Search

Aim The physiological requirements and tolerances of a species partially determine both its habitat preferences within a community and its broader geographic range. Therefore, we predicted that local ecology should be correlated with geographic distribution. We tested for a correlation between local ecology and range size, and we attempted to account for this correlation by the climate of the range. Location Bishop Creek Watershed, on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada, California. Methods We recorded all plant species growing in each of 263 plots in the montane to alpine zones of the watershed. The local habitat preferences of 282 species were described in terms of wetness, elevation, soil, and amount of shade. The size and centre of the geographic range for each species were determined from regional floras. Results Wetness preference within the watershed was significantly correlated with range size. Specifically, plants of wet sites had larger ranges that extend to the north, whereas plants of dry sites tended to have smaller ranges centred to the east. The correlation between local wetness preference and range size was entirely explained by the location of the range centre of the species. Main conclusions A possible reason for the large ranges of mesophilic plants in our study area is that mesic habitats are continuous throughout the western Cordillera, while dry alpine habitats are isolated by valleys to the east. The correspondence between local ecology and geographic distributions implies evolutionary stasis in the niches of these plant species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Because habitat loss is the main cause of extinction, where and how much society chooses to protect is vital for saving species. The United States is well positioned economically and politically to pursue habitat conservation should it be a societal goal. We assessed the US protected area portfolio with respect to biodiversity in the country. New synthesis maps for terrestrial vertebrates, freshwater fish, and trees permit comparison with protected areas to identify priorities for future conservation investment. Although the total area protected is substantial, its geographic configuration is nearly the opposite of patterns of endemism within the country. Most protected lands are in the West, whereas the vulnerable species are largely in the Southeast. Private land protections are significant, but they are not concentrated where the priorities are. To adequately protect the nation's unique biodiversity, we recommend specific areas deserving additional protection, some of them including public lands, but many others requiring private investment.