Edge-Related Loss of Tree Phylogenetic Diversity in the Severely Fragmented Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Deforestation and forest fragmentation are known major causes of nonrandom extinction, but there is no information about their impact on the phylogenetic diversity of the remaining species assemblages. Using a large vegetation dataset from an old hyper-fragmented landscape in the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest we assess whether the local extirpation of tree species and functional impoverishment of tree assemblages reduce the phylogenetic diversity of the remaining tree assemblages. We detected a significant loss of tree phylogenetic diversity in forest edges, but not in core areas of small (<80 ha) forest fragments. This was attributed to a reduction of 11% in the average phylogenetic distance between any two randomly chosen individuals from forest edges; an increase of 17% in the average phylogenetic distance to closest non-conspecific relative for each individual in forest edges; and to the potential manifestation of late edge effects in the core areas of small forest remnants. We found no evidence supporting fragmentation-induced phylogenetic clustering or evenness. This could be explained by the low phylogenetic conservatism of key life-history traits corresponding to vulnerable species. Edge effects must be reduced to effectively protect tree phylogenetic diversity in the severely fragmented Brazilian Atlantic forest

BIOFRAG: A new database for analysing BIOdiversity responses to forest FRAGmentation

Habitat fragmentation studies are producing inconsistent and complex results across which it is nearly impossible to synthesise. Consistent analytical techniques can be applied to primary datasets, if stored in a flexible database that allows simple data retrieval for subsequent analyses. Method: We developed a relational database linking data collected in the field to taxonomic nomenclature, spatial and temporal plot attributes and further environmental variables (e.g. information on biogeographic region. Typical field assessments include measures of biological variables (e.g. presence, abundance, ground cover) of one species or a set of species linked to a set of plots in fragments of a forested landscape. Conclusion: The database currently holds records of 5792 unique species sampled in 52 landscapes in six of eight biogeographic regions: mammals 173, birds 1101, herpetofauna 284, insects 2317, other arthropods: 48, plants 1804, snails 65. Most species are found in one or two landscapes, but some are found in four. Using the huge amount of primary data on biodiversity response to fragmentation becomes increasingly important as anthropogenic pressures from high population growth and land demands are increasing. This database can be queried to extract data for subsequent analyses of the biological response to forest fragmentation with new metrics that can integrate across the components of fragmented landscapes. Meta-analyses of findings based on consistent methods and metrics will be able to generalise over studies allowing inter-comparisons for unified answers. The database can thus help researchers in providing findings for analyses of trade-offs between land use benefits and impacts on biodiversity and to track performance of management for biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes.Fil: Pfeifer, Marion. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lefebvre, Veronique. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Gardner, Toby A.. Stockholm Environment Institute; SueciaFil: Arroyo Rodríguez, Víctor. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; MéxicoFil: Baeten, Lander. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Banks Leite, Cristina. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Barlow, Jos. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Betts, Matthew G.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Brunet, Joerg. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: Cerezo Blandón, Alexis Mauricio. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos y Sistemas de Información; ArgentinaFil: Cisneros, Laura M.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Collard, Stuart. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia; AustraliaFil: D´Cruze, Neil. The World Society for the Protection of Animals; Reino UnidoFil: Da Silva Motta, Catarina. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Duguay, Stephanie. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Eggermont, Hilde. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Eigenbrod, Félix. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Hadley, Adam S.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Hanson, Thor R.. No especifíca;Fil: Hawes, Joseph E.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Heartsill Scalley, Tamara. United State Department of Agriculture. Forestry Service; Puerto RicoFil: Klingbeil, Brian T.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Kolb, Annette. Universitat Bremen; AlemaniaFil: Kormann, Urs. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Kumar, Sunil. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Lachat, Thibault. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest; SuizaFil: Lakeman Fraser, Poppy. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Lantschner, María Victoria. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Laurance, William F.. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Leal, Inara R.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Lens, Luc. University of Ghent; BélgicaFil: Marsh, Charles J.. University of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Medina Rangel, Guido F.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Melles, Stephanie. University of Toronto; CanadáFil: Mezger, Dirk. Field Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Oldekop, Johan A.. University of Sheffield; Reino UnidoFil: Overal , Williams L.. Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Departamento de Entomologia; BrasilFil: Owen, Charlotte. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino UnidoFil: Phalan, Ben. University of Southampton; Reino UnidoFil: Pidgeon, Anna Michle. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Pilia, Oriana. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Possingham, Hugh P.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The University Of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Possingham, Max L.. No especifíca;Fil: Raheem, Dinarzarde C.. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences; Bélgica. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Ribeiro, Danilo B.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Ribeiro Neto, Jose D.. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Robinson, Douglas W.. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Robinson, Richard. Manjimup Research Centre; AustraliaFil: Rytwinski, Trina. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Scherber, Christoph. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Slade, Eleanor M.. University of Oxford; Reino UnidoFil: Somarriba, Eduardo. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza; Costa RicaFil: Stouffer, Philip C.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Struebig, Matthew J.. University of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. University College London; Estados Unidos. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; AlemaniaFil: Tyre, Andrew J.. Universidad de Nebraska - Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Urbina Cardona, Jose N.. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana; ColombiaFil: Vasconcelos, Heraldo L.. Universidade Federal de Uberlandia; BrasilFil: Wearn, Oliver. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. The Zoological Society of London; Reino UnidoFil: Wells, Konstans. University of Adelaide; AustraliaFil: Willig, Michael R.. University of Connecticut; Estados UnidosFil: Wood, Eric. University of Wisconsin; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Richard P.. Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust; Reino UnidoFil: Bradley, Andrew V.. Imperial College London; Reino UnidoFil: Ewers, Robert M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unid

An estimate of the number of tropical tree species

The high species richness of tropical forests has long been recognized, yet there remains substantial uncertainty regarding the actual number of tropical tree species. Using a pantropical tree inventory database from closed canopy forests, consisting of 657,630 trees belonging to 11,371 species, we use a fitted value of Fisher’s alpha and an approximate pantropical stem total to estimate the minimum number of tropical forest tree species to fall between ∼40,000 and ∼53,000, i.e. at the high end of previous estimates. Contrary to common assumption, the Indo-Pacific region was found to be as species-rich as the Neotropics, with both regions having a minimum of ∼19,000–25,000 tree species. Continental Africa is relatively depauperate with a minimum of ∼4,500–6,000 tree species. Very few species are shared among the African, American, and the Indo-Pacific regions. We provide a methodological framework for estimating species richness in trees that may help refine species richness estimates of tree-dependent taxa

Phylogenetic classification of the world's tropical forests

Knowledge about the biogeographic affinities of the world’s tropical forests helps to better understand regional differences in forest structure, diversity, composition, and dynamics. Such understanding will enable anticipation of region-specific responses to global environmental change. Modern phylogenies, in combination with broad coverage of species inventory data, now allow for global biogeographic analyses that take species evolutionary distance into account. Here we present a classification of the world’s tropical forests based on their phylogenetic similarity. We identify five principal floristic regions and their floristic relationships: (i) Indo-Pacific, (ii) Subtropical, (iii) African, (iv) American, and (v) Dry forests. Our results do not support the traditional neo- versus paleotropical forest division but instead separate the combined American and African forests from their Indo-Pacific counterparts. We also find indications for the existence of a global dry forest region, with representatives in America, Africa, Madagascar, and India. Additionally, a northern-hemisphere Subtropical forest region was identified with representatives in Asia and America, providing support for a link between Asian and American northern-hemisphere forests.</p

26th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting (CNS*2017): Part 3 - Meeting Abstracts - Antwerp, Belgium. 15–20 July 2017

This work was produced as part of the activities of FAPESP Research,\ud Disseminations and Innovation Center for Neuromathematics (grant\ud 2013/07699-0, S. Paulo Research Foundation). NLK is supported by a\ud FAPESP postdoctoral fellowship (grant 2016/03855-5). ACR is partially\ud supported by a CNPq fellowship (grant 306251/2014-0)

A global assessment of primate responses to landscape structure

Land-use change modifies the spatial structure of terrestrial landscapes, potentially shaping the distribution, abundance and diversity of remaining species assemblages. Non-human primates can be particularly vulnerable to landscape disturbances, but our understanding of this topic is far from complete. Here we reviewed all available studies on primates' responses to landscape structure. We found 34 studies of 71 primate species (24 genera and 10 families) that used a landscape approach. Most studies (82%) were from Neotropical forests, with howler monkeys being the most frequently studied taxon (56% of studies). All studies but one used a site-landscape or a patch-landscape study design, and frequently (34% of studies) measured landscape variables within a given radius from the edge of focal patches. Altogether, the 34 studies reported 188 responses to 17 landscape-scale metrics. However, the majority of the studies (62%) quantified landscape predictors within a single spatial scale, potentially missing significant primate–landscape responses. To assess such responses accurately, landscape metrics need to be measured at the optimal scale, i.e. the spatial extent at which the primate–landscape relationship is strongest (so-called ‘scale of effect’). Only 21% of studies calculated the scale of effect through multiscale approaches. Interestingly, the vast majority of studies that do not assess the scale of effect mainly reported null effects of landscape structure on primates, while most of the studies based on optimal scales found significant responses. These significant responses were primarily to landscape composition variables rather than landscape configuration variables. In particular, primates generally show positive responses to increasing fore

On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes

With the decreasing affordability of protecting large blocks of pristine tropical forests, ecologists have staked their hopes on the management of human-modified landscapes (HMLs) to conserve tropical biodiversity. Here, we examine key forces affecting the dynamics of HMLs, and propose a framework connecting human disturbances, land use, and prospects for both tropical biodiversity and ecosystem services. We question the forest transition as a worldwide source of new secondary forest; the role played by regenerating (secondary) forest for biodiversity conservation, and the resilience of HMLs. We then offer a conceptual model describing potential successional trajectories among four major landscape types (natural, conservation, functional, and degraded) and highlight the potential implications of our model in terms of research agendas and conservation planning

Impact of landscape composition and configuration on forest specialist and generalist bird species in the fragmented Lacandona rainforest, Mexico

With accelerated land-use change throughout the tropics, an increasing proportion of global biodiversity is located in human-modified landscapes. Understanding the relative effects of landscape composition and configuration on biodiversity is needed to design effective conservation strategies. Yet this topic is poorly understood because most studies have been performed at the patch scale, and do not assess the impact of landscape structure on species. Using a multi-model inference approach, we assessed the relative effect of landscape composition (i.e. percentage of forest cover and matrix composition) and landscape configuration (i.e. number of forest patches and forest edge density) on α- and β-diversity of birds in 17 forest fragments and three areas of continuous forest within the Lacandona rainforest, Mexico. We tested these impacts at two spatial scales (100 and 500. ha) for forest specialist and generalist birds. In general, forest specialist birds showed stronger responses to landscape characteristics than generalist species, particularly to variations in landscape composition at the 100-ha scale. The loss of forest cover represented the main threat to forest specialist birds, with a negative impact on α-diversity that was consistent across the two spatial scales. In contrast, at the two spatial scales generalist birds seemed to be favored