Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing patterns of plant endemism in neotropical uplands

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation of biodiversity will necessitate choices among areas, taxa, and land-use patterns. Lack of data on distribution and pattern in biodiversity makes these difficult decisions even more problematic for those charged with the conservation and sustainable use of the diversity of life. Quantitative methods have promise in helping with this task in that they allow people to make their values explicit, and they also allow representation and comparison of many different types of data.

In this article I examine patterns of species richness and range-size rarity, or endemism, in the Neotropics with a data set from the genusSolanum (Solanaceae). Distribution data for 180 species of forest-dwelling solanums were analyzed. Patterns of species richness, range-size rarity (endemism), and several area-selection methods were examined. Montane areas are relatively rich both in all species and in endemic species, with maximal peaks in the Andes. The peak of species richness coincides with the domain (i.e., continental) midpoint (9°30′ S latitude), suggesting that the pattern observed may be partly due to the geometry of species ranges. TheSolanum results are compared with those obtained for other taxonomic groups in the Neotropics, and problems with quantitative data sets in conservation are discussed. Collecting deficit, parochial taxonomy, and habitat destruction, both historical and current, are all factors that will affect the utility of such analyses. It is clear that if conservation is to work on the ground, we need to know more about what occurs in the montane Neotropics and that continued work at a basic taxonomic level is essential to our ultimate ability to conserve biological diversity.

Resumen

La conservación de la biodiversidad va a requerir una elección entre áreas, taxones, y patrones de uso de la tierra. La falta de datos en cuanto a distribución y patrones de biodiversidad hacen que estas decisiones, ya difíciles, sean aún más problemáticas para aquellos encargados en la conservación y el uso sustentable de la diversidad biótica. Los métodos cuantitativos prometen ayudar en esta tarea en el sentido de permitir a la gente hacer sus valores explícitas, así como facilitar la representación y comparación de muchos diferentes tipos de datos.

En este artículo, examino los patrones de riqueza de especies y la rareza por el tamaño del área de distribución, o endemismo, en América tropical con un conjunto de datos del géneroSolanum (Solanaceae). Analizé los datos de distribución de 180 especies de solanums de bosques. Examiné los patrones de riqueza de las especies, la rareza por el tamaño del área de distribución (endemismo), y los varios métodos de selección de área. Las zonas montañosas son relativamente ricas tanto en todas las especies como en endémicas, con picos máximos en los Andes. El pico de riqueza de especies coincide con el área central (i.e., dentro del continente, 9°30′ S latitud), sugiriendo que el patron observado puede ser generado, en parte, por la geometría de la distribución de las especies. Compara los resultados deSolanum con aquellos obtenidos para otros grupos taxonómicos en América tropical y discuto los problemas de los conjuntos de datos cuantitativos en conservación. El déficit de las colectas, la taxonomía limitada, y la destrucción del hábitat, tanto pasada como actual, son todos factores que afectarán la utilidad de dichos análisis. Es claro que si la conservación debe trabajar desde las bases, precisamos saber más acerca de lo que sucede en la montañas neotropicales y que el trabajo continuo a nivel taxonómico básico es esencial para finalmente permitirnos el poder conservar la diversidad biológica.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Balmford, A. &A. Long. 1994. Avian endemism and forest loss. Nature 372: 623–624.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Best, B. J. &M. Kessler. 1995. Biodiversity and conservation in Tumbesian Ecuador and Peru. BirdLife International, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevill, R. L. &S. M. Louda. 1999. Comparisons of related rare and common species in the study of plant rarity. Conservation Biol. 13: 493–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohs, L. 1994.Cyphomandra (Solanaceae). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 63. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchsenius, F. 1997. Patterns of plant species endemism in Ecuador. Biodiv. & Conserv. 6: 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, T. &A. Balmford. 1996. Atlantic forest extinctions. Nature 380: 115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caro, T. M. &G. O’Doherty. 1999. On the use of surrogate species in conservation biology. Conservation Biol. 13: 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavelier, J. &A. Etter. 1995. Deforestation of montane forests in Colombia as a result of illegal plantations of opium (Papaver somniferum). Pp. 541–550in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, R. K. &D. C. Lees. 2000. The mid-domain effect: Geometric constraints on the geography of species richness. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 70–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cowlishaw, G. 1999. Predicting the pattern of decline of African primate diversity: An extinction debt from historical deforestation. Conservation Biol. 13: 1183–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Arcy, W. G. 1991. The Solanaceae since 1976, with a review of its biogeography. Pp. 75–137in Solanaceae III: Taxonomy, evolution, chemistry. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimmick, W. W., M. J. Ghedotti, M. J. Grose, A. M. Maglia, D. J. Meinhardt &D. S. Pennock. 1999. The importance of systematic biology in defining units of conservation. Conservation Biol. 13: 653–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fjeldså, J. 1995. Geographical patterns of neoendemic and older endemic species of Andean forest birds: The significance of ecologically stable areas. Pp. 89–102in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &J. C. Lovett. 1997a. Biodiversity and environmental stability. Biodiv. & Conserv. 6: 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1997b. Geographical patterns of old and young species in African forest biota: The significance of specific montane areas as evolutionary centres. Biodiv. & Conserv. 6: 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &C. Rahbek. 1997. Species richness and endemism in South American birds: Implications for the design of networks of nature reserves. Pp. 466–482in W. F. Laurance & R. O. Bierregaard Jr. (eds.), Tropical forest remnants: Ecology, management and conservation of fragmented communities. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1998. Continent-wide conservation priorities and diversification processes. Pp. 139–160in G. M. Mace, A. Balmford & J. R. Ginsberg (eds.), Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. Ehrlich, E. Lambin &E. Prins. 1997. Are biodiversity “hotspots” correlated with current ecoclimatic stability? A pilot study using the NOAA-AVHRR remote sensing data. Biodiv. & Conserv. 6: 401–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, V. A., H. Robinson, G. S. McKee &J. F. Pruski. 1995. Neotropical montane Compositae with an emphasis on the Andes. Pp. 451–471in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1999. Testing the use of specimen collection data and GIS in biodiversity exploration and conservation decision making in Guyana. Biodiv. & Conserv. 8: 727–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaston, K. J. 1994. Rarity. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &R. M. May. 1992. Taxonomy of taxonomists. Nature 356: 281–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — &P. H. Williams. 1996. Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. Pp. 202–229in K. J. Gaston (ed.), Biodiversity: A biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, A. H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: Phytogeographical connections between Central and South America, Pleistocene climate fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny? Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 69: 557–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1986. Endemism in tropical versus temperate plant communities. Pp. 153–181in M. E. Soulé (ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Assoc., Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1995. Patterns of diversity and floristic composition in neotropical montane forests. Pp. 103–126in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glowka, L., F. Burhenne-Guilmin &H. Synge. 1994. A guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, C. J., M. Araujó, P. Williams, R. Lampinen, T. Lahti &P. Uotila. 1999. Plant diversity in Europe: Atlas Florae Europaeae andWorldMap. Acta Bot. Fenn. 162: 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICBP. 1992. Putting biodiversity on the map: Priority areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, England.

  • Jergensen, P. M. &S. LeónYánez. 1999. Results. Pp. 42–104in P. M. Jørgensen & S. León-Yánez (eds.), Catalogue of the vascular plants of Ecuador. Monogr. Syst. Bot., 75. Missouri Bot. Gard., Saint Louis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. T. 1997. Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Conservation Biol. 11: 1094–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, S. 1989. A revision of theSolanum nitidum group (sectionHolophylla pro parte): Solanaceae. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 19: 63–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 2000. Revision of theSolanum thelopodium species group (sectionAnthoresis sensu Seithe, pro parte): Solanaceae. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 30: 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 2002.Solanum sectionGeminata (G. Don) Walpers (Solanaceae). Fl. Neotrop. Monogr. 84. New York Bot. Gard. Press, Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &T. Helgason. 1997. A revision ofSolanum sectionPleroidea: Solanaceae. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Bot. 27: 31–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,G. Davidse &M. Sousa S. 2001. Floristic projects today and tomorrow: Their importance for systematics and conservation. Pp. 331–358in H. Hernández, A. García-Aldrete, F. Álvarez & M. Ulloa (eds.), Enfoques contemporáneos para el estudio de la biodiversidad. Institute de Biología, UNAM, Mexico City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kok, K., P. A. Verweij &H. Beukuma. 1995. Effects of cutting and grazing on Andean treeline vegetation. Pp. 527–539in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lees, D. C., C. Kremcn &L. Andriamampinina. 1999. A null model for species richness gradients: Bounded range overlap of butterflies and other rainforests endemics in Madagascar. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 67: 529–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luna V., I., O. Alcántara A., D. Espinosa O. &J. J. Morrone. 1999. Historical relationships of the Mexican cloud forests: A preliminary vicariance model applying parsimony analysis of endemicity to vascular plant taxa. J. Biogeogr. 26: 1299–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luteyn, J. L. &S. Sylva S. 1999. “Murrí” (Antioquia Department, Colombia): Hotspot for neotropical blueberries (Ericaceae: Vaccinieae). Brittonia 51: 280–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mares, M. A. 1992. Neotropical mammals and the myth of Amazonian biodiversity. Science 255: 976–979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Margules, C. R. &R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • —,A. O. Nicholls &R. L. Pressey. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity. Biol. Conservation 43: 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M. 1999. High rates of extinction and threat in poorly studied taxa. Conservation Biol. 13: 1273–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J. A. 1997. Assessing methods for setting conservation priorities. Pp. 25–55in Investing in biological diversity: The Cairns conference. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendoza, E. &R. Dirzo. 1999. Deforestation in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico): Evidence for the declaration of the northernmost tropical hot-spot. Biodiv. & Conserv. 9: 1621–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier, R. A., N. Myers, J. B. Thomsen, G. A. B. da Fonseca &S. Olivieri. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: Approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biol. 12: 516–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moritz, C. 1994. Defining “evolutionarily significant units” for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 373–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. de Fonseca &J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nee, M. 1999. Synopsis of New WorldSolanum. Pp. 285–333in M. Nee, D. E. Symon, R. N. Lester & J. P. Jessop (eds.), Solanaceae IV: Advances in biology and utilization. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. W., C. A. C. Ferreira, M. F. da Silva &M. L. Kawasaki. 1990. Endemism centres, refugia and botanical collection in Brazilian Amazonia. Nature 345: 714–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. O. 1998. Integrating population abundance, dynamics and distribution into broad-scale priority setting. Pp. 251–272in G. M. Mace, A. Balmford & J. R. Ginsberg (eds.), Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. M. &E. Dinerstein. 1998. The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions. Conservation Biol. 12: 502–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, B. D., D. F. Stotz, S. Solari, J. W. Fitzpatrick &V. Pacheco. 1998. Contrasting patterns of elevational zonation for birds and mammals in the Andes of southeastern Peru. J. Biogeogr. 25: 593–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitman, N. C. A., J. Terborgh, M. R. Silman &P. Nuñez V. 1999. Tree species distributions in an upper Amazonian forest. Ecology 80: 2651–2661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, B. O. &N. Krabbe. 1997. Avian rarity in ten cloud forest communities in the Andes of Ecuador: Implications for conservation. Biodiv. & Conserv. 6: 1365–1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prance, G. T. (ed.) 1982. Biological diversification in the Tropics. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1990. Consensus for conservation. Nature 345: 384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, J. R. &B. C. Eversham. 1997. Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20: 210–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,R. M. Quinn, J. H. Lawton, B. C. Eversham &D. W. Gibbons. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1999. The gaps between theory and practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biol. 13: 484–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey, R. L., I. R. Johnson &P. D. Wilson. 1994. Shades of irreplaceability: Towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiv. & Conserv. 3: 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms of rarity. Pp. 205–217in H. Synge (ed), The biological aspects of rare plant conservation. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricklefs, R. E. 2000. Rarity and diversity in Amazonian trees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 83–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento, F. O. 1995. Restoration of equatorial Andes: The challenge for conservation of trop-Andean landscapes in Ecuador. Pp. 637–651in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, S. &A. B. Forsyth. 1998. Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing Tropics. Pp. 181–209in G. M. Mace, A. Balmford & J. R. Ginsberg (eds.), Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ståhl, B. 1995. Diversity and distribution of Andean Symplocaceae. Pp. 397–405in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (ds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stotz, G. F. 1998. Endemism and species turnover with elevation in montane avifaunas in the Neotropics: Implications for conservation. Pp. 161–180in G. M. Mace, A. Balmford & J. R. Ginsberg (eds.), Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomisto, H., K. Ruokolainen, R. Kalliola, A. Linna, W. Danjoy &Z. Rodríguez. 1995. Dissecting Amazonian biodiversity. Science 269: 63–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I., C. J. Humphries &P. H. Williams. 1991. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conservation 55: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waples, R. S. 1991. Pacific salmon,Oncorhynchus sp., and the definition of “species” under the Endangered Species Act. Mar. Fisheries Rev. 53: 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G. L. 1995. The panorama of neotropical cloud forests. Pp. 53–77in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigend, M. 2002. Observations on the biogeography of the Amotape-Huancabamba zone in northern Peru. Bot. Rev. (Lancaster) 68: 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whalen, M. D. 1983. Centers of diversity, sympatry and historical biogeography in the tropical plant genusSolanum. The Biologist 65: 78–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. H. 1996. Measuring biodiversity value. IUCN World Conservation 1/96: 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1998. Key sites for conservation: Area-selection methods for biodiversity. Pp. 211–249in G. M. Mace, A. Balmford & J. R. Ginsberg (eds.), Conservation in a changing world. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1999.WorldMap ivWindows: Software and User Document. Version 4.19. Privately distributed by the author.

  • — &K. J. Gaston. 1998. Biodiversity indicators: Graphical techniques, smoothing and searching for what makes relationships work. Ecography 21: 551–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,C. J. Humphries &K. J. Gaston. 1994. Centres of seed-plant diversity: The family way. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, B, 256: 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,G. T. Prance, C. J. Humphries &K. S. Edwards. 1996a. Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity of some neotropical plants (families Dichapetalaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caryocaraceae, Chrysobalanaceae and Proteaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58: 125–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries &R. Pressey. 1996b. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conservation Biol. 10: 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. R. 1995. Biogeographical paradigms useful for the study of tropical montane forests and their biota. Pp. 79–87in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &B. León. 1995. Connectivity, social actors, and conservation policies in the Central Andes: The case of Peru’s montane forests. Pp. 653–661in S. P. Churchill, H. Balslev, E. Forero & J. L. Luteyn (eds.), Biodiversity and conservation of neotropical montane forests. New York Bot. Gard., Bronx.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——. 1999. Peru’s humid eastern montane forests: An overview of their physical settings, biological diversity, human use and settlement, and conservation needs. DIVA Technical Report No. 5. Centre for Research on Cultural and Biological Diversity of Andean Rainforests (DIVA), Rønde, Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knapp, S. Assessing patterns of plant endemism in neotropical uplands. Bot. Rev 68, 22–37 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2002)068[0022:APOPEI]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2002)068[0022:APOPEI]2.0.CO;2

Keywords

Navigation