Contrasting patterns of phylogenetic turnover in amphibians and reptiles are driven by environment and geography in Neotropical savannas

Abstract

AbstractAimCross‐taxonomic congruence in biodiversity patterns is key to understanding the main drivers of community structure, for biogeographical regionalization and to guide conservation. We aim to map the patterns of phylogenetic turnover and disentangle the geographical and environmental factors that drive the phylogenetic composition of distinct faunal assemblages.LocationThe Cerrado savannas of South America.TaxaReptiles and amphibians.MethodsWe measured the proportion of phylogenetic branches shared among sites (i.e. phylogenetic turnover) using presence‐absence matrices for all species in the Cerrado and for endemics only, including only well‐sampled localities from previously compiled inventories. We then tested whether phylogenetic turnover is different from null expectations based on taxonomic turnover. We used generalized dissimilarity modelling (GDM) to test whether geography, topography, soil or climate best explain phylogenetic turnover. Finally, we mapped the observed and the GDM‐predicted clustering of phylogenetic turnover to assess geographical congruence between reptiles and amphibians.ResultsFor all reptiles, geographical distance is the most important factor explaining phylogenetic turnover, whereas for endemic reptiles and amphibians, in general, a set of climatic variables and relief roughness are more important. We did not find any significant correlation between the phylogenetic turnover of reptiles and amphibians, as evidenced by non‐congruent phylogenetic clustering and by different responses to geographical and environmental gradients.Main conclusionsThe different relationships of phylogenetic turnover of reptiles and amphibians to geographical and environmental distances have ultimately shaped the phylogenetic regionalization of these two groups. This incongruence indicates the differential importance of niche filtering, dispersal limitation and the influence of neighbouring biomes in the regionalization of different groups of organisms. Therefore, diversity patterns of one group should ideally not be used as a surrogate to map general patterns or to understand the drivers of diversity of other co‐occurring groups. Thus, conservation efforts need to be designed and implemented for each organismal group.