Oryx, 2021, 55(5), 765–770 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319001029
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
