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

Effects of habitat and livestock on nest productivity of the Asian houbara Chlamydotis macqueenii in Bukhara Province, Uzbekistan

To inform population support measures for the unsustainably hunted Asian houbara Chlamydotis macqueenii (IUCN Vulnerable) we examined potential habitat and land-use effects on nest productivity in the Kyzylkum Desert, Uzbekistan. We monitored 177 nests across different semi-arid shrub assemblages (clay-sand and salinity gradients) and a range of livestock densities (0–80 km-2). Nest success (mean 51.4%, 95% CI 42.4–60.4%) was similar across four years; predation caused 85% of those failures for which the cause was known, and only three nests were trampled by livestock. Nesting begins within a few weeks of arrival when food appears scarce, but later nests were more likely to fail owing to the emergence of a key predator, suggesting foraging conditions on wintering and passage sites may be important for nest productivity. Nest success was similar across three shrub assemblages and was unrelated to landscape rugosity, shrub frequency or livestock density, but was greater with taller mean shrub height (range 13–67 cm) within 50 m. Clutch size (mean = 3.2 eggs) and per-egg hatchability in successful nests (87.5%) did not differ with laying date, shrub assemblage or livestock density. We therefore found no evidence that livestock density reduced nest productivity across the range examined, while differing shrub assemblages appeared to offer similar habitat quality. Asian houbara appear well-adapted to a range of semi-desert habitats and tolerate moderate disturbance by pastoralism. No obvious in situ mitigation measures arise from these findings, leaving regulation and control as the key requirement to render hunting sustainable

Особенности художественного отображения агрессии, направленной против Азербайджана

[EN]: The micromammals remains from the Late Pleistocene site of the cave of El Castillo studied here in detail, came from the Aurignacian levels 18b and 18c (dated in 40.000-45.000 BP), level 19, and the Musterian levels 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e (dated in 41.000-49.000 BP), 21a and 21b. The micromammal association is the following: Erinaceus europaeus, Crocidura russula, Sorex coronatus, Sorex minutus, Neomys fodiens, Talpa europaea, Galemys pyrenaicus, cf. Miniopterus schreibersii, Chiroptera indet., Pliomys lenki, Microtus arvalis – Microtus agrestis, Microtus lusitanicus, Microtus oeconomus, Chionomys nivalis, Arvicola terrestris, Apodemus sylvaticus – Apodemus flavicollis and Lepus sp. Most of these species are in the present fauna of Cantabria, except Pliomys lenki that got extinct in the last third of the Upper Pleistocene, and Microtus oeconomus that disappeared from the Iberian Peninsula during the Holocene, in historical times, and is nowadays present in northern Euroasiatic regions. There is a great continuity of most of the taxa in all the levels. The faunal association seems to indicate a mainly open environment, in general with wet meadows (and few dry meadows), with good vegetation cover in the soil, with perhaps also some tree-covered areas, and some watercourses. The thermophiles indicators are very scarce, which could indicate that the climate could be a lesser temperate than other Upper Pleistocene periods and the present-day climate in the area.[ES]: El material de micromamíferos del yacimiento del Pleistoceno Superior de la cueva de El Castillo, objeto de estudio detallado en este trabajo, proviene de los niveles auriñacienses 18b y 18c (datados en 40.000-45.000 BP), nivel 19, y niveles musterienses 20b, 20c, 20d, 20e (datados en 41.000-49.000 BP), 21a y 21b. La asociación de micromamíferos es la siguiente: Erinaceus europaeus, Crocidura russula, Sorex coronatus, Sorex minutus, Neomys fodiens, Talpa europaea, Galemys pyrenaicus, cf. Miniopterus schreibersii, Chiroptera indet., Pliomys lenki, Microtus arvalis – Microtus agrestis, Microtus lusitanicus, Microtus oeconomus, Chionomys nivalis, Arvicola terrestris, Apodemus sylvaticus – Apodemus flavicollis y Lepus sp. La mayoría de estas especies están presentes en la fauna actual de Cantabria, excepto Pliomys lenki que se extinguió en el último tercio del Pleistoceno Superior, y Microtus oeconomus, que persistió en la península ibérica durante el Holoceno bien avanzado hasta su desaparición en tiempos históricos, y que actualmente está en regiones euroasiáticas más septentrionales. Hay una gran continuidad de la gran mayoría de los taxones en todos los niveles. La fauna en su conjunto parece indicar un medio predominantemente abierto, por lo general de praderas húmedas (y en mucha menor medida praderas secas) con una buena cobertura vegetal a nivel del suelo, en el que habría también algunas zonas arboladas o boscosas, y algún curso de agua. Los indicadores termófilos son escasos y poco abundantes, lo que podría indicar que el clima podría ser algo menos templado que en otros periodos del Pleistoceno Superior y quizás también que actualmente en la zona.Peer Reviewe

The influence of wildlife water developments and vegetation on rodent abundance in the Great Basin Desert

Rodent communities have multiple functions including comprising a majority of the mammalian diversity within an ecosystem, providing a significant portion of the available biomass consumed by predators, and contributing to ecosystem services. Despite the importance of rodent communities, few investigations have explored the effects of increasing anthropogenic modifications to the landscape on rodents. Throughout the western United States, the construction of artificial water developments to benefit game species is commonplace. While benefits for certain species have been documented, several researchers recently hypothesized that these developments may cause unintentional negative effects to desert-adapted species and communities. To test this idea, we sampled rodents near to and distant from wildlife water developments over 4 consecutive summers. We employed an asymmetrical before-after-control-impact (BACI) design with sampling over 4 summers to determine if water developments influenced total rodent abundance. We performed an additional exploratory analysis to determine if factors other than free water influenced rodent abundance. We found no evidence that water developments impacted rodent abundance. Rodent abundance was primarily driven by vegetation type and year of sampling. Our findings suggested that water developments on our study area do not represent a significant disturbance to rodent abundance and that rodent abundance was influenced by the vegetative community and temporal factors linked to precipitation and primary plant production. Our findings represent one of the 1st efforts to determine the effects of an anthropogenic activity on the rodent community utilizing a manipulation design

Plague and Climate: Scales Matter

Plague is enzootic in wildlife populations of small mammals in central and eastern Asia, Africa, South and North America, and has been recognized recently as a reemerging threat to humans. Its causative agent Yersinia pestis relies on wild rodent hosts and flea vectors for its maintenance in nature. Climate influences all three components (i.e., bacteria, vectors, and hosts) of the plague system and is a likely factor to explain some of plague's variability from small and regional to large scales. Here, we review effects of climate variables on plague hosts and vectors from individual or population scales to studies on the whole plague system at a large scale. Upscaled versions of small-scale processes are often invoked to explain plague variability in time and space at larger scales, presumably because similar scale-independent mechanisms underlie these relationships. This linearity assumption is discussed in the light of recent research that suggests some of its limitations

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