INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE PESQUISAS DA AMAZÔNIA-INPA PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ECOLOGIA
PERSPECTIVAS MACROECOLÓGICAS NAS ÁREAS ÚMIDAS DOMINADAS POR MAURITIA NA AMAZÔNIA
JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER
Manaus, Amazonas Junho, 2015
ii
JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER
PERSPECTIVAS MACROECOLÓGICAS NAS ÁREAS ÚMIDAS DOMINADAS POR MAURITIA NA AMAZÔNIA
Orientador: FLORIAN KARL WITTMANN
Tese apresentada ao Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia como parte dos requisitos para obtenção do titulo de Doutor em Biologia (Ecologia).
Manaus, Amazonas Junho, 2015
ii
Banca Examinadora do Trabalho Escrito
Nome – Institução Parecer
Paul Fine – Univ. California Berkeley
Aprovada com Correções
Nigel Pitman – Duke University
Aprovada com Correções
Bill Magnusson – INPA
Aprovada com Correções
Camila Ribas - INPA Aprovada
Hans Ter Steege – Naturalis
Biodiversity Center, Netherlands Aprovada
Banca Avaliadora da Defesa da Tese
Nome – Institução Parecer
Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade – INPA Aprovado
Camila Ribas – INPA Aprovado
Mike Hopkins – INPA Aprovado
iii
Ficha catalográfica
H842 Householder, John Ethan
Perspectivas macroecológicas nas areas úmidas dominadas por Mauritia na Amazônia / John Ethan Householder. --- Manaus: [s.n.], 2015.
xi, 115 p. : il. Tese (Doutorado) --- INPA, Manaus, 2015. Orientadores: Florian Karl Wittmann. Área de concentração: Ecologia.
1. Buriti. 2. Biogeografia. I. Título.
CDD 584.5
Sinopse: Utilizando a presença de Mauritia (Arecaceae) como planta
indicadora para condições de inundação e/ou saturação permanente – uma
situação abiótica extrema na região – a ecologia de comunidades e
biogeografia da vegetação lenhosa de uma área úmida Amazônica dominada
por palmeiras é investigada em ampla escala espacial.
Palavras Chave: Biogeografia; Buriti; Heterogeneidade de habitats;
Turfeira; Pântano; Areia branca
iv
Dedicatória
To my beautiful son, Julien Ernesto. Born April 8th, 2014.
And his beautiful mother, Monica, my wife.
v
Agradecimentos
The following work would not have been possible if it were not for the significant
contributions of a number of people and institutions. I especially thank my advisor, Florian
Wittmann, for his willingness to guide me through all aspects of this work. I recognize that
his contributions go well beyond that of mere academic guidance and I am eternally grateful
for all the experiences I have shared with Florian, friend and colleague.
I thank Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade for her support, trust, and never-failing
positive attitude. I thank John Janovec, former advisor and current friend and colleague.
John provided me with the initial spark that lit the flame that has inspired me through this
work of passion and love, and has continued to provide valuable guidance.
A special thanks to Celso, Mario, and all the staff at MAUA working group for their
important support. I am always amazed watching this incredible group work like a well-oiled
machine even in the most difficult and uncomfortable working conditions. Also, thanks to
Aline Lopes for her helpful considerations.
I thank Mike Hopkins and INPA herbarium staff for the use of their facilities. I thank
Mathias Tobler and BRIT staff for supporting my collection of images on the Atrium website.
I also thank the growing number of taxonomic specialists who continue to provide species
determinations. Thanks to Simon Queenborough for his collaboration on the NSF proposal,
and his interest in my future academic endeavors. Also thanks to Bill Magnusson, Camila
Ribas, Hans ter Steege, Nigel Pitman and Paul Fine for graciously reviewing this manuscript
and making many excellent suggestions.
I consider myself fortunate, especially as a foreigner, to have been able to fulfill a
long-standing dream of experiencing and studying in some of the most wild, untrammeled,
and beautiful places in the Brazilian Amazon. For this opportunity I am indebted to a number
of locals who found the time to work with me, converse with me, and show me their beautiful
country and its biological and ecological treasures. I am also indebted to several Brazilian
institutions. I thank CNPq for generous financial support (process number 141727/2011-0
and Universal grant no. 475660/2011-0). I also thank the Ministério de Meio Ambiente
(MMA) and Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação de Biodiversidade (ICMBio) for permits
and access to conservation areas.
vi
Perspectivas macroecológicas nas áreas úmidas dominadas por Mauritia na Amazônia Resumo
O gênero das palmeiras Mauritia L.f. (Arecaceae) é o componente principal de áreas pantanosas neotropicais e da vegetação de muitas savanas inundadas. A presença deste gênero indica condições de inundação permanente na superfície e/ou próximo à superfície do solo. No presente estudo, foram realizados inventários florísticos em comunidades lenhosas de áreas úmidas dominadas por Mauritia, os buritizais. Na Amazônia brasileira e peruana, um número total de 28 buritizais foi inventariado. O trabalho de campo resultou em mais de 3.000 coletas botânicas, e mais de 8.000 fotografias, publicamente acessíveis em herbário digital (http://atrium.andesamazon.org/). Mais de 40.000 indivíduos lenhosos foram levantados, distribuídos em 89 famílias, 318 gêneros e aproximadamente 750 espécies. Utilizando o gênero Mauritia como indicador de substratos permanentemente alagados, uma condição abiótica extrema na região, a ecologia da comunidade lenhosa deste importante habitat úmido Amazônico foi investigada ao longo de uma grande escala espacial em função de sua composição taxonômica, filogenética e biogeográfica. Os dados indicam que a comunidade de vegetação dos buritizais apresenta uma riqueza florística reduzida, consistente com o conhecimento disponível em literatura. Ao longo de ampla escala espacial, os resultados indicam que os buritizais apresentam uma alta variabilidade na composição florística entre diferentes sítios em comparação com a flora de terra firme. As analises filogenéticas revelaram que o uso do habitat de buritizais provavelmente é um atributo amplamente presente na filogenia de ecossistemas florestados Amazônicos. As analises biogeográficas mostraram que as comunidades demonstram um padrão consistente de substituição composicional ao longo de gradientes de estresse, com uma transição de linhagens majoritariamente Amazônicas em sítios florestados para linhagens majoritariamente extra-amazônicas em sítios arbustivos. É sugerido que o padrão de homogeneidade florística dos buritizais, como tradicionalmente notado, ocorre em conjunto com um padrão de alta diversidade taxonômica, filogenética e funcional, fato muitas vezes subestimado até o momento. Argumenta-se que as análises comparativas de comunidades de buritizais oferecem uma abordagem inovadora e única sobre os recentes modelos de diversidade especifica e ecossistêmica, que até o presente, baseiam-se quase que inteiramente em florestas de terra firme. Desta maneira, os resultados aqui apresentados contribuem tanto para as teorias de biodiversidade nos capítulos 1 e 2, quanto para a ciência aplicada no capitulo 3.
vii
Macroecological perspectives on Mauritia-dominated wetlands in the Amazon Abstract The palm genus Mauritia L.f (Arecaceae) is a principal component of Neotropical freshwater swamp and flooded-savanna vegetation. As such, these palms indicate near-permanent waterlogging at or near ground surface. In this study, expeditionary and exploratory research was undertaken to sample the woody vegetation communities of Mauritia-dominated wetlands (MDWs). A total of 28 MDWs were quantitatively sampled in the Brazilian and Peruvian Amazon. Field work resulted in >3000 botanical collections accompanied by >8000 photographic images made publically available through online resources (http://atrium.andesamazon.org/). Over 40,000 individual woody stems were documented, distributed among 89 families, 318 genera and ~750 woody species. Taking advantage of the indicator status of Mauritia for near-permanently waterlogged substrates – an extreme abiotic condition in the region - the community ecology of woody vegetation of this common Amazonian wetland habitat was investigated across a broad spatial scale regarding its taxonomic, phylogenetic, and biogeographic structure. Data indicate reduced local site richness in MDW vegetation communities, consistent with previous investigation. Over broad spatial scales results show that rather than being comprised of a predictable set of habitat specialists, MDWs exhibit high site-to-site compositional variability relative to surrounding upland forest vegetation. Community phylogenetic analyses reveal that the ability to occupy MDWs is widely distributed in a phylogenetically diverse array of Amazonian forest taxa. Biogeographic analyses reveal that assemblages demonstrate consistent patterns of compositional turnover along local stress gradients, transitioning from largely Amazonian-distributed lineages in forested sites to increasingly extra-Amazonian-distributed lineages in shrubby sites. I suggest that traditionally perceived patterns of community homogeneity of MDWs occur alongside previously underappreciated patterns of taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional diversity. Taking the results together, I argue that comparative analyses of MDW communities offer unique insight into current models of Amazonian plant and ecosystem diversity that are based almost completely on upland forests, contributing to both Amazonian biodiversity theory (Chapter 1 and 2) and applied science (Chapter 3).
viii
Sumário
Lista de Figuras ................................................................................................................ix
Introdução Geral ................................................................................................................ 1
Objetivos ............................................................................................................................ 4
Capítulo I .......................................................................................................................... 5
Capítulo II ....................................................................................................................... 27
Capítulo III ..................................................................................................................... 48
Síntese .............................................................................................................................. 75
Referências bibliográficas ............................................................................................... 76
Apêndice .......................................................................................................................... 92
Anexos ........................................................................................................................... 110
ix
Lista de Figuras
Capítulo I
Figure 1. Map of MDW and terra firme sites examined in this study ........................... 9
Figure 2. Histograms of the proportion of stems with dbh >10cm
represented by palms in terra firme (above), and MDW (below)
sites. In MDWs Mauritia accounts for 89% of all palm stems
and 61% of all woody stems (dbh >10cm). ................................................ 14
Figure 3. Box plots of pair-wise dissimilarities within and between MDW
and terra firme sites at family and genus taxonomic ranks.
Dissimilarities are additively partitioned between nested and
turnover components following Baselga (2010). Dissimilarities
based on abundance data are qualitatively similar and not
shown. ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Taxonomic distinctness (D* and D+) of MDW (closed circles)
and terra firme (open circles) sites considering the complete
taxonomic hierarchy (4 divisions), or only its higher (order and
superorder) or lower (genus and family) structures. Dashed
segments give within-group means. Stars indicate significant
differences (p <0.01) between MDWs and terra firme as
revealed by t-tests. Morphospecies richness values of sites are
based on a random sub-sample of 148 stems (the least number of
stems in a single assemblage). ...................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Two-dimensional NMDS solution of compositional data at the
rank of family. Significant (p >0.5) vectors corresponding to the
number of stems (left) and species (right) of each floristic group
sensu Gentry(1982) were mapped onto the ordination. At the
x
family level, almost half of the dissimilarity between MDW and
terra firme is due to a nested structure (see figure 3b). However
the relative contribution of nestedness to between-habitat
compositional differences decreases rapidly with decreasing
taxonomic rank (see figure 3e). Qualitative patterns of site and
floristic group distributions are similar regardless of whether
family or genus ranks, or abundance or presence-absence data
are used. ........................................................................................................ 18
Capítulo II
Figure 1. Map showing locations of surveyed peatlands and white sands
as well as the distribution of sites of the Gentry plot network
used to assess distributional patterns of families along the
elevation gradient. Boxed windows indicate the areas where
peatland and white sand communities were sampled. Gentry
sites are classified into two groups differentiated by site
elevation (see map legend). .......................................................................... 32
Figure 2. Histogram of abundance-weighted average scores of families
along the axis of the non-metric multidimensional scaling of the
Gentry plots, illustrating the wide breadth of biogeographic
patterns of families present in the peat and white-sand habitats.
The NMDS axis is highly correlated with site elevation (r =
0.93, p > 0.001), thus weighted-average scores describe the
average relative position of families along the elevation
gradient, where higher scores correspond to families with higher
average elevational distributions. White bars indicate
abundance-weighted averages of families present in the Gentry
dataset. Grey bars indicated averages of families in the peat and
white-sand habitats. ...................................................................................... 35
xi
Figure 3. Distributions of raw values of the 8 variables used to describe
site vegetation structure. Peatland (grey boxes) and white sand
(white boxes) habitats are paired over each structural variable. ................... 36
Figure 4. Relationships between vegetation structure (PCA 1), species
richness, biogeographic diversity (FDis), and community
weighted means (CWM) of family NMDS scores of peatlands
(top row) and whitesands (bottom row). R-squared and p values
are derived from simple linear regressions. .................................................. 38
Capítulo III
Figure 1. The 250-km stretch of the main drainage tributary of the
southern Peruvian Amazon where focal peatlands (black) are
located. Inventoried peatlands are outlined. Peatland names
(from west to east; Table 3) are COLO, CICRA, HUIT 1,
HUIT2, LAGA, MERC, and BOLI. The inset map shows the
location of the 76 plots obtained from the Gentry transect data in
relation to the peatland study area. Black and gray triangles
represent Gentry sites at elevations greater than and less than
1000 masl, respectively. The shaded area corresponds to the
Chocó region included in the supporting analysis (See section
4.1.1). ............................................................................................................ 53
Figure 2. Scatter plot of actual and expected elevations for 76 training
sites (open circles) obtained from the Gentry transect data and
seven peatland test sites (solid circles). Expected elevations are
based on abundance-weighted averages of family-level
elevational optima after deshrinking (See section 2.4). Scatter
plots based on family presence/absence data show qualitatively
similar patterns. Based on a cross-validation procedure used to
obtain p values, peatlands appears to occur at significantly
higher elevations due to a greater abundance and number of
families with higher elevation optima (Table 3)........................................... 59
xii
Figure 3. Elevational distributions of 40 indicator genera on peat and
mineral substrates. Box plot hinges extend only to the first and
third quartiles. Within respective substrate types taxa are
ordered by their mean elevation represented by a darkened band.
The dashed vertical line at 658 m marks the mean of average
elevations of all genera. ................................................................................ 61
1
Introdução Geral
A água, em sua quantidade, energia, química, sazonalidade e fonte, influencia um dos
padrões de distribuição de espécies vegetais mais consistentes em escala local, regional e
continental (Gentry, 1988; Casanova and Brock, 2000; Engelbrecht et al., 2007; Junk et al.,
2011). Na Bacia Amazônica, a baixa inclinação topográfica e a alta precipitação anual
interagem na formação de uma ampla variedade de habitats de áreas úmidas. Estimativas
indicam que as áreas úmidas – áreas sujeitas à inundação temporária ou permanente – cobrem
uma área que corresponde a um quinto a um terço da área da bacia Amazônica (Junk et al.,
2011). Os corpos de água são responsáveis para uma grande parte da heterogeneidade de
habitats na paisagem Amazônica (Mertes et al., 1995; Hess, 2003; Hamilton et al., 2007;
Householder et al., 2012), promovem um elevado grau de endemismo ecológico nas espécies
vegetais, e abrigam a mais rica flora das áreas úmidas do mundo inteiro (Kubitzki, 1989;
Wittmann et al., 2006, 2013). Apesar disso, as áreas úmidas raramente são consideradas em
teorias modernas de biodiversidade da região Amazônica (Salo et al., 1986; Dumont et al.,
1990; Junk e Piedade, 2004).
Entre as áreas úmidas Amazônicas, o conhecimento científico concentra-se às áreas
periodicamente alagáveis (várzea e igapó), enquanto o conhecimento sobre as áreas
permanentemente inundadas (buritizais) é limitado. Enquanto a importância das áreas
Amazônicas pantanosas é cada vez mais reconhecida pelo seu papel no ciclo de carbono
global (Lähteenoja et al., 2012), a manutenção da diversidade biológica (Brightsmith and
Bravo 2006; Householder et al., 2010; Tobler et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2011), dinâmica
local da água (Kelly et al., 2014), economia e saúde humana (Padoch, 1988; Hiraoka, 1999), e
o entendimento sobre a vegetação e ambientes no passado (Roucoux et al., 2013; Householder
et al., 2015), o conhecimento básico sobre a composição de sua vegetação ainda é escasso.
Áreas permanentemente inundadas da Amazônia muitas vezes abrigam florestas
mono-dominantes ou savanas inundadas caracterizadas pela presença da palmeira do gênero
Mauritia (buriti, Spruce, 1871; Junk and Furch, 1993; Kahn et al., 1993). Por causa de sua
dominância em vastas áreas da bacia Amazônica, ter Steege et al. (2013) recentemente
classificaram o gênero Mauritia como “hiper-dominante”. A extrapolação de dados locais
deste estudo sugere que as áreas permanentemente inundadas por Mauritia (buritizais) cobrem
2
uma extensão entre 2-3 milhões de hectares na bacia Amazônica, e que a população de
Mauritia conta com uma quantidade de cerca de 1.5 bilhões de indivíduos (ter Steege et al.,
2013). Os buritizais ocorrem de forma disjunta entre as florestas de terra firme ou florestas
periodicamente alagáveis (Householder et al., 2012). Excluído da maioria dos programas dos
inventários florestais, este habitat Amazônico é paradoxalmente um dos menos estudados,
apesar do seu ubiquidade. Assim, a presente tese apresenta a soma dos resultados de pesquisa
exploratória que foi realizada para o descobrimento, identificação, descrição, catalogação, e
biogeografia ecológica da composição e diversidade florística nos buritizais Amazônicos.
Fazendo uso das condições abióticas extremas (inundação permanente) juntamente a
ampla distribuição, a presente tese especificamente direciona as questões para a diversidade
da vegetação lenhosa e a composição de espécies dos buritizais em ampla escala espacial.
Enquanto a ecologia moderna tradicionalmente explica a variação da diversidade e
composição de comunidades em função de processos em escala local (Ricklefs, 2008), o
principal objetivo desta tese visa o entendimento dos padrões de estrutura das comunidades de
vegetação do ponto de vista evolucionário e biogeográfico. Neste contexto, a tese procura
abordar os padrões de vegetação dos buritizais integralmente nos processos evolucionários,
biogeográficos e geológicos que influenciaram as paisagens Neotropicais durante milhares de
anos (e.g., Hoorn et al., 2010), para entender como estes processos históricos de ampla escala
resultaram nas comunidades permanentemente inundadas (Ricklefs, 2008; Wiens, 2011).
Postula-se que a análise dos padrões taxonômicos, filogenéticos, e da estrutura biogeográfica
gera uma nova perspectiva sobre como estas (e outras) comunidades na região Amazônica
foram formadas durante o tempo ecológico e evolucionário.
A tese se divide em três capítulos. Capitulo 1 é a base para os outros, porque combina
uma série de análises exploratórias da íntegra da base de dados levantados, incluindo 28 sítios
em buritizais na Amazônia peruana (sete sítios) e brasileira (21 sítios). Este capítulo analisa a
resposta da comunidade dos buritizais aos fatores abióticos extremos, considerando a
estrutura taxonômica, filogenética e biogeográfica em comparação com a vegetação de
florestas de terra firme.
As análises do capitulo 1 revelaram que localmente, as comunidades de plantas
ocorrendo nos buritizais demonstram uma diversidade biogeográfica maior do que as
comunidades de plantas em florestas de terra firme. O capitulo 2 aborda este padrão com mais
detalhe com base em hipóteses. Especificamente, uma série de argumentos ecológicos e
3
evolucionários é abordada para explicar que táxons (e os seus atributos ecológicos) que
ocupam habitats extremos (por exemplo, sítios onde as condições ambientais contrastam
fortemente das condições predominantes na bacia Amazônica) não são compartilhados com as
florestas adjacentes que predominam a paisagem Amazônica, mas tem origens biogeográficas
e afinidades mais amplas. Esta hipótese é testada ao longo de dois gradientes fisionômicos
similares, turfeiras e florestas sobre areia branca, em quais Mauritia é o componente principal
da vegetação.
O capitulo 3 usa conceitos similares aos capítulos anteriores, e mostra como o
conhecimento da composição florística dos buritizais pode ser utilizado na ciência aplicada,
especificamente na interpretação de dados palinológicos e a reconstrução da temperatura no
passado.
4
Objetivos
1. Inventariar e descrever a diversidade florística em buritizias na Amazônia peruana e
brasileira.
a. Prover coleções das espécies em buritizais e incorporar em herbários locais.
b. Prover acesso livre aos dados geo-espaciais, florísticos, ecológicos e das
imagens das coleções botânicas levantadas no presente estudo, utilizando o
ATRIUM Biodiversity Information System (http://atrium.andesamazon.org/)
2. Comparar as comunidades de vegetação dos buritizais considerando sua estrutura
taxonômica, filogenética e biogeográfica com outros tipos de habitats adjacentes para
responder as seguintes perguntas:
a. Estão as assembleias de buritizais compostas por um conjunto previsível de
táxones?
b. Estão as assembleias de buritizais restringidos filogeneticamente?
c. Quais são os padrões biogeograficosdo dos táxones dos buritizais e como
diferem dos táxones da terra firme?
d. Como as relações biogeograficas dos táxones que co-occorem localmente
mudam ao longo de gradientes ambientais?
e. Como alteração nas relações biogeográficas em assemblieas dos buritizais
podem infuir inferência paleo-ecológica?
5
Capítulo 1
Householder, J.E.; Janovec, J.P.; Tobler, M. & Wittmann, F. 2015. Patterns of taxonomic, phylogenetic, and biogeographic structure of Mauritia-dominated wetlands in the Amazon region. Manuscript prepared for Journal of Vegetation Science
6
Patterns of taxonomic, phylogenetic, and biogeographic community structure of Maurita-dominated wetlands in the Amazon region Abstract Questions Mauritia-dominated wetlands (MDWs) – an extreme abiotic environment in the Amazon region - are characterized by near-permanent waterlogging and compositional uniformity of a single canopy dominant. To gain a more complete understanding of the ecological and evolutionary processes driving vegetation assembly in this common Amazonian habitat we compare the woody vegetation of MDWs to that of lowland terra firme forest using a combination of taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses. Location The Amazon Methods We use dissimilarity metrics to examine compositional turnover of trees and shrubs within and between MDWs and terra firme habitats. We use taxonomic distinctness to assess differences in the degree of evolutionary relatedness amongst locally co-occurring individuals and species among habitats. We use ordination methods to examine differences in compositional patterns among habitats with respect to biogeographically-defined floristic groups (sensu Gentry). Results Relative to terra firme, MDWs were characterized by high site-to-site compositional variability of trees and shrubs. Taxonomic distinctness is highly variable in MDWs, but co-occurring species tend to be, on average, more distantly phylogenetically related than species in terra firme forest. Proportionally more stems and species in MDWs correspond to plant lineages possessing extra-Amazonian centers of distribution and richness than in plots in terra firme forest. Conclusions High site-to-site compositional variability is consistent with individualistic species response to multiple stress gradients and a diversity of successional pathways in waterlogged environments as well as dispersal limitation among disjunct habitat patches. Patterns of community phylogenetics indicate that habit-use of MDWs is widespread among phylogenetically diverse taxa from Amazonian forests, consistent with environmental filtering of convergent traits. The relative predominance of taxa presenting extra-Amazonian distributions in MDWs in comparison to terra firme forest indicates that a diversity of biogeographic origins or affinities may provide these extreme wetland communities with a source of ecologically differentiated taxa more tolerant to local site conditions. Keywords: monodominant; peatland; Neotropics; swamp; waterlogging
7
Introduction
Extended periods of waterlogging alter the availability of nutrients and soil oxygen to
plants, and the type and concentration of phytotoxins (Parolin et al., 2004). Consequently,
wetland plants are typically confronted with multiple abiotic stressors associated with
inundation that are, for the great majority of vascular plant species, detrimental to growth and
development. Because species differ considerably in their ecophysiological response to soil
waterlogging, hydrological pattern is a major determinant of plant species distribution and
assemblage composition (Junk et al., 2011).
In the Amazon, sites demonstrating near-permanent waterlogging are often dominated
by Mauritia L.f. (Arecaceae) palms (Kahn, 1988; Junk et al., 2011). Including two
Amazonian species, Mauritia flexuosa L.f. and Mauritia carana Wallace ex Archer, these
palms are a principal component of freshwater swamps and waterlogged savannas throughout
the Amazon basin (Kalliola et al., 1991; Lähteenoja and Page, 2011; Householder et al.,
2012). They are collectively called aguajal in Peru, buritizal in Brazil, cananguchal in
Colombia, morichal in Venezuela and morital in Ecuador (Kahn, 1991) . According to fossil
evidence MDWs have likely been a dynamic feature of the northern South American
subcontinent since at least the Paleocene (Rull, 1998). Today, they are increasingly
recognized to play important roles in the global carbon cycle (Lähteenoja et al., 2012), the
maintenance of biological diversity (Brightsmith and Bravo 2006; Householder et al., 2010;
Tobler et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2011), local water dynamics (Kelly et al., 2014), human
economies and health (Padoch, 1988; Hiraoka, 1999), and our understanding of past
vegetation and environments (Roucoux et al., 2013; Householder et al., 2015).
Despite their relevance to local and global societal concerns, the literature describing
MDW vegetation communities is relatively scant (Endress et al., 2013; Pitman et al., 2014).
Traditionally, studies have tended to emphasize two prominent and related features: (1) the
tendency towards canopy mono-dominance of a handful of predictable specialist tree species
and (2) a strong reduction in species diversity of woody vegetation relative to surrounding
non-inundated forests. These emergent patterns are traditionally ascribed to the difficult site
conditions that select species on the basis of their tolerance to waterlogging. Consequently,
many features of species inhabiting MDWs (and other extreme wetland sites) are often
purported to be adaptations evolved in response to flooded conditions (Parolin et al., 2000;
8
Parolin et al., 2004). However an understanding of which traits, how they evolved, and how
they determine species distributions along complex hydro-edaphic gradients remains elusive
(Wittmann et al., 2013; Pitman et al., 2014).
In this paper we present a novel dataset regarding quantitative vegetation surveys of
28 MDWs widely distributed across the Peruvian and Brazilian Amazon region. So as to gain
a fuller understanding of the response of local MDW assemblages to the severe environmental
constraints, we compare these waterlogged habitats to terra firme using a combination of
taxonomic, phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses. We ask the following questions: (1)
Relative to terra firme, are MDWs comprised of a predictable set of common tree and shrub
taxa across a broad geographic range? (2) How do patterns of evolutionary relatedness
amongst locally co-occurring species differ between MDW and terra firme forests? (i.e., are
traits conferring habitat-use of MDWs phylogenetically conserved, thus assembling more
closely related species?) (3) What biogeographic trends do MDW tree and shrub taxa
demonstrate and how do these differ from trends in terra firme forest taxa? We argue that
taken together, answers to these questions can lead to novel insights regarding the ecological
and evolutionary processes that influence the diversity and compositional patterns of this
common Amazonian habitat.
Methods Vegetation Sampling
We obtained quantitative data on vegetation of terra firme forests from an extensive
vegetation plot network compiled by Alwyn Gentry and maintained by the Missouri Botanical
Garden (Phillips and Miller, 2002). The Gentry transect data are based on a standard
sampling method used across an extensive geographic area. Data were collected in 0.1-ha
plots consisting of 10 contiguous 100 m2 (2 x 50-m) linear subplots where all woody
individuals ≧ 2.5 cm DBH were recorded, including trees, shrubs and lianas (Table 1).
Sequential subplots were placed end to end and oriented in random directions. We extracted
data only from non-inundated sampling sites located in the Amazon region (Bolivia,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) with elevations <500 masl. A total of 35 sites met
our criteria (Figure 1). The accuracy of species names provided in the dataset was assessed
by cross-referencing voucher specimen numbers provided in the original dataset with current
determinations of collections stored at the Missouri Botanical Garden and accessible through
9
the Tropicos database (http://www.tropicos.org). Most species have been identified to genus,
however, many morphospecies concepts remain and these have not been standardized across
sites. Species of Bamboo (Poaceae) were removed from analysis.
Figure 1. Map of MDW and terra firme sites examined in this study.
Quantitative data on the woody vegetation of MDWs was collected at 28 different
sites in the Peruvian and Brazilian Amazon (Figure 1). Because MDWs have variable spatial
extents and can become structurally so much smaller than terra firme forest, it was necessary
to adapt standard sampling methods of terra firme forests in order to obtain representative
samples of MDW woody vegetation. In MDWs woody vegetation can be lower-statured and
reach reproductive size at much smaller stem diameters than in surrounding terra firme forest.
In the most extreme sites many reproductive individuals may not even reach minimum dbh
thresholds used in the most common standard vegetation sampling protocols (i.e., 2.5 cm or
10 cm). Furthermore, in extremely shrubby sites, the high density of small-stemmed
individuals can become prohibitively time consuming to count. As a result of these features
of MDW vegetation, we opted to modify standard minimum dbh criteria and sample shrubby
10
individuals in nested subplots of reduced size. The number of subplots used to sample
individual sites also varied according to MDW size and occasionally, logistical difficulty (i.e.,
unsafe or impassable ground conditions). Table 1 summarizes important methodological
differences between MDW and terra firme datasets.
Vegetation data of MDWs, including trees, shrubs and lianas, were collected in 0.18 –
0.4 ha plots consisting of 100 m2 nested subplots placed at ~100 m intervals following
straight-line transects (Table 1). In MDWs located in Brazil, trees (dbh >10 cm) were
sampled in linear 100 m2 (50 x 2-m) subplots. Shrubs, defined as woody vegetation with dbh
<10 cm and height >1 m were sampled in nested 25 x 2 m subplots positioned in the center of
its companion tree subplot. In Peruvian MDWs the same criteria for tree and shrub classes
were maintained but sampled in square 100 m2 (10 x 10-m) and nested 5 x 5-m subplots,
respectively. Species abundances at each MDW site were calculated as the total number of
stems of each species in both tree and shrub nested subplots at each site. Voucher specimens
were collected for all species. Fertile Peruvian specimens are deposited in the herbaria of the
Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT), the La Molina University Forestry Herbarium
(MOL) and the San Marcos Museum of Natural History (USM). Fertile Brazilian specimens
are deposited in the Herbário do Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (INPA). Sterile
specimens of all species are stored in MOL and INPA in Peru and Brazil respectively. All
metadata and annotation history, as well as associated images from the field and herbarium
are openly available through the Digital Herbarium of the Andes-Amazon Atrium
Biodiversity Information System (http://atrium.andesamazon.org/index.php) under the project
entitled "Aguajal Project".
For both terra firme forest and MDWs, species were identified to at least genus level.
However, a number of morphospecies concepts remains and these have not been standardized
across all sites. Consequently, comparisons among sites are restricted to genus and family
ranks.
11
Table 1. Summary of the primary methodological differences between the Gentry plot data used to characterized terra firme forest and the MDW protocols.
Protocols Terra Firme MDW
Minimum inclusion criteria Dbh < 2.5cm Height < 1m
Plot size 100m2 100m2 (trees) + 25m2 (shrubs)
Plot arrangement Continuous lines
oriented in random directions
Discontinuous plots, along straight-line transects
Plot shape Linear Square (Perivian sites) or Linear (Brazilian sites)
Plots per site 10 18-40 Total sites 35 28
Sites in terra firme and MDWs are widely distributed across the Amazon basin.
Because differences in composition are expected to occur as a function of geographic distance
we evaluated potential differences in the spatial distributions among sites between the two
habitat types. This was accomplished by comparing the Euclidean distances of individual
sites to their habitat group geographic centroid, the x-y position of which was calculated as
the mean longitude and latitude of sites within each group (Anderson et al., 2006). A t-test
was used to assess potential differences in the spatial extent of sampling among habitats.
MDWs are most readily distinguished by the relative dominance of a single species of
aborescent palm, but specific thresholds to delimit the boundaries of what constitutes
Mauritia dominance are not established and may vary among individual investigators. To
quantitatively asses differences in the distribution of aborescent palms across terra firme
forest and MDW sites in our dataset we used dbh > 10 cm subsets of the Gentry and MDW
data to compare the relative proportion of palm stems (dbh > 10 cm) to the total number of
tree stems (dbh > 10 cm). All other analyses were done including both trees (dbh > 10cm)
and shrubs (dbh < 10cm) combined.
Compositional Variability
To examine the extent to which MDWs are comprised of a predictable set of common
taxa we employed a series of comparative beta-diversity analyses. First, we examined
12
differences in the frequency distribution of genera and families in MDW and terra firme sites.
We used Wilcoxon rank sums tests to asses differences in the frequency distribution of genera
and families between MDW and terra firme forest. Terra firme was restricted to 28 random
sites.
In a separate analysis, patterns of pairwise dissimilarities within and across MDWs
and terra firme habitats were examined using abundance and presence-absence site by taxa
matrices at both genus and family ranks. Dissimilarities were partitioned into separate
turnover and nested components (Baselga, 2010) and differences within and between habitats
examined visually due of the lack of independence between individual observations. To
explicitly test for differences in compositional variation within MDW and terra firme habitats
we employed a multivariate dispersion test, assessing the compositional distances of
individual sites to their habitat group centroid in multivariate space using Bray-Curtis and
Sorenson dissimilarities for abundance and presence-absence data, respectively (Anderson et
al., 2006).
Phylogenetic Structure of MDWs
We examined patterns of community structure across MDW and terra firme sites with
respect to a taxonomic hierarchy using the taxonomic distinctness metric of Clarke and
Warwick (1998). Taxonomic distinctness (D*) is defined as the average evolutionary
distance between any two individuals, conditional on them being from two different species.
In the case of presence-absence data, taxonomic distinctness (D+) is defined as the average
evolutionary distance between any two species. An attractive property of these indices is that
they remove much of the overt influence of large differences in species abundance
distributions and are robust to differences in richness and sampling effort (Clarke and
Warwick, 1998). Relative differences in taxonomic structure across MDW and terra firme
were assessed using t-tests.
A single taxonomic hierarchy including species from both terra firme and MDW
transect data was created using genus, family, order, and superorder ranks in accord with
Stevens (2015). To evaluate the contribution of higher and lower taxonomic ranks separately,
the analysis was repeated while compressing the hierarchy to its two higher (orders and
superorders) or lower (families and genera) rankings (Clarke and Warwick, 1999). Our main
assumption in using a a taxonomic hierarchy is that taxonomic categories will, on average,
reflect natural phylogenetic and morphological variation across taxonomic groups and species
13
(Robeck et al., 2000; Sepkoski and Kendrick, 1993). While clearly artificial constructs
representing varying amounts of genetic and ecological differentiation, many classic plant
taxonomic ranks (i.e., genera and families) have been largely confirmed to demonstrate
monophyly and phylogenetic reality (Sepkoski and Kendrick, 1993; Robeck et al., 2000;
APG, 2003).
Biogeographic Structure of MDWs
Based on the regional distribution patterns of species richness of the most important
neotropical plant families Gentry (1982) distinguished 5 floristic groups: (1) Amazon-
centered (2) Andean-centered (3) Laurasian (4) Southern Andean/South Temperate and (5)
Dry. Gentry also proposed a small group of Guyana-centered taxa that had no representatives
within the woody vegetation of our combined data. We acknowledge that modern advances
in phylogenetics and the historical biogeography of lineages certainly offer potential to
reevaluate some of Gentry’s initial origination hypotheses (e.g., Antonelli et al. 2009).
However variation in richness patterns of lineages at large spatial scales are increasingly
understood to be the result of niche differences playing out on ecologically heterogeneous
landscapes over evolutionary time (Gentry, 1982; Crisp et al., 2009; Antonelli and Sanmartín,
2011). Expected correspondence between biogeographic pattern and the ecological niche
suggests that regardless of interpretations concerning origination, Gentry’s classic groups may
be useful indicators of highly conserved niche differences amongst the most important
Neotropical plant families. Furthermore, in our analysis, groups 2-5 (non-Amazonian
families) tend to show broadly similar qualitative pattern. Thus minor rearrangements among
groups are not likely to alter our main results. As such, in the absence of a more modern
synthesis of the regional patterns demonstrated by Gentry we have opted to use his original
grouping with few alterations (see Appendix A).
To examine differences in the biogeographic patterns of co-occurring taxa in MDW
and terra firme communities each species was assigned to one of the five major Neotropical
floristic groups and the proportion of stems and species pertaining to each floristic group was
calculated for each site. Species from families not considered by Gentry were removed from
analysis. The resulting 5 vectors describing the distribution of stems and species among
floristic groups were fitted onto a two-dimensional NMDS solution of the community site x
taxa matrix in order to visualize distribution pattern of each floristic group with respect to
compositional variation among sites. Differences in the variability of biogeographic relations
14
amongst locally co-occurring stems and species in terra firme and MDW habitats were
assessed using the Simpson’s diversity metric.
Results
Distances from individual sites to their group centroid in geographic space revealed
that sampling of both MDWs and terra firme was more or less equally widespread
geographically (t =0.0038, p =0.997). The mean distance from individual MDW and terra
firme sites from their respective group centroids were nearly equal at ~7.27 degrees. A total
22,514 stems were sampled in 28 MDWs, distributed among 318 genera and 89 families. In
terra firme, 12,913 stems distributed among 605 genera and 113 families were sampled in 35
site.
Figure 2. Histograms of the proportion of stems with dbh >10cm represented by palms in terra firme (above), and MDW (below) sites. In MDWs Mauritia accounts for 89% of all palm stems and 61% of all woody stems (dbh >10cm).
As expected, MDW and terra firme habitats demonstrated divergent patterns in palm
density (Figure 2). Mauritia accounted for, on average, 61% of all woody stems >10 cm dbh
15
and 89% of all palms (> 10 cm dbh) in MDWs. Only five other palm species reaching dbh
>10 cm were present in the surveyed MDW plots, the most frequent being Euterpe precatoria
and Mauritiella armata. In terra firme sites Mauritia accounted for only 4 individuals in a
single plot, representing <1% of woody stems >10 cm dbh at this site. A total of 28 other
palm species attaining dbh >10 cm were present in terra firme sites, the most frequent of
which were Iriartea deltoidea, Oenocarpus bataua, and Astrocaryum sp.
Compositional Variability
The frequency distributions of taxa among MDW and terra firme sites differed,
considering both genus (Wilcoxon rank sum test: W = 7572, n1 =n2 =28, p <0.01) and family
ranks (W = 3795, n1 = n2 = 28, p >0.01). On average, genera and families tend to occur in
proportionally fewer MDW sites relative to terra firme sites. For example, considering 28
sites in both habitat types, the average genus occupies 3.8 (median = 2) sites in MDWs and
5.4 (median = 3) sites in terra firme. Similarly, the average family occupies 8.7 (median = 7)
and 12.7 (median = 11) sites in MDWs and terra firme respectively. Appendix A shows
frequency distributions of taxa sampled in MDWs.
Multivariate dispersion tests revealed compositional variation across sites within
MDW woody vegetation to be generally greater than terra firme. Habitat differences in genus
level compositional variation were stronger for presence-absence data (F =30.2, p <0.001)
than for abundance data (F =5.74, p =0.02). Differences in family level compositional
variation were equally strong for both presence-absence (F =49.55, p <0.001) and abundance
data (F =49.44, p <0.001). Examination of pair-wise dissimilarities partitioned into turnover
and nestedness components further highlighted differences in compositional variation
amongst habitats. The mean value of pair-wise dissimilarities within MDW habitat
approached that of the mean of pairwise dissimilarities between MDW and terra firme,
whether analyzed at family or genus rank (Figure 3a & d). MDWs exhibited proportionally
greater nested structure than terra firme (Figure 3b & e), but this accounted for a smaller
fraction of total beta-diversity relative to turnover (Figure 3c & f), and the degree of
nestedness rapidly decreased with decreasing taxonomic rank (i.e., from family to genus).
Phylogenetic Structure
MDW plots tend to demonstrate high variability in taxonomic distinctness indices
relative to terra firme plots (Figure 4). T-tests revealed that values for D* are consistently
higher in MDWs regardless of which level of the taxonomic hierarchy was considered (p
16
<0.01). For D+, the range of values for MDWs consistently encompasses both the maximum
and minimum values of all sites. Especially when deeper taxonomic ranks are considered
MDWs tend to show, on average, reduced D+ values, however these were not significantly
different from terra firme (p > 0.01 in all cases).
Figure 3. Box plots of pair-wise dissimilarities within and between MDW and terra firme sites at family and genus taxonomic ranks for presence-absence data. Dissimilarities are additively partitioned between nested and turnover components following Baselga (2010). Dissiilarities based on abundance data are qualitatively similar and not shown.
17
Figure 4. Taxonomic distinctness (D* and D+) of MDW (closed circles) and terra firme (open circles) sites considering the complete taxonomic hierarchy (4 divisions), or only its higher (order and superorder) or lower (genus and family) structures. Dashed segments give within-group means. Stars indicate significant differences (p <0.01) between MDWs and terra firme as revealed by t-tests. Morphospecies richness values of sites are based on a random sub-sample of 148 stems (the least number of stems in a single assemblage).
Biogeographic Structure
In an ordination of plots based on a two-dimensional solution with a stress of 0.21, the
primary axis of variation reflected strong differences in composition between MDWs and
terra firme at genus and family taxonomic ranks (Figure 5, only family-level is shown). The
main axis of variation is strongly associated with a contrast between Amazonian-centered
families (sensu Gentry) and non-Amazonian plant families, both in terms of the relative site
stem abundance and richness of each floristic group within sites. In general, non-Amazonian
plant families tend to contribute proportionally more stems and species in MDW sites
18
compared to terra firme sites, which are decidedly dominated by Amazonian-centered
families. The the greater proportion (p <0.05) of the South Temperate floristic group in (b),
but not (a), suggests that species of this group can become equally abundant in both MDW
and terra firme (e.g., Myrtaceae can be an important shrubby component of terra firme), but
contribute proportionally more to site richness in MDWs. Subsequent t-tests comparing
Simpson’s diversity metric of floristic groups among habitats revealed elevated diversity of
biogeographic relations in MDW communities relative to terra firme, both in terms of the
number of individuals (p <0.001), and the number of species (p <0.001).
Figure 5. Two-dimensional NMDS solution of compositional data at the rank of family. Significant (p >0.05) vectors corresponding to the number of stems (left) and species (right) of each floristic group sensu Gentry(1982) were mapped onto the ordination. At the family level, almost half of the dissimilarity between MDW and terra firme is due to a nested structure (see figure 3b). However the relative contribution of nestedness to between-habitat compositional differences decreases rapidly with decreasing taxonomic rank (see figure 3e). Qualitative patterns of site and floristic group distributions are similar regardless of whether family or genus ranks, or abundance or presence-absence data is used. Discussion
In sites where Mauritia palms are canopy-dominant, two environmental factors can
almost always be predicted; substrates are near-permanently saturated and vertical water-level
fluctuation are, in our experience, <2 m over an annual cycle. During community assembly
extended waterlogging and associated stresses are known to be strong filtering mechanisms
19
that limit local communities to a handful of species possessing the appropriate attributes. Our
results accord with this general view in the sense that MDW sites demonstrated reduced
species richness. However, with the intent to deepen our understanding of ecological and
evolutionary processes determining community structure in MDWs, we document and discuss
three further patterns that have emerged from our analyses: (1) that MDWs exhibit high site-
to-site variability, (2) that the ability to grow in MDWs appears to be a trait widely distributed
in the phylogeny of Amazonian forests, and (3) MDW communities are characterized by taxa
with centers of richness in extra-Amazonian regions.
Composition of MDWs exhibits high site-to-site variability
According to our data, on broad spatial scales MDWs can be as compositionally
different to each other as they are to terra firme (Figure 3a). With the exception of the canopy
dominant - present at all sites by methodological design - there appears to be little
predictability in MDW vegetation composition when contrasted with terra firme, the latter
habitat type appearing to be comprised of a much more predictable set of common taxa across
broad spatial scales (e.g. Pitman et al. 2001; Macía and Svenning 2005). While several taxa
widely recognized as common swamp specialists were frequently found (e.g. Calophyllum,
Tapirira, etc.), their overall influence on beta-diversity metrics examined here are dwarfed by
a multitude of less frequent taxa.
The high site-to-site spatial variability found here accords with other broad-scale
comparisons of MDWs (Pitman et al., 2014) as well as paleoecological records that
demonstrate abrupt temporal variation in composition and a diversity of developmental
pathways (Lähteenoja and Page, 2011; Roucoux and Baker, 2012). Mauritia appears to be an
exceptionally effective colonizer of waterlogged sites, tolerating a broad spectrum of
environmental conditions associated with near-permanently saturated conditions. For
example, edaphic conditions in our MDW plots varied from pure clay to pure sand or peat.
Water depths at the time of visit ranged from just below ground surface to approximately two
meters. Fire, to which adult individuals of Mauritia are resistant, was also a common
disturbance in many MDWs. Any of these factors, even within single sites, individually or in
combination, were observed to change frequently and abruptly, imposing observably strong
filters on forest structure and composition. Consequently, the high spatial variability in MDW
community composition likely involves the individualistic responses of species to multiple
complex gradients associated with flooding. As a result of the habitat’s patchy spatial
20
organization, dispersal, immigration, and extinction processes may also be more variable in
MDWs. These spatial processes are also likely to further contribute to high site-to-site
compositional variability (MacArthur and Wilson, 1967; Leibold et al., 2004).
Habitat-use of MDWs is a trait widely dispersed in the phylogeny of Amazonian forests
Taxonomic distinctness varied with respect to the level of taxonomic information
supplied as well as the degree to which species abundance distributions were taken into
account. The range of taxonomic distinctness measures for MDWs often included both
maximum and minimum values, however it is not clear the extent to which this is simply a
matter of increased variability due to reduced species richness (Clarke and Warwick, 1999).
There is a tendency for co-occurring species in MDWs to be, on average, more taxonomically
distant than co-occurring species in terra firme, and significantly so when D* is considered.
We conclude that many phylogenetically unrelated species have converged on similar
habitat use and that the traits conferring the ability to survive on permanently waterlogged
substrates are widespread in the phylogeny of Amazonian forests. We find little evidence to
suggest that severe ecological filters clump phylogenetically related species during assembly
of MDW communities. We maintain that while permanent waterlogging strongly modifies
the structure of MDW communities by constraining the number species that locally co-occur,
it does not restrict the phylogenetic tree of its community.
Extra-Amazonian taxa characterize a common Amazonian habitat
The biogeographic patterns of lineages are determined by the balance of speciation,
extinction, and dispersal processes as they occur on an environmentally heterogeneous
template (Rosenzweig, 1995; Roy et al., 2009; Wiens, 2011). Correspondence between the
biogeographic history of a lineage and ecological traits (Gentry, 1982; Williams-Linera, 1997)
suggests that large-scale biogeographic pattern may result principally from deterministic
ecological processes acting on phylogentically conserved traits that regulate the abiotic and
biotic conditions in which individuals can disperse, establish and reproduce at local scales
(Crisp et al., 2009).
With this in mind, we suggest that a diversity of biogeographic relations may provide
a source of ecologically differentiated taxa for the assembly of local MDW communities
(Ackerly, 2003; 2004). Near-permanent waterlogging provokes severe alterations in the
21
immediate abiotic environment through changes in oxygen supply to roots, the bioavailabity
of resources, and introduces numerous other associated stresses. If the species (and their
associated traits) that colonize these altered sites do not already exist within local pools, they
must either evolve from those species already existing in situ or be recruited from species
pools where these traits already exist. Consequently, we propose that severe shifts in
predominating ecological filters imposed by local waterlogging may heavily modify the pool
from which MDW assemblages tend to be recruited.
Our interpretation accords with several ecological and floristic studies noting that
many of the most typical Amazonian wetland taxa and communities possess atypical
functional trait values and extra-Amazonian distribution patterns (Prance, 1979; Kubitzki,
1989; Burnham et al., 2001; Wittmann et al., 2013; Householder et al., 2015). Our analyses
suggest that evolutionary stasis and habitat tracking of a deeply conserved niche - perhaps
associated with stress in general - may also help explain the ‘fit’ of wetland organisms to their
semi-aquatic environments and should be considered in tandem with hypotheses emphasizing
adaptive processes.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript was developed and written with funding provided to the
corresponding author by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPQ-141727/2011-0). Field work was made possible by funding from CNPQ
(Universal grant no. 475660/2011-0), the Discovery Fund of FortWorth, Texas, the Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation (grant no. 484), the U.S. National Science Foundation (grant no.
0717453), and the Programa de Ciencia y Tecnologia—FINCYT (grant number PIBAP-
2007–005). We thank Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade and the MAUA working group for
providing logistical support. We thank Sy Sohmer, Cleve Lancaster, Pat Harrison, Keri
Barfield, Renan Valega, Jason Wells and Will McClatchey, and the general staff of the
Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT) for providing important institutional support
and infrastructure. We thank Fernando Cornejo, Piher Maceda, Javier Huinga and Angel
Balarezo for research assistance in the field. We thank various Peruvian institutions, including
the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), the Dirección General de Flora y
Fauna Silvestre (DGFFS), the Ministerio de Agricultura (MINAG), and the Ministerio del
Ambiente (MINAM) for research, collection, and export permits during the course of this
22
project. We also thank the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade
(ICMBio) for permits, logistical support, and access to conservation areas in Brazil.
Literature Cited
Ackerly, D. 2003. Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing
environments. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 164(S3): 164–184.
Ackerly, D. 2004. Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: comparative studies of leaf
evolution in the California chaparral. The American Naturalist, 163(5): 654–671.
Anderson, M.J., Ellingsen, K.E. & McArdle, B.H. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta
diversity. Ecology letters, 9(6): 683–93.
Antonelli, A., Nylander, J.A., Persson, C. & Sanmartin, I. 2009. Tracing the impact of the Andean
uplift on Neotropical plant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 106(24): 9749–54.
Antonelli, A. & Sanmartín, I. 2011. Why are there so many plant species in the Neotropics? Taxon,
60(April): 403–414.
APG, 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families
of flowering plants : APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 141(4): 399–436.
Baselga, A. 2010. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity. Global
Ecology and Biogeography, 19(1): 134–143.
Brightsmith, D. & Bravo, A. 2006. Ecology and Management of Nesting Blue-and-Yellow Macaws
(Ara ararauna) in Mauritia Palm Swamps. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(13): 4271–4287.
Burnham, R., Pitman, N.C.A., Johnson, K.R. & Wilf, P. 2001. Habitat-related error in estimating
temperatures from leaf margins in a humid tropical forest. American Journal of Botany 88(6): 1096–
1102.
Clarke, K. & Warwick, R. 1998. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties. Journal
of Applied Ecology, 35(4): 523–531.
Clarke, K. & Warwick, R. 1999. The taxonomic distinctness measure of biodiversity: weighting of
step lengths between hierarchical levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 184: 21–29.
23
Crisp, M.D., Arroyo, M.T.K., Cook, L.G., Gandolfo, M.A., Jordan, G.J., McGlone, M.S., Weston,
P.H., Westoby, M., Wilf, P. & Linder, H.P. 2009. Phylogenetic biome conservatism on a global scale.
Nature, 458(9): 754–6.
Endress, B. A., Horn, C.M. & Gilmore, M.P. 2013. Mauritia flexuosa palm swamps: Composition,
structure and implications for conservation and management. Forest Ecology and Management, 302:
346–353.
Gentry, A.H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: Phytogeographical connections between Central
and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny? Annals
of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 69(3): 557–593.
Hiraoka, M. 1999. Miriti (Mauritia flexuosa) palms and their uses and management among ribeirinhos
of the Amazon Estuary. In Padoch, C.; Marcia-Ayres, J.; Pinedo-Vasquez, M.; Henderson, A. (Eds).
Varzea: Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazonia’s Whitewater Floodplains. New York
Botanical Garden Press, p. 169–186.
Householder, E., Janovec, J., Balarezo Mozambite, A., Huinga Maceda, J., Wells, J. & Valega, R.
2010. Diversity, Natural history, and Conservation of Vanilla (Orchidaceae ) in Amazonian wetlands
of Madre de Dios, Peru. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 4(1) 227–243.
Householder, J.E., Janovec, J.P., Tobler, M.W., Page, S. & Lähateenoja, O. 2012. Peatlands of the
Madre de Dios River of Peru: Distribution, Geomorphology, and Habitat Diversity. Wetlands, 32(2):
359–368.
Householder, J.E., Wittmann, F., Tobler, M. & Janovec, J.P. 2015. Montane bias in lowland
Amazonian peatlands: Plant assembly on heterogenous landscapes and potential significance to
palynological inference. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 423: 138-148.
Junk, W.J., Fenandez Piedade, M.T., Schöngart, J., Cohn-Haft, M., Adeney, J.M. & Wittmann, F.
2011. A classification of major naturally occurring Amazonian lowland wetlands. Wetlands, 31: 623–
640.
Kahn, F. 1988. Ecology of economically important palms in Peruvian Amazonia. Advances in
Economic Botany, 6: 42–49.
Kahn, F. 1991. Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management,
38: 133-142.
24
Kalliola, R., Puhakka, M., Salo, J., Tuomisto, H. & Ruokolainen, K. 1991. The dynamics, distribution
and classification of swamp vegetation in Peruvian Amazonia. Annales Botanici Fennici, 28(3): 225–
239.
Kelly, T.J., Baird, A.J., Roucoux, K.H., Baker, T.R., Honorio Coronado, E.N., Ríos, M. & Lawson,
I.T. 2014. The high hydraulic conductivity of three wooded tropical peat swamps in northeast Peru:
Measurements and implications for hydrological function. Hydrological Processes, 28: 3373–3387.
Kubitzki, K. 1989. The ecogeographical differentiation of Amazonian inundation forests. Plant
Systematics and Evolution, 162: 285–304.
Lähteenoja, O. & Page, S. 2011. High diversity of tropical peatland ecosystem types in the Pastaza-
Marañón basin, Peruvian Amazonia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116(G2): G02025.
Lähteenoja, O., Rojas Reátegui, Y., Räsänen, M., Del Castillo Torres, D., Oinonen, M. & Page, S.
2012. The large Amazonian peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Marañón foreland basin,
Peru. Global Change Biology, 18(1): 164–178.
Leibold, M.A., Holyoak, M., Mouquet, N., Amarasekare, P., Chase, J.M., Hoopes, M.F., Holt, R.D.,
Shurin, J.B., Law, R., Tilman, D., Loreau, M. & Gonzalez, A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a
framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7(7): 601–613.
MacArthur, R.H. & Wilson, E.O. (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton Univerity
Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 203.
Macía, M.J. & Svenning, J.C. 2005. Oligarchic dominance in western Amazonian plant communities.
Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21(06): 613
Marshall, B.G., Forsberg, B.R., Hess, L.L. & de Carvalho Freitas, C.E. 2011. Water temperature
differences in interfluvial palm swamp habitats of Paracheirodon axelrodi and P . simulans
(Osteichthyes : Characidae ) in the middle Rio Negro , Brazil. Ichthyological Exploration of
Freshwaters, 22(4): 377–383.
Padoch, C. 1988. Aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa) in the economy of Iquitos, Peru. Advances in Economic
Botany, 6: 214–224.
Parolin, P., Junk, W. & Piedade, M.T.F. 2000. Seed mass in Amazonian floodplain forests with
contrasting nutrient supplies. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 16(3): 417–428.
Parolin, P., de Simone, O., Haase, K., Waldhoff, D., Rottenberger, S., Kuhn, U., Kesselmeier, J,
Kleiss, B., Schmidt, W., Piedade, M.T.F. & Junk. W. 2004. Central Amazonian floodplain forests: tree
adaptations in a pulsing system. The Botanical Review, 70(3): 357–380.
25
Pitman, N.C.A., Terborgh, J.W., Silman, M.R., Nuñez, P., Neill, D.A., Cerón, C.E., Palacios, W.A. &
Aulestia, M. 2001. Dominance and distribution of tree species in upper Amazonian Terra Firme
forests. Ecology 82(8): 2101-2117
Pitman, N.C. A., Guevara Andino, J.E., Aulestia, M., Cerón, C.E., Neill, D.A., Palacios, W., Rivas-
Torres, G., Silman, M.R. & Terborgh, J.W. 2014. Distribution and abundance of tree species in swamp
forests of Amazonian Ecuador. Ecography, 37(February).
Phillips, O. & Miller, J. 2002. Global Patterns of Plant Diversity: Alwyn H. Gentry’s Forest Transect
Data, Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Prance, G.T. 1979. Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology of Amazonian forest
types subject to inundation. Brittonia, 31(1): 36–38.
Robeck, H., Maley, C. & Donoghue, M. 2000. Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns.
PaleoBiology, 26: 171–187.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Roucoux, K.H., Lawson, I.T., Jones, T.D., Baker, T.R., Honorio Coronado, E.N., Gosling, W.D. &
Lähteenoja, O. 2013. Vegetation development in an Amazonian peatland. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 374: 242–255.
Roy, K., Hunt, G., Jablonski, D., Krug, A.Z. & Valentine, J.W. 2009. A macroevolutionary
perspective on species range limits. Proceedings. Biological sciences of the Royal Society, 276(1661):
1485–93.
Rull, V. 1998. Biogeographical and evolutionary considerations of Mauritia (Arecaceae), based on
palynological evidence. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 100(1-2): 109–122.
Sepkoski, J. & Kendrick, D. 1993. Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic
taxa. PaleoBiology, 19: 168–184.
Stevens, P.F. 2015. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website.
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.
Tobler, M.W., Janovec, J.P. & Cornejo, F. 2010. Frugivory and seed dispersal by the lowland tapir
Tapirus terrestris in the Peruvian Amazon. Biotropica, 42(2): 215–222.
Wiens, J.J. 2011. The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philosophical transactions of the
Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 366(1576): 2336–50.
26
Williams-Linera, G. 1997. Phenology of deciduous and broadleaved evergreen tree species in a
Mexican tropical lower montane forest. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 6: 115-127.
Wittmann, F.K., Householder, J.E., Piedade, M.T.F., de Assis, R.L., Schöngart, J., Parolin, P. & Junk,
W. 2013. Habitat specificity, endemism and the neotropical distribution of Amazonian white-water
floodplain tree. Ecography 36(6): 690-707.
27
Capítulo 2
Householder, J.E.; Janovec, J.P.; Tobler, M. & Wittmann, F. 2015. Shrubby sites are more biogeographically diverse than forested sites in two extreme Amazonian habitat types. Manuscript prepared for Journal of Biogeography
28
Shrubby Habitats are more Biogeographically Diverse Than Forested Habitats in Two Extreme Amazonian Habitat Types Abstract Aim Because the biogeographic patterns of plant lineages reflect the evolutionary constraints and conserved adaptations of their constituent species, examination of local communities within a biogeographic framework can provide novel insight into the ecological and evolutionary processes that structure them. Here, we examine patterns of biogeographic community structure of woody vegetation communities along physiognomic gradients in two extreme abiotic environments in the Amazon region. Location Amazonia Methods Making use of a publically available vegetation dataset we model distribution patterns of plant families within a geographic window spanning the Andes-Amazon elevational gradient. We apply this model to examine the variability of biogeographic relations amongst locally co-existing species along similar physiognomic gradients in two floristically independent and edaphically stressful habitats in lowland Amazonia - white sands and peatlands. Results We find common patterns in both habitats. In forested sites, variation in the biogeographic relations of locally co-occurring taxa is low, becoming increasingly variable in sites with shrubby physiognomies. Main Conclusions We propose that because forest ecosystems have featured prominently in the evolutionary history of lowland Amazonia many species well-suited to forested site conditions in peatlands and whitesands have evolved in situ, resulting in low observed variability in biogeographic diversity in forested sites. In contrast, higher observed diversity of biogeographic relations in shrubby habitat might be explained by both adaptive shifts of locally derived forest taxa as well as evolutionary conservatism and exaptation of taxa that have diversified in regions ecologically distinct from lowland Amazonia. Thus we suggest a high diversity of biogeographic histories may provide ecologically differentiated taxa for the colonization of environmentally extreme habitat types in the Amazon. We further suggest that our results provide an ecological basis that can contribute to our understanding of some outstanding features of biogeographic pattern in the Andes-Amazon region. Keywords: Andes; community structure; habitat heterogeneity; heath; neotropics; peatland; swamp; white sand;
29
Introduction
The biogeographic history of a lineage is determined by the balance of speciation
versus extinction events and dispersal processes as they occur on an environmentally
heterogeneous template of regional to global proportions. Niche conservatism, the strong
tendency to retain ancestral ecological characteristics, has been viewed as a useful guiding
principle for understanding how these processes operating on large spatial and temporal scales
result in biogeographic pattern (Roy et al., 2009; Wiens, 2011). For example, long-standing
biome stasis of lineages is expected to result principally from deterministic ecological
processes acting on conserved traits that determine the abiotic and biotic conditions in which
individuals can disperse, establish and reproduce at local scales (Crisp et al., 2009). One
prediction of the niche-conservatism framework is that heritable traits associated with the
ecological niches of species mediate distribution patterns of taxa across geographic scales
(local to global), conceptually linking the historical (i.e. dispersal, speciation and extinction)
processes that shape large-scale macro-ecological pattern of entire lineages to local processes
(i.e. habitat sorting and competition) that shape species distribution on smaller scales
(Ricklefs and Latham, 1992; Roy et al., 2009; Wiens, 2011).
Most modern local assemblages are built up over time by members from lineages
possessing disparate biogeographic legacies, thus providing testing grounds to better
understand how local assemblages are influenced by the evolutionary and biogeographic
history of their respective lineages. To the extent that locally co-existing species retain an
ancestral niche adapted to disparate climatic and environmental contexts, we might
reasonably expect extrinsic evolutionary processes to influence the local assembly of species
as they are sorted along environmental gradients (Ackerly, 2004; Stephens and Wiens, 2009;
Wiens, 2011). For example, in northern temperate forests, species from clades with tropical
biogeographic affinities tend to break bud later than clades with entirely temperate
distributions, presumably because delayed leaf flushing decreases potential losses caused by
late, unexpected frosts (Lechowicz, 1984). The differential timing of bud break between
tropical vs. temperate clades at local scales suggests that increased susceptibility to frost is an
aspect of the tropical niche that has been highly conserved – even in lineages that have been
able to break the tropical-temperature divide - and that biogeographic pattern of entire clades
can be a predictor of the ecological behavior of constituent species (Harrison and Grace,
2007).
30
We develop a strategy to quantifiably examine vegetation assemblage structure within
a biogeographic framework in two edaphically specialized lowland Amazon habitat types,
white sands and peatlands. These patchily distributed Amazonian vegetation communities are
notable for reductions in physical stature relative to surrounding tall and wet forests. Despite
many descriptions of this classic physiognomic pattern (Kalliola et al., 1991), little is known
concerning the origins and evolution of the species that occupy different positions along the
physiognomic gradient. Strong species and trait turnover are expected, exemplified by the
fact that free-standing woody plant forms have not evolved the adequate traits necessary for
persistence in increasingly marginal sites. Considering that the occupation of increasingly
stressful, shrubby habitats represents an increasingly large departure from the range of
ecological strategies that has generally been successful throughout the evolutionary history of
tall, closed-canopy rainforests, we might predict that many taxa in shrubbier environments
(and their associated traits) will not be shared with the surrounding forests, but will have
wider biogeographic origins and affinities. Thus we examine the biogeographic variability of
local assemblages along the physiognomic gradient in two independent vegetation
communities, peatlands and white sands, asking whether assemblages in more open-canopied
and low-statured sites are more biogeographically diverse than those of forested sites.
Methods Habitat Description and field sampling
Vegetated peatlands in the Amazon form in sites exhibiting perennially waterlogged
substrates and minimal water level oscillations. Organic substrates derived from the biomass
of plants growing in situ accumulate under hypoxic conditions induced by inundation (Page et
al., 2011; Householder et al., 2012). No extensive mapping of modern Amazonian peatlands
is currently available, but Ruokolainen et al. (2001) provide an initial basin-wide estimate of
150,000 km2 deduced from satellite imagery. The majority of these are expected to occupy
the subsiding foreland basin region in the Western Amazon, although small patches exist
throughout the basin (Draper et. al., 2014). The white-sand vegetation community occupies
sites on nutrient deprived sands. Sandy soils are potentially well-drained, but episodic sheet
flooding and/or high water tables may be present depending on local site conditions. White-
sand habitat covers approximately 210,000km2 of the Amazon basin, the majority of which is
found in the Rio Negro region in the Northern and Central Amazon (Ter Steege and Sabatier,
31
2000). Both habitat types have a distinctly patchy distribution pattern and are embedded
within a matrix of tall, closed-canopy forests.
Peatland and white sand habitats were systematically sampled in Southwest and
Central Amazonia respectively (Figure 1). Seven peatlands were sampled along a 250km
lowland stretch of the Madre de Dios River meander belt in southeast Peru. Accumulation of
thick peat (3 - 9 m in depth) and dominance of a single palm indicator species (Mauritia
flexuosa) suggested relatively similar edaphic conditions characterized by perennial substrate
saturation and limited water-level oscillations. Strong physiognomic transitions from low-
statured swamp forest to herbaceous savannahs characterized most visited peatlands and are
readily detectable in satellite imagery (Hamilton, 2005; Householder et al., 2012). Two
white-sand habitats, spaced approximately 250 km apart, were located in the Rio Negro
region (Jau National Park and Uãtuma Sustainable Development Reserve). Both possessed
substrates with sand fractions exceeding 90% of total dry weight (mean ± sd = 94.4% ± 20;
Householder unpublished data). Physiognomic transitions from low-statured forest to
shrubland were present.
In peatlands, trees (dbh > 10 cm) were sampled in 10 x 10-m square plots. Shrubs,
which we defined as woody vegetation with dbh < 10 cm and height > 1 m were sampled in
nested 5 x 5-m plots positioned on the center of its companion tree plot. The same criteria for
tree and shrub classes were maintained in white-sand sites, but plants were sampled in 50 x 2-
m and 25 x 2-m nested plots, respectively. Variation in physiognomic and environmental
conditions within plots was minimal. Total plot abundance of each species was estimated by
summing the number of stems in both tree and nested shrub plots. Consecutive plots in both
habitat types were placed at ~100 m intervals following straight-line transects in an attempt to
capture the entire physiognomic gradient apparent at each site. Six structural variables,
including percent coverage and height of tree, shrub and herb strata were visually estimated in
each plot. Stem density of both trees and shrubs were tallied and included as additional
structural variables. We surveyed 147 nested plots more or less equally distributed in the
seven peatlands and 41 nested plots, also equally distributed among two white-sand sites.
32
Figure 1. Map showing locations of surveyed peatlands and white sands as well as the distribution of sites of the Gentry plot network used to assess distributional patterns of families along the elevation gradient. Boxed windows indicate the areas where peatland and white-sand communities were sampled. Gentry sites are classified into two groups differentiated by site elevation (see map legend).
Developing a Biogeographic Framework
We limit our geographic window to the Andes-Amazon region. Strong floristic
turnover along the Andes-Amazon elevation gradient represents one of the most outstanding
features of neotropical biogeography (Gentry, 1982; Hoorn et al., 2010; Antonelli and
Sanmartín, 2011). Gentry (1982) classified the majority of the most important Neotropical
plant families as either ‘clearly’ Amazonian or Andean according to the geographic
distributions of constituent species, further noting the contrasting life-histories between these
two biogeographically defined groups. Strong ecological filters are expected to select species
on the basis of their tolerance to highly variable abiotic conditions along mountain slopes
(Körner, 2007). As a consequence, morphological traits (Luo et al., 2005; Moser et al., 2007),
and life history characteristics (Lieberman et al., 1996; Klimes, 2003) are non-randomly
distributed. Because these tend to be evolutionarily conserved within lineages, more closely
related species often have more similar elevational distributions, resulting in strong
33
phylogeographic structure along the Andes-Amazon elevation gradient (Gentry, 1982;
Enquist et al., 2002; Punyasena et al. 2008). As such, we propose that a simple assessment of
family-level elevation distribution provides a straightforward metric of the biogeographic
pattern of taxonomic groups, as well as general predictor of species’ ecological behavior
(Ackerly, 2003; Harrison and Grace, 2007; Punyasena et al., 2008).
To produce this metric we first collated a subset of the Gentry transect data maintained
and made available through the Missouri Botanical Garden. Gentry transect data were
collected in 0.1 ha plots consisting of 10 contiguous 50 x 2 m linear subplots where all woody
individuals > 2.5 cm dbh were reported. Sequential subplots placed end to end were oriented
in random directions. We only used plots from the Andes-Amazon region (Colombia,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Brazil and Bolivia) including 80 sites at elevations ranging from
10 to 3200 masl. Sites located in semi-deciduous, dry forest, or savanna regions were
excluded from the model. The accuracy of species determinations provided in the dataset was
assessed by cross-referencing voucher numbers provided in the original dataset with current
determinations of collections stored at the Missouri Botanical Gardens and made accessible
through the Tropicos website (http://www.tropicos.org/Home.aspx). Taxonomic
nomenclature was standardized to Tropicos (Stevens 2015) and merged at the taxonomic rank
of family. Variation in plot composition of the Gentry dataset was condensed to a single
ordination axis using non-metric multidimensional scaling and its correlation to elevation
subsequently described by Pearson’s r. Distribution patterns of each family along this
gradient were represented by a single parameter computed as the mean of site ordination
values weighted by relative plot abundance of the family. As an independent check, we
compared our results to the biogeographic hypothesis of Gentry (1982), with the expectation
that Andean families would demonstrate higher weighted averages along the NMDS axis
relative to Amazonian families. The resulting weighted average family elevation scores
derived from the Gentry transect data were used as a quantitative measure of species’
biogeographic dissemblance within the peat and white sand datasets. Species of the same
family were assigned the same score, reflecting their shared ancestry and biogeographic
legacy.
Examining Biogeographic Variability
We used Functional Dispersion (FDis) as a metric of the variability of biogeographic
relations within local peat and white-sand assemblages (Laliberté and Legendre, 2010).
34
Conceptually, FDis is the mean distance in weighted average elevation scores of species
within plots to the centroid of all species. Samples of locally co-existing species possessing
similar weighted-average elevation scores will have lower FDis values than those comprised
of species with highly divergent scores. The metric is not influenced by species richness but
does incorporate information on the abundance distribution by shifting the position of the
centroid according to species relative abundances. To understand how FDis varies with
physiognomy we used linear regression on the primary axes of a principal component analysis
(PCA) performed on the correlation matrix of the eight structural variables measured in the
field.
Results
We sampled 6,868 and 3,566 stems in peatland and white-sand habitat respectively.
Comparison of the vegetation data at the generic level suggests that the two floras are
taxomonically distinct. Of 205 genera identified, including both habitat types, less than one
fifth (18%) are shared. A total of 76% (n=117) and 58% (n = 51) of genera in peatland and
white sands were unique, accounting for 76% and 57% of species within each habitat type
respectively. No species were shared between habitats.
Using the Gentry transect data we found a high correlation (r = .93, p < 0.001)
between the single NMDS ordination axis (stress = 0.22) and site elevation. Weighted
average elevation scores of families ranged from approximately -2 to +2. Families occurring
in peatlands and white sands spanned the entire spectrum of families present in the Gentry
transect data (Figure 2). Andean families (sensu Gentry [1982]) had significantly higher
weighted averages than Amazon-centered families as revealed by a t-test (p > 0.001). In
peatlands, species from Onagraceae (2 spp.), Chloranthaceae (1 sp.), Aquifoliaceae (2 sp.),
Rosaceae (1 sp.), and Araliaceae (1 sp.) demonstrated the highest family elevation
distributions. On white sands high elevation families were represented by species from
Asteraceae (2 spp.), Aquifoliaceae (1 sp.), Pentaphyllaceae (3 spp.), Araliaceae (2 spp.) and
Primulaceae (2 spp.). Combined, the top 15 high elevation families in peatlands and white
sands represented 29% of all individuals and 18% of all species. The 15 families with the
lowest weighted average scores accounted for 10% of all individuals and 9% of species.
Andean and Amazonian families (sensu Gentry) accounted for almost equal fractions of
individuals and species. All families present in the peatland and white-sand data, their
35
weighted average NMDS score, biogeographic classification according to Gentry (1982), and
the numbers of species and stems are given in Appendix B.
Figure 2. Histogram of abundance-weighted average scores of families along the axis of the non-metric multidimensional scaling of the Gentry plots (white bars), illustrating the wide breadth of biogeographic patterns of families present in the peat and white-sand habitats (grey bars). The NMDS axis is highly correlated with site elevation (r = 0.93, p > 0.001), thus weighted-average scores describe the average relative position of families along the elevation gradient, where higher scores correspond to families with higher average elevational distributions.
36
Figure 3. Distributions of raw values of the 8 variables used to describe site vegetation structure. Peatland (grey boxes) and white sand (white boxes) habitats are paired over each structural variable.
Table 1. Loadings of the 8 variables used to describe vegetation structure on the primary axis of the PCA in peatland and white sand habitats. Loadings are highly correlated between habitats, and in both cases describe a transition from taller forested sites with reduced herbaceous layers to shrubby sites with increasing density of smaller-stemmed, low-statured individuals and a well developed herbaceous layer.
Structural Variables Loadings on first PCA axis
Peatlands White sands
Count Shrub 0.453 0.634
Count Tree 0.278 -0.432
Cover Herb 0.339 0.384
Cover Shrub 0.269 0.681
Cover Tree -0.472 -0.438
Height Herb 0.196 0.356
Height Shrub -0.192 -0.412
Height Tree -0.48 -0.413
37
We observed strong physiognomic gradients in both habitat types, with tree, shrub,
and herb covers ranging from 0 to almost 100% (Figure 3). Loadings on the primary axes of
the structural variables were highly correlated between habitat types (r = 0.77, t = 2.837, df =
6, p = 0.02), describing similar transitions from tall forested habitats with shadier understories
(decreased herb cover) to open-canopied shrublands with high understory light incidence
(Table 1). Variation in tree stem density accounted for the principal structural difference
between habitats. Relative to white sands, shrubby communities in the peatlands we studied
tended to possess more stunted trees with larger stem diameters, likely due to the dominance
of low-statured individuals of the arboreal palm Mauritia flexuosa in shrubby peatland sites.
The forest-shrubland transition explained the majority (58%) of structural variation in white
sand habitat and 32% in peatlands. Secondary axes were not interpretable and showed no
associations with tested variables; thus we do not consider them further.
Peatland and white-sand communities showed divergent local richness patterns with
forest structure (Figure 4). On white sands, local richness declined strongly with increasing
shrubbiness, while a weak positive relationship with shrubbiness was found in peatlands. The
structural gradients described by the primary PCA axis (forest-shrub transition) accounted for
a significant proportion of variance in the diversity of biogeographic relations among co-
existing individuals (FDis) in peatlands (r2 = 0.30, p <0.001) and white sands (r2 = 0.21,
p<0.001). In both cases FDis tended to increase with increasing shrubbiness (Figure 4).
Variation in biogeographic relations was positively associated with an increase in the
community weighted mean of NMDS scores in both peatlands, and white sands.
38
Figure 4. Relationships between vegetation structure (PCA 1), species richness, biogeographic diversity (FDis), and community weighted means (CWM) of family NMDS scores of peatlands (top row) and whitesands (bottom row). R-squared and p values are derived from simple linear regressions.
Discussion
The strong tendency for families with lower weighted-average elevation scores,
hereafter referred to as lowland families, to dominate in more forested sites is consistent with
the long evolutionary history of forests in lowland Amazonia (Fine and Ree, 2006; Hoorn and
Wesselingh, 2010). Because forest ecosystems have featured prominently in the evolutionary
history of lowland Amazonia, we might expect them to have evolved many species well-
suited to the predominating lowland environmental conditions (Pärtel et al., 2007). These
species ultimately form the species pools from which forested communities are locally
assembled, both in peatlands and white sands.
While tree growth forms are expected to dominate where resources are abundant and
competition for light places a premium on vertical height (King, 1990; Koch et al., 2004),
shrubby growth forms tend to dominate where plant strategy shifts towards nutrient/resource
conservation (Coomes, 1997; Lavorel and Garnier, 2002). During community assembly
strong filters in shrubby habitat select species on the basis of their tolerance to increasingly
stressful, low-productivity edaphic conditions, thus assembling species with similar niches
39
(Buckland and Grime, 2000; Fukami et al., 2005; Grime, 2006). This is clearly expressed in
shrubby environments, even upon casual observation, as strong trait convergence in many
phylogenetically distantly related species that tend to demonstrate, amongst other attributes,
low rates of growth, photosynthesis, nutrient absorption, and high concentrations of secondary
metabolites (Coomes and Grubb, 1996; 1998).
Across a range of climates and ecosystems, convergent suites of attributes are found
within edaphically stressed and low-productivity sites, brought about by constraints for
competing functions (Reich et al., 1997). Considering the many edaphic parallels between
high-elevation forest habitat and lowland shrublands, including low mineral nutrition,
phenolic soil toxicity, reduced decomposition, low nitrogen mineralization and waterlogged
soils, it seems reasonable to expect similar filters to impose strong convergent effects on
species traits and, over time, to have selected for several common ecological attributes
(Grubb, 1977; Coomes and Grubb, 1996; Coomes, 1997; Bruijnzeel and Veneklaas, 1998;
Tanner et al., 1998). In shrubby lowland habitat, strong filters have likely operated over
evolutionary time scales to alter the regional pool from where species (and their traits) can be
recruited. We thus interpret the increasing abundance of species from high elevation families
in shrublands, and not forested sites, to be a consequence of evolutionary stasis and habitat
tracking of an ancestral high-elevation niche on a heterogeneous, lowland Amazonian
landscape (e.g., Pillon et al., 2010).
Many previous studies that have tended to highlight strong niche differentiation of
species in edaphically specialized Amazonian habitat types and thus underscore the strong
potential for underlying environmental variability to lead to phenotypic diversification and
speciation (i.e., niche evolution) (Gentry, 1981; 1988; Tuomisto et al., 1998; Fine et al.,
2005). Some of our findings are not inconsistent with this notion, as we find lowland families
- presumably with long-standing adaptations to forested conditions - to form integral
components of shrubby habitat. Many of these are highly specialized, ecological endemics
with clear phenotypic differentiation from con-familial species occupying tall forested
habitats (Fine et al., 2005; 2010). While the capacity for natural selection to lead to
adaptation across strong environmental gradients has certainly shaped modern community
composition of shrubby and edaphically distinct Amazonian habitat types, our analysis
suggests that the strong tendency for species to retain their ancestral niche may be equally
important. That is, the tendency for locally co-existing species in shrubby habitat to
demonstrate more diverse biogeographic relations could be explained by both adaptive shifts
40
of locally derived lowland forest taxa combined with evolutionary conservatism and
exaptation from high Andean (or other) regions.
Based on our data, we cannot distinguish between an alternative hypothesis that may
also explain higher observed biogeographic diversity in shrubby habitat. We found that the
ecological differentiation of species with high Andean or low Amazonian biogeographic
tendencies is broadly expressed along local physiognomic gradients in the lowlands. This
suggests the possibility that the major niche differences responsible for the geographic
separation of Andean and Amazonian floristic components (sensu Gentry) on the modern
geophysical template could be even more ancient than Neogene mountain building, a rather
recent phenomenon relative to the origins of modern neotropical families (Hooghiemstra and
van der Hammen, 1998; van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000). Andean upheaval
during the Neogene was responsible for an explosive period of plant diversification and is
thought to account for half of the modern Neotropical flora. New high-elevation-adapted
species would have arisen from low-elevation ancestors (Gentry, 1982). However, not all
taxonomic groups took part in this evolutionary phenomena, evident in the highly
dichotomous (i.e., Andean vs Amazonian) Neotropical biogeographic pattern. Based on our
findings, it is plausible that long-standing ecological filters in the lowlands could have set the
stage for such a selective dispersal into newly forming Andean habitat, suggesting an
ecological basis for one of the most prominent neotropical floristic patterns on modern
landscapes. To the extent that this scenario is true, the severely small plant richness
characterizing edaphically stressful habitats, such as peatlands and white sands, on modern
lowland landscapes may not be commensurate with their historical contributions to
Neotropical floristic diversity.
Limits of the Data
Our analysis is clearly limited by the specific taxonomic and geographic windows we
have applied to describe biogeographic pattern. Our entire framework rests on the assumption
that the taxonomic groups examined here approximate natural phylogenetic and
morphological divisions that are highly conserved for long periods of evolutionary time
(Sepkoski and Kendrick, 1993). Our examination of biogeographic pattern, limited to the
Andes-Amazon region, obviously does not represent the entire spatial distributions of all
families considered. We thus assume that differences in spatial distributions along a strong
elevational gradient are sufficient to broadly capture important niche differences among
41
families that will, in turn, determine individual species expansion and colonization ability in
the environments they occupy. It is not clear how consideration of other temporal and
geographic scales would alter or reinforce observed patterns. However, in comparably
stressful hydro-edaphic conditions in other Amazonian habitat types, several authors have
noted increasing abundances of taxonomic groups more typical of extra-Amazonian regions –
especially from dry forest and savanna habitat (Prance, 1979; Kubitzki, 1989; Wittmann et al.,
2013) - suggesting that expansion of the geographic window could reveal similar pattern as
that observed here.
Another limitation is that the structural gradients examined here do not encompass the
entire range of forest physiognomies in the Amazon. Few values of tree cover and tree
height, for example, in forested peatlands and white sands reach the stature of terra firme
forests that typically occupy clay or loam substrates in the Amazon. However taller forests on
clayey substrates are well-known to form assemblages comprised of a predictable set of
dominant lowland families (Gentry 1988; Terborgh and Andresen, 1998; Pitman et al., 2001;
Macía and Svenning, 2005; ter Steege et al., 2013) unlikely to yield high values of
biogeographic diversity as examined here. Overall, we expect that truncation of the taller
range of the forest-shrubland gradient would tend to decrease our ability to detect significant
biogeographic structure. This may explain the reduction in explained variance in white sands
where the range of many key structural variables (tree height and cover especially) was low
relative to peatlands. Nevertheless, our results were still statistically robust and we consider
that patterns will only become more apparent with increasing physiognomic variation.
Acknowledgments
The manuscript was developed and written with funding provided to the
corresponding author by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPQ-141727/2011-0). Field work was made possible by funding from CNPQ
(Universal grant no. 475660/2011-0), the Discovery Fund of FortWorth, Texas, the Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation (grant no. 484), the U.S. National Science Foundation (grant no.
0717453), and the Programa de Ciencia y Tecnologia—FINCYT (grant number PIBAP-
2007–005). We thank Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade and the MAUA working group for
providing logistical support. We thank Sy Sohmer, Cleve Lancaster, Pat Harrison, Keri
Barfield, Renan Valega, Jason Wells and Will McClatchey, and the general staff of the
42
Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT) for providing important institutional support
and infrastructure. We thank Fernando Cornejo, Piher Maceda, Javier Huinga and Angel
Balarezo for research assistance in the field. We thank various Peruvian institutions, including
the Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), the Dirección General de Flora y
Fauna Silvestre (DGFFS), the Ministerio de Agricultura (MINAG), and the Ministerio del
Ambiente (MINAM) for research, collection, and export permits during the course of this
project. We also thank the Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade
(ICMBio) for permits, logistical support, and access to conservation areas in Brazil.
Literature Cited Ackerly, D. (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing
environments. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 164(S3), 164–184.
Ackerly, D. (2004) Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: comparative studies of leaf
evolution in the California chaparral. The American Naturalist, 163(5), 654–671.
Antonelli, A. & Sanmartín, I. (2011) Why are there so many plant species in the Neotropics? Taxon,
60(April), 403–414.
Bruijnzeel, L.A. & Veneklaas, E.J. (1998) Climatic Conditions and Tropical Montane Forest
Productivity: The Fog Has Not yet Lifted. Ecology, 79(January), 3–9.
Buckland, S. M. & Grime, J.P. (2000) The Effects of Trophic Structure and Soil Fertility on the
Assembly of Plant Communities: A Microcosm Experiment. Oikos, 91(2), 336–52.
Coomes, D.A. (1997) Nutrient Status of Amazonian Caatinga Forests in a Seasonally Dry Area:
Nutrient Fluxes in Litter Fall and Analyses of Soils. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 839, 831–
39.
Coomes, D. & Grubb, P. (1996) Amazonian Caatinga and Related Communities at La Esmeralda ,
Venezuela: Forest Structure , Physiognomy and Floristics , and Control by Soil Factors. Vegetatio,
122, 167–91.
Coomes, D.A. & Grubb, P.J. (1998) A Comparison of 12 Tree Species of Amazonian Caatinga Using
Growth Rates in Gaps and Understorey, and Allometric Relationships. Functional ecology, 12, 426–
35.
43
Crisp, M.D., Arroyo, M.T.K., Cook, L.G., Gandolfo, M.A., Jordan, G.J., McGlone, M.S., Weston,
P.H., Westoby, M., Wilf, P. & Linder, H.P. (2009) Phylogenetic biome conservatism on a global scale.
Nature, 458(9), 754–6.
Draper, F.C., Roucoux, K.H., Lawson, I.T., Mitchard, E., Honorio Coronado, E.N., Lähteenoja, O.,
Torres Montenegro, L., Valderrama Sandoval, E., Zaráte, R. & Baker, T. (2014) The distribution and
amount of carbon in the largest peatland complex in Amazonia. Environmental Research Letters,
9(12), 124017.
Enquist, B.J., Haskell, J.P. & Tiffney, B.H. (2002) General Patterns of Taxonomic and Biomass
Partitioning in Extant and Fossil Plant Communities. Nature, 419, 1–4.
Fine, P., Daly, D.C., Villa Muñoz, G., Mesones, I. & Cameron, K.M. (2005) The Contribution of
Edaphic Heterogeneity to the Evolution and Diversity of Burseraceae Trees in the Western Amazon.
Evolution, 59(7), 1464–78.
Fine, P. & Ree, R.H. (2006) Evidence for a Time-Integrated Species-Area Effect on the Latitudinal
Gradient in Tree Diversity. The American naturalist 168(6), 796–804.
Fine, P., García-Villacorta, R., Pitman, N.C.A., Mesones, I. & Kembel, S.W. (2010) A Floristic Study
of the White-Sand Forests of Peru. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 97(3), 283–305.
Fukami, T., Bezemer, T., Mortimer, S.R. & Putten, W.H. (2005) Species Divergence and Trait
Convergence in Experimental Plant Community Assembly. Ecology Letters, 8(12), 1283–90.
Gentry, A. (1981) Distributional Patterns and an Additional Species of the Passiflora Vitifolia
Complex: Amazonian Species Diversity due to Edaphically Differentiated Communities. Plant
Systematics and Evolution, 137, 95–105.
Gentry, A.H. (1982) Neotropical floristic diversity: Phytogeographical connections between Central
and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean orogeny? Annals
of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 69(3), 557–593.
Gentry, A. H. (1988) Changes in Plant Community Diversity and Floristic Composition on
Environmental and Geographic Gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 75(1), 1–34.
Grime, J. P. (2006) Trait Convergence and Trait Divergence in Herbaceous Plant Communities:
Mechanisms and Consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science, 17(2), 255.
Grubb, P.J. (1977) Control of Forest Growth and Distribution on Wet Tropical Mountains: With
Special Reference to Mineral Nutrition. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 83–107.
44
Hamilton, S.K., Kellndorfer, J., Lehner, B. & Tobler, M. (2005) Remote Sensing of Floodplain
Geomorphology as a Surrogate for Biodiversity in a Tropical River System (Madre de Dios , Peru ).
Geomorphology 89(1-2), 23-38.
Harrison, S. & Grace, J.B. (2007) Biogeographic Affinity Helps Explain Productivity-Richness
Relationships at Regional and Local Scales. The American naturalist, 170 (Suppl), S5–15.
Hooghiemstra, H. & Van Der Hammen, T. (1998) Neogene and Quaternary Development of the
Neotropical Rain Forest : The Forest Refugia Hypothesis , and a Literature Overview. Earth-Science
Reviews, 147–83.
Hoorn, C., Wesselingh, F.P., ter Steege, H.; (…) Antonelli, A. (2010) Amazonia through Time:
Andean Uplift, Climate Change, Landscape Evolution, and Biodiversity. Science, 330(6006), 927–31.
Householder, J.E., Janovec, J.P., Tobler, M.W., Page, S. & Lähateenoja, O. (2012) Peatlands of the
Madre de Dios River of Peru: Distribution, Geomorphology, and Habitat Diversity. Wetlands, 32(2),
359–368.
Kalliola, R., Puhakka, M., Salo, J., Tuomisto, H. & Ruokolainen, K. (1991) The dynamics, distribution
and classification of swamp vegetation in Peruvian Amazonia. Annales Botanici Fennici, 28(3), 225–
239.
King, D. (1990) The Adaptive Significance of Tree Height. The American naturalist, 135, 809–28.
Klimes, L. (2003) Life-Forms and Clonality of Vascular Plants along an Altitudinal Gradient in E
Ladakh (NW Himalayas). Basic and Applied Ecology, 328,317–28.
Koch, G.W., Sillett, S.C., Jennings, G.M. & Davis, S.D. (2004) The Limits to Tree Height. Nature
428(6985), 851–54.
Körner, C. (2007) The Use of ‘Altitude’ in Ecological Research. Trends in ecology & evolution,
22(11), 569–74.
Kubitzki, K. (1989) The ecogeographical differentiation of Amazonian inundation forests. Plant
Systematics and Evolution, 162, 285–304.
Laliberté, E. & Legendre, P. (2010) A Distance-Based Framework for Measuring Functional Diversity
from Multiple Traits. Ecology, 91(1), 299–305.
Lavorel, S. & Garnier,E. (2002) Predicting Changes in Community Composition and Ecosystem
Functioning from Plant Traits. Functional ecology, 16, 545–56.
45
Lechowicz, M.J. (1984) Why Do Temperatue Deciduous Trees Leaf out at Different Times?
Adaptation and Ecology of Forest Communities. The American Naturalist, 124(6), 821–42.
Lieberman, D., Lieberman, M., Peralta, R. & Hartshorn,G.S. (1996) Tropical Forest Structure and
Composition on a Large- and Composition Structure Tropical Forest in Costa Rica Gradient Scale
Altitudinal Gradient in Costa Rica. Journal of Ecology, 84(2), 137–52.
Luo, T., Luo, J. & Pan, Y. 2005. Leaf Traits and Associated Ecosystem Characteristics across
Subtropical and Timberline Forests in the Gongga Mountains, Eastern Tibetan Plateau.
Oecologia,142(2), 261–73.
Macía, M.J. & Svenning, J.-C. (2005) Oligarchic dominance in western Amazonian plant
communities. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21(06), 613
Moser, G., Hertel, D. & Leuschner, C. 2007. Altitudinal Change in LAI and Stand Leaf Biomass in
Tropical Montane Forests: A Transect Study in Ecuador and a Pan-Tropical Meta-Analysis.
Ecosystems,10(6), 924–35.
Page, S. E., Rieley, J.O. & Banks, C.J. (2011) Global and Regional Importance of the Tropical
Peatland Carbon Pool. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 798–818.
Pärtel, M., Laanisto, L. & Zobel, M. (2007) Contrasting Plant Productivity-Diversity Relationships
across Latitude: The Role of Evolutionary History. Ecology, 88(5), 1091–97.
Pillon, Y., Munzinger, J., Amir, H. & Lebrun, M. (2010) Ultramafic Soils and Species Sorting in the
Flora of New Caledonia. Journal of Ecology, 98(5),1108–16.
Pitman, N.C.A., Terborgh, J.W., Silman, M.R., Nuñez, P., Neill, D.A., Cerón, C.E., Palacios, W.A. &
Aulestia, M. (2001) Dominance and distribution of tree species in upper Amazonian Terra Firme
forests. Ecology 82(8), 2101-2117
Punyasena, S. (2008a) Estimating Neotropical Palaeotemperature and palaeoprecipitation using plant
family climatic optima. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 265, 226-237.
Punyasena, S.W., Eshel, G. & McElwain, J.C. (2008b) The Influence of Climate on the Spatial
Patterning of Neotropical Plant Families. Journal of Biogeography, 35, 117–30.
Prance, G.T. (1979) Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology of Amazonian forest
types subject to inundation. Brittonia, 31(1), 36–38.
46
Reich, P. B., Walters, M.B. & Ellsworth, D.S. (1997) From Tropics to Tundra: Global Convergence in
Plant Functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
94(25), 13730–34.
Ricklefs, R. E. & Latham,R.E. (1992) Intercontinental Correlation of Geographical Ranges Suggests
Stasis in Ecological Traits of Relict Genera of Temperate Perennial Herbs. The American naturalist,
139, 1305–21.
Roy, K., Hunt, G., Jablonski, D., Krug, A.Z. & Valentine, J.W. (2009) A macroevolutionary
perspective on species range limits. Proceedings. Biological sciences of the Royal Society, 276(1661),
1485–93.
Ruokolainen, K., Schulman, L. & Tuomisto, H. (2001) On Amazonian Peatlands. International Mire
Conservation Group Newsletter, 4, 8-10.
Sepkoski, J. & Kendrick, D. (1993) Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and paraphyletic
taxa. PaleoBiology, 19, 168–184.
Stephens, P. R. & Wiens, J.J. (2009) Bridging the Gap between Community Ecology and Historical
Biogeography: Niche Conservatism and Community Structure in Emydid Turtles. Molecular ecology,
18(22), 4664–79.
Stevens, P.F. (2015) Angiosperm Phylogeny Website.
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.
Tanner, E., Vitousek, P.M. & Cuevas,E. (1998) Experimental Investication of Nutrient Limitations of
Forest Growth on Wet Tropical Mountains. Ecology, 79(1), 10–22.
Terborgh, J. & Andresen, E. (1998) The Composition of Amazonian Forests: Patterns at Local and
Regional Scales. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 14(05), 645–64.
Ter Steege, H. & Sabatier, D. 2000. An Analysis of the Floristic Composition and Diversity of
Amazonian Forests Including Those of the Guiana Shield. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 16, 801–28.
Ter Steege, H., Pitman, N., Sabatier, D., Baraloto, C., Salomão, R., Guevara, J., Phillips, O., Castillho,
C., Magnusson, W. (...) Silman, M. 2013. Hyperdominance in the Amazonian Tree Flora, Science,
342, 6156.
Tuomisto, H. & Dalberg Poulsen, A. (1998) Edaphic Distribution of Some Species of the Fern Genus
Adiantum in Western Amazonia. Biotropica, 30, 392–99.
47
Van der Hammen, T. & Hooghiemstra, H. (2000) Neogene and Quaternary History of Vegetation,
Climate, and Plant Diversity in Amazonia. Quaternary Science Reviews 19(8), 725–42.
Wiens, J.J. (2011) The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philosophical transactions of the
Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 366(1576), 2336–50.
Wittmann, F.K., Householder, J.E., Piedade, M.T.F., de Assis, R.L., Schöngart, J., Parolin, P. & Junk,
W. (2013) Habitat specificity, endemism and the neotropical distribution of Amazonian white-water
floodplain trees. Ecography 36(6), 690-707.
Capítulo 3
Householder, J.E.; Wittmann, F.; Tobler, M. & Janovec J,P. 2015. Montane bias in lowland Amazonian peatlands: Plant assembly on heterogeneous landscapes and potential significance to palynological inference. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2015.01.029
49
Montane bias in lowland Amazonian Peatlands: plant assembly on heterogeneous landscapes and potential significance to palynological inference Abstract
Past temperature changes in tropical mountain regions are commonly inferred from vertical elevational shifts of montane indicator taxa in the palynological record. However temperature is one of several abiotic factors driving the low-elevational limits of species and many montane taxa can occur in warmer lowlands by tracking appropriate habitat types, especially highly flooded wetlands. In this paper we explore ways in which lowland habitat heterogeneity might introduce error into paleo-temperature reconstructions, based on field data of seven modern peatland vegetation communities in the southern Peruvian Amazon (~200 masl). Peat-rich substrates are common edaphic transitions in pollen cores and provide detailed records of past vegetation change.
The data show that indicators of modern peatlands include genera with montane as well as lowland distributions, while indicators of surrounding forests on mineral substrates have predominantly lowland distributions. Based on family-level analyses we find that modern peatland vegetation communities have taxonomic compositions appearing to be 389m to 1557m (mean = 1050 ± 391m) above their actual elevations due to a high abundance and number of families with high elevation optima.
We interpret the relatively higher prevalence of montane elements in modern peatlands as habitat tracking of a conserved montane niche in heterogeneous lowland landscapes. We suggest that both high moisture availability and stressful edaphic conditions of peatland habitat may explain the montane bias observed. To the extent that fossilization provides a better record of past vegetation that occurred proximate to the site of deposition, we suggest that habitat tracking of montane elements may introduce a cool bias in lowland paleo-temperature reconstructions based on pollen proxies. Keywords: Amazon Andes; Climate History; Gentry; Montane; Peatland; Wetland Highlights - We examine modern woody vegetation in peatlands within a biogeographic framework - Modern peatland vegetation is a combination of highland and lowland elements - Montane elements are more frequent and abundant in peatlands relative to surrounding
forest types - Habitat variation may introduce cool biases into temperature reconstruction based on
pollen proxies
50
1. Introduction
Climatic interpretation of fossil pollen assemblages along elevational gradients plays a
prominent role in our understanding of neotropical climate change, especially in paleo-
temperature reconstruction (Farrera et al., 1999; Weng et al., 2004). Many taxa tend to reach
their highest diversity and abundance along a limited elevational range as they track
appropriate conditions along mountain slopes. Terrestrial pollen records document the
vertical migration of stenothermic taxa in response to past climate change, so knowledge of
adiabatic lapse rates can be used to convert elevational shifts to temperature change. This
method is standard practice and has been especially important in quantifying past temperature
depression from the down slope migration of neotropical montane elements during
Pleistocene glacial periods (Bush et al., 1990; Colinvaux et al., 1996; Groot et al., 2011).
The contemporary distribution patterns of higher-level taxa (e.g., families and genera)
along mountain slopes are expected to be the result of niche differences across space, however
we know little about specific ecological factors underlying these distribution patterns (Körner,
2007; Wiens 2011). While temperature is often assumed to play a prominent role, this single
variable is likely only one of a variety of abiotic and biotic factors that drive the lower
elevational range limits of montane taxa (Grubb, 1971; Bush, 2004; Körner, 2007; Wiens,
2011). For example, on modern landscapes a number of montane indicator taxa with
characteristic peaks in diversity and abundance in high elevation regions are also represented
in nearby Amazonian lowlands by one to few species, including Hedyosmum
(Chloranthaceae), Panopsis (Proteaceae), Podocarpus (Podocarpaceae), Salix (Salicaceae),
Ternstroemia (Pentaphylaceae), Ilex (Aquifoliaceae), and others (Colinvaux et. al., 2000; Van
der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000; Marchant et al., 2002). While these montane taxa are
exceedingly rare in most lowland forest types, they can become abundant in stressful edaphic
conditions, and especially in highly flooded wetland habitats (Steyermark, 1979; Gentry,
1982; Oliviera-Filho and Ratter, 1995; Marchant et al., 2002). Apparent tracking of many
montane elements to particular lowland habitats suggests that the abiotic and biotic conditions
in which they can successfully disperse and regenerate on lowland landscapes may be
constrained by a highly conserved niche (Ackerly, 2004; Wiens and Donoghue, 2004;
Harrison and Grace, 2007; Pillon et al., 2010; Wiens et al., 2010; Wiens, 2011).
The ecological and evolutionary processes that determine how montane elements are
assembled on modern heterogeneous lowland landscapes may be relevant to palynological
51
inference, and especially paleo-temperature inference, in at least two ways. First, the quality
of paleo-temperature interpretation is dependent upon an adequate understanding of the
drivers of species low-elevational range limits, which are often poorly known (Körner, 2007).
To the extent that montane elements tend to occupy lowland sites that are most suitable to
their conserved phenotypes (Ackerly, 2004; Wiens, 2011), increased understanding of the
ecological conditions in which they occur in the lowlands can reveal insight into factors ̶
other than temperature ̶ that might influence distribution patterns of montane elements
through time. Second, habitat tracking of an ancestral niche on heterogeneous lowland
landscapes can strongly alter the taxonomic composition and biogeographic signatures of
local vegetation communities during community assembly, independent of regional climate
change (Prance, 1979; Kubitzki, 1989; Pyke et al., 2001; Wittmann et al., 2013). Because
vegetation directly occupying fluvial or depositional sites (i.e., wetland vegetation) is known
to contribute disproportionately to pollen sums, the ecological sorting processes operating at
local scales have the potential to influence the biogeographic signature of fossil assemblages
and, in turn, the climate interpretations made from them (Burnham et al., 2001; Berrio et al.,
2002; Marchant et al., 2009). In some cases, alternative interpretations of past climate change
seem to have been fueled by disagreement over the importance of climatic versus local
ecological processes in explaining compositional shifts in fossil pollen assemblages through
time (Colinvaux et al., 2000; Van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000; Punyasena et al.,
2011).
In this study, we develop a biogeographic framework to examine the modern
taxonomic composition of peatland habitat in the southern Peruvian Amazon. Peat-rich
substrates are commonplace in pollen records and have provided detailed accounts of past
vegetation (e.g. Liu & Colinvaux, 1985; Colinvaux et al., 1996). Making use of a publically
available network of woody vegetation inventories established across a wide elevational
gradient we examine the degree to which the taxonomic compositions of woody peatland
communities reflect that which would be expected given their actual elevation.
52
2. Methods 2.1 Study Region
The peatland system considered in this paper is located within the subsiding Beni-
Mamore foreland basin below 250 masl in the Department of Madre de Dios in the Amazon
region of southern Peru (Figure 1). The main drainage tributary is the Madre de Dios River,
an actively meandering white-water river entrenched within alluvial deposits corresponding to
the late Neogene (Campbell et al., 2006). Non-flooded terra firme as well as seasonally
flooded forests dominate the landscape. Satellite imagery combined with ground truthing
revealed more than 250 peatlands occupying a combined area > 290 km2 (Householder et al.,
2012; Janovec et al., 2013) and distributed along a 250-km stretch of the modern meander belt
of the Madre de Dios River from the Andean foothills eastward to the Bolivian border.
Individual peatlands range from <10 to 3500 ha. Mean peat thickness of individual peatlands
range from 0.85 to 3.04 m, however maximum thickness of up to 9 m was registered
(Householder et al., 2012). The peatlands are replenished continuously by ground water, with
above-ground water-level fluctuations typically less than 1 m (Goulding et al., 2007;
Householder et al., 2012). The climate is humid tropical with annual rainfall varying between
approximately 1,200 and 3,300 mm and a strong dry season between August and October
(Foster et al., 1994).
53
Figure 1. The 250-km stretch of the main drainage tributary of the southern Peruvian Amazon where focal peatlands (black) are located. Sampled peatlands are outlined. Peatland names (from west to east; Table 3) are COLO, CICRA, HUIT 1, HUIT2, LAGA, MERC, and BOLI. The inset map shows the location of the 76 plots obtained from the Gentry transect data in relation to the peatland study area. Black and gray triangles represent Gentry sites at elevations greater than and less than 1000 masl, respectively. The shaded area corresponds to the Chocó region included in the supporting analysis (See section 4.1.1).
2.2 Vegetation Sampling
Peatland vegetation was sampled in seven of the largest permanently saturated
peatlands distributed along a 250-km east-west gradient, each accessed through 1-4 km
transects that in most cases traversed the entire peatland. Each transect was oriented to cross
individual peatlands in the direction parallel with the main axis of habitat variation as judged
by changes in pixel values exhibited by multispectral Landsat TM imagery configured to
bands 3, 4, and 5. Spectral differences reflect changes and transitions in vegetation structure
ranging from mixed palm swamp forest to open boggy grasslands with stunted woody plants
(Householder et al., 2012; Janovec et al., 2013).
54
Quantitative vegetation inventory was carried out in nested plots distributed at 100-m
intervals along each transect. A total of 148 plots were installed in the seven peatlands
studied, with 18-30 plots sampled in each. Trees and shrubs were sampled in nested 10 x 10-
m and 5 x 5-m square plots respectively, where trees are defined as woody plants with DBH
≧ 10cm and shrubs broadly defined as woody plants with DBH <10 cm and >1 m in height.
To calculate abundance, we counted the number of stems of each species in each nested plot.
Voucher specimens were collected for all species and deposited in the herbaria of the
Botanical Research Institute of Texas (BRIT), the La Molina University Forestry Herbarium
(MOL), and the San Marcos Museum of Natural History (USM). All metadata and annotation
history, as well as associated images from the field and herbarium are openly available
through the Digital Herbarium of the Andes-Amazon Atrium Biodiversity Information
System (http://atrium.andesamazon.org/index.php) under the project entitled "Aguajal
Project".
Data of vegetation on non-peat substrates was obtained from an extensive vegetation
plot network compiled by Alwyn Gentry and maintained by the Missouri Botanical Garden
(Phillips and Miller, 2002). The Gentry transect data are unique because they are based on a
standard sampling method used across an extensive geographic area and a diversity of
habitats. Over the last two decades, the data have been used in a number of plant
macroecological studies (e.g., Enquist and Niklas, 2001; Enquist et al., 2002; Punyasena
2008a). Gentry inventory data were collected in 0.1-ha plots consisting of 10 contiguous 2 x
50-m linear subplots where all woody individuals ≧ 2.5 cm DBH were recorded, along with
the occasional individuals with DBH down to 1 cm. Sequential subplots were placed end to
end and oriented in random directions. We extracted data only from sampling sites located in
the Andes-Amazon region (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela) with elevations
ranging from 10 to 3200 masl. A total of 76 sites met our criteria, with 31 located above
1000 m, and 38 lowland sites below 500 m (Appendix C). Lowland samples were undertaken
in wetland (n=8) and terra firme (n=30) habitats. Sites on the margins of our region of
interest corresponding to Bolivian savanna and dry forest were excluded as seasonal drought
is expected to drive floristic differences there. Sites on the Pacific slope were also excluded.
The accuracy of species names provided in the dataset was assessed by cross-referencing
voucher specimen numbers provided in the original dataset with current determinations of
collections stored at the Missouri Botanical Garden and accessible through the Tropicos
database (http://www.tropicos.org).
55
Plant nomenclature of both Gentry and peatland plot data was standardized to
Tropicos and analyzed at the taxonomic rank of family. For the peatland data, tree and shrub
subplots were merged by calculating the sum of family abundances in each peatland. A
matrix of relative abundances was calculated initially, but we were concerned with potential
biases in abundance estimates caused by a nested plot design and differences in minimum size
criteria in the peatland and Gentry inventories (see Table 1 for a summary of important
methodological differences). To account for this, presence/absence matrices were constructed
for comparison.
Table 1. Summary of the primary methodological differences between the Gentry plot data used to model distribution patterns of families along the elevation gradient and the peatland plots.
2.3 Development of the Biogeographic Framework
Using the Gentry transect data, we modeled the biogeographic pattern of individual
families along the elevation gradient using two parameters, their elevation optima (abundance
weighted mean elevations), and their weighted standard deviation of elevation (a measure of
elevational range). Previous assessments of the Gentry transect data have demonstrated
strong taxonomic structure along the elevation gradient, presumably driven by strong abiotic
gradients that sort species according to highly conserved ecological niches (Gentry 1982;
Enquist et al., 2002; Punyasena 2008b). We thus assume that such a straightforward
Methodology Gentry Peatland
Minimum inclusion criteria Dbh < 2.5cm Height < 1m
Plot size 100m2 100m2 (trees) + 25m2 (shrubs)
Plot arrangement
Continuous lines oriented in random
directions
Discontinuous plots along main
environmental gradient
Plot shape Linear Square
Plots per site 10 18-30
Total sites 76 7
56
assessment of family-level elevational distribution provides a coarse metric by which to
compare biogeographic patterns of taxonomic groups, as well as providing a useful predictor
of differences in the ecological response of species (Ackerly, 2003; Harrison and Grace, 2007;
Punyasena, 2008b).
2.4 Community Analysis
We used community-weighted averages of family elevation optima to quantify
biogeographic tendencies of peatland vegetation assemblies. Thus, peatlands that possess an
abundance of taxa with high elevation optima will have higher community-weighted
averages. This approach provides a practical and intuitive metric, expressed as an expected
elevation, by which to examine community structure within a biogeographic framework. We
used the difference between expected elevations based on community-weighted means and
observed site elevations to evaluate the degree to which the taxonomic compositions of
peatlands differed from what would be expected given their observed elevations.
A specially designed cross-validation procedure was developed to test the specific
hypothesis that individual peatlands possess a taxonomic composition statistically different
from what would be expected given their actual elevation. Specifically, the Gentry data were
repeatedly partitioned into validation and training sets, where individual validation sites were
sub-sampled with probability of 0.1 drawn from a random binomial distribution. Newly
derived family elevation optima developed with the remaining training sites were used to
calculate community-weighted averages of validation sites. A probability distribution of
calculated differences between observed and expected elevations was generated through 1000
iterations and used to calculate p values.
One inherent issue of the weighted-averaging approach is a potential contraction in the
range of calculated expected elevations as a result of double averaging (of both families and
communities). To account for this, we examined two (inverse and classical) deshrinking
correction factors, as suggested by ter Braak and van Dam (1989). We also examined the
potential undue influence of families with patchy or very wide elevation ranges by
alternatively down-weighting families by their weighted standard deviation. These variants of
community-weighted elevation optima were modeled as a function of observed site elevations
using standard linear regression. A cross-validation procedure was used to estimate
regression model errors of both simple and down-weighted community means by iteratively
removing 10 random sites from the training set. A randomization procedure (van der Voet,
57
1994) was used to assess the difference in root mean square errors and we chose the
correction factor that best reproduced observed site elevations. Model construction and
evaluation was performed in R version 3.0.2 (R Core Team, 2013) using the package rioja
(Juggins, 2012).
2.5 Analysis of Indicator Taxa
An additional analysis examined the degree of habitat specificity of genera in peat vs.
mineral substrates in the lowlands. Information about forest types and substrates of Gentry
transects were extracted from voucher specimens. All Gentry transects within a 400-km
radius of the peatlands and below 700 m elevation were included. The merged data included
14 sites, seven from each of the Gentry and peatland datasets. Indicator values, measured as
the product of the relative frequency and relative average abundance in peat vs. non-peat
substrate groups, were calculated for each genus using the R package labdsv (Roberts, 2010)
and following the methods of Dufrene and Legendre (1997). Elevational distribution ranges
of 20 genera with the highest significant indicator values for each substrate class were
assessed by comparing herbarium collection records in the online database of the Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; http://www.gbif.org). Records were filtered to
include only South American specimens deposited in the Missouri Botanical Garden, and
those with obvious georeference errors were excluded.
3. Results
We found that after applying a deshrinking correction factor, community-weighted
averages of family elevation optima, hereafter referred to as expected elevations, closely
predicted observed site elevations of the Gentry transect (Table 2). Down-weighting by
family elevational ranges tended to decrease explained variance and increase the root mean
square error, suggesting that even widely distributed taxa are likely to have clear abundance
patterns along the elevational gradient. Models based on family abundances tended to
outperform those based on presence-absence data. Inverse deshrinking resulted in slightly
lower root mean square errors and a slightly higher proportion of explained variance,
independent of whether the abundance or presence/absence matrix was used, so this
deshrinking correction method was used throughout (Table 2).
58
Table 2. Comparison of community-weighted average regression models of expected and actual elevations of the Gentry transect data. Root mean square error (RMSE) and explained variance (r2) are presented for relative abundance or presence/absence matrices using inverse (I) or classical (C) deshrinking (D/S) and with or without tolerance down weighting.
Differences between expected and observed elevations ranged from 389 to 1557 m
(mean ± sd = 1050 m ± 391) for the abundance matrix and 313 to 906 m (mean ± sd = 693 m
± 240) for the presence/absence matrix (Fig. 2 and Table 3). The cross-validation procedure
showed that in most cases these differences were significantly higher (Table 3). Details about
all families, including their elevational optima and number of stems in peatlands, are detailed
in Appendix D.
Matrix Downweight D/S RMSE r2
Relative Abundance
No I 228.1 0.95 C 234.5 0.95
Yes I 244.6 0.94 C 252.5 0.94
Presence / Absence
No I 254.3 0.93 C 263.2 0.93
Yes I 277.8 0.92 C 289.5 0.92
59
Figure 2. Scatter plot of actual and expected elevations for 76 training sites (open circles) obtained from the Gentry transect data and seven peatland test sites (solid circles). Expected elevations are based on abundance-weighted averages of family-level elevational optima after deshrinking (See section 2.4). Scatter plots based on family presence/absence data show qualitatively similar patterns. Based on a cross-validation procedure used to obtain p values, peatlands appear to occur at significantly higher elevations due to a greater abundance and number of families with higher elevation optima (Table 3).
A total of 371 woody genera were found on either or both organic peat and mineral
substrate classes in the 14 lowland sites. Of these, 272 (73%) were restricted to a single
substrate type. Eighty genera occurred in peatlands, 61% of which did not occur on mineral
substrates and 291 genera occurred on mineral substrates, 77% of which did not occur on peat
substrates. According to the indicator analysis, 20% of the 371 genera were significant
indicators of one of the two substrate types. Thirty percent (n= 24) of the genera present on
peat were significant indicators of peat (p < 0.01) and 18% (52) of genera occurring on
60
mineral substrates were significant indicators of that substrate. Over 118,000 unique
herbarium collection records were accessed through the GBIF website to explore the
elevational distribution of all indicator genera. Indicator genera of forests on mineral
substrates are mostly restricted to low elevations. In contrast, indicator genera of peat
substrates exhibit montane, lowland, and widespread elevational distributions (Fig 3).
Table 3. Differences between expected and actual elevations of each peatland where quantitative inventories were performed. Expected elevations are based on abundance-weighted and presence-absence averages of family-level elevation optima after deshrinking (See section 2.4). Expected elevations exceed actual elevation in all cases. Significance is based on an iterative cross-validation procedure (see section 2.4).
4. Discussion
The biogeographic distributions of plants are closely linked to physiological responses
to climate, which are often highly conserved within lineages. The high explanatory power of
the regression model tested in this study confirms this to the extent that family-level
composition of modern vegetation varied predictably along the elevational gradient.
However, due to increased frequency and abundance of families with preference for high
elevation habitats modern lowland Amazonian peatland assemblies demonstrated expected
elevations of 313 to 1557 m above actual elevations, significantly higher relative to non-peat
habitat types. The consistently high elevations predicted for peatlands based on both
Matrix
Abundance Presence/Absence
Peatland Prediction error (m) Significance Prediction
error (m) Significance
BOLI 389 0.06 313 0.09 CICRA 1557 <0.001 868 <0.001 COLO 761 <0.001 517 0.031 HUIT1 930 <0.001 512 0.053 HUIT2 1301 <0.001 831 0.012 LAGA 1290 <0.001 903 <0.001 MERC 1124 <0.001 906 0.003
61
abundance and presence/absence data demonstrate that rather than rare exceptions, montane
elements are abundant and taxonomically diverse in lowland peats, relative to surrounding
forests.
Figure 3. Elevational distributions of 40 indicator genera on peat and mineral substrates. Box plot hinges extend only to the first and third quartiles the median is indicated by a darkened band. Within respective substrate types taxa are ordered by their mean elevation. The dashed vertical line at 658 m marks the mean of average elevations of all genera.
62
The results are further supported by a local comparative analysis of peatland
composition and the surrounding forests, which demonstrated that floras on peat substrates
are a mixture of both montane and lowland indicator taxa. In addition to the mid-high
elevation forest genera identified by the indicator analysis (Cestrum, Cybianthus,
Graffenriedia Hedyosmum, Ilex, Myrcia and Nectandra), other montane elements are also
common in peatlands, such as Begonia (Begoniaceae), Centropogon (Campanulaceae),
Coccosypselum (Rubiaceae), Cyathea (Cyatheaceae), Isoetes (Isoetaceae), Myrsine
(Primulaceae), Polypodium (Polypodiaceae) and Talauma (Magnoliaceae). However they
were either not within the top 20 indicators, occurred at reduced frequency, or did not meet
minimum size criteria. Nonetheless, the data show that montane taxa represent an important
component of peatland vegetation, a pattern we refer to as "montane bias.”
4.1 Palynological Relevance
Interpretation of down slope migration apparent from the palynological record must
ultimately be framed within our understanding of the drivers of species low-elevational range
limits. While these remain poorly understood for most species they are widely expected to
include a combination of factors that are abiotic (e.g., temperature and moisture) and biotic
(e.g., competition, predation, parasitism, dispersal) (Körner, 2007; Wiens, 2011). During
paleo-temperature reconstruction it is often assumed that temperature change outweighs other
potentially important drivers, even though alternative hypotheses can often not be fully
rejected (Van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000; Bush et al., 2004; Punyasena et al.,
2011). We propose that examination of the conditions in which montane taxa occupy modern
lowland landscapes can reveal insight into the factors – other than temperature- that might
influence their low-elevation limits. Our arguments are based on the premise that
biogeographic patterns result from the tendency for species to retain their ancestral niche that,
in turn will determine the ability of species to expand and colonize in changing environments
(Ackerly, 2004; Wiens and Graham, 2005; Harrison and Grace, 2007; Wiens, 2011). While it
is plausible that individual species within higher taxa can behave idiosyncratically, rendering
family membership a poor predictor of ecological behavior (Silvertown et al., 2001) our
results suggest otherwise. The tendency for montane taxa to prefer particular lowland habitat
types seems best interpreted as habitat tracking of an ancestral, montane niche on a
heterogeneous lowland landscape. Below we suggest that high moisture availability and
stressful edaphic conditions characterizing peatlands may be important factors contributing to
the observed montane bias.
63
4.1.1 Moisture availability
The montane bias in modern lowland peatlands, characterized by year-round soil
moisture, suggests moisture availability to be a critical factor influencing the current lowland
distributions of montane taxa. For example, the distribution of the majority of extant species
of Hedyosmum in cool, moist habitat of mid-high elevation Andean forests is expected to be a
consequence of constraints induced by poor stem wood hydraulic capacity and susceptibility
to drought cavitation (Antonelli and Sanmartín, 2011). Where it occurs in hot and highly
seasonal lowland regions it is invariably limited to moist microsites, such as permanently
saturated peats (this study), waterlogged sands, and riparian habitats (Todzia, 1988). Thus,
our findings are consistent with the idea that the distribution of montane forests and their taxa
are highly sensitive to changes in plant water-energy balance (Bruinjzeel and Veneklaas,
1998).
Because both ambient temperature and available moisture interact to define plant
water-energy balance, downhill distributional shifts of plant species apparent from the pollen
record may not be adequately explained by considering reductions in past temperature in
isolation (Bush et al., 2004). Increases in available moisture that limit the duration and
severity of drought conditions during key seasonal and plant developmental phases may
contribute to lower elevation limits of montane taxa. Downhill niche tracking of a suitable
water-energy balance either as a result of regional increases in precipitation ̶ as suggested for
glacial western Amazonia (Cheng et al., 2013) ̶ or moist microsite conditions might be
challenging to distinguish from a pure temperature response (Bush et al., 2004).
We used the Gentry transect data to further test the idea that moisture availability can
significantly influence the lower-elevation limits of montane taxa. Using the same cross-
validation procedure described in section 2.4, we examined model prediction errors of data
from 12 Gentry transect sites located in the Chocó, a lowland region distributed from southern
Panama to northern Ecuador (Fig. 1). The region was separated from the Amazon basin due
to the uplift of the Eastern Cordillera of the Andes Mountains (Behling et al., 1998; Hoorn et
al., 2010). Annual precipitation exceeds 4000 mm/yr and typically reaches >7500 mm near
the foothills of the Pacific slopes of the Andes. Even during the driest months droughts
persisting longer than one week are extremely rare (West, 1957). The mean annual
temperature is about 26–27°C, with a minimal 1°C difference between the coldest and the
warmest months (Snow, 1976). If increased moisture availability influences the ability of
64
montane plant taxa to persist at lower elevational limits, then we might expect these to have
lower distributions on rainy western Pacific slopes relative to Amazonian slopes. Indeed,
expected elevations based on abundance-weighted community averages of family elevation
optima were significantly higher than expected for 10 out of 12 Chocó sites (p <0.05 as the
critical value). Differences between actual and expected elevations ranged from -217 m to
+695 m with a mean (± sd) of 445 m (± 234 s.d.). The higher expected elevations for the
Pacific slope lowland sites are the result of the presence of several plant taxa that are mostly
restricted to higher montane forests on the Amazonian side. Using presence/absence data,
only four of 12 plots had significantly higher expected elevations. Differences between
expected and actual elevations ranged from -384 m to +525 m with a mean (± sd) of 325 m
(±268 s.d.). While we cannot eliminate the possibility that other ecological and historical
factors are driving the patterns observed for the Chocó, this preliminary analysis corroborates
previous botanical observation of the tendency for montane elements to exhibit lower
elevational limits in this pluvial region and for moisture availability to influence the lower-
elevation limits of plant taxa (Gentry, 1982; Van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 2000;
Hooghiemstra et al., 2012). Comparing results of pluvial Chocó sites to peatland sites, we see
that while both tend to demonstrate higher expected elevations using family abundance data,
proportionally fewer Chocó sites show significantly higher (p <0.05) elevations using
presence/absence data. Thus, peatlands are distinguished by their high diversity of montane
taxa that are distributed among a greater number of families, at least on the spatial scale of
small plots considered here. These results further highlight the important contribution of
montane elements to this lowland habitat type.
4.1.2 Edaphic Associations
While temperature is largely expected to determine the physiological limits of the
upper elevational ranges of plant species, their lower distributional limits are expected to be
determined primarily by competition rather than by excessively high temperature (Grubb,
1971; 1977; Coomes and Allen, 2007; Prior and Bowman, 2014). Peatlands in the
Amazonian lowlands are structurally and edaphically characterized by short-statured
canopies, decreased productivity, extremely acidic soils, saturated substrates, limited fertility,
phenolic soil toxicity, and reduced decomposition and nitrogen mineralization (Waughman,
1980; Runge, 1983; Page et al., 1999; Läteenoja et al., 2009; Householder et al., 2012).
Interestingly, these hydrologically induced edaphic conditions are quite similar to the climate-
driven edaphic conditions characteristic of montane sites (Grubb, 1977; Edwards, 1982;
65
Bruijnzeel and Veneklaas, 1998; Tanner, 1998; Unger et al., 2010). Confronting potentially
similar limitations to growth and survival along increasingly stressful ranges of elevation and
hydrological gradients, it is not unreasonable to expect convergent effects on species traits
(Chapin et al., 1993; Reich et al., 1997). Montane elements in modern lowlands are likely to
be better competitors in edaphically extreme lowland habitats than in a tall, productive, and
diverse terra firme forest matrix. By altering resource bioavailability, predation and
parasitism in such ways that favor montane species, edaphic transitions on heterogeneous
lowland landscapes can shift competitive dynamics at range boundaries and potentially
significantly decrease the lower limits of montane distributions (Jaeger, 1971; Breirs, 2003;
Gaston, 2003; Parmesan, 2006; Holt and Barfield, 2009).
With this in mind, to the extent that montane elements invaded past lowland
environments, their migrations may have been largely accommodated by marginal, highly
flooded, stressful, and patchily distributed habitat types. Indeed, by expanding the geographic
window it is clear that many important montane indicator taxa (e.g., Alnus, Betula, Ericaceae
and Weinmannia) are better known as bog and fen wetland indicators in their native temperate
zones (USDA NRCS, 2013). As the ecological distributions of montane taxa become
increasingly constrained to specialized edaphic conditions towards the limits of their lower
elevation ranges, immigration and extinction processes are likely to be more variable.
Variation in species propagule dispersal, metapopulation dynamics, and the spatial
configuration of appropriate habitats in past landscapes may be important in explaining the
extent of past downslope plant migration (Leibold et al., 2004).
4.1.3 Pollen Proxies on Heterogeneous Amazonian Landscapes
Estimates of glacial phase neotropical temperature depression using fossil pollen
proxies vary greatly, ranging from ~5°C to 9°C relative to modern (Farrera et al., 1999; Bush
et al., 2004a; Ballantyne et al., 2005). While such wide variability poses problems for
elucidating a more accurate vision of past climate, we suspect that it is consistent with high
neotropical habitat heterogeneity. For example, we have argued that in modern lowland
landscapes habitat tracking of a montane niche can lead to local vegetation communities on
particular hydro-edaphic conditions to possess a higher abundance and diversity of montane
elements relative to surrounding forest types. Using an adiabatic lapse rate of 6.5°C/km, the
modern flora occupying peat substrates possesses a biogeographic signature resembling
forests that are, on average, 2.1 - 2.3 °C cooler based on the mean differences between
66
observed and expected elevations of presence-absence and abundance models respectively.
While clearly not reflecting modern paleoecological methods ̶ pollen sums reflect both local
vegetation as well as that derived from surrounding uplands ̶ it does show a strong effect of
habitat heterogeneity on the biogeographic composition of local plant communities.
However, because fossilization can leave a better record of certain habitat types than others, a
cool bias in lowland paleotemperature estimates may be more prevalent than appreciated to
date. Assuming a montane bias in similar neotropical environments in the past, our data
establish the possibility ̶ at least under depositional conditions characterized by the
accumulation of peat ̶ that pollen assemblages in Amazonian lowlands can potentially appear
to be more "montane", and thus cooler, independent of plant response to temperature. In this
sense our interpretations are consistent with other findings that have suggested habitat-related
errors in estimating past temperatures from plant macrofossils. For example, in lowland
Ecuadorean Amazon, Burnham et al. (2001) demonstrated that traits analysis of woody plants
growing around lakes and rivers leads to an underestimation of mean annual temperatures by
2.5°C - 5°C due to the high proportion of toothed leaves in these flooded habitats.
The ecological processes that sort montane elements on heterogeneous lowland
landscapes may point towards a potential cool bias of pollen proxies in reconstructing past
temperature in the Neotropics. Indeed, reviews of pollen-based proxies of glacial tropical
South America tend to show greater minimum (cooler) temperature depressions relative to
both non-pollen proxies (e.g., Stute et al., 1995) and other tropical regions (Farrera et al.,
1999; Ballantyne, 2005). While explanations of these patterns may be revealed by a refined
understanding of how climate works, efforts to improve our understanding of how tropical
ecosystems and their biota uniquely evolve and interact along local gradients may be
informative as well.
5. Acknowledgments
The manuscript was developed and written with funding provided to the
corresponding author by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e
Tecnológico (CNPQ-process number 141727/2011-0). We thank the Max Planck Institute for
Chemistry and Maria Teresa Fernandez Piedade for providing a productive, hospitable work
environment. Field research was made possible by funding from the Discovery Fund of Fort
Worth, Texas, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grant no. 484), the U.S. National
67
Science Foundation (grant no. 0717453), and the Programa de Ciencia y Tecnologia—
FINCYT (co- financed by the Banco Internacional de Desarollo, BID) grant number PIBAP-
2007–005. We thank Sy Sohmer, Cleve Lancaster, Pat Harrison, Will McClatchey, the board
of directors, administration, development, and general staff of the Botanical Research Institute
of Texas (BRIT) for providing important institutional support and infrastructure over the
years. We are grateful to Jason Wells, Amanda Neill, Keri Barfield, and Renan Valega for
logistical support, assistance, and discussion during various phases of this research. We also
thank Fernando Cornejo, Piher Maceda, Javier Huinga, Angel Balarezo, and Fausto Espinoza
for assisting in different phases of field research. Finally, we appreciate various institutions
for ongoing research, collection, and export permits during the course of this project,
including the former Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA), the Dirección
General de Flora y Fauna Silvestre (DGFFS), the Ministerio de Agricultura (MINAG), and
the Ministerio del Ambiente (MINAM).
6. References
Ackerly D (2003) Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in changing
environments. International Journal of Plant Sciences 164: 164-184.
Ackerly D (2004) Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: comparative studies of leaf
evolution in the California Chaparral. The American Naturalist 163: 654-671
Antonelli A & I Sanmartín (2011) Mass extinction, gradual cooling, or rapid radiation?
Reconstructing the spatiotemporal evolution of the ancient angiosperm genus Hedyosmum
(Chloranthaceae) using empirical and simulated approaches. Systematic biology 60: 596-615.
Ballantyne A, M Lavine, T Crowley, J Liu & P Baker (2005) Meta-analysis of tropical surface
temperatures during the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical Research Letters 32: L05712
Behling H, H Hooghiemstra & A Negret (1998) Holocene history of the Chocó rain forest from
Laguna Piusbi, Southern Pacific lowlands of Colombia. Quaternary Research 50: 300-308
Berrio J, H Hooghiemstra, H Behling, P Botero & K Van der Borg (2002) Late-Quaternary savanna
history of the Colombian Llanos Orientales from Lagunas Chenevo and Mozambique: a transect
synthesis. The Holocene 12: 35-48.
68
Briers R (2003) Range limits and parasite prevalence in a freshwater snail. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B 270: 178-180.
Bruijnzeel L & J Veneklas (1998) Climatic conditions and tropical montane forest productivity:
the fog has not yet lifted. Ecology 79: 3-9.
Bush M, P Colinvaux, M Wiemann, D Piperno & K Liu (1990) Late Pleistocene Temperature
Depression and Vegetation Change in Ecuadorian Amazonia. Quaternary Research 345: 330-345.
Bush M, M Silman & D Urego (2004) 48,000 years of climate and forest change in a biodiversity
hot spot. Science 303: 827-829.
Campbell K, C Frailey & L Romero-Pittman (2006) The pan-Amazonian Ucayali peneplain: late
Neogene sedimentation in Amazonia and the birth of the modern Amazon river system.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 239: 166-219.
Chapin F, K Autumn, F Pugnaire (1993) Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental
stress. The American Naturalist 142: S78-S92
Cheng H, A Sinha, F Cruz, X Wang, RL Edwards, F d´Horta, C Ribas, M Vuile, L Stott & A Auler
(2013) Climate change patterns in Amazonia and biodiversity. Nature communications 4: 1411
Colinvaux P, P de Oliveira, J Moreno, M Miller & M Bush (1996) A long pollen record from
lowland Amazonia: forest cooling in glacial time. Science 274: 85-88.
Colinvaux P, PE De Oliveira, MB Bush (2000) Amazonian and neotropical plant communities on
glacial time-scales: The failure of the aridity and refuge hypotheses. Quaternary Science Reviews
19: 141-169.
Coomes D & R Allen (2007) Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. Journal of
Ecology 95: 1084-1097
Dufrene M & P Legendre (1997). Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a
flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs 67:345-366.
Edwards P (1982) Studies of mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea: Rates of
cycling in throughfall and litterfall. The Journal of Ecology 70: 807-827.
Enquist B & K Niklas (2001) Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities.
Nature 410: 655-660.
69
Enquist B, J Haskell & B Tiffney (2002) General patterns of taxonomic and biomass partitioning
in extant and fossil plant communities. Nature 419: 610-613
Farrera I, S Harrison, I Prentice, G Ramstein, J Guiot, P Bartlein, R Bonnefille, M Bush, W Cramer,
U von Grafenstein, K Holmgren, H Hooghiemstra, G Hope, D Jolly, S Lauritzen, Y Ono, S Pinot, M
Stute & G Yu (1999) Tropical climates at the Last Glacial Maximum: a new synthesis of terrestiral
palaeoclimate data. I. Vegetation, lake-levels and geochemistry. Climate Dynamics 15: 823-856.
Foster R, T Parker, A Gentry, L Emmons, A Chiccon, T Schulenberg, L Rodriguez, G Lamas, H
Ortega, J Icochea, W Wust, M Romo, J Alban Castillo, O Phillips, C Reynel, A Kratter, P Donahue &
L Barkley (1994) The Tambopata-Candamo-Rio Heath Region of Southeastern Peru: A Biological
Assessment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL 184 pp.
Gaston K (2003) The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gentry, A (1982) Neotropical floristic diversity: phytogeographical connections between Central
and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations, or an accident of Andean orogeny. Annals
of the Missouri Botanical Garden 69: 557-593
Goulding M & N Smith (2007) Palmeras: Centinelas para la conservación de la Amazonía: Lima,
Peru, Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica (ACCA), 356 p.
Groot M, R Bogotá, L Lourens, H Hooghiemstra, M Vriend, J Berrio, E Tuenter, J Van der Plicht, B
Van Geel, M Ziegler, S Weber,, A Betancourt, L Contreras, S Gavíria, C Giraldo, N González, J
Jansen, M Konert, D Ortega, O Rangel, G Sarmiento, J Vandenberghe, T Van der Hammen, M Van
der Linden and W Westerhoff (2011) Ultra-high resolution pollen Record from the northern
Andes reveals rapid shifts in montane climates within the last two glacial cycles. Climate of the
Past 7: 299-316
Grubb P (1971) Interpretation of the 'Massenerhebung' effect on tropical mountains. Nature
229: 44-45.
Grubb P (1977) Control of forest growth and distribution on wet tropical mountains: with
special reference to mineral nutrition. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8:83-107.
Harrison S & J Grace (2007) Biogeographic affinity helps explain productivity-richness
relationships at regional and local scales. The American Naturalist 170: S5-S15.
Holt R & M Barfield (2009) Trophic interactions and range limits: the diverse roles of predation.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276:1435-1442.
70
Hooghiemstra H, J Berrio, M Groot, R Bogotá, M Moscol-Olivera & Z González-Carranza (2012)
The dynamic history of the upper forest line ecotone in the northern Andes. In: Randall, RW
(editor), Ecotones between Forest and Grassland, pp 229-246, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-3797-
0_10. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London. ISBN 978-1-
4614-3796-3 (printed book), ISBN 978-1-4614-3797-0 (eBook), DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-
3797-0.
Hoorn C, P Wesselingh, H ter Steege, M Bermudez, A Mora, J Sevink, I Sanmartín, A Sanchez-
Meseguer, C Anderson, J Figueiredo, C Jaramillo, D Riff, F Negri, H Hooghiemstra, J Lundberg, T
Stadler, T Särkinen & A Antonelli (2010) Amazonia through time: Andean uplift, climate change,
landscape evolution, and biodiversity. Science 330: 927-931
Householder J, J Janovec, M Tobler, O Lähteenoja & S Page (2012) Peatlands of the Madre de Dios
River of Peru: Distribution, geomorphology and habitat diversity. Wetlands 32: 359-368.
Jaeger R (1971) Competitive exclusion as a factor influencing the distributions of two species of
terrestrial salamanders. Ecology 52: 632-637.
Janovec JP, JE Householder, M Tobler, et al. 2013. Evaluación de los Actuales Impactos y
Amenazas Inminentes en Aguajales y Cochas de Madre De Dios, Perú. 244 páginas, 180 color
image and map figures. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Lima, Peru.
http://peru.panda.org/?217330/minamywwfpresentanimportanteestudiosobrelasituaciondelo
shumedalesdemadrededios.
Juggins S (2012) rioja: Analysis of Quaternary Science Data, R package version 0.7-3.
(http://cran.r-project.org/package=rioja).
Körner C (2007) The use of 'altitude' in ecological research. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22:
569-574.
Kubitzki K (1989) The ecogeographical differentiation of Amazonian inundation forests. Plant
Systematics and Evolution 162: 285-304.
Lähteenoja O, K Ruokolainen, L Schulman & J Alvarez (2009). Amazonian floodplains harbour
minerotrophic and ombrotrophic peatlands. Catena 79: 140-145.
Leibold M, M Holyoak, N Mouquet, P Amarasekare, J Chase, M Hoopes, R Holt, J Shurin, R Law, D
Tilman, M Loreau & A Gonzalez (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-
scale community ecology. Ecology Letters 7: 601-613.
71
Liu K & P Colinvaux (1985) Forest changes in the Amazon basin during the last glacial maximum.
Nature 318: 556-557.
Marchant R, L Almeida, H Behling, J Berrio, M Bush, A Cleef, J Duivenvoorden, M Kappelle, P de
Oliveira, A Texeira de Oliveira Filho, S Lozano-García, H Hooghiemstra, M Ledru, B Ludlow-
Wiechers, V Markgraf, V Mancini, M Paez, A Prieto, O Rangel & M Salgado-Labouriau (2002)
Distribution and ecology of parent taxa of pollen lodged within the Latin American Pollen
Database. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 121: 1-75.
Marchant R, S Harrison, H Hooghiemstra, V Markgraf, J van Boxel, T Ager, L Almeida, R Anderson,
C Baied, H Behling, J Berrio, R Burbridge, S Björk, R Byrne, M Bush, A Cleef, J Duivenvoorden, J
Flenley, P de Oliveira, B van Geel, K Graf, W Gosling, S Harbele, T van der Hammen, B Hansen, S
Horn, G Islebe, P Kuhry, M Ledru, F Mayle, B Leyden, S Lozano-García, A Melief, P Moreno, N
Moar, A Prieto, G van Reenen, M Salgado-Labouriau, F Schäbitz, E Schreve-Brinkman & M Wille
(2009) Pollen-based biome reconstrunctions for Latin America at 0, 6000 and 18000
radiocarbon years. Climate of the Past 5: 369-461.
Oliveira-Filho A & J Ratter (1995) A study of the origin of central Brazilian forests by the analysis
of plant species distribution patterns. Edinburgh Journal of Botany 52: 141-194.
Page S, J Rieley, O Shotyk & D Weiss (1999) Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a tropical
peat swamp. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 354: 1885-1897.
Parmesan C (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 37: 637-669.
Pillon Y, J Munzinger, H Amir & M Lebrun (2010) Ultramafic soils and species sorting in the flora
of New Caledonia. Journal of Ecology 98: 1108-1116.
Phillips O & J Miller (2002) Global Patterns of Plant Diversity: Alwyn H. Gentry's Forest Transect
Data. Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Prance G (1979) Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology of Amazonian forest
types subject to inundation. Brittonia 31: 36-38.
Prior L & D Bowman (2014) Across a macro-ecological gradient forest competition is strongest
at the productive sites. Frontiers in Plant Science 5: 260
Punyasena S (2008a) Estimating Neotropical Palaeotemperature and palaeoprecipitation using
plant family climatic optima. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 265: 226-237.
72
Punyasena S, G Eshel & J McElwain (2008b) The influence of climate on the spatial patterning of
Neotropical plant families. Journal of Biogeography 35: 117-130.
Punyasena S, J Dalling, C Jaramillo & B Turner (2011) Comment on “The response of vegetation
on the Andean flank in western Amazonia to Pleistocene climate Change” Science 333: 1825
Pyke C, R Condit, S Aguilar & S Lau (2001) Floristic composition across a climatic gradient in a
neotropical lowland forest. Journal of Vegetation Science 12: 553-566.
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
Reich P, M Walters & D Ellsworth (1997) From tropics to tundra: global convergence in plant
functioning. Science 94: 13730-13734.
Roberts D (2010) labdsv: Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version
1.4-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=labdsv.
Roucoux K, I Lawson, T Jones, T Baker, E Honorio Coronado, W Gosling & O Lähteenoja (2013)
Vegetation development in an Amazonian peatland. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 374: 242-255
Runge M (1983) Physiology and ecology of nitrogen nutrition p 163-200. In OL Lange, PS Nobel,
CB Osmond & H Ziegler (eds) Physiological Plant Ecology III: Responses to the Chemical and
Biological Environment. Springer Verlag. Berlin, Germany.
Slivertown J, M Dodd, D Gowing (2001) Phylogeny and the niche structure of meadow plant
communities. Journal of Ecology 89: 428-435.
Snow J (1976) Northern South America; Columbia; Pacific coast section In "Climates of Central
and South America" (W Schwerdtfeger, Ed.), pp. 370-376, World Survey of Climatology, Vol 12
Elseveir, Amsterdam
Steyermark J (1979) Flora of the Guayana Highland: Endemicity of the generic flora of the
summits of the Venezuela Tepuis. Taxon 28: 45-54.
Stute M, M Forster, H Frischkorn, A Serejo, J Clark, P Schlosser, W Broecker & G Bonani (1995)
Cooling of Tropical Brazil (5 degrees C) during the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 269: 379-383.
Tanner E, P Vitousek & E Cuevas (1998) Experimental investigation of nutrient limitation of
forest growth on wet tropical mountains. Ecology 79: 10-22.
73
ter Braak, C & H van Dam (1989) Inferring pH from diatoms: a comparison of old and new
calibration methods. Hydrobiologia 178: 209-223.
Todzia, C (1988) Flora Neotropica vol 48, Chloranthaceae: Hedysosmum. New York Botanical
Gardents, New York 138 pp.
Unger M, C Leuschner & J Homeier (2010) Variability of indices of macronutrient availability in
soils at different spatial scales along an elevation transect in tropical moist forests (NE Ecuador).
Plant and Soil 336: 443-458.
USDA NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 27 November 2013). National
Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA.
Van der Hammen T & H Hooghiemstra (2000) Neogene and Quaternary history of vegetation,
climate and plant diversity in Amazonia. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 725-742
van der Voet H (1994) Comparing the predictive accuracy of models using a simple
randomization test. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 25: 313-323.
Waughman, G (1980) Chemical aspects of the ecology of some south German peatlands. Journal
of Ecology 68: 1025-1046.
Weng C, M Bush & M Silman (2004) An analysis of modern pollen rain on an elevation gradient
in southern Peru. Journal of Tropical Ecology 20: 113-124.
West R (1957) "The Pacific Lowlands of Colombia" Louisiana State University Press
Wiens J (2011) The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London 366: 2236-2250.
Wiens J, D Ackerly, A Allen, B Anacker, L Buckley, H Cornell, E Damshen, TJ Davies, JA Grytnes, S
Harrison, B Hawkins, R Holt, C McCain & P Stephens (2010) Niche Conservatism as an emerging
principle in ecology and conservation biology. Ecology Letters 13: 1310-1324.
Wiens J & M Donoghue (2004) Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends in
ecology and evolution 19: 639-644.
Wiens J & C Graham (2005) Niche Conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and
conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 36: 519-539.
74
Wittmann F, E Householder, M Piedade, R de Assis, J Schöngart, P Parolin & W Junk (2013)
Habitat specificity, endemism and the neotropical distribution of Amazonian white-water
floodplain trees. Ecography 36: 690-707.
75
Síntese
Fazendo uso das condições abióticas extremas consistentes (inundação permanente), e
a ampla distribuição, a presente tese especificamente direciona as questões para a diversidade
da vegetação lenhosa e a composição de espécies em buritizais em ampla escala espacial. Os
resultados indicam que (1) as comunidades de vegetação dos buritizais são caracterizadas por
uma alta variabilidade composicional entre os sítios; (2) o uso do habitat pantanoso é um
atributo funcional amplamente distribuído na filogenia das florestas Amazônicas; e (3) as
comunidades de plantas dos buritizais são caracterizadas por linhagens com distribuição não-
Amazônica. A inundação e fatores estressantes múltiplos associados fortemente selecionam
indivíduos que dispõe de atributos funcionais para este tipo de condição abiótica. Enquanto
muitas espécies da filogenia das florestas Amazônicas aparentemente adquiriram os atributos
funcionais necessários para tolerar as condições abióticas nas áreas pantanosas, os sítios mais
extremos são consistentemente compostos por linhagens de distribuição extra-amazônica. As
comunidades demonstram um padrão de substituição composicional ao longo de gradientes de
estresse, um padrão que é interpretado com a presença de um nicho ancestral profundamente
conservado – possivelmente associado a fatores estressantes em geral – na paisagem
heterogênea da Amazônia.
Argumenta-se que as análises comparativas de comunidades de vegetação de buritizais
oferecem uma abordagem única sobre os recentes modelos de diversidade especifica e
ecossistêmica, que até o presente, baseia-se quase que inteiramente em florestas de terra
firme. Estima-se que as áreas úmidas Amazônicas cobrem uma área entre 20 - 30% da bacia e
são responsáveis por uma grande parte da heterogeneidade de habitats na escala de paisagem.
Assim, os resultados sobre a vegetação das áreas pantanosas e a heterogeneidade dos habitats
podem ter uma grande importância para entender os processos biogeográficos e
evolucionários na Amazônia e nos Neotropicos em geral. Especificamente, as áreas úmidas e
outros tipos de habitats extremos possivelmente alteram as condições abióticas e assim
definem quais espécies (e atributos funcionais associados) podem ser recrutadas e de onde
elas estão sendo recrutadas. Argumenta-se que estes processos atuaram na paisagem
Amazônica durante tempo evolucionário, e definiram localmente as comunidades de
vegetação nos buritizais (capítulos 1,2,3), assim como os padrões de diversidade em geral
(capítulo 2).
76
Referências bibliográficas Ackerly, D. 2003. Community assembly, niche conservatism, and adaptive evolution in
changing environments. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 164(S3): 164–184.
Ackerly, D. 2004. Adaptation, niche conservatism, and convergence: comparative studies of
leaf evolution in the California chaparral. The American Naturalist, 163(5): 654–671.
Anderson, M.J.; Ellingsen, K.E.; McArdle, B.H. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure
of beta diversity. Ecology letters, 9(6): 683–93.
Antonelli, A.; Nylander, J.A.; Persson, C.; Sanmartin, I. 2009. Tracing the impact of the
Andean uplift on Neotropical plant evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 106(24): 9749–54.
Antonelli, A.; Sanmartín, I. 2011. Why are there so many plant species in the Neotropics?
Taxon, 60(April): 403–414.
Antonelli, A.; Sanmartín, I. 2011. Mass extinction, gradual cooling, or rapid radiation?
Reconstructing the spatiotemporal evolution of the ancient angiosperm genus Hedyosmum
(Chloranthaceae) using empirical and simulated approaches. Systematic biology, 60: 596-615.
APG, 2003. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and
families of flowering plants : APG II. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 141(4): 399–
436.
Ballantyne, A.; Lavine, M.; Crowley, T.; Liu, J.; Baker, P. 2005. Meta-analysis of tropical
surface temperatures during the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical Research Letters, 32:
L05712.
Baselga, A. 2010. Partitioning the turnover and nestedness components of beta diversity.
Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(1): 134–143.
Behling, H.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Negret,A. 1998. Holocene history of the Chocó rain forest
from Laguna Piusbi, Southern Pacific lowlands of Colombia. Quaternary Research, 50: 300-
308
77
Berrio, J.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Behling, H.; Botero, P.; Van der Borg, K. 2002. Late-
Quaternary savanna history of the Colombian Llanos Orientales from Lagunas Chenevo and
Mozambique: a transect synthesis. The Holocene, 12: 35-48.
Briers, R. 2003. Range limits and parasite prevalence in a freshwater snail. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London B, 270: 178-180.
Brightsmith, D.; Bravo, A. 2006. Ecology and Management of Nesting Blue-and-Yellow
Macaws (Ara ararauna) in Mauritia Palm Swamps. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(13):
4271–4287.
Bruijnzeel, L.A.; Veneklaas, E.J. 1998. Climatic Conditions and Tropical Montane Forest
Productivity: The Fog Has Not yet Lifted. Ecology, 79(January): 3–9.
Buckland, S. M.; Grime, J.P. 2000. The Effects of Trophic Structure and Soil Fertility on the
Assembly of Plant Communities: A Microcosm Experiment. Oikos, 91(2): 336–52.
Burnham, R.; Pitman, N.C.A.; Johnson, K.R.; Wilf, P. 2001. Habitat-related error in
estimating temperatures from leaf margins in a humid tropical forest. American Journal of
Botany 88(6): 1096–1102.
Bush, M.; Colinvaux,P.; Wiemann, M.; Piperno, D.; Liu, K. 1990. Late Pleistocene
Temperature Depression and Vegetation Change in Ecuadorian Amazonia. Quaternary
Research, 345: 330-345.
Bush, M.; Silman, M.; Urego, D. 2004. 48,000 years of climate and forest change in a
biodiversity hot spot. Science, 303: 827-829.
Campbell, K.; Frailey, C.; Romero-Pittman, L. 2006. The pan-Amazonian Ucayali peneplain:
late Neogene sedimentation in Amazonia and the birth of the modern Amazon river system.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 239: 166-219.
Casanova, M; Brock, M. 2000. How do depth, duration and frequency of flooding influence
the establishment of wetland plant communities? Plant Ecology 147(2): 237-250.
Chapin, F.; Autumn, K.; Pugnaire, F. 1993. Evolution of suites of traits in response to
environmental stress. The American Naturalist, 142: S78-S92
78
Cheng, H.; Sinha,A.; Cruz,F.; Wang, X.; Edwards, R.L.; d´Horta, F.; Ribas, C.; Vuile, M.;
Stott, L.; Auler, A. 2013. Climate change patterns in Amazonia and biodiversity. Nature
communications, 4: 1411
Clarke, K.; Warwick, R. 1998. A taxonomic distinctness index and its statistical properties.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 35(4): 523–531.
Clarke, K.; Warwick, R. 1999. The taxonomic distinctness measure of biodiversity: weighting
of step lengths between hierarchical levels. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 184: 21–29.
Colinvaux, P.; de Oliveira, P.; Moreno, J.; Miller, M.; Bush, M. 1996 A long pollen record
from lowland Amazonia: forest cooling in glacial time. Science, 274: 85-88.
Colinvaux, P.; de Oliveira, P.; Bush, M. 2000. Amazonian and neotropical plant communities
on glacial time-scales: The failure of the aridity and refuge hypotheses. Quaternary Science
Reviews, 19: 141-169.
Coomes, D.A. 1997. Nutrient Status of Amazonian Caatinga Forests in a Seasonally Dry
Area: Nutrient Fluxes in Litter Fall and Analyses of Soils. Canadian Journal of Forest
Research 839: 831–39.
Coomes, D.; Grubb, P. 1996. Amazonian Caatinga and Related Communities at La
Esmeralda , Venezuela: Forest Structure , Physiognomy and Floristics , and Control by Soil
Factors. Vegetatio, 122: 167–91.
Coomes, D.A.; Grubb, P.J. 1998. A Comparison of 12 Tree Species of Amazonian Caatinga
Using Growth Rates in Gaps and Understorey, and Allometric Relationships. Functional
ecology, 12: 426–35.
Coomes, D.; Allen, R. 2007. Effects of size, competition and altitude on tree growth. Journal
of Ecology, 95: 1084-1097
Crisp, M.D.; Arroyo, M.T.K.; Cook, L.G.; Gandolfo, M.A.; Jordan, G.J.; McGlone, M.S.;
Weston, P.H.; Westoby, M.; Wilf, P.; Linder, H.P. 2009. Phylogenetic biome conservatism on
a global scale. Nature, 458(9): 754–6.
Draper, F.C.; Roucoux, K.H.; Lawson, I.T.; Mitchard, E.; Honorio Coronado, E.N.;
Lähteenoja, O.; Torres Montenegro, L.; Valderrama Sandoval, E.; Zaráte, R.; Baker, T. 2014.
79
The distribution and amount of carbon in the largest peatland complex in Amazonia.
Environmental Research Letters, 9(12): 124017.
Dufrene, M.; Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a
flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 67:345-366.
Dumont, J.; Lamotte, S.; Kahn, F. 1990. Wetland and upland forest ecosystems in Peruvian
Amazonia: Plant species diversity in the light of some geological and botanical evidence.
Forest ecology and management 33/34: 125-139.
Edwards, P. 1982. Studies of mineral cycling in a montane rain forest in New Guinea: Rates
of cycling in throughfall and litterfall. The Journal of Ecology, 70: 807-827.
Endress, B. A.; Horn, C.M.; Gilmore, M.P. 2013. Mauritia flexuosa palm swamps:
Composition, structure and implications for conservation and management. Forest Ecology
and Management, 302: 346–353.
Enquist, B.; Niklas, K. 2001. Invariant scaling relations across tree-dominated communities.
Nature, 410: 655-660.
Enquist, B.J.; Haskell, J.P.; Tiffney, B.H. 2002. General Patterns of Taxonomic and Biomass
Partitioning in Extant and Fossil Plant Communities. Nature, 419: 1–4.
Farrera, I.; Harrison, S.; Prentice, I.; Ramstein, G.; Guiot, J.; Bartlein, P.; Bonnefille, R.;
Bush, M.; Cramer, W.; von Grafenstein,U.; Holmgren, K.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Hope, G.; Jolly,
D.; Lauritzen, S.; Ono, Y.; Pinot, S.; Stute, M.; Yu, G. 1999. Tropical climates at the Last
Glacial Maximum: a new synthesis of terrestiral palaeoclimate data. I. Vegetation, lake-levels
and geochemistry. Climate Dynamics, 15: 823-856.
Fine, P.; Daly, D.C.; Villa Muñoz, G.; Mesones, I.; Cameron, K.M. 2005. The Contribution of
Edaphic Heterogeneity to the Evolution and Diversity of Burseraceae Trees in the Western
Amazon. Evolution, 59(7):1464–78.
Fine, P.; Ree, R.H. 2006. Evidence for a Time-Integrated Species-Area Effect on the
Latitudinal Gradient in Tree Diversity. The American naturalist 168(6):796–804.
Fine, P.; García-Villacorta, R.; Pitman, N.C.A.; Mesones, I.; Kembel, S.W. 2010. A Floristic
Study of the White-Sand Forests of Peru. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden,
97(3):283–305.
80
Foster, R.; Parker,T.; Gentry, A.; Emmons, L.; Chiccon,A.; Schulenberg, T.; Rodriguez, L.;
Lamas, G.; Ortega, H.; Icochea, J.; Wust, W.; Romo,M.; Alban Castillo, J.; Phillips, O.;
Reynel, C.; Kratter, A.; Donahue, P.; Barkley, L. 1994. The Tambopata-Candamo-Rio Heath
Region of Southeastern Peru: A Biological Assessment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL 184 pp.
Fukami, T.; Bezemer, T.; Mortimer, S.R.; Putten, W.H. 2005. Species Divergence and Trait
Convergence in Experimental Plant Community Assembly. Ecology Letters, 8(12):1283–90.
Gaston, K. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Gentry, A. 1981. Distributional Patterns and an Additional Species of the Passiflora Vitifolia
Complex: Amazonian Species Diversity due to Edaphically Differentiated Communities.
Plant Systematics and Evolution, 137: 95–105.
Gentry, A.H. 1982. Neotropical floristic diversity: Phytogeographical connections between
Central and South America, Pleistocene climatic fluctuations, or an accident of the Andean
orogeny? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 69(3): 557–593.
Gentry, A. H. 1988. Changes in Plant Community Diversity and Floristic Composition on
Environmental and Geographic Gradients. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 75(1):
1–34.
Goulding, M.; Smith, N. 2007. Palmeras: Centinelas para la conservación de la Amazonía:
Lima, Peru, Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica (ACCA), 356 p.
Grime, J. P. 2006. Trait Convergence and Trait Divergence in Herbaceous Plant
Communities: Mechanisms and Consequences. Journal of Vegetation Science, 17(2):255.
Groot, M.; Bogotá, R.; Lourens, L.; Hooghiemstra, H.; (…) Westerhoff, W. 2011. Ultra-high
resolution pollen Record from the northern Andes reveals rapid shifts in montane climates
within the last two glacial cycles. Climate of the Past, 7: 299-316
Grubb, P. 1971. Interpretation of the 'Massenerhebung' effect on tropical mountains. Nature
229: 44-45.
81
Grubb, P.J. 1977. Control of Forest Growth and Distribution on Wet Tropical Mountains:
With Special Reference to Mineral Nutrition. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8:
83–107.
Hamilton, S.K.; Kellndorfer, J.; Lehner, B.; Tobler, M. 2005. Remote Sensing of Floodplain
Geomorphology as a Surrogate for Biodiversity in a Tropical River System (Madre de Dios ,
Peru ). Geomorphology 89(1-2): 23-38.
Harrison, S.; Grace, J.B. 2007. Biogeographic Affinity Helps Explain Productivity-Richness
Relationships at Regional and Local Scales. The American naturalist, 170 (Suppl) :S5–15.
Hess, L.; Melack, J.M.; Novo, E.M.L.M.; Barbosa, C.C.F.; Gastil, M. 2003. Dual-season
mapping of wetland inundation and vegetation for the central Amazon basin. Remote Sensing
of Environment 87(4): 404-428.
Hiraoka, M. 1999. Miriti (Mauritia flexuosa) palms and their uses and management among
ribeirinhos of the Amazon Estuary. In Padoch, C.; Marcia-Ayres, J.; Pinedo-Vasquez, M.;
Henderson, A. (Eds). Varzea: Diversity, Development, and Conservation of Amazonia’s
Whitewater Floodplains. New York Botanical Garden Press, p. 169–186.
Holt, R.; Barfield, M. 2009. Trophic interactions and range limits: the diverse roles of
predation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 276:1435-1442.
Hooghiemstra, H.; Van Der Hammen, T. 1998. Neogene and Quaternary Development of the
Neotropical Rain Forest : The Forest Refugia Hypothesis , and a Literature Overview. Earth-
Science Reviews, 147–83.
Hooghiemstra, H.; Berrio, J.; Groot,M.; Bogotá, R.; Moscol-Olivera M.; González-Carranza,
Z. 2012. The dynamic history of the upper forest line ecotone in the northern Andes. In:
Randall, RW (Ed), Ecotones between Forest and Grassland, pp 229-246, DOI 10.1007/978-1-
4614-3797-0_10. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht,
London. ISBN 978-1-4614-3796-3 (printed book), ISBN 978-1-4614-3797-0 (eBook), DOI
10.1007/978-1-4614-3797-0.
Hoorn, C.; Wesselingh, F.P.; ter Steege, H.; (…) Antonelli, A. 2010. Amazonia through
Time: Andean Uplift, Climate Change, Landscape Evolution, and Biodiversity. Science,
330(6006):927–31.
82
Householder, E.; Janovec, J.; Balarezo Mozambite, A.; Huinga Maceda, J.; Wells, J.; Valega,
R. 2010. Diversity, Natural history, and Conservation of Vanilla (Orchidaceae ) in Amazonian
wetlands of Madre de Dios, Peru. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas, 4(1)
227–243.
Householder, J.E.; Janovec, J.P.; Tobler, M.W.; Page, S.; Lähateenoja, O. 2012. Peatlands of
the Madre de Dios River of Peru: Distribution, Geomorphology, and Habitat Diversity.
Wetlands, 32(2): 359–368.
Householder, J.E.; Wittmann, F.; Tobler, M.; Janovec, J.P. 2015. Montane bias in lowland
Amazonian peatlands: Plant assembly on heterogenous landscapes and potential significance
to palynological inference. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 423: 138-
148.
Jaeger, R. 1971. Competitive exclusion as a factor influencing the distributions of two species
of terrestrial salamanders. Ecology, 52: 632-637.
Janovec, J.P.; Householder, J.E.; Tobler, M. 2013. Evaluación de los Actuales Impactos y
Amenazas Inminentes en Aguajales y Cochas de Madre De Dios, Perú. World Wildlife Fund
(WWF), Lima, Peru. 244pp.
http://peru.panda.org/?217330/minamywwfpresentanimportanteestudiosobrelasituaciondelosh
umedalesdemadrededios.
Juggins, S. 2012. rioja: Analysis of Quaternary Science Data, R package version 0.7-3.
(http://cran.r-project.org/package=rioja).
Junk, W.J.; Furch, K. 1993. A general review of tropical South American floodplains.
Wetlands Ecology and Management, 2(4): 231-238.
Junk, W.J.; Fenandez Piedade, M.T.; Schöngart, J.; Cohn-Haft, M.; Adeney, J.M.; Wittmann,
F. 2011. A classification of major naturally occurring Amazonian lowland wetlands.
Wetlands, 31: 623–640.
Junk, W.J.; Piedade, M.T.F. 2004. Status of knowledge, ongoing research, and research needs
in Amazonian wetlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 12(6): 597-609.
Kahn, F. 1988. Ecology of economically important palms in Peruvian Amazonia. Advances in
Economic Botany, 6: 42–49.
83
Kahn, F. 1991. Palms as key swamp forest resources in Amazonia. Forest Ecology and
Management, 38: 133-142.
Kahn, F.; Mejia, K.; Moussa, F.; Gomez, D. 1993. Mauritia flexuosa (Palmae), La mas
acuatica de las palmeras Amazonicas. In: Kahn, F.; León, B.; Young, K. (Eds). Las Plantas
Vasculares em las águas continentales de Peru. Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Lima,
Peru. p. 287-322.
Kalliola, R.; Puhakka, M.; Salo, J.; Tuomisto, H.; Ruokolainen, K. 1991. The dynamics,
distribution and classification of swamp vegetation in Peruvian Amazonia. Annales Botanici
Fennici, 28(3): 225–239.
Kelly, T.J.; Baird, A.J.; Roucoux, K.H.; Baker, T.R.; Honorio Coronado, E.N.; Ríos, M.;
Lawson, I.T. 2014. The high hydraulic conductivity of three wooded tropical peat swamps in
northeast Peru: Measurements and implications for hydrological function. Hydrological
Processes, 28: 3373–3387.
King, D. 1990. The Adaptive Significance of Tree Height. The American naturalist, 135:809–
28.
Klimes, L. 2003. Life-Forms and Clonality of Vascular Plants along an Altitudinal Gradient
in E Ladakh (NW Himalayas). Basic and Applied Ecology, 328:317–28.
Koch, G.W.; Sillett, S.C.; Jennings, G.M.; Davis, S.D. 2004. The Limits to Tree Height.
Nature 428(6985):851–54.
Körner, C. 2007. The Use of ‘Altitude’ in Ecological Research. Trends in ecology &
evolution, 22(11):569–74.
Kubitzki, K. 1989. The ecogeographical differentiation of Amazonian inundation forests.
Plant Systematics and Evolution, 162: 285–304.
Lähteenoja, O.; Ruokolainen, K.; Schulman, L.; Alvarez, J. 2009. Amazonian floodplains
harbour minerotrophic and ombrotrophic peatlands. Catena, 79: 140-145.
Lähteenoja, O.; Page, S. 2011. High diversity of tropical peatland ecosystem types in the
Pastaza-Marañón basin, Peruvian Amazonia. Journal of Geophysical Research, 116(G2):
G02025.
84
Lähteenoja, O.; Rojas Reátegui, Y.; Räsänen, M.; Del Castillo Torres, D.; Oinonen, M.; Page,
S. 2012. The large Amazonian peatland carbon sink in the subsiding Pastaza-Marañón
foreland basin, Peru. Global Change Biology, 18(1): 164–178.
Laliberté, E.; Legendre, P. 2010. A Distance-Based Framework for Measuring Functional
Diversity from Multiple Traits. Ecology, 91(1):299–305.
Lavorel, S.; Garnier,E. 2002. Predicting Changes in Community Composition and Ecosystem
Functioning from Plant Traits. Functional ecology, 16:545–56.
Lechowicz, M.J. 1984. Why Do Temperatue Deciduous Trees Leaf out at Different Times?
Adaptation and Ecology of Forest Communities. The American Naturalist, 124(6):821–42.
Leibold, M.A.; Holyoak, M.; Mouquet, N.; Amarasekare, P.; Chase, J.M.; Hoopes, M.F.;
Holt, R.D.; Shurin, J.B.; Law, R.; Tilman, D.; Loreau, M.; Gonzalez, A. 2004. The
metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecology Letters,
7(7): 601–613.
Lieberman, D.; Lieberman, M.; Peralta, R.; Hartshorn,G.S. 1996. Tropical Forest Structure
and Composition on a Large- and Composition Structure Tropical Forest in Costa Rica
Gradient Scale Altitudinal Gradient in Costa Rica. Journal of Ecology, 84(2):137–52.
Liu, K.; Colinvaux, P. 1985. Forest changes in the Amazon basin during the last glacial
maximum. Nature, 318: 556-557.
Luo, T.; Luo, J.; Pan, Y. 2005. Leaf Traits and Associated Ecosystem Characteristics across
Subtropical and Timberline Forests in the Gongga Mountains, Eastern Tibetan Plateau.
Oecologia,142(2):261–73.
Macía, M.J.; Svenning, J.-C. 2005. Oligarchic dominance in western Amazonian plant
communities. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 21(06): 613
MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. (1967) The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton
Univerity Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 203.
Marchant, R.; Almeida,L.; Behling, H.; Berrio, J.; Bush, M.; Cleef,A.; Duivenvoorden, J.;
Kappelle, M.; de Oliveira, P.; Texeira de Oliveira Filho, A.; Lozano-García, S.;
Hooghiemstra, H.; Ledru, M.; Ludlow-Wiechers, B.; Markgraf, V.; Mancini, V.; Paez, M.;
Prieto, A.; Rangel O.; Salgado-Labouriau, M. 2002. Distribution and ecology of parent taxa
85
of pollen lodged within the Latin American Pollen Database. Review of Palaeobotany and
Palynology, 121: 1-75.
Marchant, R.; Harrison, S.; Hooghiemstra, H.; Markgraf,V.; van Boxel, J.; Ager,T.; Almeida,
L.; Anderson, R.; Baied, C.; Behling, H.; Berrio, J.; Burbridge, R.; Björk, S.; Byrne, R.; Bush,
M.; Cleef, A.; Duivenvoorden, J.; Flenley, J.; de Oliveira, P.; van Geel, B.; Graf, K.;
Gosling,W.; Harbele, S.; van der Hammen, T.; Hansen, B.; Horn, S.; Islebe, G.; Kuhry, P.;
Ledru, M.; Mayle, F.; Leyden, B.; Lozano-García, S.; Melief, A.; Moreno, P.; Moar, N.;
Prieto, A.; van Reenen, G.; Salgado-Labouriau, M.; Schäbitz, F.; Schreve-Brinkman E.;
Wille, M. 2009. Pollen-based biome reconstrunctions for Latin America at 0, 6000 and 18000
radiocarbon years. Climate of the Past, 5: 369-461.
Marshall, B.G.; Forsberg, B.R.; Hess, L.L.; de Carvalho Freitas, C.E. 2011. Water
temperature differences in interfluvial palm swamp habitats of Paracheirodon axelrodi and P .
simulans (Osteichthyes : Characidae ) in the middle Rio Negro , Brazil. Ichthyological
Exploration of Freshwaters, 22(4): 377–383.
Mertes, L.; Daniel, D.; Melack, J.; Nelson, B.; Martinelli, A.; Forsberg, B. 1995. Spatial
patterns of hydrology, geomorphology, and vegetation on the floodplain of the Amazon river
in Brazil from a remote sensing perspective, Geomorphology 13: 215-232.
Moser, G.; Hertel, D.; Leuschner, C. 2007. Altitudinal Change in LAI and Stand Leaf
Biomass in Tropical Montane Forests: A Transect Study in Ecuador and a Pan-Tropical Meta-
Analysis. Ecosystems,10(6):924–35.
Oliveira-Filho, A.; Ratter, J. 1995. A study of the origin of central Brazilian forests by the
analysis of plant species distribution patterns. Edinburgh Journal of Botany, 52: 141-194.
Padoch, C. 1988. Aguaje (Mauritia flexuosa) in the economy of Iquitos, Peru. Advances in
Economic Botany, 6: 214–224.
Page, S.; Rieley, J.; Shotyk, O.; Weiss, D. 1999. Interdependence of peat and vegetation in a
tropical peat swamp. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 354: 1885-
1897.
Page, S. E.; Rieley, J.O.; Banks, C.J. 2011. Global and Regional Importance of the Tropical
Peatland Carbon Pool. Global Change Biology, 17(2):798–818.
86
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics, 37: 637-669.
Parolin, P.; de Simone, O.; Haase, K.; Waldhoff, D.; Rottenberger, S.; Kuhn, U.; Kesselmeier,
J; Kleiss, B; Schmidt, W.; Piedade, M.T.F.; Junk. W. 2004. Central Amazonian floodplain
forests: tree adaptations in a pulsing system. The Botanical Review, 70(3): 357–380.
Parolin, P.; Junk, W.; Piedade, M.T.F. 2000. Seed mass in Amazonian floodplain forests with
contrasting nutrient supplies. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 16(3): 417–428.
Pärtel, M.; Laanisto, L.; Zobel, M. 2007. Contrasting Plant Productivity-Diversity
Relationships across Latitude: The Role of Evolutionary History. Ecology, 88(5):1091–97.
Phillips, O.; Miller, J. 2002. Global Patterns of Plant Diversity: Alwyn H. Gentry’s Forest
Transect Data, Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Pillon, Y.; Munzinger, J.; Amir, H.; Lebrun, M. 2010. Ultramafic Soils and Species Sorting in
the Flora of New Caledonia. Journal of Ecology, 98(5):1108–16.
Pitman, N.C.A.; Terborgh, J.W.; Silman, M.R.; Nuñez, P.; Neill, D.A.; Cerón, C.E.; Palacios,
W.A.; Aulestia, M. 2001. Dominance and distribution of tree species in upper Amazonian
Terra Firme forests. Ecology 82(8): 2101-2117
Pitman, N.C.A.; Terborgh, J.W.; Silman, M.R.; Nuñez, P.; Neill, D.A.; Cerón, C.E.; Palacios,
W.A.; Aulestia, M. 2002. A comparison of tree species diversity in two upper Amazonian
forests. Ecology, 83(11): 3210–3224.
Pitman, N.C. A.; Guevara Andino, J.E.; Aulestia, M.; Cerón, C.E.; Neill, D.A.; Palacios, W.;
Rivas-Torres, G.; Silman, M.R.; Terborgh, J.W. 2014. Distribution and abundance of tree
species in swamp forests of Amazonian Ecuador. Ecography, 37(February).
Prance, G.T. 1979. Notes on the vegetation of Amazonia III. The terminology of Amazonian
forest types subject to inundation. Brittonia, 31(1): 36–38.
Prior, L.; Bowman, D. 2014. Across a macro-ecological gradient forest competition is
strongest at the productive sites. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5: 260
87
Punyasena, S. 2008a. Estimating Neotropical Palaeotemperature and palaeoprecipitation using
plant family climatic optima. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 265:
226-237.
Punyasena, S.W.; Eshel, G.; McElwain, J.C. 2008b. The Influence of Climate on the Spatial
Patterning of Neotropical Plant Families. Journal of Biogeography, 35:117–30.
Punyasena, S.; Dalling, J.; Jaramillo, C.; Turner, B. 2011. Comment on “The response of
vegetation on the Andean flank in western Amazonia to Pleistocene climate Change”.
Science, 333: 1825
Pyke, C.R.; Condit, R.; Aguilar, S.; Lao, S. 2001. Floristic Composition across a Climatic
Gradient in a Neotropical Lowland Forest. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12(4):553–66.
R Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org/
Reich, P. B.; Walters, M.B.; Ellsworth, D.S. 1997. From Tropics to Tundra: Global
Convergence in Plant Functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 94(25):13730–34.
Ricklefs, R.E. 2008. Disintegration of the ecological community, The American Naturalist
172(6): 741-750.
Ricklefs, R. E.; Latham,R.E. 1992. Intercontinental Correlation of Geographical Ranges
Suggests Stasis in Ecological Traits of Relict Genera of Temperate Perennial Herbs. The
American naturalist, 139:1305–21.
Robeck, H.; Maley, C.; Donoghue, M. 2000. Taxonomy and temporal diversity patterns.
PaleoBiology, 26: 171–187.
Roberts, D. 2010. labdsv: Ordination and multivariate analysis for ecology. R package version
1.4-1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=labdsv.
Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
88
Roucoux, K.H.; Lawson, I.T.; Jones, T.D.; Baker, T.R.; Honorio Coronado, E.N.; Gosling,
W.D.; Lähteenoja, O. 2013. Vegetation development in an Amazonian peatland.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 374: 242–255.
Roy, K.; Hunt, G.; Jablonski, D.; Krug, A.Z.; Valentine, J.W. 2009. A macroevolutionary
perspective on species range limits. Proceedings. Biological sciences of the Royal Society,
276(1661): 1485–93.
Rull, V. 1998. Biogeographical and evolutionary considerations of Mauritia (Arecaceae),
based on palynological evidence. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 100(1-2): 109–
122.
Runge, M. 1983. Physiology and ecology of nitrogen nutrition p 163-200. In: Lange, O.L.;
Nobel, P.S.; Osmond, C.B.; Ziegler, H. (Eds) Physiological Plant Ecology III: Responses to
the Chemical and Biological Environment. Springer Verlag. Berlin, Germany.
Ruokolainen, K.; Schulman, L.; Tuomisto, H. 2001. On Amazonian Peatlands. International
Mire Conservation Group Newsletter, 4: 8-10.
Salo, J.; Kalliola, R.; Häkkinen, I.; Mäkinen, Y.; Niemelä, P.; Puhakka, M.; Coley, P. 1986.
River dynamics and the diversity of Amazon lowland forest. Nature 322: 254-258.
Sepkoski, J.; Kendrick, D. 1993. Numerical experiments with model monophyletic and
paraphyletic taxa. PaleoBiology, 19: 168–184.
Silvertown, J.; Dodd, M.; Gowing, D. 2001. Phylogeny and the niche structure of meadow
plant communities. Journal of Ecology, 89: 428-435.
Snow, J. 1976. Northern South America; Columbia; Pacific coast section In: Schwerdtfeger,
W. (Ed). Climates of Central and South America, World Survey of Climatology, Vol 12
Elseveir, Amsterdam. p. 370-376.
Spruce, R. 1871. Palmae Amazonicae, sive enumeration palmarum in itenere suo per regions
americae aequatorials lectorum. Journal of the Linnean Society Botany, 11: 65-83.
Stephens, P. R.; Wiens, J.J. 2009. Bridging the Gap between Community Ecology and
Historical Biogeography: Niche Conservatism and Community Structure in Emydid Turtles.
Molecular ecology, 18(22):4664–79.
89
Stevens, P.F. 2015. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website.
http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/research/APweb/.
Steyermark, J. 1979. Flora of the Guayana Highland: Endemicity of the generic flora of the
summits of the Venezuela Tepuis. Taxon, 28: 45-54.
Stute, M.; Forster, M.; Frischkorn, H.; Serejo, A.; Clark, J.; Schlosser, P.; Broecker, W.;
Bonani, G. 1995. Cooling of Tropical Brazil (5 degrees C) during the Last Glacial Maximum.
Science, 269: 379-383.
Tanner, E.; Vitousek, P.M.; Cuevas,E. 1998. Experimental Investication of Nutrient
Limitations of Forest Growth on Wet Tropical Mountains. Ecology, 79(1):10–22.
Terborgh, J.; Andresen, E. 1998. The Composition of Amazonian Forests: Patterns at Local
and Regional Scales. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 14(05):645–64.
ter Braak, C.; van Dam, H. 1989. Inferring pH from diatoms: a comparison of old and new
calibration methods. Hydrobiologia, 178: 209-223.
Ter Steege, H.; Sabatier, D. 2000. An Analysis of the Floristic Composition and Diversity of
Amazonian Forests Including Those of the Guiana Shield. Journal of Tropical Ecology,
16:801–28.
Ter Steege, H.; Pitman, N.; Sabatier, D.; Baraloto, C.; Salomão, R.; Guevara, J.; Phillips, O.;
Castillho, C.; Magnusson, W. (...) Silman, M. 2013. Hyperdominance in the Amazonian Tree
Flora, Science, 342: 6156.
Tobler, M.W.; Janovec, J.P.; Cornejo, F. 2010. Frugivory and seed dispersal by the lowland
tapir Tapirus terrestris in the Peruvian Amazon. Biotropica, 42(2): 215–222.
Todzia, C. 1988. Flora Neotropica vol 48, Chloranthaceae: Hedysosmum. New York
Botanical Gardens, New York. pp 138.
Tuomisto, H.; Dalberg Poulsen, A. 1998. Edaphic Distribution of Some Species of the Fern
Genus Adiantum in Western Amazonia. Biotropica, 30:392–99.
Unger, M.; Leuschner, C.; Homeier, J. 2010. Variability of indices of macronutrient
availability in soils at different spatial scales along an elevation transect in tropical moist
forests (NE Ecuador). Plant and Soil, 336: 443-458.
90
USDA NRCS. 2013. The PLANTS Database National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC
27401-4901 USA. (http://plants.usda.gov) Accessed 27 November 2013.
Van der Hammen, T.; Hooghiemstra, H. 2000. Neogene and Quaternary History of
Vegetation, Climate, and Plant Diversity in Amazonia. Quaternary Science Reviews
19(8):725–42.
van der Voet, H. 1994. Comparing the predictive accuracy of models using a simple
randomization test. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 25: 313-323.
Von Euler, F.; Svensson, S. 2001. Taxonomic distinctness and species richness as measures of
functional structure in bird assemblages. Oecologia, 129(2): pp.304–311.
Waughman, G. 1980. Chemical aspects of the ecology of some south German peatlands.
Journal of Ecology, 68: 1025-1046.
Webb, C. 2000. Exploring the Phylogenetic Structure of Ecological Communities: An
Example for Rain Forest Trees. The American naturalist, 156(2): 145–155.
Webb, C.O.; Ackerly, D.D.; McPeek, M.A.; Donoghue, M.J. 2002. Phylogenies and
Community Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 33(1): 475–505.
Weng, C.; Bush, M.; Silman, M. 2004. An analysis of modern pollen rain on an elevation
gradient in southern Peru. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 20: 113-124.
West, R. 1957. The Pacific Lowlands of Colombia. Louisiana State University Press
Wiens, J.; Donoghue, M. 2004. Historical biogeography, ecology and species richness. Trends
in ecology and evolution, 19: 639-644.
Wiens, J.; Graham, C. 2005. Niche Conservatism: Integrating evolution, ecology, and
conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36: 519-539.
Wiens, J..; Ackerly, D.; Allen, A.; Anacker, B.; Buckley, L.; Cornell, H.; Damshen, E.;
Davies, T.J.; Grytnes, J.A.; Harrison, S.; Hawkins, B.; Holt, R.; McCain, C.; Stephens, P.
2010. Niche Conservatism as an emerging principle in ecology and conservation biology.
Ecology Letters, 13: 1310-1324.
91
Wiens, J.J. 2011. The niche, biogeography and species interactions. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 366(1576): 2336–
50.
Wittmann, F.; Schöngart, J.; Montero, J.C.; Motzer, T.; Junk, W.; Piedade, M.T.F.; Queiroz,
H.; Worbes, M. 2006. Tree species composition and diversity gradients in white-water forests
across the Amazon basin, Journal of Biogeography, 33(8): 1334-1347.
Wittmann, F.K.; Householder, J.E.; Piedade, M.T.F.; de Assis, R.L.; Schöngart, J.; Parolin,
P.; Junk, W. 2013. Habitat specificity, endemism and the neotropical distribution of
Amazonian white-water floodplain trees. Ecography, 36(6): 690–707.
92
APÊNDICE A - List of identified families and genera documented in MDWs, their frequency in 28
sites, total number of stems, and floristic group. "Ama" = Amazon-Centered; "And" = Northern
Andean-Centered; "Dry" = Dryland Centered; "Lau" = Laurasian; "SouTmp" = Southern Andes/South
Temperate Centered
Taxa Freq- uency
(n =28)
Total Stems
Floristic Group
Acanthaceae 1 1 And Aphelandra 1 1
Anacardiaceae 18 1123 Ama Anacardium 4 17
Campnosperma 3 130 Spondias 2 2 Tapirira 15 974 Annonaceae 20 516 Ama
Anaxagorea 2 12 Annona 7 64 Cremastosperma 2 6 Duguetia 1 2 Ephedranthus 1 1 Guatteria 13 86 Heteropetalum 1 8 Pseudoxandra 4 61 Rollinia 1 3 Unonopsis 2 4 Xylopia 5 263 Apocynaceae 17 178 Ama
Couma 1 1 Galactophora 2 8 Himatanthus 8 56 Lacmellea 1 16 Macoubea 2 5 Macropharynx 1 2 Malouetia 2 10 Mandevilla 1 2 Marsdenia 2 3 Odontadenia 2 4 Tabernaemontana 2 64 Aquifoliaceae 11 262 Lau
Ilex 11 262 Araceae 11 489 And
Montrichardia 9 484
93
Philodendron 2 5 Araliaceae 13 111 And
Dendropanax 7 86 Schefflera 7 25 Arecaceae 28 4223 Ama
Astrocaryum 2 16 Attalea 3 13 Bactris 9 146 Euterpe 10 179 Iriartea 1 1 Mauritia 28 3763 Mauritiella 9 98 Oenocarpus 1 1 Socratea 4 6 Asteraceae 7 195 And
Chromolaena 1 1 Gongylolepis 2 181 Mikania 1 1 Rolandra 1 1 Vernonia 2 9 Wedelia 1 2 Begoniaceae 1 1 And
Begonia 1 1 Bignoniaceae 23 1092 Ama
Jacaranda 1 1 Tabebuia 17 1020 Bixaceae 2 3 Cochlospermum 2 3 Ama2
Boraginaceae 8 86 Lau Cordia 8 86
Burseraceae 17 338 Ama Protium 16 333
Trattinnickia 2 5 Calophyllaceae 13 394 And1
Calophyllum 11 310 Caraipa 3 84 Campanulaceae 1 2 And
Centropogon 1 2 Caryocaraceae 4 31 Ama
Caryocar 4 31 Celastraceae 4 27 ?3
Cheiloclinium 1 1 Salacia 3 26 Chloranthaceae 7 1087 Lau
Hedyosmum 7 1087
94
Chrysobalanaceae 15 292 Ama Couepia 1 3
Exellodendron 2 8 Hirtella 11 103 Licania 7 155 Parinari 3 23 Clusiaceae 23 663 And1
Chrysochlamys 4 16 Clusia 18 389 Garcinia 2 3 Havetiopsis 1 4 Symphonia 9 190 Tovomita 3 61 Combretaceae 6 28 Ama
Buchenavia 4 19 Combretum 2 5 Terminalia 2 4 Connaraceae 2 16 Ama
Connarus 2 15 Rourea 1 1 Convolvulaceae 1 2 Ama
Evolvulus 1 2 Cyatheaceae 3 63 Cyathea 3 63 Dichapetalaceae 2 2 Ama
Dichapetalum 1 1 Tapura 1 1 Dilleniaceae 14 121 Ama
Curatella 3 7 Davilla 6 58 Doliocarpus 5 49 Tetracera 2 7 Dioscoreaceae 1 6 Na
Dioscorea 1 6 Ebenaceae 5 184 Ama
Diospyros 5 184 Elaeocarpaceae 9 56 Ama
Sloanea 9 56 Erythroxylaceae 9 283 Dry
Erythroxylum 9 283 Euphorbiaceae 22 246 Ama4
Alchornea 12 111 Caperonia 1 2 Conceveiba 1 1 Conceveibum 1 1
95
Croton 3 4 Hevea 7 52 Hura 3 3 Mabea 5 39 Manihot 1 1 Maprounea 1 1 Micrandra 1 12 Nealchornea 1 4 Pera 6 15 Fabaceae 28 1261 Ama
Abarema 1 1 Acosmium 4 59 Aeschynomene 6 62 Aldina 2 23 Andira 2 4 Campsiandra 1 4 Canavalia 2 2 Chamaecrista 2 7 Clitoria 2 8 Copaifera 1 1 Crudia 2 30 Dalbergia 10 71 Dimorphandra 2 30 Erythrina 2 2 Etaballia 1 13 Galactia 2 39 Hydrochorea 3 10 Inga 11 104 Machaerium 11 89 Macrolobium 9 129 Macrosamanea 7 167 Ormosia 9 85 Paramachaerium 1 2 Parkia 2 26 Peltogyne 1 1 Pentaclethra 1 1 Platymiscium 2 3 Pterocarpus 9 129 Senna 1 2 Swartzia 6 54 Tachigali 2 3 Taralea 1 5 Vataireopsis 1 1 Vigna 1 1 Zygia 7 90 Gentianaceae 1 1 Lau
96
Coutoubea 1 1 Humiriaceae 5 79 Ama
Humiria 4 67 Humiriastrum 1 8 Sacoglottis 2 4 Hydroleaceae 1 1 ?5
Hydrolea 1 1 Hypericaceae 8 27 And1
Vismia 8 27 Icacinaceae 2 83 Ama
Emmotum 2 83 Lamiaceae 3 30 Lau6
Aegiphila 1 2 Vitex 2 28 Lauraceae 24 295 Ama
Aiouea 1 16 Aniba 1 1 Endlicheria 10 65 Licaria 1 4 Nectandra 8 74 Ocotea 14 130 Pleurothyrium 2 3 Lecythidaceae 11 98 Ama
Cariniana 6 10 Eschweilera 2 11 Gustavia 2 4 Lecythis 5 73 Linaceae 3 22 unassigned
Hebepetalum 1 14 Roucheria 3 8 Loganiaceae 8 68 Ama
Bonyunia 1 21 Potalia 3 5 Strychnos 5 42 Lythraceae 4 14 Lau
Cuphea 4 14 Magnoliaceae 3 11 Lau
Talauma 3 11 Malpighiaceae 14 299 Ama
Blepharandra 1 19 Bunchosia 2 4 Burdachia 3 76 Byrsonima 6 175 Heteropteris 4 18 Hiraea 1 7
97
Malvaceae 24 826 Ama7 Byttneria 2 9
Catostemma 1 4 Ceiba 1 3 Hibiscus 2 2 Luehea 1 30 Lueheopsis 7 364 Melochia 2 47 Mollia 2 3 Pachira 9 296 Pavonia 2 50 Pseudobombax 4 10 Scleronema 1 1 Sterculia 3 3 Theobroma 3 4 Marantaceae 1 2 And
Ischnosiphon 1 2 Marcgraviaceae 2 31 And
Marcgravia 1 17 Souroubea 7 14 Melastomataceae 25 1788 And
Aciotis 5 85 Bellucia 4 8 Blakea 1 1 Clidemia 9 133 Graffenrieda 4 285 Henriettea 6 317 Macairea 3 52 Miconia 14 226 Mouriri 2 7 Pachyloma 4 37 Pterolepis 3 5 Rhynchanthera 3 289 Tococa 15 341 Meliaceae 8 65 Ama
Guarea 1 3 Trichilia 8 62 Menispermaceae 4 5 Ama
Abuta 3 3 Sciadotenia 1 2 Monimiaceae 1 1 And8
Mollinedia 1 1 Moraceae 15 649 Ama
Batocarpus 1 1 Brosimum 1 145 Ficus 12 221
98
Maquira 5 45 Perebea 1 4 Sorocea 7 233 Myristicaceae 19 370 Ama
Iryanthera 2 37 Otoba 1 1 Virola 18 332 Myrtaceae 19 601 SouTmp
Calyptranthes 4 83 Eugenia 11 325 Myrcia 14 191 Nyctaginaceae 3 38 And
Guapira 1 29 Neea 2 9 Ochnaceae 21 360 Ama
Lacunaria 1 1 Ouratea 20 344 Quiina 3 9 Wallacea 1 6 Olacaceae 5 47 Ama
Aptandra 3 42 Chaunochiton 1 4 Minquartia 1 1 Onagraceae 12 116 SouTmp
Ludwigia 12 116 Opiliaceae 2 2 not treated
Agonandra 2 2 Orchidaceae 1 8 And
Vanilla 1 8 Passifloraceae 2 2 And
Passiflora 2 2 Pentaphylacaceae 5 149 Lau9
Ternstroemia 5 149 Phyllanthaceae 16 195 Ama4
Amanoa 9 120 Discocarpus 1 1 Hyeronima 2 10 Phyllanthus 5 51 Richeria 3 13 Picramniaceae 1 1 Ama10
Picramnia 1 1 Picrodendraceae 2 5 Ama4
Podocalyx 2 5 Piperaceae 11 70 And
Piper 11 70
99
Polygalaceae 5 27 Ama Bredemeyera 1 3
Polygala 1 1 Securidaca 3 23 Polygonaceae 15 218 Ama
Coccoloba 11 203 Symmeria 2 4 Triplaris 3 11 Primulaceae 12 317 And11
Cybianthus 12 310 Myrsine 1 6 Stylogyne 1 1 Proteaceae 2 17 SouTmp
Panopsis 2 17 Rosaceae 1 3 Lau
Prunus 1 3 Rubiaceae 27 949 And
Bothriospora 1 11 Carapichea 1 2 Chomelia 1 1 Coussarea 2 5 Duroia 9 47 Faramea 2 7 Ferdinandusa 4 83 Genipa 4 22 Henriquezia 1 59 Isertia 6 54 Ixora 2 43 Kotchubaea 1 2 Malanea 3 22 Manettia 1 2 Pagamea 4 147 Palicourea 9 94 Posoqueria 4 28 Psychotria 13 182 Randia 1 1 Remijia 1 1 Retiniphyllum 3 74 Rudgea 4 13 Sabicea 7 25 Simira 2 10 Sipanea 1 1 Stachyarrhena 2 12 Uncaria 1 1 Rutaceae 1 1 Ama
Ticorea 1 1
100
Sabiaceae 1 10 Lau Ophiocaryon 1 10
Salicaceae 19 304 ?12 Casearia 8 23
Hasseltia 1 1 Laetia 9 276 Tetrathylacium 2 3 Xylosma 1 1 Sapindaceae 8 113 Ama
Allophylus 1 2 Cupania 3 8 Matayba 2 10 Paullinia 1 46 Talisia 2 46 Toulicia 1 1 Sapotaceae 8 423 Ama
Chrysophyllum 1 4 Ecclinusa 1 1 Elaeoluma 2 112 Manilkara 2 130 Micropholis 2 4 Pouteria 6 170 Simaroubaceae 7 35 Ama10
Simaba 7 35 Siparunaceae 8 72 And8
Siparuna 8 72 Smilacaceae 6 16 unassigned
Smilax 6 16 Solanaceae 7 37 SouTmp
Cestrum 6 31 Solanum 1 6 Strelitziaceae 5 67 unassigned
Phenakospermum 5 67 Tetrameristaceae 1 15 ?9
Pentamerista 1 15 Thymelaeaceae 1 1 unassigned
Schoenobiblus 1 1 Trigoniaceae 1 1 Ama
Trigonia 1 1 Urticaceae 6 35 ?13
Cecropia 5 23 Coussapoa 2 10 Pourouma 1 2 Violaceae 4 22 Ama
Amphirrhox 1 1
101
Corynostylis 2 16 Leonia 1 1 Rinorea 1 4 Vitaceae 1 1 Lau
Cissus 1 1 Vochysiaceae 9 89 Ama
Erisma 4 34 Qualea 4 54 Ruizterania 1 1
44933
1 Guttiferae of Gentry (1982) is currently split into Clusiaceae, Calophyllacaceae, and Hypericaceae. Andean designation was maintained for all three. 2 Gentry recognized Cochlpspermaceae as distinct family, designated as Amazon-centered 3 Gentry recognized these genera as Hippocrateaceae which he designated as Amazon-centered. However familial distinction is not supported by molecular phylogeny and currently is merged with Celastraceae, designated as Laurasian by Gentry. Due to inconsistencies we dropped these genera from analysis. 4 Euphorbiaceae of Gentry (1982) is currently split into Euphorbiaceae, Phyllanthaceae and Picrodendraceae. The designation of Amazon-centered for this group was maintained. 5 Hydrolea was traditionally placed into Hydrophyllaceae within the Solanales and recognized as Laurasian by Gentry. Molecular phylogenies have placed the genus in Boraginales. We removed Hydrolea from the biogeographic analysis. 6 Gentry defined Lamiaceae (Labiate) as Laurasian, however it now includes genera from Verbenaceae, the latter left unclassified by Gentry. Results did not differ whether this family was removed from analysis or maintained as Laurasian. 7 Gentry considered Bombacaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Tiliaceae (all Amazon-centered) as distinct from Malvaceae. The former families make up the majority of species and stems, thus we recognized this group as Amazon-centered. 8 As circumsribed by Gentry, genera of Monimiaceae are now split with Siparunaceae. Mollinedia are medium-sized trees in coastal Brazil, Andean cloud forests, and occasionally lowland Amazonia. Siparuna is widespread in both lowland Amazonia and Andean forests. We maintained the Andean designation of Mollinedia and Siparuna. 9 Theaceae, designated as Laurasian by Gentry, but noted to have orginated in South America by Raven and Axelrod (1974) traditionally included Ternstroemia and Pentamerisita. Ternstroemia and extra-Amazonian, mostly montane genera (i.e., Freziera and Symplococarpon) are included in Pentaphyllaceae, thus we maintain it's designation as Laurasian. Pentamerista is closely related to Pelliciera mangroves, now both included in Tetrameristaceae. We left this family unassigned. 10 Picramniaceae was treated together with Simaroubaceae by Gentry. We maintained their status as Amazon-centered as designated by Gentry. 11 Primulaceae was considered separate from Myrsinaceae by Gentry, designated as Laurasian and Andean-centered respectively. The genera considered here all belong to the old Myrsinaceae, thus we designated the family as Andean-centered for our purposes. 12 Salicaceae, designated as Laurasian by Gentry, now includes Salix as well as genera from Flacourtiaceae, designated as Amazon-centered. We left this family undesignated. 13 Gentry designated the family the as Andean-centered, but based on our reading it was not clear where he placed the genera considered here (i.e. Moraceae or Urticaceae). We performed the anaysis with Urticaceae as Andean-centered and unassigned, with no qualitative differences in the results.
102
APÊNDICE B - A list of families present in either one or both peatland and white sand inventories. NMDS scores refer to the abundance weighted average values of each family along the single non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) axis. This axis was shown to be highly correlated to site elevation (r = 0.93). Weighted averages were taken as a quantitative metric of each family’s relative position along the elevation gradient. Weighted average NMDS scores were compared to Gentry’s (1982) original biogeographic hypotheses as an independent check of family level biogeographic pattern (see Appendix 1, Chapter 1 for designations used). Total number of stems and species are also presented for peatland and white sand habitats.
Family NMDS Scores
White Sands Peatlands
No. Indiviuals
No. Species
No. Individuals
No. Species
Anacardiaceae -0.72431265 855 1
Annonaceae -0.69627025 90 6 333 13
Apocynaceae -0.76418538 29 4 4 2
Aquifoliaceae 1.3272275 24 1 181 2
Araceae 0.25797656 2 1
Araliaceae 1.02570789 17 2 79 1
Arecaceae -0.48623415 169 4 763 7
Asteraceae 1.51551583 186 2 1 1
Begoniaceae 0.92308575 1 1
Bignoniaceae -0.82049378 2 1 487 1
Burseraceae -0.84529484 137 3 34 4
Campanulaceae 0.57691755 2 1
Chloranthaceae 1.47271208 1087 1
Chrysobalanaceae -0.7922732 107 4 1 1
Clusiaceae 0.33274476 116 7 97 6
Combretaceae -0.94342565 7 3
Connaraceae -0.83456539 2 2
Convolvulaceae -0.90029108 2 1
Dichapetalaceae -0.45664322 1 1
Dilleniaceae -0.8193651 39 2 8 2
Ebenaceae -0.79209879 24 1 3 2
Elaeocarpaceae -0.13317294 5 1 50 2
Erythroxylaceae -1.27834496 281 3
103
Euphorbiaceae -0.44899636 4 2 64 8
Fabaceae -0.79989656 165 12 116 19
Humiriaceae -0.79441072 66 3
Icacinaceae -0.22822155 83 1
Lamiaceae -0.17675241 2 2
Lauraceae 0.19285144 100 7 104 10
Lecythidaceae -0.7543784 10 1
Loganiaceae -0.79454954 2 1
Lythraceae -1.46792895 6 1 7 1
Magnoliaceae 0.21308336 11 1
Malpighiaceae -0.76154036 147 2 1 1
Malvaceae* -0.6861447 253 6 383 7
Marantaceae -0.80715672 2 1
Marcgraviaceae -0.13461892 14 1
Melastomataceae 0.74632058 113 5 540 11
Meliaceae -0.49063759 5 1
Menispermaceae -0.76371031 2 1
Monimiaceae -0.20668019 1 1
Moraceae -0.59825008 145 1 417 9
Myristicaceae -0.57300369 26 1 26 5
Myrtaceae -0.17895616 182 6 151 6
Nyctaginaceae -0.72998913 29 1 9 1
Ochnaceae -0.76141457 132 2 6 1
Olacaceae -0.85472504 4 1
Onagraceae 1.63935151 14 2
Passifloraceae 0.07812318 1 1
Pentaphylacaceae* 1.09712718 114 3
Piperaceae 0.39682192 30 4
Polygalaceae 0.11226581 22 2 4 2
Primulaceae 0.88918767 208 2 97 4
Rosaceae 1.24420313 3 1
Rubiaceae 0.14443203 222 8 231 14
Sapindaceae -0.6572372 51 6 48 3
Sapotaceae -0.77839444 349 7 4 4
104
Simaroubaceae -0.9267483 3 1
Solanaceae 1.01100545 31 3
Trigoniaceae -1.70940457 1 1
Urticaceae -0.49953894 4 3
Violaceae -0.80851788 1 1
Vochysiaceae -0.55668926 26 1 8 1
105
APÊNDICE C - Alphabetical list of Gentry transect data used to asses family-level biogeographic patterns along the elevational gradient. Habitat descriptions were obtained from botanical voucher specimens accessed through Tropicos. Boldfaced sites were used in the indicator analysis (Section 2.5). Inventory sites located within the Chocó biogeographic province (italicized) are appended at the end.
Site Latitude Longitude Country Elevation
(m) Habitat Description
Achupall 3°27'S 78°22'W Ecuador 2090 Tepui-like bromeliad sward with scattered small trees
Allpahua 3°50'S 73°25'W Peru 130 Tropical Moist Forest (Iquitos - Nauta road)
Altodemi 10°55'N 73°50'W Colombia 1180 Tropical premontane wet forest (Magdalena)
Altosapa 7°10'N 75°54'W Colombia 2660 Montane oak Forest
Antado 7°15'N 75°55'W Colombia 1560 Cloud Forest
Araracua 0°25'S 72°20'W Colombia 200 Mature forest over yellow clay
Arcating 0°25'S 72°19'W Colombia 250 High campina forest on white sand soil near air field.
Cabezade 10°20'S 75°18'W Peru 320 Sandy river terraces
Campano 11°08'N 74°01'W Colombia 1685 Tropical lower montane wet forest
Candamo 13°30'S 69°50'W Peru 800 Ridge top forest with cloud forest aspect
Carpanta 4°35'N 73°40'W Colombia 2900 High Andean cloud forest
ceroneb1 0°50'N 66°11'W Venezuela 140 Mature forest on sandy "ultisol"
ceroneb2 0°50'N 66°11'W Venezuela 140 Mature forest on sandy "ultisol"
Cerroayp 4°35'S 79°32'W Peru 2750 Montane cloud forest
Cerroesp 10°28'N 72°50'W Colombia 2560 Tropical montane wet forest
Chirinos 5°25'S 78°53'W Peru 1780 Remnant patch of Podocarpus forest
Chorrobl 6°10'S 78°45'W Peru 2430 Cloud Forest
Cochacas 11°52'S 71°22'W Peru 380 Mature forest on alluvial soil
Colorado 9°58'N 75°10'W Colombia 240 Disturbed moist forest
Colosoi 9°30'N 75°22'W Colombia 300 Forest on limestone.
Constanc 4°15'S 72°45'W Peru 160 Primary forest on white clay soil with thick root mat. Not inundated.
Cuangos 3°29'S 78°14'W Ecuador 1500 Cloud Forest
Cueras 6°40'N 76°30'W Colombia 1670 Cloud Forest
Cueva 6°40'N 76°30'W Colombia 350 Mature forest on rich soil on rocks
Cutervo 6°10'S 78°40'W Peru 2200 Montane cloud forest
Cuyas 4°32'S 79°44'W Peru 2410 Disturbed cloud forest
Cuzcoama 12°35'S 69°09'W Peru 200 Mature forest on alluvial soil
Dureno 0°05'N 75°45'W Ecuador 300 Tropical Moist Forest (Napo)
Elcorazo 0°36'N 77°42'W Ecuador 3200 Disturbed montane cloud forest on volcanic soil
Elpargo 6°30'S 79°31'W Peru 3000 High Andean forest
Encanto 14°38'S 60°42'W Bolivia 240 Subtropical moist forest
Farall 3°30'N 76°35'W Colombia 1930 Tropical lower montane moist forest
fincam 2°16'N 76°12'W Colombia 2280 Mature montane forest
fincaz 3°32'N 76°35'W Colombia 1960 Tropical lower montane moist forest
hachimal 3°38'N 76°33'W Colombia 1860 Tropical lower montane moist forest
huamani 0°40'S 77°40'W Ecuador 1150 Tropical premontane moist forest
humboldt 8°45'S 75°02'W Peru 270 Tropical moist forest
106
incahuar 15°55'S 67°35'W Bolivia 1560 Steep cloud forest with dry season
indiana 3°30'S 73°02'W Peru 130 Well-drained forest on good soil.
jatunsac 1°04'S 77°36'W Ecuador 450 Non-alluvial, red clay soil
jenarohe 4°55'S 73°45'W Peru 115 Upland forest on well-drained soil
kennedy 11°05'N 74°01'W Colombia 2600 Tropical montane wet forest
lagenoa 11°05'S 75°25'W Peru 1140 Mature forest remnant
laplanad 1°08'N 77°58'W Colombia 1750 Premontane wet forest
laraya 8°20'N 74°55'W Colombia 20 Tropical moist forest
madidi 13°35'S 68°46'W Bolivia 280 Subtropical wet forest
madidiri 13°35'S 68°40'W Bolivia 370 Ridge top
manaure 10°22'N 73°08'W Colombia 540 Streamside moist forest remnant
maquipuc 0°07'N 78°37'W Ecuador 1630 Mature cloud forest
mariquit 5°15'N 74°50'W Colombia 560 Disturbed wet forest remnant
miazi 4°18'S 78°40'W Ecuador 850 Floodplain forest along Rio Nangaritza
mishnfl 3°56'S 73°27'W Peru 130 Non-inundated lowland forest
mishws 3°59'S 73°27'W Peru 150 White sand forest
murri 6°35'N 76°50'W Colombia 980 Mature cloud forest
nangarit 4°18'S 78°40'W Ecuador 930 Forest
pasochoa 0°28'S 78°25'W Ecuador 3020 Mature montane forest
rioheath 12°50'S 68°50'W Peru 200 Forest near edge of savannah
riomanso 7°30'N 76°05'W Colombia 200 Tropical wet forest
rionegro 9°50'S 65°40'W Bolivia 100 Mature forest on sandy clay
riotavar 13°21'S 69°40'W Peru 400 Moist lowland forest on ridge
sabanaru 10°30'N 72°55'W Colombia 2940 Forest just below paramo
sacram 16°18'S 67°48'W Bolivia 2450 Dense ridge top cloud forest
shiringa 10°20'S 75°10'W Peru 300 Wet lowland forest on clay
sietecue 4°35'N 73°40'W Colombia 2350 Andean cloud forest
sucusari 3°15'S 72°55'W Peru 140 Mature terra firme forest
tahuampa 3°57'S 73°31'W Peru 130 Seasonally inundated tahuampa forest
tamblat2 12°50'S 69°17'W Peru 250 Tropical premontane wet forest (Swamp trail)
tambo 12°50'S 69°17'W Peru 200 Tropical premontane wet forest (Rio Tambopata at mouth o D'Orbigny
tamboall 12°50'S 69°17'W Peru 260 Alluvial forest
tambupl 12°49'S 69°43'W Peru 280 Terra Firme
tarapoto 6°40'S 76°20'W Peru 500 Dry forested slopes overlooking Río Huallaga
uchire 10°10'N 65°32'W Venezuela 150 Tropical lower montane wet forest
vencer 5°45'S 77°40'W Peru 1850 Wet lower montane forest
yanam1 3°39'S 72°57'W Peru 105 Mature non-inundated forest on laterite
yanam2 3°28'S 72°50'W Peru 130 Mature forest on yellowish lateritic soil
yanamtah 3°28'S 72°50'W Peru 120 Seasonally inundated tahuampa forest
amotape 4°09'S 80°37'W Peru 700 Chocó
anchicay 3°45'N 76°50'W Colombia 300 Chocó
bilsa 0°37'N 79°51W' Ecuador 280 Chocó
calima 3°56'N 77°08'W Colombia 50 Chocó
centinel 0°37'S 79°18'W Ecuador 650 Chocó
esmerald 0°54'N 79°37'W Ecuador 150 Chocó
jauneche 1°16'S 79°42'W Ecuador 70 Chocó
107
perromue 1°36'S 80°42'W Ecuador 480 Chocó
riopal1 0°36'S 79°22'W Ecuador 200 Chocó
riopal2 0°35'S 79°22'W Ecuador 200 Chocó
sansebas 1°36'S 80°42'W Ecuador 550 Chocó
tutunend 5°46'N 76°35'W Colombia 80 Chocó
108
APÊNDICE D - Alphabetical list of families present in peat communities, their calculated
elevational optima, and their total number of stems.
Family
Elevational Optima (Abundance Weighted)
Elevational Optima
(Presence Absence)
Total Number of Stems
Anacardiaceae 593.3854 652.6316 855 Annonaceae 441.0999 647.193 333 Apocynaceae 493.0688 642.8182 4 Aquifoliaceae 2355.0417 1853.2609 181 Araceae 1595.0441 1347.9268 2 Araliaceae 2038.2402 1365.0962 79 Arecaceae 789.9211 876.6406 763 Asteraceae 2410.2626 1598.2222 1 Begoniaceae 1952 2032.5 5 Bignoniaceae 398.3834 646.6379 487 Boraginaceae 695.7576 798.5106 3 Burseraceae 291.1667 345.4545 34 Calophyllaceae 359.7126 494.5652 40 Campanulaceae 1610 1618.3333 2 Celastraceae 634.698 760.6731 4 Chloranthaceae 2491.7787 2170.4762 1087 Chrysobalanaceae 295.0432 460 1 Clusiaceae 1434.398 1158.1579 97 Combretaceae 297.0323 348.5294 7 Connaraceae 229.5041 255.9375 2 Cyatheaceae 1710.7642 1280.8889 63 Dichapetalaceae 727.5397 595.5769 1 Dilleniaceae 214.1739 268.4848 8 Ebenaceae 268.2 320.3333 3 Elaeocarpaceae 890.0362 772.0833 50 Erythroxylaceae 440.3409 382.9167 281 Euphorbiaceae 874.8231 817.7344 64 Fabaceae 379.2353 705.1587 116 Hypericaceae 1483.1818 1201.25 4 Lamiaceae 1195.2027 880.1852 2 Lauraceae 1375.1708 1078.913 104 Lecythidaceae 394.5533 576.8421 10 Linaceae 468.4146 423.9286 1 Loganiaceae 274.6711 248.5714 2 Lythraceae 240 240 7 Magnoliaceae 1632.5 1454 11 Malpighiaceae 511.0177 483.2292 1 Malvaceae 542.9225 621.3158 383
109
Marantaceae 258.4 292 2 Marcgraviaceae 1129.4505 1071.4516 14 Melastomataceae 1875.4962 1148.1343 540 Meliaceae 798.6979 876.0833 5 Menispermaceae 342.2519 452.1429 2 Monimiaceae 1080.4032 901.75 1 Moraceae 611.4446 784.0476 417 Myristicaceae 507.1563 592.1569 26 Myrtaceae 1132.7434 911.3492 151 Nyctaginaceae 560.4492 487.7778 9 Ochnaceae 430.8333 386.6667 6 Onagraceae 2628.4211 2606.6667 14 Passifloraceae 1180 750 1 Phyllanthaceae 1504.2733 1199.3243 5 Piperaceae 1661.148 1186.0377 30 Polygalaceae 1607.2727 2271.1111 4 Polygonaceae 565.5191 1286.7308 64 Primulaceae 2041.0519 717.3171 97 Rosaceae 2322.2581 360 3 Rubiaceae 1413.2514 1906.6667 231 Rutaceae 555.1961 970.4795 1 Salicaceae 637.0153 1326.1429 15 Sapindaceae 669.0143 2200 48 Sapotaceae 395.5526 757.9839 4 Siparunaceae 713.794 326.1364 23 Smilacaceae 829.2857 848.9189 8 Solanaceae 2162.6165 1180 31 Strelitziaceae 100 318.75 3 Thymelaeaceae 1243.3333 2005.5556 1 Trigoniaceae 248.5714 1227.1429 1 Urticaceae 721.6878 271.9231 4 Violaceae 358.3953 470 1 Vochysiaceae 726.7901 1155 8
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia
Avaliação de tese de doutorado Título: “MACROECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAURITIA-DOMINATED WETLANDS IN THE AMAZON” Aluno: JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER Orientador: Dr. Florian Karl Wittmann Co-orientador: Avaliador: NIGEL PITMAN Por favor, marque a alternativa que considerar mais apropriada para cada ítem abaixo, e marque seu parecer final no quadro abaixo Muito bom Bom Necessita revisão Reprovado Relevância do estudo ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Revisão bibliográfica ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Desenho amostral/experimental ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Metodologia ( ) ( ) ( x ) ( ) Resultados ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Discussão e conclusões ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Formatação e estilo texto ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Potencial para publicação em periódico(s) indexado(s) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( )
PARECER FINAL
( ) Aprovada (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho sem correções ou com correções mínimas)
( x ) Aprovada com correções (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho com correções extensas, mas que não precisa retornar ao avaliador para reavaliação) ( ) Necessita revisão (indica que há necessidade de reformulação do trabalho e que o avaliador quer reavaliar a nova versão antes de emitir uma decisão final) ( ) Reprovada (indica que o trabalho não é adequado, nem com modificações substanciais)
_Chicago__________, __20 de abril de 2015_____,
_____________________________________ Local Data Assinatura
Comentários e sugestões podem ser enviados como uma continuação desta ficha, como arquivo separado ou como anotações no texto impresso ou digital da tese. Por favor, envie a ficha assinada, bem como a cópia anotada da tese e/ou arquivo de comentários por e-mail para [email protected] e [email protected] ou por correio ao endereço abaixo. O envio por e-mail é preferível ao envio por correio. Uma cópia digital de sua assinatura será válida.
Endereço para envio de correspondência: Albertina Pimentel Lima PPG-ECO/CBIO/INPA Av. André Araújo nº 2936 69.067-375 - Manaus-AM
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPAGraduate Program in Ecology
Referee evaluation sheet for PhD thesis
“Title: “MACROECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAURITIA-DOMINATED WETLANDS IN THE AMAZON”Candidate: JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDERSupervisor: Dr. Florian Karl WittmannCo-supervisor:
Examiner: Paul Fine
Please check one alternative for each of the following evaluation items, and check one alternative in the box below as your final evaluation decision.
Excellent Good Satisfactory Needs improvement Not acceptable
Relevance of the study ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Literature review ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )Sampling design ( ) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )Methods/procedures ( ) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )Results ( ) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )Discussion/conclusions ( ) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )Writing style and composition ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Potential for publication in peer reviewed journal(s) ( ) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )
FINAL EVALUATION( ) Approved without or minimal changes( X ) Approved with changes (no need for re-evaluation by this reviewer)
( ) Potentially acceptable, conditional upon review of a corrected version ((TThe candidate must submit a new version of the thesis, taking into account the corrections asked for by the reviewer. This new version will be sent to the reviewer for a new evaluation only as acceptable or not acceptable)
( ) Not acceptable (This product is incompatible with the minimum requirements for this academic level)
__________Berkeley, California, May 18, 2015 Place Date Signature
Additional comments and suggestions can be sent as an appendix to this sheet, as a separate file, and/or as comments added to the text of the thesis. Please, send the signed evaluation sheet, as well as the annotated thesis and/or separate comments by e-mail to [email protected] and [email protected] or by mail to the address below. E-mail is preferred. A scanned copy of your signature is acceptable.
Mailing address:
Albertina Pimentel LimaPPG-ECO/CBIO/INPAAv. André Araújo nº 2936 69.067-375 - Manaus AMBrazil
Comments:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia
Avaliação de tese de doutorado
Títul Título: “MACROECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAURITIA-DOMINATED WETLANDS IN THE AMAZON” Aluno: JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER Orientador: Dr. Florian Karl Wittmann Co-orientador: Avaliador: CAMILA CHEREM RIBAS - INPA
Por favor, marque a alternativa que considerar mais apropriada para cada ítem abaixo, e marque seu parecer final no quadro abaixo Muito bom Bom Necessita revisão Reprovado Relevância do estudo ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Revisão bibliográfica ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Desenho amostral/experimental ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( ) Metodologia ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( ) Resultados ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( ) Discussão e conclusões ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( ) Formatação e estilo texto ( X ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Potencial para publicação em periódico(s) indexado(s) ( ) ( X ) ( ) ( )
PARECER FINAL
( X ) Aprovada (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho sem correções ou com correções mínimas)
( ) Aprovada com correções (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho com correções extensas, mas que não precisa retornar ao avaliador para reavaliação)
( ) Necessita revisão (indica que há necessidade de reformulação do trabalho e que o avaliador quer reavaliar a nova versão antes de emitir uma decisão final)
( ) Reprovada (indica que o trabalho não é adequado, nem com modificações substanciais)
MANAUS, 20 DE ABRIL DE 2015
Comentários e sugestões podem ser enviados como uma continuação desta ficha, como arquivo separado ou como anotações no texto impresso ou digital da tese. Por favor, envie a ficha assinada, bem como a cópia anotada da tese e/ou arquivo de comentários por e-mail para [email protected] e [email protected] ou por correio ao endereço abaixo. O envio por e-mail é preferível ao envio por correio. Uma cópia digital de sua assinatura será válida.
Endereço para envio de correspondência:
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia
Avaliação de tese de doutorado
Título: “MACROECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAURITIA-DOMINATED WETLANDS IN THE AMAZON” Aluno: JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER Orientador: Dr. Florian Karl Wittmann Co-orientador: Avaliador: WILLIAM ERNEST MAGNUSSON Por favor, marque a alternativa que considerar mais apropriada para cada ítem abaixo, e marque seu parecer final no quadro abaixo Muito bom Bom Necessita revisão Reprovado Relevância do estudo ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Revisão bibliográfica ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Desenho amostral/experimental ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Metodologia ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Resultados ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Discussão e conclusões ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Formatação e estilo texto ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) Potencial para publicação em periódico(s) indexado(s) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( )
PARECER FINAL
( ) Aprovada (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho sem correções ou com correções mínimas)
( x ) Aprovada com correções (indica que o avaliador aprova o trabalho com correções extensas, mas que não precisa retornar ao avaliador para reavaliação) ( ) Necessita revisão (indica que há necessidade de reformulação do trabalho e que o avaliador quer reavaliar a nova versão antes de emitir uma decisão final) ( ) Reprovada (indica que o trabalho não é adequado, nem com modificações substanciais)
Manaus 03/04/2015 _________________________, ______________________, _____________________________________
Local Data Assinatura Comentários e sugestões podem ser enviados como uma continuação desta ficha, como arquivo separado ou como anotações no texto impresso ou digital da tese. Por favor, envie a ficha assinada, bem como a cópia anotada da tese e/ou arquivo de comentários por e-mail para [email protected] e [email protected] ou por correio ao endereço abaixo. O envio por e-mail é preferível ao envio por correio. Uma cópia digital de sua assinatura será válida.
Endereço para envio de correspondência: Albertina Pimentel Lima PPG-ECO/CBIO/INPA
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia - INPA
Graduate Program in Ecology
Referee evaluation sheet for PhD thesis
“Title: “MACROECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MAURITIA-DOMINATED WETLANDS IN THE AMAZON” Candidate: JOHN ETHAN HOUSEHOLDER Supervisor: Dr. Florian Karl Wittmann Co-supervisor: Examiner: Hans ter Steege Please check one alternative for each of the following evaluation items, and check one alternative in the box below as your final evaluation decision. Excellent Good Satisfactory Needs
improvement Not acceptable
Relevance of the study ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Literature review ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Sampling design ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Methods/procedures ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Results ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Discussion/conclusions ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Writing style and composition ( ) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Potential for publication in peer reviewed journal(s) ( x ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
FINAL EVALUATION
( x ) Approved without or minimal changes
( ) Approved with changes (no need for re-evaluation by this reviewer)
( ) Potentially acceptable, conditional upon review of a corrected version ((TThe candidate must submit a new version of the thesis, taking into account the corrections asked for by the reviewer. This new version will be sent to the reviewer for a new evaluation only as acceptable or not acceptable) ( ) Not acceptable (This product is incompatible with the minimum requirements for this academic level)
Edinburgh, 26/03/2015, Place Date Signature
Additional comments and suggestions can be sent as an appendix to this sheet, as a separate file, and/or as comments added to the text of the thesis. Please, send the signed evaluation sheet, as well as the annotated thesis and/or separate comments by e-mail to [email protected] and [email protected] or by mail to the address below. E-mail is preferred. A scanned copy of your signature is acceptable.
Mailing address: Albertina Pimentel Lima PPG-ECO/CBIO/INPA Av. André Araújo nº 2936 69.067-375 - Manaus AM Brazil