Correspondence between physiographic classifications and spatial patterns of β diversity in mammal and bird species assemblages in the Brazilian Pantanal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.13.23.1.0.1187Keywords:
regionalization, wetlands, animal biodiversity, k-means, taxa as surrogate, classification strengthsAbstract
Previous studies in the Brazilian Pantanal suggest that physiographic heterogeneity could be used to delimit different subregions. However, the extent to which these regionalisations reflect spatial patterns of variation in beta diversity for different taxonomic groups has not been tested yet. The aim of this paper was to evaluate whether current regionalization schemes proposed for the Brazilian Pantanal adequately describe patterns of beta diversity in mammals and birds. The presence-absence of each mammal and bird species was recorded at each of the eighty 0.5x0.5 degree cells in a squared grid map. A Jaccard similitude index was used to estimate the similarity between each pair of cells. A non-hierarchical classification method (k-means) was applied to obtain “a posteriori” classification of cells into subregions. The classification strength (CS) of each physiographic scheme and the “a posteriori” classification was the difference between mean similarity within (W) and between (B) subidivisions (CS=W-B). Both classifications (“a priori” and ”a posteriori”) showed low values of CS, which indicates that they were not suitable to represent the beta diversity patterns in mammals and birds within the Brazilian Pantanal. The results suggest that, probably because the large geographic ranges and low levels of endemism in these taxa, physiographic classifications of the Brazilian Pantanal are no reliable shortcuts to represent beta diversity patterns in mammal and birds. Thus, detailed biological inventories are necessary to propose consistent local conservation plans in this highly diverse and threatened region.
References
ADÁMOLI, J. 1982. O Pantanal e suas relações fitogeográficas com os cerrados: discussão sobre o conceito de complexo do Pantanal. Pp.109-119 em: Anais do 32° Congresso nacional da Sociedade Botânica do Brasil. Teresina-PI, Brasil.
ALHO, CJR. 2008. Biodiversity of the Pantanal: response to seasonal flooding regime and to environmental degradation. Braz. J. Biol., 68(4, Suppl.):957-966.
ALHO, CJR. 2011. Biodiversity of the Pantanal: its magnitude, human occupation, environmental threats and challenges for conservation. Braz. J. Biol., 71(1 Suppl.):229-232.
ALVARENGA, SM; AE BRASIL & DM DEL’ARCO. 1982. Geomorfologia. Pp. 125-184 em: BRASIL. Ministério das Minas e Energia. Projeto RADAMBRASIL. Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brasil.
ALVARENGA, SM; AE BRASIL; R PINHEIRO & HJH KUX. 1984. Estudo geomorfológico aplicado à Bacia do Alto Paraguai e Pantanais Mato-grossenses. Pp. 89-183 em: Projeto RADAMBRASIL. Boletim Técnico, Série Geomorfológica. Salvador-BA, Brasil.
AMARAL FILHO, ZP. 1986. Solos do Pantanal Mato-grossense. Pp. 91-104 em: I Simpósio sobre os recursos naturais e sócio-econômicos do Pantanal. EMBRAPA PANTANAL. Corumbá, MS, Brasil.
ARAÚJO, MB. 2004. Matching species with reserves – uncertainties from using data at different resolutions. Biol. Conserv., 118:533-538.
ANDREW, ME; MA WULDER & NC COOPS. 2011. How do butterflies define ecosystems? A comparison of ecological regionalization schemes. Biol. Conserv., 144(5):1409-1418.
ARPONEN, A; A MOILANEN & S FERRIER. 2008. A successful community-level strategy for conservation prioritization. J. Appl. Ecol., 45:1436-1445.
BINI, LM; JAF DINIZ-FILHO; TFLVB RANGEL; RP BASTOS & MP PINTO. 2006. Challenging Wallacean and Linnaean shortfalls: knowledge gradients and conservation planning in a biodiversity hotspot. Divers. Distrib., 12:475-482.
BRASIL. 1979. Estudo de desenvolvimento integrado da bacia do Alto Paraguai: Relatório da 1a fase, descrição física e recursos naturais. Ministério do Interior. SUDECO/EDIBAP. Brasília-DF, Brasil. Pp. 235.
BONN, A & KJ GASTON. 2005. Capturing biodiversity: selecting priority areas for conservation using different criteria. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14:1083-1100.
BROWN-JUNIOR, K. 1986. Zoogeografia da região do Pantanal Mato-grossense. Pp. 137-78 em: I Simpósio sobre os Recursos Naturais e Sócio-Econômicos do Pantanal. Corumbá-MS, Brasil.
BROOKS, T; GAB FONSECA & ASL RODRIGUES. 2004. Species, data, and conservation planning. Conserv. Biol., 18:1682-1688.
CAMARGO, G & EA FISCHER. 2005. Primeiro registro do morcego Mimon crenulatum (Phyllostomidae) no Pantanal, sudoeste do Brasil. Biota Neotropica, 5(1):1-4.
CARMIGNOTTO, AP. 2004. Pequenos mamíferos terrestres do bioma Cerrado: padrões faunísticos locais e regionais. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo. Brasil.
CARO, TM & GO DOHERTY. 1999. On the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Biology. Conserv. Biol., 13:805-814.
CAMPOS, Z.; M COUTINHO & W MAGNUSSON. 2003. Terrestrial activity of caiman in the Pantanal, Brazil. Copeia, 3:628-34.
CRBO - COMITÊ BRASILEIRO DE REGISTROS ORNITOLÓGICOS. 2011. Listas das aves do Brasil. 10a Edição, 25/1/2011, Disponível em (www.cbro.org.br). Acesso em: 30/04/2011.
CUNHA, CN & WJ JUNK. 1999. Composição florística de capões e cordilheiras: localização das espécies lenhosas quanto ao gradiente de inundação no Pantanal de Poconé, MT-Brasil. Pp. 138-143 em: Anais do II Simpósio sobre recursos naturais e sócio-econômicos do Pantanal. Corumbá-MS, Brasil.
EDWARDS, TC; E DESHLER; D FOSTER & GG MOISEN. 1996. Adequacy of wildlife habitat relation models for estimating spatial distributions of terrestrial vertebrates. Conserv. Biol., 10:263-270.
FAVREAU, JM; CA DREW; GR HESS; MJ RUBINO; FH KOCH; ET AL. 2006. Recommendations for assessing the effectiveness of surrogate species approaches. Biodivers. Conserv., 15:3949-3969.
FRANCO, MSM & R PINHEIRO. 1982. Geomorfologia. Pp. 161- 224 em: BRASIL. Ministério das Minas e Energia. Projeto RADAMBRASIL. Rio de Janeiro-RJ, Brasil.
FERRIER, S; G WATSON; J PEARCE & M DRIELSMA. 2002. Extended statistical approaches to modelling spatial pattern in biodiversity in northeast New South Wales. I. Species-level modelling. Biodivers. Conserv., 11:2275-2307.
GONÇALVES, HC; MA MERCANTE & ET SANTOS. 2011. Hydrological-cycle. Braz. J. Biol., 71(1):233-240.
GROWNS, I. 2009. Differences in bioregional classifications among four aquatic biotic groups: Implications for conservation reserve design and monitoring programs. J. Environ. Manage., 90:2652-2658.
HARTIGAN, JA. 1975. Clustering Algorithms. New York: Wiley.
HARRIS, MB; WM TOMAS; GM MOURÃO; CJ SILVA; E GUIMARÃES; ET AL. 2005. Desafios para proteger o Pantanal brasileiro: ameaças e iniciativas em conservação. Megadiversidade, 1(1):156-164.
HARRIS, MC; C ARCÂNGELO; ECT PINTO; G CAMARGO; MB RAMOS-NETO; ET AL. 2006. Estimativa da perda de cobertura vegetal original na Bacia do Alto Paraguai e Pantanal brasileiro: ameaças e perspectivas. Nat. Conservação, 4(2):50-66.
HEINO, J; T MUOTKA; R PAAVOLA; H HÄMÄILÄINEN & E KOSKENNIEMI. 2002. Correspondence between regional delineations and spatial patterns in macroinvertebrate assemblages of boreal headwater streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 21(3):397-413.
HEINO, J & H MYKRÄ. 2006. Assessing physical surrogates for biodiversity: Do tributary and stream type classifications reflect macroinvertebrate assemblage diversity in running waters? Biol. Conserv., 129:418-426.
HUANG, SL & JJ FERNG. 1990. Applied land classification for surface water quality management: I. Watershed classification. J. Environ. Manage., 31:107-126.
IUCN. 2011. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 9.0. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. http://goo.gl/Cajfy
JANUCHOWSKI-HARTLEY, SR; V HERMOSO; RL PRESSEY; S LINKE; J KOOL; ET AL. 2011. Coarse-filter surrogates do not represent freshwater fish diversity at a regional scale in Queensland , Australia. Biol. Conserv., 144: 2499-2511.
JUNK, WJ & CJ SILVA. 1999. Conceito do pulso de inundação e suas implicações para o pantanal de Mato Grosso. Pp. 17-28 em: Anais do II Simpósio sobre Recursos Naturais e Sócio-econômicos do Pantanal. Corumbá-MS, Brasil.
JUNK, WJ & CN CUNHA. 2005. Pantanal: a large South American wetland at a crossroads. Ecol. Eng., 24:391-401.
JUNK, WJ; CN CUNHA; KM WANTZEN; P PETERMANN; C STRÜMANN; ET AL. 2006. Biodiversity and its conservation in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso, Brazil. Aquat. Sci., 69(3):278-309.
KOLEFF, P; JG GASTON & JJ LENNON. 2003. Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. J. Anim. Ecol., 72(3): 367-382.
LEATHWICK JR; JMCC OVERTON & MMC LEOD. 2003. An Environmental Domain Classification of New Zealand and Its Use as a Tool. Conserv. Biol., 17:1612-1623.
LEGENDRE, P & L LEGENDRE. 1998. Numerical Ecology. 2. ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pp. 853.
LOCKS, CJ; CL MIOTO & AC PARANHOS FILHO. 2011. Contribuição do Satélite CBERS-2, Sensor WFI, na delimitação das regiões do Pantanal brasileiro. Anais XV Simpósio Brasileiro de Sensoriamento Remoto. Pp. 3851-3858.
LONGO, JM; EA FISCHER; G CAMARGO & CF SANTOS. 2007. Ocorrência de Vampyressa pusilla (Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae) no Pantanal sul. Biota Neotropica, 7:3.
LOURIVAL, R; MB HARRIS & JR MONTABAULT. 2000. Introduction to the Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil. Pp. 28-33 em: Willink, PW; B Chernoff; LE Alonso; JR Montanbault & R Lourival (eds.). A biological assessment of the aquatic eco-systems of the Pantanal, Mato Grosso do
Sul, Brazil, RAP Bul-letin of Biological Assessment 18. Conservation International, Washington, DC.
LOVELL, S; M HAMER; R SLOTOWB & D HERBERT. 2007. Assessment of congruency across invertebrate taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biol. Conserv., 139:113-125.
MARGULES, CR & RL PRESSEY. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405:243-253.
MARQUÉZ, AL; R REAL & JM VARGAS. 2001. Methods for comparison of biotic regionalizations: the case of pteridophytes in the Iberian Peninsula. Ecography, 24:659-670.
MATO GROSSO DO SUL. 1989. Macrozoneamento Geoambiental do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Secretaria de Planejamento. Campo Grande: SEPLAN/FIPLAN. Pp. 242.
MCDONALD, R; M MCKNIGHT; D WEISS; E SELIG; M O’CONNOR; ET AL. 2005. Species compositional similarity and ecoregions: Do ecoregion boundaries represent zones of high species turnover? Biol. Conserv., 126:24-40.
MERCANTE, MA; SC RODRIGUES & JLS ROSS. 2011. Geomorphology and habitat diversity in the Pantanal. Braz. J. Biol., 71(1):241-253.
MORA, C & DR ROBERTSON. 2005. Causes of latitudinal gradients in species richness: a test with fishes of the tropical eastern Pacific. Ecology, 86:1771-1782.
MOURÃO, G; ME COUTINHO; RA MAURO; Z CAMPOS; W TOMAS; ET AL. 2000.Aerial surveys of caiman, marsh deer and pampas deer in the Pantanal wetland of Brazil. Biol. Conserv., 92(2):175-183.
NEWALL, P & F WELLS. 2000. Potential for delineating indicator-defined regions for streams in Victoria, Australia. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19:557-571.
PADIAL, AA; LM BINI; JAF DINIZ-FILHO; N PEREIRA; RD SOUZA; ET AL. 2010. Predicting Patterns of Beta Diversity in Terrestrial Vertebrates Using Physiographic Classifications in the Brazilian Cerrado. Nat. Conservação, 8:127-132.
PATTERSON, BD; G CEBALLOS; W SECHREST; MF TOGNELLI; T BROOKS; ET AL. 2007. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere. Nature Serve. Virginia, USA. Version 3. www.natureserve.org.
PEARSON, RG; RC JAXWORTHY; M NAKAMURA & AT PETERSON. 2007. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr., 34:102-117.
PONCE, VM & CN CUNHA. 1993. Vegetated earthmounds in tropical savannas of Central Brazil: a synthesis with special reference to the Pantanal do Mato Grosso. J. Biogeogr., 20:219-225.
RABENI, CF & KE DOISY. 2000. Correspondence of stream benthic invertebrate assemblages to regional classification schemes in Missouri. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19(3):419-428.
REIS, NR; AL PERACCHI; WA PEDRO & IP LIMA (EDS.). 2011. Mamíferos do Brasil. Londrina, 2nd ed. Pp. 439.
RODRIGUES, FHG; IM MEDRI; WM TOMAS & GM MOURÃO. 2002. Revisão do conhecimento sobre ocorrência e distribuição de Mamíferos do Pantanal. Documento 38. Embrapa Pantanal. Corumbá-MS. Pp. 42.
RODRIGUES, ASL & TM BROOKS. 2007. Shortcuts for biodiversity conservation planning: the effectiveness of surrogates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 38:713-37.
SARKAR, S & C MARGULES. 2002. Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. J. Biosci., 27(Suppl. 2):299-308.
SANCHEZ, RO. 1977. Estudo fluviomorfológico del Pantanal; regionalización, sub-regionalización y sectorización geográfico de la depression de la alta cuenca del Rio Paraguai. (S.l.): EDIBAP. Pp. 50.
SANDIN, L & RK JOHNSON. 2000. Ecoregions and benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages of Swedish streams. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19(3):462-474.
SCHALLER, GB. 1983. Mammals and their biomass on a Brazilian ranch. Arq. Zool., 31:1-36.
VAN SICKLE, J & RM HUGHES. 2000. Classification strengths of ecoregions, catchments and geographic clusters for aquatic vertebrates in Oregon. J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 19(3):370-384.
SILVA, JSV. 1995. Elementos fisiográficos para delimitação do Ecossistema Pantanal: Discussão e proposta. Oecologia Brasiliensis, 1:439-458.
SILVA, JSV & MM ABDON. 1998. Delimitação do Pantanal Brasileiro e suas sub-regiões. Pesqui.Agropecu. Bras., 33:1703-1711.
SILVA, MP; RA MAURO; GM MOURÃO & M COUTINHO. 2000. Distribuição e quantificação de classes de vegetação do Pantanal através de levantamento aéreo. Rev. Bras. Bot., 23(2):143-152.
TUBELIS, DP & WM TOMAS. 2003. Birds species of the Pantanal wetland, Brazil. Ararajuba, 11:5-37.
WILLINK, PW; B CHERNOFF; LE ALONSO; JR MONTABAULT & R LOURIVAL. 2000. A biological assessment of the aquatic eco-systems of the Pantanal, Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 18. Conservation International, Washington, DC. Pp. 305.
WELLS, F; L METZELING & P NEWALL. 2002. Macroinvertebrate regionalization for use in the management of aquatic ecosystems in Victoria, Australia. Environ. Monit.Assess., 74:271-294.
WRIGHT, RG; MP MURRAY & T MERRILL. 1998. Ecoregions as a level of ecological analysis. Biol. Conserv., 86:207-213.
ZOGARIS, S; NA ECONOMOU & P DIMOPOULOS. 2009. Ecoregions in the Southern Balkans: Should Their Boundaries Be Revised? Environ. Manage., 43:682-697.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Rogério Rodrigues Faria, Rosana Talita Braga, Camila Leonardo Mioto, Antonio Conceição Paranhos Filho, Franco Leandro Souza, Luis Mauricio Bini
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Authors retain their rights as follows: 1) by granting the journal the right to its first publication, and 2) by registering the published article with a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which allows authors and third parties to view and use it as long as they clearly mention its origin (citation or reference, including authorship and first publication in this journal). Authors can make other non-exclusive distribution agreements as long as they clearly indicate their origin and are encouraged to widely share and disseminate the published version of their work.
