Current and future geographic patterns of bird diversity dimensions of the Yucatan Peninsula and their representativeness in natural protected areas

References

• Francis AP, Currie DJ. A globally consistent richness‐climate relationship for angiosperms. Am Nat. 2003;161(4):523–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadotte MW, Davies JT. Rarest of the rare: advances in combining evolutionary distinctiveness and scarcity to inform conservation at biogeographical scales. Divers Distrib. 2010;16(3):376–385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein A, Gerstner K, Kreft H. Environmental heterogeneity as a universal driver of species richness across taxa, biomes and spatial scales. Ecol Lett. 2014;17(4):866–880.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gotelli NJ, Colwell RK. Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett. 2001;4(4):379–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller RA, McDonald-Madden E, Wilson KA, et al. Replacing underperforming protected areas achieves better conservation outcomes. Nature. 2010;466(7304):365–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardoso P, Rigal F, Borges PAV, et al. A new frontier in biodiversity inventory: a proposal for estimators of phylogenetic and functional diversity. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014;5(5):452–461.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GAB, et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science. 2006;313(5783):58–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devictor V, Mouillot D, Meynard C, et al. Spatial mismatch and congruence between taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity: the need for integrative conservation strategies in a changing world. Ecol Lett. 2010;13(8):1030–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faith DP. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 1992;61(1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardy OJ, Senterre B. Characterizing the phylogenetic structure of communities by an additive partitioning of phylogenetic diversity. J Ecol. 2007;95(3):493–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, et al. Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiversity- Ecosystem-function relationships. Ecology. 2011;92(8):1573–1581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilthuizen M. Ecotone: speciation-prone. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000;15(4):130–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritz SA, Rahbek C. Global patterns of amphibian phylogenetic diversity. J Biogeogr. 2012;39(8):1373–1382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petchey OL, Gaston KJ. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol Lett. 2006;9(6):741–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadotte MW, Carscadden K, Mirotchnick N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J Appl Ecol. 2011;48(5):1079–1087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Purvis A, Cornelissen JHC, et al. Functional traits, the phylogeny of function, and ecosystem service vulnerability. Ecol Evol. 2013;3(9):2958–2975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tscharntke T, Sekercioglu CH, Dietsch TV, et al. Landscape constraints on functional diversity of birds and insects in tropical agroecosystems. Ecology. 2008;89(4):944–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbaro L, Giffard B, Charbonnier Y, et al. Bird functional diversity enhances insectivory at forest edges: a transcontinental experiment. Divers Distrib. 2014;20(2):149–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forest F, Grenyer R, Rouget M, et al. Preserving the evolutionary potential of floras in biodiversity hotspots. Nature. 2007;445(7129):757–760.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens RD, Cox SB, Strauss RE, et al. Patterns of functional diversity across an extensive environmental gradient: vertebrate consumers, hidden treatments and latitudinal trends. Ecol Lett. 2003;6(12):1099–1108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupan L, Cabeza M, Maiorano L, et al. Spatial mismatch of phylogenetic diversity across three vertebrate groups and protected areas in Europe. Divers Distrib. 2014;20(6):674–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM, Gaston KJ. Integrating phylogenetic diversity in the selection of priority areas for conservation: does it make a difference? Phylogeny Conserv. 2005;8(1):101–119.
   Google Scholar
• Safi K, Cianciaruso MV, Loyola RD, et al. Understanding global patterns of mammalian functional and phylogenetic diversity. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1577):2536–2544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor BW, Flecker AS, Hall RO. Loss of a harvested fish species disrupts carbon flow in a diverse tropical river. Science. 2006;313(5788):833–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T, et al. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol Lett. 2009;12(1):22–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature. 2004;427(6970):145–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmesan C, Gaines S, Gonzalez L, et al. Empirical perspectives on species borders: from traditional biogeography to global change. Oikos. 2005;108(1):58–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren DL, Wright AN, Seifert SN, et al. Incorporating model complexity and spatial sampling bias into ecological niche models of climate change risks faced by 90 California vertebrate species of concern. Divers Distrib. 2014;20(3):334–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson AT, Ortega-Huerta MA, Bartley J, et al. Future projections for Mexican faunas under global climate change scenarios. Nature. 2002;416(6881):626–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tingley MW, Monahan WB, Beissinger SR, et al. Birds track their Grinnellian niche through a century of climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(2):19637–19643.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Navarro-Sigüenza AG, Rebón-Gallardo MF, Gordillo-Martínez A, et al. Biodiversidad de aves en México. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2014;851:476–495.
   Google Scholar
• Espadas Manrique C, Durán R, Argáez J. Phytogeographic analysis of taxa endemic to the Yucatán Peninsula using geographic information systems, the domain heuristic method and parsimony analysis of endemicity. Divers Distrib. 2003;9(4):313–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrone JJ. Regionalización biogeográfica y evolución biótica de México: encrucijada de la biodiversidad del Nuevo Mundo. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2019;90(1):e902980.
   Google Scholar
• Cortés-Ramírez G, Gordillo-Martínez A, Navarro-Sigüenza AG. Patrones biogeográficos de las aves de la península de Yucatán. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2012;83(2):530–542.
   Google Scholar
• Grinsted A, Moore JC, Jevrejeva S. Reconstructing sea level from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100 AD. Clim Dyna. 2010;34(4):461–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahbek C, Graves GR. Multiscale assessment of patterns of avian species richness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(8):4534–4539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voskamp A, Baker DJ, Stephens PA, et al. Global patterns in the divergence between phylogenetic diversity and species richness in terrestrial birds. J Biogeogr. 2017;44(4):709–721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramamoorthy TP. Biological diversity of Mexico: origins and distribution. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Morrone JJ. Hacia una síntesis biogeográfica de México. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2005;76(2):207–252.
   Google Scholar
• GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility [Internet]. Copenhagen; [cited Oct 2018]. Available from: https://www.gbif.org/.
   Google Scholar
• VertNet [Internet]. Berkeley. National Science Foundation; [cited Oct 2018]. Available from: http://vertnet.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Guisan A, Lehmann A, Ferrier S, et al. Making better biogeographical predictions of species’ distributions. J Appl Ecol. 2006;43(3):386–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neotropical Birds [Internet]. New York. Cornell Lab of Ornithology; [cited Jan 2018]. Available from: https://birdsoftheworld.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Varela S, Anderson RP, García-Valdés R, et al. Environmental filters reduce the effects of sampling bias and improve predictions of ecological niche models. Ecography. 2014;37(11):1084–1091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hijmans RJ, Etten J, Cheng J, et al. 2015. Package raster 2.4.0. CRAN; 2015. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/raster.
   Google Scholar
• Muscarella R, Galante PJ, Soley-Guardia M, et al. ENMeval: an R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014;5(11):1198–1205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, et al. Very high-resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 2005;25(15):1965–1978.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2012;93(4):485–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini M, Rangel T, et al. Partitioning and mapping uncertainties in ensembles of forecasts of species turnover under climate change. Ecography. 2009;32(6):897–906.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barve N, Barve V ENMGadgets: tools for pre and post processing in ENM workflows. Gitub; 2013. https://github.com/vijaybarve/ENMGadgets.
   Google Scholar
• Soberon J, Peterson AT. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species’ distributional areas. Biodivers. Informatics. 2005;2(1):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Barve N, Barve V, Jiménez-Valverde A, et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol Modell. 2011;222(11):1810–1819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper JC, Soberón J. Creating individual accessible area hypotheses improves stacked species distribution model performance. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2018;27(1):156–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: a New Map of Life on Earth A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience. 2001;51(11):933–938.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell. 2006;190(3):231–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobos ME, Peterson AT, Barve N, et al. kuenm: an R package for detailed development of ecological niche models using Maxent. PeerJ. 2019;7(1):e6281.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Peterson AT, Papeş M, Soberón J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol Modell. 2008;213(1):63–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warren DL, Seifert SN. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol Appl. 2011;21(2):335–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vilela B, Villalobos F. LetsR: a new R package for data handling and analysis in macroecology. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6(10):1229–1234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jetz W, Thomas GH, Joy JB, et al. The global diversity of birds in space and time. Nature. 2012;491(7424):444–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilman H, Belmaker J, Simpson J, et al. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology. 2014;95(7):2027.
   Google Scholar
• Rao CR. Diversity and dissimilarity coefficients: a unified approach. Theor Popul Biol. 1982;21(1):24–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bello F, Lavergne S, Meynard CN, et al. The partitioning of diversity: showing Theseus a way out of the labyrinth. J Veg Sci. 2010;21(5):992–1000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bello F, Carmona CP, Lepš J, et al. Functional diversity through the mean trait dissimilarity: resolving shortcomings with existing paradigms and algorithms. Oecologia. 2016;180(4):933–940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jost L. Partitioning diversity into independent alpha and beta components. Ecology. 2007;88(10):2427–2439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA, et al. Phylogenies and Community Ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2002;33(1):475–505.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker CM, Cadotte MW, Carvalho SB, et al. A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol Rev. 2017;92(2):698–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouillot D, Albouy C, Guilhaumon F, et al. Protected and threatened components of fish biodiversity in the Mediterranean sea. Curr Biol. 2011;21(12):1044–1050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spalink D, Pender J, Escudero M, et al. The spatial structure of phylogenetic and functional diversity in the United States and Canada: an example using the sedge family (Cyperaceae). J Syst Evol. 2018;56(5):449–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferro VG, Lemes P, Melo AS, et al. The reduced effectiveness of protected areas under climate change threatens atlantic forest tiger moths. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107792.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribeiro BR, Sales LP, De Marco P, et al. Assessing mammal exposure to climate change in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0167073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vázquez-Domínguez E, Arita HT. The Yucatan peninsula: biogeographical history 65 million years in the making. Ecography. 2010;33(2):212–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham CH, Blake JG. Influence of patch- and landscape-level factors on bird assemblages in a fragmented tropical landscape. Ecol Appl. 2001;11(6):1709–1721.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bojorges Baños JC, López-Mata L. Riqueza y diversidad de especies de aves en una selva mediana subperennifolia en el centro de Veracruz, México. Acta Zoológica Mex. 2005;21(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Arita HT. Species composition and morphological structure of the Bat Fauna of Yucatan, Mexico. J Anim Ecol. 1997;66(1):83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell BF, Steidl RJ. Nesting habitat and reproductive success of Southwestern Riparian Birds. Condor. 2000;102(4):823–831.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison JC. Vulnerability assessment of mangroves to climate change and sea-level rise impacts. Wetl Ecol Manag. 2015;23(2):115–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbet-Massin M, Jetz W. The effect of range changes on the functional turnover, structure and diversity of bird assemblages under future climate scenarios. Global Chang Biol. 2015;21(8):2917–2928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winter TC. The vulnerability of wetlands to climate change: a hydrologic landscape perspective. J Am Water Resour Assoc. 2000;36(2):305–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loreau M. Does functional redundancy exist? Oikos. 2004;104(3):606–611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding Z, Feeley KJ, Wang Y, et al. Patterns of bird functional diversity on land-bridge island fragments. J Anim Ecol. 2013;82(4):781–790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamanna C, Blonder B, Violle C, et al. Functional trait space and the latitudinal diversity gradient. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(38):13745–13750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke RSC, Bates AE, Eigenbrod F. Global trade-offs of functional redundancy and functional dispersion for birds and mammals. Glob Ecol Biogeogr. 2019;28(4):484–495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumm M, Edie SM, Collins KS, et al. Common latitudinal gradients in functional richness and functional evenness across marine and terrestrial systems. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2019;286(1908):20190745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye Y, Hu C, Jiang Y, et al. Three-dimensional niche partitioning between two colonially nesting ardeid species in central China. Avian Res. 2021;12(1):1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moilanen A, Kujala H, Leathwick JR. The Zonation framework and software for conservation prioritization. Spatial conservation prioritization. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar