Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T06:20:13.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biogeographically significant units in conservation: a new integrative concept for conserving ecological and evolutionary processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2019

M Paula Quiroga*
Affiliation:
Laboratorio Ecotono – INIBIOMA/CONICET, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche –UNComahue, Quintral 1250, Centro Universitario Regional, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, CP 8400, Argentina
Lucia Castello
Affiliation:
Laboratorio Ecotono – INIBIOMA/CONICET, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche –UNComahue, Quintral 1250, Centro Universitario Regional, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, CP 8400, Argentina Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), CONICET, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Vélez Sarsfield 1611, Córdoba 5000, Argentina
Vilma Quipildor
Affiliation:
Laboratorio Ecotono – INIBIOMA/CONICET, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche –UNComahue, Quintral 1250, Centro Universitario Regional, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, CP 8400, Argentina Laboratorio de Investigaciones Botánicas (LABIBO), CONICET, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Salta, Av. Bolivia 5150, Salta 4400, Argentina
Andrea C Premoli
Affiliation:
Laboratorio Ecotono – INIBIOMA/CONICET, Centro Regional Universitario Bariloche –UNComahue, Quintral 1250, Centro Universitario Regional, San Carlos de Bariloche, Río Negro, CP 8400, Argentina
*
Author for correspondence: M Paula Quiroga, Email: emepequ@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

We combined tools of phylogeography, population genetics and biogeographical interpretation to analyse a group of phylogenetically independent lineages (animals and plants) that coexist within the same geographical region, yet under markedly different environments, in order to identify generalized barriers for gene flow. We tested the hypothesis that major geographic features have produced a concordant genetic structure in phylogenetically independent lineages. A rigorous bibliographic search was performed, selecting available molecular information from six taxa occupying distinct southern biomes of South America: Yungas, Prepuna, Puna and northern Monte. We estimated within-population genetic diversity, the genetic structure and haplotype phylogenies to assemble distribution maps of genetic barriers for each species. We found a strong association between genetic variation and latitudinal distribution of populations. We detected a major barrier for six taxa at 27°S latitude and a second one for a group of three species at 25–26°S. Two alternative non-exclusive hypotheses – geology and/or climate – explain concordant genetic barriers in divergent lineages. We suggest that the term ‘biogeographically significant units’ portrays a group of populations of phylogenetically unrelated taxa that inhabit the same geographic region that have been similarly impacted by major physical events, which can be used to identify priority areas in landscape conservation.

Figure 0

Table 1. Population sample sizes, total number of individuals (in parenthesis) and markers used for each species, with references to each species. The population sample data for each species are in Supplementary Fig. S1.

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Genetic structure by longitude (x-axis) and latitude (y-axis) yielded by Geneland analysis for each species. (a) Hypsiboas; (b) Thylamys; (c) Munroa; (d) Echinopsis; (e) Tillandsia; and (f) Podocarpus.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Distribution maps of haplogroups in (a) two and (b) three sectors. Hs, Hc and Hn correspond to south, central and north haplogroups. Each species is represented by a different symbol. Different shades depict haplogroups within each region: black = south; grey = central; white = north.

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Diagram representing the information systematically processed from several lineages to construct the biogeographically significant units (BGSUs).

Supplementary material: File

Quiroga et al. supplementary material

Quiroga et al. supplementary material 1
Download Quiroga et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.4 MB
Supplementary material: File

Quiroga et al. supplementary material

Quiroga et al. supplementary material 2

Download Quiroga et al. supplementary material(File)
File 3.6 MB