Towards a biogeographic regionalization of the European biota

Abstract

Aim To determine if it is possible to generate analytically derived regionalizations for multiple groups of European plants and animals and to explore potential influences on the regions for each taxonomic group. Location Europe. Methods We subjected range maps of trees, butterflies, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals to k‐means clustering followed by v‐fold cross‐validation to determine the pattern and number of regions (clusters). We then used the mean range sizes of species in each group as a correlate of the number of regions obtained for each taxon, and climate and species richness gradients as correlates of the spatial arrangement of the group‐specific regions. We also included the pattern of tree clusters as a predictor of animal clusters in order to test the ‘habitat templet’ concept as an explanation of animal distribution patterns. Results Spatially coherent clusters were found for all groups. The number of regions ranged from three to eight and was strongly associated with the mean range sizes of the species in each taxon. The cluster patterns of all groups were associated with various combinations of climate, underlying species richness gradients and, in the case of animals, the arrangement of tree clusters, although the rankings of the correlates differed among groups. In four of five groups the tree pattern was the strongest single predictor of the animal cluster patterns. Main conclusions Despite a long history of human disturbance and habitat modification, the European biota retains a discernable biogeographic structure. The primary driver appears to be aspects of climate related to water–energy balance, which also influence richness gradients. For many animals, the underlying habitat structure, as measured by tree distributions, appears to have a strong influence on their biogeographic structure, highlighting the need to preserve natural forest formations if we want to preserve the historical signal found in geographic distributions.

Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe

“…In the case of amphibians, Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010) clustered the distribution types CA8 and CA9 in one single region. In reptiles, the distribution types including species for the three Mediterranean peninsulas (CR4 and CR7) are also considered by Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010). No widespread species (e.g.…”

“…CR6 and CR13). Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010) identified respectively seven and eight biogeographical regions for amphibians and reptiles in Europe. In the case of amphibians, Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010) clustered the distribution types CA8 and CA9 in one single region.…”

“…Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010) identified respectively seven and eight biogeographical regions for amphibians and reptiles in Europe. In the case of amphibians, Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010) clustered the distribution types CA8 and CA9 in one single region. In reptiles, the distribution types including species for the three Mediterranean peninsulas (CR4 and CR7) are also considered by Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010).…”

“…No widespread species (e.g. Bufo bufo or Vipera berus) fit in any of the regions identified by Bunce et al (2002) or Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins (2010).…”

“…range polygons on continental maps; Rueda, Rodríguez and Hawkins, 2010). Bunce et al (2002) defined 59 environmental classes based in a grid square of 0.5 min (i.e.…”