Fish species introductions provide novel insights into the patterns and drivers of phylogenetic structure in freshwaters.

Written by

Fish species introductions provide novel insights into the patterns and drivers of phylogenetic structure in freshwaters.

Proc Biol Sci. 2014;281(1778):20133003

Authors: Strecker AL, Olden JD

Abstract
Despite long-standing interest of terrestrial ecologists, freshwater ecosystems are a fertile, yet unappreciated, testing ground for applying community phylogenetics to uncover mechanisms of species assembly. We quantify phylogenetic clustering and overdispersion of native and non-native fishes of a large river basin in the American Southwest to test for the mechanisms (environmental filtering versus competitive exclusion) and spatial scales influencing community structure. Contrary to expectations, non-native species were phylogenetically clustered and related to natural environmental conditions, whereas native species were not phylogenetically structured, likely reflecting human-related changes to the basin. The species that are most invasive (in terms of ecological impacts) tended to be the most phylogenetically divergent from natives across watersheds, but not within watersheds, supporting the hypothesis that Darwin’s naturalization conundrum is driven by the spatial scale. Phylogenetic distinctiveness may facilitate non-native establishment at regional scales, but environmental filtering restricts local membership to closely related species with physiological tolerances for current environments. By contrast, native species may have been phylogenetically clustered in historical times, but species loss from contemporary populations by anthropogenic activities has likely shaped the phylogenetic signal. Our study implies that fundamental mechanisms of community assembly have changed, with fundamental consequences for the biogeography of both native and non-native species.

PMID: 24452027 [PubMed – in process]

via pubmed: school of aquatic an… http://ift.tt/1g7R9al

Identifying preservation and restoration priority areas for desert fishes in an increasingly invaded world.

Written by

Related Articles

Identifying preservation and restoration priority areas for desert fishes in an increasingly invaded world.

Environ Manage. 2013 Mar;51(3):631-41

Authors: Pool TK, Strecker AL, Olden JD

Abstract
A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin (150,730 km(2)), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed “preservation PAs” with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified “restoration PAs” with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The top 10 % of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation and restoration PAs overlapped by 42 %, indicating areas with high native fish richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6 % of the total ranges of two federally endangered species-Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone-despite adding only 5.8 % of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities benefiting native fishes.

PMID: 23354872 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

via pubmed: school of aquatic an… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23354872?dopt=Abstract

Identifying Preservation and Restoration Priority Areas for Desert Fishes in an Increasingly Invaded World.

Written by

Identifying Preservation and Restoration Priority Areas for Desert Fishes in an Increasingly Invaded World.

Environ Manage. 2013 Jan 26;

Authors: Pool TK, Strecker AL, Olden JD

Abstract
A commonly overlooked aspect of conservation planning assessments is that wildlife managers are increasingly focused on habitats that contain non-native species. We examine this management challenge in the Gila River basin (150,730 km(2)), and present a new planning strategy for fish conservation. By applying a hierarchical prioritization algorithm to >850,000 fish records in 27,181 sub-watersheds we first identified high priority areas (PAs) termed “preservation PAs” with high native fish richness and low non-native richness; these represent traditional conservation targets. Second, we identified “restoration PAs” with high native fish richness that also contained high numbers of non-native species; these represent less traditional conservation targets. The top 10 % of preservation and restoration PAs contained common native species (e.g., Catostomus clarkii, desert sucker; Catostomus insignis, Sonora sucker) in addition to native species with limited distributions (i.e., Xyrauchen texanus, razorback sucker; Oncorhynchus gilae apache, Apache trout). The top preservation and restoration PAs overlapped by 42 %, indicating areas with high native fish richness range from minimally to highly invaded. Areas exclusively identified as restoration PAs also encompassed a greater percentage of native species ranges than would be expected by the random addition of an equivalent basin area. Restoration PAs identified an additional 19.0 and 26.6 % of the total ranges of two federally endangered species-Meda fulgida (spikedace) and Gila intermedia (Gila chub), respectively, compared to top preservation PAs alone-despite adding only 5.8 % of basin area. We contend that in addition to preservation PAs, restoration PAs are well suited for complementary management activities benefiting native fishes.

PMID: 23354872 [PubMed – as supplied by publisher]

via pubmed: school of aquatic an… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/23354872?dopt=Abstract