84 research outputs found
Not only climate. The importance of biotic interactions in shaping species distributions at macro scales
Abiotic factors are usually considered key drivers of species distribution at macro scales, while biotic interactions are mostly used at local scales. A few studies have explored the role of biotic interactions at macro scales, but all considered a limited number of species and obligate interactions. We examine the role of biotic interactions in large-scale SDMs by testing two main hypotheses: (1) biotic factors in SDMs can have an important role at continental scale; (2) the inclusion of biotic factors in largescale SDMs is important also for generalist species. We used a maximum entropy algorithm to model the distribution of 177 bat species in Africa calibrating two SDMs for each species: one considering only abiotic variables (noBIO-SDMs) and the other (BIO-SDMs) including also biotic variables (trophic resource richness). We focused the interpretation of our results on variable importance and response curves. For each species, we also compared the potential distribution measuring the percentage of change between the two models in each pixel of the study area. All models gave AUC >0.7, with values on average higher in BIO-SDMs compared to noBIO-SDMs. Trophic resources showed an importance overall higher level than all abiotic predictors in most of the species (~68%), including generalist species. Response curves were highly interpretable in all models, confirming the ecological reliability of our models. Model comparison between the two models showed a change in potential distribution for more than 80% of the species, particularly in tropical forests and shrublands. Our results highlight the importance of considering biotic interactions in SDMs at macro scales. We demonstrated that a generic biotic proxy can be important for modeling species distribution when species-specific data are not available, but we envision that a multi-scale analysis combined with a better knowledge of the species might provide a better understanding of the role of biotic interactions
Rediscovery of Glauconycteris superba Hayman, 1939 (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) after 40 years at Mbiye Island, Democratic Republic of the Congo
We report the rediscovery of the Pied Butterfl y Bat, Glauconycteris superba Hayman, 1939, 40 years after this species was last recorded. The new specimen from Mbiye Island, Democratic Republic of the Congo, is compared with the type specimens of G. s. superba and G. superba sheila Hayman, 1947 and a specimen from MatonguinĂ©, Ivory Coast. The variation in the striking colouration of the pelage as well as in morphometric data is considered to be individual rather than geographic variation and we tentatively regard G. s. sheila as a synonym of the nominate form. Despite the wide distribution of this species in the tropical forest zone of West and Central Africa, only four specimens from four localities are known to date, which might indicate very specific habitat preferences. Contemporary land cover information around historic collection sites shows degraded landscapes. Given the highly uncertain area of occupancy of this species, we suggest changing the status of G. superba in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species from âLeast Concernâ to âData Defi cientâ
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 CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - La Plata. Centro de Estudios ParasitolĂłgicos y de Vectores. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Centro de Estudios ParasitolĂłgicos y de Vectores; ArgentinaFil: Aguirre, Luis F.. Universidad Mayor de San SimĂłn; BoliviaFil: Arroyo Cabrales, JoaquĂn. Instituto Nacional de AntropologĂa E Historia, Mexico; MĂ©xicoFil: AstĂșa, 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 CatĂłlica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: Camacho, M. Alejandra. Pontificia Universidad CatĂłlica del Ecuador; EcuadorFil: de Almeida Chiquito, Elisandra. Universidade Federal do EspĂrito Santo; BrasilFil: Cook, Joseph A.. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: CuĂ©llar Soto, Erika. Sultan Qaboos University; OmĂĄnFil: Davenport, Tim R. B.. Wildlife Conservation Society; TanzaniaFil: Denys, Christiane. MusĂ©um 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; CanadĂĄFil: 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 CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico - TucumĂĄn. Unidad Ejecutora Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Gursky-Doyen, Sharon. Texas A&M University; Estados UnidosFil: HacklĂ€nder, 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 CientĂficas. EstaciĂłn BiolĂłgica 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: Ibåñez Ulargui, Carlos. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientĂficas. EstaciĂłn BiolĂłgica 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 CientĂficas. EstaciĂłn BiolĂłgica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Leite, Yuri L. R.. Universidade Federal do EspĂrito Santo; BrasilFil: Novaes, Roberto Leonan M.. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Lim, Burton K.. Royal Ontario Museum; CanadĂĄFil: Maisels, Fiona G.. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados UnidosFil: Mares, Michael A.. Oklahoma State University; Estados UnidosFil: Marsh, Helene. James Cook University; AustraliaFil: Mattioli, Stefano. UniversitĂ degli Studi di Siena; ItaliaFil: Morton, F. Blake. University of Hull; Reino UnidoFil: Ojeda, Agustina Alejandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Ăridas. Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Ăridas. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Ăridas; ArgentinaFil: Ordóñez Garza, NictĂ©. Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad; EcuadorFil: Pardiñas, Ulises Francisco J.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - Centro Nacional PatagĂłnico. Instituto de Diversidad y EvoluciĂłn 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; PerĂșFil: Schai-Braun, StĂ©phanie. 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 CientĂficas y TĂ©cnicas. Centro CientĂfico TecnolĂłgico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Medicina y BiologĂa Experimental de Cuyo; ArgentinaFil: Tsang, Susan. American Museum of Natural History; Estados UnidosFil: Van Cakenberghe, Victor. Universiteit Antwerp; BĂ©lgicaFil: Veron, Geraldine. UniversitĂ© 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
Photography-based taxonomy is inadequate, unnecessary, and potentially harmful for biological sciences
The question whether taxonomic descriptions naming new animal species without type specimen(s) deposited in collections should be accepted for publication by scientific journals and allowed by the Code has already been discussed in Zootaxa (Dubois & NemĂ©sio 2007; Donegan 2008, 2009; NemĂ©sio 2009aâb; Dubois 2009; Gentile & Snell 2009; Minelli 2009; Cianferoni & Bartolozzi 2016; Amorim et al. 2016). This question was again raised in a letter supported
by 35 signatories published in the journal Nature (Pape et al. 2016) on 15 September 2016. On 25 September 2016, the following rebuttal (strictly limited to 300 words as per the editorial rules of Nature) was submitted to Nature, which on
18 October 2016 refused to publish it. As we think this problem is a very important one for zoological taxonomy, this text is published here exactly as submitted to Nature, followed by the list of the 493 taxonomists and collection-based
researchers who signed it in the short time span from 20 September to 6 October 2016
Recommended from our members
The bii4africa dataset of faunal and floral population intactness estimates across Africaâs major land uses
Sub-Saharan Africa is under-represented in global biodiversity datasets, particularly regarding the impact of land use on speciesâ population abundances. Drawing on recent advances in expert elicitation to ensure data consistency, 200 experts were convened using a modified-Delphi process to estimate âintactness scoresâ: the remaining proportion of an âintactâ reference population of a species group in a particular land use, on a scale from 0 (no remaining individuals) to 1 (same abundance as the reference) and, in rare cases, to 2 (populations that thrive in human-modified landscapes). The resulting bii4africa dataset contains intactness scores representing terrestrial vertebrates (tetrapods: ±5,400 amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals) and vascular plants (±45,000 forbs, graminoids, trees, shrubs) in sub-Saharan Africa across the regionâs major land uses (urban, cropland, rangeland, plantation, protected, etc.) and intensities (e.g., large-scale vs smallholder cropland). This dataset was co-produced as part of the Biodiversity Intactness Index for Africa Project. Additional uses include assessing ecosystem condition; rectifying geographic/ taxonomic biases in global biodiversity indicators and maps; and informing the Red List of Ecosystems
Comment On The Proposed Conservation Of The Specific Name Of Vespertilio Nanus Peters, 1852 (Currently Pipistrellus Nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera). Case 3240
Volume: 60Start Page: 314End Page: 31
Comment On The Proposed Designation Of Neotypes For Vespertilio Pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 And V. Pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (Currently Pipistrellus Pipistrellus And P. Pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera)
Volume: 58Start Page: 230End Page: 23
- âŠ