| Literature DB >> 30867993 |
Victoria Sosa1, Israel Loera1, Diego F Angulo1, Marilyn Vásquez-Cruz1, Etelvina Gándara1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deserts are biologically rich habitats with a vast array of animals and plants adapted to xeric conditions, and most deserts are among the planet's last remaining areas of total wilderness. Among North American deserts, the Chihuahuan Desert has the highest levels of diversity and endemism. To understand the effect of future climate change on plants distributed in this arid land and propose effective conservation planning, we focused on five endemic shrubby species that characterize the Chihuahuan Desert and used an integrative approach.Entities:
Keywords: Arid-adapted plants; Chihuahuan desert; Conservation planning; Desert biota; Environmental resistance; Haplotype diversity; Protected natural areas
Year: 2019 PMID: 30867993 PMCID: PMC6409089 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.6572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Figure 1Distribution and images of the studied species.
Limits of the Chihuahuan Desert and distribution map and images of the five plant species studied. Main biogeographic areas are indicated in addition to occurrence localities. Areas follow Shreve (1942) and Morafka (1977). (A) Chihuahuan Desert subprovinces and distribution of studied species. (B) Delimitation of the Chihuahuan Desert. (C) Berberis trifoliolata (Berberidaceae). (D) Ephedra aspera (Ephedraceae). (E) Setchellanthus caeruleus (Setchellanthaceae). (F) Leucophyllum laevigatum (Scrophulariaceae). (G) Lindleya mespiloides (Rosaceae). Images taken by Diego F. Angulo, Israel Loera, Victoria Sosa, Etelvina Gándara and Marilyn Vásquez-Cruz, respectively.
Studied populations with their georeferences and genetic diversity and haplotypes.
| Sample location | Code | Lat | Long | Lat | Long | π | π | Lat | Long | π | Lat | Long | π | Lat | Long | π | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| México, Acatitlán, Qro | ACT | – | – | – | 21.2 | −99.21 | 0.25 | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Arteaga, Coah | ART | 25.40 | −100.80 | 0.5 | – | – | – | – | 0.0004 | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, borderline Coah-Zac | FCZ | 24.98 | −101.18 | 0 | 24.98 | −101.18 | 0.56 | 0.0034 | 0 | – | – | 0.47 | 0.00024 | 24.68 | −101.40 | 1 | 0.00457 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Cerro El Potosí, NL | CEP | 24.89 | −100.19 | 0.47 | −100.18 | 24.88 | 0.77 | 0.0054 | 0.0008 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Chih | CHIH | 28.60 | −106.12 | 0.39 | – | – | – | – | 0.0003 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Cuatro Cienegas, Coah | CC | 27.30 | −102.61 | 0.69 | – | – | – | – | 0.001 | – | – | 0.66 | 0.00034 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Galeana, NL | GAL | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 24.75 | −100.04 | 0.4 | 0.0002 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Guadalcazar, SLP | GUAD | 22.65 | −100.43 | 0.17 | 22.61 | −100.47 | 0.8 | 0.0038 | 0.0001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Ixmiquilpan, Hgo | IXM | 20.61 | −99.24 | 0.21 | – | – | – | – | 0.0003 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Jicotlán, Oax | JIC | – | – | – | 17.78 | −97.48 | 0.53 | 0.0022 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, La Angostura, Coah | ANG | 25.34 | −101.05 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, La Gavia, Coah | LG | 26.35 | −101.36 | 0.89 | – | – | – | – | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, La Lagunita, Qro | LAG | – | – | – | 21.27 | −99.21 | 0.77 | 0.0039 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, La Zarca, Dgo | ZAR | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25.46 | −104.60 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – |
| México, Laguna Seca, SLP | LSE | – | – | – | 22.27 | −100.81 | 0.25 | 0.0005 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Lerdo, Dgo | LER | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25.43 | −103.7 | 0 | 0 |
| México, Maconí, Qro | MAC | – | – | – | 20.85 | −99.55 | 0.9 | 0.0037 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Mapimí, Dgo | MAP | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 26.57 | −103.97 | 0.66 | 0.00115 | 25.67 | −103.87 | 0.25 | 0.00027 |
| Mexico, Matehuala SLP | MAT | 25.14 | −100.69 | 0.68 | – | – | – | – | 0.002 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Ojinaga, Chih | OJIN | 29.15 | −105.39 | 0.4 | – | – | – | – | 0.0007 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Ojuelas, Dgo | OJU | 25.80 | −103.78 | 0.4 | 25.79 | −103.79 | 1 | 0.0083 | 0.0003 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Pablillo, NL | PAB | 24.61 | −100.00 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Parral, Chih | PARRAL | 27.32 | −105.72 | 0.6 | – | – | – | – | 0.0007 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 27.32 | −105.72 | 0.4 | 0.00138 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Parras, Coah | PARR | 25.36 | −102.18 | 0.91 | 25.36 | −102.17 | 0.6 | 0.0037 | 0.002 | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Peña Miller, Qro | MIL | – | – | – | 21.09 | −99.69 | 0.58 | 0.0023 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Ramos Arizpe, Coah | RAZ | 25.61 | −100.83 | 0.5 | – | – | – | – | 0.0004 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Rancho Jaguey, Coah | RJ | 25.23 | −101.02 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Real de Catorce SLP | RC | 23.74 | −100.85 | 0.81 | 23.73 | −100.84 | 0.73 | 0.0018 | 0.002 | – | – | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Rocamontes, Dgo | ROCA | 24.74 | −101.18 | 0 | 24.62 | −101.23 | 0.6 | 0.0037 | 0 | – | – | 0 | 0 | 24.74 | −101.18 | 0.8 | 0.0016 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Rodeo, Dgo | ROD | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 25.11 | −104.53 | 0.07 | 0.00057 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, San Juan del Rio, Dgo | ATO | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 24.84 | −104.48 | 0.82 | 0.0000001 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, San Pedro Iturbide, NL | SPI | 24.72 | −99.91 | 0.33 | 24.74 | −99.93 | 0.47 | 0.0019 | 0.0002 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Santa María del Oro, Dgo | StaMO | 25.99 | −105.33 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | 26.00 | −105.40 | 0.7 | 0.00092 | – | – | – | – |
| México, Santa Teresa, SLP | TER | – | – | – | 22.4 | −101.32 | 0.5 | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Sierra de San Miguel, NL | SSM | 26.11 | −100.66 | 0.4 | – | – | – | – | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Sierra Mojada, Coah | MOJ | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 27.26 | −103.58 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| México, Tamazulapam, Oax | TAM | – | – | – | 17.66 | −97.58 | 0.34 | 0.0007 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Teotitlán, Oax | TEO | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 18.09 | −97.06 | 1 | 0.00815 |
| México, Teotongo, Oax | TT | – | – | – | 17.76 | −97.54 | 0.75 | 0.0026 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Trópico de Cáncer, Zac | TCA | – | – | – | 23.67 | −101.91 | 0.71 | 0.0049 | – | – | – | – | – | 23.68 | −101.92 | 0 | 0 | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Ventura, SLP | VEN | 22.38 | −100.77 | 0.17 | – | – | – | – | 0.0001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mexico, Zapotitlán de Salinas Pue | TEH | – | – | – | 18.37 | −97.47 | 0.83 | 0.0044 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 18.31 | −97.47 | 0.75 | 0.00163 |
| Mexico, Zaragoza, NL | ZAG | – | – | – | 23.97 | −99.79 | 0.93 | 0.00045 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| US Austin, Texas | AUST | 30.14 | −97.96 | 0 | – | – | – | – | 0 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| US Purola, Texas | PUR | 30.49 | −98.2 | 0.85 | – | – | – | – | 0.001 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Note:
Populations studied, indicating population abbreviation, number of plants, geographic region, latitude and longitude where they were collected, as well as molecular diversity indices and their respective haplotypes. San Luis Potosi (SLP), Coah (Coahuila), Zacatecas (Zac), Nuevo Leon (NL), Durango (Dgo), Chihuahua (Chih), Hidalgo (Hgo), Haplotype diversity (h), nucleotide diversity (π).
Preserved natural areas in the Chihuahuan Desert with extension and type.
| Code | Name | Designation | Designation type | Area |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Pico de Orizaba | National Park | National | 0 |
| 1 | Cofre de Perote | National Park | National | 0 |
| 2 | Gogorrón | National Park | National | 0 |
| 3 | Cumbres de Monterrey | National Park | National | 1,773.96 |
| 4 | Cuatrociénegas | Flora and Fauna Protection Area | National | 843.47 |
| 5 | Maderas del Carmen | Flora and Fauna Protection Area | National | 2,083.81 |
| 6 | Los Mármoles | National Park | National | 231.5 |
| 7 | Sierra Gorda | Biosphere Reserve | National | 3,835.67 |
| 8 | Cerro El Potosí | Area Subject to Ecological Conservation | National | 9.8938 |
| 9 | Cuenca Alimentadora del Distrito Nacional de Riego Don Martín | Natural Resources Protection Area | National | 0 |
| 10 | Huiricuta y la Ruta Histórica Cultural del Pueblo Huichol | Not reported | National | 1,400 |
| 11 | Ocampo | Flora and Fauna Protection Area | National | 3,442.38 |
| 12 | Real de Guadalcázar | Not reported | National | 2,570 |
| 13 | Serranía de Zapalinamé | Area Subject to Ecological Conservation | National | 257.6868 |
| 14 | Sierra y Cañón de Jimulco | Natural protected area and ecological reserve | National | 604.5826 |
| 15 | Zona de Restauración Ecológica del Lobo Mexicano San Joaquín de Soto | Certified | National | 0 |
| 16 | Tehuacán-Cuicatlán | Biosphere Reserve | National | 4,901.87 |
| 17 | Barranca de Metztitlán | Biosphere Reserve | National | 960.43 |
| 18 | Mapimí | Biosphere Reserve | National | 3,423.88 |
| 19 | Sierra de Alvarez | Flora and Fauna Protection Area | National | 169 |
| 20 | Río Sabinas | Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance | International | 6,031.23 |
| 21 | Laguna de Santiaguillo | Ramsar Site, Wetland of International Importance | International | 240.16 |
| 22 | Big Bend National Park | UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve | International | 2,832.47 |
| 23 | Black Gap | State Wildlife Management Area | National | 0 |
| 24 | Mason Mountain | State Wildlife Management Area | National | 0 |
| 25 | Old Tunnel | State Wildlife Management Area | National | 0 |
| 26 | Honey Creek | State Natural Area | National | 0 |
Figure 2Haplotype diversity of the studied species.
Landscape distributions of chloroplast haplotype polymorphism in the five species studied. (A) Berberis trifoliolata, (B) Ephedra aspera, (C) Leucophyllum laevigatum, (D) Lindleya mespiloides, (E) Setchellanthus caeruleus and (F) the average of all species. Dark gray shaded areas represent suitable areas for the distribution of each species based on the projection of ecological niche models onto future climate scenarios. Black dots represent species populations. Light gray shaded areas in (F) indicate protected natural areas.
Fixation index Fst for populations of the five studied species.
Number of populations, and variance components among populations and within populations is indicated.
| Source of variation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample populations | 20 | 9 | 9 | 20 | 4 | |
| Among populations | d.f | 19 | 8 | 8 | 19 | 3 |
| Sum of squares | 101.485 | 62.021 | 70.591 | 207.293 | 35.833 | |
| Variance components | 1.80299 Va | 1.95550 Va | 1.73775 Va | 1.33925 Va | 2.20357 Va | |
| Percentaje of variation | 55.05 | 94.80 | 64.63 | 64.59 | 84.57 | |
| Within populations | d.f | 24 | 27 | 32 | 133 | 17 |
| Sum of squares | 35.33 | 2.895 | 30.433 | 97.661 | 6.833 | |
| Variance components | 1.47222 Vb | 0.10723 Vb | 0.95104 Vb | 0.73429 Vb | 0.40196 Vb | |
| Percentaje of variation | 44.95 | 5.20 | 35.37 | 35.41 | 15.43 | |
| Total | d.f | 43 | 35 | 40 | 152 | 20 |
| Sum of squares | 136.818 | 64.917 | 101.024 | 304.954 | 42.667 | |
| Variance components | 3.27521 | 2.06273 | 2.68879 | 2.07354 | 2.60553 | |
| Percentaje of variation | 20 | 42.667 | 2.60553 | |||
| Fixation index ( | 0.55049 | 0.94801 | 0.64629 | 0.64587 | 0.84573 |
Note:
Significant values at P < 0.000, significance tests (1,000 permutations).
Model performance metrics for SDMs using the set of uncorrelated bioclimatic variables.
Results are averages of 10 replicates per species using the 30% of occurrence data to test model performance.
| Species | Mean Kappa | Mean TSS | Mean ROC |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5241 | 0.5822 | 0.8429 | |
| 0.4821 | 0.5575 | 0.8277 | |
| 0.4771 | 0.553 | 0.8252 | |
| 0.5267 | 0.5973 | 0.8461 | |
| 0.4823 | 0.5622 | 0.8215 |
Percentage of variation explained by the 19 PC axes generated using the 19 bioclimatic variables for all the climatic scenarios used in this study.
| PC axes | Eigenvalues | Variation explained | Cumulative variation explained |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC7 | 0.498986854 | 0.013104625 | 0.983323705 |
| PC8 | 0.328036549 | 0.005663578 | 0.988987283 |
| PC9 | 0.268050342 | 0.003781631 | 0.992768913 |
| PC10 | 0.237464238 | 0.002967856 | 0.99573677 |
| PC11 | 0.16446206 | 0.001423567 | 0.997160336 |
| PC12 | 0.135499196 | 0.000966317 | 0.998126654 |
| PC13 | 0.103072748 | 0.000559157 | 0.998685811 |
| PC14 | 0.101441214 | 0.000541596 | 0.999227407 |
| PC15 | 0.089397327 | 0.000420625 | 0.999648032 |
| PC16 | 0.073675779 | 0.000285691 | 0.999933723 |
| PC17 | 0.032814995 | 5.67E-05 | 0.999990398 |
| PC18 | 0.012624394 | 8.39E-06 | 0.999998786 |
| PC19 | 0.004802651 | 1.21E-06 | 1 |
Note:
Rows in bold represent the variables used to generate raster layers to estimate SDMs and perform projection on geographic space.
Figure 3Ecological niche models for every studied species.
Geographic projections of inferred ecological niche models from the species studied for present and future RCP 2.6 and RCP 8.5 climate scenarios. (A–C) Berberis trifoliolata. (C–E) Ephedra aspera. (G–I) Leucophyllum laevigatum. (J–L) Lindleya mespiloides. (M–O) Setchellanthus caeruleus.
Figure 4Environmental resistances for every species studied.
Environmental resistance of the five studied species calculated in Circuitscape based on the suitability file derived from the ecological niche modeling of present (P) and future (F) climate scenarios, averaged for each taxon and displayed in boxplots.
Figure 5Reserves and haplotype diversity.
Haplotype diversity of the five species studied overlaid onto the map of reserves and protected natural areas. Protected natural areas follow the designations of the Mexican Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP, www.gob.mx/conanp) and the Texas State Parks and Wildlife Department (https://tpwd.texas.gov/state-parks/). (A) Map with all protected areas. (B) Detail of areas in the central region of the Chihuahuan Desert. (C) Detail of the southernmost areas of the Chihuahuan Desert. See Table 2 for numbers and the full names of these areas.