Freshwater vertebrate and invertebrate diversity patterns in an Andean-Amazon basin: implications for conservation efforts

References

• Dudgeon D, Arthington AH, Gessner MO, et al. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol. Rev. 2006;81:163–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balian EV, Segers H, Leveque C, et al. The freshwater animal diversity assessment: an overview of the results. Hydrobiologia. 2008;595:627–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abell R, Thieme M, Dinerstein E, Olson D. A sourcebook for conducting biological assessments and developing biodiversity visions for ecoregion conservation. Vol. II, Freshwater ecoregions. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Vörösmarty CJ, McIntyre PB, Gessner MO, et al. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature. 2010;467:555–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tisseuil C, Cornu J, Beauchard O, et al. Global diversity patterns and cross-taxa convergence in freshwater systems. J. Anim. Ecol. 2013;82:365–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins C, Pimm SL, Joppa LN. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. PNAS. 2013;110:E2602–E2610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricketts TH, Dinerstein E, Olson D, et al. Who’s where in North America? Patterns of species richness and the utility of indicator taxa for conservation. BioScience. 1999;49:369–381.10.2307/1313630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauberer N, Zulka KP, Abensperg-Traun M, et al. Surrogate taxa for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. Biol. Conserv. 2004;117:181–190.10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00291-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heino J, Paavola R, Virtanen R, et al. Searching for biodiversity indicators in running waters: do bryophytes, macroinvertebrates, and fish show congruent diversity patterns? Biodivers. Conserv. 2005;14:415–428.10.1007/s10531-004-6064-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galacatos K, Stewart D, Ibarra M. Fish community patterns of lagoons and associated tributaries in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Copeia. 1996;1996:875–894.10.2307/1447650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoekstra JM, Molnar JL, Jennings M, Revenga C, Spalding MD, Boucher TM, Robertson JC, Heibel TJ, Ellison K. The atlas of global conservation: changes, challenges, and opportunities to make a difference. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2010. Available from: http://maps.tnc.org/globalmaps.html.
   Google Scholar
• WWF/TNC. Freshwater ecoregions of the world. 2013 [cited 2014 Apr 10]. Available from: http://www.feow.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Abell R, Thieme M, Revenga C, et al. Freshwater ecoregions of the world a new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience. 2008;58:403–414.10.1641/B580507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WWF. Napo moist forests. 2014 [cited 2014 Apr 29]. Available from: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/napo_moist_forests.cfm.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson EP, Maldonado-Ocampo JA. A regional perspective on the diversity and conservation of Tropical Andean fishes. Conserv. Biol. 2011;25:30–39.10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01568.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson D, Dinerstein E, Canevari P, Davidson R, Castro G, Morisset V, Abell R, Toledo E. Freshwater biodiversity of Latin America and the Caribbean. A conservation assessment. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart D, Barriga R, Ibarra M. Ictiofauna de la Cuenca del Río Napo. Ecuador Oriental: Lista Anotada de Especies Politécnica. 1987;12:9–63.
   Google Scholar
• Galacatos K, Barriga-Salazar R, Stewart D. Seasonal and habitat influences on fish communities within the lower Yasuni River Basin of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ. Biol. Fishes. 2004;71:33–51.10.1023/B:EBFI.0000043156.69324.94
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mena CF, Bilsborrow RE, McClain ME. Socioeconomic drivers of deforestation in the Northern Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ. Manage. 2006;37:802–815.10.1007/s00267-003-0230-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barriga R. Lista de Peces de Agua dulce e Intermareales del Ecuador. Politécnica. 2012;30:83–119.
   Google Scholar
• Fund W. Napo moist forests. 2014 [cited 2014 May 21]. Available from: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154765.
   Google Scholar
• Encalada A. Funciones ecosistémicas y diversidad de los ríos: Reflexiones sobre el concepto de caudal ecológico y su aplicación en el Ecuador. Polemika. 2010;5:40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Potes V. Análisis de la aplicación del Derecho Ambiental en la Amazonía Ecuatoriana y el rol de las Fiscalías Ambientales. Quito: CEDA; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Finer M, Jenkins CN, Pimm SL, et al. Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2932.10.1371/journal.pone.0002932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finer M, Jenkins CN. Proliferation of hydroelectric dams in the Andean Amazon and implications for Andes-Amazon connectivity. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e35126.10.1371/journal.pone.0035126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvalho SB, Brito JC, Pressey RL, et al. Simulating the effects of using different types of species distribution data in reserve selection. Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:426–438.10.1016/j.biocon.2009.11.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaston KJ, Rodrigues ASL. Reserve selection in regions with poor biological data. Conserv. Biol. 2003;17:188–195.10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01268.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elith J, Leathwick JR. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009;40:677–697.10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.110308.120159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mateo RG. Modelos predictivos de riqueza de diversidad vegetal. Comparación y optimización de métodos de modelado ecológico. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Elith J, Leathwick J. Conservation prioritisation using species distribution modelling. In: Moilanen A, Wilson KA, Possingham HP, editors. Spatial conservation prioritization quantitative methods and computational tools. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 27–93.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins C, Guénard B, Diamond SE, et al. Conservation implications of divergent global patterns of ant and vertebrate diversity. Biodivers. Res. 2013;19:1084–1092.
   Google Scholar
• Heino J, Soininen J. Are higher taxa adequate surrogates for species-level assemblage patterns and species richness in stream organisms? Biol. Conserv. 2007;137:78–89.10.1016/j.biocon.2007.01.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen D. Contrasting patterns in local and zonal family richness of stream invertebrates along an Andean altitudinal gradient. Freshwater Biol. 2004;49:1293–1305.10.1111/fwb.2004.49.issue-10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Instituto Geográfico Militar del Ecuador. Cartografía Temática [cited 2015 Feb 2]. Available from: http://www.igm.gob.ec.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador. Sistema de clasificación de los ecosistemas del Ecuador continental. Quito: Subsecretaría de Patrimonio Natural; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Barriga R. Peces del Parque Naciona Yasuní. Politécnica. 1994;19:9–41.
   Google Scholar
• Fishnet2. 2014 [cited 2014 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.fishnet2.net/.
   Google Scholar
• GBIF. 2014 [cited 2014 Jan 10]. Available from: www.gbif.net.
   Google Scholar
• Vertnet. 2014 [cited 2014 Jan 10]. Available from: http://vertnet.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Tirira D. Guía de Campo de los mamíferos del Ecuador. Quito: Ediciones Murciélago Blanco, Publicación especial sobre los mamíferos del Ecuador 6; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• IUCN. IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2014.3. 2014. Available from: www.iucnredlist.org.
   Google Scholar
• Torres-Carvajal O, Salazar-Valenzuela D, Merino-Viteri A, Nicolalde DA. ReptiliaWebEcuador. Versión 2015.0. Quito: Museo de Zoología QCAZ, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador; 2015 [cited 2014 Feb 1]. Available from: http://zoologia.puce.edu.ec/Vertebrados/reptiles/reptilesEcuador.
   Google Scholar
• Ridgely R, Greenfield PJ. Aves del Ecuador. Vol. II, Guía de Campo. Quito: Fundación Jocotoco; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Frost DR. Amphibian species of the world: an online reference. Version 5.5. New York: American Museum of Natural History; 2011. Available from: http://research.amnh.org/vz/herpetology/amphibia/.
   Google Scholar
• Centro Jambatu. Anfibios del Ecuador. Quito: Fundación Otonga; 2014 [cited 2014 Feb 1]. Available from: http://www.anfibioswebecuador.ec.
   Google Scholar
• Guayasamín JM, Castroviejo-Fisher S, Trueb L, et al. Phylogenetic systematics of Glassfrogs (Amphibia: Centrolenidae) and their sister taxon Allophryne ruthveni. Zootaxa. 2009;2100:1–97.
   Google Scholar
• Poff NL, Funk WC, Ghalambor CK, Kondratieff BC, Thomas S, Flecker AS, Bernardo J, Zamudio KR. An integrative traits-based approach to predicting variation in vulnerability of tropical and temperate stream biodiversity to climate change (EVOTRAC). NSF Collaborative Research; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Guayasamin JM, Encalada A. Long-term sustainability of water resources and biodiversity under scenarios of climate change in the Napo watershed. NSF Partnerships for enhanced engagement in research (PEER) science; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Guisan A, Zimmermann NE. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 2000;135:147–186.10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00354-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 2006;190:231–259.10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham CH, Elith J, Hijmans RJ, et al. The influence of spatial errors in species occurrence data used in distribution models. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008;45:239–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elith J, Graham CH, Anderson RP, et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography. 2006;29:129–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baselga A, Recuero E, Parra-Olea G, et al. Phylogenetic patterns in zopherine beetles are related to ecological niche width and dispersal limitation. Mol. Ecol. 2011;20:5060–5073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaefer SA, Arroyave J. Rivers as islands: determinants of the distribution of Andean astroblepid catfishes. J. Fish Biol. 2010;77:2373–2390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt-Lebuhn AN, Knerr NJ, Miller JT, et al. Phylogenetic diversity and endemism of Australian daisies (Asteraceae). J. Biogeogr. 2015;42:1114–1122.10.1111/jbi.12488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen D, Schultz R, Encalada A. Structure and diversity of stream invertebrate assemblages: the influence of temperature with altitude and latitude. Freshwater Biol. 1997;38:247–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson RG, Raxworthy CJ, Nakamura M, et al. Predicting species distributions from small numbers of occurrence records: a test case using cryptic geckos in Madagascar. J. Biogeogr. 2007;34:102–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisz MS, Hijmans RJ, Li J, et al. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 2008;14:763–773.10.1111/ddi.2008.14.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Dudík M, Elith J, et al. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo-absence data. Ecol. Appl. 2009;19:181–197.10.1890/07-2153.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bystriakova N, Peregrym M, Erkens RHJ, et al. Sampling bias in geographic and environmental space and its effect on the predictive power of species distribution models. Syst. Biodivers. 2012;10:305–315.10.1080/14772000.2012.705357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kramer-Schadt S, Niedballa J, Pilgrim JD, et al. The importance of correcting for sampling bias in MaxEnt species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 2013;19:1366–1379.10.1111/ddi.12096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Dudík M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography. 2008;31:161–175.10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velásquez-Tibatá J, Salaman P, Graham CH. Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Change. 2012;13:235–248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elith J, Phillips S, Hastie T, et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 2011;17:43–57.10.1111/ddi.2010.17.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Valverde A, Lobo JM. Threshold criteria for conversion of probability of species presence to either-or presence-absence. Acta Oecol. 2007;31:361–369.10.1016/j.actao.2007.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elith J, Leathwick J. Predicting species distributions from museum and herbarium records using multiresponse models fitted with multivariate adaptive regression splines. Divers. Distribut. 2007;13:265–275.10.1111/ddi.2007.13.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AmphibiaWeb. Information on amphibian biology and conservation. Berkeley, CA; 2012. Available from: http://amphibiaweb.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Soberón J, Peterson TA. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and specie’s distributional areas. Biodivers. Inf. 2005;2:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Dutilleul P, Clifford P, Richardson S, et al. Modifying the t Test for assessing the correlation between two spatial processes. Biometrics. 1993;49:305–314.10.2307/2532625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lounaci A, Brosse S, Thomas A, et al. Abundance, diversity and community structure of macroinvertebrates in an Algerian stream: the Sébaou wadi. Ann. Limnol. 2000;36:123–133.10.1051/limn/2000008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carvajal V. Macroinvertebrados acuáticos. In: Albuja L, editor. Fauna de Guiyero, Parque Nacional Yasuní. Quito: Escuela Politécnica Nacional – EcoFondo; 2011. p. 169–183.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira V, Encalada AC, Graça M. Effects of litter diversity on decomposition and biological colonization of submerged litter in temperate and tropical streams. Freshwater Sci. 2012;31:945–962.10.1899/11-062.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen D. Low oxygen pressure as a driving factor for the altitudinal decline in taxon richness of stream macroinvertebrates. Oecologia. 2008;154:795–807.10.1007/s00442-007-0877-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utreras BV, Suárez RE, Zapato-Ríos G, et al. Dry and rainy season estimations of giant otter, Pteronura brasiliensis, home range in the Yasun′ı National Park, Ecuador. LAJAM. 2005;4:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Wright DH. Species-energy theory: an extension of species-area theory. Oikos. 1983;41:496–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heino J. Concordance of species richness patterns among multiple freshwater taxa: a regional perspective. Biodivers. Conserv. 2002;11:137–147.10.1023/A:1014075901605
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCLain ME, Richey JE. Regional-scale linkages of terrestrial and lotic ecosystems in the Amazon basin: a conceptual model for organic matter. Large Rivers. 1996;10:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Mortillaro J-M, Rigal F, Rybarczyk H, et al. Particulate organic matter distribution along the lower Amazon river: addressing aquatic ecology concepts using fatty acids. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46141.10.1371/journal.pone.0046141
   Google Scholar
• Albuja L. Fauna de Guiyero, Parque Nacional Yasuní. Quito: Escuela Politécnica Nacional – EcoFondo; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke GM, Chao NL, Beheregaray LB. Natural selection in the water: freshwater invasion and adaptation by water colour in the Amazonian pufferfish. J. Evol. Biol. 2012;25:1305–1320.10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02514.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutter CR, Guayasamin JM, Wiens JJ. Explaining Andean megadiversity: the evolutionary and ecological causes of glassfrog elevational richness patterns. Ecol. Lett. 2013;16:1135–1144.10.1111/ele.2013.16.issue-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grelle CEV. Is higher-taxon analysis an useful surrogate of species richness in studies of Neotropical mammal diversity? Biol Conserv. 2002;108:101–106.10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00094-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balmford A, Lyon AJE, Lang RM. Testing the higher-taxon approach to conservation planning in a megadiverse group: the macrofungi. Biol. Conserv. 2000;93:209–217.10.1016/S0006-3207(99)00140-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams PH, Gaston K. Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? Biol. Conserv. 1994;211–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ. Manage. 2002;67:30:492–507.10.1007/s00267-002-2737-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joy MK, Death R. Predictive modelling and spatial mapping of freshwater fish and decapod assemblages using GIS and neural networks. Freshwater Biol. 2004;49:1036–1052.10.1111/fwb.2004.49.issue-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenness J. DEM surface tools. Flagstaff: Jenness Enterprises; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Rondinini C, Wilson KA, Boitani L, et al. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol. Lett. 2006;9:1136–1145.10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00970.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombi P, Luiselli L, D’Amen M. When the method for mapping species matters: defining priority areas for conservation of African freshwater turtles. Divers. Distrib. 2011;17:581–592.10.1111/ddi.2011.17.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Electricidad y Energia Renovable. Ecuador, un ejemplo para el mundo en energía limpia y desarrollo Quito. 2014 [cited 2015 Nov 2]. Available from: http://www.energia.gob.ec/ecuador-un-ejemplo-para-el-mundo-en-energia-limpia-y-desarrollo/.
   Google Scholar
• Jaramillo-Villa U, Maldonado-Ocampo JA, Escobar F. Altitudinal variation in fish assemblage diversity in streams of the central Andes of Colombia. J. Fish Biol. 2010;76:2401–2417.10.1111/jfb.2010.76.issue-10
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministerio del Ambiente. Áreas Protegidas del Ecuador. 2015 [cited 2015 Nov 2]. Available from: http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/areas-protegidas-3/.
   Google Scholar
• Bass MS, Finer M, Jenkins CN, et al. Global conservation significance of Ecuador’s Yasunı′ National Park. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e8767.10.1371/journal.pone.0008767
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arellano P, Tansey K, Balzter H, et al. Detecting the effects of hydrocarbon pollution in the Amazon forest using hyperspectral satellite images. Environ. Pollut. 2015;205:225–239.10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld AB, Gordon DL, Guerin-McManus M. Reinventing the well. Approaches to minimizing the environmental and social impact of oil development in the Tropics. Washington, DC: Conservation International; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Fontaine G. Petróleo y desarrollo sostenible en Ecuador: Reglas de juego. Quito: FLACSO & GPA Petroecuador; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Kimerling J. Disregarding environmental law: petroleum development in protected natural areas and indigenous homelands in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Hastings Int. Compar. Law Rev. 1991;14:849–903.
   Google Scholar
• Larrea C, Larrea AI, Bravo AL, Belmont P, Baroja C, Mendoza C, Ibáñez W, Luna I. Petróleo, sustentabilidad y desarrollo en la Amazonía Centro-Sur. Quito: Fundación Pachamama, Unidad de Información Socio Ambiental de la Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Ecuador; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Suárez E, Morales M, Cueva R, et al. Oil industry, wild meat trade and roads: indirect effects of oil extraction activities in a protected area in north-eastern Ecuador. Anim. Conserv. 2009;12:364–373.10.1111/acv.2009.12.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zapata Ríos G, Suárez E, Utreras V, Cueva R. Uso y conservación de fauna silvestre en el Ecuador. In: Krainer A, Mora MF, editors. Retos y Amenazas en Yasuní. Quito: FLACSO; 2011. p. 97–116.
   Google Scholar
• Dudley N, Parish J. Closing the gap. Creating ecologically representative protected area systems: a guide to conducting the gap assessment of protected area system for the convention on biological diversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2006. ( Technical Series; no. 24).
   Google Scholar
• Buisson L, Blanc L, Grenouillet G. Modelling stream fish species distribution in a river network: the relative effects of temperature versus physical factors. Ecol. Freshwater Fish. 2007;17:244–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filipe AF, Cowx IG, Collares-Pereira MJ. Spatial modelling of freshwater fish in semi-arid rivers systems: a tool for conservation. River Res. Appl. 2002;18:123–136.10.1002/(ISSN)1535-1467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maloney KO, Weller DE, Michaelson DE, et al. Species distribution models of freshwater stream fishes in Maryland and their implications for management. Environ. Model. Assess. 2013;18:1–12.10.1007/s10666-012-9325-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra R. Propuesta preliminar de un sistema de clasificación de vegetación para el Ecuador continental. Quito: Proyecto INEFAN/GEF-BIRF y Ecociencia; 1999.
   Google Scholar