José Carlos Báez
Davinia Torreblanca- Centro Oceanográfico de Málaga, Instituto Español de Oceanografía-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (IEO-CSIC), Málaga, Spain
1 Introduction
Archaeological sites and historical monuments are well-known as preferential habitats for reptiles (Calderón-Mandujano et al., 2008; Báez et al., 2016; Simbula et al., 2019). There are numerous examples of the high diversity of reptiles within and around these sites. For instance, Somaweera et al. (2001) discovered a rich herpetofauna diversity in the Archaeological Reserve of Menikdena (Sri Lanka). Báez et al. (2016) reviewed the significance of the ancient city of Kaunos (modern-day Dalyan city, Muğla, Turkey) and found that a small area contained 13% of Turkey’s reptile species. At the Machu Picchu Historic Sanctuary, two new species from the genus Proctoporus (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae), P. machupicchu and P. optimus, have been described from individuals collected in the area (Mamani et al., 2015; 2022). Similarly, López-Vila et al. (2018) reported high herpetofaunal diversity in the Archaeological Park of Iglesia Vieja (Chiapas, Mexico), identifying 61 species (12 amphibians and 49 reptiles), with 35% of these species listed as threatened.
The main reasons speculated for this high species richness in archaeological sites include the availability of refuges and cavities provided by the ruins. The walls and large stones offer protection from predators (Márquez-Rodríguez, 2014; Báez et al., 2016). Additionally, many archaeological sites such as Machu Picchu are internationally renowned tourist attractions. The presence of visitors may deter potential predators, making these sites preferential habitats for animals seeking refuge in the ruins’ crevices (Márquez-Rodríguez, 2014; Báez et al., 2016).
This phenomenon could extend to other threatened animal groups that also seek shelter in the ruins’ crevices. For example, in the ruins of Machu Picchu, the Short-tailed Chinchilla (Chinchilla chinchilla) (personal observation)—listed as Endangered according to the IUCN Red List (Roach and Kennerley, 2016)—and the Andean Bear (Tremarctos ornatus)—classified as Vulnerable (Velez-Liendo and García-Rangel, 2017; CNN, 2021)—have been observed, among other species such as the cryptic Machu Picchu Arboreal Chinchilla Rat (Cuscomys oblativa) (Ochoa et al., 2020).
López-Vila et al. (2022) also documented a high diversity of bird species in the Iglesia Vieja archaeological site in Chiapas, Mexico. Similarly, Ayutthaya’s ancient pagodas in Thailand are home to various bat species (personal observation), emphasizing the importance of wildlife conservation in the management of these sites. These examples highlight the need for an integrated approach that combines archaeological expertise with ecological knowledge to ensure the protection of both cultural landmarks and the species that inhabit them.
This article advocates for an integrated conservation approach that combines the management of Archaeological sites with biodiversity conservation.
2 Minimizing the impact of tourism
Paradoxically, tourism contributes to the loss of biological diversity at the local level (Peña-Candia et al., 2019; Jones, 2022). Tourism can promote the establishment of invasive and generalist species (Cambray, 2003; Loss et al., 2013) that compete with and prey on local species. Moreover, infrastructure supporting tourism, such as roads could further disrupt habitats (Colino-Rabanal and Lizana, 2012), and locally increase noise levels (Sordello et al., 2020). To address these challenges, it is crucial to implement sustainable tourism practices that minimize environmental impacts.
These practices should include increased research on the biological diversity of archaeological sites to prioritize the species which should be protected. Limiting the number of visitors, as is being considered at Machu Picchu where concerns about the degradation of both the site and its surrounding ecosystem have arisen, is also critical. Measures such as restricting daily visitor numbers, enforcing designated pathways, and promoting less impactful tourism can help mitigate these effects.
Educating the public about the ecological significance of archaeological sites is essential for their conservation. Visitors often focus solely on the cultural aspects of these sites, unaware of their role in biodiversity conservation. Public awareness campaigns can highlight the need to protect these habitats, not only for their cultural value but also for the species they support. Training professional guides at archaeological sites to convey the natural values of the environment is equally important for raising awareness. Furthermore, restricting food consumption to designated areas can help keep generalist species such as rodents away from sensitive habitats.
3 Discussion
Archaeological sites and historical monuments are not only cultural treasures but also vital refuges for threatened species. Therefore, the conservation of these sites must go beyond the preservation of historical artifacts to include biodiversity protection. By fostering interdepartmental cooperation, implementing sustainable tourism practices, and raising public awareness, we can ensure that these sites continue to serve as sanctuaries for both cultural and natural heritage. The examples of Machu Picchu, Ayutthaya, Iglesia Vieja and Kaunos demonstrate the potential for heritage sites to contribute to biodiversity conservation, provided their ecological significance is fully recognized and integrated into their management.
Effective conservation of biodiversity within archaeological and historical sites requires coordinated efforts across multiple inter-governmental departments, including those responsible for cultural heritage, environmental conservation, and tourism. Traditionally, these inter-governmental departments have operated independently, often overlooking the synergies between cultural and natural resource management (Rahman et al., 2017). To protect the ecological value of these sites, it is essential to establish frameworks for interdepartmental collaboration. One of the potential actions for intergovernmental cooperation between departments could involve conducting joint studies on biodiversity and the impact of tourism at archaeological sites. Additionally, developing and implementing unified legislation with mutually agreed-upon regulations would be essential. The primary challenge in this context may be institutional funding. To address this, intergovernmental working groups could be established, with equitable contributions to a common fund designated for such initiatives. This approach underscores the importance of cooperation across departments that may operate at different levels—national, regional, or local—to ensure effective conservation and management strategies both biodiversity and archaeological sites and historical monuments.
Author contributions
JB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. DT: Investigation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Báez J. C., Camiñas J. A., Sacchi J. (2016). Reptile diversity associated with archaeological sites: The significance of ancient ruins for reptile conservation. Bol. Asoc. Herpetol. Esp. 27, 101–103.
Calderón-Mandujano R. R., Galindo-Leal C., Cedeño-Vázquez J. R. (2008). Utilización de hábitat por reptiles en estados sucesionales de selvas tropicales de Campeche, México. Acta Zool. Mex. 24, 95–114.
Cambray J. A. (2003). The global impact of alien trout species—A review; with reference to their impact in South Africa. Afr. J. Aquat. Sci. 28, 61–67. doi: 10.2989/16085914.2003.9626601
CNN. (2021). Así pasean osos andinos por las ruinas milenarias de Machu Picchu. Available online at: https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/machu-picchu-peru-osos-viral-perspectivas-mexico (accessed October 6, 2024)
Colino-Rabanal V. J., Lizana M. (2012). Herpetofauna and roads: A review. Basic Appl. Herpetol. 26, 5–31. doi: 10.11160/bah.12008
Jones P. (2022). Tourism and biodiversity: A paradoxical relationship. Athens J. Tour. 9, 151–162. doi: 10.30958/ajt.9-3-2
López-Vila J. M., Mera-Ortiz G., Rome-ro-Berny E. I., Galicia-García M. T. (2022). Dinámica temporal de la avifauna en el sitio arqueológico Iglesia Vieja, Chiapas, México. Huitzil Rev. Mex. Ornitol. 23, e–643. doi: 10.28947/hrmo.2022.23.2.611
López-Vila J., Torres-Meza A., Romero-Berny E. I., Pineda-Vera D. (2018). Herpetofauna del sitio arqueológico Iglesia Vieja, Costa de Chiapas, México. Acta Zool. Mex. 34, 1–14. doi: 10.28947/hrmo.2022.23.2.611
Loss S. R., Will T., Marra P. P. (2013). The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 4, 1–8. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2380
Mamani L., Cruz R., Mallqui S., Catenazzi A. (2022). Molecular phylogenetics and comparative examination of voucher museums reveal two new species of gymnophthalmid lizards (Squamata, gymnophthalmidae) from the Peruvian andes, with comments on proctoporus guentheri (Boettger 1891). Diversity 14, 215. doi: 10.3390/d14030215
Mamani L., Goicoechea N., Chaparro J. C. (2015). A new species of Andean lizard Proctoporus (Squamata: Gymnophthalmidae) from montane forest of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Perú. Amphib. reptile Conserv. 9, 1–11 e96.
Márquez-Rodríguez J. (2014). La importancia de los refugios de Timon lepidus en los yacimientos arqueológicos. Bol. Asoc. Herpetol. Esp. 25, 85–87.
Ochoa J. A., Quispe R., Jara Moscoso N., Cossios D. (2020). Confirmación de la presencia de laenigmática “rata chinchilla arborícola de Machupicchu” Cuscomys oblativus (Abrocomidae). Rev. Peruana Biología 27, 251–254. doi: 10.15381/rpb.v27i2.17882
Peña-Candia L. Z., Baca-Zans Y. R., Costa J. F. (2019). Efecto de las actividades antrópicas en la red de caminos Inka, santuario histórico de Machupicchu, Cusco, Perú. Rev. Interam. Ambient. Tur. 15, 60–71. doi: 10.4067/S0718-235X2019000100060
Rahman H. M. T., Saint Ville A. S., Song A. M., Po J. Y. T., Berthet E., Brammer J. R., et al. (2017). A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. Int. J. Commons. 11, 823–853. doi: 10.18352/ijc.758
Roach N., Kennerley R. (2016). Chinchilla chinchilla. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T4651A22191157. Available online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-2.RLTS.T4651A22191157.en (Accessed 10 September 2024).
Simbula G., Luiselli L., Vignoli L. (2019). Lizards and the city: A community study of Lacertidae and Gekkonidae from an archaeological park in Rome. Zool. Anz. 283, 20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jcz.2019.08.001
Somaweera R., Ukumela K., Karunaratne S. (2001). Menikdena: a local herpetofauna hotspot. Occ. Pap. ARROS. 2, 1–8.
Sordello R., Ratel O., de Lachapelle F. F., Leger C., Dambry A., Vanpeene S. (2020). Evidence of the impact of noise pollution on biodiversity: A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 9, 1–27. doi: 10.1186/s13750-020-00202-y
Velez-Liendo X., García-Rangel S. (2017). Tremarctos ornatus (errata version published in 2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T22066A123792952. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-3.RLTS.T22066A45034047.en. (Accessed 09 October 2024).
Keywords: archeology, conservation, biodiversity, monument, management
Citation: Báez JC and Torreblanca D (2024) Archaeological sites and historical monuments as refuges for threatened species: a call for integrated conservation management. Front. Conserv. Sci. 5:1495157. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2024.1495157
Received: 12 September 2024; Accepted: 30 September 2024;
Published: 15 October 2024.
Edited by:
Edson Gandiwa, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, ZimbabweReviewed by:
Diego G. Tirira, Yachay Tech University, EcuadorCopyright © 2024 Báez and Torreblanca. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: José Carlos Báez, josecarlos.baez@ieo.csic.es