Florent Mazel1, François Guilhaumon2, Nicolas Mouquet3, Vincent Devictor4, Dominique Gravel5, Julien Renaud6, Marcus Vinicius Cianciaruso7, Rafael Dias Loyola8, José Alexandre Felizola Diniz-Filho9, David Mouillot10, Wilfried Thuiller11. 1. Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Grenoble, France; flo.mazel@gmail.com. 2. Laboratoire ECOSYM Université Montpellier2, France; francoisguilhaumon@gmail.com. 3. Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, UMR 5554, CNRS, Université Montpellier 2, Montpellier, France; nmouquet@univ-montp2.fr. 4. Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution, Université Montpellier2, France; vincent.devictor@univ-montp2.fr. 5. Université du Québec à Rimouski, Département de biologie, Chimie et Géographie, Québec, Canada; dominique_gravel@uqar.ca. 6. Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Grenoble, France; julien.renaud.leca@gmail.com. 7. Departamento de Ecologia, ICB, Universidade federal de Goiàs, Goiâna, Brasil; cianciaruso@gmail.com. 8. Departamento de Ecologia, ICB, Universidade federal de Goiàs, Goiâna, Brasil; rdiasloyola@gmail.com. 9. Departamento de Ecologia, ICB, Universidade federal de Goiàs, Goiâna, Brasil; diniz@ufg.br. 10. Laboratoire ECOSYM Université Montpellier 2, France; ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia ; david.mouillot@univmontp2.fr. 11. Laboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, Grenoble, France; wilfried.thuiller@ujf-grenoble.fr.
Abstract
AIM: To define biome-scale hotspots of phylogenetic and functional mammalian biodiversity (PD and FD, respectively) and compare them to 'classical' hotspots based on species richness (SR) only. LOCATION: Global. METHODS: SR, PD & FD were computed for 782 terrestrial ecoregions using distribution ranges of 4616 mammalian species. We used a set of comprehensive diversity indices unified by a recent framework that incorporates the species relative coverage in each ecoregion. We build large-scale multifaceted diversity-area relationships to rank ecoregions according to their levels of biodiversity while accounting for the effect of area on each diversity facet. Finally we defined hotspots as the top-ranked ecoregions. RESULTS: While ignoring species relative coverage led to a relative good congruence between biome top ranked SR, PD and FD hotspots, ecoregions harboring a rich and abundantly represented evolutionary history and functional diversity did not match with top ranked ecoregions defined by species richness. More importantly PD and FD hotspots showed important spatial mismatches. We also found that FD and PD generally reached their maximum values faster than species richness as a function of area. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: The fact that PD/FD reach faster their maximal value than SR may suggest that the two former facets might be less vulnerable to habitat loss than the latter. While this point is expected, it is the first time that it is quantified at global scale and should have important consequences in conservation. Incorporating species relative coverage into the delineation of multifaceted hotspots of diversity lead to weak congruence between SR, PD and FD hotspots. This means that maximizing species number may fail at preserving those nodes (in the phylogenetic or functional tree) that are relatively abundant in the ecoregion. As a consequence it may be of prime importance to adopt a multifaceted biodiversity perspective to inform conservation strategies at global scale.
AIM: To define biome-scale hotspots of phylogenetic and functional mammalian biodiversity (PD and FD, respectively) and compare them to 'classical' hotspots based on species richness (SR) only. LOCATION: Global. METHODS: SR, PD & FD were computed for 782 terrestrial ecoregions using distribution ranges of 4616 mammalian species. We used a set of comprehensive diversity indices unified by a recent framework that incorporates the species relative coverage in each ecoregion. We build large-scale multifaceted diversity-area relationships to rank ecoregions according to their levels of biodiversity while accounting for the effect of area on each diversity facet. Finally we defined hotspots as the top-ranked ecoregions. RESULTS: While ignoring species relative coverage led to a relative good congruence between biome top ranked SR, PD and FD hotspots, ecoregions harboring a rich and abundantly represented evolutionary history and functional diversity did not match with top ranked ecoregions defined by species richness. More importantly PD and FD hotspots showed important spatial mismatches. We also found that FD and PD generally reached their maximum values faster than species richness as a function of area. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: The fact that PD/FD reach faster their maximal value than SR may suggest that the two former facets might be less vulnerable to habitat loss than the latter. While this point is expected, it is the first time that it is quantified at global scale and should have important consequences in conservation. Incorporating species relative coverage into the delineation of multifaceted hotspots of diversity lead to weak congruence between SR, PD and FD hotspots. This means that maximizing species number may fail at preserving those nodes (in the phylogenetic or functional tree) that are relatively abundant in the ecoregion. As a consequence it may be of prime importance to adopt a multifaceted biodiversity perspective to inform conservation strategies at global scale.
Authors: Diane S Srivastava; Marc W Cadotte; A Andrew M MacDonald; Robin G Marushia; Nicholas Mirotchnick Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: R A Mittermeier; C G Mittermeier; T M Brooks; J D Pilgrim; W R Konstant; G A B da Fonseca; C Kormos Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-08-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hélène Morlon; Dylan W Schwilk; Jessica A Bryant; Pablo A Marquet; Anthony G Rebelo; Catherine Tauss; Brendan J M Bohannan; Jessica L Green Journal: Ecol Lett Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 9.492
Authors: Félix Forest; Keith A Crandall; Mark W Chase; Daniel P Faith Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: Núria Galiana; Miguel Lurgi; Vinicius A G Bastazini; Jordi Bosch; Luciano Cagnolo; Kevin Cazelles; Bernat Claramunt-López; Carine Emer; Marie-Josée Fortin; Ingo Grass; Carlos Hernández-Castellano; Frank Jauker; Shawn J Leroux; Kevin McCann; Anne M McLeod; Daniel Montoya; Christian Mulder; Sergio Osorio-Canadas; Sara Reverté; Anselm Rodrigo; Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter; Anna Traveset; Sergi Valverde; Diego P Vázquez; Spencer A Wood; Dominique Gravel; Tomas Roslin; Wilfried Thuiller; José M Montoya Journal: Nat Ecol Evol Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 19.100
Authors: Erick J Lundgren; Daniel Ramp; John Rowan; Owen Middleton; Simon D Schowanek; Oscar Sanisidro; Scott P Carroll; Matt Davis; Christopher J Sandom; Jens-Christian Svenning; Arian D Wallach Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Fernanda T Brum; Catherine H Graham; Gabriel C Costa; S Blair Hedges; Caterina Penone; Volker C Radeloff; Carlo Rondinini; Rafael Loyola; Ana D Davidson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Cyrille Violle; Wilfried Thuiller; Nicolas Mouquet; François Munoz; Nathan J B Kraft; Marc W Cadotte; Stuart W Livingstone; David Mouillot Journal: Trends Ecol Evol Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 17.712
Authors: Catherine E Hart; Gabriela S Blanco; Michael S Coyne; Carlos Delgado-Trejo; Brendan J Godley; T Todd Jones; Antonio Resendiz; Jeffrey A Seminoff; Matthew J Witt; Wallace J Nichols Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240