EDP Foz Tua: Terrestrial Vertebrates Baseline_studies (EIA) [2006]

The dataset contains records of terrestrial vertebrates (Amphibians, Reptiles and Macromammals) colected in the lower Tua river and included in the Baseline Studies of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Foz Tua Hydroelectric Dam, promoted by EDP – Energias de Portugal, S.A. Data were collected between May and September 2006, during field visits to nine 5km-sections of the river Tua, between the mouth and the village of Cachão, 45 km upstream. The presence of taxa belonging to the target groups (individuals and/or evidence of occurrence, like scats or footprints) was recorded. Twenty-eight taxa were identified, 26 to the species rank (5 amphibians, 12 reptiles and 9 mammals), and two to the genus rank (1 amphibian and 1 mammal).

Default

Identification

Alternate Identifier
10.15468/3yzo7e
Alternate Identifier
http://ipt.gbif.pt/ipt/resource?r=edp_foz_tua_terrestrial_vertebrates_baseline_studies_2006
Publication Date
2018-06-28
Title
EDP Foz Tua: Terrestrial Vertebrates Baseline_studies (EIA) [2006]
Abstract
The dataset contains records of terrestrial vertebrates (Amphibians, Reptiles and Macromammals) colected in the lower Tua river and included in the Baseline Studies of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Foz Tua Hydroelectric Dam, promoted by EDP – Energias de Portugal, S.A. Data were collected between May and September 2006, during field visits to nine 5km-sections of the river Tua, between the mouth and the village of Cachão, 45 km upstream. The presence of taxa belonging to the target groups (individuals and/or evidence of occurrence, like scats or footprints) was recorded. Twenty-eight taxa were identified, 26 to the species rank (5 amphibians, 12 reptiles and 9 mammals), and two to the genus rank (1 amphibian and 1 mammal).
purpose
This dataset is part of a broader initiative whereby the company EDP - Energias de Portugal S.A. will made available biodiversity data collected during impact assessment and biological monitoring studies.
Dataset Language
ENGLISH
 
Dataset Creator
  CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos - Tiago Múrias (Researcher )
Campus Agrário de Vairão , Vairão , 4485-661 ,
Dataset Creator
  CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto - Sérgio Bruno Ribeiro (Technician )
Campus Agrário de Vairão , Vairão , 4485-661 ,
Dataset Creator
  CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e - Paulo Célio Alves (Coordinator )
Campus Agrário de Vairão , Vairão , 4485-661 , PORTUGAL
Metadata Provider
  Tiago Múrias (Researcher )
Campus Agrário de Vairão - Crasto , CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto , 4485-661 , PORTUGAL
Associated Party
USER
  CIBIO-InBIO, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto - Tiago Múrias (Researcher )
Campus Agrário de Vairão , Vairão , 4485-661 ,
Dataset Contact
  EDP - Energia de Portugal - João Madeira (Manager )
Av. 24 de Julho, 12, Torre Nascente, Piso 4 , Lisbon , 1249-300 Lisboa , PORTUGAL
Keywords (GBIF Dataset Type Vocabulary: http://rs.gbif.org/vocabulary/gbif/dataset_type.xml )
  • Occurrence; Observation; amphibians; reptiles; terrestrial macromammals; presence; transects; 5 km-sections

Geographic Coverage

Geographic Description
The data were collected in the last 45 km of the river Tua (Northeast Portugal), from the village of Cachão to its mouth, within the municipalities of Alijó, Carrazeda de Ansiães, Murça, Vila Flor and Mirandela

Bounding Box

West Bounding Coordinate
-7.464
East Bounding Coordinate
-7.155
North Bounding Coordinate
41.423
South Bounding Coordinate
41.211

Temporal Coverage

Range of Dates

Begin Date

2006-05-05

End Date

2006-09-15

Taxonomic Coverage

General Taxonomic Coverage
The taxonomic coverage of this dataset spans 1 phylum, 3 classes, 8 orders, 19 families, 26 species and 2 genus.

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Phylum
Taxonomic Rank Value
Chordata

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Class
Taxonomic Rank Value
Amphibia

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Class
Taxonomic Rank Value
Reptilia

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Class
Taxonomic Rank Value
Mammalia

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Anura

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Caudata

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Squamata

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Testudines

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Carnivora

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Lagomoprha

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Artiodactyla

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Order
Taxonomic Rank Value
Rodentia

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Alytidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Salamandridae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Ranidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Bufonidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Lacertidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Blanidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Scincidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Colubridae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Lamprophiidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Geoemydidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Natricidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Phyllodactylidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Viverridae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Mustelidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Leporidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Sciuridae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Suidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Canidae

Taxonomic Classification

Taxonomic Rank Name
Family
Taxonomic Rank Value
Muridae

License Information

Intellectual Rights

This work is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License

.

 
 
 

Projects

Projects

• ProjectEDP Biodiversity Data

Title
Baseline Studies to the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Foz Tua Hydroelectric Dam – Terrestrial Vertebrates (EIA)

Personnel

Individual Name

Given Name
Tiago
Surname
Múrias
Role
AUTHOR

Personnel

Individual Name

Given Name
Sérigo Bruno
Surname
Ribeiro
Role
AUTHOR

Personnel

Individual Name

Given Name
Paulo Célio
Surname
Alves
Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Abstract
The dataset contains records of terrestrial vertebrates (Amphibians, Reptiles and Macromammals) colected in the lower Tua river and included in the Baseline Studies to the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Foz Tua Hydroelectric Dam, promoted by EDP – Energias de Portugal, S.A. Data were collected between May and September 2006, during field visits to nine 5km-sections of the river Tua, between the mouth and the village of Cachão, 45 km upstream. The occurrence of the target taxa was documented through 91 observations or evidence of occurrence inequivocaly established. In total, 28 taxa were identified, 26 to the species rank (5 amphibians, 12 reptiles and 9 mammals), and two to the genus rank (1 amphibian and 1 mammal).The most common species were Psammodromus algirus (Reptilia, squamata), with 12 occurrences and Martes foina (Mammalia, Carnivora) with 10 occurrences. Other relevant taxa were Tarentola mauritanica (Reptilia, Squamata), with 7 occurrences and Vulpes vulpes and Lutra lutra (Mammalia Carnivora) with 6 occurrences each.
Funding
The work was funded by EDP - Energias de Portugal, S.A.

Study Area Description

Descriptor

The study was conducted in part of the sub-basin of river Tua, prior to the construction and subsequent flooding of the lower part of this river’s valley by the Foz-Tua Hydroelectric Dam, along the lower valleys of river Tua.

Design Description

Description
The objective of the study was to document the occurrence of the target groups in the lower Tua valley in order to assess the environmental relevance of the study area to the fauna of terrestrial vertebrates within the scope of the EIA of the Foz-Tua dam.
 
 

Methods

Methods

• Method

Method Step

Description
To be completed

Sampling

Study Extent

The study was carried out in nine 5km-sections of the river Tua, which were visited several times between May and September 2006, from the mouth to the village of Cachão, 45 km upstream.

Sampling Description

Sampling was designed to cover an area of 5 km x 1 km (approximately) in each section of river considered. One to several 1.2 km transects per section were established, mostly along the deactivated river Tua railway, but also in the hillsides of the valley, covering both margins. Each transect was visited once between May and September 2006, but all efforts were made to ensure that each river section received at least one transect. Additional observations made in the same time frame outside the sampling transects were also included.

Each 1.2 km-transect was walked at a slow pace, and apart from the spontaneous observations, an effort was made to search all places in the path that had the appropriate habitat conditions (eg., holes, bushes, ponds, streams). The position of each species detected (either directly by observation or indirectly by examining scats and/or footprints) was recorded and georeferenced with a GPS (WGS84 datum).

Species identification were usually possible “in locus” in the case of observation events and for footprints, through appropriate field guides. In the case of the scats, whenever an unequivocal identification was not possible in the field, they were taken for laboratory for subsequent anatomic analysis (fur examination). Only the occurrence (ie, presence/absence) of the species in each point and transect was documented, that is, no effort was made to quantify the number of individuals or scats/footprints present for each observation.

qualityControl

Description
...
 
 

Not available