Evoregions of fleas and their small mammalian hosts: Do they coincide?

Combining the biogeography and phylogenetic patterns of parasite-host associations allows a better understanding of the history of parasite–host interactions, which can be achieved via biogeographic regionalization incorporating phylogenetic information. Recently, the concepts of evoregions (regions where a majority of species evolved from one or several ancestors inhabiting these regions) and evolutionary transition zones (regions of high phylogenetic turnover) have been proposed, coupled with a classification approach for these concepts. We applied this approach to 206 flea species and 265 host species of the Palearctic and aimed to identify evoregions and evolutionary transition zones for both fleas and hosts and to understand whether these evoregions and transition zones match each other. We identified 5 evoregions with 3 transition zones for either fleas or hosts, but neither the positions and boundaries of the flea and host evoregions nor the transition zones coincided. Indications of multiple geographic centres of diversification of the same flea lineages suggested that (a) the common evolutionary history of fleas and hosts was characterized by multiple events other than codiversification and that (b) dispersal played an important role in flea and host assemblies. Barriers to dispersal could be represented by landscape features (deserts and mountain ranges) and/or climate differences

Phylogenetic patterns in regional flea assemblages from 6 biogeographic realms: strong links between flea and host phylogenetic turnovers and weak effects of phylogenetic originality on host specificity

We investigated phylogenetic patterns in flea assemblages from 80 regions in 6 biogeographic realms and asked whether (a) flea phylogenetic turnover is driven by host phylogenetic turnover, environmental dissimilarity or geographic distance; (b) the relative importance of these drivers differs between realms; and (c) the environmental drivers of flea phylogenetic turnover are similar to those of host phylogenetic turnover. We also asked whether the phylogenetic originality of a flea species correlates with the degree of its host specificity and whether the phylogenetic originality of a host species correlates with the diversity of its flea assemblages. We found that host phylogenetic turnover was the best predictor of flea phylogenetic turnover in all realms, whereas the effect of the environment was weaker. Environmental predictors of flea phylogenetic turnover differed between realms. The importance of spatial distances as a predictor of the phylogenetic dissimilarity between regional assemblages varied between realms. The responses of host turnover differed from those of fleas. In 4 of the 6 realms, geographic distances were substantially better predictors of host phylogenetic turnover than environmental gradients. We also found no general relationship between flea phylogenetic originality and its host specificity in terms of either host species richness or host phylogenetic diversity. We conclude that flea phylogenetic turnover is determined mainly by the phylogenetic turnover of their hosts rather than by environmental gradients. Phylogenetic patterns in fleas are manifested at the level of regional assemblages rather than at the level of individual species

Latitudinal distributions of the species richness, phylogenetic diversity, and functional diversity of fleas and their small mammalian hosts in four geographic quadrants

We studied latitudinal patterns in the species richness (SR), the phylogenetic diversity (PD), and the functional diversity (FD) of fleas and their mammalian hosts. We asked whether these patterns in either fleas, hosts, or both 1) conform to a classical latitudinal gradient; 2) vary geographically; and 3) differ between fleas and hosts. We also asked whether the patterns of PD and FD follow those of SR. We collected data on the latitudinal distribution of 1022 flea and 900 mammal species from literature sources and calculated the SR, PD, and FD of both groups in 1° latitude bands. Then, we used broken-stick regression models to analyse separately the latitudinal variation of 1) each diversity facet and 2) fleas and hosts in each geographic quadrant. The classical latitudinal gradient pattern was not found in either fleas or hosts across any facet of diversity or geographic quadrant, except for the PD of fleas in the southeastern quadrant and the FD of hosts in the southwestern quadrant. Latitudinal patterns of the SR, PD and FD of fleas and hosts differed substantially between geographic quadrants. Furthermore, the latitudinal distributions of flea and host SR were similar in three of four quadrants (except the northeastern quadrant), whereas the latitudinal distributions of flea and host PD were similar in the southwestern quadrant only. No similarity in flea versus host FD was revealed. The latitudinal patterns of flea and host PD and FD mostly did not follow those of their SR. We conclude that latitudinal gradients of species richness and phylogenetic and functional diversity appeared not to be universal phenomena. Instead, the latitudinal distributions of these diversity facets represent an interplay of ecological (current and past) and historical processes. For parasites, the processes acting on hosts add another layer of complexity underlying their latitudinal diversity patterns.Fil: Krasnov, Boris R.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Grabovsky, Vasily I.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Khokhlova, Irina S.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Lopez Berrizbeitia, Maria Fernanda. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo. Programa de Investigación de Biodiversidad Argentina; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Matthee, Sonja. No especifíca;Fil: Roll, Uri. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Sánchez, Juliana Patricia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Universidad Nacional del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Shenbrot, Georgy I.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: van der Mescht, Luther. No especifíca

Multi-site interaction turnover in flea–mammal networks from four continents: Application of zeta diversity concept and multi-site generalised dissimilarity modelling

We studied patterns of changes in host–flea interactions measured as total turnover (TT) which can be partitioned into components, namely species turnover (ST), interaction rewiring (RW), and mixed turnover (MX) in networks from Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America, applying a multi-site interaction turnover metric. We also searched for environmental drivers of TT and its components. We asked whether (a) different components contribute differently to TT in rare versus common interactions (in terms of frequency of interaction occurrence); (b) relative roles of turnover components for rare and common interactions differ between continents; and (c) the environmental drivers of interaction turnover differ between turnover components, rare and common interactions, and/or continental networks. Between-network dissimilarity of interactions increased with an increase in the number of compared networks. Pure ST contributed the most to the turnover of rare interactions, whereas the turnover of common interactions was predominated by MX. The effects of environmental factors, interaction richness, and spatial distance on TT and its components differed between continental networks, turnover components, and rare versus common interactions. Climate and vegetation exerted the strongest effects on (a) ST for rare (except Asia) and, to a lesser degree, common (South America) interactions, (b) RW for both rare and common interactions in Europe/Asia, and (c) MX for both rare and common interactions (except Africa). Interaction richness and spatial distance mainly influenced ST. We conclude that the patterns of interaction turnover and its components were geographically invariant and did not depend on the identity of the interactors, whereas the drivers of the turnover differed between continental networks because of species-specific responses to the environment.Fil: Krasnov, Boris R.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Khokhlova, Irina S.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Kiefer, Mathias S.. Ludwig Maximilians Universitat; AlemaniaFil: Kiefer, Daniel. Ludwig Maximilians Universitat; AlemaniaFil: Lareschi, Marcela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaFil: Matthee, Sonja. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Sánchez, Juliana Patricia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Universidad Nacional del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia del Noroeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Shenbrot, Georgy I.. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Stanko, Michal. Slovak Academy of Sciences. Institute of Botany; EslovaquiaFil: van der Mescht, Luther. Stellenbosch University; Sudáfric

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

Aim: Comprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW). Location: Global. Taxon: All extant mammal species. Methods: Range maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species). Results: Range maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use. Main conclusion: Expert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control.Fil: Marsh, Charles J.. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Sica, Yanina. Yale University; Estados UnidosFil: Burguin, Connor. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Dorman, Wendy A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Anderson, Robert C.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: del Toro Mijares, Isabel. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Vigneron, Jessica G.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Barve, Vijay. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Dombrowik, Victoria L.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Duong, Michelle. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Guralnick, Robert. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Hart, Julie A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Maypole, J. Krish. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: McCall, Kira. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Ranipeta, Ajay. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Schuerkmann, Anna. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Torselli, Michael A.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Lacher, Thomas. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Don E.. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Abba, Agustin Manuel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios Parasitológicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaFil: Aguirre, Luis F.. Universidad Mayor de San Simón; BoliviaFil: Arroyo Cabrales, Joaquín. Instituto Nacional de Antropología E Historia, Mexico; MéxicoFil: Astúa, Diego. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Baker, Andrew M.. Queensland University of Technology; Australia. Queensland Museum; AustraliaFil: Braulik, Gill. University of St. Andrews; Reino UnidoFil: Braun, Janet K.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brito, Jorge. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Busher, Peter E.. Boston University; Estados UnidosFil: Burneo, Santiago F.. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: Camacho, M. Alejandra. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: de Almeida Chiquito, Elisandra. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Cook, Joseph A.. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Cuéllar Soto, Erika. Sultan Qaboos University; OmánFil: Davenport, Tim R. B.. Wildlife Conservation Society; TanzaniaFil: Denys, Christiane. Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle; FranciaFil: Dickman, Christopher R.. The University Of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Eldridge, Mark D. B.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Fernandez Duque, Eduardo. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Francis, Charles M.. Environment And Climate Change Canada; CanadáFil: Frankham, Greta. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Freitas, Thales. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul; BrasilFil: Friend, J. Anthony. Conservation And Attractions; AustraliaFil: Giannini, Norberto Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico - Tucumán. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Gursky-Doyen, Sharon. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: Hackländer, Klaus. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Hawkins, Melissa. National Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Helgen, Kristofer M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Heritage, Steven. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Hinckley, Arlo. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Holden, Mary. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Holekamp, Kay E.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Humle, Tatyana. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Ibáñez Ulargui, Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Jackson, Stephen M.. Australian Museum; AustraliaFil: Janecka, Mary. University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown; Estados Unidos. University of Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Jenkins, Paula. Natural History Museum; Reino UnidoFil: Juste, Javier. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Leite, Yuri L. R.. Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BrasilFil: Novaes, Roberto Leonan M.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lim, Burton K.. Royal Ontario Museum; CanadáFil: Maisels, Fiona G.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Mares, Michael A.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Marsh, Helene. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Mattioli, Stefano. Università degli Studi di Siena; ItaliaFil: Morton, F. Blake. University of Hull; Reino UnidoFil: Ojeda, Agustina Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; ArgentinaFil: Ordóñez Garza, Nicté. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Pardiñas, Ulises Francisco J.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Diversidad y Evolución Austral; ArgentinaFil: Pavan, Mariana. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Riley, Erin P.. San Diego State University; Estados UnidosFil: Rubenstein, Daniel I.. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Ruelas, Dennisse. Museo de Historia Natural, Lima; PerúFil: Schai-Braun, Stéphanie. Universitat Fur Bodenkultur Wien; AustriaFil: Schank, Cody J.. University of Texas at Austin; Estados UnidosFil: Shenbrot, Georgy. Ben Gurion University of the Negev; IsraelFil: Solari, Sergio. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Superina, Mariella. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Medicina y Biología Experimental de Cuyo; ArgentinaFil: Tsang, Susan. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Van Cakenberghe, Victor. Universiteit Antwerp; BélgicaFil: Veron, Geraldine. Université Pierre et Marie Curie; FranciaFil: Wallis, Janette. Kasokwa-kityedo Forest Project; UgandaFil: Whittaker, Danielle. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Wells, Rod. Flinders University.; AustraliaFil: Wittemyer, George. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados UnidosFil: Woinarski, John. Charles Darwin University; AustraliaFil: Upham, Nathan S.. University of Yale; Estados UnidosFil: Jetz, Walter. University of Yale; Estados Unido

Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

Voluharice in lemingi (Arvicolinae) palearktične regije

As the most species-rich group of Palaearctic rodents, voles and lemmings are frequently used in various research endeavours of fundamental and applied significance. The present work integrates achievements of the genomic era with the traditional taxonomy and provides an authoritative and up-to-date taxonomic guide to the animal group which is of great interest to experts engaged in medical zoology, epidemiology, biostratigraphy, zooarchaeology, evolutionary research, population ecology, animal systematics, biodiversity conservation, museum collection management and many more biological subdisciplines. The text is supplemented by 331 illustrations and over one thousand references. Depicted are morphological details of skull and dentition of each of the 128 species and their distributions are mapped in detail. The book will allow the user to interpret intelligently and cautiously the interrelationships among species of voles and lemmings and to follow the anticipated taxonomic change with a critical eye.Voluharice in lemingi so z vrstami najštevilčnejša skupina palearktičnih glodavcev, zato so pogosto predmet temeljnih in aplikativnih raziskav. Pričujoče delo, ki združuje dosežke genomike s tradicionalno taksonomijo, je avtoritativen in aktualen vodnik v taksonomijo živalske skupine, za katero se zanimajo epidemiologi, biostratigrafi, zooarheologi, evolucijski biologi, populacijski ekologi, biosistematiki, varstveni biologi, muzejski kustosi in raziskovalci različnih drugih bioloških področij. Besedilo spremlja 331 ilustracij in več kot tisoč referenc. Za vsako od 128 vrst so podane morfološke posebnosti in natančni zemljevidi razširjenosti. Knjiga bo omogočila uporabniku poglobljeno in kritično interpretacijo odnosov med vrstami voluharic in lemingov. Z njo bo lažje razumel taksonomske spremembe, ki so v tej skupini glodavcev še vedno pogoste

Voles and Lemmings (Arvicolinae) of the Palaearctic Region

As the most species-rich group of Palaearctic rodents, voles and lemmings are frequently used in various research endeavours of fundamental and applied significance. The present work integrates achievements of the genomic era with the traditional taxonomy and provides an authoritative and up-to-date taxonomic guide to the animal group which is of great interest to experts engaged in medical zoology, epidemiology, biostratigraphy, zooarchaeology, evolutionary research, population ecology, animal systematics, biodiversity conservation, museum collection management and many more biological subdisciplines. The text is supplemented by 331 illustrations and over one thousand references. Depicted are morphological details of skull and dentition of each of the 128 species and their distributions are mapped in detail. The book will allow the user to interpret intelligently and cautiously the interrelationships among species of voles and lemmings and to follow the anticipated taxonomic change with a critical eye

A New Coccidian from \u3ci\u3eAcomys cahirinus\u3c/i\u3e Desmarest, 1819, from Evolution Canyon, Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel

In 1994, fresh fecal samples were collected and examined for coccidian parasites from 43 spiny mice (Acomys cahirinus) and from 60 wood mice (Apodemus mystacinus). The 2 genera of rodents inhabit an area in Lower Nahal Oren, Mount Carmel, Israel, known as Evolution Canyon, which consists of opposite-facing slopes that are geologically identical, but micro-climatically very different. Acomys cahirinus is found primarily on the warmer and drier south-facing slope (SFS), whereas A. mystacinus primarily inhabits the cooler and wetter north-facing slope (NFS). None of the samples from the A. mystacinus contained coccidia, but 6 of 43 (14%) A. cahirinus individuals were discharging eimerian oocysts that we describe herein as a new species. Five of the 6 positive samples were from the SFS. Sporulated oocysts are ovoidal to subspheroidal, 26.5 × 22.9 (21-29 × 19-26) μm, without a micropyle, but with an oocyst residuum of 1 to several large clear globules and a medium-sized refractile polar body; they contain lemon-shaped sporocysts, 10.4 × 8.1 (10-11 × 7-10) μm, with a sporocyst residuum and Stieda body, but no sub-/or parastieda body. Sporozoites lie side by side, completely filling oocysts; each contains a large posterior refractile body