Search

Maps of potential biodiversity are prominent tools for regional conservation planning because they allow to quantify the diversity of species that potentially inhabit different habitats. These maps are constructed from modeling species ecological niches based on the association between the geographical localities where species were detected and the environmental variables at those localities. Previous researches addressed the development of MPB for administrative regions using regional species distributions data to modeling ecological niches, which may lead to flawed predictions on potential biodiversity. Our aim is to assess the consequences of failing to include all available records on full species distribution to develop MPB. As a study case, we produced two MPBs for an administrative region of Argentina using RSD and FSD data sets of 14 species of insects and performed Environmental Niche Factor Analysis to model their ecological niches. Our results evidenced that both MPB were not spatially congruent in their predictions on potential biodiversity, because the ecological niches represented by RSD and FSD data were different in their position and volume. We found that the MPB based on RSD data may underpredict the potential biodiversity of distinct habitats at the landscape level, and that the use of this map may underestimate areas with different conservation potential within an administrative region. These results suggest that the choice of the extent of geographic records used to construct the MPB strongly conditions the quality and credibility of these maps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of understory plants in native forests is critical for ecosystem function, wildlife protection and ecosystem productivity. The interest to estimate biodiversity increased during the last decades at landscape level. The objective was to elaborate a map of potential biodiversity (MPB) of understory species of Nothofagus forest using potential habitat suitability maps (PHS) of 15 plants in Santa Cruz province, Argentina. Additionally, we asked the following questions: (i) Were plant species differentially distributed according to the forest types?, (ii) do forest types represent different plant species assemblage with specific ecological niche requirements?, and (iii) is it possible to detect hotspots in the MBP according to the forest types? We used 721 plots database of vascular plants, from where 15 indicator species were identified. The assemblage species for different forests (Nothofagus antarctica, N. pumilio and evergreen mixed) were analysed using a detrended correspondence analysis. Also, we explored 41 potential explanatory variables to develop PHS, and combined these maps to obtain one MPB (1-100%). Finally, we analysed the outputs into a GIS through different landscapes alternatives to detect hotspot areas. Marginality and specialization values allowed identifying species assemblage that presented similar variability in the habitat requirements. MPB varied across the landscape, with higher values in the south and lower values near glaciers. MPB had the highest values in N. antarctica forest with >50% cover at landscape level. N. antarctica present more hotspots than N. pumilio forests, mainly in the south, compared to mixed evergreen forests which present few hotspots near glaciers. These results can be used as a tool to design new management and conservation strategies at landscape level., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)