| Literature DB >> 31173585 |
Cintia Natalia Martín-Regalado1, Miguel Briones-Salas2, Mario C Lavariega2, Claudia E Moreno1.
Abstract
Biodiversity is multidimensional and different mechanisms can influence different dimensions. The spatial distribution of these dimensions can help in conservation decisions through the location of complementary areas with high diversity. We analyzed congruence in spatial patterns of species richness and functional diversity of cricetid rodents in the state of Oaxaca, southern Mexico, at different scales, and environmental variables related. Potential distribution models were produced for 49 species of cricetids in Maxent and superimposed to obtain potential communities in cells of 25, 50,100, 200 and 400 km2. We estimated species richness (SR) and functional diversity (SES.FD) eliminating the species richness effect through null models. The patterns and spatial congruence of species richness and functional diversity are described. The relationships between the environmental variables (elevation, temperature, precipitation, net primary productivity and potential evapotranspiration) and the SR and SES.FD were explored using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) and Generalized Additive Models (GAMs). The highest species richness was found in mountainous ecosystems while the highest functional diversity was in tropical forests, revealing a spatial incongruence among these components of biodiversity (r = -0.14, p = 0.42; Pearson correlation). The locations of the cells of low congruence varied according to spatial resolution. In univariate models, elevation was the variable that best explained species richness (R2 = 0.77). No single variable explained the functional diversity; however, the models that included multiple environmental variables partially explained both the high and low functional diversity. The different patterns suggest that different historic, ecological and environmental processes could be responsible for the community structure of cricetid rodents in Oaxaca. These results indicate that one great challenge to be met to achieve more effective planning for biological conservation is to integrate knowledge regarding the spatial distribution of different dimensions of biodiversity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31173585 PMCID: PMC6555520 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of Oaxaca, including the physiographic subprovinces of the state: Depresión del Balsas (DB), Montañas y Valles del Occidente (MVO), Fosa de Tehuacán (FT), Sierra Madre de Oaxaca (SMO), Valles Centrales de Oaxaca (VCO), Montañas y Valles del Centro (MVC), Sierra Madre del Sur (SMS), Planicie Costera del Pacífico (PCP), Planicie Costera de Tehuantepec (PCT), Depresión del Istmo de Tehuantepec (DIT), Sierra Madre del Sur de Oaxaca y Chiapas (SMSOC), and Planicie Costera del Golfo (PCG).
Fig 2Species richness, functional diversity and spatial congruence of cricetid rodents communities in the state of Oaxaca, México, at different spatial resolution.
The physiographic subprovinces of the state are also delimited: Depresión del Balsas (DB), Montañas y Valles del Occidente (MVO), Fosa de Tehuacán (FT), Sierra Madre de Oaxaca (SMO), Valles Centrales de Oaxaca (VCO), Montañas y Valles del Centro (MVC), Sierra Madre del Sur (SMS), Planicie Costera del Pacífico (PCP), Planicie Costera de Tehuantepec (PCT), Depresión del Istmo de Tehuantepec (DIT), Sierra Madre del Sur de Oaxaca y Chiapas (SMSOC), and Planicie Costera del Golfo (PCG).
Traits used to quantify the functional diversity of cricetid rodents of Oaxaca, Mexico.
| Traits | Value/category (units) | Variable type |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Total length | Mean (mm) | Continuous |
| 2. Tail length | Mean (mm) | Continuous |
| 3. Hind foot length | Mean (mm) | Continuous |
| 4. Ear length | Mean (mm) | Continuous |
| 5. Weight | Mean (g) | Continuous |
| 6. Zygomatic breadth | Mean (mm) | Continuous |
| 7. Pattern of circadian activity | Cathemeral | Categorical |
| Crepuscular | Categorical | |
| Diurnal | Categorical | |
| Diurnal-crepuscular | Categorical | |
| Nocturnal | Categorical | |
| 8. Habitat | Arboreal | Categorical |
| Semiaquatic | Categorical | |
| Semiarboreal | Categorical | |
| Terrestrial | Categorical | |
| Terrestrial-semiaquatic | Categorical | |
| Terrestrial-semiarboreal | Categorical | |
| 9. Diet | Carnivore | Categorical |
| Frugivore | Categorical | |
| Frugivore-granivore | Categorical | |
| Granivore | Categorical | |
| Herbivore | Categorical | |
| Herbivore-insectivorous | Categorical | |
| Insectivorous | Categorical | |
| Omnivore | Categorical | |
| 10. Number of offspring per litter | Mean | Continuous |
Environmental variables used to evaluate the relationship between the species richness and the functional diversity in cricetid rodents in Oaxaca, México.
| Variable | Description | Resolution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation | The mean elevation value per cell | ~1 km | [ |
| AMT | Annual mean temperature value averaged per cell | ~1 km | [ |
| AMP | Annual mean precipitation value averaged per cell | ~1 km | [ |
| NPP | Net primary productivity | ~1 km | |
| PET | The potential evapotranspiration mean per cell | ~0.5 km |
Taxonomic list of cricetid species for the state of Oaxaca (following the nomenclature of Ramírez-Pulido [26]).
The records were downloaded from the GBIF and provided by the OAXMA. The numbers of distinct localities are validated records.
| Species | Number of records | Number of distinct localities | Records used in modelling |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 690 | 328 | 98 |
| 2. | 144 | 24 | 11 |
| 3. | 530 | 18 | 18 |
| 4. | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5. | 925 | 703 | 86 |
| 6. | 91 | 63 | 29 |
| 7. | 79 | 68 | 31 |
| 8. | 608 | 312 | 126 |
| 9. | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 10. | 301 | 17 | 17 |
| 11. | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 12. | 11 | 7 | 7 |
| 13. | 316 | 22 | 20 |
| 14. | 14 | 10 | 10 |
| 15. | 79 | 60 | 54 |
| 16. | 2,033 | 244 | 211 |
| 17. | 119 | 83 | 78 |
| 18. | 494 | 254 | 94 |
| 19. | 217 | 163 | 155 |
| 20. | 514 | 282 | 189 |
| 21. | 1,379 | 826 | 56 |
| 22. | 911 | 579 | 130 |
| 23. | 1,084 | 92 | 76 |
| 24. | 2,800 | 61 | 54 |
| 25. | 479 | 331 | 104 |
| 26. | 409 | 229 | 61 |
| 27. | 148 | 17 | 17 |
| 28. | 1,115 | 518 | 124 |
| 29. | 1,107 | 641 | 204 |
| 30. | 1,098 | 546 | 67 |
| 31. | 171 | 129 | 100 |
| 32. | 201 | 35 | 35 |
| 33. | 602 | 382 | 42 |
| 34. | 35 | 26 | 26 |
| 35. | 318 | 177 | 129 |
| 36. | 1,458 | 97 | 65 |
| 37. | 876 | 287 | 203 |
| 38. | 52 | 21 | 21 |
| 39. | 234 | 57 | 56 |
| 40. | 21 | 16 | 16 |
| 41. | 57 | 43 | 42 |
| 42. | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 43. | 371 | 47 | 47 |
| 44. | 93 | 44 | 44 |
| 45. | 262 | 161 | 146 |
| 46. | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 47. | 286 | 198 | 127 |
| 48. | 184 | 148 | 83 |
| 49. | 176 | 127 | 55 |
| Total | 23,108 | 8,509 | 3,380 |
Fig 3Dispersion of data by comparing species richness and observed functional diversity (a) and species richness and functional diversity without the effect species richness (b; SES.FD metric).