Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We analyse the geographical distribution of South American mammalian species using two biogeographic indices: environmental resistance (R 50 ) and anisotropy (A 50 ). R 50 quantifies the loss of biotic resemblance occurring from any point in the map to the rest of the continent. A 50 quantifies the extent to which the perimeter: area ratio of the geographical ranges of all species whose distributions overlap at any particular location depart from the perimeter: area ratio of a circle. We test for the latitudinal Rapoport effect that predicts an increase in the range‐sizes of mammalian species, and hence a decrease in the values of R 50 , towards the south. We test for the effect of mountains on species’ ranges, given that Janzen's argument that ‘mountain passes are higher in the tropics’ implicitly predicts greater anisotropy in the tropics. Continental spatial patterns of variation in R 50 and A 50 suggest a biogeographic division of South America consistent with most classical zoogeographical classifications proposed for the continent. Rapid change in mammalian range‐sizes and shapes occurs at the limit between the Guayano‐Brazilian and Andean‐Patagonean subregions. R 50 data do not support the latitudinal Rapoport effect: the most widespread species locate in the eastern portions of Brazil, the most restricted ones are in association with the Andes. A 50 data support Janzen's prediction: the effect of mountains on species’ distributions is greater in equatorial and central regions of the Andes rather than in the south. R 50 ‐and A 50 ‐contour maps reveal that, mainly due to the effects of the lie of the land and likely differences in the history of the fauna, the continent has a biogeographic texture which must have major constraints on local ecological patterns and processes. This stresses the importance of considering the role of biogeographic structure in the analyses of geographical gradients in species’ distributions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruggiero et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: