Post on 28-Jul-2015
description
Articles
Growth of the human population, rising consumption,and rapid globalization have caused widespread de-
gradation and disruption of natural systems, especially inthe freshwater realm.Freshwater ecosystems have lost a greaterproportion of their species and habitat than ecosystems onland or in the oceans, and they face increasing threats fromdams, water withdrawals, pollution, invasive species, andoverharvesting (MEA 2005, Revenga et al. 2005). Freshwater
ecosystems and the diverse communities of species found inlakes, rivers, and wetlands may be the most endangered of all(MEA 2005).
These stressed systems support an extraordinarily highproportion of the world’s biodiversity. In terms of area, fresh-water ecosystems occupy only 0.8%of Earth’s surface, but theyare estimated to harbor at least 100,000 species, or nearly 6%of all described species (Dudgeon et al. 2006). Each year,
Robin Abell (e-mail: robin.abell@wwfus.org), Michele L. Thieme, Rebecca Ng, Nikolai Sindorf, and EricWikramanayake are withWWF inWashington, DC. Carmen
Revenga, Mark Bryer (Bethesda), James Robertson, Eric Armijo (Bolivia), Jonathan V. Higgins (Chicago), Thomas J. Heibel, and Paulo Petry (Boston) are with the
Nature Conservancy, headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. Paulo Petry is also an associate in ichthyology at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard
University in Massachusetts. Maurice Kottelat is an independent consultant in Switzerland and an honorary research associate at the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity
Research at the National University of Singapore. Nina Bogutskaya and Alexander Naseka are senior researchers at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy
of Sciences in St. Petersburg. Brian Coad is a research scientist at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa. Nick Mandrak is a research scientist at the Great Lakes
Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Burlington, Canada. Salvador Contreras Balderas is professor emeritus of the
Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon in Monterey, Mexico. William Bussing is professor emeritus at the Universidad de Costa Rica. Melanie L. J. Stiassny is the
Axelrod Research Curator of Ichthyology at the American Museum of Natural History and an adjunct professor at Columbia University in New York City. Paul
Skelton is managing director of the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity and professor at Rhodes University in Grahamstown, South Africa. Gerald R.
Allen is a research associate at Western Australian Museum in Perth. Peter Unmack is a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Integrative Biology at Brigham
Young University in Utah. David Olson is director of science and stewardship at Irvine Ranch Conservancy in California. Hugo L. López is head of the vertebrate
zoology department at the Museo de La Plata, assistant professor in the Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, and researcher at CIC (Buenos Aires) in Argentina.
Roberto E. Reis is a professor at Católica do Rio Grande do Sul in Porto Alegre, Brazil. John G. Lundberg is chair and curator of ichthyology, and Mark H. Sabaj Pérez
is collection manager, at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. © 2008 American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Freshwater Ecoregions of theWorld: A New Map of Biogeo-graphic Units for FreshwaterBiodiversity Conservation
ROBIN ABELL, MICHELE L. THIEME, CARMEN REVENGA, MARK BRYER, MAURICE KOTTELAT, NINA BOGUTSKAYA,BRIAN COAD, NICK MANDRAK, SALVADOR CONTRERAS BALDERAS, WILLIAM BUSSING, MELANIE L. J. STIASSNY,PAUL SKELTON, GERALD R. ALLEN, PETER UNMACK, ALEXANDER NASEKA, REBECCA NG, NIKOLAI SINDORF,JAMES ROBERTSON, ERIC ARMIJO, JONATHAN V. HIGGINS, THOMAS J. HEIBEL, ERIC WIKRAMANAYAKE, DAVIDOLSON, HUGO L. LÓPEZ, ROBERTO E. REIS, JOHN G. LUNDBERG, MARK H. SABAJ PÉREZ, AND PAULO PETRY
We present a new map depicting the first global biogeographic regionalization of Earth’s freshwater systems. This map of freshwater ecoregions isbased on the distributions and compositions of freshwater fish species and incorporates major ecological and evolutionary patterns. Coveringvirtually all freshwater habitats on Earth, this ecoregion map, together with associated species data, is a useful tool for underpinning global andregional conservation planning efforts (particularly to identify outstanding and imperiled freshwater systems); for serving as a logical frameworkfor large-scale conservation strategies; and for providing a global-scale knowledge base for increasing freshwater biogeographic literacy. Preliminarydata for fish species compiled by ecoregion reveal some previously unrecognized areas of high biodiversity, highlighting the benefit of looking at theworld’s freshwaters through a new framework.
Keywords: freshwater, ecoregions, biogeography, fish, mapping
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 403
new freshwater species are described. For South Americaalone, about 465 new freshwater fish species have been de-scribed in the last five years (Eschmeyer 2006), a figure thatcorresponds to a new species every four days. The presenceof species confined to small ranges is also unusually high infreshwater ecosystems; for example, 632 animal species havebeen recorded as endemic to Lake Tanganyika (Groombridgeand Jenkins 1998).
Despite this combination of extraordinary richness, highendemism, and exceptional threat, few broadscale conserva-tion planning efforts have targeted freshwater systems and theirdependent species. This relative inattention derives in partfrom an acute lack of comprehensive, synthesized data on thedistributions of freshwater species (Revenga and Kura 2003).Themost exhaustive recent global inventory of freshwater taxaacknowledges serious survey gaps and assigns species distri-butions only to the level of continent (Lévêque et al. 2005).Such inventories are valuable for highlighting research pri-orities and providing a global picture of how taxonomic di-versity compares across continents, but they have limitedutility for conservation planning efforts, for which the largestplanning unit is often the river basin or ecoregion.
A global freshwater regionalizationEcoregions are awidely recognized and applied geospatial unitfor conservation planning,developed to represent the patternsof environmental and ecological variables known to influencethe distribution of biodiversity features at broad scales (Groveset al. 2002). Building on the work of Dinerstein and col-leagues (1995),we define a freshwater ecoregion as a large areaencompassing one ormore freshwater systemswith a distinctassemblage of natural freshwater communities and species.The freshwater species, dynamics, and environmental con-ditionswithin a given ecoregion aremore similar to each otherthan to those of surrounding ecoregions, and together forma conservation unit. Ecoregion boundaries are not necessar-ily determined by the turnover of species ranges (McDonaldet al. 2005) but are intended to describe broad patterns ofspecies composition and associated ecological and evolu-tionary processes.
Ecoregion delineation benefits from the best available datadescribing species and systems ecology, but can proceed withimperfect information (Wikramanayake et al. 2002). Globalecoregion frameworks have already been developed for theterrestrial and, more recently, marine realms, both of whichare characterized by their own data limitations (Olson et al.2001, Spalding et al. 2007). In this article we demonstrate howthe ecoregion concept has been applied to freshwater systems,and present the first global map of freshwater ecoregions—a starting point for conservation planning anywhere on Earth.
Ecoregions have typically been delineated to representpatterns of potential vegetation (Olson et al. 2001) and haveat times been used to characterize regional differences inwater quality as well (Omernik 1987). Terrestrial ecoregionsare delineated largely on the basis of climate, physiography,and vegetation types, but different features are often domi-
nant in shaping the broadscale distributions of freshwaterspecies. As Tonn (1990) described, the species occurring ina given river reach, lake, spring, or wetland will be a functionof a hierarchy of continental-scale filters (including moun-tain building, speciation, and glaciation) that have defined largebiogeographic patterns; regional-scale filters (such as broadclimatic and physiographic patterns, and dispersal barrierssuch as regional catchments); and subregional and finer-scale habitat filters (e.g., distinct physiographic types andmacrohabitats) acting on the regional species pool. Freshwaterecoregions capture the patterns generated primarily by con-tinental- and regional-scale filters.
Of these filters, dispersal barriers in the form of catch-ment divides (also called watersheds) are distinctive to fresh-waters. Unlike terrestrial species or those with aerial orwind-dispersed life stages, obligate freshwater species—thoseconfined to the freshwater environment and unable to movevia land, air, or sea—generally cannot disperse from one un-connected catchment to another. Furthermore, all speciesdependent on freshwater systems,whether or not they are con-fined to the aquatic environment, are to some extent affectedby the hydrological and linked ecological processes of thecatchments where they live. As a result, catchments stronglyinfluence broad freshwater biogeographic patterns inmost re-gions. There are exceptions, however. Tectonic movementshave in some cases separated once-joined catchments, al-lowing for further speciation.Also,natural drainage evolutionover geological time includes river piracy, which severs con-nections and provides new interdrainage links that reconformsystems.The freshwater ecoregions of theworld presented herereflect both the hydrological underpinning of freshwater fishspecies distributions as well as historical shifts in landmassesand consequent evolutionary processes.
Ecoregion delineation and species list compilationNoglobal biogeographic framework for freshwater species wasavailable as the foundation for our map. The applicability ofWallace’s (1876) and Udvardy’s (1975) zoogeographic realmstomost freshwater taxa is unresolved (Berra 2001,Vinson andHawkins 2003), and these divisions are too large for conser-vation planning endeavors. Several examinations of globalfreshwater biogeography (e.g., Banarescu 1990) provided in-formation at somewhat finer scales but could not be clearlytranslated into seamless ecoregion delineations. Whereappropriate, we adapted previous continental efforts. ForNorthAmerica,Africa, and Madagascar,we updated region-alizations outlined in two previously published volumes(Abell et al. 2000, Thieme et al. 2005), but we excluded aprior delineation for Latin America and the Caribbean (Ol-son et al. 1998) because the approach differed markedly fromour current methodology, and data have improved substan-tially since its development (e.g., Reis et al. 2003).We exam-ined but chose to exclude the 25 European regions of Illies’simpressive Limnofauna Europaea (1978) because the ap-proach for delineating those regions differed considerably fromours: those regions were based on the distributions of 75
Articles
404 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org
different taxonomic groups andwere drawnwithout referenceto catchments.Moreover, neither ecological nor evolutionaryprocesses figured in those delineations.A complete list of allreferences and experts consulted in the process of delineat-ing ecoregions is available online (www.feow.org).
We assembled our global map of freshwater ecoregionsusing the best available regional information describing fresh-water biogeography, defined broadly to include the influ-ences of phylogenetic history, palaeogeography, and ecology(Banarescu 1990).We restricted our analyses to informationdescribing freshwater fish species distributions, with a fewexceptions for extremely data-poor regions and inland seas,where some invertebrates and brackish-water fish wereconsidered, respectively. We focused on freshwater fish forseveral reasons. On a global scale, fish are the best-studiedobligate aquatic taxa. Detailed information exists for otherfreshwater taxa in regions likeNorthAmerica and Europe, butthe consideration of such groups in a global analysis wouldbe difficult, given the wide variation in available data (Balianet al. 2008). Freshwater dispersant fish species—those unableto cross saltwater barriers—are better zoogeographic indicatorsthan freshwater invertebrates, which can often disperse overland, survive in humid atmospheres outside water, or betransported between freshwaters (Banarescu 1990). Finally,the distributions of obligate aquatic invertebrate groups ingeneral respond to ecological processes at localized scalesthat are too small to be meaningful for ecoregion delineation(Wasson et al. 2002). Therefore, fish serve as proxies for thedistinctiveness of biotic assemblages.We recognize that analy-ses of other taxonomic groups would almost certainly revealdifferent patterns for some regions, and that our results arescale dependent (Paavola et al. 2006). Our near-exclusivefocus on fish is a departure from earlier continental eco-regionalization exercises (Abell et al. 2000, Thieme et al.2005), and we have updated the ecoregion delineationsaccordingly.
The available data for describing fish biogeography varywidely. In the United States, it is possible to map presence/absence data for all freshwater fish species to subbasins aver-aging about 2025 square kilometers (km2) in size (NatureServe2006). But for many of the world’s species, occurrence dataare limited to a small number of irregularly surveyed systems.Large parts of the massive Congo basin remain unsampled,for instance,withmost sampling occurring nearmajor townsand most taxonomic studies of the region dating from the1960s. Problems with taxonomy and species concepts ham-per broadscale analyses even where systems have been rea-sonably well sampled (Lundberg et al. 2000). Althoughaddressingmany of these problems is beyond the scope of thisproject, in our analyses we have attempted to minimizenomenclatural errors by normalizing species names withEschmeyer’s Catalog of Fishes (2006; www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/).
Freshwater fish patterns were analyzed separately fordifferent regions of the world to account for data variability.The geographic scope of major information sources largelydefined those regions (table 1). Information sources weretypically taxonomic works, some of which included bio-geographical analyses. Leading ichthyologists delineatedecoregions primarily by examining the distributions of en-demic species, genera, and families against the backdrop ofan area’s dominant habitat features and the presence of eco-logical (e.g., large concentrations of long-distance migratoryspecies) and evolutionary (e.g., species flocks) phenomena.More than 130 ichthyologists and freshwater biogeographerscontributed to the global map by either delineating or re-viewing ecoregions.
Data gaps and biogeographic drivers resulted in the use ofslightly different criteria among and evenwithin some regions(table 2, box 1). Where fish species data were reasonablycomprehensive and available at subbasin or finer scales, weattributed species distributions to catchments to facilitateevaluation of biogeographic patterns in a bottom-up
Articles
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 405
Table 1. Regional information sources used for ecoregion delineations.
Region Primary information source
Africa Roberts 1975, Skelton 1994, Lévêque 1997, Thieme et al. 2005Middle East No regional information sources available.Former USSR No regional information sources available.Remainder of Eurasia For Europe: Kottelat and Freyhof 2007; no regionwide information sources for Asia.Australasia McDowall 1990, Allen 1991, Unmack 2001, Allen et al. 2002Oceania Keith et al. 2002Canada Scott and Crossman 1998United States Maxwell et al. 1995, Abell et al. 2000Mexico Contreras-Balderas 2000, Miller et al. 2005Central America Bussing 1976, CLOFFSCA (Reis et al. 2003)Caribbean Rauchenberger 1988, Burgess and Franz 1989South America CLOFFSCA (Reis et al. 2003), Menni 2003
Note: In many cases, these same sources were used to compile species lists. A full bibliography with additional publications,which along with unpublished data often constituted the greater part of inputs to ecoregion delineations and species lists, isavailable at the Web site www.feow.org. Every region also benefited from expert input; individual contributors are listed in theacknowledgments section and at the Web site. Regions in some cases correspond to politically rather than biophysicallydefined units to take advantage of existing information sources and expertise.
approach. For example, a new high-resolution hydrographicdataset (HydroSHEDS;www.wwfus.org/freshwater/hydrosheds.cfm) for SouthAmerica provided fine-scale catchment mapsthat, in conjunctionwith newly synthesized species data (Reiset al. 2003), aided in the assessment of biogeography. Inregions without extensive species data, or where major basinssupport highly similar faunas as a result of recent glaciation,a top-down analysis used qualitative expert knowledge ofdistinctive species and assemblages to map major bio-geographic patterns (table 2). Ecoregional boundaries result-ing from either approach, therefore, largely coincide withcatchment boundaries.
Whereas overall there is correspondence between catch-ments and ecoregion boundaries, unconnected neighboringcatchments were in some cases grouped together, wherestrong biogeographic evidence indicates that landscape orother features overrode contemporary hydrographic integrity.For example, owing to historic drainage evolution andsimilarities in fauna, Africa’s southern temperate highveldcombines headwaters of coastal basins that drain to theIndian Ocean with those of the Atlantic-draining Orangebasin. Considerable faunal exchange of the headwaters ofthe Orange River system with that of the coastal systems mayhave occurred as the coastal rivers eroded their basins at a fasterrate than the adjacentOrange tributaries (Skelton et al. 1995).
These and other examples demonstrate that historical geo-graphic events and current hydrology may have conflictingeffects on the fish fauna of a particular region and therebyargue for different boundaries. The decision to weigh someeffects more strongly than others was made on a case-by-casebasis, and it is acknowledged that additional data may favoralternative delineations.
With the exception of islands, individual freshwater eco-regions typically cover tens of thousands to hundreds ofthousands of square kilometers (Maxwell et al. 1995). Eco-region size varies in large part because of landscape history.Regionswith depauperate faunas resulting from recent glacia-tion events tend to have large ecoregion sizes, as do those dom-inated by very large river systems (e.g., much of SouthAmerica). Regions with recent tectonic activity or smaller,more isolated freshwater systems often are divided into smallerecoregions. For example, central Mexico has experiencedintermittent isolation and exchange between basins owing toactive mountain-building processes leading to small, frag-mented systems with distinct faunas. We acknowledge thatdata quality may also influence the size of ecoregions; for in-stance, the entire Amazon is currently divided into only 13ecoregions, but better data on species occurrences withinmajor subbasins wouldmost likely support finer delineations.
Articles
406 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org
Table 2. Basic ecoregion delineation approaches for individual regions.
Region Delineation approach
Africa Using Roberts (1975) as a starting point, ecoregions were delineated using a top-down qualitative assessment thatincorporated expert knowledge and divisions of major river basins. In a few cases where basin divides do not circumscribespecies distributions or where basins contain internal barriers to dispersal, ecoregions straddle or divide basins.
Middle East Species lists were generated for whole drainage basins, which were then either combined with smaller catchments thatwere very similar faunistically (minor desert basins, for example) or subdivided on the basis of different ecologies (e.g., theTigris-Euphrates with lowland marshes and upland streams).
Former USSR A species/genera/family presence/absence matrix was compiled for a hierarchy of hydrographic units, and cluster analysisand ordination techniques (Primer v.6 statistics software) were employed to assess biotic similarities among hydrographicunits and to identify major faunal breaks.
Remainder of Eurasia For Southeast Asia and southern Europe, a bottom-up approach employing both published and unpublished field data andexpert assessment was used. East Asian, northern European, and eastern European ecoregions were delineated through atop-down process using major basins as a starting point and incorporating traditionally recognized zoogeographic patternswhere appropriate.
Australasia For Australia, ecoregions were adapted from Allen and colleagues’ (2002) and Unmack’s (1991) “freshwater fish biogeo-graphic provinces”; provinces were derived through similarity analyses, parsimony analysis, and drainage-based plots ofspecies ranges. For New Guinea, “subprovinces” of Allen (1991) were modified (primarily combined) on the basis of expertinput. For New Zealand and other islands and island groups, islands were placed in ecoregions on the basis of expertinput.
Oceania Islands and island groups were placed in ecoregions on the basis of distinctive (endemic or near-endemic) fish faunas.
Canada Separate cluster analyses were conducted on fish occurrence in the secondary watersheds in each of the nine primarywatersheds in Canada.
United States The “subregions” of Maxwell and colleagues (1995) were adopted, with relatively small modifications made following inputby regional specialists, especially the Endangered Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society.
Mexico Ecoregion delineations were based on qualitative similarity/dissimilarity assessments of major basins, using the standardadministrative hydrographical regions of the Mexican federal government. Subregions within major basins were recognizedas separate ecoregions when the fish fauna was sufficiently distinctive.
Central America Fish provinces from Bussing (1976) were revised and subdivided on the basis of the application of the similarity index tosubbasin fish presence/absence data.
Caribbean Ecoregions from Olson and colleagues (1998) were modified on the basis of similarity analyses of island-by-island specieslists and expert input.
South America Ecoregion delineations were based on qualitative similarity/dissimilarity assessments of catchments, resulting in aggrega-tion/disaggregation. See box 1 for additional information.
Note: Some of the variations resulting from differences in data quality and biogeographic drivers across and within regions are noted. For some regions,subecoregions (described at www.feow.org) were delineated to capture finer-scale patterns than could be represented by ecoregions.
The process of delineating ecoregions required compilingand synthesizing information on the distributions of fishspecies. A logical and practical extension of the delineationswas the compilation of fish species lists for each ecoregion.For theUnited States,NatureServe provided presence/absencedata for individual species, coded to eight-digit hydrologic unitcodes (HUCs); these HUC occurrences were then translatedto ecoregions, and the data were manually cleaned of erro-neous occurrences derived from introductions and prob-lematic records. These species lists were then merged withthose from Canada and Mexico for transnational ecoregions.For all other ecoregions, data came from the published liter-ature, as well as from gray literature and unpublished sources(see table 1; a full bibliography is available atwww.feow.org).In all cases, experts served as gatekeepers of these data to en-sure that lists were based on the best available information,both in terms of distributions and nomenclature. Introducedspecies were removed from the tallies presented here, as were
undescribed species. Confirmed extinct species (Ian J. Har-rison,American Museum of Natural History,NewYork, per-sonal communication, 29 March 2007) were excluded, butextirpated species were included to acknowledge restorationopportunities. Endemic species, defined as those occurringonly in a single ecoregion,were identified first by experts andcross-checked using a species database constructed for thisproject, which includes more than 14,500 described fishspecies. Species were coded as freshwater, brackish, or marineusing data from FishBase (www.fishbase.org), and specieswith only brackish or marine designations were omittedfrom the richness and endemism totals reported here.
Freshwater ecoregional map and species resultsOurmapof freshwater ecoregions contains 426 units, coveringnearly all nonmarine parts of the globe, exclusive of Antarc-tica, Greenland, and some small islands (figure 1; a full leg-end is available at www.feow.org). There is large variation inthe area of individual ecoregions. Large ecoregions, such asthe dry Sahel (4,539,429 km2), tend to be found in more de-pauperate desert and polar regions exhibiting low speciesturnover. Smaller ecoregions are typically found in noncon-tinental settings where systems are by nature smaller andspecies turnover is higher, as in the Indo-Malay region. Thesmallest ecoregion, at 23 km2, is Cocos Island (Costa Rica);the average ecoregion size is 311,605 km2. Ecoregions rangedfrom those encompassing only 1 country to those straddling16 countries (central and western Europe ecoregion).
In total,we assignedmore than 13,400 described freshwaterfish species to ecoregions, of which more than 6900 wereassigned to single ecoregions (i.e., endemic). Examination ofthe fish species data synthesized by ecoregion confirms somewell-knownpatterns and highlights others unknown tomanyconservationists, managers, and policymakers working atregional or global scales (figures 2a–2d). In agreement withprevious global assessments (Groombridge and Jenkins 1998,Revenga et al. 1998), our analysis identifies as outstanding forboth fish richness and endemism systems that include largeportions of Africa’s Congo basin, the southernGulf of Guineadrainages, and LakesMalawi,Tanganyika, andVictoria;Asia’sZhu Jiang (Pearl River) basin and neighboring systems; andlarge portions of South America’s Amazon and Orinocobasins. Areas confirmed for globally high richness includeAsia’s Brahmaputra,Ganges, andYangtze basins, aswell as largeportions of the Mekong, Chao Phraya, and Sitang and Ir-rawaddy; Africa’s lower Guinea; and SouthAmerica’s Paranáand Orinoco. When richness is adjusted for ecoregion area,additional systems such as the Tennessee, Cumberland,Mo-bile Bay,Apalachicola, andOzark highlands in the southeasternUnited States; portions of Africa’s Niger River Basin; theislands of New Caledonia,Vanuatu, and Fiji; China’s HainanIsland; and large parts of Sumatra and Borneo, among manyother areas, are also especially noteworthy.
Numerous systems previously identified as highly endemicfor fishwere confirmed, asmeasured by either numbers of en-demic species or percentage endemism. A subset includes
Articles
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 407
The delineation process for South America followed a step-wise process of subdivision of the continent’s major drainagesystems. Delineation started with the historically recognizedmajor ichthyographic provinces exemplified in Gery (1969)and Ringuelet (1975) and proceeded with subdivision at finerscales using regionalized data on fish distributions.
The criteria for determining the merit of delineating an eco-region were not uniform across the continent as a result oflocalized faunistic differences. In some areas, delineationswere based on family-level data, whereas in others, faunisticturnover at lower taxonomic levels was the criterion. Forinstance, astroblepid catfishes are distinct components of high-elevation freshwaters along the Andes forefront, and that fami-ly’s distribution was critical to informing the delineation of thehigh Andean ecoregions. On the other side of the continentalong the Atlantic coast, we used the presence or absence ofendemic assemblages of the genus Trichomycterus, several gen-era of the subfamily Neoplecostomatinae, and the presence orabsence of annual killifish genera and species to distinguishdistinct drainage complexes from one another.
In the piedmont zones and in contact areas between lowlandsand geologic shield areas, we used indicator groups to deter-mine where along the elevation/slope gradient the fauna waschanging. The distribution of lowland forms was matchedwith forms found in higher-gradient systems to establishwhere one group was dropping out and the other startedoccurring. This transition zone was then established as theoperational boundary between connecting ecoregions.
For areas like Patagonia, the Titicaca altiplano, and the Mara-caibo basin, the uniqueness of the fauna, often occurring with-in clearly defined geographic areas, permitted reasonablystraightforward delineations. In the larger river basin systemswhere there are no clear boundaries, the ecoregional limits arethe best approximation, given the current data.
Box 1. Example of criteria applied to ecoregiondelineation: South America.
Articles
408 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org
Nor
thAm
eric
a101
Alas
kanCoa
stal
102
Upp
erYu
kon
103
Alas
kaan
dCan
adaPa
cific
Coa
stal
104
Upp
erMackenzie
105
Lower
Mackenzie
106
Cen
tral
Arctic
Coa
stal
107
Upp
erSas
katche
wan
108
MiddleSas
katche
wan
109
English–
Winnipe
gLa
kes
110
Sou
thernHud
sonBay
111
Wes
tern
Hud
sonBay
112
Can
adianArctic
Archipelag
o113
EasternHud
sonBay–U
ngava
114
Gulfof
St.LawrenceCoa
stal
Drainag
es115
Can
adianAtlantic
Island
s116
Lauren
tianGreat
Lakes
117
St.Lawrence
118
Northea
stUSan
dSou
thea
stCan
ada
Atlantic
Drainag
es119
Scotia
–Fun
dy120
Colum
biaGlaciated
121
Colum
biaUng
laciated
122
Upp
erSna
ke
123
Orego
nan
dNorthernCalifo
rnia
Coa
stal
124
Orego
nLa
kes
125
Sacramen
to–S
anJoaq
uin
126
Laho
ntan
127
Bon
neville
128
Dea
thVa
lley
129
Vega
s–Virgin
130
Colorad
o131
Gila
132
Upp
erRio
Grand
e–Bravo
133
Pecos
134
Rio
Con
chos
135
Lower
Rio
Grand
e–Bravo
136
Cua
troCiene
gas
137
Rio
Salad
o138
Rio
San
Juan
(Mexico)
139
Wes
tTexasGulf
140
East
TexasGulf
141
Sab
ine–
Galveston
142
Upp
erMisso
uri
143
MiddleMisso
uri
144
USSou
thernPlains
145
Oua
chita
Highlan
ds146
Cen
tral
Prairie
147
Ozark
Highlan
ds148
Upp
erMississ
ippi
149
Lower
Mississ
ippi
150
Teays–Old
Ohio
151
Cum
berla
nd152
Tenn
esse
e153
Mob
ileBay
154
Wes
tFloridaGulf
155
Apalachicola
156
FloridaPe
nins
ula
157
Appa
lachianPied
mon
t158
Che
sape
akeBay
159
Sou
thernCalifo
rnia
Coa
stal–B
aja
Califo
rnia
160
Son
ora
161
Guzman
–Sam
alayuca
162
Sinaloa
163
Mayran–
Vies
ca164
Rio
San
tiago
165
Lerm
a–Cha
pala
166
Llan
osEl
Salad
o167
Panu
co168
Ameca–
Man
antla
n169
Rio
Balsa
s
170
SierraMad
rede
lSur
171
Papa
loap
an172
Coa
tzacoa
lcos
173
Grijalva–U
sumacinta
174
Upp
erUsu
macinta
175
Yucatan
176
Bermud
a
Cent
ralA
mer
ica
201
Chiap
as–Fon
seca
202
Quintan
aRoo
–Motag
ua203
Mos
quitia
204
Estero
Rea
l–Tempisq
ue205
San
Juan
(Nicarag
uaan
dCos
taRica)
206
Chiriq
ui207
Isthmus
Caribbe
an208
San
taMaria
209
Cha
gres
210
Rio
Tuira
211
Cub
a–Cayman
Island
s212
Bah
amaArchipelag
o213
Jamaica
214
Hispa
niola
215
Puerto
Rico–
Virgin
Island
s
216
Windw
ardan
dLe
ewardIsland
s217
Cocos
Island
(Cos
taRica)
Sout
hAm
eric
a301
North
Ande
anPa
cific
Slope
s–Rio
Atrato
302
Mag
dalena
–Sinu
303
Maracaibo
304
Sou
thAm
ericaCaribbe
anDrainag
es–Trin
idad
305
Orin
ocoHighAn
des
306
Orin
ocoPied
mon
t307
Orin
ocoLlan
os308
Orin
ocoGuian
aShield
309
Orin
ocoDelta
andCoa
stal
Drainag
es310
Esse
quibo
311
Guian
as312
Amazon
asHighAn
des
313
Wes
tern
Amazon
Pied
mon
t314
Rio
Neg
ro315
Amazon
asGuian
aShield
316
Amazon
asLo
wland
s317
Ucayali–Uruba
mba
Pied
mon
t318
Mam
ore–
Mad
rede
DiosPied
mon
t319
Gua
pore–Itene
z
Figu
re1.Map
offreshw
ater
ecoregionsof
theworld,inwhich
426ecoregionsaredelineated.Aninteractiveversionof
thismap
that
includesad
dition
alinform
ationis
availableat
ww
w.f
eow
.org.
Articles
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 409
320
Tapa
jos–Juruen
a321
Mad
eira
BrazilianShield
322
u323
Amazon
asEs
tuaryan
dCoa
stal
Drainag
es324
Tocantins–Arag
uaia
325
Parnaiba
326
Northea
sternCaa
tinga
andCoa
stal
Drainag
es327
S.Fran
cisco
328
Northea
sternMataAtlantica
329
Paraibado
Sul
330
Ribeira
deIgua
pe331
Sou
thea
sternMataAtlantica
332
Lower
Urugu
ay333
Upp
erUrugu
ay334
Lagu
nado
sPa
tos
335
Tram
anda
i–Mam
pituba
336
Cen
tral
Ande
anPa
cific
Slope
s337
Titic
aca
338
Atacam
a339
Mar
Chiqu
ita–S
alinas
Grand
es340
Cuyan
–Des
agua
dero
341
Sou
thAn
dean
Pacific
Slope
s342
Cha
co343
Paragu
ay344
Upp
erPa
rana
345
Lower
Parana
346
Igua
ssu
347
Bon
aerens
eanDrainag
es348
Patago
nia
349
ValdivianLa
kes
350
Galap
agos
Island
s351
Juan
Fernan
dezIsland
352
Flum
inen
se
Euro
pean
dM
iddl
eEa
st401
Icelan
d–JanMayen
402
NorthernBritishIsles
403
Can
tabric
Coa
st–Lan
gued
oc404
Cen
tral
andWes
tern
Europe
405
Norweg
ianSea
Drainag
es406
NorthernBaltic
Drainag
es407
Baren
tsSea
Drainag
es408
Sou
thernBaltic
Lowland
s409
Lake
One
ga–LakeLa
doga
410
Volga–
Ural
411
Wes
tern
Cas
pian
Drainag
es412
Wes
tern
Iberia
413
Sou
thernIberia
414
EasternIberia
415
Gulfof
Venice
Drainag
es416
ItalianPe
nins
ulaan
dIsland
s417
Upp
erDan
ube
418
Dnies
ter–Lo
wer
Dan
ube
419
Dalmatia
420
Sou
thea
stAd
riatic
Drainag
es421
Ionian
Drainag
es422
Vardar
423
Thrace
424
Aege
anDrainag
es425
Dniep
er–S
outh
Bug
426
Crim
eaPe
nins
ula
427
Don
428
Kub
an429
Wes
tern
Anatolia
430
NorthernAn
atolia
431
Cen
tral
Anatolia
432
Sou
thernAn
atolia
433
Wes
tern
Tran
scau
casia
434
Kura–
Sou
thCas
pian
Drainag
es435
Sinai
436
Coa
stal
Levant
437
Orontes
438
Jordan
River
439
Sou
thwes
tern
Arab
ianCoa
st440
Arab
ianInterio
r441
Lower
Tigris
andEu
phrates
442
Upp
erTigris
andEu
phrates
443
Oman
Mou
ntains
444
Lake
Van
445
Orumiyeh
446
Cas
pian
Highlan
ds
447
Nam
ak448
Kaviran
dLu
tDes
erts
449
Esfaha
n450
TuranPlain
451
NorthernHormuz
Drainag
es452
Cas
pian
Marine
453
VolgaDelta–N
orthernCas
pian
Drainag
es
Afric
aan
dM
adag
asca
r501
Atlantic
Northwes
tAfric
a502
Med
iterran
eanNorthwes
tAfric
a503
Sah
ara
504
Dry
Sah
el505
Lower
Niger–B
enue
506
Niger
Delta
507
Upp
erNiger
508
Inne
rNiger
Delta
509
Sen
egal–G
ambia
510
Fouta–
Djalon
511
NorthernUpp
erGuine
a512
Sou
thernUpp
erGuine
a513
Mou
ntNim
ba514
Eburne
o515
Asha
nti
516
Volta
517
Bight
Drainag
es518
NorthernGulfof
Guine
aDrainag
es–B
ioko
519
Wes
tern
Equa
toria
lCraterLa
kes
520
Lake
Cha
d521
Lake
Victoria
Bas
in522
Upp
erNile
523
Lower
Nile
524
Nile
Delta
525
Ethiop
ianHighlan
ds526
Lake
Tana
527
Wes
tern
Red
Sea
Drainag
es528
NorthernEa
sternRift
529
Hornof
Afric
a530
Lake
Turkan
a531
She
belle–Jub
a532
Ogo
oue–
Nyang
a–Kou
ilou–
Niari
533
Sou
thernGulfof
Guine
aDrainag
es534
San
gha
535
Sud
anic
Con
go–O
uban
gi536
Uele
537
Cuvette
Cen
trale
538
Tumba
539
Upp
erCon
goRap
ids
540
Upp
erCon
go541
Albe
rtineHighlan
ds542
Lake
Tang
anyika
543
Malag
aras
i–Moyow
osi
544
Ban
gweu
lu–M
weru
545
Upp
erLu
alab
a546
Kas
ai547
Mai
Ndo
mbe
548
Maleb
oPo
ol549
Lower
Con
goRap
ids
550
Lower
Con
go551
Cua
nza
552
Nam
ib553
Etos
ha554
Karstveld
SinkHoles
555
Zambe
zian
Hea
dwaters
556
Upp
erZa
mbe
ziFloo
dplains
557
Kafue
558
MiddleZa
mbe
zi–Lua
ngwa
559
Lake
Malaw
i560
Zambe
zian
Highveld
561
Lower
Zambe
zi562
Mulan
je563
EasternZimba
bweHighlan
ds564
Coa
stal
East
Afric
a565
Lake
Ruk
wa
566
Sou
thernEa
sternRift
567
Tana
,Athi,an
dCoa
stal
Drainag
es568
Pang
ani
569
Okavang
o570
Kalah
ari
571
Sou
thernKalah
ari
572
Wes
tern
Orang
e573
Karoo
574
Drakens
berg–M
alotiH
ighlan
ds
575
Sou
thernTempe
rate
Highveld
576
Zambe
zian
Lowveld
577
Amatolo–
WinterbergHighlan
ds578
Cap
eFold
579
Wes
tern
Mad
agas
car
580
Northwes
tern
Mad
agas
car
581
Mad
agas
carEa
sternHighlan
ds582
Sou
thernMad
agas
car
583
Mad
agas
carEa
sternLo
wland
s584
Com
oros
–Mayotte
585
Seychelles
586
Mas
carene
s587
S.Tomean
dPrincipe
–Ann
obon
Nor
ther
nAs
ia601
Irgyz–Turga
i602
Ob
603
Upp
erIrtysh
604
Chu
ya605
Yenise
i606
Lake
Baika
l607
Taim
yr608
Lena
609
Kolym
a610
Anad
yr611
East
Chu
kotka
612
Koryakia
613
Kam
chatka
andNorthernKurils
614
Okh
otsk
Coa
st615
Coa
stal
Amur
616
Lower
Amur
617
MiddleAm
ur618
Argu
n619
Shilka(Amur)
620
Son
ghua
Jian
g621
Inne
rMon
golia
Endo
rheicBas
ins
622
Wes
tern
Mon
golia
623
Dzung
aria
624
Balka
sh–A
laku
l625
Tarim
626
Lower
andMiddleSyr
Darya
627
Lake
IssykKul–U
pper
Chu
628
NorthernCen
tral
AsianHighlan
ds629
Aral
Sea
Drainag
es630
MiddleAm
uDarya
631
Upp
erAm
uDarya
632
Qaida
n633
Upp
erHua
ngHe
634
Upp
erHua
ngHeCorrid
or635
Hua
ngHeGreat
Ben
d636
Lower
Hua
ngHe
637
Liao
He
638
EasternYellowSea
Drainag
es639
Sou
thea
sternKorea
nPe
nins
ula
640
Ham
gyon
g–San
mae
k641
Sak
halin,H
okka
ido,
andSikho
te–
Alin
Coa
st642
Hon
shu–
Shikoku
–Kyush
u643
BiwaKo
Sout
hern
Asia
701
Baluchistan
702
Helman
d–Sistan
703
Lower
andMiddleIndu
s704
Yagh
istan
705
Indu
sHim
alayan
Foothills
706
Upp
erIndu
s707
Tibe
tanPlatea
uEn
dorheicDrainag
es708
Nam
uda–
Tapi
709
Gan
gesDelta
andPlain
710
Gan
gesHim
alayan
Foothills
711
Upp
erBrahm
aputra
712
MiddleBrahm
aputra
713
NorthernDeccanPlatea
u714
Sou
thernDeccanPlatea
u715
Wes
tern
Gha
ts716
Sou
thea
sternGha
ts717
SriLa
nkaDry
Zone
718
SriLa
nkaWet
Zone
719
ChinHills–Arak
anCoa
st720
Sita
ng–Irawad
dy721
Upp
erSalwee
n722
Lower
andMiddleSalwee
n
723
Inle
Lake
724
Upp
erLa
ncan
g(M
ekon
g)725
ErHai
726
Lower
Lancan
g(M
ekon
g)727
Kho
ratPlatea
u(M
ekon
g)728
Kratie
–Stung
Tren
g(M
ekon
g)729
Mekon
gDelta
730
Sou
thernAn
nam
731
EasternGulfof
Thailand
Drainag
es732
Cha
oPh
raya
733
Mae
Khlon
g734
Malay
Penins
ulaEa
sternSlope
735
NorthernCen
tral
Sum
atra–W
estern
Malaysia
736
Aceh
737
Indian
Ocean
Slope
ofSum
atra
andJava
738
Sou
thernCen
tral
Sum
atra
739
Sou
thernSum
atra–W
estern
Java
740
Cen
tral
andEa
sternJava
741
Kap
uas
742
Northwes
tern
Borne
o743
Borne
oHighlan
ds744
Northea
sternBorne
o745
EasternBorne
o746
Sou
thea
sternBorne
o747
Maluk
ku748
Less
erSun
daIsland
s749
Sulaw
esi
750
Malili
Lakes
751
Lake
Poso
752
Minda
nao
753
Lake
Lana
o755
NorthernPh
ilipp
ineIsland
s756
Palawan
–Bus
uang
a–Mindo
ro757
Wes
tern
Taiwan
758
EasternTaiwan
759
Haina
n760
NorthernAn
nam
761
Son
gHon
g762
Yunn
anLa
kes
763
XiYian
g764
Upp
erYang
tze
765
MiddleYang
tze
766
Lower
Yang
tze
767
Coa
stal
Fujian–
Zeijang
768
Anda
man
Island
s769
Nicob
arIsland
s
Aust
ralia
and
Paci
fic801
Sou
thwes
tern
Australia
802
Pilbara
803
Kim
berle
y804
Paleo
805
Arafura–
Carpe
ntaria
806
Lake
Eyre
Bas
in807
EasternCoa
stal
Australia
808
Murray–Darling
809
Bas
sStraitDrainag
es810
Sou
thernTasm
ania
811
New
Zealan
d812
Voge
lkop
–Bom
berai
813
New
Guine
aNorth
Coa
st814
New
Guine
aCen
tral
Mou
ntains
815
Sou
thwes
tNew
Guine
a–Tran
s-FlyLo
wland
816
Papu
anPe
nins
ula
817
Bismarck
Archipelag
o818
Solom
onIsland
s819
Vanu
atu
820
New
Caled
onia
821
Fiji
822
Wallis–Futun
a823
Sam
oas
824
Society
Island
s825
Tubu
aiIsland
s826
Marqu
esas
Island
s827
Rap
a828
Haw
aiianIsland
s829
East
CarolineIsland
s830
Wes
tCarolineIsland
s
highland lakes in Cameroon along with Africa’s Lake Tana;northwestern and eastern Madagascar; freshwaters fromTurkey’s centralAnatolia region, the northern British Isles, thePhilippines, Sri Lanka, India’s western Ghats, the southwest-ern Balkans, and northwest Mediterranean; southwesternAustralia and nearly the entire island of NewGuinea; Eurasianlakes, including Baikal, Inle, and Sulawesi’s Lake Poso andMalili system;DeathValley in the United States and Mexico’sPánuco system; and South America’s Iguaçu River, Lake Tit-icaca, and the freshwaters of both the MataAtlántica and thecontinent’s northwestern Pacific coast. Additionally, newlyavailable data show that some systems previously recognizedfor high endemism, such as those of SouthAmerica’s Guianas,also exhibit exceptional richness.
Because our ecoregions cover all nonmarine waters, andbecause they often exist as subdivisions of major river basins,our results also highlight a number of smaller systems for thefirst time in global analyses.Using finer-resolution data allowedus to identify the high richness of the Congo’s Malebo Pooland Kasai basin. Cuba and Hispaniola stand out forendemism, along with the Amazon’s western piedmont and
the Tocantins-Araguaia systems. The Tocantins-Araguaia, aswell as the highly endemic São Francisco,were defined as unitsof analysis inRevenga and colleagues (1998),but fish datawereunavailable for those basins when that study was done.Systems never before analyzed globally but recognized inour results as exceptionally rich for fish include those of theMalay Peninsula’s eastern slope and Japan.A large number ofecoregions are identified for the first time for highly endemicfaunas,measured as percentage endemism.Newly identifiedecoregions with at least 50% endemism include Africa’sCuanza,Australia’s Lake Eyre Basin,Mexico’sMayrán-Viesca,and New Zealand, as well as a large number of highly depau-perate ecoregions such asAfrica’s karstveld sink holes,Turkey’sLake Van, the Oman Mountains, western Mongolia, andHawaii.
Each of the biodiversity analyses that we offer here em-phasizes different sets of ecoregions, suggesting that a singlemeasure of species diversity might overlook ecoregions ofimportant biodiversity value. In a comparative analysis ofbiodiversity value, ecoregions are probably best evaluatedagainst others within the same region,with similar historical
Articles
410 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org
Figure 2. Preliminary freshwater fish species data for ecoregions: (a) species richness, (b) number of endemic species, (c)percentage endemism, and (d) species per ecoregion area. Numbers may be adjusted on the basis of an ongoing process tocorrect nomenclatural errors. Natural breaks (Jenk’s optimization) was the classification method used for figures (a)–(c).This method identifies breakpoints between classes using a statistical formula that identifies groupings and patternsinherent in the data.
and environmental characteristics, and of similar size to ac-count for the typically positive relationship between riverdischarge and fish species richness (Oberdorff et al. 1995).Nonetheless, some systems, such as theAmazon and many ofAfrica’s Rift Valley lakes, stand out by nearly any measure offish biodiversity and are indisputable global conservationpriorities.
Conservation applicationsThe ecoregion map and associated species data summarizedhere have a number of conservation applications. At globaland regional scales the ecoregion map can be used to distin-guish distinct units of freshwater biodiversity to be representedin conservation efforts. The Convention on Wetlands, forinstance, requires that sites nominated as wetlands of inter-national importance—with wetlands defined to include allfreshwaters—be evaluated against a “biogeographic region-alization” criterion (Ramsar Bureau 2006). Lack of a globalbiogeographic scheme has stalled the application of this cri-terion, but our global map and database may provide a nec-essary framework for identifying broadscale gaps in protection.Similarly, progress toward the establishment of representativenetworks of freshwater protected areas, as called for by the thirdIUCN World Conservation Congress, the fifth World ParksCongress, and the seventh Meeting of the Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, can now bemeasured using ecoregions as a proxy for finer-scale globalspecies or habitat distribution data. At a regional level, thefreshwater ecoregion map may be used as supplementary in-formation for implementation of the European Union’sWa-ter Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), which requires acharacterization of surface water bodies and currently usesregions defined by Illies (1978).
A primary use of ecoregions is as conservation planningunits (Higgins 2003). Our attribution of freshwater fishspecies data to ecoregions is an important first step for data-poor regions. Organizations or agencies with regional man-dates may choose to compare biodiversity values acrossecoregions in the process of setting continental priorities(Abell et al. 2000, Thieme et al. 2005). At the basin scale,ecoregions can help to introduce biodiversity information intowater-resource or integrated-basin management activities(Gilman et al. 2004).Where major basins are divided amongmultiple freshwater ecoregions, whole-basin exercises canuse ecoregions as stratification units to ensure adequate rep-resentation of distinct biotas.Where unconnected drainagesare combined into a single freshwater ecoregion,plannersmaychoose to consider a counterintuitive planning unit to in-corporate biogeographic patterns. Freshwater ecoregions de-fined in previous exercises have already been put to use by theNature Conservancy and WWF in numerous conservationplanning efforts acrossNorthAmerica (e.g.,UpperMississippi;Weitzell et al. 2003), South America (e.g., the Pantanal; deJesus 2003), and Africa (e.g., the Congo basin; Kamdem-Toham et al. 2003).
Caveats and limitationsEcoregions are delineated based on the best available infor-mation, but data describing freshwater species and ecologi-cal processes are characterized by marked gaps and variationin quality and consistency. Data quality is generally consid-ered high for NorthAmerica,Australia,New Zealand, Japan,western Europe, and Russia; moderate for Central America,the southern cone of South America, southern and westernAfrica, Oceania, and the Middle East; and poor for much ofsoutheastern Asia, central and eastern Africa, and SouthAmerica north of the Paraná River basin.
Freshwater ecoregions are not homogeneous units.Withinindividual ecoregions there will be turnover of species alonglongitudinal gradients of river systems and across differenthabitats such as flowing and standing-water systems. Theinclusion of multiplemacrohabitat types within a given fresh-water ecoregion is a marked departure from terrestrial ecore-gions, which typically encompass a single vegetation-definedbiome (e.g., deciduous forests, evergreen forests, or scrub;Wikramanayake et al. 2002).
Ecoregions are imperfect units for highlighting certainhighly distinct and highly localized assemblages occurring atsubecoregion scales. Examples include many peat swamps orsubterranean systems.Underground systems such as caves andkarstsmay require their own planning framework, as ground-water catchmentsmay not correspondwith the surface-watercatchments upon which our ecoregions are built.
For reasons of practicality and scale, our ecoregion frame-work does not take into account the distributions of freshwaterspecies such as invertebrates, reptiles, and amphibians. Thisis a limitation of the ecoregional approach presented here,which is especially problematic for places such as isolatedislands where freshwater fish provide little information toinform biogeographic delineation. We hope this taxonomicomission will serve as motivation for generating and syn-thesizing global data for other taxonomic groups to providecomplementary information for conservation planners, par-ticularly whenworking at subecoregional scales.We recognizethat improved information in the futuremaywarrantmap re-visions, and we highlight areas of greatest data uncertainty inpart to encourage enhanced research investment in thoseplaces.We believe that the critical state of freshwater systemsand species argues against waiting for ideal biodiversity datato be developed before generating urgently needed conser-vation tools like the ecoregion map.
Shifting transition zones for species are common, and werecommend that ecoregions be viewed as logical units formoredetailed analyses and strategies. Ecoregions are intended to de-pict the estimated original extent of natural communitiesbefore major alterations caused by recent human activities,but original distributions can be difficult to reconstruct. Asnew species are described, our understanding of distributionpatterns may also change. Ecoregional delineation is an iter-ative process, and changes to ecoregion boundaries should beincorporated as new information becomes available.
Articles
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 411
There is no definitive, error-free data source for classifyingfish species as freshwater, brackish, ormarine.We chose to usethe global FishBase habitat assignments, which are derivedfrom the literature, to ensure that any given species in our data-base would be classified consistently wherever it occurred.Werecognize that errors of omission or commission may derivefrom inaccuracies in the FishBase assignments as well asfrom the habitat plasticity of some species. All species in-formation provided to us by experts, regardless of habitatassignment, is retained in our database for future analyses.
The preliminary richness and endemism numbers pre-sented here are in some cases markedly different from exist-ing estimates in the literature. For example, our tally for LakeMalawi contains 431 described fish species, but other estimatesrun as high as 800 or more (Thieme et al. 2005). Our omis-sion of undescribed species, as well as the conservativeapproach taken by experts in using only robust speciesoccurrence data, account for many of these lower-than-expected numbers.Numbers of endemics may in some casesbe higher than expected because endemics were identifiedstrictly through a database query for unique occurrences,and many species lists are undoubtedly incomplete or usesynonyms. We anticipate that many tallies will change withfurther refinement of species lists but that the broad patternspresented here will hold.
ConclusionsThe newly available species data attributed to ecoregions hasimportant implications for prioritizing conservation invest-ments. As one illustration, in 2005 the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), which spends more than $1 billion each yearon environmental projects, adopted a new resource allocationframework.Terrestrial ecoregion maps and biodiversity datawere notable inputs to the framework, but parallel fresh-water information to help guide investments was lacking.The GEF framework fortunately leaves open the possibilityof incorporating freshwater ecoregions and biodiversity dataat a later date (GEF 2005).
In addition to providing data for scientific and conserva-tion purposes, we aim to give the largest possible number ofpeople access to the ecoregion-level information collected inassociation with the global map. The information will befreely available on the Internet (www.feow.org) as well as inbrochures, posters, and other publications. The freshwaterecoregion map covers virtually all land surfaces on Earth, sopeople around the globe will have the opportunity to learnabout the freshwater systems where they live.
For most policymakers, water resource managers, andeven conservationists, freshwater biodiversity is more of anafterthought than a central consideration of their work. Thefreshwater ecosystem services that support the lives and liveli-hoods of countless people worldwide are a far larger concern.Yet freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services are linkedthrough ecological integrity, and better-informed efforts toconserve freshwater biodiversity should benefit human com-munities as well. The freshwater ecoregions of the worldmap
and associated species data begin to improve access to pre-viously dispersed and difficult to access freshwater biodiver-sity information.We hope that this set of products catalyzesadditional work toward a better understanding of freshwaterspecies distributions and—of equal if notmore importance—leads to a ramping up of freshwater conservation activityand success.
AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the dozens of scientists whocontributed to development of the ecoregion map and syn-thesis of fish species data: E. K. Abbam, Vinicius Abilhoa,Angelo Agostinho, James Albert, Hector Samuel VeraAlcazar, Claudio Baigun, Eldredge Bermingham,Tim Berra,Vinicius Bertaco, Richard Biggins, Flavio Bockmann, PauloBuckup, Noel Burkhead, Brooks Burr, Mary Burridge,LaurenChapman,LindsayChatterton,BarryChernoff, LyndaCorkum, Ian Cowx, William Crampton, Alain Crivelli,Carolina Joana da Silva, Tim Davenport, Luc De Vos,Ignacio Doadrio, Carlos DoNascimiento, Luis FernandoDuboc, Brian Dyer, Carlo Echiverri, Jean Marc Elouard,Joerg Freyhof, Christopher Frissell, German Galvis, AngusGascoigne, Abebe Getahun, A. Gopalakrishnan, MichaelGoulding, Jon Harding, Tan Heok Hui, Liu Huanzhang,Leonardo Ingenito, Michel Jégu, Howard Jelks, Aaron Jenk-ins, Wolfgang Junk,Ad Konings, Friedhelm Krupp, PhilippeLalèyè, Carlos Alcala Lasso, Christian Lévêque, Flávio C. T.Lima, Cas Lindsey, Jorge Liotta, Marcelo Loureiro, CarlosLucena, Margarete Lucena, Paulo Henrique Lucinda, Anto-nioMachado-Allison,ChristopherMagadza, LuisMalabarba,Mabel Maldonado, Maria Cristina Dreher Mansur, LarryMaster, Don McAllister, Robert McDowall, J. D. McPhail,Geraldo Mendes dos Santos, Naércio A. Menezes, RobertoCarlos Menni, Jose Ivan Mojica, Peter Moyle, Thierry Ober-dorff, Javier Maldonado Ocampo, Mike K. Oliver, HernanOrtega, Mark Oswood, Vadim E. Panov, Carla SimonePavanelli,Christine Poellabauer,David Propst, Edson Pereira,Saul Prada, Francisco Provenzano, Gordon McGregor Reid,Anthony J. Ribbink, Francisco Antonio Rodrigues Barbosa,Ricardo S. Rosa, Norma J. Salcedo-Maúrtua, Jansen AlfredoSampaio Zuanon, Robert Schelly, Michael Schindel, UliSchliewen, Juan Jacobo Schmitter Soto, Martin Schneider-Jacoby,UweHorst Schulz,Lothar Seegers,Ole Seehausen,ScottSmith, John S. Sparks,Don Stewart,DonaldTaphorn,Christo-pher Taylor, Guy Teugels, Louis Tsague,Denis Tweddle, PaulVan Damme,D.Thys van denAudenaerde, Stephen J.Walsh,ClaudeWeber, RobinWelcomme, James D.Williams, PhillipWillink, and Stamatis Zogaris. Additionally, William Esch-meyer and Stan Blum provided critical support toward im-proving our fish species database.The importance of biologicalcollections and the work of taxonomists are basic to all bio-geographic mapping projects, and so we acknowledge andhighlight the fundamental contribution of collections and tax-onomy to this effort and to conservation generally. Institutionsand organizations that have generously provided data andassistance include theAmerican Fisheries Society’s Endangered
Articles
412 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org
Species Committee, the American Museum of NaturalHistory, Belgium’s Royal Museum for Central Africa, theCaliforniaAcademy of Sciences, FishBase, Fundación La Sallede Ciencias Naturales, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas daAmazônia, IUCN, Museu de Ciências e Tecnologia PUCRS,Museo de Zoologia de la Universidad Central de Venezuela,Museo de Zoologia de la Universidad Nacional de los LlanosOccidentales, Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, Nature-Serve, South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity, andthe ZoologicalMuseumof theUniversity of Copenhagen.Eze-quiel Zamora,George Ledec,Douglas Graham, and GonzaloCastro were instrumental in the earliest stages of this project.We also thank Nasser Olwero for his development of theFEOWWeb site; Eric Dinerstein for his guidance and reviewof an earlier manuscript; and many additional former andcurrent WWF and Nature Conservancy staff acknowledgedon the FEOWWeb site, including but not limited to Jamie Pit-tock, Allison Pease, Brian Blankespoor, and Tucker Gilman.This work was supported in part by grants toWWF from theCoca-Cola Company and JohnsonDiversey Inc. Additionalsupport was generously provided to the Nature Conservancyby Bill Barclay, Ofelia Miramontes, and John Mordgridge.Work in South America was supported in part by the USAgency for International Development through award num-ber EDG-A-00-01-0023-00 for the Parks in Peril Program.
References citedAbell RA, et al. 2000. Freshwater Ecoregions of North America: A Conser-
vation Assessment.Washington (DC): Island Press.AllenGR.1991. FieldGuide to the Freshwater Fishes of NewGuinea.Madang
(Papua New Guinea): Christensen Research Institute.Allen GR, Midgley SH,Allen M. 2002. Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes
of Australia. Perth (Australia): Western Australian Museum.Balian EV, Lévêque C, Segers H, Martens K, eds. 2008. Freshwater Animal
Diversity Assessment. Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer.Banarescu P. 1990. Zoogeography of FreshWaters, vol. 1: General Distribu-
tion andDispersal of FreshwaterAnimals.Weisbaden (Germany):AULA.Berra TM. 2001. Freshwater Fish Distribution. San Diego: Academic Press.Burgess GH, Franz R. 1989. Zoogeography of the Antillean freshwater fish
fauna. Pages 263–304 inWoods CA, Sergile FE, eds. Biogeography of theWest Indies: Patterns and Perspectives. Boca Raton (FL): CRC.
BussingWA. 1976.Geographic distribution of the San Juan ichthyofauna ofCentral America with remarks on its origin and ecology. Pages 157–175inThorsonTB, ed. Investigations of NicaraguanLakes.Lincoln:Universityof Nebraska.
Contreras-Balderas S. 2000. Biogeografía mexicana de peces continentales.Mexicoa 2: 80–84.
de Jesus F, coord. 2003.Classification of Aquatic Ecosystems of the Pantanaland theUpper ParaguayWatershed.Brasilia (Brazil):NatureConservancy.
Dinerstein E, Olson DM, Graham DJ,Webster AL, Primm SA, BookbinderMP, Ledec G. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Eco-regions of Latin America and the Carribean. Washington (DC): WorldBank.
Dudgeon D, et al. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, statusand conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81: 163–182.
EschmeyerWN. 2006.The Catalog of Fishes On-line (updated 7 November2006).CaliforniaAcademy of Sciences. (14March 2008;www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html)
[GEF] Global Environment Facility. 2005. Technical Paper on the GEFResource Allocation Framework. (4 April 2008; www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Resource_Allocation_Framework.html)
Gery J. 1969.The fresh-water fishes of SouthAmerica.Pages 828–848 in FitkauEJ, ed.Biogeography and Ecology in SouthAmerica.TheHague (Nether-lands): W. Junk.
Gilman RT, Abell RA, Williams CE. 2004. How can conservation biologyinform the practice of integrated river basinmanagement? Journal of RiverBasin Management 2: 135–148.
Groombridge B, Jenkins M. 1998. Freshwater Biodiversity: A PreliminaryGlobal Assessment. Cambridge (UK):World Conservation MonitoringCentre.
Groves CR, JensenDB,Valutis LL,RedfordKH,ShafferML, Scott JM,Baum-gartner JV, Higgins JV, Beck MW, Anderson MG. 2002. Planning forbiodiversity conservation: Putting conservation science into practice.BioScience 52: 499–512.
Higgins JV. 2003. Maintaining the ebbs and flows of the landscape:Conservation planning for freshwater ecosystems. Pages 291–318 inGroves C, ed.Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner’s Guideto Planning for Biodiversity. Washington (DC): Nature Conservancyand Island Press.
Illies J, ed. 1978. Limnofauna Europaea. New York: Gustav Fischer.Kamdem-Toham A, et al. 2003. Biological Priorities for Conservation in
theGuinean-Congolian Forest and Freshwater Region.Libreville (Gabon):WWF-CARPO.
Keith P, Vigneux E, Marquet G. 2002. Atlas des Poissons et des Crustacésd’Eau Douce de Polynésie Française. Paris:Muséum National d’HistoireNaturelle.
Kottelat M, Freyhof J. 2007. Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes.Switzerland: Steven Simpson Books.
Lévêque C, ed. 1997. Biodiversity Dynamics and Conservation: The Fresh-water Fish of Tropical Africa. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge UniversityPress.
Lévêque C, Balian EV, Martens K. 2005. An assessment of animal speciesdiversity in continental waters. Hydrobiologia 542: 39–67.
Lundberg JG, Kottelat M, Smith GR, Stiassny MLJ, Gill AC. 2000. So manyfishes, so little time: An overview of recent ichthyological discovery incontinental waters.Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 87: 26–62.
Maxwell JR, Edwards CJ, Jensen ME, Paustian SJ, Parrott H,Hill DM. 1995.A Hierarchical Framework of Aquatic Ecological Units in North Amer-ica (Nearctic Zone). St. Paul (MN):USDA Forest Service,North CentralForest Experiment Station. General Technical Report NC-176.
McDonald R, McKnight M, Weiss D, Selig E, O’Connor M, Violin C,MoodyA.2005. Species compositional similarity and ecoregions:Do eco-region boundaries represent zones of high species turnover? BiologicalConservation 126: 24–40.
McDowall RM.1990.NewZealand Freshwater Fishes:ANatural History andGuide. Auckland (New Zealand): Hinemann Reed.
[MEA] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and HumanWell-being: Synthesis.Washington (DC): Island Press.
Menni RC. 2003. Peces y ambientes en la Argentina continental. Mono-graph of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales 5: 1–316.
Miller RR,MinckleyWL,Norris S. 2005.Fishes of México.Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life.Version 6.1.NatureServe. (17March 2008;www.natureserve.org/explorer)
Oberdorff T, Guegan JF, Hugueny B. 1995. Global scale patterns of fishspecies richness in rivers. Ecography 18: 345–352.
Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Canevari P, Davidson I, Castro G, Morisset V,Abell R,Toledo E. 1998. Freshwater Biodiversity of LatinAmerica and theCaribbean:A ConservationAssessment.Washington (DC): BiodiversitySupport Program.
Olson DM, et al. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map oflife on Earth. BioScience 51: 933–938.
Omernik JM. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 77: 118–125.
Paavola R, Muotka T,Virtanen R, Heino J, Jackson D, Maki-Petays A. 2006.Spatial scale affects community concordance among fishes, benthicmacroinvertebrates, and bryophytes in streams. Ecological Applications16: 368–379.
Articles
www.biosciencemag.org May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 • BioScience 413
Ramsar Bureau. 2006. Strategic Framework for the List of Wetlands ofInternational Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar,Iran, 1971), edition 2006. (17 March 2008;www.ramsar.org/key_guide_list2006_e.htm)
Rauchenberger M. 1988. Historical biogeography of Poeciliid fishes in theCaribbean. Systematic Zoology 37: 356–365.
Reis R, Kullander S, Ferraris C, eds. 2003. Check List of the FreshwaterFishes of South and Central America. PortoAlegre (Brazil): EDIPUCRS.
Revenga C, Kura Y. 2003. Status and trends of biodiversity of inland waterecosystems.Montreal (Canada): Secretary of theConvention onBiologicalDiversity. Technical Series no. 11.
Revenga C, Murray S, Abramovitz J, Hammond A. 1998.Watersheds of theWorld: Ecological Value and Vulnerability. Washington (DC): WorldResources Institute.
Revenga C, Campbell I, Abell R, de Villiers P, Bryer M. 2005. Prospects formonitoring freshwater ecosystems towards the 2010 targets. Philosoph-ical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 397–413.
Ringuelet R. 1975. Zoogeografía y ecología de los peces de aguas continen-tales de la Argentina y consideraciones sobre las áreas ictiológicas deAmérica del Sur. Ecosur 2: 1–122.
Roberts TR. 1975. Geographical distribution of African freshwater fishes.Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 57: 249–319.
Scott WB, Crossman EJ. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Oakville(Canada): Galt House.
Skelton PH. 1994.Diversity and distribution of freshwater fishes in East andSouthernAfrica.Annals of the Royal Central Africa Museum (Zoology)275: 95–131.
Skelton PH,Cambray JA, Lombard A, Benn GA. 1995. Patterns of distribu-tion and conservation status of freshwater fishes in South Africa. SouthAfrican Journal of Zoology 30: 71–81.
SpaldingMD,et al. 2007.Marine ecoregions of theworld:A bioregionalizationof coast and shelf areas. BioScience 57: 573–583.
Thieme ML,Abell R, Stiassny MLJ, Skelton P, Lehner B, Teugels GG,Diner-
stein E, Kamdem-Toham A, Burgess N,Olson D. 2005. Freshwater Eco-
regions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment.
Washington (DC): Island Press.
TonnWM.1990.Climate change and fish communities:A conceptual frame-
work. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119: 337–352.
Udvardy MDF. 1975.A Classification of the Biogeographic Provinces of the
World. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN. Occasional Paper no. 18.
Unmack PJ. 2001. Biogeography of Australian freshwater fishes. Journal of
Biogeography 28: 1053–1089.
Vinson MR, Hawkins CP. 2003. Broad-scale geographical patterns in local
stream insect genera richness. Ecography 26: 751–767.
Wallace AR. 1876. The Geographical Distribution of Animals. New York:
Harper.
Wasson J-G, Barrera S, Barrere B, Binet D,Collomb D,Gonzales I, Gourdin
F, Guyot J-L, Rocabado G. 2002. Hydro-ecoregions of the Bolivian
Amazon: A geographical framework for the functioning of river eco-
systems. Pages 69–91 in McClain ME, ed. The Ecohydrology of South
American Rivers and Wetlands. Wallingford (UK): International
Association of Hydrological Sciences.
Weitzell RE,KhouryML,GagnonP, Schreurs B,GrossmanD,Higgins J. 2003.
Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper
Mississippi Basin. Arlington (VA): NatureServe and The Nature
Conservancy.
Wikramanayake E,Dinerstein E, Loucks C,Olson D,Morrison J, Lamoreux
J, McKnight M, Hedao P. 2002. Ecoregions in ascendance: Reply to
Jepson and Whittaker. Conservation Biology 16: 238–243.
doi:10.1641/B580507Include this information when citing this material.
Articles
414 BioScience • May 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 5 www.biosciencemag.org