3.9 Article

A Contribution to the Biogeography of Ablepharus anatolicus and A. budaki (Squamata: Scincidae) Using Ecological Niche Modeling in Turkey

期刊

FOLIA BIOLOGICA-KRAKOW
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 159-166

出版社

POLISH ACAD SCIENCES, INST SYSTEMATICS EVOLUTION ANIMALS
DOI: 10.3409/fb_69-4.17

关键词

Biodiversity; geography; distribution area; Anatolian Snake-eyed Skink; Budak's Snake-eyed Skink; Anatolia

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed significant differences in ecological niche between A. anatolicus and A. budaki, as they are distributed in almost completely different geographical areas. This suggests that they have different ecological niche requirements, supporting previous literature findings and the idea that these two taxa are two different species.
The Anatolian Peninsula is very richly biodiverse in terms of its location and with new studies, this wealth has gradually increased as new taxa of Anatolian origin are added to the literature. Ablepharus budaki and A. anatolicus, formerly considered to be subspecies of A. kitaibelli and A. budaki respectively, are spread throughout the southern part of Anatolia. Although recent phylogenetic and morphological studies revealed their species status, no information was given about the relation of the species with each other in terms of ecological niche. In this study, our primary goal was to discover whether the niches of these two taxa were different from each other. Considering the analyses made within the scope of this study, it has been revealed that both A. anatolicus and A. budaki are different from each other in terms of their ecological niche. However, since these two taxa have very small contact regions, an example of parapatric speciation, and their distribution areas cover almost completely different geographies, we can say that they have different ecological niche requirements, according to the results of this study. As a result, this study supported the findings in literature and the idea that these taxa are two different 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

3.9
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