4.1 Article

Mammal species richness and biogeographic structure at the southern boundaries of the Nearctic region

Journal

MAMMALIA
Volume 78, Issue 2, Pages 159-169

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER GMBH
DOI: 10.1515/mammalia-2013-0057

Keywords

endemicity; epsilon diversity; North America; richness estimators; species distribution models

Categories

Funding

  1. CONACyT [80370]
  2. PAPIME [PE202012]
  3. Posgrado en Ciencias (UNAM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We analyzed whether the spatial variation in mammal species richness reflects the southern boundaries of the Nearctic region as previously established by endemism patterns. Records from 710 mammal species were drawn on a map of North America (from Canada and Alaska to Panama) gridded at 4 degrees latitude-longitude. We evaluated the probable existence of unknown species through three richness estimators (Chao2, ICE, and Jack1), modeled the potential distribution of species, and mapped the predicted pattern of species richness through the number of coexisting potential distributions. The poorest grid cells are in the northern areas, whereas the richest ones are in the southern areas, coinciding with the pattern of collecting points. The average richness of 4 degrees grid cells comprising the Nearctic region was 18 species, and the richest 4 degrees grid cells had 150 species, coinciding with the 26 inverted perpendicular latitude. From the 406 mammal species of the Nearctic region, 104 are restricted to it, and 305 species situated south of it are not distributed in the region. The map of predicted richness shows the classical latitudinal diversity gradient, with the number of species increasing to the tropics. We conclude that the Nearctic region has a low mammal richness, with a richness pattern corresponding with previously described patterns of endemism, with a boundary situated at 26 degrees-30 degrees latitude.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available