Evolutionary processes underlying latitudinal differences in reef fish biodiversity

Aim: To examine the dynamics among the processes of speciation, extinction and dispersal in marine environments using phylogenies to reveal the evolutionary mechanisms that promote latitudinal differences in biodiversity. Using phylogenetic comparative methods we assess whether tropical reef fish lineages show higher diversification rates and whether the majority of extratropical reef fish lineages have originated from tropical areas. Location: Shallow water tropical and extratropical reefs globally. Methods: Using fossil-calibrated phylogenies for four reef-associated fish families (Chaetodontidae, Labridae, Pomacentridae and Sparidae) we apply evolutionary models (GeoSSE and HiSSE) that allow the estimation of speciation, extinction and dispersal rates associated with geographical ranges and explore potential biases from unsampled characters. Results: We found that tropical lineages show higher rates of speciation and tended to have lower extinction rates. Overall, we identify higher net diversification rates for tropical lineages compared with those in extratropical regions in all four families. Rates of dispersal tended to be higher for lineages with tropical origins expanding into extratropical regions. Within the family Labridae, two tropical lineages were found to exhibit higher net diversification rates, above that expected from latitudinal differences. Main conclusions : Our results offer support for the predictions of the out of the tropics' and evolutionary speed' models of evolution, both of which highlight the marine tropics as an important evolutionary engine promoting latitudinal differences in reef fish biodiversity. Moreover, we find that two tropical labrid lineages are undergoing exceptional diversification associated with additional traits, possibly linked with the extreme sexual dichromatism observed in both clades

Genome of the Avirulent Human-Infective Trypanosome—Trypanosoma rangeli

Background: Trypanosoma rangeli is a hemoflagellate protozoan parasite infecting humans and other wild and domestic mammals across Central and South America. It does not cause human disease, but it can be mistaken for the etiologic agent of Chagas disease, Trypanosoma cruzi. We have sequenced the T. rangeli genome to provide new tools for elucidating the distinct and intriguing biology of this species and the key pathways related to interaction with its arthropod and mammalian hosts.  Methodology/Principal Findings: The T. rangeli haploid genome is ,24 Mb in length, and is the smallest and least repetitive trypanosomatid genome sequenced thus far. This parasite genome has shorter subtelomeric sequences compared to those of T. cruzi and T. brucei; displays intraspecific karyotype variability and lacks minichromosomes. Of the predicted 7,613 protein coding sequences, functional annotations could be determined for 2,415, while 5,043 are hypothetical proteins, some with evidence of protein expression. 7,101 genes (93%) are shared with other trypanosomatids that infect humans. An ortholog of the dcl2 gene involved in the T. brucei RNAi pathway was found in T. rangeli, but the RNAi machinery is non-functional since the other genes in this pathway are pseudogenized. T. rangeli is highly susceptible to oxidative stress, a phenotype that may be explained by a smaller number of anti-oxidant defense enzymes and heatshock proteins.  Conclusions/Significance: Phylogenetic comparison of nuclear and mitochondrial genes indicates that T. rangeli and T. cruzi are equidistant from T. brucei. In addition to revealing new aspects of trypanosome co-evolution within the vertebrate and invertebrate hosts, comparative genomic analysis with pathogenic trypanosomatids provides valuable new information that can be further explored with the aim of developing better diagnostic tools and/or therapeutic targets

A comprehensive analysis of autocorrelation and bias in home range estimation

Home range estimation is routine practice in ecological research. While advances in animal tracking technology have increased our capacity to collect data to support home range analysis, these same advances have also resulted in increasingly autocorrelated data. Consequently, the question of which home range estimator to use on modern, highly autocorrelated tracking data remains open. This question is particularly relevant given that most estimators assume independently sampled data. Here, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of autocorrelation on home range estimation. We base our study on an extensive data set of GPS locations from 369 individuals representing 27 species distributed across five continents. We first assemble a broad array of home range estimators, including Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) with four bandwidth optimizers (Gaussian reference function, autocorrelated-Gaussian reference function [AKDE], Silverman´s rule of thumb, and least squares cross-validation), Minimum Convex Polygon, and Local Convex Hull methods. Notably, all of these estimators except AKDE assume independent and identically distributed (IID) data. We then employ half-sample cross-validation to objectively quantify estimator performance, and the recently introduced effective sample size for home range area estimation ((Formula presented.)) to quantify the information content of each data set. We found that AKDE 95% area estimates were larger than conventional IID-based estimates by a mean factor of 2. The median number of cross-validated locations included in the hold-out sets by AKDE 95% (or 50%) estimates was 95.3% (or 50.1%), confirming the larger AKDE ranges were appropriately selective at the specified quantile. Conversely, conventional estimates exhibited negative bias that increased with decreasing (Formula presented.). To contextualize our empirical results, we performed a detailed simulation study to tease apart how sampling frequency, sampling duration, and the focal animal´s movement conspire to affect range estimates. Paralleling our empirical results, the simulation study demonstrated that AKDE was generally more accurate than conventional methods, particularly for small (Formula presented.). While 72% of the 369 empirical data sets had >1,000 total observations, only 4% had an (Formula presented.) >1,000, where 30% had an (Formula presented.) <30. In this frequently encountered scenario of small (Formula presented.), AKDE was the only estimator capable of producing an accurate home range estimate on autocorrelated data.Fil: Noonan, Michael J.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Tucker, Marlee A.. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Fleming, Christen H.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Akre, Thomas S.. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Alberts, Susan C.. University of Duke; Estados UnidosFil: Ali, Abdullahi H.. Hirola Conservation Programme. Garissa; KeniaFil: Altmann, Jeanne. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Antunes, Pamela Castro. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Belant, Jerrold L.. State University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Beyer, Dean. Universitat Phillips; AlemaniaFil: Blaum, Niels. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Böhning Gaese, Katrin. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; Alemania. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Cullen Jr., Laury. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas; BrasilFil: de Paula, Rogerio Cunha. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Dekker, Jasja. Jasja Dekker Dierecologie; Países BajosFil: Drescher Lehman, Jonathan. George Mason University; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Farwig, Nina. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Fichtel, Claudia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Fischer, Christina. Universitat Technical Zu Munich; AlemaniaFil: Ford, Adam T.. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Goheen, Jacob R.. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Janssen, René. Bionet Natuuronderzoek; Países BajosFil: Jeltsch, Florian. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Kauffman, Matthew. University Of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Kappeler, Peter M.. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: Koch, Flávia. German Primate Center; AlemaniaFil: LaPoint, Scott. Max Planck Institute für Ornithologie; Alemania. Columbia University; Estados UnidosFil: Markham, A. Catherine. Stony Brook University; Estados UnidosFil: Medici, Emilia Patricia. Instituto de Pesquisas Ecológicas (IPE) ; BrasilFil: Morato, Ronaldo G.. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. National Research Center For Carnivores Conservation; BrasilFil: Nathan, Ran. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; IsraelFil: Oliveira Santos, Luiz Gustavo R.. Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul; BrasilFil: Olson, Kirk A.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. National Zoological Park; Estados UnidosFil: Patterson, Bruce. Field Museum of National History; Estados UnidosFil: Paviolo, Agustin Javier. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú | Universidad Nacional de Misiones. Instituto de Biología Subtropical. Instituto de Biología Subtropical - Nodo Puerto Iguazú; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Nordeste; ArgentinaFil: Ramalho, Emiliano Esterci. Institute For Conservation of The Neotropical Carnivores; Brasil. Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamirauá; BrasilFil: Rösner, Sascha. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Schabo, Dana G.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Selva, Nuria. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Sergiel, Agnieszka. Institute of Nature Conservation of The Polish Academy of Sciences; PoloniaFil: Xavier da Silva, Marina. Parque Nacional do Iguaçu; BrasilFil: Spiegel, Orr. Universitat Tel Aviv; IsraelFil: Thompson, Peter. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Ullmann, Wiebke. Universitat Potsdam; AlemaniaFil: Ziḝba, Filip. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Zwijacz Kozica, Tomasz. Tatra National Park; PoloniaFil: Fagan, William F.. University of Maryland; Estados UnidosFil: Mueller, Thomas. Senckenberg Gesellschaft Für Naturforschung; . Goethe Universitat Frankfurt; AlemaniaFil: Calabrese, Justin M.. National Zoological Park; Estados Unidos. University of Maryland; Estados Unido

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio