4.2 Article

Biogeography of Amazonian fishes: deconstructing river basins as biogeographic units

期刊

NEOTROPICAL ICHTHYOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA ICTIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/1982-0224-20170034

关键词

Biotic dispersal; Composite areas; Historical Biogeography; Temporal congruence; Widespread taxa

类别

资金

  1. FAPESP [2011/23419-1, 2016/072463]
  2. CNPq [201088/2014-2, 308962/2013-3]
  3. CAPES [5840/14-7]
  4. South American Characiformes Inventory [FAPESP 2011/50282-7]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogeography of Amazonian fishes (2,500 species in vastly disjunct lineages) is complex and has so far been approached only partially. Here, we tackle the problem on the basis of the largest database yet on geographical distribution and phylogenetic relationships of Amazonian fishes, including all information available. Distributions of 4,095 species (both Amazonian and outgroups) and 84 phylogenetic hypotheses (comprising 549 phylogenetically-informative nodes) were compiled, qualified and plotted onto 46 areas (29 Amazonian and 17 non-Amazonian). The database was analyzed with PAE, CADE, BPA and BPA(0), yielding largely congruent results and indicating that biogeographic signal is detectable on multiple dimensions of fish distribution, from single species ranges to cladistic congruence. Agreement is especially pronounced in deeper components, such as Trans-Andean, Cis-Andean, Western Amazon and Orinoco basins. Results show that all major Amazonian tributaries, as well as the Amazon basin itself, are non-monophyletic and constitute hybrid sets of heterogeneous biotic partitions. Amazonian drainages should not be assumed a priori as historically cohesive areas, contrary to widespread practice. Our hypothesis allows reevaluation of broader issues in historical biogeography, such as the predictive power of biogeographic hypotheses, the vicariant/dispersal duality, the significance of widely distributed taxa, and the need for temporal dimension in biogeographic patterns.

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

4.2
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