Ecological niche similarities of Peponapis bees and non-domesticated Cucurbita species

Ecological Modelling

Volumn 222, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 2011-2018

  Giannini, T C ^a   Lira Saade, R ^b   Ayala, R ^c   Saraiva, A M ^a   Alves dos Santos, I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

^c UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Ecological niche modeling; Interspecific interaction; Pollinators; Specialized species

Indexed keywords

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS; DRY FORESTS; ECOLOGICAL NICHE; ECONOMIC VALUES; GEOGRAPHICAL AREA; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; ME-XICO; MOIST FORESTS; NATURAL HISTORY; POLLINATORS; SPECIALIZED SPECIES;

ARID REGIONS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; LANDFORMS;

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION;

BEE; CLIMATE CONDITIONS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DOMESTICATION; ECOLOGICAL APPROACH; ESTIMATION METHOD; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; GIS; INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTION; NICHE; POLLINATION; POLLINATOR; PRECIPITATION INTENSITY; SPECIES DIVERSITY; TEMPERATURE EFFECT; VINE; WILD POPULATION;

BIOLOGICAL POPULATIONS; ECOLOGY; FORESTRY; GIS; LAND; POLLINATION; PRECIPITATION; TEMPERATURE;

UNITED STATES;

APOIDEA; CUCURBITA; CUCURBITA DIGITATA; CUCURBITA FOETIDISSIMA; CUCURBITA LUNDELLIANA; CUCURBITA PALMATA; CUCURBITA PEDATIFOLIA; PEPONAPIS; PEPONAPIS PRUINOSA;

EID: 79955974330     PISSN: 03043800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.03.031     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Anderson R.P., Gomez-Laverde M., Peterson A.T. Geographical distributions of spiny pocket mice in South America: insights from predictive models. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2002, 11:131-141.
2. Anderson R.P., Lew D., Peterson A.T. Evaluating predictive models of species' distributions: criteria for selecting optimal models. Ecol. Model. 2003, 162:211-232.
3. Andres, T., Nabhan, G.P., 1988. Taxonomic rank and rarity of Cucurbita okeechobeensis. Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report, vol. 11, pp. 83-85.
4. Araújo M.B., Pearson R.G., Thuiller W., Erhard M. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 11:1504-1513.
5. Bailey, R.G., 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. Available from: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html.
6. Bell J.R., King R.A., Bohan D.A., Symondson W.O.C. Spatial co-occurrence networks predict the feeding histories of polyphagous arthropod predators at field scales. Ecography 2010, 33:64-72.
7. Bohan D.A., Bohan A.C., Glen D.M., Symondson W.O.C., Wiltshire C.W., Hughes L. Spatial dynamics of predation by carabid beetles on slugs. J. Anim. Ecol. 2000, 69:367-379.
8. Buchmann S.L., Nabhan G.P. The Forgotten Pollinators 1996, Island, Washington.
9. Chase J.M., Leibold M.A. Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches 2003, The University of Chicago Press.
10. Daily G.C. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems 1997, Island, Washington.
11. DeVaney S.C., McNyset K.M., Williams J.B., Peterson A.T., Wiley E.O. A tale of four " carp": invasion potential and ecological niche modeling. PLoS ONE 2009, 4:1-10.
12. Elith J., Graham C.H. Do they? How do they? Why do they differ? On finding reasons for differing performances of species distribution models. Ecography 2009, 32:66-77.
13. Fenster C.B., Armbruster W.S., Wilson P., Dudash M.R., Thomson J.D. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2004, 35:375-403.
14. Fielding A.H., Bell J.F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 1997, 24:38-49.
15. Fronk W.D., Slater J.A. Insect fauna of the cucurbit flowers. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1956, 29:141-145.
16. Giannini T.C., Saraiva A.M., Alves dos Santos I. Ecological niche modeling and geographical distribution of pollinator and plants: a case study of Peponapis fervens (Smith, 1879) (Eucerini: Apidae) and Cucurbita species (Cucurbitaceae). Ecol. Inform. 2010, 5:59-66.
17. Godsoe W., Strand E., Smith C.I., Yoder J.B., Esque T.C., Pellmyr O. Divergence in an obligate mutualism is not explained by divergent climatic factors. New Phytol. 2009, 183:589-599.
18. Hammer O., Harper D.A.T. Paleontological Data Analysis 2005, Blackwell, Oxford.
19. Hijmans J.R., Cameron S.E., Parra J.L., Jones P.G., Jarvis A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2005, 25:1965-1978.
20. Hortal J., Roura-Pascual N., Sanders N.J., Rahbek C. Understanding (insect) species distributions across spatial scales. Ecography 2010, 33:51-53.
21. Hubbell S.P. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography 2001, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
22. Hurd P.D., Linsley E.G. The squash and gourd bees - genera Peponapis and Xenoglossa - inhabiting America North of Mexico. Hilgardia 1964, 35:375-477.
23. Hurd P.D., Linsley E.G. The Mexican squash and gourd bees of the genus Peponapis. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1966, 59:835-851.
24. Hurd P.D., Linsley E.G. A classification of the squash and gourd bee Peponapis and Xenoglosa (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Entomology 1970, 69:1-39.
25. Hurd P.D., Linsley E.G., Whitaker T.W. Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cultivated Cucurbita. Evolution 1971, 25:218-234.
26. Hutchinson G.E. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 1957, 22:415-427.
27. Hutchinson G.E. An Introduction to Population Ecology 1978, Yale University Press, New Haven.
28. Jiménez-Valverde A., Gómez J.F., Lobo J.M., Baselga A., Hortal J. Challenging species distribution models: the case of Maculinea nausithous in the Iberian Peninsula. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 2008, 45:200-210.
29. Johnson R.K. Spatial congruence between ecoregions littoral macroinvertebrate assemblages. JNABS 2000, 19:475-486.
30. Kearns C.A., Inouye D.W., Waser N.M. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 1998, 29:83-112.
31. Law R., Morton R.D. Permanence and the assembly of ecological communities. Ecology 1996, 77:762-775.
32. Levine R.S., Peterson A.T., Yorita K.L., Carroll D., Damon I.K., Reynolds M.G. Ecological niche and geographic distribution of human monkeypox in Africa. PLoS ONE 2007, 1:1-7.
33. Linsley E.G. Observations on some matinal bees at flowers of Cucurbita, Ipomoea and Datura in desert areas of New Mexico and southeastern Arizona. J. N.Y. Entomol. Soc. 1960, 68:13-20.
34. Lira-Saade R., Andres T.C., Nee M. Cucurbita. Estudios taxonómicos y ecogeográficos de las Cucurbitaceae Latinoamericanas de importancia económica: Cucurbita, Sechium, Sicana y Cyclanthera. Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies on Crop Gene Pools 1995, 1-115. 9th International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. R. Lira-Saade (Ed.).
35. McGarigal K., Cushman S., Stafford S. Multivariate Statistics for Wildlife and Ecology Research 2000, Springer-Verlag, New York.
36. Michener C.D., Lange R.B. Observations of the ethology of Neotropical Anthophorine bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 1958, 39:69-96.
37. Minckley R.L., Cane J.H., Kervin L. Origins and ecological consequences of pollen specialization among desert bees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2000, 267:265-271.
38. Mitchell R.J., Flanagan R.J., Brown B.J., Waser N.M., Karron J.D. New frontiers in competition for pollination. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103:1403-1413.
39. Mitchell R.J., Irwin R.E., Flanagan R.J., Karron J.D. Ecology and evolution of plant-pollinator interactions. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103:1355-1363.
40. Muñoz M.E.S., Giovanni R., Siqueira M.F., Sutton T., Brewer P., Pereira R.S., et al. openModeller: a generic approach to species' potential distribution modeling. Geoinformatica 2009, 10.1007/s10707-009-0090-7.
41. Oberhauser K., Peterson A.T. Modeling current and future potential wintering distributions of eastern North American monarch butterflies. PNAS 2003, 100:14063-14068.
42. Olson D.M., Dinerstein E., Wikramanayake E.D., Burgess N.D., Powell G.V.N., Underwood E.C., et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth. BioScience 2001, 51:933-938.
43. Peterson A.T., Holt R.D. Niche differentiation in Mexican birds: using point occurrences to detect ecological innovation. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6:774-782.
44. Peterson A.T., Papes M., Soberón J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Model. 2008, 213:63-72.
45. Phillips S.J., Anderson R.P., Schapire R.E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 2006, 190:231-259.
46. Potts S.G., Biesmeijer J.C., Kremen C., Neumann P., Schweiger O., Kunin W.E. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. TREE 2010, 25:345-353.
47. Ruokolainen L., Ranta E., Kaitala V., Fowler M.S. When can we distinguish between neutral and non-neutral processes in community dynamics under ecological drift?. Ecol. Lett. 2009, 12:909-919.
48. Santana F.S., Siqueira M.F., Saraiva A.M., Correa P.L.P. A reference business process for ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Inform. 2008, 3:75-86.
49. Schussman H., Geiger E., Mau-Crimmins T., Ward J. Spread and current potential distribution of an alien grass, Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees, in the southwestern USA: comparing historical data and ecological niche models. Divers. Distrib. 2006, 12:582-592.
50. Siqueira M.F., Durigan G., Marco P., Peterson A.T. Something from nothing: using landscape similarity and ecological niche modeling to find rare plant species. J. Nat. Cons. 2009, 17:25-32.
51. Soberón J. Niche and area of distribution modeling: a population ecology perspective. Ecography 2010, 33:159-167.
52. Soberón J., Peterson A.T. Interpretation of models of fundamental ecological niches and species distributional areas. Biodiv. Inf. 2005, 2:1-10.
53. Stockwell D., Peters D. The GARP modeling system: problems and solutions to automated spatial prediction. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 1999, 13:143-158.
54. Stockwell D.R.B., Peterson A.T. Effects of sample size on accuracy of species distribution models. Ecol. Model. 2002, 148:1-13.
55. Stockwell D.R.B., Beach J.H., Stewart A., Vorontsov G., Vieglais D., Pereira R.C. The use of the GARP genetic algorithm and internet grid computing in the Lifemapper world atlas of species biodiversity. Ecol. Model. 2006, 195:139-145.
56. Sweeney A.W., Beebe N.W., Cooper R.D. Analysis of environmental factors influencing the range of anopheline mosquitoes in northern Australia using a genetic algorithm and data mining methods. Ecol. Model. 2007, 20:375-386.
57. Swets K.A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988, 240:1285-1293.
58. Thompson J.N. The Coevolutionary Process 1994, University Chicago Press.
59. Thompson J.N. The Geographic Mosaic of Coevolution 2005, University Chicago Press.
60. Tsoar A., Allouche O., Steinitz O., Rotem D., Kadmon R. A comparative evaluation of presence only methods for modelling species distribution. Divers. Distrib. 2007, 13:397-405.
61. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan 1999, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Available from:. http://www.fws.gov/.
62. Walters T.W., Decker-Walters D.S. Systematics of the endangered okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita okeechobeensis: Cucurbitaceae). Syst. Bot. 1993, 18:175-187.
63. Warren M., Robertson M.P., Greeff J.M. A comparative approach to understanding factors limiting abundance patterns and distributions in a fig tree-fig wasp mutualism. Ecography 2010, 33:148-158.
64. Waser N.M. Competition for pollination and floral character differences among sympatric plant species: a review of evidence. Handbook of Pollination Biology 1983, 277-293. Scientific and Academic Editions, New York. C.E. Jones, R.J. Little (Eds.).
65. Waser N.M. Pollinator behavior and plant speciation: looking beyond the " ethological isolation" paradigm. Cognitive Ecology of Pollination: Animal Behaviour and Floral Evolution 2001, 318-335. Cambridge University Press. L. Chittka, J.D. Thomson (Eds.).
66. Wille A. Las abejas Peponapis y Xenoglossa en Costa Rica y su importancia en la polinización de las Cucúrbitas domésticas. Rev. Biol. Trop. 1985, 33:17-24.
67. Winder L., Alexander C.J., Holland J.M., Symondson W.O.C., Perry J.N., Woolley C. Predatory activity and spatial pattern: the response of generalist carabids to their aphid prey. J. Anim. Ecol. 2005, 74:443-454.
68. Wisz M.S., Hijmans R.J., Li J., Peterson A.T., Graham C.H., Guisan A. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 2008, 14:763-773. NCEAS Predicting Species Distributions Working Group.
69. Wright R.G., Murray M.P., Merrill T. Ecoregions as a level of ecological analysis. Biol. Conserv. 1998, 86:207-213.
70. WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2001. Terrestrial Ecoregions. Available from: http://www.worldwildlife.org/.