What's missing from avian global diversification analyses?
The accumulation of vast numbers of molecular phylogenetic studies has contributed to huge knowledge gains in the evolutionary history of birds. This permits subsequent analyses of avian diversity, such as how and why diversification varies across the globe and among taxonomic groups. However, available genetic data for these meta-analyses are unevenly distributed across different geographic regions and taxonomic groups. To comprehend the impact of this variation on the interpretation of global diversity patterns, I examined the availability of genetic data for possible biases in geographic and taxonomic sampling of birds. I identified three main disparities of sampling that are geographically associated with latitude (temperate, tropical), hemispheres (East, West), and range size. Tropical regions, which host the vast majority of species, are substantially less studied. Moreover, Eastern regions, such as the Old World Tropics and Australasia, stand out as being disproportionately undersampled, with up to half of communities not being represented in recent studies. In terms of taxonomic discrepancies, a majority of genetically undersampled clades are exclusively found in tropical regions. My analysis identifies several disparities in the key regions of interest of global diversity analyses. Differential sampling can have considerable impacts on these global comparisons and call into question recent interpretations of latitudinal or hemispheric differences of diversification rates. Moreover, this review pinpoints understudied regions whose biota are in critical need of modern systematic analyses.
Biology Department, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60660, USA. Electronic address: sreddy6@luc.edu.
Sushma
S
Reddy
D000818:Animals; D044362:Australasia; D044822:Biodiversity; D001717:Birds / Q000145:classification / Q000235:genetics*; D010802:Phylogeny; D058974:Phylogeography; D017422:Sequence Analysis, DNA
Biodiversity; Birds; DNA sequences; Diversity patterns; Sampling bias; Taxonomy