Next Article in Journal
Peculiar Morphology of Montipora millepora Reveals Interspecific Competition for Space Among Two Other Major Foundation Species in Jeju Waters, South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Correction: Eimanifar et al. Using ISSR Genomic Fingerprinting to Study the Genetic Differentiation of Artemia Leach, 1819 (Crustacea: Anostraca) from Iran and Neighbor Regions with the Focus on the Invasive American Artemia franciscana. Diversity 2020, 12, 132
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/d17060397
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Where Endemism Meets Urgency: Native Cactaceae and the Conservation Crisis in the Subtropical South America Pampa

by
Alessandra Almeida de Menezes
1,
Eugenia Jacira Bolacel Braga
1 and
João Iganci
1,2,*
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Fisiologia Vegetal, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas 96010-610, Brazil
2
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Botânica, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 90010-150, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(6), 397; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17060397
Submission received: 21 April 2025 / Revised: 31 May 2025 / Accepted: 1 June 2025 / Published: 4 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Biodiversity Conservation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The subtropical grasslands of South America are known as Pampa, span parts of Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina, and are undergoing rapid and alarming transformations due to agricultural expansion, habitat fragmentation, and climate change. Despite this, these areas harbor a remarkable diversity of Cactaceae, including a high proportion of endemic and threatened species. This study offers the first comprehensive inventory of native and endemic cactus taxa in the Pampean province of the Chacoan domain, integrating data from georeferenced herbarium records, biodiversity databases, and fieldwork. A total of 111 native taxa were identified, of which 62% are endemic to the region. Spatial analyses reveal that many species occur outside protected areas, with hotspots of richness and endemism located near international borders and in poorly studied regions. These findings underscore the urgent need to reassess conservation priorities in Pampa, where biodiversity is being lost at an accelerating pace. By identifying critical areas for conservation and highlighting gaps in species assessments, the present study contributes essential data to support public policy, conservation planning, and the establishment of cross-border strategies for the protection of this unique and vulnerable flora.

1. Introduction

Cactaceae are xeric-adapted plants with highly developed morphological, anatomical, and physiological characteristics for limiting water loss via transpiration [1]. Cactaceae grow in a variety of environments, from coastal formations to 5200 m above sea level in the Andes [2,3,4,5], primarily in arid habitats with well-drained, clayey, sandy soils and on rocky outcrops [6]. The family contains around 3330 species and 383 genera [7], with a wide diversity found primarily in arid and semiarid environments [5,8,9]. Cactaceae is the second largest plant family of vascular plants endemic to the Americas, with three major areas of diversity and endemism, namely Mexico and the southwestern United States, the Andes (Bolivia, Peru, southern Ecuador, northeastern Chile, and northern Argentina) [8], and eastern Brazil [10,11]. Furthermore, the central–west and southern regions of Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay are identified as key biodiversity areas for the family [4]. Brazil is the third most important center of cactus diversity, with several rare and endemic species as well as a significant number of endangered species that occur in all phytogeographic domains within the country [10,11].
According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s extinction risk assessment standards, 1488 of the 3330 species in the family are classified as threatened on the Red List of Threatened Species [12]. Furthermore, 31% of the species studied are recognized as being at some risk of extinction, making the family the sixth most threatened taxonomic group among all taxa evaluated by the IUCN [13]. South America is home to 773 of the 1488 cactus species assessed so far in the Americas [12]. In subtropical South America, there are extensive plains of heterogeneous open ecosystems that make up the Pampean province, in the Chacoan domain [14], which consists of an area of 750,000 km2, covering the central–eastern region of Argentina (AR), southern Brazil (BR), and Uruguay’s territory (UY) [15,16]. This region has 4864 species classified into 194 families and 1324 genera [17]. Despite the Pampas’ high species richness, many of these are at risk of extinction due to the loss and fragmentation of their natural habitats as a result of human actions that promote land use and occupation modification, such as forestry, agriculture, livestock, urban expansion, and climate change [18,19,20]. Most cacti from the study area are listed in the Official List of Threatened Species of Rio Grande do Sul state in southern Brazil (Decree 52.19/2014), as well as the Red Book of Endangered Flora of Brazil [21] and the IUCN Red List [22]. To date, 53.9% of the cacti species of significance for national conservation and research have been assessed for extinction risk [21]. However, there is still a lack of knowledge about cacti in the Pampas, including their biogeography, size, number, and conservation status [11]. Furthermore, most species were assessed over a decade ago and require an update on their current conservation status.
In light of these conservation concerns, international legal instruments also play a crucial role in protecting vulnerable species. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as CITES or the Washington Convention, is a key legal tool for biodiversity protection [23]. Almost every country in the world is now a party to this legally binding international agreement [24]. Because of the large number of species threatened with extinction risk globally, the Cactaceae family is represented in CITES Appendices I and II [23].
With the goal of providing the first comprehensive inventory of Cactaceae species in the Pampean province of the Chacoan domain in subtropical South America, we present an up-to-date species list highlighting the diversity and distribution of endemic species, which will contribute to conservation efforts and public policies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area encompasses the Pampean province [14], which covers approximately 750.000 km2 [16] in subtropical South America, and includes the territory of Uruguay and central–west Argentina, including the provinces of Buenos Aires, Córdoba, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, La Pampa, Misiones, Santa Fé, and San Luis [25], in addition to the southern half of the state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil [16]. The variation in soils, altitude, temperature, and precipitation along the Pampean province contributes to the presence of a high biodiversity that is associated with distinct ecosystems, however neglected, within this area [26]. From coastal scrubs, seasonally dry forests, rocky outcrops, shrublands, marshy areas, and savannas, the environment varies significantly from the Atlantic coast to the interior [26,27]. The region has historically been impacted by cattle grazing, as xerophytic and prickly vegetation has been suppressed to expand pastures during previous centuries. Furthermore, the terrain has changed from grasslands to massive areas of farming land due to the recent growth in soybean fields, making the Pampean province currently one of the most threatened areas in Brazil [28].

2.2. Data Collection

The geographic distribution and endemism patterns of native Cactaceae species in the Pampean province were compiled using online data sources from (1) the Global Biodiversity Information System [29] and scientific collections; (2) Plants of the World Online [30]; (3) The World Flora Online [7]; (4) Flora e Funga do Brasil [31]; (5) Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora [32]; (6) Sistema de Informação sobre a Biodiversidade Brasileira [33]; (7) Flora del ConoSur [34]; (8) Plantas Endêmicas da Argentina—PlanEAR [35]; (9) Catálogo de Plantas Vasculares do Cone Sul [36]; (10) Catálogo de Plantas Vasculares do Cone Sul e a Flora da Argentina: sua contribuição para a flora mundial [37]; and (11) The Red List IUCN [12]. In addition, the checklist of Cactaceae [23] and scientific articles on the richness and distribution of vascular plants in the Pampean province [17] were used as complementary scientific literature. Physical herbaria at the Botanic Garden Prof. Attilio Lombardo (MVJB) and Herbarium Bernardo Rosengurtt at the Agriculture Faculty (MVFA) in Uruguay were analyzed to increase the sampling in Uruguay, where collections are not available online. Field work was directed to low-sampled and species-rich areas (Permit 85269-1, SISBIO). After reviewing data from several sources, a list of confirmed species in the Pampean province was created. The list includes the scientific name, author, and current conservation status as verified by the IUCN Red List. The nomenclature and authorship of species were standardized using the online database International Plant Name Index [38]. To determine whether native species are endemic to the Pampean province, databases, bibliographies, and scientific articles were consulted to verify their geographical distribution.
Data on the occurrence of Pampean Cactaceae species from the Global Biodiversity Information System [29] were downloaded in the Darwin Core Archive (DwC-A) format and converted to the Microsoft Excel format. All duplicate records were verified and removed, with the original collection record taking priority. All records were analyzed and confirmed in the GBIF [29], Herbário Virtual Reflora [31], and speciesLink [39] databases. If there were online databases in the herbaria where the samples were deposited, these were also consulted to verify and supplement the data on the exsiccate’s label as needed. In the analysis of records from Argentina and Brazil, all points of occurrence outside the Pampean province were excluded. Geocoordinates (latitude × longitude) were verified for each registration using satellite images and street views from Google Earth and Google Maps to confirm the location and deduce the coordinates. For records containing only municipal or departmental information, the centroid coordinate was used. For records lacking information about the collection location, satellite images were used to infer coordinates. Records with unconfirmed data were excluded from analysis. Records lacking information about locality and containing data for the country or province only were not used.

2.3. Mapping and Identification of High-Value Areas

Geographic distribution maps were created using QGIS version 3.36.2 [40], which used shape files of the borders of Latin America [41] and the Pampean province [28]. Based on this information, maps were created to depict the distribution of native Cactaceae in the Pampean province and the distribution of species endemic to the Pampean province, as well as maps of the number of records for Cactaceae in the Pampean province, and Cactaceae species richness within the Pampean province.
To map the number of Cactaceae registrations and species per area, a QGIS vector map was created for each map. The vector map refers to a grade of hexagons measuring 0.5 degrees × 0.5 degrees (55.5 km × 55.5 km) and was placed over the entire Pampa area for accounting records, and species richness, per hexagon. Maps with information on the number of species per area of occurrence demonstrate the number of species/records per hexagon. Maps with information on the number of collections per region demonstrate the number of collections made in the defined area in the shape of polygons. The records were used to determine the geographic distribution and points of occurrence, with the goal of identifying areas in the Pampa with the highest biodiversity and prioritizing conservation efforts.

2.4. Species Conservation

Species conservation status was compiled from (1) the IUCN Red List of Species Threatened with Extinction Risk [22], but also checked at (2) Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora [32]; (3) Flora e Funga do Brasil [31]; (4) Plantas Endémicas de la Argentina (PLANEAR) [35], (5) Catálogo de Espécies prioritárias para la conservación en Uruguay: Vertebrados, moluscos continentales y plantas vasculares [42]; (6) Lista Oficial de Espécies da Flora Brasileira Ameaçadas de Extinção [43]; and (7) Lista da flora ameaçada de extinção do Rio Grande do Sul (Decree 52.19/2014) [44].
The risk of extinction for Brazilian flora species is based in the IUCN (version 3.1) categories and criteria [45]. The Red List is one of the world’s most detailed inventories and is considered the most important source of information about the global conservation status of animal, plant, and fungal species [46,47].
The List of Priority Species for Conservation in Uruguay uses four distinct criteria to classify species, as follows: Criteria (1): endemic species of Uruguay and the Uruguayan region (including the southern Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil and a portion of Entre Ríos in Argentina). Criteria (2): rare species, i.e., species with few records in Uruguay but not recorded recently. Criteria (3): species with restricted distribution in Uruguay. Criteria (4): species with significant population declines due to human activities.
The online database PLANEAR [35] assigns threat categories to Argentina’s species based on five criteria, including distribution area and relative abundance or rarity. (1) Plants are abundant and geographically distributed in more than one of the country’s major phytogeographical units (Missionera, Tucumano-Oranense, Chaco, Espinal, Pampa, Monte, Puna, Patagônia, Alto Andino, Subantártico Florestas); (2) plants are abundant but only present in one of the major units; (3) common plants, even if not abundant in one or more geographical units of the country (distributed taxes); (4) plants restricted to a single political province, or with reduced areas shared by two or more adjacent political provinces; (5) plants with restricted distribution (approx. 4), with scarce populations or populations facing one or more different threats (habitat destruction, overexploitation, biological invasions, etc.).

3. Results

A total of 13.027 GBIF occurrence records were analyzed to determine the geographic distribution of Cactaceae species and subspecies in the Pampean province. After compiling and refining the information for data cleaning, 2201 records with geographic coordinates were accounted, where 1204 records had original or inferred coordinates, and 997 records had municipality centroid coordinates. Moreover, 127 occurrence records were checked and added from consulted herbaria, and 5 new records were added from field work collections.
Considering all of the data sources that were compiled, a total of 111 taxa of Cactaceae were confirmed as native, and 69 taxa (62%) are endemic to the Pampean province (Table 1). Those taxa represent 13 genera, 85 species, 23 subspecies, and 3 varieties. When considering taxa at the species level only, 53 species are endemic to the Pampean province. The genus Parodia Speg. is the most speciose and accounts for 33.6% of the total species of Cactaceae native to the Pampean province, followed by Frailea Britton & Rose (16.4%), Gymnocalycium Kufstein (14.5%), and Opuntia (L.) Mill. (13.6%) (Figure 1).
Regarding the conservation status, 66.7% of Cactaceae native in the Pampean province have been assessed for extinction risk, where 33.4% of the taxa are threatened with extinction risk, while 33.3% of the taxa are categorized as Least Concern (Figure 2, Table 1). However, 33.3% of the taxa have never been assessed for extinction risk.
The distribution of native cactus species across the Pampa underscores not only patterns of regional endemism but also critical opportunities for transnational conservation efforts. Brazil harbors the highest number of exclusive taxa (32), followed by Argentina (15) and Uruguay (2). Remarkably, 31 taxa are shared among all 3 countries, highlighting areas of ecological connectivity that transcend political boundaries. These overlapping distributions suggest that coordinated conservation strategies are essential to effectively preserve the genetic diversity and ecological functions of these species. Additionally, five taxa are shared between Argentina and Brazil, nine between Argentina and Uruguay, and seventeen between Brazil and Uruguay, further emphasizing the need for cross-border collaboration to safeguard the integrity of the Pampa’s cactus flora.
These insights gain even more relevance when spatial data are considered. Through geoprocessing of georeferenced occurrence records, we were able to visualize the distribution of native and endemic cacti across the Pampa (Figure 3) and identify hotspots of collection density and species richness (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The data revealed the geographic distribution of species within each of the three countries, and spatial analysis shows a concentration of collection records along international borders. In the south, the Brazilian Pampa borders Uruguay, and in the west, it borders Argentina, and both are frontier areas displaying high species richness. In Brazil, the southeastern and southwestern regions are the most intensively sampled. In Uruguay, the northern and northeastern departments of Artigas and Tacuarembó, as well as the southeast and south around Maldonado and Montevideo, show the highest number of records. In Argentina, the regions with the most native species records are located along the border with Uruguay near Entre Ríos Province, as well as in the northwest and north, particularly in the Corrientes and Misiones Provinces.
When focusing specifically on endemic taxa, occurrence records reveal a notably lower number of collections and similar spatial distribution patterns compared to the native cactus flora as a whole. Despite their overall rarity, endemic species also tend to concentrate near international borders, reinforcing the significance of these transboundary zones for biodiversity conservation. In Uruguay, the region around Rivera stands out as a hotspot for endemic cacti. Similarly, in Brazil, endemic species are most frequently recorded along the border with Uruguay, particularly between the Cerro do Jarau and the international boundary, as well as in the granite outcrops of the southeastern part of Rio Grande do Sul. In Argentina, the provinces of Entre Ríos and Buenos Aires show the highest number of endemic species records. These findings further emphasize the urgent need for integrated, cross-border conservation strategies that prioritize regions of high endemism and ecological connectivity.
Spatial density analysis based on the count of occurrence points within mapped polygons (Figure 4 and Figure 5), using color gradient scales, further illustrates the concentration patterns of species richness across the Pampa. The highest number of native species recorded within a single hexagonal unit reached 18, located in the southeastern portion of Rio Grande do Sul, specifically in the region of Caçapava do Sul, Brazil. For endemic species, the richness peaked at 10 species per hexagon, with notable concentrations in the Brazilian and Uruguayan Pampa, particularly in Caçapava do Sul, Artigas, and Maldonado.
Similarly, analysis of collection records confirmed the same spatial trends, with the greatest sampling effort also concentrated in these regions. A total of 56 collections were recorded for native species and 20 for endemic taxa, underscoring both the biological importance of these areas and the influence of research efforts. These results reinforce the southeastern Brazilian Pampa and adjacent Uruguayan territories as key focal points for both species richness and endemism, highlighting their strategic importance for targeted conservation and further botanical exploration.

4. Discussion

This study presents the most comprehensive compilation to date of native cactus taxa occurring in the Pampa biome, integrating data from multiple sources to determine the total number of native species, identify those that are endemic, and assess their conservation status based on existing red lists. The primary reference for conservation assessment was the global IUCN Red List (Table 1), which provides a standardized framework for evaluating species extinction risk. Among the three countries encompassing the Pampa—Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay—only Brazil adopts the same IUCN criteria and categories at the national level. In contrast, Argentina and Uruguay apply their own methodologies and evaluation protocols for assessing species at national and local scales, as detailed in the Materials and Methods section. These differences in assessment frameworks present challenges for direct comparison but also underscore the importance of establishing transnational standards and cooperative conservation strategies across the biome.
The categorization of species according to their conservation status is one of the most effective means to assess, communicate, and implement measures that prevent the decline of biodiversity and habitat degradation [42]. In this sense, red lists serve as crucial indicators for guiding conservation projects, policy strategies, and action plans aimed at preserving species and ecosystems [21]. The red list assessments not only synthesize current knowledge but also highlight knowledge gaps and urgent conservation needs, which are particularly relevant in biodiverse yet underrepresented ecosystems, such as the Pampa.
Globally, the Cactaceae family has been identified as one of the most threatened plant group in terms of the number of species at risk of extinction [13]. Consequently, most species of this family are listed in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), with a dedicated checklist compiled specifically for Cactaceae [48]. Despite this international recognition, our compilation of conservation data for native cacti in the Pampa reveals a concerning temporal gap in the global assessment process. According to our findings, the most recent updates to the global IUCN Red List assessments for native cactus species of the Pampa date back over a decade, with the majority of species last evaluated between 2013 and 2017, depending on the taxon. This delay in reassessment creates discrepancies between current scientific knowledge and the official conservation statuses reported. For instance, several taxa have recently been reassessed by experts and categorized under such threat levels as Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU), or Critically Endangered (CR), based on robust evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, these taxa remain listed as Not Evaluated (NE) or are altogether absent from the IUCN Red List database [22], limiting their visibility in global conservation agendas and policy decisions.
This inconsistency highlights the urgent need for coordinated efforts to update conservation assessments using the most recent data, particularly for taxa inhabiting transboundary regions, like the Pampa. Bridging this gap is essential not only to reflect the true risk levels of these species but also to inform the design of conservation priorities, funding allocation, and legal protections that depend on accurate red list categorizations.
The identification of conservation priorities in the Pampa also depends on the reliability and taxonomic consistency of the floristic lists used to inform species distribution and status. In this context, the present study builds upon previous efforts [17], who compiled a list of vascular plant species for the Pampa, including data on the occurrence and distribution of Cactaceae. Their contribution represents a valuable step toward understanding the cactus flora of the region, especially in light of the historical underrepresentation of the Pampa in national floristic surveys. When comparing the two datasets, we found general agreement in the number of genera and species recognized. However, notable differences emerged in the use of taxonomic concepts. Species lists which adopt homotypic (nomenclatural) synonyms for certain species [17] may influence species counts and conservation status interpretations. Previous studies in the Pampa [17] included taxa that are either cultivated or occur outside the Pampa, such as Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill., a species native to Mexico and widely cultivated throughout South America, and Parodia leninghausii (K.Schum.) F.H.Brandt, which is native to the Atlantic Forest. While the inclusion of such taxa highlights broader ecological interactions and the influence of anthropogenic dispersal, it also reinforces the need for precise biogeographic delimitation when developing species lists intended to inform conservation planning.
Given that red lists are directly informed by floristic inventories and distributional data, inconsistencies in taxonomic treatments and geographic scope can have downstream effects on conservation strategies. Therefore, the standardization of taxonomic nomenclature, coupled with updated spatial records, is fundamental to ensure that priority-setting exercises—especially in transboundary ecosystems, like the Pampa—accurately reflect both species richness and conservation urgency. Integrating and refining existing datasets, as in this study, supports more precise biodiversity assessments and lays the groundwork for more robust and collaborative conservation frameworks across Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.
In this study, we focused exclusively on native species of the Pampa, deliberately excluding exotic or cultivated taxa in order to maintain the ecological and biogeographic integrity of the dataset. All scientific names were carefully reviewed and standardized to avoid the inclusion of synonyms and ensure taxonomic consistency. To validate the geographic distribution and endemic status of species within the Pampa, we relied on authoritative scientific literature [20], which documents 56 native species occurring in this region. This reference was crucial in delineating the biogeographic boundaries of the Pampa flora and confirming endemicity. Additionally, the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Cacti (PAN Cactáceas) [49] was consulted to align our research with national conservation priorities. This plan outlines 3 strategic goals and 92 conservation actions across Brazil’s 6 biomes. Two of these goals were adopted as specific objectives of this study, namely (I) expanding knowledge about cactus species and (II) promoting the dissemination and protection of areas where threatened cacti occur.
By adhering to these national guidelines and employing a rigorous methodology for species validation and spatial mapping, this study contributes not only to the scientific understanding of cactus diversity in the Pampa but also directly supports policy development and conservation planning. The results offer a reliable baseline for prioritizing species and regions for in situ conservation, and for identifying critical data gaps that must be addressed through further fieldwork and taxonomic research.
Despite the progress achieved, significant sampling gaps remain, especially in border areas and underexplored sectors of the Uruguayan and Argentinean Pampa. These gaps may obscure patterns of endemism and hinder the accurate assessment of conservation status. Given the concentration of both species richness and endemism along international frontiers, coordinated binational or trinational research and monitoring initiatives are essential to produce a comprehensive picture of biodiversity distribution in the Pampa. Such integration is particularly urgent in light of ongoing habitat loss, land-use changes, and climate variability, which disproportionately affect open vegetation formations, like the Pampa.
The present study also cross-validated its species list with major national and regional references to ensure a comprehensive and consensual inventory of native Cactaceae in the Pampa. In the National Action Plan for the Conservation of Cacti (PAN Cactáceas) [49], the authors listed 53 native taxa for the Brazilian Pampa, all of which were verified and included in our list. All endemic taxa reported here were carefully confirmed based on detailed distribution data retrieved from authoritative databases and specialized literature. Similarly, for Uruguay, previous studies [50] identified 22 cactus taxa—including 10 genera, 15 species, 2 subspecies, 2 varieties, and 4 synonyms—as conservation priorities in the Catálogo de las Especies Prioritarias para la Conservación en Uruguay. Nineteen of these taxa are also represented in our current dataset, reinforcing the consistency and regional relevance of our compilation. At a broader scale [36,37], approximately 406 cactus species were documented in the Southern Cone (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay), distributed across 55 genera, with nearly 290 taxa recognized as endemic. The online database PLANEAR [35], based on the Catálogo de Plantas Vasculares del Cono Sur [36], currently lists 269 native and 124 endemic cactus species for Argentina. Despite this richness, our analysis of data from GBIF reveals a disproportionately low number of occurrence records for Argentina compared to Brazil and Uruguay. This discrepancy may reflect either (i) a lack of digitized herbarium data or (ii) insufficient collection efforts in key regions of the Argentinean Pampa. Nevertheless, PLANEAR now serves as one of the country’s most robust virtual repositories for botanical collections, improving accessibility and transparency of floristic information. Spatial mapping of native Cactaceae occurrence within Argentina further supports the richness observed in this study. The provinces of Buenos Aires and Entre Ríos were identified as the most species-rich, with 25 and 39 native species, respectively, including 9 endemic species in Buenos Aires and 2 in Entre Ríos. These findings align with our spatial analysis and validate the relevance of these provinces as key areas for both floristic diversity and targeted conservation efforts. Ultimately, this study demonstrates the importance of integrating floristic inventories, updated distribution data, and conservation assessments across national borders to inform and strengthen regional strategies for the preservation of the unique cactus flora of the Pampa.

5. Conclusions

The checklist of native Cactaceae species in the Pampa, compiled from diverse research sources, revealed the presence of 111 taxa occurring across at least 1 of the 3 countries that share this phytogeographic domain. Spatial analyses based on herbarium records confirmed that most species are found outside protected areas, highlighting the vulnerability of these taxa to ongoing threats, such as land-use change and illegal collection.
Geoprocessing techniques enabled the identification of key regions of species richness, especially along international borders, as well as in northwestern and northern Argentina, southeastern and southwestern Uruguay, the southwestern Rio Grande do Sul, and the granite rock outcrops of southern Brazil. These areas represent important hotspots for cactus diversity in the Pampa.
An important outcome of this study is the identification of serious gaps in conservation status assessments. Many species still rely on outdated IUCN Red List evaluations—with some over a decade old—while others remain unassessed or entirely absent from international conservation instruments, such as CITES. The exclusion of subspecies from these lists further compromises conservation effectiveness.
Unlike previous studies, which have largely focused on national floras, this research adopts a transboundary perspective, recognizing the ecological continuity of the Pampa across political borders. By integrating species occurrence data from Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, the study offers a more comprehensive understanding of Cactaceae diversity and distribution throughout the Pampa. These findings underscore the urgency of implementing effective conservation actions to preserve both the species and their habitats.
In this context, the results of this study provide essential insights to support the formulation of conservation strategies and action plans. By identifying priority areas and highlighting key data gaps, this work contributes to the long-term sustainability and protection of regional biodiversity in one of South America’s most threatened ecosystems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.I., A.A.d.M. and E.J.B.B.; methodology, A.A.d.M. and J.I.; software, A.A.d.M.; validation, A.A.d.M., J.I. and E.J.B.B.; formal analysis, A.A.d.M.; investigation, A.A.d.M. and J.I.; resources, J.I.; data curation, A.A.d.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.d.M.; writing—review and editing, A.A.d.M., J.I. and E.J.B.B.; visualization, J.I.; supervision, J.I. and E.J.B.B.; project administration, J.I.; funding acquisition, J.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq, grant number 403808/2021-9 and 407271/2022-8. JI was funded by CNPq Research Productivity grant number 311847/2021-8; EJBB was funded by CNPq Research Productivity grant number 311252/2021-4; AAM was funded by Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education—CAPES (finance code 001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the herbaria consulted and especially thank E. Marchesi, from the Universidad de La República, Uruguay, and G. Heiden for their valuable contributions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ARArgentina
BRBrazil
URUruguay
IUCNInternational Union for Conservation of Nature
CRCritically Endangered
ENEndangered
VUVulnerable
LCLeast Concern
NENot Evaluated
DDDeficient Data

References

  1. Nobel, P.S.; Bobichi, E.G. Environmental Biology. In Cacti Biology and Uses; Nobel, P.S., Ed.; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 57–74. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barthlott, W. Biogeography and evolution in neo- and palaeotropical Rhipsalinae (Cactaceae). In Dispersal and Distribution: An International Symposium; Sonderband des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins: Hamburg, Germany, 1983; Volume 7, pp. 241–248. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barthlott, W.; Lauer, W.; Placke, A. Global distribution of species diversity in vascular plants: Towards a world map of phytodiversity. Erdkunde 1996, 50, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Taylor, N.P. Cactaceae. In Cactus and Succulent Plants—Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan; Oldfield, S., Ed.; Species Survival Comission/Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 1997; pp. 17–20. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, F.E. The Cactus Family; Timber Press: Portland, OR, USA, 2001; 776p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cavalcante, A.B.C.; Menezes, M.O.T.; Machado, M.C. Cactos do Semiárido do Brasil: Guia Ilustrado; INSA: Campina Grande, Brazil, 2013; 28p. [Google Scholar]
  7. WFO: Cactaceae Juss. Available online: http://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-7000000098 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  8. Oldfield, S. Cactus and Succulent Plants—Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan; Species Survival Comission/Cactus and Succulent Specialist Group: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 1997; 212p. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hunt, D.; Taylor, N.P.; Charles, G. The New Cactus Lexicon; DH Books: Milborne Port, UK, 2006; Volume 1, 900p. [Google Scholar]
  10. Taylor, N.P.; Zappi, D.C. Cacti of Eastern Brazil; Royal Botanic Garden, Kew: Richmond, UK, 2004; 499p. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zappi, D.; Taylor, N.; Larocca, J. A Riqueza das Cactaceae no Brasil. In Plano de Ação Nacional Para a Conservação das Cactáceas; Silva, S.R., Ed.; Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, ICMBIO: Brasília, Brazil, 2011; pp. 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  12. IUCN. Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2022-2. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?version=2022-2 (accessed on 5 January 2023).
  13. Goettsch, B.; Hilton-Taylor, C.; Cruz-Piñón, G.; Duffy, J.P.; Frances, A.; Hernández, H.M.; Inger, R.; Pollock, C.; Schipper, J.; Superina, M.; et al. High proportion of cactus species threatened with extinction. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Morrone, J.; Escalante, T.; Rodríguez-Tapia, G.; Carmona, A.; Arana, M.; Mercado, J.G. Biogeographic regionalization of the Neotropical region: New map and shapefile. An. Da Acad. Bras. De Ciências 2022, 94, e20211167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Soriano, A.; León, R.J.C.; Sala, O.E.; Lavado, R.S.; Deregibus, V.A.; Cahuepé, M.A.; Scaglia, O.A.; Velazques, C.A.; Lemcoff, J.H. Río de la Plata grasslands. In Ecosystems of the World 8A. Natural Grasslands; Coupland, R.T., Ed.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 367–407. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chomenko, L. Transformações Estruturais no Pampa. In Olhares Sobre o Pampa: Um Território em Disputa; Wizniewsky, C.R.F., Foleto, E.M., Eds.; Evangraf: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2017; pp. 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  17. Andrade, B.O.; Marchesi, E.; Burkart, S.; Setubal, R.B.; Lezama, F.; Perelman, S.; Schneider, A.A.; Trevisan, R.; Overbeck, G.E.; Boldrini, I.I. Vascular plant species richness and distribution in the Río de la Plata grasslands. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2018, 188, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Borba, M.F.S. Desenvolvimento Territorial Endógeno: O caso do Alto Camaquã. In Pecuária Familiar no Rio Grande do Sul: História, Diversidade Social e Dinâmicas de Desenvolvimento; Waquil, P.D., Matte, A., Neske, M.Z., Borba, M.F.S., Eds.; Editora da UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2016; pp. 187–214. [Google Scholar]
  19. Schwoob, M.H.; Timmer, C.; Andersson, M.; Treyer, S. Agricultural Transformation Pathways toward the SDGs: Global Trends, Challenges and Opportunities. In Agriculture & Food Systems to 2050; Serraj, R., Pingali, P., Eds.; World Scientific: Singapore, 2019; pp. 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Carneiro, A.M.; Singer, R.F.; Ramos, R.A. Cactos do Rio Grande do Sul; Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2016; 224p. [Google Scholar]
  21. Martinelli, G.; Moraes, M.A. (Eds.) Livro Vermelho da Flora do Brasil; Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora—CNCFlora: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013; 1100p. [Google Scholar]
  22. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-2. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 14 October 2024).
  23. CITES. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora; CITES Secretariat: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024; Available online: https://cites.org (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  24. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA). Convenção Sobre a Diversidade Biológica; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, Brazil, 2020. Available online: https://www.gov.br/mma/pt-br/assuntos/biodiversidade/convencao-sobre-diversidade-biologica (accessed on 29 January 2023).
  25. Arana, M.D.; Natale, E.S.; Ferretti, N.E.; Romano, G.M.; Oggero, A.J.; Martínez, G.; Posadas, P.E.; Morrone, J.J. Esquema Biogeográfico de la República Argentina; Fundación Miguel Lillo: Tucumán, Argentina, 2021; 238p. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ganci, J.R.V.; Heiden, G.; Miotto, S.T.S.; Pennington, R.T. Campos de Cima da Serra: The Brazilian Subtropical Highland Grasslands show unexpected plant diversity and endemicity. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2011, 167, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Heiden, G.; Iganci, J.R.V. Sobre a Paisagem e a Flora. In Cores e Formas no Bioma Pampa: Plantas Ornamentais Nativas; Stumpf, E.R.T., Barbieri, R.L., Heiden, G., Eds.; Embrapa Clima Temperado: Pelotas, Brazil, 2009; pp. 23–36. [Google Scholar]
  28. MapBiomas. Coleção 9—Uso e Cobertura da Terra no Brasil (1985–2023); MapBiomas: São Paulo, Brazil, 2024; Available online: https://brasil.mapbiomas.org/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
  29. GBIF—Global Biodiversity Information Facility. Available online: https://www.gbif.org/ (accessed on 1 November 2023). [CrossRef]
  30. Plants of the World Online—POWO. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  31. Zappi, D.; Taylor, N.P. Cactaceae in Flora e Funga do Brasil; Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Available online: https://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/FB1622 (accessed on 15 March 2023).
  32. CNCFlora—Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora. Lista Vermelha. 2022. Available online: http://cncflora.jbrj.gov.br (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  33. SIBBr—Sistema de Informação Sobre a Biodiversidade Brasileira. Available online: https://sibbr.gov.br/ (accessed on 10 September 2022).
  34. Flora del Cono Sur. Available online: http://conosur.floraargentina.edu.ar/ (accessed on 12 September 2022).
  35. PLANEAR—Plantas Endémicas de la Argentina. Available online: http://www.lista-planear.org/ (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  36. Zuloaga, F.O.; Morrone, O.; Belgrano, M.J. Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares del Cono Sur (Argentina, Sur de Brasil, Chile, Paraguay y Uruguay); Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, 107; Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2008; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zuloaga, F.O.; Belgrano, M.J. The Catalogue of Vascular Plants of the Southern Cone and the Flora of Argentina: Their contribution to the World Flora. Rodriguésia 2015, 66, 989–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. International Plant Names Index (IPNI). Available online: http://www.ipni.org/ (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  39. CRIA. Centro de Referência e Informação Ambiental. Cactaceae. Available online: https://specieslink.net/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  40. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System v. 3.16. Available online: http://qgis.osgeo.org (accessed on 20 May 2024).
  41. Esri. ArcGIS Hub Platform. Available online: https://hub.arcgis.com/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
  42. Soutullo, A.; Clavijo, C.; Martínez-Lanfranco, J.A. Catálogo de las Especies Prioritarias para la Conservación en Uruguay: Vertebrados, Moluscos Continentales y Plantas Vasculares; SNAP/DINAMA/MVOTMA y DICYT/MEC: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2013; 222p. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ministério do Meio Ambiente (MMA). Lista Oficial de Espécies da Flora Brasileira Ameaçadas de Extinção; Portaria MMA nº 148, de 7 de Junho de 2022. Available online: https://in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-mma-n-148-de-7-de-junho-de-2022-406272733 (accessed on 28 September 2022).
  44. Fundação Zoobotânica do Rio Grande do Sul (FZB). Lista da Flora Ameaçada de Extinção do Rio Grande do Sul; Decreto Estadual nº 52.109; 2014. Available online: http://www.al.rs.gov.br/filerepository/repLegis/arquivos/DEC%2052.109.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2022).
  45. Raimondo, C.D.; Moraes, M.A.; Von Staden, L.; Avancini, R.; Donaldson, J.S.; Martinelli, G. Metodologia Estratégica Para a Condução de Avaliações de Risco de Extinção Completas em Países Megadiversos: Lições Aprendidas na Parceria Entre Brasil e África do Sul. In Livro Vermelho da Flora do Brasil; Martinelli, G., Moraes, M.A., Eds.; Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora—CNCFlora: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2013; pp. 40–52. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rodrigues, A.S.L.; Pilgrim, J.D.; Lamoreux, J.F.; Hoffmann, M.; Brooks, T.M. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2006, 21, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bachman, S.; Walker, B.E.; Barrios, S.; Copeland, A.; Moat, J. Rapid Least Concern: Towards automating Red List assessments. Biodivers. Data J. 2020, 8, e47018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hunt, D. CITES Cactaceae Checklist, 3rd ed.; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Richmond, UK, 2016; 284p. [Google Scholar]
  49. Silva, S.R.; Zappi, D.; Taylor, N.P.; Machado, M. (Eds.) Plano de Ação Nacional para a Conservação das Cactáceas; Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade—ICMBio: Brasília, Brazil, 2011; 112p. [Google Scholar]
  50. Marchesi, E.; Alonso, L.; Delfino, M.; García, F.; Haretche, F.; Brussa, C. Plantas Vasculares. In Catálogo de las Especies Prioritarias para la Conservación en Uruguay: Vertebrados, Moluscos Continentales y Plantas Vasculares; Soutullo, A., Clavijo, C., Martínez-Lanfranco, J.A., Eds.; SNAP/DINAMA/MVOTMA y DICYT/MEC: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2013; pp. 27–72. [Google Scholar]
Diversity 17 00397 g001
Figure 1. Cactaceae species native to the Pampa. (a) Echinopsis oxygona (Link) Zucc. ex Pfeiff.; (b) Cereus hildmannianus K.Schum.; (c) Parodia mammulosa (Lem.) N.P.Taylor; (d) Parodia langsdorfii (Lehm.) D.R.Hunt.; (e) Parodia erinaceus (Haw.) N.P.Taylor; (f) Parodia ottonis (Lehm.) N.P.Taylor; (g) Opuntia aurantiaca Lindl.; (h) Opuntia elata Salm-Dyck.; (i) Pereskia aculeata Mill. Photos: (a,b,d,i) A.Menezes; (c,g) E.Marchesi, E.; (e) W.Souza; (f,h) E.Scherdien.
Figure 1. Cactaceae species native to the Pampa. (a) Echinopsis oxygona (Link) Zucc. ex Pfeiff.; (b) Cereus hildmannianus K.Schum.; (c) Parodia mammulosa (Lem.) N.P.Taylor; (d) Parodia langsdorfii (Lehm.) D.R.Hunt.; (e) Parodia erinaceus (Haw.) N.P.Taylor; (f) Parodia ottonis (Lehm.) N.P.Taylor; (g) Opuntia aurantiaca Lindl.; (h) Opuntia elata Salm-Dyck.; (i) Pereskia aculeata Mill. Photos: (a,b,d,i) A.Menezes; (c,g) E.Marchesi, E.; (e) W.Souza; (f,h) E.Scherdien.
Diversity 17 00397 g001
Diversity 17 00397 g002
Figure 2. Global conservation status and threat categories for Cactaceae species native to the Pampa, according to the IUCN (2024). NT: Near Threatened; CR: Critically Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; EN: Endangered; NE: Not Evaluated; LC: Least Concern.
Figure 2. Global conservation status and threat categories for Cactaceae species native to the Pampa, according to the IUCN (2024). NT: Near Threatened; CR: Critically Endangered; VU: Vulnerable; EN: Endangered; NE: Not Evaluated; LC: Least Concern.
Diversity 17 00397 g002
Diversity 17 00397 g003
Figure 3. Geographic distribution of records for Cactaceae species native (green dots) and endemic (red dots) to the Pampa. Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Figure 3. Geographic distribution of records for Cactaceae species native (green dots) and endemic (red dots) to the Pampa. Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Diversity 17 00397 g003
Diversity 17 00397 g004
Figure 4. Maps showing the number of records for Cactaceae species native (a) and endemic (b) to the Pampa (each hexagon represents an area of 55.5 km × 55.5 km). Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Figure 4. Maps showing the number of records for Cactaceae species native (a) and endemic (b) to the Pampa (each hexagon represents an area of 55.5 km × 55.5 km). Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Diversity 17 00397 g004
Diversity 17 00397 g005
Figure 5. Maps showing the number of species for Cactaceae native (a) and endemic (b) to the Pampa (each hexagon represents an area of 55.5 km × 55.5 km). Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Figure 5. Maps showing the number of species for Cactaceae native (a) and endemic (b) to the Pampa (each hexagon represents an area of 55.5 km × 55.5 km). Geographic coordinate system: Sirgas 2000. Territorial boundaries according to ArcGIS Hub [41] and MapBiomas [28].
Diversity 17 00397 g005
Table 1. Species list and conservation status for Cactaceae native and endemic to the Pampa. Conservation status according to IUCN (2024): NT—Near Threatened; EN—Endangered; VU—Vulnerable; CR—Critically Endangered; NE—Not Evaluated; LC—Least Concern. Geographic distribution by country within the Pampa: Argentina (AR); Brazil (BR); Uruguay (UY).
Table 1. Species list and conservation status for Cactaceae native and endemic to the Pampa. Conservation status according to IUCN (2024): NT—Near Threatened; EN—Endangered; VU—Vulnerable; CR—Critically Endangered; NE—Not Evaluated; LC—Least Concern. Geographic distribution by country within the Pampa: Argentina (AR); Brazil (BR); Uruguay (UY).
Scientific NameOriginConservation
Status		Distribution
in the Pampa
Acanthocalycium rhodotrichum (K.Schum.) Schlumpb.NativeLCAR; UY
Brasiliopuntia brasiliensis (Willd.) A.Berger.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Cereus aethiops Haw.CereusEndemicLCAR; UY
Cereus hildmannianus K.Schum.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Cereus hildmannianus K.Schum. subsp. hildmannianusNativeNEAR; BR; UY
Cereus hildmannianus subsp. uruguayanus (R.Kiesling)
N.P.Taylor		EndemicNEAR; BR; UY
Cereus stenogonus K.Schum.NativeLCAR
Echinopsis oxygona (Link) Zucc. ex Pfeiff.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Epiphyllum phyllanthus (L.) Haw. NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Frailea buenekeri W.R.AbrahamEndemicENBR
Frailea buenekeri W.R.Abraham subsp. buenekeriEndemicNEBR
Frailea buenekeri subsp. densispina Hofacker & HermEndemicNEBR
Frailea castanea Backeb.EndemicLCAR; BR; UY
Frailea cataphracta Britton & RoseNativeNTBR
Frailea curvispina Buining & BrederooEndemicENBR
Frailea fulviseta Buining & BrederooEndemicENBR
Frailea gracillima (Lem.) Britton & RoseNativeVUBR; UY
Frailea gracillima (Lem.) Britton & Rose subsp. gracillimaNativeNEBR; UY
Frailea gracillima subsp. horstii (F.Ritter) P.J.Braun & EStevesEndemicNEBR
Frailea gracillima subsp. machadoi Hofacker, Olsthoorn & R.PontesEndemicNEBR
Frailea mammifera Buining & BrederooEndemicENAR; BR
Frailea phaeodisca (Speg.) Backeb. & F.M.KnuthEndemicVUBR; UY
Frailea pumila Britton & RoseNativeLCAR; BR; UY
Frailea pygmaea Britton & Rose EndemicLCAR; BR; UY
Frailea pygmaea Britton & Rose subsp. pygmaeaNativeNEAR; BR; UY
Frailea pygmaea subsp. albicolumnaris (F.Ritter) HofackerNativeNEBR
Frailea schilinzkyana (F.Haage ex K.Schum.) Britton & RoseNativeVUAR; BR; UY
Gymnocalycium angelae Mereg.EndemicNEAR
Gymnocalycium denudatum (Link & Otto) Pfeiff. ex MittlerEndemicENAR; BR; UY
Gymnocalycium horstii BuiningEndemicENBR
Gymnocalycium horstii Buining subsp. horstiiNativeNEBR
Gymnocalycium horstii subsp. buenekeri (Swales) P.J.Braun & HofackerEndemicNEBR
Gymnocalycium hossei A.BergerEndemicLCAR
Gymnocalycium uruguayense Britton & RoseEndemicLCBR; UY
Gymnocalycium gibbosum (Haw.) Pfeiff. ex Mittler EndemicLCAR
Gymnocalycium gibbosum subsp. borthii (Koop ex H.Till)
G.J.Charles 		EndemicNEAR
Gymnocalycium schroederianum OstenEndemicLCAR; UY
Gymnocalycium reductum (Link) Pfeiff. ex. Mittler EndemicLCAR; UY
Gymnocalycium reductum (Link) Pfeiff. ex. Mittler subsp. reductumEndemicNEAR
Gymnocalycium reductum subsp. leeanum (Hook.) Papsch EndemicNEAR; UY
Gymnocalycium reductum var. platense (Speg.) R.Kiesling EndemicNEAR
Gymnocalycium volskyi V.Gapon, Ponomareva, Protopopov, Schelkun. & ZaitsevaEndemicNEBR; UY
Gymnocalycium volskyi V.Gapon, Ponomareva, Protopopov, Schelkun. & Zaitseva subsp. volskyiEndemicNEUY
Gymnocalycium volskyi subsp. angulatum (Prestlé) V.Gapon, Chikin, Ponomareva, Protopopov & SchelkunEndemicNEBR
Harrisia bonplandii Britton & RoseNativeLCAR
Harrisia martinii Britton & RoseNativeLCAR
Harrisia pomanensis (F.A.C.Weber ex K. Schum.) Britton & RoseNativeLCAR
Harrisia tortuosa (J.Forbes) Britton & RoseNativeLCAR; UY
Lepismium cruciforme (Vell.) Miq.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Lepismium houlletianum (Lem.) Barthlott NativeLCAR; BR
Lepismium lumbricoides (Lem.) Barthlott NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Lepismium warmingianum (K.Schum.) Barthlott NativeLCAR; BR
Opuntia arechavaletae Speg.EndemicLCAR; BR; UY
Opuntia aurantiaca Lindl.EndemicLCAR; UY
Opuntia sternarthra K.Schum.EndemicNEAR
Opuntia bonaerensis Speg.EndemicNEAR; BR; UY
Opuntia canterae Arechav.EndemicENUY
Opuntia elata Salm-DyckNativeLCAR; BR; UY
Opuntia elata var. delaetiana F.A.C.WeberNativeNEAR
Opuntia megapotamica Arechav.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Opuntia megapotamica var. salagria (A.Cast.) OakleyEndemicNEAR
Opuntia monacantha Haw.NativeNEAR; BR; UY
Opuntia penicilligera Speg.EndemicNEAR
Opuntia retrorsa Speg.NativeNEAR; UY
Opuntia rioplatensis Font.EndemicNEAR; BR; UY
Opuntia sulphurea G.Don.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Parodia allosiphon (Marchesi) N.P.TaylorEndemicENBR; UY
Parodia buiningii (Buxb.) N.P.TaylorEndemicCRBR; UY
Parodia concinna (Monv.) N.P.TaylorEndemicVUBR; UY
Parodia curvispina (F.Ritter) D.R.HuntEndemicCRBR
Parodia crassigibba (Ritter) N.P.TaylorEndemicCRBR
Parodia erinaceus (Haw.) N.P.TaylorNativeLCAR; BR; UY
Parodia fusca (Ritter) Hofacker & P.J.BraunEndemicVUBR
Parodia gaucha M.Machado & LaroccaEndemicENBR
Parodia glaucina (F.Ritter) Hofacker & M.MachadoEndemicVUBR
Parodia herteri (Werderm.) N.P.TaylorEndemicCRBR; UY
Parodia horstii (Ritter) N.P.TaylorEndemicENBR; UY
Parodia hofackeriana A.S.Oliveira & R.PontesEndemicNEBR
Parodia ibicuiensis (Prestlé) Ancheschi & MagliEndemicNEBR
Parodia langsdorfii (Lehm.) D.R.HuntEndemicVUBR; UY
Parodia linkii (Lehm.) R.KieslingNativeLCAR; BR; UY
Parodia magnifica (F.Ritter) F.H.BrandtEndemicENBR
Parodia mammulosa (Lem.) N.P.TaylorEndemicLCAR; BR; UY
Parodia mueller-melchersii (Backeb.) N.P.TaylorEndemicENBR; UY
Parodia muricata (Otto ex Pfeiff.) HofackerEndemicENBR
Parodia neobuenekeri (F.Ritter) Anceschi & MagliEndemicNEBR
Parodia neoarechavaletae (Havlícek) D.R.HuntEndemicVUBR; UY
Parodia neohorstii (J.Theun.) N.P.TaylorEndemicCRBR
Parodia nothorauschii D.R.HuntEndemicCRBR; UY
Parodia ottonis (Lehm.) N.P.TaylorNativeVUAR; BR; UY
Parodia ottonis (Lehm.) N.P.Taylor subsp. ottonisNativeNEAR; BR; UY
Parodia ottonis subsp. horstii (F.Ritter) HofackerEndemicNEBR
Parodia oxycostata (Buining & Brederoo) HofackerEndemicVUBR
Parodia oxycostata (Buining & Brederoo) Hofacker subsp. OxycostataEndemicNEBR
Parodia oxycostata subsp. gracilis (F.Ritter) HofackerEndemicNEBR
Parodia rudibuenekeri (W.R.Abraham) Hofacker & P.J.BraunEndemicENBR
Parodia scopa (Spreng.) N.P.TaylorEndemicVUBR; UY
Parodia schumanniana (Nic.) F.H.BrandtNativeVUAR; BR
Parodia stockingeri (Prestlé) Hofacker & P.J.BraunEndemicENBR
Parodia tenuicylindrica (F.Ritter) D.R.HuntEndemicENBR; UY
Parodia turbinata (Arechav.) HofackerEndemicLCAR; BR; UY
Parodia turecekiana R.KieslingEndemicVUAR; UY
Parodia werdermanniana (Herter) N.P.Taylor EndemicCRBR; UY
Pereskia aculeata Mill.NativeLCAR; BR
Pereskia nemorosa Rojas AcostaNativeLCAR; BR; UY
Rhipsalis cereuscula Haw.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Rhipsalis floccosa Salm-Dyck ex Pfeiff.NativeLCAR; BR; UY
Rhipsalis floccosa Salm-Dyck ex Pfeiff. subsp. floccosaNativeNEBR
Rhipsalis floccosa subsp. hohenauensis (F.Ritter) Barthlott & N.P.TaylorNativeNEAR; BR; UY
Rhipsalis floccosa subsp. pulvinigera (G.Lindb.) Barthlott & N.P.TaylorNativeNEBR; UY
Rhipsalis teres (Vell.) Steud.NativeLCBR
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Menezes, A.A.d.; Braga, E.J.B.; Iganci, J. Where Endemism Meets Urgency: Native Cactaceae and the Conservation Crisis in the Subtropical South America Pampa. Diversity 2025, 17, 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17060397

AMA Style

Menezes AAd, Braga EJB, Iganci J. Where Endemism Meets Urgency: Native Cactaceae and the Conservation Crisis in the Subtropical South America Pampa. Diversity. 2025; 17(6):397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17060397

Chicago/Turabian Style

Menezes, Alessandra Almeida de, Eugenia Jacira Bolacel Braga, and João Iganci. 2025. "Where Endemism Meets Urgency: Native Cactaceae and the Conservation Crisis in the Subtropical South America Pampa" Diversity 17, no. 6: 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17060397

APA Style

Menezes, A. A. d., Braga, E. J. B., & Iganci, J. (2025). Where Endemism Meets Urgency: Native Cactaceae and the Conservation Crisis in the Subtropical South America Pampa. Diversity, 17(6), 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17060397

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop