14Landscape structure and fragmentation have important effects on ecosystem 15 services, with a common assumption that fragmentation reduces service 16 provision. This is based on fragmentation's expected effects on ecosystem 17 service supply, but ignores how fragmentation influences the flow of services to 18 people. Here, we develop a new conceptual framework that explicitly considers 19 the links between landscape fragmentation, the supply of services, and the flow 20 of services to people. We argue that fragmentation's effects on ecosystem service 21 flow can actually be positive or negative and use our framework to construct 22 testable hypotheses about the effects of fragmentation on final ecosystem service 23 provision. Empirical efforts to apply and test this framework are critical to 24 improve landscape management for multiple ecosystem services. Humans continue to heavily modify natural ecosystems around the world, 31 with negative consequences for biodiversity (see Glossary) and natural capital 32 [1,2]. At the same time, demand for ecosystems to provide benefits, or services, 33 to society is growing rapidly [3]. This has significantly increased the need to 34 understand and manage landscapes simultaneously for ecosystem services and 35 biodiversity. Recently, the potential of managing landscape structure [4][5][6], and 36 in particular landscape fragmentation [7,8], for these multiple goals has been 37 highlighted. Interest in landscape fragmentation -the breaking apart of areas of 38 natural land cover into smaller pieces independent of a change in the amount of 39 natural land cover -has a long history in ecology [9]. Consequently, a well-40 developed understanding exists of its effects on biodiversity and ecosystem 41 functioning [10]. However, the shift in research interest from biodiversity 42 towards the concept of ecosystem services has recast what before were solely 43 ecological questions into social-ecological ones [11][12][13]. This recasting means 44 that predictions about the ecological effects of landscape fragmentation on 45 biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are unlikely to translate directly into 46 ecosystem service provision. This will be especially true if fragmentation has 47 contrasting effects on people and how they interact with ecosystems to produce 48 ecosystem services compared to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It is 49 therefore critical to rethink how fragmentation alters all of the components of 50 ecosystem service provision in order to improve landscape management for 51 multiple services. 52 4 Ecosystem service provision depends on three elements: supply, demand, 53 and flow (Figure 1), each of which can respond differently to landscape 54 fragmentation. Ecosystem service supply is the potential for natural capital to 55 generate a benefit for people, irrespective of it being realized or used [14]. In 56 turn, ecosystem service demand is the level of service provision desired or 57 required by people, and is influenced by human needs, values, ...

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

: In spite of previous reviews, there is still no consensus on the information associated to the richness of the genus Coendou in Colombia. To clarify some issues concerning the distribution and the taxonomic identity of the species of Coendou in the country, we reviewed specimens from five natural history collections. We introduce the first record of Coendou ichillus from the Orinoco river basin of the country, extending the distribution of the species by more than 600 km to the north from previous known localities in Ecuador and Peru. Additionally, we present new records of C. pruinosus and C. quichua from the Amazonia and inter-Andean valleys, respectively. Only one skull presents the diagnostic characters of C . bicolor ; thus, previous records of this species for the country were based on misidentifications. Coendou is distributed in seven of the nine geographic provinces of Colombia. Coendou prehensilis was found in five provinces and is expected to be present in the Amazonia, whereas C. pruinosus was documented in three provinces (North Andean, Orinoco and Guyana). The rest of the species of Coendou were distributed in one or two provinces. The richest provinces were North Andean and Orinoco with six and four Coendou species, respectively. The elevational ranges of C. prehensilis and C. pruinosus are revised to 0 -1975 and 90 -2200 m, respectively.

No abstract

Understanding how ecosystem functioning is impacted by global change drivers is a central topic in ecology and conservation science. We need to assess not only how environmental change affects species richness, but also how the distribution of functional traits (i.e. functional diversity) mediate the relationship between species richness and ecosystem functioning. However, most evidence about the capacity of functional diversity to explain ecosystem functioning has been developed from studies conducted at a single spatial scale. Here, we explore theory, expectations and evidence for why and how species richness and functional diversity relationships vary with spatial scale. Despite the importance of accounting for spatial processes at multiple scales, we show that most studies of the species richness–functional diversity relationship focus on single scale analyses that ignore spatial context. Thus, we discuss the need to establish a spatially explicit, multi‐scale framework for understanding the relationship between species richness and functional diversity. As a starting point to developing such a framework, we detail some expected trajectories and mechanisms by which the diversity of species and functional traits may change across increasing spatial scales. We also explore what is known about two important gaps in the literature about this relationship: 1) the influence of spatial autocorrelation on community assembly processes and 2) the variation in the structure of species interactions across spatial extents. We present some key challenges that could be addressed by integrating approaches from community and landscape ecology. This information will help improve our understanding of the relative influence of local and large‐scale processes on community structure, while providing a foundation for improving biodiversity monitoring, policy and ecosystem function based conservation.

Debido al avance en el desarrollo de investigaciones de diversa índole que involucran mamíferos, cada año se reportan cambios en la riqueza de especies registradas en el territorio nacional. Un esfuerzo notable encaminado a actualizar el conocimiento de este grupo en el país señaló la presencia de 492 especies para el año 2013 (Solari et al. 2013). Este número se incrementó a 500 especies para el año 2014, a partir de revisiones sistemáticas o adiciones de nuevas localidades de distribución para varias especies neotropicales (Ramírez-Chaves & Suárez-Castro 2014) y en esta revisión se aumenta el número de especies a 518 para el país. El incremento ha sido mayor para murciélagos (orden Chiroptera), grupo que actualmente cuenta con el número más alto de especies de mamíferos registradas en Colombia (205 especies). Sin embargo, el uso de nuevas técnicas y exploraciones de campo realizadas por diferentes investigadores han generado una gran cantidad de conocimiento para otros grupos, por lo que es necesario sintetizar la información de manera constante para que estédisponible a todos aquellos involucrados en estudiar y conservar la biodiversidad del país. Con el fin de actualizar el número de especies de mamíferos registradas en el territorio nacional, presentamos una valoración y actualización con los cambios recientes para Colombia durante los últimos meses.

Aim Introduced predators negatively impact biodiversity globally, with insular fauna often most severely affected. Here, we assess spatial variation in the number of terrestrial vertebrates (excluding amphibians) killed by two mammalian mesopredators introduced to Australia, the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cat (Felis catus). We aim to identify prey groups that suffer especially high rates of predation, and regions where losses to foxes and/or cats are most substantial. Location Australia. Methods We draw information on the spatial variation in tallies of reptiles, birds and mammals killed by cats in Australia from published studies. We derive tallies for fox predation by (i) modelling continental‐scale spatial variation in fox density, (ii) modelling spatial variation in the frequency of occurrence of prey groups in fox diet, (iii) analysing the number of prey individuals within dietary samples and (iv) discounting animals taken as carrion. We derive point estimates of the numbers of individuals killed annually by foxes and by cats and map spatial variation in these tallies. Results Foxes kill more reptiles, birds and mammals (peaking at 1071 km−2 year−1) than cats (55 km−2 year−1) across most of the unmodified temperate and forested areas of mainland Australia, reflecting the generally higher density of foxes than cats in these environments. However, across most of the continent – mainly the arid central and tropical northern regions (and on most Australian islands) – cats kill more animals than foxes. We estimate that foxes and cats together kill 697 million reptiles annually in Australia, 510 million birds and 1435 million mammals. Main conclusions This continental‐scale analysis demonstrates that predation by two introduced species takes a substantial and ongoing toll on Australian reptiles, birds and mammals. Continuing population declines and potential extinctions of some of these species threatens to further compound Australia's poor contemporary conservation record.