Climate change will redefine taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity of Odonata in space and time

Referencias bibliográficas

• Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, eaai9214 (2017).
• Bellard, C., Bertelsmeier, C., Leadley, P., Thuiller, W. & Courchamp, F. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 15, 365–377 (2012).
• Diamond, S. E. Contemporary climate‐driven range shifts: putting evolution back on the table. Functional Ecol. 32, 1652–1665 (2018).
• Perry, A. L., Low, P. J., Ellis, J. R. & Reynolds, J. D. Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308, 1912–1915 (2005).
• Chen, I. C., Hill, J. K., Ohlemüller, R., Roy, D. B. & Thomas, C. D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with high levels of climate warming. Science 333, 1024–1026 (2011).
• Lenoir, J. et al. Species better track climate warming in the oceans than on land. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1044–1059 (2020).
• Nelson, E. J. et al. Climate change’s impact on key ecosystem services and the human well‐being they support in the US. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11, 483–893 (2013).
• Prather, C. M. et al. Invertebrates, ecosystem services and climate change. Biol. Rev. 88, 327–348 (2013).
• Cardinale, B. J. et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).
• Ripple, W. J. et al. World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency 2021. BioScience 71, 894–898 (2021).
• Gallagher, R. V., Hughes, L. & Leishman, M. R. Species loss and gain in communities under future climate change: consequences for functional diversity. Ecography 36, 531–540 (2013).
• Saladin, B. et al. Rapid climate change results in long-lasting spatial homogenization of phylogenetic diversity. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–8 (2020).
• Stewart, P. S. et al. Global impacts of climate change on avian functional diversity. Ecol. Lett. 25, 673–685 (2022).
• Mammola, S., Carmona, C. P., Guillerme, T. & Cardoso, P. Concepts and applications in functional diversity. Funct. Ecol. 35, 1869–1885 (2021).
• Tucker, C. M. et al. A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol. Rev. 92, 698–715 (2017).
• Pavoine, S. & Bonsall, M. B. Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biol. Rev. 86, 792–812 (2011).
• Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community composition. Ecol. Lett. 5, 402–411 (2002).
• Wang, S. & Loreau, M. Ecosystem stability in space: α, β and γ variability. Ecol. Lett. 17, 891–901 (2014).
• Cardoso, P. et al. Partitioning taxon, phylogenetic and functional beta diversity into replacement and richness difference components. J. Biogeogr. 41, 749–761 (2014).
• Hassall, C. Odonata as candidate macroecological barometers for global climate change. Freshwater Sci. 34, 1040–1049 (2015).
• Grewe, Y., Hof, C., Dehling, D. M., Brandl, R. & Brändle, M. Recent range shifts of European dragonflies provide support for an inverse relationship between habitat predictability and dispersal. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 403–409 (2013).
• Moore, M. P. et al. Sex-specific ornament evolution is a consistent feature of climatic adaptation across space and time in dragonflies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2101458118 (2021).
• Castillo-Pérez, E. U., Suárez-Tovar, C. M., González-Tokman, D., Schondube, J. E. & Córdoba-Aguilar, A. Insect thermal limits in warm and perturbed habitats: Dragonflies and damselflies as study cases. J. Thermal Biol. 103, 103164 (2022).
• May, M. L. Odonata: Who they are and what they have done for us lately: Classification and ecosystem services of dragonflies. Insects 10, 62 (2019).
• Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K. & Thomas, C. D. A northward shift of range margins in British Odonata. Global Change biology 11, 502–506 (2005).
• Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox, R. & Thomas, C. D. The distributions of a wide range of taxonomic groups are expanding polewards. Global Change Biol. 12, 450–455 (2006).
• Heino, J., Virkkala, R. & Toivonen, H. Climate change and freshwater biodiversity: detected patterns, future trends and adaptations in northern regions. Biol. Rev. 84, 39–54 (2009).
• Mustonen, K. R. et al. Thermal and hydrologic responses to climate change predict marked alterations in boreal stream invertebrate assemblages. Global Change Biol. 24, 2434–2446 (2018).
• Cadotte, M. W. & Tucker, C. M. Difficult decisions: strategies for conservation prioritization when taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional diversity are not spatially congruent. Biol. Conserv. 225, 128–133 (2018).
• Wong, J. S. et al. Comparing patterns of taxonomic, functional and phylogenetic diversity in reef coral communities. Coral Reefs 37, 737–750 (2018).
• Arnan, X., Cerdá, X. & Retana, J. Relationships among taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic ant diversity across the biogeographic regions of Europe. Ecography 40, 448–457 (2017).
• Strecker, A. L., Olden, J. D., Whittier, J. B. & Paukert, C. P. Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity. Ecol. Appl. 21, 3002–3013 (2011).
• Eisenhauer, N., Bonn, A. & Guerra, C. A. Recognizing the quiet extinction of invertebrates. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–3 (2019).
• Cardoso, P. et al. Scientists’ warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Biol. Conserv. 242, 108426 (2020).
• Ovaskainen, O., Rybicki, J. & Abrego, N. What can observational data reveal about metacommunity processes? Ecography 42, 1877–1886 (2019).
• Thomas, C. D. The development of Anthropocene biotas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375, 20190113 (2020).
• Krosby, M. et al. Climate-induced range overlap among closely related species. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 883–886 (2015).
• Sánchez-Guillén, R. A., Wellenreuther, M., Cordero-Rivera, A. & Hansson, B. Introgression and rapid species turnover in sympatric damselflies. BMC Evol. Biol. 11, 1–17 (2011).
• Bybee, S. et al. Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) as a bridge between ecology and evolutionary genomics. Front. Zool. 13, 1–20 (2016).
• Tobias, N. & Monika, W. Does taxonomic homogenization imply functional homogenization in temperate forest herb layer communities? Plant Ecol. 213, 431–443 (2012).
• Pauls, S. U., Nowak, C., Bálint, M. & Pfenninger, M. The impact of global climate change on genetic diversity within populations and species. Mol. Ecol. 22, 925–946 (2013).
• Ball-Damerow, J. E., M’Gonigle, L. K. & Resh, V. H. Changes in occurrence, richness, and biological traits of dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) in California and Nevada over the past century. Biodiversity Conserv. 23, 2107–2126 (2014).
• McGoff, E., Solimini, A. G., Pusch, M. T., Jurca, T. & Sandin, L. Does lake habitat alteration and land-use pressure homogenize European littoral macroinvertebrate communities? J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1010–1018 (2013).
• Vilenica, M., Kerovec, M., Pozojević, I. & Mihaljević, Z. Odonata assemblages in anthropogenically impacted lotic habitats. J. Limnol. 80, 1968 (2021).
• Mammola, S. et al. Challenges and opportunities of species distribution modelling of terrestrial arthropod predators. Diversity Distrib. 27, 2596–2614 (2021).
• Fourcade, Y., Besnard, A. G. & Secondi, J. Paintings predict the distribution of species, or the challenge of selecting environmental predictors and evaluation statistics. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 245–256 (2018).
• Kalkman, V. J. et al. Diversity and conservation of European dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata). Hydrobiologia 811, 269–282 (2018). .
• Barve, N. et al. The crucial role of the accessible area in ecological niche modeling and species distribution modeling. Ecol. Model. 222, 1810–1819 (2011).
• Miller, J. A. & Holloway, P. Incorporating movement in species distribution models. Progr. Phys. Geogr. 39, 837–849 (2015).
• Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 115, 11982–11987 (2018).
• Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).
• Pinkert, S. et al. Evolutionary processes, dispersal limitation and climatic history shape current diversity patterns of European dragonflies. Ecography 41, 795–804 (2018).
• Comte, L., Murienne, J. & Grenouillet, G. Species traits and phylogenetic conservatism of climate-induced range shifts in stream fishes. Nat. Commun. 5, 1–9 (2014).
• Buckley, L. B. & Kingsolver, J. G. Functional and phylogenetic approaches to forecasting species’ responses to climate change. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 205–226 (2012).
• Tikhonov, G. et al. Joint species distribution modelling with the R‐package Hmsc. Methods Ecol. Evol. 11, 442–447 (2020).
• Corbet, P. S. The life-history of the emperor dragonfly Anax imperator Leach (Odonata: Aeshnidae). J. Animal Ecol. 1–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1781 (1957).
• Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 8(9), 993–1009 (2005).
• Peterson, A. T. et al. Ecological niches and geographic distributions (MPB-49) (Princeton University Press, 2011).
• Franklin, J. Mapping species distributions: spatial inference and prediction (Cambridge University Press, 2010).
• Ryo, M. et al. Explainable artificial intelligence enhances the ecological interpretability of black‐box species distribution models. Ecography 44(2), 199–205 (2021).
• Guisan, A. et al. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecol. Lett. 16, 1424–1435 (2013).
• Adams, M. P. et al. Prioritizing localized management actions for seagrass conservation and restoration using a species distribution model. Aquat. Conserv. Marine Freshwater Ecosyst. 26, 639–659 (2016).
• Ficetola, G. F., Thuiller, W. & Padoa‐Schioppa, E. From introduction to the establishment of alien species: bioclimatic differences between presence and reproduction localities in the slider turtle. Diversity Distrib. 15, 108–116 (2009).
• Wang, Y., Xie, B., Wan, F., Xiao, Q. & Dai, L. Application of ROC curve analysis in evaluating the performance of alien species’ potential distribution models. Biodiversity Sci. 15, 365 (2007).
• Santini, L., Benítez‐López, A., Maiorano, L., Čengić, M. & Huijbregts, M. A. Assessing the reliability of species distribution projections in climate change research. Diversity Distrib. 27, 1035–1050 (2021).
• Guyennon, A. et al. Colonization and extinction dynamics and their link to the distribution of European trees at the continental scale. J. Biogeogr. 49, 117–129 (2022).
• Pritchard, G. & Leggott, M. A. Temperature, incubation rates and origins of dragonflies. Adv. Odonatol. 3, 121–126 (1987).
• Clausnitzer, V. et al. Odonata enter the biodiversity crisis debate: the first global assessment of an insect group. Biol. Conserv. 142, 1864–1869 (2009).
• Córdoba-Aguilar, A. (Ed.). Dragonflies and damselflies: model organisms for ecological and evolutionary research (OUP Oxford, 2008).
• Corbet, P. S. et al. Dragonflies: behaviour and ecology of Odonata (Harley books, 1999).
• Troast, D., Suhling, F., Jinguji, H., Sahlén, G. & Ware, J. A global population genetic study of Pantala flavescens. PloS One 11, e0148949 (2016).
• Harabiš, F. & Dolný, A. The effect of ecological determinants on the dispersal abilities of central European dragonflies (Odonata). Odonatologica 40, 17 (2011).
• Boudot, J. P. & Kalkman, V. J. (eds) Atlas of the European dragonflies and damselflies (KNNV publishing, 2015).
• Dijkstra, K. D. & Schröter, A. Field guide to the dragonflies of Britain and Europe (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020).
• Titley, M. A., Snaddon, J. L. & Turner, E. C. Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions. PloS One 12, e0189577 (2017).
• Beck, J., Böller, M., Erhardt, A. & Schwanghart, W. Spatial bias in the GBIF database and its effect on modeling species’ geographic distributions. Ecol. Inf. 19, 10–15 (2014).
• Zizka, A. et al. No one-size-fits-all solution to clean GBIF. PeerJ 8, e9916 (2020).
• Burgman, M. A. & Fox, J. C. Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planning, Animal Conservation Forum (6, No. 1, pp. 19–28 (Cambridge University Press, 2003). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367943003003044
• Calenge, C. The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol. Modell. 197, 516–519 (2006).
• Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
• Hijmans, R. J. Raster: geographic data analysis and modeling. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2020).
• Hijmans, R. J., Phillips S., Leathwick J. & Elith J. Dismo: species distribution modeling. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo (2020).
• Title, P. O. & Bemmels, J. B. ENVIREM: an expanded set of bioclimatic and topographic variables increases flexibility and improves performance of ecological niche modeling. Ecography 41, 291–307 (2018).
• Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36, 27–46 (2013).
• Mukaka, M. M. A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med. J. 24, 69–71 (2012).
• Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 3–14 (2010).
• Hausfather, Z. & Peters, G. P. Emissions–the ‘business as usual’story is misleading https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3 (2020)
• Mammola, S., Milano, F., Vignal, M., Andrieu, J. & Isaia, M. Associations between habitat quality, body size and reproductive fitness in the alpine endemic spider Vesubia jugorum. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 28, 1325–1335 (2019).
• Mammola, S., Goodacre, S. L. & Isaia, M. Climate change may drive cave spiders to extinction. Ecography 41(1), 233–243 (2018).
• Hastie, T. J. & Tibshirani, R. J. Generalized additive models (Routledge, 2017).
• Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190(3-4), 231–259 (2006).
• Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M. & Schapire, R. E. (2004). A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. In Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on Machine learning (p. 83).https://doi.org/10.1145/1015330.1015412 (2004).
• Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R. & Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Animal Ecol. 77, 802–813 (2008).
• Elith, J. et al. Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions from occurrence data. Ecography 29, 129–151 (2006).
• Araújo, M. B. & New, M. Ensemble forecasting of species distributions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 42–47 (2007).
• Grenouillet, G., Buisson, L., Casajus, N. & Lek, S. Ensemble modelling of species distribution: the effects of geographical and environmental ranges. Ecography 34, 9–17 (2011).
• Phillips, S. J. et al. Sample selection bias and presence‐only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo‐absence data. Ecol. Appl. 19, 181–197 (2009).
• Hirzel, A. H., Le Lay, G., Helfer, V., Randin, C. & Guisan, A. Evaluating the ability of habitat suitability models to predict species presences. Ecol. Model. 199, 142–152 (2006).
• Zhang, Z. et al. Lineage‐level distribution models lead to more realistic climate change predictions for a threatened crayfish. Diversity Distrib. 27, 684–695 (2021).
• Liu, C., Berry, P. M., Dawson, T. P. & Pearson, R. G. Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions. Ecography 28, 385–393 (2005).
• Martín‐Vélez, V. & Abellán, P. Effects of climate change on the distribution of threatened invertebrates in a Mediterranean hotspot. Insect Conserv. Divers. https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12563 (2022).
• Qiao, H., Soberon, J. & Peterson, A. T. No silver bullets in correlative ecological niche modelling: insights from testing among many potential algorithms for niche estimation. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1126–1136 (2015).
• Zurell, D. et al. A standard protocol for reporting species distribution models. Ecography 43, 1261–1277 (2020).
• Petchey, O. L. & Gaston, K. J. Functional diversity: back to basics and looking forward. Ecol. Lett. 9, 741–758 (2006).
• Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61(1), 1–10 (1992).
• Cadotte, M. W. et al. Phylogenetic diversity metrics for ecological communities: integrating species richness, abundance and evolutionary history. Ecol. Lett. 13, 96–105 (2010).
• Pollock, L. J. et al. Protecting biodiversity (in all its complexity): new models and methods. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35, 1119–1128 (2020).
• Corbet, P. S. ‘Biology of Odonata’. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 25, 189–217 (1980).
• Mitchell. Dragonfly locomotion: Ecology, form and function. PhD thesis, (University of Leeds, 2018). https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/21211/.
• The GIMP Development Team. GIMP (version 2.10.12). https://www.gimp.org (2019).
• Weller, H. Colordistance: distance metrics for image color similarity. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=colordistance (2020).
• R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2020). https://www.R-project.org/.
• de Bello, F., Botta‐Dukát, Z., Lepš, J. & Fibich, P. Towards a more balanced combination of multiple traits when computing functional differences between species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 12, 443–448 (2021).
• Hassall, C. & Thompson, D. J. The effects of environmental warming on Odonata: a review. Int. J. Odonatol. 11, 131–153 (2008).
• Acquah‐Lamptey, D., Brändle, M., Brandl, R. & Pinkert, S. Temperature‐driven color lightness and body size variation scale to local assemblages of European Odonata but are modified by propensity for dispersal. Ecol. Evol. 10, 8936–8948 (2020).
• Outomuro, D. & Johansson, F. Wing morphology and migration status, but not body size, habitat or Rapoport’s rule predict range size in North‐American dragonflies (Odonata: Libellulidae). Ecography 42, 309–320 (2019).
• Rundle, S. D., Bilton, D. T., Abbott, J. C. & Foggo, A. Range size in North American Enallagma damselflies correlates with wing size. Freshwater Biol. 52, 471–477 (2007).
• Finlayson, C. M. et al. The second warning to humanity–providing a context for wetland management and policy. Wetlands 39, 1–5 (2019).
• Okude, G. & Futahashi, R. Pigmentation and color pattern diversity in Odonata. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 69, 14–20 (2021).
• Mani, M. S. Ecology and biogeography of high altitude insects, vol. 4. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013).
• Suárez‐Tovar, C. M., Guillermo‐Ferreira, R., Cooper, I. A., Cezário, R. R. & Córdoba‐Aguilar, A. Dragon colors: the nature and function of Odonata (dragonfly and damselfly) coloration. J. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12963 (2022).
• Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).
• Vaidya, G., Lohman, D. J. & Meier, R. SequenceMatrix: concatenation software for the fast assembly of multi‐gene datasets with character set and codon information. Cladistics 27, 171–180 (2011).
• Lanfear, R., Frandsen, P. B., Wright, A. M., Senfeld, T. & Calcott, B. PartitionFinder 2: new methods for selecting partitioned models of evolution for molecular and morphological phylogenetic analyses. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34, 772–773 (2017).
• Bouckaert, R. et al. BEAST 2.5: an advanced software platform for Bayesian evolutionary analysis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 15, e1006650 (2019).
• Rambaut, A., Drummond, A. J., Xie, D., Baele, G. & Suchard, M. A. Posterior summarization in Bayesian phylogenetics using Tracer 1.7. Syst. Biol. 67, 901–904 (2018).
• Cardoso, P., Stefano, M., Francois, R. & Jose, C. C. BAT: biodiversity assessment tools. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BAT (2021).
• Robert J. H. geosphere: spherical trigonometry. R package version 1.5-14. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=geosphere (2021).
• Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 217–223 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x (2012).
• Joy, J. B., Liang, R. H., McCloskey, R. M., Nguyen, T. & Poon, A. F. Ancestral reconstruction. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004763 (2016).
• Orme, D. et al. caper: comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 1.0.1 (2018).
• Silva, L. F. et al. Functional responses of Odonata larvae to human disturbances in neotropical savanna headwater streams. Ecol. Indic. 133, 108367 (2021).