Back to all available

Evolutionary conservation hotspots: Key areas for threatened Neotropical glassfrogs under climate change scenarios

biodiversity
biogeography
conservation-biology
zoology

Abstract

Anthropogenic climate change is one of the main threats to global biodiversity, with amphibians being among the most vulnerable vertebrate groups. In this context, the IUCN currently lists 69 species of Neotropical glassfrogs as threatened. However, our knowledge of how their taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity is distributed under climate change scenarios remains limited. In this study, we projected the future distribution of these 69 species to estimate changes in taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity across geography under two climate scenarios (SSP2-4.5 and SSP3-7.0). We also identified priority areas for conservation based on phylogenetic diversity and the Evolutionary and Global Distinctiveness Index. Our results suggest that the Andes and Amazon Basin will experience the most drastic climatic changes, with at least six species projected to be extinct in all scenarios assessed. Additionally, most species exhibit a tendency to shift towards higher elevations, accompanied by a significant reduction in their geographic range. On average, these changes could result in a loss of approximately 30% of their phylogenetic diversity. The northwest Andean montane forests of Ecuador and Colombia are identified as key refuges for future taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of glassfrogs. However, less than 36% of their projected range overlaps with protected areas, highlighting the immediate need for conservation action.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].