4.6 Article

Crumble analysis of the historic sympatric distribution between Dendrortyx macroura and D-barbatus (Aves: Galliformes)

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183996

关键词

-

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [231395]
  2. Institute de Ecologia A.C. (INECOL)
  3. CONACYT
  4. INECOL, A. C.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Mexico, the Long-tailed Wood-Partridge (Dendrortyx macroura) is distributed in the mountains of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, Sierra Madre del Sur and Sierra Norte de Oaxaca; while the Bearded Wood-Partridge (D. barbatus) is distributed in the Sierra Madre Oriental (SMO). There is a controversial overlap in distribution (sympatry) between these two species (on the Cofre de Perote and Pico de Orizaba volcanoes, SMO and Sierra Norte de Oaxaca), based on the ambiguity and current lack of information regarding the distribution of these two species. In order to disentangle the possible presence of both species in the area of sympatry, we conducted a crumble analysis of the historic knowledge regarding the geographic distribution of both species, based on a review of scientific literature, database records, the specimen examination (in ornithological collections), field work and a reconstruction of the distribution range based on Ecological Niche Modeling. Our results support the presence of only one of these two species in the overlapping area, rejecting the existence of such an area of sympatry between the two species. We discuss alternative hypotheses that could explain the historically reported distribution pattern: 1) an error in the single existing historical record; 2) a possible local extinction of the species and 3) the past existence of interspecific competition that has since been resolved under the principle of competitive exclusion. We propose that the Santo Domingo River in northern Oaxaca and western slope of the Sierra Madre Oriental, mark the distribution limits between these species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据