Environmental suitability and distribution of the Caucasian rock agama, Paralaudakia caucasia (Sauria: Agamidae) in Western and Central Asia

Predictive potential distribution modeling is crucial in outlining habitat usage and establishing conservation management priorities. In this paper we provide detailed data on the distribution of the Caucasian rock agama Paralaudakia caucasia, and use species distribution models (MAXENT) to evaluate environmental suitability and potential distribution at a broad spatial scale. Locality data on the distribution of P. caucasia have been gathered over nearly its entire range by various authors from field surveys. The distribution model of P. caucasia showed good performance (AUC = 0.887), and predicted high suitability in regions mainly located in Tajikistan, north Pakistan, Afghanistan, southeast Turkmenistan, northeast Iran along the Elburz mountains, Transcaucasus (Azerbajan, Armenia, Georgia), northeastern Turkey and northward along the Caspian Sea coast in Daghestan, Russia. The identification of suitable areas for this species will help to assess conservation status of the species, and to set up management programs

Distribution pattern of the Snake-eyed Lizard, Ophisops elegans Ménétriés, 1832 (Squamata: Lacertidae), in Iran

Ophisops elegans, a common lizard with a wide distribution range in Iran, was selected to investigate the influence of environmental factors on its distribution pattern. Based on a distribution model developed with the software Maxent for O. elegans, the most important factors influencing the distribution pattern were found to be high winter precipitation, intermediate levels of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and intermediate levels of sunshine. It seems that overall plant cover and competition with Mesalina watsonana are the main factors which influence the distribution pattern of O. elegans in the central Iranian Plateau

Ecological niche differentiation and taxonomic distinction between <i>Eremias strauchi strauchi</i> and <i>Eremias strauchi kopetdaghica</i> (Squamata: Lacertidae) on the Iranian Plateau based on ecological niche modeling

<p><i>Eremias strauchi strauchi</i> and <i>Eremias strauchi kopetdaghica</i> are genetically and morphologically distinct and are distributed allopatrically in northeastern and northwestern Iran. <i>E. s. strauchi</i> is distinguishable by having green spots on lateral parts of the body, while <i>E. s. kopetdaghica</i> is characterized by white spots and irregular black dots on lateral parts of the body. Recent molecular studies have suggested that these are two distinct species, but other types of analyses leave their classification unclear. In this study, we evaluated their taxonomic status using additional data (including ecological niches) to confirm the hypothesis that they are two species. All known records of their occurrence were employed to predict and evaluate the suitable areas where they may be expected to be found in Iran. We then performed niche similarity tests (niche identity and background tests) and point-based analyses to compare their ecological niches and explain ecological differentiation. Niche models of <i>E. s. strauchi</i> and <i>E. s. kopetdaghica</i> had good results and powerful performance based on high area under the curve (AUC) values [<i>E. s. strauchi</i> = 0.992, standard deviation (SD) = ± 0.008; <i>E. s. kopetdaghica</i> = 0.978, SD = ± 0.032]. Ecological differentiation has been found across the entire range, indicating that ecological differentiation had an important role in species differentiation. Environmental conditions for the species diverged along environmental variables, as precipitation of coldest quarter for the “Strauch” subspecies and precipitation of warmest quarter for the “Kopet dagh” subspecies were most important in determining habitat suitability, respectively. These two factors are important in niche differentiation between the two species and influenced their genetic divergence. Finally, our results confirmed the niche differentiation between <i>E. s. strauchi</i> and <i>E. s. kopetdaghica</i> and added new insights into the taxonomic distinction between <i>E. s. strauchi</i> and <i>E. s. kopetdaghica</i>.</p