Background and Research Aims: The loss of biodiversity in the contemporary era is largely driven by human activities such as deforestation, agriculture, and urbanization, and is further exacerbated by climate change. Amphibians, particularly anurans, are especially vulnerable due to their reliance on aquatic ecosystems and limited dispersal abilities, with habitat loss, disease, and climate change causing severe population declines, notably in the Atlantic Forest. One approach to uncover these subtle declines is through the analysis of individual historical records. This study aims to examine the spatiotemporal records of Dryadobates spp. populations from the Atlantic Forest, assessing historical trends and predicting future habitat changes under climate change scenarios. Methods: A comprehensive review was conducted, including literature records, specimens from scientific collections, and expert communications. Spatiotemporal data on Dryadobates spp. populations were compiled and analyzed. Ecological niche models were employed to predict the distribution and habitat suitability of Dryadobates spp. under future climate change scenarios. Results: We identified a significant reduction in sampling for Dryadobates spp. during the 1980s and 1990s, with an absence of resampling for over 35 years in a third of the sites with historical records. However, some populations have been rediscovered since 2000, mirroring patterns observed for other anuran species in the Atlantic Forest. Ecological niche models indicated a substantial reduction and fragmentation of suitable habitat for this genus under future climate change scenarios, particularly in the southeastern portion of its distribution. Conclusion: These findings underscore the importance of combining historical data with future projections to gain a comprehensive understanding of Dryadobates spp. population dynamics. This approach provides critical insights into the factors driving population declines and habitat loss and forms a foundation for targeted conservation efforts. Implications for Conservation: Maintaining habitat connectivity and addressing climate change impacts are critical priorities for the conservation of Atlantic Forest anurans. Conservation strategies should include preserving undisturbed forests, restoring fragmented habitats, and engaging local communities to protect amphibian biodiversity in this globally significant hotspot. By implementing these measures, the long-term survival of Dryadobates spp. populations and the ecological integrity of the Atlantic Forest can be better ensured.
Aiello‐LammensM. E.BoriaR. A.RadosavljevicA.VilelaB.AndersonR. P. (2015). spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography, 38, 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01132
2.
Augusto-AlvesG.das Neves-da-SilvaD.ChecchinatoJ.de CarvalhoA. M. P. T.ToledoL. F. (2023). Giant and Phantom Frogs in the Atlantic Forest: Historical distribution and conservation implications. Journal for Nature Conservation, 75, 126460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2023.126460
3.
BeckerC. G.FonsecaC. R.HaddadC. F. B.BatistaR. F.PradoP. I. (2007). Habitat split and the global decline of amphibians. Science, 318, 1775–1777. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149374
4.
BlausteinA. R.KieseckerJ. M. (2002). Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters, 5, 597–608. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-0248.2002.00352.x
5.
BoothT. H.NixH. A.BusbyJ. R.HutchinsonM. F. (2014). BIOCLIM: the first species distribution modelling package, its early applications and relevance to most current MAXENT studies. Diversity and Distributions, 20, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12144
BreimanL. (2001). Random forests. Machine learning, 45, 5–32.
8.
CamposF. S.BritoD.SoléM. (2013). Threatened Amphibians and Their Conservation Status within the Protected Area Network in Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Herpetology,47(2), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1670/11-1
9.
CarnavalA. C.HickersonM.HaddadC.RodriguesM. T.MoritzC. (2009). Stability predicts genetic diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest hotspot. Science,323(5915), 758–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1166955.
10.
CarnavalA. C.MoritzC. (2008). Historical climate modelling predicts patterns of current biodiversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Journal of Biogeography,35(7), 1187–1201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01870.x
11.
CarnavalA. C.PuschendorfR.PeixotoO. L.VerdadeV. K.RodriguesM. T. (2006). Amphibian chytrid fungus broadly distributed in the Brazilian Atlantic Rain Forest. EcoHealth, 3, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-005-0008-2
12.
CarvalhoT.BeckerC. G.ToledoL. F. (2017). Historical amphibian declines and extinctions in Brazil linked to chytridiomycosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284, 20162254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2254
13.
CeronK.ProveteD. B.PiresM. M.AraujoA.C.BlüthgenN.SantanaD. J. (2022). Differences in prey availability across space and time lead to interaction rewiring and reshape a predator–prey metaweb. Ecology, 103, e3716. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.3716
14.
CohenJ. M.CivitelloD. J.VeneskyM. D.McMahonT. A.RohrJ. R. (2019). An interaction between climate change and infectious disease drove widespread amphibian declines. Global Change Biology, 25, 927–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14489
15.
CollinsJ. P. (2010). Amphibian decline and extinction: What we know and what we need to learn. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms,92, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao02307
CushmanS. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus. Biological Conservation, 128, 231–240.
18.
FerreiraR. B.MônicoA. T.da SilvaE. T.LirioF. C. F.ZoccaC.MageskiM. M.ToniniJ. F. R.BeardK. H.DucaC.Silva-SoaresT. (2019). Amphibians of Santa Teresa, Brazil: the hotspot further evaluated. ZooKeys,857, 139. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.857.30302
19.
FortiL. R.SilvaT. R. A.ToledoL. F. (2017). The acoustic repertoire of the Atlantic Forest Rocket Frog (Allobates, Aromobatidae) and its consequences for taxonomy and conservation. Zookeys,692, 141–153. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.692.12187
20.
FrankhamR. (2010). Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biological Conservation, 143(9), 1919–1927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.011
GrantT.LyraM. L.HofreiterM.PreickM.BarlowA.VerdadeV. K.RodriguesM. T.. (2025). Museomics and the systematics of the Atlantic Forest Nurse Frogs (Dendrobatoidea: Aromobatidae: Allobatinae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History,472, 1–76.
24.
GreenD. M. (2003). The ecology of extinction: population fluctuation and decline in amphibians. Biological Conservation, 111, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00302-6
HastieT.TibshiraniR.BujaA. (1994). Flexible discriminant analysis by optimal scoring. Journal of the American statistical association,89(428), 1255–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1994.10476866
27.
HopkinsW. A. (2007). Amphibians as models for studying environmental change. ILAR journal, 48(3), 270–277.
IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896
30.
IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group & Instituto Boitatá de Etnobiologia e Conservação da Fauna. (2023). Allobates olfersioides. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2023: e.T55122A117548027. Accessed on 11 July 2025.https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2023-1.RLTS.T55122A117548027.en.
31.
IzecksohnE.Carvalho-e-SilvaS.P. (2001). Anfíbios do município do Rio de Janeiro. Editora UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro.
32.
JantzS. M.BarkerB.BrooksT. M.ChiniL. P.HuangQ.MooreR. M.NoelJ.HurttG. C. (2015). Future habitat loss and extinctions driven by land-use change in biodiversity hotspots under four scenarios of climate-change mitigation. Conservation Biology, 29, 1122–1131. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12549
33.
JaynesK. E.Páez-VacasM. I.Salazar-ValenzuelaD.GuayasaminJ. M.Terán- ValdezA.SiavichayF. R.FitzpatrickS. W.ColomaL. A. (2022). Harlequin frog rediscoveries provide insights into species persistence in the face of drastic amphibian declines. Biological Conservation, 276, Article 109784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109784
34.
KacolirisF. P.BerkunskyI.AcostaJ. C.AcostaR.AgostiniM. G.AkmentinsM. S.ArelanoM. L.AzatC.BachN. C.BlancoG. M.CalvoR.CharrierA.CorbalánV.CorreaC.CuelloM. E.DeutschC.Di-PietroD.GastónM. S.Gómes-AlésR.KassC.WilliamsJ. D. (2022). Current threats faced by amphibian populations in the southern cone of South America. Journal for Nature Conservation, 69, Article 126254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126254
35.
KargerD. N.ConradO.BöhnerJ.KawohlT.KreftH.Soria-AuzaR. W.ZimmermannN. E.LinderH. P.KesslerM. (2017). Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Scientific data, 4(1), 1–20.
36.
LipsK. R.DiffendorferJ.MendelsonJ. R.IIISearsM. W. (2008). Riding the wave: Reconciling the roles of disease and climate change in amphibian declines. PLoS Biology, 6, e72. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060072
37.
MartinelliG.MoraesM. A. (2013). Livro Vermelho da Flora do Brasil. Instituto de Pesquisas Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro.
MittermeierR. A.TurnerW. R.LarsenF. W.BrooksT. M.GasconC. (2011). Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In ZachosF. E.HabelJ. C. (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots: Distribution and protection of conservation priority areas (pp. 3–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1
40.
MorroneJ. J.EscalanteT.Rodríguez-TapiaG.CarmonaA.AranaM.Mercado-GómezJ. D. (2022). Biogeographic regionalization of the Neotropical region: New map and shapefile. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 94, e20211167. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202220211167
41.
MouraG. J. B.SantosE. M.AndradeE. V. E.FreireE. M. X. (2011). Distribuição geográfica e caracterização ecológica dos anfíbios de Pernambuco. Herpetologia no estado de Pernambuco, pp. 51-84. IBAMA, Brasília. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0031-10492013001600001
42.
NaimiB. (2013). Package ‘usdm’. Uncertainty analysis for species distribution models, R Packag. version 1, 1–12.
43.
NapoliM.MenezesL.AbreuR. O. (2017). Anfíbios. In: NunesJ.M.C.MatosM.R. (ed.), Litoral Norte da Bahia: Caracterização Ambiental, Biodiversidade e Conservação, pp. 357–392. EDUFBA, Salvador.
44.
NewboldT.AdamsG. L.Albaladejo RoblesG.BoakesE. H.Braga FerreiraG.ChapmanA. S. A.EtardA.GibbR.MillardJ.OuthwaiteJ. R.WilliamsJ. J. (2019). Climate and land-use change homogenise terrestrial biodiversity, with consequences for ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Emerging Topics in Life Sciences, 3, 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1042/ETLS20180135
45.
NowakowskiA. J.ThompsonM. E.DonnellyM. A.ToddB. D. (2017). Amphibian sensitivity to habitat modification is associated with population trends and species traits. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 26, 700–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12571
46.
RebouçasR.SantosM. M.MartinsA. G. S.DomingosA. H. R.SantosI.ToledoL. F. (2021). Warming drives cryptic amphibian declines in eastern Brazil. Biological Conservation, 256, Article 109035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109035
47.
RibeiroM. C.MetzgerJ. P.MartensenA. C.PonzoniF. J.HirotaM. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation,142(6), 1141–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
48.
RidgewayG. (1999). The state of boosting. Computing Science and Statistics, 172–181.
49.
SabajM. H. (2020). Codes for Natural History Collections in Ichthyology and Herpetology. Copeia, 108(3), 593–669. https://doi.org/10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020
50.
SalesL. P.RodriguesL.MasieroR. (2021). Climate change drives spatial mismatch and threatens the biotic interactions of the Brazil nut. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 30, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13200
51.
ScaranoF. R.CeottoP. (2015). Brazilian Atlantic Forest: impact, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(9), 2319–2331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0972-y
52.
ScheeleB. C.PasmansF.SkerrattL. F.BergerL.MartelA.BeukemaW.AcevedoA. A.BurrowesP. A.CarvalhoT.CatenazziA.De La RivaI.FisherM. C.FlechasS. V.FosterC. N.Frías-ÁlvarezP.GarnerT. W. J.GratwickeB.GuayasaminJ. M.HirschfeldM.KolbyJ. E.KoschT. A.La MarcaE.LindenmayerD. B.LipsK. R.LongoA. V.ManeyroR.McDonaldC. A.Mendelson IIIJ.Palacios-RodriguezP.Parra-OleaG.Richards-ZawackiC. L.RödelM. O.RovitoS. M.Soto-AazatC.ToledoL. F.VoylesJ.WeldonC.WhitfieldS. M.WilkinsonM.ZamudioK. R.CanessaS. (2019). Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science, 363, 1459–1463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav0379
53.
SchleuningM.FründJ.SchweigerO.WelkE.AlbrechtJ.AlbrechtM.BeilM.BenadiG.BlüthgenN.BruelheideH.Böhning-GaeseK.DehlingD. M.DormannC. F.ExelerN.FarwigN.HarpkeA.HicklerT.KratochwilA.KuhlmannM.KühnI.MichezD.Mudri-StojnićS.PleinM.RasmontP.SchwabeA.SetteleJ.VujićA.WeinerC. N.WiemersM.HofC. (2016). Ecological networks are more sensitive to plant than to animal extinction under climate change. Nature Communication, 7, 13965. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13965
54.
SergioF.BlasJ.HiraldoF. (2018). Animal responses to natural disturbance and climate extremes: a review. Global and Planetary Change, 161, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.10.009
55.
StorchD.ŠímováI.SmyčkaJ.BohdalkováE.ToszogyovaA.OkieJ. G. (2021). Biodiversity dynamics in the Anthropocene: how human activities change equilibria of species richness. Ecography, 44, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05778
56.
ThuillerW.GeorgesD.EnglerR.BreinerF. (2016). biomod2: Ensemble platform for species distribution modeling. R package version3.3-7.
57.
TinocoM. S.RibeiroH. C. B.CerqueiraR.DiasM.A.NascimentoI. A. (2008). Habitat change and amphibian conservation in the Atlantic Forest of Bahia, Brazil.
58.
ToledoL. F.Carvalho-e-SilvaS. P.Carvalho-e-SilvaA. M. P. T.GaspariniJ. L.BaêtaD.RebouçasR.HaddadC. F. B.BeckerC. G.CarvalhoT. (2023). A retrospective overview of amphibian declines in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation, 277, Article 109845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109845
59.
TurveyS. T.CreesJ. J. (2019). Extinction in the Anthropocene. Current Biology, 29, R982–R986.
VerdadeV. K.RodriguesM. T. (2007). Taxonomic review of Allobates (Anura, Aromobatidae) from the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Journal of Herpetology,41, 566–580. https://doi.org/10.1670/06-094.1
62.
WeygoldtP. (1989). Changes in the composition of mountain stream frog communities in the Atlantic mountains of Brazil: Frogs as indicators of environmental deteriorations?Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650528909360795
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
