Relationship between body size and geographic range size of elasmobranches from the Tropical Eastern Pacific: An initial approximation for their conservation;Relación entre el tamaño corporal y la amplitud de distribución geográfica de elasmobranquios del Pacífico Oriental Tropical: Una aproximación inicial para su conservación

Ciencias Marinas

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 305-321

  Mejia Falla P A ^a,b   Navia, A F ^a,b  

^a SQUALUS   (Colombia)

^b UNIVERSIDAD DEL VALLE   (Colombia)

Author keywords

Batoids; Conservation; Endangered species; Macroecology; Sharks

Indexed keywords

BODY SIZE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; ENDEMIC SPECIES; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION; MACROECOLOGY; RANGE SIZE; SHARK; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SPECIES-AREA RELATIONSHIP;

PACIFIC OCEAN; PACIFIC OCEAN (TROPICAL);

BATOIDEA; CHONDRICHTHYES; ELASMOBRANCHII; MANTA BIROSTRIS; PRISTIS;

EID: 80052446595     PISSN: 01853880     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7773/cm.v37i3.1750     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Allen G, Robertson DR. 1998. Peces del Pacífico Oriental Tropical. Crawford House Press, Bathurst, 327 pp.
2. Bussing WA, López M. 1983. Peces demersales y pelágicos costeros del Pacífico de Centro América meridional. Escuela de Biología CIMAR- Universidad de Costa Rica, San José, 161 pp.
3. Brown JH, Maurer BA. 1987. Evolution of species assemblages: Effects of energetic constraints and species dynamics on the diversification of the American avifauna. Am. Nat. 130: 1-17.
4. Brown JH, Maurer BA. 1989. Macroecology: The division of food and space among species on continents. Science 243: 1145-1150.
5. Brown JH, Nicoletto PF. 1991. Spatial scaling of species composition: Body masses of North American land mammals. Am. Nat. 138: 1487-1512.
6. Brown JH, Stevens GC, Kaufman DM. 1996. The geographic range: Size, shape, boundaries and internal structure. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 27: 597-623.
7. Castro-Aguirre JL, Espinosa H. 1996. Listados faunísticos de México. VII. Catálogo sistemático de las rayas y especies afines de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 90 pp.
8. Chirichigno N, Cornejo RM. 2001. Catálogo comentado de los peces del Perú. IMARPE, Callao, 314 pp.
9. Compagno LJV, Krupp F, Schneider W. 1995. Tiburones. In: Fischer W, Krupp F, Schneider W, Sommer C, Carpenter K, Niem V (eds.), Guía para la Identificación de Especies para los Fines de la Pesca, Pacífico Centro Oriental. FAO, Rome, pp. 648-743.
10. Cook SF, Compagno LJV. 2005. Pristis pristis. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1: www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 17 April 2010.
11. Cortés E. 2004. Life history patterns, demography, and population dynamics. In: Carrier JF, Musik JA, Heithaus M (eds.), Biology of Sharks and their Relatives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 449-469.
12. Espinosa H, Castro-Aguirre JL, Huidrobo L. 2004. Listados faunísticos de México. IX. Catálogo sistemático de tiburones. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, 109 pp.
13. Frisk MG. 2010. Life history strategies of batoids. In: Carrier JF, Musik JA, Heithaus M (eds.), Sharks and their Relatives. 2. Biodiversity, adaptive physiology, and conservation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 283-318.
14. Froese R, Pauly D. 2009. Fish Base. World Wide Web electronic publication, http://www.fishbase.org.
15. García VB, Lucifora LO, Myers RA. 2008. The importance of habitat and life history to extinction risk in sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras. Proc. R. Soc. B. 275: 83-89.
16. Gaston KJ. 1991. How large is a species' geographic range? Oikos 61: 434-438.
17. Gaston KJ. 1996. Species-range-size distributions: Patterns, mechanisms and implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11: 197-201.
18. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM. 1996a. Conservation implications of geographic range size-body size relationships. Conserv. Biol. 10: 638-646.
19. Gaston KJ, Blackburn TM. 1996b. Range size-body size relationships: Evidence of scale dependence. Oikos 754: 479-485.
20. Gaston KJ, Fuller RA. 2009. The sizes of species' geographic range. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 1-9.
21. Goodwin NB, Dulvy NK, Reynolds JD. 2005. Macroecology of live-bearing in fishes: Latitudinal and depth range comparisons with egg-laying relatives. Oikos 110: 209-218.
22. Holden MJ. 1974. Problems in the rational exploitation of elasmobranch populations and some suggested solutions. In: Harden-Jones FR (ed.), Sea Fisheries Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 117-137.
23. IUCN 2001. Categorías y Criterios de la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Versión 3.1. Comisión de Supervivencia de Especies de la IUCN. Gland, 33 pp.
24. Jiménez-Prado P, Béarez P. 2004. Marine fishes of continental Ecuador. IMBIOE/NAZCA/IFEA, Quito, 393 pp.
25. Lawton JH. 1996. Patterns in ecology. Oikos 75: 145-147.
26. Macpherson E. 2003. Species range size distributions for some marine taxa in the Atlantic Ocean. Effect of latitude and depth. Biol. J. Linn.Soc. 80: 437-455.
27. Marshall A, Ishihara H, Dudley SFJ, Clark TB, Jorgensen S, Smith WD, Bizzarro JJ. 2006. Manta birostris. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1: www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 17 April 2010.
28. Massay S. 1983. Revisión de la lista de los peces marinos del Ecuador. Bol. Cient. Téc. Inst. Nac. Pesca 4: 1-113.
29. McEachran JD, di Sciara N. 1995. Peces batoideos. In: Fischer W, Krupp F, Schneider W, Sommer C, Carpenter K, Niem V. (eds.), Guía para la Identificación de Especies para los Fines de la Pesca, Pacífico Centro Oriental. FAO, Rome, pp. 746-792.
30. Mejía-Falla PA, Navia AF, Mejía-Ladino LM, Acero A, Rubio EA. 2007. Tiburones y rayas de Colombia (Pisces Elasmobranchii): Lista actualizada y comentada. Bol. Invest. Mar. Cost. 36: 111-149.
31. Mora C, Robertson DR. 2005. Causes of latitudinal gradients in species richness: A test with fishes of the tropical eastern Pacific. Ecology 86: 1771-1782.
32. Musick JA, Harbin MM, Compagno LJV. 2004. Historical zoogeography of the Selachii. In: Carrier JF, Musik JA, Heithaus M (eds.), Biology of Sharks and their Relatives. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 33-78.
33. Primack RB, Ros J. 2002. Introducción a la Biología de la Conservación. Editorial Ariel, Barcelona, 371 pp.
34. Pyron M. 1999. Relationships between geographical range size, body size, local abundance, and habitat breadth in North American suckers and sunfishes. J. Biogeogr. 26: 549-558.
35. Reaka ML. 1980. Geographic range, life history patterns and body size in a guild of coral-dwelling mantis shrimps. Evolution 34: 1019-1030.
36. Robertson DR, Allen GR. 2008. Shorefishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific online information system. Version 1.0. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama, www.neotropicalfishes.org/sftep, www.stri.org/sftep.
37. Rosenfield JA. 2002. Pattern and process in the geographical ranges of freshwater fishes. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11: 323-332.
38. Roy K, Martien KK. 2001. Latitudinal distribution of body size in north-eastern Pacific marine bivalves. J. Biogeogr. 24: 485-493.
39. Santana-Morales O, Castillo-Geniz JL, Sosa O, Rodríguez-Medrano C. 2004. Catalogo de tiburones, rayas y quimeras (Chondrichthyes) que habitan en las aguas del norte del Golfo de California. Reporte Técnico, Laboratorio de Ecología Pesquera, CICESE, 119 pp.
40. Smith KF, Brown JH. 2002. Patterns of the diversity, depth range, and body size among pelagic fishes along a gradient of depth. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 11: 313-322.
41. Stearns SC. 1992. The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 249 pp.
42. Stevens GC. 1989. The latitudinal gradient in geographical range: How so many species coexist in the tropics. Am. Nat. 133: 240-256.
43. Taylor CM, Gotelli NJ. 1994. The macroecology of Cyprinella: Correlates of phylogeny, body size and geographic range. Am. Nat. 144: 549-569.
44. Wilga CD, Lauder GV. 2004. Three-dimensional kinematics and wake structure of the pectoral fins during locomotion in leopard sharks. J. Exp. Biol. 203: 2261-2278.