Dissimilarity in flea and host assemblages and their interaction networks along a spatial distance gradient: different patterns revealed by different network dissimilarity metrics.

We investigated the distance-decay pattern (an increase in dissimilarity with increasing geographic distance) in regional assemblages of fleas and their small mammalian hosts, as well as their interaction networks, in four biogeographic realms. Dissimilarity of assemblages (ßtotal) was partitioned into species richness differences (ßrich) and species replacement (ßrepl) components. Dissimilarity of networks was assessed using two metrics: (a) whole network dissimilarity (ßWN) partitioned into species replacement (ßST) and interaction rewiring (ßOS) components and (b) D statistics, measuring dissimilarity in the pure structure of the networks, without using information on species identities and calculated for hosts-shared-by-fleas networks (Dh) and fleas-shared-by-hosts networks (Df). We asked whether the distance-decay pattern (a) occurs among interactor assemblages or their interaction networks; (b) depends on the network dissimilarity metric used; and (c) differs between realms. The ßtotal and ßrepl of flea and host assemblages increased with distance in all realms except for host assemblages in the Afrotropics. ßrich for flea and host assemblages increased with distance in the Nearctic only. In networks, ßWN and ßST demonstrated a distance-decay pattern, whereas ßOS was mainly spatially invariant except in the Neotropics. Correlations of Dh or Df and geographic distance were mostly non-significant. We conclude that investigations of dissimilarity in interaction networks should include both types of dissimilarity metrics (those that consider partner identities and those that consider the pure structure of networks). This will allow elucidating the predictability of some facets of network dissimilarity and the unpredictability of other facets.

What factors influence the rediscovery of lost tetrapod species?

We created a database of lost and rediscovered tetrapod species, identified patterns in their distribution and factors influencing rediscovery. Tetrapod species are being lost at a faster rate than they are being rediscovered, due to slowing rates of rediscovery for amphibians, birds and mammals, and rapid rates of loss for reptiles. Finding lost species and preventing future losses should therefore be a conservation priority. By comparing the taxonomic and spatial distribution of lost and rediscovered tetrapod species, we have identified regions and taxa with many lost species in comparison to those that have been rediscovered-our results may help to prioritise search effort to find them. By identifying factors that influence rediscovery, we have improved our ability to broadly distinguish the types of species that are likely to be found from those that are not (because they are likely to be extinct). Some lost species, particularly those that are small and perceived to be uncharismatic, may have been neglected in terms of conservation effort, and other lost species may be hard to find due to their intrinsic characteristics and the characteristics of the environments they occupy (e.g. nocturnal species, fossorial species and species occupying habitats that are more difficult to survey such as wetlands). These lost species may genuinely await rediscovery. However, other lost species that possess characteristics associated with rediscovery (e.g. large species) and that are also associated with factors that negatively influence rediscovery (e.g. those occupying small islands) are more likely to be extinct. Our results may foster pragmatic search protocols that prioritise lost species likely to still exist.