分类学的变化如何影响林奈学派的短缺预测(以及我们能做些什么?)

IF 3.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Thainá Lessa, Juliana Stropp, Joaquín Hortal, Richard J. Ladle
{"title":"分类学的变化如何影响林奈学派的短缺预测(以及我们能做些什么?)","authors":"Thainá Lessa,&nbsp;Juliana Stropp,&nbsp;Joaquín Hortal,&nbsp;Richard J. Ladle","doi":"10.1111/jbi.14829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The gap between the number of described species and the number of species that actually exist is known as the Linnean shortfall and is of fundamental importance for biogeography and conservation. Unsurprisingly, there have been many attempts to quantify its extent for different taxa and regions. In this <i>Perspective</i>, we argue that such forecasts remain highly problematic because the extent of the shortfall does depend not only on the rates of exploration (sampling undescribed taxa) on which estimates have been commonly based but also on the rates of taxonomic change (lumping and splitting). These changes highly depend on the species concepts adopted and the information and methods used to delimit species. Commonly used methods of estimating the number of unknown species (e.g. discovery curves, taxon ratios) can underestimate or overestimate the Linnean shortfall if they do not effectively account for trends and rates of taxonomic change. A further complication is that the history of taxonomic change is not well documented for most taxa and is not typically available in biodiversity databases. Moreover, wide geographic and taxonomic variation in the adoption of species concepts and delimitation methods mean that comparison of estimates of the Linnean shortfall between taxa and even for the same taxon between regions may be unreliable. Given the high likelihood of future taxonomic changes for most major taxa, we propose two main strategies to consider the influence of taxonomic change on estimates of unknown species: (i) a highly conservative approach to estimating the Linnean shortfall, restricting analysis to groups and regions where taxonomies are relatively stable and (ii) explicitly incorporating metrics of taxonomic change into biodiversity models and estimates. In short, relevant estimates of the number of known and unknown species will only be achieved by accounting for the dynamic nature of the taxonomic process itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":15299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Biogeography","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How taxonomic change influences forecasts of the Linnean shortfall (and what we can do about it)?\",\"authors\":\"Thainá Lessa,&nbsp;Juliana Stropp,&nbsp;Joaquín Hortal,&nbsp;Richard J. Ladle\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jbi.14829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The gap between the number of described species and the number of species that actually exist is known as the Linnean shortfall and is of fundamental importance for biogeography and conservation. Unsurprisingly, there have been many attempts to quantify its extent for different taxa and regions. In this <i>Perspective</i>, we argue that such forecasts remain highly problematic because the extent of the shortfall does depend not only on the rates of exploration (sampling undescribed taxa) on which estimates have been commonly based but also on the rates of taxonomic change (lumping and splitting). These changes highly depend on the species concepts adopted and the information and methods used to delimit species. Commonly used methods of estimating the number of unknown species (e.g. discovery curves, taxon ratios) can underestimate or overestimate the Linnean shortfall if they do not effectively account for trends and rates of taxonomic change. A further complication is that the history of taxonomic change is not well documented for most taxa and is not typically available in biodiversity databases. Moreover, wide geographic and taxonomic variation in the adoption of species concepts and delimitation methods mean that comparison of estimates of the Linnean shortfall between taxa and even for the same taxon between regions may be unreliable. Given the high likelihood of future taxonomic changes for most major taxa, we propose two main strategies to consider the influence of taxonomic change on estimates of unknown species: (i) a highly conservative approach to estimating the Linnean shortfall, restricting analysis to groups and regions where taxonomies are relatively stable and (ii) explicitly incorporating metrics of taxonomic change into biodiversity models and estimates. In short, relevant estimates of the number of known and unknown species will only be achieved by accounting for the dynamic nature of the taxonomic process itself.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Biogeography\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14829\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Biogeography","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jbi.14829","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

描述的物种数量与实际存在的物种数量之间的差距被称为 "林奈缺失"(Linnean shortfall),对生物地理学和物种保护至关重要。不足为奇的是,人们曾多次尝试量化不同类群和地区的林奈缺失程度。在本《视角》中,我们认为这种预测仍然存在很大问题,因为短缺的程度不仅取决于通常估计所依据的探索率(对未描述类群取样),而且还取决于分类变化率(归并和拆分)。这些变化在很大程度上取决于所采用的物种概念以及用于划分物种的信息和方法。估算未知物种数量的常用方法(如发现曲线、类群比率)如果不能有效地考虑分类变化的趋势和速率,就会低估或高估林奈的短缺数量。另一个复杂因素是,大多数分类群的分类变化历史都没有得到很好的记录,生物多样性数据库中通常也没有这方面的资料。此外,在采用物种概念和划界方法方面存在着巨大的地理和分类差异,这意味着对不同类群之间,甚至不同地区同一类群之间的林尼体系缺口估计值进行比较可能并不可靠。鉴于未来大多数主要类群的分类学很有可能发生变化,我们提出了两种主要策略来考虑分类学变化对未知物种估计值的影响:(i) 采用高度保守的方法来估计林尼恩短缺量,将分析限制在分类学相对稳定的类群和地区;(ii) 将分类学变化指标明确纳入生物多样性模型和估计值中。简而言之,只有考虑到分类过程本身的动态性质,才能对已知和未知物种的数量做出相关估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How taxonomic change influences forecasts of the Linnean shortfall (and what we can do about it)?

The gap between the number of described species and the number of species that actually exist is known as the Linnean shortfall and is of fundamental importance for biogeography and conservation. Unsurprisingly, there have been many attempts to quantify its extent for different taxa and regions. In this Perspective, we argue that such forecasts remain highly problematic because the extent of the shortfall does depend not only on the rates of exploration (sampling undescribed taxa) on which estimates have been commonly based but also on the rates of taxonomic change (lumping and splitting). These changes highly depend on the species concepts adopted and the information and methods used to delimit species. Commonly used methods of estimating the number of unknown species (e.g. discovery curves, taxon ratios) can underestimate or overestimate the Linnean shortfall if they do not effectively account for trends and rates of taxonomic change. A further complication is that the history of taxonomic change is not well documented for most taxa and is not typically available in biodiversity databases. Moreover, wide geographic and taxonomic variation in the adoption of species concepts and delimitation methods mean that comparison of estimates of the Linnean shortfall between taxa and even for the same taxon between regions may be unreliable. Given the high likelihood of future taxonomic changes for most major taxa, we propose two main strategies to consider the influence of taxonomic change on estimates of unknown species: (i) a highly conservative approach to estimating the Linnean shortfall, restricting analysis to groups and regions where taxonomies are relatively stable and (ii) explicitly incorporating metrics of taxonomic change into biodiversity models and estimates. In short, relevant estimates of the number of known and unknown species will only be achieved by accounting for the dynamic nature of the taxonomic process itself.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Biogeography
Journal of Biogeography 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.10%
发文量
203
审稿时长
2.2 months
期刊介绍: Papers dealing with all aspects of spatial, ecological and historical biogeography are considered for publication in Journal of Biogeography. The mission of the journal is to contribute to the growth and societal relevance of the discipline of biogeography through its role in the dissemination of biogeographical research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信