Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T19:21:58.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species turnover drives the spatial distribution of frog beta diversity in farmland ponds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2019

Henrique Nascimento Tavares  and
Fernando Rodrigues da Silva Open the ORCID record for Fernando Rodrigues da Silva [Opens in a new window]
Henrique Nascimento Tavares
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia Teórica: Integrando Tempo, Biologia e Espaço (LET.IT.BE), Departamento de Ciências Ambientais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Campus Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil
Fernando Rodrigues da Silva*
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Ecologia Teórica: Integrando Tempo, Biologia e Espaço (LET.IT.BE), Departamento de Ciências Ambientais, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Campus Sorocaba, São Paulo, Brazil
*
*Email: fernandors@ufscar.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies integrating variation in species composition among sites are useful in understanding the impacts of land-use changes on the spatial distribution of biodiversity. However, the failure to recognize the distinction between beta diversity components, dissimilarity due to species replacement (i.e. turnover) and dissimilarity due to species loss from site to site (i.e. nestedness), can lead to inappropriate use of some indices. Here, we evaluated how the spatial distribution of anuran beta diversity components, turnover and nestedness, is associated with local and landscape descriptors in a tropical agricultural landscape with a recent history of agriculture expansion in south-eastern Brazil. Overall, 27 anuran species were found in the region with average ± SD species richness in each pool of 9.5 ± 3.5 species, ranging from 4 to 15 species. We observed that species turnover was the major component for anuran dissimilarity among pools, indicating that anuran species occurring in species-poor pools are not subsets of anuran species occurring in species-rich pools. Local variables and geographic distance were not important descriptors explaining the variation of anuran beta diversity. In contrast, the distance of the pools to the nearest forest fragment explained 16% of the variance in total beta diversity, 5% of the nestedness component and 2% of spatial turnover. Our results show that pools distributed across farmland landscapes are harbouring different anuran species composition, and together, these pools are contributing to the regional diversity of anurans in this region which is considered one of the most deforested and fragmented within Brazil.

Keywords

Anurancommunity assemblylandscapemetacommunitynestedness
Type
Short Communication
Information
Journal of Tropical Ecology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 2019 , pp. 199 - 202
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature cited

Almeida-Gomes, M, Rocha, CFD and Vieira, MV (2016) Local and landscape factors driving the structure of tropical anuran communities: do ephemeral ponds have a nested pattern? Biotropica 48, 365–372.10.1111/btp.12285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, MJ, Crist, TO, Chase, JM, Vellend, M, Inouye, BD, Freestone, AL, Sanders, NJ, Cornell, HV, Comita, LS, Davies, KF, Harrison, SP, Kraft, NJB, Stegen, JC and Swenson, NG (2011) Navigating the multiple meanings of beta diversity: a roadmap for the practicing ecologist. Ecology Letters 14, 19–28.10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01552.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baselga, A (2010) Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19, 134–143.10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baselga, A (2012) The relationship between species replacement, dissimilarity derived from nestedness, and nestedness. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21, 1223–1232.10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00756.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchet, FG, Legendre, P and Borcard, D (2008) Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632.10.1890/07-0986.1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, JM and Myers, JA (2011) Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B Biological Sciences 366, 2351–2363.10.1098/rstb.2011.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, FR and Rossa-Feres, DC (2011) Influence of terrestrial habitat isolation on the diversity and temporal distribution of anurans in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Tropical Ecology 27, 327–331.10.1017/S0266467410000842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, FR, Gibbs, JP and Rossa-Feres, DC (2011) Breeding habitat and landscape correlates of frog diversity and abundance in a tropical agricultural landscape. Wetlands 31, 1079–1087.10.1007/s13157-011-0217-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, FR, Candeira, CP and Rossa-Feres, DC (2012a) Dependence of anuran diversity on environmental descriptors in farmland ponds. Biodiversity and Conservation 21, 1411–1424.10.1007/s10531-012-0252-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, FR, Oliveira, TAL, Gibbs, JP, Rossa-Feres, DC (2012b) An experimental assessment of landscape configuration effects on frog and toad abundance and diversity in tropical agro-savannah of southeastern Brazil. Landscape Ecology 27, 87–96.10.1007/s10980-011-9670-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da Silva, FR, Almeida-Neto, M and Arena, MVN (2014) Amphibian beta diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest: contrasting the roles of historical events and contemporary conditions at different spatial scales. PLoS ONE 9, e109642.10.1371/journal.pone.0109642CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dray, S, Pélissier, R, Couteron, P, Fortin, M-J, Legendre, P, Peres-Neto, PR, Bellier, E, Bivand, R, Blanchet, FG, Cáceres, M, Dufour, A-B, Heegaard, E, Munoz, TJ, Oksanen, J, Thioulouse, J and Wagner, HH (2012) Community ecology in the age of multivariate multiscale spatial analysis. Ecological Monographs 82, 257–275.10.1890/11-1183.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, B and Peres-Neto, PR (2010) Quantifying and disentangling dispersal in metacommunities: how close have we come? How far is there to go? Landscape Ecology 25, 495–507.10.1007/s10980-009-9442-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutson, MG, Sauer, JR, Olsen, DA, Mossman, MJ, Hemesath, LM and Lannoo, MJ (1999) Effects of land-scape composition and wetland fragmentation on frog and toad abundance and species richness in Iowa and Wisconsin, USA. Conservation Biology 13, 1437–1446.10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98445.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laan, R and Verboom, B (1990) Effects of pool size and isolation on amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 54, 251–262.10.1016/0006-3207(90)90055-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, AE and McGill, BJ (2011) Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 368 pp.Google Scholar
Melchior, LG, Rossa-Feres, DC and Da Silva, FR (2017) Evaluating multiple spatial scales to understand the distribution of anuran beta diversity in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Ecology and Evolution 7, 2403–2413.10.1002/ece3.2852CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provete, DB, Garey, MV, Da Silva, FR and Rossa-Feres, DC (2011) Anurofauna from northwestern region of the State of São Paulo: species list and taxonomic key for adults. Biota Neotropica 11, 377–391.10.1590/S1676-06032011000200036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, J, Colli, GR, Batista, R and Soares, A (2017) Landscape and local correlates with anuran taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity in rice crops. Landscape Ecology 32, 1599–1612.10.1007/s10980-017-0525-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, RR, Joly, CA, De Brito, MCW, Paese, A, Metzger, JP, Casatti, L, Nalon, MA, Menezes, N, Ivanauskas, NM, Bolzani, V and Bononi, VLR (2008) Diretrizes para conservação e restauração da biodiversidade no Estado de São Paulo. São Paulo: FAPESP. 248 pp.Google Scholar
Socolar, JB, Gilroy, JJ, Kunin, WE and Edwards, DP (2016) How should beta-diversity inform biodiversity conservation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31, 67–80.10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soininen, J (2014) A quantitative analysis of species sorting across organisms and ecosystems. Ecology 95, 3284–3292.10.1890/13-2228.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soininen, J, Heino, J and Wang, J (2018) A meta-analysis of nestedness and turnover components of beta diversity across organisms and ecosystems. Global Ecology and Biogeography 27, 96–109.10.1111/geb.12660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Buskirk, J (2005) Local and landscape influence on amphibian occurrence and abundance. Ecology 86, 1936–1947.10.1890/04-1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar