Areas of endemism and spatial diversification of the Muscidae (Insecta: Diptera) in the Andean and Neotropical regions

Abstract

Aim We present a biogeographical analysis of the areas of endemism and areas of diversification in the Muscidae. This analysis searched for geographical patterns in the Muscidae to reconstruct elements of the evolutionary biogeographical history of this insect family.Location Andean and Neotropical regions.Method We constructed a geographic database of 728 species from the literature and museum specimens. Areas of endemism were established by parsimony analysis of endemicity (PAE) based on grids of two different sizes: 5°( 550 · 550 km) and 2°(220 · 220 km). Areas of diversification were delimited by track analysis that also included phylogenetic information. This process was independently applied to 11 genera. For each genus, we plotted generalized tracks generated by sister species on a map. When these generalized tracks supported inter-generic nodes they were manually contoured and inferred to be areas of diversification for the Muscidae.Results Thirteen endemic areas were found using the 5°grid, and eight endemic areas resulted from the 2°grid. Ten areas were in agreement with previous studies, and 11 were new. Amazonian and Atlantic areas of diversification agreed with previous areas for the genus Polietina, and new areas of diversification were found in Panama and in central Chile.Main conclusions Six spatial patterns in the Muscidae were identified: (1) areas of endemism in both Pampa and Puna provinces were established with species whose distributions had not previously been analysed; (2) a new area of endemism was established in extreme southern South America, in Tierra del Fuego; (3) two new areas of diversification, which include Panama and central Chile, were identified; (4) a spatial association was identified between the separation of Chiloe Island from the continent and the diversification in Andean species; (5) a north-south track axis and latitudinal node intervals were identified, interpreted as spatial responses to glaciation or glacial retreat in the Andes; and (6) a spatial coincidence of areas of endemism, of diversification and high species richness in the Muscidae was discovered. The analysis of a complete database and the recognition of areas of diversification are extremely important in elucidating novel biogeographical patterns, which will in turn contribute to a better understanding of the geographical patterns of evolution in the Muscidae.

Areas of endemism of arthropods in the Atlantic Forest (Brazil): an approach based on a metaconsensus criterion using endemicity analysis

“…5E) are supported by species records occurring from 200 to 1200 m a.s.l. and corroborate the AEs defined for species of Muscidae (Lowenberg-Neto & Carvalho, 2009) and Anura (Xavier, Guedes & Napoli, 2015). GAE3 (Fig.…”

“…Studies using arthropod data for the definition of AEs in the AF and/or Neotropical region usually focus on few taxa (Sigrist & Carvalho, 2008) and/or in very specific taxa (Lowenberg-Neto & Carvalho, 2009;Ferrari et al, 2010;DaSilva et al, 2015;Oliveira et al, 2015).…”

Elevational Distribution and Conservation Biogeography of Phanaeine Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae) in Bolivia

“…The elevational pattern in total species richness was determined controlling for the confounding effect of land surface area following Rahbek’s [3] approach. With respect to the elevational pattern of ecoregional endemics, we tested the null hypothesis that species-rich areas are more likely to be centers of endemism by chance alone [52] (see also [53]). Whether Bergmann’s and Rapoport’s rule apply to phanaeines in Bolivia was tested at the species and species assemblage (elevational zones) levels.…”

Endemism in historical biogeography and conservation biology: concepts and implications

“…The units used in PAE are predetermined areas of any kind, such as arbitrary operational units (van Soest, 1994), quadrats (Morrone 1994a, Linder 2001a,b, García-Barros et al 2002, Morrone and Escalante 2002, Rovito et al 2004, García-Barros, 2003, Rojas-Soto et al 2003, Vergara et al 2006, Herrera-Paniagua et al 2008, Meng et al 2008, Löwenberg-Neto and de Carvalho, 2009, Ramírez-Barahona et al 2009), islands (Bisconti et al 2001, Trejo-Torres and Ackerman 2001, Fattorini 2002, localities (Raxworthy and Nussbaum, 1996, Ron 2000, Anstey et al 2003, Ribichich, 2005, Ramírez-Arriaga and Martínez-Hernández, 2007, Gates et al 2010, Aguirre et al 2011, interfluvial regions (Silva and Oren 1996), hydrological basins (Aguilar-Aguilar et al 2003, Huidobro et al 2006, politically defined areas (Cué-Bär et al 2006, Nelson 2008, Ribeiro and Eterovic 2011, biogeographical areas (Glasby andAlvarez 1999, Vega et al 1999), predefined areas of endemism (Goldani et al 2002, Katinas et al 2004, Espinosa et al 2006, Albert and Carvalho 2011. In a few analyses, latitudinal (Morrone et al 1997…”