Systematics of the Neotropical Genus Leptodactylus Fitzinger, 1826 (Anura: Leptodactylidae): Phylogeny, the Relevance of Non-molecular Evidence, and Species Accounts

A phylogeny of the species-rich clade of the Neotropical frog genus Leptodactylus sensu stricto is presented on the basis of a total evidence analysis of molecular (mitochondrial and nuclear markers) and non-molecular (adult and larval morphological and behavioral characters) sampled from > 80% of the 75 currently recognized species. Our results support the monophyly of Leptodactylus sensu stricto, with Hydrolaetare placed as its sister group. The reciprocal monophyly of Hydrolaetare and Leptodactylus sensu stricto does not require that we consider Hydrolaetare as either a subgenus or synonym of Leptodactylus sensu lato. We recognize Leptodactylus sensu stricto, Hydrolaetare, Adenomera, and Lithodytes as valid monophyletic genera. Our results generally support the traditionally recognized Leptodactylus species groups, with exceptions involving only a few species that are easily accommodated without proposing new groups or significantly altering contents. The four groups form a pectinate tree, with the Leptodactylus fuscus group diverging first, followed by the L. pentadactylus group, which is sister to the L. latrans and L. melanonotus groups. To evaluate the impact of non-molecular evidence on our results, we compared our total evidence results with results obtained from analyses using only molecular data. Although non-molecular evidence comprised only 3.5% of the total evidence matrix, it had a strong impact on our total evidence results. Only one species group was monophyletic in the molecular-only analysis, and support differed in 86% of the 54 Leptodactylus clades that are shared by the results of the two analyses. Even though no non-molecular evidence was included for Hydrolaetare, exclusion of that data partition resulted in that genus being nested within Leptodactylus, demonstrating that the inclusion of a small amount of non-molecular evidence for a subset of species can alter not only the placement of those species, but also species that were not scored for those data. The evolution of several natural history and reproductive traits is considered in the light of our phylogenic framework. Invasion of rocky outcrops, larval oophagy, and use of underground reproductive chambers are restricted to species of the Leptodactylus fuscus and L. pentadactylus groups. In contrast, larval schooling, larval attendance, and more complex parental care are restricted to the L. latrans and L. melanonotus groups. Construction of foam nests is plesiomorphic in Leptodactylus but their placement varies extensively (e.g., underground chambers, surface of waterbodies, natural or excavated basins). Information on species synonymy, etymology, adult and larval morphology, advertisement call, and geographic distribution is summarized in species accounts for the 30 species of the Leptodactylus fuscus group, 17 species of the L. pentadactylus group, eight species of the L. latrans group, and 17 species of the L. melanonotus group, as well as the three species that are currently unassigned to any species group.Se presenta una filogenia del género Leptodactylus, un ciado neotropical rico en especies, basada en análises combinados de datos moleculares (marcadores nuclear y mitocondriales) y no moleculares (caracteres de la morfología de adultos y larvas así como de comportamiento) se muestrearon > 80% de las 75 especies reconocidas. Los resultados apoyan la monofília de Leptodactylus sensu stricto, con Hydrolaetare como su grupo hermano. La monofília recíproca de Hydrolaetare y Leptodactylus no requiere considerar a Hydrolaetare como un subgénero o sinónimo de Leptodactylus sensu lato. Se reconocen Leptodactylus sensu stricto, Hydrolaetare, Adenomera y Lithodytes como géneros monofiléticos válidos. Los resultados en general resuelven los grupos tradicionalmente reconocidos de Leptodactylus, con excepciones de algunas especies que son reasignadas sin la necesidad de proponer nuevos grupos o alterar significativamente el contenido de los grupos tradicionales. Los cuatro grupos de especies forman una topología pectinada donde el grupo de L. fuscus tiene una posición basal, seguido por el grupo de L. pentadactylus que es el grupo hermano al clado formado por los grupo de L. latrans y L. melanonotus. Se estimó el impacto de los datos no moleculares en los resultados, comparándose los resultados de evidencia total con los de los análises de datos moleculares solamente. Los datos no moleculares representan un 3.5% de la matriz de evidencia total, pero estos datos tuvieron un impacto significativo en los resultados del análisis de evidencia total. En el análisis estrictamente molecular solamente un grupo de especies resultó monofilético, y el apoyo difirió en 86% de los 54 ciados de Leptodactylus compartidos entre los dos análises. A pesar que datos no moleculares no fueron incluidos para Hydrolaetare, la exclusión de evidencia no molecular resultó en el género estar dentro de Leptodactylus, demostrando que la inclusión de evidencia no molecular pequeña para un subgrupo de especies altera no solamente la posición topológica de esas especies, sino tambien de las especies para las cuales dichos datos no fueron codificados. La evolución de patrones de historia natural y reprodución se evalúan en el contexto filogenético. La invasión de afloramientos rocosos y la construción de cámaras de reprodución subterraneas está limitada a los grupos de Leptodactylus fuscus y L. pentadactylus, mientras que la oofagia larval está restringida al grupo de L. pentadactylus. Por otro lado, los cárdumenes larvales, la proteción del cárdumen, y otros comportamientos parentales complejos carecterizan al clado formado por los grupos de especies de L. latrans y L. melanonotus. Los resúmenes de especies incluyen información de sinonimias, etimología, morfología de adultos y larvas, cantos, y distribución geográfica para las 30 especies del grupo de Leptodactylus fuscus, 17 especies del grupo L. pentadactylus, ocho especies del grupo de L. latrans, 17 especies del grupo de L. melanonotus, así como para las tres especies que actualmente no se encuentran asociadas a ninguno de los grupos de especies.Taran Grant was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico Proc. 307001/2011-3 and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo Proc. 2012/10000-5

Evidence against the use of surrogates for biomonitoring of Neotropical floodplains

1. Community concordance measures the level of association between the compositional patterns shown by two groups of organisms. If strong community concordance occurs, one group could be used as a surrogate for another in conservation planning and biodiversity monitoring. In this study, we evaluated the variability in the strength of community concordance, the likely mechanisms underlying community concordance and the degree to which one community can predict another in a set of Neotropical floodplain lakes (Upper Parana´ River floodplain, Brazil). 2. We used a data set including six aquatic communities: fish, macrophytes, benthic macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton and periphyton. We used Mantel and PROTEST approaches to evaluate the levels of community concordance in up to four sampling periods. Also, we used partial Mantel test and information about biotic interactions to investigate reasons for observed patterns of concordance. Finally, we used co-correspondence analysis to evaluate the performance of one taxonomic group in predicting the structures of other communities. 3. The levels of community concordance varied over time for almost all cross-taxa comparisons. Concordance between phytoplankton and periphyton probably resulted from similar responses to environmental gradients, whereas other patterns of concordance were likely generated by interactions among groups. However, the levels of predictability were low, and no particular taxonomic group significantly predicted all other groups. 4. The low and temporally variable levels of community concordance cast doubts on the use of surrogate groups for biodiversity management in Neotropical floodplains.