Padrões de co-distribuição e co-diversidade da ordem carnívora

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Jiménez, Karem Manuelita Olarte
• Orientador(a): Camacho , Crisóforo Fabricio Villalobos
• Banca de defesa: Camacho , Crisóforo Fabricio Villalobos, Almeida Neto , Mario, De Marco Júnior, Paulo, Jardim , Lucas Lacerda Caldas Zanini, Machado, Flávia de Figueiredo
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Goiás
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Evolução (ICB)
• Departamento: Instituto de Ciências Biológicas - ICB (RG)
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Diversidade beta; Co-distribuição; Co-diversidade; Carnivora; Campo de diversidade
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Beta diversity; Co-distribution; Co-diversity; Carnivora; Diversity field
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS::ECOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/10248

One important goal in ecology and biogeography is to understand biodiversity gradient patterns and their processes. Studying compositional difference of species among sites or beta diversity is important to understand this biodiversity gradient. Moreover, distribution ranges of species and species richness of sites are connected patterns. The connected approach of these patterns helps to understand better the biodiversity gradient of some taxon. Nevertheless, there were few macroecological studies that took into account this connected approach of patterns. On the other hand, beta diversity of several terrestrial and aquatic assemblages has more species replacement component in low latitudes and more difference in species richness component in high latitudes. However, we do not know about components of beta diversity patterns for Carnivora suborders, Feliformia and Caniformia. So, we evaluate the latitude gradient hypothesis of beta diversity components of Feliformia and Caniformia for the first chapter. Additionally, we suggest that interspecific competition, difference of historical biogeography, niche conservatism and Quaternary glaciations, might be the factors that explain these beta diversity patterns. We expect more species replacement in low latitudes and more difference in species richness in high latitudes for Carnivora suborders on global scale. We expect the same latitudinal patterns of beta diversity components for these suborders on the regions of the New and Old World, but the amount of each component might depend on the region of suborder. We used piecewise regressions to relate between each beta diversity component and latitude. For Feliformia and Caniformia, beta diversity components follow geographical patterns beyond the latitudinal one. Thus, species replacement does not reduce in high latitudes and this component is higher in mountains and some rivers for both suborders. Difference in species richness increases in high latitudes and this component is higher in temperate and arid regions, like Arctic Pole for Caniformia and Sahara, Middle East and Altiplano for both suborders. Moreover, difference in species richness of Feliformia is higher in high latitudes of New World’s Southern Hemisphere than Old World one, suggesting that migration, diversification and interspecific competition might cause more loss of Feliformia species by Caniformia species in South America than Africa. For the second chapter, to understand the diversity gradients of Carnivora, we examine the patterns of co-distribution (i.e. degree of association or segregation in the distribution ranges of species), co-diversity (i.e. degree of similarity or differentiation of species composition among localities), diversity field (i.e. set of species richness values among sites within the distribution range of a given species) and cross diversity field (i.e. set of richness values of the opposite clade among sites within the distribution range of a given species) of Carnivora, suborders and families. We evaluated these patterns through the connected approach of distribution ranges of species and species richness of sites. We used presence-absence matrices, scatter plots as range-diversity plots and variance-ratio tests. For Carnivora, positive co-distribution and positive co-diversity are found and they are different from cohesive null model patterns. Negative co-distribution and positive co-diversity are found for Ursidae and Canidae, in addition these observed patterns are different from cohesive null model patterns. We find 15,95 species as mean within distribution ranges for Carnivora. Additionally, there are more sites with low richness than high richness within distribution ranges for Carnivora. Because of interspecific competition of the Carnivora suborders, we expect low co-occurrences between a given Caniformia species and Feliformia species or vice-versa for cross diversity fields. Matching our expectation, we find more sites with low richness of Feliformia species within distribution ranges of Caniformia species and vice-versa.