Pamela C. Rasmussen

Global hotspots of species richness are not congruent with endemism or threat

Biodiversity hotspots have a prominent role in conservation biology, but it remains controversial to what extent different types of hotspot are congruent. Previous studies were unable to provide a general answer because they used a single biodiversity index, were geographically restricted, compared areas of unequal size or did not quantitatively compare hotspot types. Here we use a new global database on the breeding distribution of all known extant bird species to test for congruence across three types of hotspot. We demonstrate that hotspots of species richness, threat and endemism do not show the same geographical distribution. Only 2.5% of hotspot areas are common to all three aspects of diversity, with over 80% of hotspots being idiosyncratic. More generally, there is a surprisingly low overall congruence of biodiversity indices, with any one index explaining less than 24% of variation in the other indices. These results suggest that, even within a single taxonomic class, different mechanisms are responsible for the origin and maintenance of different aspects of diversity. Consequently, the different types of hotspots also vary greatly in their utility as conservation tools.

Global distribution and conservation of rare and threatened vertebrates

Global conservation strategies commonly assume that different taxonomic groups show congruent geographical patterns of diversity, and that the distribution of extinction-prone species in one group can therefore act as a surrogate for vulnerable species in other groups when conservation decisions are being made. The validity of these assumptions remains unclear, however, because previous tests have been limited in both geographical and taxonomic extent. Here we use a database on the global distribution of 19,349 living bird, mammal and amphibian species to show that, although the distribution of overall species richness is very similar among these groups, congruence in the distribution of rare and threatened species is markedly lower. Congruence is especially low among the very rarest species. Cross-taxon congruence is also highly scale dependent, being particularly low at the finer spatial resolutions relevant to real protected areas. ‘Hotspots’ of rarity and threat are therefore largely non-overlapping across groups, as are areas chosen to maximize species complementarity. Overall, our results indicate that ‘silver-bullet’ conservation strategies alone will not deliver efficient conservation solutions. Instead, priority areas for biodiversity conservation must be based on high-resolution data from multiple taxa.

Global Patterns of Geographic Range Size in Birds

Large-scale patterns of spatial variation in species geographic range size are central to many fundamental questions in macroecology and conservation biology. However, the global nature of these patterns has remained contentious, since previous studies have been geographically restricted and/or based on small taxonomic groups. Here, using a database on the breeding distributions of birds, we report the first (to our knowledge) global maps of variation in species range sizes for an entire taxonomic class. We show that range area does not follow a simple latitudinal pattern. Instead, the smallest range areas are attained on islands, in mountainous areas, and largely in the southern hemisphere. In contrast, bird species richness peaks around the equator, and towards higher latitudes. Despite these profoundly different latitudinal patterns, spatially explicit models reveal a weak tendency for areas with high species richness to house species with significantly smaller median range area. Taken together, these results show that for birds many spatial patterns in range size described in geographically restricted analyses do not reflect global rules. It remains to be discovered whether global patterns in geographic range size are best interpreted in terms of geographical variation in species assemblage packing, or in the rates of speciation, extinction, and dispersal that ultimately underlie biodiversity.

Fifty-Second Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union check-list of North American Birds

The Auk, Vol. 128, Number 3, pages 600−613. ISSN 0004-8038, electronic ISSN 1938-4254.  2011 by The American Ornithologists’ Union. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals. com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2011.128.3.600 R. TeRRy ChesseR,1,12,13 RiChaRd C. Banks,1 F. keiTh BaRkeR,2 CaRla CiCeRo,3 Jon l. dunn,4 andRew w. kRaTTeR,5 iRBy J. loveTTe,6 Pamela C. Rasmussen,7 J. v. Remsen, JR.,8 James d. Rising,9 douglas F. sToTz,10 and kevin winkeR11

Spatial turnover in the global avifauna

Despite its wide implications for many ecological issues, the global pattern of spatial turnover in the occurrence of species has been little studied, unlike the global pattern of species richness. Here, using a database on the breeding distributions of birds, we present the first global maps of variation in spatial turnover for an entire taxonomic class, a pattern that has to date remained largely a matter of conjecture, based on theoretical expectations and extrapolation of inconsistent patterns from different biogeographic realms. We use these maps to test four predictions from niche theory as to the form that this variation should take, namely that turnover should increase with species richness, towards lower latitudes, and with the steepness of environmental gradients and that variation in turnover is determined principally by rare (restricted) species. Contrary to prediction, we show that turnover is high both in areas of extremely low and high species richness, does not increase strongly towards the tropics, and is related both to average environmental conditions and spatial variation in those conditions. These results are closely associated with a further important and novel finding, namely that global patterns of spatial turnover are driven principally by widespread species rather than the restricted ones. This complements recent demonstrations that spatial patterns of species richness are also driven principally by widespread species, and thus provides an important contribution towards a unified model of how terrestrial biodiversity varies both within and between the Earths major land masses.

Human impacts and the global distribution of extinction risk

Understanding the global geographical distribution of extinction risk is a key challenge in conservation biology. It remains controversial, however, to what extent areas become threat hotspots simply because of high human impacts or due to predisposing ecological conditions. Limits to the taxonomic and geographical extent, resolution and quality of previously available data have precluded a full global assessment of the relative roles of these factors. Here, we use a new global database on the geographical distributions of birds on continents and continental islands to show that, after controlling for species richness, the best predictors of the global pattern of extinction risk are measures of human impact. Ecological gradients are of secondary importance at a global scale. The converse is true for individual biogeographic realms, within which variation in human impact is reduced and its influence on extinction risk globally is therefore underestimated. These results underline the importance of a global perspective on the mechanisms driving spatial patterns of extinction risk, and the key role of anthropogenic factors in driving the current extinction crisis.

Fifty-First Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds

The Auk, Vol. 127, Number 3, pages 726−744. ISSN 0004-8038, electronic ISSN 1938-4254.  2010 by The American Ornithologists’ Union. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals. com/reprintInfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/auk.2010.127.3.726. R. TeRRy ChesseR,1,12,13 RiChaRd C. Banks,1 F. keiTh BaRkeR,2 CaRla CiCeRo,3 Jon l. dunn,4 andRew w. kRaTTeR,5 iRBy J. loveTTe,6 Pamela C. Rasmussen,7 J. v. Remsen, JR.,8 James d. Rising,9 douglas F. sToTz,10 and kevin winkeR11

FORTY-FIFTH SUPPLEMENT TO THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS’ UNION CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA 2 Alexandria, Virginia, USA 3 Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA 4 Bishop, California, USA 5 Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA 6 Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA 7 Museo de Zoologia, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico 8 Michigan State University Museum and Department of Zoology, East Lansing, Michigan, USA 9 Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA 10 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Ramsay Wright Labs, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 11 Environment, Culture and Conservation, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, USA 12 University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA * Corresponding author: chessert@si.edu; Chairman of the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature—North and Middle America, of the American Ornithologists’ Union. All authors are members of the Committee and are listed alphabetically after the Chairman.

The phylogenetic relationships and generic limits of finches (Fringillidae)

Phylogenetic relationships among the true finches (Fringillidae) have been confounded by the recurrence of similar plumage patterns and use of similar feeding niches. Using a dense taxon sampling and a combination of nuclear and mitochondrial sequences we reconstructed a well resolved and strongly supported phylogenetic hypothesis for this family. We identified three well supported, subfamily level clades: the Holoarctic genus Fringilla (subfamly Fringillinae), the Neotropical Euphonia and Chlorophonia (subfamily Euphoniinae), and the more widespread subfamily Carduelinae for the remaining taxa. Although usually separated in a different family-group taxon (Drepanidinae), the Hawaiian honeycreepers are deeply nested within the Carduelinae and sister to a group of Asian Carpodacus. Other new relationships recovered by this analysis include the placement of the extinct Chaunoproctus ferreorostris as sister to some Asian Carpodacus, a clade combining greenfinches (Carduelis chloris and allies), Rhodospiza and Rhynchostruthus, and a well-supported clade with the aberrant Callacanthis and Pyrrhoplectes together with Carpodacus rubescens. Although part of the large Carduelis-Serinus complex, the poorly known Serinus estherae forms a distinct lineage without close relatives. The traditionally delimited genera Carduelis, Serinus, Carpodacus, Pinicola and Euphonia are polyphyletic or paraphyletic. Based on our results we propose a revised generic classification of finches and describe a new monotypic genus for Carpodacus rubescens.

Forty-ninth Supplement to the AmericAn ornithologiStS' union CheCk-list of North AmeriCAN Birds

1U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, MRC-111, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013, USA; 2Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, 3101 Valley Life Sciences Building, Berkeley, California 94720, USA; 3Rural Route 2, Box 52R, Bishop, California 93514, USA; 4Florida Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 117800, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA; 5Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, New York 14850, USA; 6Museum and Department of Zoology, Michigan State, University, West Circle Drive, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA; 7Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Foster Hall 119, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA; 8Department of Zoology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5, Canada; 9Environmental and Conservation Programs, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605, USA; and 10University of Alaska Museum, 907 Yukon Drive, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, USA