Advertisement

Biodiversity & Conservation

, Volume 8, Issue 12, pp 1663–1681 | Cite as

Global diversity of land planarians (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Terricola): a new indicator-taxon in biodiversity and conservation studies

  • Ronald Sluys
Article

Abstract

Biodiversity conservation requires prioritization of areas for in situ conservation. In that perspective, the present study documents the global diversity of a component of the soil macrofauna, the land planarians, and concerns an exploratory analysis of their possible role as indicators of biodiversity. Diversity is described by three quantitative methods: (1) hotspots of species richness, selecting areas richest in species, (2) hotspots of range-size rarity, identifying areas richest in narrowly endemic species, and (3) complementarity, prioritizing areas according to their greatest combined species richness. The biodiversity measures of species richness and range-size rarity show a great correspondence in the identification of hotspots of diversity; both measures identify the following seven areas as the most biodiverse for land planarians: Sao Paulo, Florianopolis, western Java, Tasmania, Sri Lanka, North Island/New Zealand, and Sydney. It is discussed to what extent the results for the land planarians correspond with those obtained in other studies that assessed biodiversity hotspots for taxa on a global scale. It is noteworthy that land planarians identify a few global hotspots of diversity that generally do not feature, or only have low rankings, in other studies: New Zealand, southeastern Australia, and Tasmania.

biodiversity conservation biology ecology hotspots indicator land planarians Terricola 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball IR and Sluys R (1990) Turbellaria: Tricladida: Terricola. In: Dindal DL (ed) Soil Biology Guide, pp 137–153. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown KS (1982) Paleoecology and regional patterns of evolution in neotropical forest butterflies. In: Prance GT (ed) Biological Diversification in the Tropics, pp 255–308. Columbia Univ. Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown KS (1991) Conservation of neotropical environments: insects as indicators. In: Collins NM and Thomas JA (eds) The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats, pp 349–404. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Carranza S, Littlewood DTJ, Clough KA, Ruiz-Trillo I, Baguna J and Riutort M (1998) A robust molecular phylogeny of the Tricladida (Platyhelminthes: Seriata) with a discussion on morphological synapomorphies. Proc. Roy. Soc., London B 265: 631–640Google Scholar
  5. Cranston PS and Trueman JWH (1997) ‘Indicator’ taxa in invertebrate biodiversity assessment. Mem. Mus. Vict. 56: 267–274Google Scholar
  6. Curnutt J, Lockwood J, Lu H-K, Nott P and Russell G (1994) Hotspots and species diversity. Nature 367: 326–327Google Scholar
  7. Dindal DL (1970) Feeding behavior of a terrestrial turbellarian Bipalium adventitium. Am. Midland Nat. 83: 635–637Google Scholar
  8. Froehlich CG (1955) On the biology of land planarians. Univ. Sao Paulo, Fac. Fil. Ciênc. Letr., Zoologia 20: 263–271Google Scholar
  9. Gaston KJ and Williams PH (1996) Spatial patterns in taxonomic diversity. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference, pp 202–229. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaston KJ, Williams PH, Eggleton P and Humphries CJ (1995) Large scale patterns of biodiversity: spatial variation in family richness. Proc. Roy. Soc., Lond. B 260: 149–154Google Scholar
  11. Groombridge B (ed) (1992) Global biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacker JE, Cowlishaw G and Williams PH (1998) Patterns of African primate diversity and their evaluation for the selection of conservation areas. Biol. Cons. 84: 251–262Google Scholar
  13. Hammond PM (1992) Species inventory. In: Groombridge B (ed) Global Biodiversity Status of the Earth's Living Resources, pp 17–39. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard PC, Viskanic P, Davenport TRB, Kigeneyi FW, Baltzer M, Dickinson CJ, Lwanga JS, Matthews RA and Balmford A (1998) Complementarity and the use of indicator groups for reserve selection in Uganda. Nature 394: 472–475Google Scholar
  15. Humphries CJ, Williams PH and Vane-Wright RI (1995) Measuring biodiversity value for conservation. Ann. Rev. of Ecol. Syst. 26: 93–111Google Scholar
  16. ICBP (1992) Putting biodiversity on the map: priority areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Johns PM (1998) The New Zealand terrestrial flatworms: a 1997–98 perspective. Pedobiologia 42: 464–468Google Scholar
  18. Jones HD and Boag B (1996) The distribution of New Zealand and Australian terrestrial flatworms (Platyhelminthes: Turbellaria: Tricladida: Terricola) in the British Isles - the Scottish survey and Megalab Worms. J. Nat. Hist. 30: 955–975Google Scholar
  19. Kawaguti S (1932) On the physiology of land planarians. Mem. Fac. Sci. & Agr., Taihoku Imp. Univ., Formosa, Japan 7: 15–55Google Scholar
  20. Kawakatsu M, Ogren RE and Muniappan R (1992) Redescription of Platydemus manokwari de Beauchamp, 1962 (Turbellaria: Tricladida: Terricola) from Guam and the Philippines. Proc. Jap. Soc. Syst. Zool. 47: 11–25Google Scholar
  21. Kenk R (1974) Flatworms (Platyhelminthes: Tricladida). In: Pollution Ecology of Freshwater Invertebrates, pp 67–80. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerr JT (1997) Species richness, endemism, and the choice of areas for conservation. Cons. Biol. 11: 1094–1100Google Scholar
  23. Kremen C (1994) Biological inventory using target taxa: a case study of the butterflies of Madagascar. Ecological Applications 4: 407–422Google Scholar
  24. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM, Hodda M, Holt RD, Larsen TB, Mawdsley NA, Stork NE, Srivastava DS and Watt AD (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391: 72–76Google Scholar
  25. McGeoch MA (1998) The selection, testing and application of terrestrial insects as bioindicators. Biol. Rev. 73: 181–201Google Scholar
  26. Mittermeier RA, Myers N, Thomson JB, da Fonseca GAB and Olivieri S (1998) Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: approaches to setting conservation priorities. Cons. Biol. 12: 516–520Google Scholar
  27. Myers N (1988) Threatened biotas: ‘hot spots’ in tropical forests. The Environmentalist 8: 187–208Google Scholar
  28. Myers N (1990) The biodiversity challenge: expanded hot-spots analysis. The Environmentalist 10: 243–256Google Scholar
  29. New TR (1995) An Introduction to Invertebrate Conservation Biology. Oxford Univ. Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogren RE (1955) Ecological observations on the occurrence of Rhynchodemus, a terrestrial turbellarian. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 74: 54–60Google Scholar
  31. Ogren RE, Kawakatsu M and Froehlich EM (1993) Additions and corrections of the previous land planarian indices of the world (Turbellaria, Tricladida, Terricola). Bull. Fuji Women's Coll. 31, ser. II: 33–60; 61–86Google Scholar
  32. Ogren RE, Kawakatsu M and Froehlich EM (1995) Additions and corrections of the previous land planarian indices of the world (Turbellaria, Seriata, Tricladida, Terricola)- 4. Bull. Fuji Women's Coll. 33, ser. II: 79–85Google Scholar
  33. Ogren RE and Sheldon JK (1991) Ecological observations on the land planarian Bipalium pennsylvaticum Ogren, with references to phenology, reproduction, growth rate and food niche. J. Penn. Acad. Sci. 65: 3–9Google Scholar
  34. Ogren RE and Sluys R (1998) Selected characters of the copulatory organs in the land planarian family Bipaliidae and their taxonomic significance (Tricladida: Terricola). Hydrobiologia 383: 77–82Google Scholar
  35. Prendergast JR (1997) Species richness covariance in higher taxa: empirical tests of the biodiversity indicator concept. Ecography 20: 210–216Google Scholar
  36. Prendergast J, Quinn RM, Lawton JH, Eversham BC and Gibbons DW (1993) Rare species, the coincidence of biodiversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337Google Scholar
  37. Reid WV (1998) Biodiversity hotspots. TREE 13: 275–280Google Scholar
  38. Sluys R (1989a) Phylogenetic relationships of the triclads (Platyhelminthes, Seriata, Tricladida). Bijdr. Dierk. 59: 3–25Google Scholar
  39. Sluys R (1989b) A Monograph of the Marine Triclads. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam & BrookfieldGoogle Scholar
  40. Sluys R (1990) A monograph of the Dimarcusidae (Platyhelminthes, Seriata, Tricladida). Zool. Scr. 19: 13–29Google Scholar
  41. Sluys R (1991) Species concepts, process analysis, and the hierarchy of nature. Experientia 47: 1162–1170Google Scholar
  42. Sluys R (1998) Land planarians (Platyhelminthes, Tricladida, Terricola) in biodiversity and conservation studies. Pedobiologia 42: 490–494Google Scholar
  43. Sluys R and Hazevoet CJ (1999) Pluralism in species concepts: dividing nature at its diverse joints. Species Diversity (in press)Google Scholar
  44. Williams PH (1996) Biodiversity value and taxonomic relatedness. In: Hochberg ME, Clobert J and Barbault R (eds) Aspects of the Genesis and Maintenance of Biological Diversity, pp 261–277. Oxford Univ. Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Williams PH (1998) WORLDMAP version 4. Privately distributed by the author. The Natural History Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams PH and Gaston KJ (1994) Measuring more of biodiversity: can higher-taxon richness predict wholesale species richness? Biol. Cons. 67: 211–217Google Scholar
  47. Williams PH, Gibbons D, Margules C, Rebelo A, Humphries C and Pressey R (1996a) A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British Birds. Cons. Biol. 10: 155–174Google Scholar
  48. Williams PH and Humphries CJ (1996) Comparing character diversity among biotas. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and Difference, pp 54–76. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams PH, Prance GT, Humphries CJ and Edwards KS (1996b) Promise and problems in applying quantitative complementary areas for representing the diversity of some Neotropical plants (families Dichapetalaceae, Lecythidaceae, Caryocaraceae, Chrysobalanaceae and Proteaceae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 58: 125–157Google Scholar
  50. Winsor L (1983) A revision of the cosmopolitan land planarian Bipalium kewense Moseley, 1878 (Turbellaria: Tricladida: Terricola). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 79: 61–100Google Scholar
  51. Winsor L (1991) A provisional classification of Australian terrestrial geoplanid flatworms (Tricladida: Terricola: Geoplanidae). Vict. Nat. 108: 42–49Google Scholar
  52. Winsor L (1997) The biodiversity of terrestrial flatworms (Tricladida: Terricola) in Queensland: a preliminary report. Mem. Mus. Vict. 56: 575–579Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Sluys
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Systematics and Population Biology, Zoological MuseumUniversity of AmsterdamGT AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations