Supporting Information
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supporting Information Kier et al. 10.1073/pnas.0810306106 1350 New Caledonia** Cape Region** Polynesia-Micronesia and Eastern Pacific** Atlantic Islands* Queensland tropical rain forests Caribbean Islands** East Melanesian Islands** Taiwan Northern Andes incl. northern Páramo** South American Atlantic Coastal Forests** Philippines** West-Ecuador/Choco* Peruvian/Bolivian Yungas & montane forests* Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands incl. Socotra** Mountains of SW China** Western Ghats* Sri Lanka* SW Australian Floristic Region** New Guinea Tropical Florida 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Range equivalents per 10,000 km² Fig. S1. Top 20 regions according to the level of endemism richness of vascular plants. Asterisks indicate congruence (**) or large overlap (*) with the biodiversity hotspots by Conservation International (Mittermeier, et al. 2004). Orange bars indicate island regions, green bars mainland regions. Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 1of15 Fig. S2. Endemism richness (range equivalents per 10,000 km2) of terrestrial vertebrates at the ecoregion level of mainland (green) and island regions (orange). Boxes mark second and third quartiles, whiskers the nonoutlier range of the data. (A) Terrestrial vertebrates, (B) amphibians, (C) birds, (D) reptiles, and (E) mammals. Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 2of15 Spearman rank correlation Vascular 0.75 0.82 0.73 0.78 0.83 plants 90 Amphibians 0.76 0.82 0.82 0.87 0 90 Reptiles 0.85 0.85 0.94 ER rank ER rank 0 90 Birds 0.89 0.96 0 90 Mammals 0.94 0 90 Tetrapods ER rank ER rank ER rank 0 090090090090090 ER rank ER rank ER rank ER rank ER rank Fig. S3. Cross-taxon congruence in endemism richness per 10,000 km2 (ER; rank based) of vascular plants and terrestrial vertebrates classes. Red dots indicate island regions, gray dots mainland regions. Values of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient are shown for each relationship in the Upper half of the matrix (all relationships are significant at P Ͻ 0.001). Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 3of15 90 e14 sa17 e18 i05 e03 e05 af17 sa16 sa11 i13 nca08 af16 e06 i03 sa15 af05 au1 sa13 i06 sa02 nca03 sa20 sa03 e17 e15 nca09 sa01 i07 au6 e09 i01 e13 nca06 af01 i11 sa26 au4 i08 i04 sa18 af07 e11 sa23 i02 45 sa14 af09 e04 af12 af06 af13 af10 af14 e08 i12 af15 nca07 e12 sa05 af02 sa24 sa19 af04 sa09 i09 Habitat lossHabitat [rank] nca04 sa10 sa07 e16 e02 e10 sa21 e07 sa06 sa25 nca05 i10 af08 sa08 au2 sa22 af03 sa12 sa04 nca02 au5 au3 nca01 af11 0 e01 i14 0 45 90 Plant endemism richness [rank] Fig. S4. Rank-based values of past habitat loss plotted against plant endemism richness per standard area. Colored dots indicate congruence with biodiversity hotspots (sensu Mittermeier, et al. 2004): red color, identical or almost identical (overlap Ͼ75%), yellow, significant overlap (10–75%), blue, no or minor overlap (0–10%). Labels indicate unique identifiers for each region (compare Table S1). Among the regions that are in the top half with regard to both habitat loss and endemism richness per standard area (Upper Right sector of the figure), only 4 are not part of a hotspot: New Guinea, Taiwan, the Eastern and Southeastern Australian temperate forests, and tropical Florida. All of these discrepancies can be explained. On New Guinea and Taiwan and in Eastern and Southeastern Australia, habitat loss is only little above the median, and it is very low in the Queensland tropical rain forests. Tropical Florida was formerly part of the ‘‘Caribbean hotspot’’ (Myers, et al. 2000) but later explicitly excluded for phytogeographic reasons and because of the small total number of endemic species (Mittermeier, et al. 2004). Similarly, Taiwan shows very high plant endemism richness, but does not meet the minimum criterion of 1,500 strict endemic species. Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 4of15 Table S1. Endemism richness (ER) and data situation for vascular plants by region Data References References ID Region Area ͓km²͔ ER quality (taxon-based) (inventory-based) TI TI remarks af01 Mediterranean regional 330,000 34.0 3 BISAP (1) (2) I Not well covered in BISAP center of endemism data set. Relatively detailed inventory-based data available. af02 Mediterranean/Sahara 473,000 5.7 3 BISAP (1) (2) I Values from BISAP transition zone database are too high because (i) the distribution outside Africa is not covered in BISAP—this is particularly relevant for Saharo-Sindian species that have a large part of their distribution area outside Africa and (ii) the Sahara/Sahel region is heavily overrepresented in BISAP with regard to the number of collection points per species. af03 Sahara transition zone 7,387,000 1.4 3 BISAP (1) (2) I See af02 above af04 Sahel transition zone 2,482,000 1.2 3 BISAP (1) (2) I See af02 above af05 Sudanian regional center 3,731,000 3.2 3 BISAP (1) (2) T Comparatively well of endemism represented in BISAP data set. Inventory-based data are less reliable because of low degree of strict endemism. af06 Guinea-Congolia/Sudanian 1,165,000 8.7 3 BISAP (1) (2) T See af05 above transition zone af07 Guineo-Congolian regional 2,800,000 33.4 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI Inventory data probably center of endemism lead to overestimate because level of strict endemism seems to be lower than estimated by White (1983). Taxon-based data probably lead to underestimate because the Congo basin, which forms the largest portion of the Guineo-Congolian region, is underrepresented in the BISAP data set. af08 Guinea-Congolia/Zambezia 705,000 7.9 3 BISAP (1) (2) T See af06 above transition zone af09 Zambezian regional center 3,770,000 16.6 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI of endemism af10 Kalahari-Highveld 1,223,000 13.8 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI transition zone af11 Karoo-Namib regional 661,000 67.0 3 BISAP (1) (2) T Comparatively well center of endemism represented in BISAP data set. af12 Cape regional center of 90,000 771.4 4 BISAP (1) (2) I Detailed inventory-based endemism data available. af13 Tongaland-Pondoland 148,000 84.6 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI regional mosaic af14 Zanzibar-Inhambane 330,000 26.6 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI regional mosaic af15 Somalia-Masai regional 1,900,000 12.0 3 BISAP (1) (2) TI center of endemism Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 5of15 Data References References ID Region Area ͓km²͔ ER quality (taxon-based) (inventory-based) TI TI remarks af16 Lake Victoria regional 224,000 22.8 3 BISAP (1) (2) T Inventory-based data are mosaic less reliable than the taxon-based data because of low degree of strict endemism. af17 Afromontane regional 715,000 56.5 3 BISAP (1) (2) T Inventory-based endemism center of endemism richness value is presumably underestimated because of the low total species number given by White (1983). The level of endemism richness is very unevenly distributed across the Afromontane RCE with relatively low values per standard area in the Ethiopian part and with higher values in the regions of, e.g., Mt. Cameroon and the Eastern Arc, a difference which could not be resolved in this study for reasons of scale (subregions of the Afromontane RCE are too small to be treated as different regions here). au1 SW Australian floristic 310,755 180 3 (3) (4–6) I SW portion is heavily region underrepresented in the taxon-based data set as stated by Laffan and Crisp (2003) au2 Arid Australia 3,753,731 6 3 (3) (7), (8) T Inventory-based estimate probably too low because of conservative estimate of plant species number by Beadle (1981) au3 Queensland tropical rain 32,113 380 3 (3) (9) TI forests au4 E and SE Australian 502,888 60 3 (3) NA T temperate forests au5 Tropical shrublands and 2,123,016 20 3 (3) NA T savannas of Australia au6 Temperate shrublands and 886,281 10 3 (3) NA T savannas of Australia e01 Arctic region of Eurasia 2,903,340 1 2 NA See nca01 I e02 Eurasian boreal region 13,177,000 2 2 NA (10) I e03 European temperate 5,320,289 5 1 NA (11, 12) I broadleaved forests e04 Mountains of Central 331,966 50 2 NA (13) I Europe e05 Northern and Eastern 1,295,427 100 2 NA (6), (14–16) I Mediterranean e06 Caucasus 532,658 50 2 NA (6) I e07 Somali-Masai and 530,594 15 2 NA (13) I Afromontane Phytochorion in SW Asia e08 Saharo-Sindian Zone in SW 4,372,390 2 2 NA (13, 17) I Asia e09 Irano-Anatolian Region 899,773 40 2 NA (6) I Kier et al. www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/0810306106 6of15 Data References References ID Region Area ͓km²͔ ER quality (taxon-based) (inventory-based) TI TI remarks e10 Central Irano-Turanian 3,792,187 8 2 NA (18, 19) (20) I Region e11 Mountains of Central Asia 863,362 25 2 NA (6) I e12 Tibetan-Mongolian 6,821,577 2 1 NA (21–24) I Grassland and Desert Region e13 Western Ghats 125,548 190 2 NA (6, 17, 25) I e14 Core region of India 2,261,143 15 1 NA (17) I e15 Himalaya 741,706 60 2 NA (6) I e16 Mountains of SW China 262,446 200 2 NA (6) I e17 Subtropical and temperate 4,138,588 12 1 NA (17) I forests of Eastern Asia e18 Indo-Burma 2,372,996 41.5 3 (26) (6) TI i01 Japan 373,490 60 2 NA (6, 19) I i02 Madagascar and Indian 604,086 203 4 NA (6, 13) I Ocean Islands including Socotra i03 Sri Lanka 66,786 190 2 NA (6, 17, 25) I i04 Taiwan 35,976 306 3 NA (29) I i05 Philippines 297,179 238 3 (26) (6, 19) T The uncertainty of the inventory-based estimates is rather high because of contradicting numbers of strict endemics in the literature.