4.6 Article

Distribution and conservation significance of endemic species of flowering plants in Peru

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 1699-1713

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:BIOC.0000029334.69717.f0

关键词

elevational zones; endemics; flowering plants; life forms; Peru

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using the data published in the Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Gymnosperms of Peru, we analyzed the elevational distributions of 5323 species reported as endemics from that country as a whole, for 10 families with the highest number of endemic taxa in Peru, and the distribution patterns of these species according to life form. We calculated the density of endemism ( number of endemic species divided by area x 1000) and absolute number of endemic species among life forms and families, along an elevational gradient. Overall densities of endemics were 10-15 times higher at mid-elevation ( 2000 3500 m) than in the Amazonian lowlands (0-500 m). Absolute numbers of endemics peaked at 1500 3000 m for herbs, shrubs, and epiphytes, while trees, vines, and lianas showed maxima in the lowlands (0-500 m); yet densities of endemics for all life forms peaked at 1500-3000 m. Among the 10 families with the highest number of endemics, densities of endemics peaked at mid- to high elevation ( 1500 4500 m), but showed much disparity in the elevational distribution of absolute numbers of endemic species. Finally, the percentage of endemic species to total species is highest for herbs, shrubs, and epiphytes. Given that less than 10% of the land area for each of the montane zones (2000-4500 m) is protected compared to 13.5-29.9% in the lower elevations (0-1000 m), we recommend that priority be given to increasing the size of protected areas at mid- to high altitude in the Andean slopes to grant further protection in zones with the highest density of endemics. We also recommend that more emphasis be given to collecting and studying non-trees, since most endemic species belong to that class.

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