The North American Latitudinal Gradient in Species Richness and Geographical Range of Freshwater Crayfish and Amphipods

1992 ◽  
Vol 139 (2) ◽  
pp. 342-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert France
2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 7055-7077 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Tang ◽  
M. G. Zhang ◽  
C. Liu ◽  
Z. Zhou ◽  
W. Chen ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Tropical Niche Conservatism Hypothesis (TCH) tries to explain the generally observed latitudinal gradient of increasing species diversity towards the tropics. To date, few studies have used phylogenetic approaches to assess its validity, even though such methods are especially suited to detect changes in niche structure. We test the TCH using modeled distributions of 1898 woody species in Yunnan Province (southwest China) in combination with a family level phylogeny. Unlike predicted, species richness and phylogenetic diversity did not show a latitudinal gradient, but identified two high diversity zones, one in Northwest and one in South Yunnan. Despite this, the underlying residual phylogenetic diversity showed a clear decline away from the tropics, while the species composition became progressingly more phylogenetically clustered towards the North. These latitudinal changes were strongly associated with more extreme temperature variability and declining precipitation and soil water availability, especially during the dry season. Our results suggests that the climatically more extreme conditions outside the tropics require adaptations for successful colonization, most likely related to the plant hydraulic system, that have been acquired by only a limited number of phylogenetically closely related plant lineages. We emphasize the importance of phylogenetic approaches for testing the TCH.


1999 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Mann ◽  
Vernon W. Proctor ◽  
Alberto S. Taylor

The great bulk of the world’s charophyte literature of the past 100 years or more suffers from several major limitations. Much is entirely descriptive with but few attempts to ascribe any functionality to the features under consideration, or how they adapt such species to their respective ecological niches. Charophyte distributions have been attributed almost entirely to physical parameters with virtually no consideration given to the role of aquatic herbivores or other biotic environmental factors. Furthermore, most workers have focused on relatively restricted areas with little or no reference to others either near or far removed. That there is much to be gained from a wider focus (both spatially and conceptually) that incorporates greater conjecture as well as enhanced collaboration is here suggested. How are the charophyte floras of one region similar to, or different from, those of another, and, of particular significance, ‘Why?’ The authors, being North American, focus on that continent but with the firm conviction that most generalities applicable there hold equally true for other landmasses, and have done so for the previous 10, if not 100, million years. This account focuses first, if somewhat superficially, on 14 widely distinct North American charophyte communities (plus South American Lake Titicaca) and then in greater detail on four of those. Among other issues considered are how species richness relates to latitude; why some geographical entities support more charophyte species than do others; the extent to which charophyte floras reflect the availability of different habitats; the contributions of herbivory to the preceding; the stability of the North American charophyte flora; the ecological considerations most often reflected by charophyte zonation and how–or to what extent–range extensions reflect niche preferences or requirements. While the authors well appreciate just how minimal their efforts may appear a century hence, at least they hope to have placed on the table some considerations with which colleagues from other landmasses may agree, disagree or suggest modifications.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Cazalis ◽  
Soumaya Belghali ◽  
Ana S.L. Rodrigues

AbstractProtected areas currently cover about 15% of the global land area, and constitute one of the main tools in biodiversity conservation. Quantifying their effectiveness at protecting species from local decline or extinction involves comparing protected with counterfactual unprotected sites representing “what would have happened to protected sites had they not been protected”. Most studies are based on pairwise comparisons, using neighbour sites to protected areas as counterfactuals, but this choice is often subjective and may be prone to biases. An alternative is to use large-scale biodiversity monitoring datasets, whereby the effect of protected areas is analysed statistically by controlling for landscape differences between protected and unprotected sites, allowing a more targeted and clearly defined measure of the protected areas effect. Here we use the North American Breeding Bird Survey dataset as a case study to investigate the effectiveness of protected areas at conserving bird assemblages. We analysed the effect of protected areas on species richness, on assemblage-level abundance, and on the abundance of individual species by modelling how these metrics relate to the proportion of each site that is protected, while controlling for local habitat, altitude, productivity and for spatial autocorrelation. At the assemblage level, we found almost no relationship between protection and species richness or overall abundance. At the species level, we found that forest species are present in significantly higher abundances within protected forest sites, compared with unprotected forests, with the opposite effect for species that favour open habitats. Hence, even though protected forest assemblages are not richer than those of unprotected forests, they are more typical of this habitat. We also found some evidence that species that avoid human activities tend to be favoured by protection, but found no such effect for regionally declining species. Our results highlight the complexity of assessing protected areas effectiveness, and the necessity of clearly defining the metrics of effectiveness and the controls used in such assessments.


2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl L. Evans ◽  
Neil A. James ◽  
Kevin J. Gaston

1990 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcelo A. Aizen ◽  
William A. Patterson

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 511-512
Author(s):  
David G. McLeod ◽  
Ira Klimberg ◽  
Donald Gleason ◽  
Gerald Chodak ◽  
Thomas Morris ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document