The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation


The distributions of amphibians, birds and mammals have underpinned global and local conservation priorities, and have been fundamental to our understanding of the determinants of global biodiversity. In contrast, the global distributions of reptiles, representing a third of terrestrial vertebrate diversity, have been unavailable. This prevented the incorporation of reptiles into conservation planning and biased our understanding of the underlying processes governing global vertebrate biodiversity. Here, we present and analyse the global distribution of 10,064 reptile species (99% of extant terrestrial species). We show that richness patterns of the other three tetrapod classes are good spatial surrogates for species richness of all reptiles combined and of snakes, but characterize diversity patterns of lizards and turtles poorly. Hotspots of total and endemic lizard richness overlap very little with those of other taxa. Moreover, existing protected areas, sites of biodiversity significance and global conservation schemes represent birds and mammals better than reptiles. We show that additional conservation actions are needed to effectively protect reptiles, particularly lizards and turtles. Adding reptile knowledge to a global complementarity conservation priority scheme identifies many locations that consequently become important. Notably, investing resources in some of the world’s arid, grassland and savannah habitats might be necessary to represent all terrestrial vertebrates efficiently.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Species richness maps of terrestrial tetrapods.
Fig. 2: Comparing reptile richness to other tetrapods.
Fig. 3: Species richness hotspots of reptiles and reptile groups.
Fig. 4: Key areas for tetrapod conservation, highlighting regions that rise in importance for conservation due to inclusion of reptiles.

Change history

  • 05 December 2017

    In the version of this Article originally published, grant no. 2015/20215-7 for C.N. was omitted from the Acknowledgements section. This has now been corrected in all versions of the Article.

  • 18 October 2017

    In this Article originally published, owing to a technical error, the author ‘Laurent Chirio’ was mistakenly designated as a corresponding author in the HTML version, the PDF was correct. This error has now been corrected in the HTML version. Further, in Supplementary Table 3, the authors misspelt the surname of ‘Danny Meirte’; this file has now been replaced.


  1. 1.

    Grenyer, R. et al. Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates. Nature 444, 93–96 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Orme, C. D. L. et al. Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat. Nature 436, 1016–1019 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Stuart, S. N. et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306, 1783–1786 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313, 58–61 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kremen, C. et al. Aligning conservation priorities across taxa in Madagascar with high-resolution planning tools. Science 320, 222–226 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Wilson, K. A., McBride, M. F., Bode, M. & Possingham, H. P. Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature 440, 337–340 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Holt, B. G. et al. An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science 339, 74–78 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schipper, J. et al. The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322, 225–230 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Bates, S. T. et al. Examining the global distribution of dominant archaeal populations in soil. ISME J. 5, 908–917 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Morueta-Holme, N. et al. Habitat area and climate stability determine geographical variation in plant species range sizes. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1446–1454 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stuart-Smith, R. D. et al. Integrating abundance and functional traits reveals new global hotspots of fish diversity. Nature 501, 539–542 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Tittensor, D. P. et al. Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa. Nature 466, 1098–1101 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mittermeier, R. A. et al. Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Ecoregions (CEMEX, Mexico City, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Olson, D. M. & Dinerstein, E. The Global 200: a representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conserv. Biol. 12, 502–515 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) Digital Boundaries. Version 2015 2 (BirdLife Intranational, Cambridge, 2015).

  16. 16.

    Jetz, W. & Rahbek, C. Geographic range size and determinants of avian species richness. Science 297, 1548–1551 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lennon, J. J., Koleff, P., Greenwood, J. J. D. & Gaston, K. J. Contribution of rarity and commonness to patterns of species richness. Ecol. Lett. 7, 81–87 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Joppa, L. N., Visconti, P., Jenkins, C. N. & Pimm, S. L. Achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity’s goals for plant conservation. Science 341, 1100–1103 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Naidoo, R. & Iwamura, T. Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol. Conserv. 140, 40–49 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Moilanen, A. et al. Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272, 1885–1891 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Pianka, E. R. in Lacertids of the Mediterranean Region (eds Valakos, E. D., Böhme, W., Pérez-Mellado, V. & Maragou, P.) 121–154 (Hellenic Zoological Society, University of Athens, Athens, 1993).

  22. 22.

    Lewin, A. et al. Patterns of species richness, endemism and environmental gradients of African reptiles. J. Biogeogr. 43, 2380–2390 (2016).

  23. 23.

    Powney, G. D., Grenyer, R., Orme, C. D. L., Owens, I. P. F. & Meiri, S. Hot, dry and different: Australian lizard richness is unlike that of mammals, amphibians and birds. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 386–396 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Böhm, M. et al. The conservation status of the world’s reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 157, 372–385 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Meiri, S. & Chapple, D. G. Biases in the current knowledge of threat status in lizards, and bridging the ‘assessment gap’. Biol. Conserv. 2014A, 6–15 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Roll, U. et al. Using Wikipedia page views to explore the cultural importance of global reptiles. Biol. Conserv. 204A, 42–50 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Bode, M. et al. Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6498–6501 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hawkins, B. A. et al. Energy, water, and broad-scale geographic patterns of species richness. Ecology 84, 3105–3117 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Uetz, P. & Hošek, J. The Reptile Database (2015);

  30. 30.

    Pouzols, F. M. et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516, 383–386 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Scott, J. M. et al. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monogr. 123, 3–41 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Maldonado, C. et al. Estimating species diversity and distribution in the era of Big Data: to what extent can we trust public databases? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 973–984 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Maréchaux, I., Rodrigues, A. S. L. & Charpentier, A. The value of coarse species range maps to inform local biodiversity conservation in a global context. Ecography (2016).

  34. 34.

    Cantú-Salazar, L. & Gaston, K. J. Species richness and representation in protected areas of the Western Hemisphere: discrepancies between checklists and range maps. Divers. Distrib. 19, 782–793 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Anselin, L. Local indicators of spatial association — LISA. Geogr. Anal. 27, 93–115 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank T. Burbidge, T. Dowe, S. Huang, S. Khela, H.-Y. Lee, K. Tamar, J. Usherwood, M. Hopkins and S. Halle for help in digitizing reptile ranges. We thank librarians and colleagues for help in obtaining relevant literature, G. Bunting and M. Balman for providing IBA polygons and bird species distribution maps from BirdLife International, as well as S. Butchart for insightful comments. A.B. thanks the Gerald M. Lemole endowed Chair funds. G.R.C. thanks CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq and Fundação de Apoio à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal – FAPDF for financial support. I.D. was supported by a Niche Research Grant Scheme, NRGS/1087/2–13(01). C.N. and M.M. were supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP no. 2011/50206-9, no. 2012/19858-2 and no. 2015/20215-7 to C.N.). M.M. acknowledges a research fellowship from CNPq. O.T.C. acknowledges support from SENESCYT. R.G. acknowledges the John Fell Fund of the University of Oxford for support. A.A. and S.M. acknowledge support from a BSF grant no. 2012143.

Author information




A.M.B., R.G., S.M., U.R. conceived the study. R.G., C.D.L.O., U.R. designed the analyses. U.R. conducted the analyses. A.F., S.M., M.N., U.R. complied, designed and curated the dataset. R.G., S.M., U.R. wrote the paper. A.A., A.M.B., M.B., R.B., B.C., F.C.H., L.C., G.R.C., L.D., I.D., T.M.D., A.F., L.L.G., M.H., Y.I., F.K., A.L., M.L., E.M., D.M., M.M., S.M., C.C.N., M.N., Z.T.N., G.P., O.S.G.P., D.P.D., U.R., R.S., O.J.S.T., O.T.C., J.F.T., E.V., P.U., P.W., Y.W. provided, collated and verified underlying data. All authors read and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shai Meiri.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Figures 1–8, Supplementary References and descriptions of Supplementary Tables 3–4

Supplementary Table 3

Full list of sources per species and details for each source.

Supplementary Table 4

List of species found in the March 2015 version of the Reptile Database ( for which we did not present or analyse distributions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roll, U., Feldman, A., Novosolov, M. et al. The global distribution of tetrapods reveals a need for targeted reptile conservation. Nat Ecol Evol 1, 1677–1682 (2017).

Download citation

Further reading


Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing