Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 115(8): 1837-1842

Phylogenetic classification of the world’s tropical forests

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3988-7019J. W. Ferry Slika¹, Janet Franklinb¹, Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguezc, Richard Fieldd, Salomon Aguilare, Nikolay Aguirref, Jorge Ahumadag, Shin-Ichiro Aibah, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-1851Luciana F. Alvesi, Anitha Kj, Andres Avellak, Francisco Morac, Gerardo A. Aymard C.lm, Selene Báezn, Patricia Balvanerac, Meredith L. Bastiano, Jean-François Bastinp, Peter J. Bellinghamq, Eduardo van den Bergr, Polyanna da Conceição Bispos, Pascal Boeckxt, Katrin Boehning-Gaeseuv, Frans Bongersw, Brad Boylex, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3203-2248Fabian Brambachy, Francis Q. Brearleyz, Sandra Brownaa², Shauna-Lee Chaibb, Robin L. Chazdoncc, Shengbin Chendd, Phourin Chhangee, George Chuyongff, Corneille Ewangogg, Indiana M. Coronadohh, Jurgi Cristóbal-Azkarateii, Heike Culmseejj, Kipiro Damaskk, H. S. Dattarajall, Priya Davidarmm, Saara J. DeWaltnn, Hazimah Dina, Donald R. Drakeoo, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5464-2058Alvaro Duquepp, Giselda Duriganqq, Karl Eichhornrr, Eduardo Schmidt Elerss, Tsutomu Enokitt, Andreas Ensslinuu, Adandé Belarmain Fandohanvv, Nina Farwigww, Kenneth J. Feeleyxx, Markus Fischeruu, Olle Forshedyy, Queila Souza Garciazz, Satish Chandra Garkotiaaa, Thomas W. Gillespiebbb, Jean-Francois Gilletccc, Christelle Gonmadjedddeee, Iñigo Granzow-de la Cerdafff, Daniel M. Griffithggg, James Groganhhh, Khalid Rehman Hakeemiii, David J. Harrisjjj, Rhett D. Harrisonkkk, Andy Hectorlll, Andreas Hempmmm, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5676-3267Jürgen Homeiernnn, M. Shah Hussainooo, Guillermo Ibarra-Manríquezc, I. Faridah Hanumppp, Nobuo Imaiqqq, Patrick A. Jansenew, Carlos Alfredo Jolyrrr, Shijo Josephjsss, Kuswata Kartawinatatttuuu, Elizabeth Kearsleyvvv, Daniel L. Kellywww, Michael Kesslerxxx, Timothy J. Killeenyyy, Robert M. Kooymanzzzaaaa, Yves Laumonierj, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2831-2933Susan G. Laurancebbbb, William F. Laurancebbbb, Michael J. Lawescccc, Susan G. Letcherdddd, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2088-8927Jeremy Lindselleeee, Jon Lovettffffgggg, Jose Lozadahhhh, Xinghui Luiiii, Anne Mette Lykkejjjj, Khairil Bin Mahmudkkkk, Ni Putu Diana Mahayanillll, Asyraf Mansormmmmnnnn, Andrew R. Marshallooooppppqqqq, Emanuel H. Martinrrrr, Darley Calderado Leal Matosssss, Jorge A. Meavetttt, Felipe P. L. Melouuuu, Zhofre Huberto Aguirre Mendozavvvv, Faizah Metalia, Vincent P. Medjibewwww, Jean Paul Metzgerxxxx, Thiago Metzkerzzyyyy, D. Mohandassmmzzzz, Miguel A. Munguía-Rosasaaaaa, Rodrigo Muñoztttt, Eddy Nurtjahybbbbb, Eddie Lenza de Oliveiraccccc, Onrizalddddd, Pia Parolineeeeefffff, Marc Parrenggggg, N. Parthasarathymm, Ekananda Paudelhhhhh, Rolando Pereze, Eduardo A. Pérez-Garcíatttt, Ulf Pommeru, Lourens Poorterw, Lan Qiefffff, Maria Teresa F. Piedadess, José Roberto Rodrigues Pintoiiiii, Axel Dalberg Poulsenjjj, John R. Poulsenjjjjj, Jennifer S. Powerskkkkk, Rama Chandra Prasadlllll, Jean-Philippe Puyravaudmmmmm, Orlando Rangelk, Jan Reitsmannnnn, Diogo S. B. Rochaooooo, Samir Rolimppppp, Francesco Roveroqqqqq, http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9641-5830Andes Rozakrrrrr, Kalle Ruokolainensssss, Ervan Rutishausere, Gemma Ruttenuu, Mohd. Nizam Mohd. Saidttttt, Felipe Z. Saiteruuuuu, Philippe Sanervvvvv, Braulio Santoswwwww, João Roberto dos Santosxxxxx, Swapan Kumar Sarkeryyyyy, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8527-9682Christine B. Schmittzzzzzaaaaaa, Jochen Schoengartss, Mark Schulzebbbbbb, Douglas Sheilcccccc, Plinio Sistdddddd, Alexandre F. Souzaeeeeee, Wilson Roberto Spironelloss, Tereza Spositozzyyyy, Robert Steinmetzffffff, Tariq Stevartgggggg, Marcio Seiji Suganumahhhhhh, Rahayu Sukria, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7162-254XAisha Sultanaiiiiii, Raman Sukumarll, Terry Sunderlandj, Supriyadillll, H. S. Sureshll, Eizi Suzukih, Marcelo Tabarellijjjjjj, Jianwei Tangkkkkkk, Ed V. J. Tannerllllll, Natalia Targhettass, Ida Theilademmmmmm, Duncan Thomasnnnnnn, Jonathan Timberlakegggg, Márcio de Morisson Valerianoxxxxx, Johan van Valkenburgoooooo, Tran Van Dopppppp, Hoang Van Samqqqqqq, John H. Vandermeerrrrrrr, Hans Verbeeckvvv, Ole Reidar Vetaasssssss, Victor Adekunletttttt, Simone A. Vieirarrr, Campbell O. Webbuuuuuu, Edward L. Webbvvvvvv, Timothy Whitfeldwwwwww, Serge Wichxxxxxxyyyyyy, John Williamszzzzzz, Susan Wiserq, Florian Wittmannaaaaaaa, Xiaobo Yangbbbbbbb, C. Yves Adou Yaoccccccc, Sandra L. Yapddddddd, Rakan A. Zahawieeeeeee, Rahmad Zakariammmm, Runguo Zangiiii

aEnvironmental and Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Gadong BE1410, Brunei Darussalam;

bDepartment of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521;

cInstituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 58190 Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico;

dSchool of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom;

eCenter for Tropical Forest Science, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Ancon, Panama;

fBiodiversity and Ecosystem Services Research Program, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja EC110103, Ecuador;

gThe Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202;

hGraduate School of Science and Engineering, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-0065, Japan;

iCenter for Tropical Research, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095;

jForest and Environment Program, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia;

kInstituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Bogotá 111321, Colombia;

lUNELLEZ-Guanare, Programa de Ciencias del Agro y el Mar, Herbario Universitario (PORT), Mesa de Cavacas, Estado Portuguesa 3350, Venezuela;

mCompensation International Progress S.A.–Ciprogress Greenlife, Bogotá D.C., Colombia;

nDepartamento de Biología, Escuela Politécnica Nacional del Ecuador, Ladrón de Guevara E11-253, Quito, Ecuador;

oSmithsonian’s National Zoo, Animal Care Sciences, Primates, Washington, DC 20013-7012;

pInstitute of Integrative Biology, Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland;

qLandcare Research Manaaki Whenua, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand;

rDepartamento de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras-MG, 37200-000, Brazil;

sCentre for Landscape and Climate Research, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom;

tIsotope Bioscience Laboratory (ISOFYS), Department of Green Chemistry and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;

uSenckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (BiK-F), 60325 Frankfurt (Main), Germany;

vInstitute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity, Goethe University Frankfurt, 60439 Frankfurt (Main), Germany;

wForest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University & Research, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;

xHardner & Gullison Associates, Victoria, BC V8P 1A9, Canada;

yEcology and Ecosystem Research, Georg August University Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany;

zSchool of Science and the Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom;

aaEnvironment Group, Winrock International, St Dogmaels SA43 3 DT, United Kingdom;

bbEcosystem Management Unit, InnoTech Alberta, Vegreville, AB T9C 1T4, Canada;

ccDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3043;

ddCollege of Environment and Ecology, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China;

eeForest and Wildlife Research Institute, 12101 Phnom Penh, Cambodia;

ffDepartment of Botany and Plant Physiology, University of Buea, POB 63 Buea, Cameroon;

ggWildlife Conservation Society-Program DR Congo, B.P. 14537 Brazzaville, DR Congo;

hhDepartamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias y Tecnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua, Herbario HULE, León 505, Nicaragua;

iiDivision of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3QG, United Kingdom;

jjDBU Natural Heritage, German Federal Foundation for the Environment, 49090 Osnabrück, Germany;

kkPNG Forest Research Institute, Lae 411, Morobe Province, Papua New Guinea;

llCentre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India;

mmDepartment of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Pondicherry University, Puducherry 605014, India;

nnDepartment of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634;

ooBotany Department, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822;

ppDepartamento de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Medellín, Colombia;

qqLaboratório de Ecologia e Hidrologia Florestal, Floresta Estadual de Assis, Instituto Florestal de SP, 19802-970 Assis, SP, Brazil;

rrEichhorn Ecologie, 3702 BK Zeist, The Netherlands;

ssInstituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia–INPA, Araújo, CEP 69067-375 Manaus AM, Brazil;

ttKasuya Research Forest, Kyushu University, Sasaguri, Fukuoka 811-2415, Japan;

uuInstitute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, 3013 Bern, Switzerland;

vvEcole de Foresterie et Ingénierie du Bois, Université Nationale d’Agriculture, BP 45, Kétou, Benin;

wwConservation Ecology, Faculty of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, 35032 Marburg, Germany;

xxDepartment of Biology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146;

yyWWF-Sweden/Världsnaturfonden WWF, Ulriksdals Slott, S-170 81 Solna, Sweden;

zzDepartamento de Botânica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Pampulha, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil;

aaaSchool of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India;

bbbDepartment of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095;

cccTERRA Teaching and Research Center, Central African Forests, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium;

dddDepartment of Plant Biology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, BP 812, Cameroon;

eeeNational Herbarium, Yaoundé, BP 20818, Cameroon;

fffCREAF, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès 08193, Spain;

gggUniversidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja 1101608, Ecuador;

hhhMount Holyoke College Botanic Garden, South Hadley, MA 01075;

iiiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia;

jjjRoyal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH3 5LR, United Kingdom;

kkkWorld Agroforestry Centre, East and Southern Africa Region, Woodlands, Lusaka, Zambia;

lllDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3RB, United Kingdom;

mmmDepartment of Plant Systematics, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany;

nnnPlant Ecology, Albrecht von Haller Institute of Plant Sciences, Georg August University Göttingen, 37073 Göttingen, Germany;

oooBiodiversity Parks Programme, Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India;

pppFaculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang-43400, Selangor, Malaysia;

qqqDepartment of Forest Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo 156-8502, Japan;

rrrUNICAMP, Cidade Universitária Zeferino Vaz-Barão Geraldo, Campinas, Sao Paulo 13083-970, Brazil;

sssGeographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Department, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Kerala 680653, India;

tttIntegrative Research Center, The Field Museum, Chicago, IL 60605;

uuuHerbarium Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Cibinong 16911, Indonesia;

vvvComputational and Applied Vegetation Ecology (CAVElab), Department of Environment, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium;

wwwTrinity Centre for Biodiversity Research, Trinity College, The University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland;

xxxDepartment of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, University of Zurich, 8008 Zurich, Switzerland;

yyyAgteca-Amazonica, Santa Cruz, Bolivia;

zzzDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia;

aaaaNational Herbarium of New South Wales, Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia;

bbbbCentre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia;

ccccSchool of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville 3209, South Africa;

ddddDepartment of Plant Biology, College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME 04609;

eeeeThe RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, United Kingdom;

ffffSchool of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom;

ggggHerbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, United Kingdom;

hhhhFacultad de Ciencias Forestales y Ambientales, Universidad de Los Andes, Merida S101-A, Venezuela;

iiiiKey Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Environment of State Forestry Administration, Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China;

jjjjDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, 8600 Silkeborg, Denmark;

kkkkFaculty of Bioresources and Food Sciences, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, 20300, Besut Campus, Terengganu, Malaysia;

llllFaculty of Forestry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia;

mmmmSchool of Biological Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia;

nnnnCentre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia;

ooooCIRCLE, University of York, York YO10 5NG, United Kingdom;

ppppFlamingo Land, North Yorkshire YO17 6UX, United Kingdom;

qqqqTropical Forests and People Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, QLD 4556, Australia;

rrrrCollege of African Wildlife Management, Department of Wildlife Management, Moshi, Tanzania;

ssssMuseu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, Belém PA, 66040-170, Brazil;

ttttDepartamento de Ecología y Recursos Naturales, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad de México, C.P. 04510, Mexico;

uuuuCenter for Biosciences, Federal University of Pernambuco, Cidade Universitária, Recife PE, 50670-901, Brazil;

vvvvHerbario Loja, Universidad Nacional de Loja, Loja EC110103, Ecuador;

wwwwCommission des Forêts d'Afrique Centrale (COMIFAC), BP 20818 Yaoundé, Cameroon;

xxxxDepartment of Ecology, Institute of Bioscience, University of São Paulo, 05508-900 São Paulo, SP, Brazil;

yyyyPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia, Conservação e Manejo da Vida Silvestre (ECMVS), IBAM-Instituto Bem Ambiental, Belo Horizonte-Minas Gerais, 30360-310, Brazil;

zzzzRoot and Soil Biology Laboratory, Department of Botany, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641 046, India;

aaaaaLaboratorio de Ecología Terrestre, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (CINVESTAV), C.P. 927310 Mérida, México;

bbbbbDepartment of Biology, Universitas Bangka Belitung (UBB), Kampus Merawang, Kepulauan Bangka Belitung 33172, Indonesia;

cccccPrograma de Pós Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso–UNEMAT, 78200-000 Cáceres, Mato Grosso, Brazil;

dddddFaculty of Forestry, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Medan 20155, Indonesia;

eeeeeDepartment of Biodiversity, Evolution and Ecology of Plants, Biocentre Klein Flottbek, University of Hamburg, D-22609 Hamburg, Germany;

fffffInstitut Sophia Agrobiotech, 06903 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France;

gggggWorld Resource Institute, Washington, DC 20002;

hhhhhCentre for Mountain Ecosystem Studies, Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650201, China;

iiiiiDepartamento de Engenharia Florestal, Universidade de Brasília, 70910-900, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil;

jjjjjNicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708;

kkkkkCollege of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108;

lllllInternational Institute of Information Technology, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana 500032, India;

mmmmmSigur Nature Trust, Chadapatti, Masinagudi PO Nilgiris, TN 643223, India;

nnnnnBureau Waardenburg, 4100 AJ Culemborg, The Netherlands;

oooooPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade, Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia 45662-900, Brazil;

pppppLaboratório de Restinga e Floresta Atlântica, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, BR-101 São Mateus, Brazil;

qqqqqTropical Biodiversity Section, MUSE - Museo delle Scienze, 38122 Trento, Italy;

rrrrrCibodas Botanic Gardens, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Cipanas, Cianjur, West Java 43253, Indonesia;

sssssDepartment of Geography and Geology, University of Turku, Turku, 20014 Turun yliopisto, Finland;

tttttSchool of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia;

uuuuuInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Espírito Santo, São João de Petrópolis, Santa Teresa, 29660-000, Brazil;

vvvvvDepartment of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, CH-8057 Zurich, Switzerland;

wwwwwDepartamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, 58051-900, Brazil;

xxxxxRemote Sensing Department (DSR), National Institute for Space Research (INPE), São José dos Campos, São Paulo 12227-010, Brazil;

yyyyyInstitute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom;

zzzzzCenter for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany;

aaaaaaChair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, 79085 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany;

bbbbbbH.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Blue River, OR 97413;

ccccccFaculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway;

ddddddCirad-ES, Campus International de Baillarguet, TA C-105/D 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France;

eeeeeeDepartamento de Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, CEP 59078-970, Brazil;

ffffffWorld Wildlife Fund Thailand, Bangkok 10400, Thailand;

ggggggAfrica and Madagascar Department, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO 63110;

hhhhhhFederal University of Technology-Paraná, 86812-460, Apucarana, PR, Brazil;

iiiiiiBiodiversity Parks Programme, Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystems, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India;

jjjjjjDepartamento de Botânica, Cidade Universitária, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, CEP, 50670-901, Brazil;

kkkkkkKey Laboratory of Tropical Plant Resources and Sustainable Use, Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Menglun Town, Mengla County, Yunnan Province 666303, China;

llllllDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EA, United Kingdom;

mmmmmmDepartment of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1165 Copenhagen, Denmark;

nnnnnnDepartment of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Vancouver, WA 98686;

ooooooNetherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety, Authority, National Reference Centre, 6700HC Wageningen, The Netherlands;

ppppppResearch Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere, Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan;

qqqqqqScience, Technology and International Cooperation Department, Vietnam National University of Forestry, Hanoi 144, Vietnam;

rrrrrrDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;

ssssssDepartment of Geography, University of Bergen, N-5020 Bergen, Norway;

ttttttDepartment of Forestry and Wood Technology, The Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704 Akure, Nigeria;

uuuuuuArnold Arboretum, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02130;

vvvvvvDepartment of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore;

wwwwwwBrown University, Providence, RI 02912;

xxxxxxSchool of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, United Kingdom;

yyyyyyInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, 1098 Amsterdam, The Netherlands;

zzzzzzInstituto Politécnico Nacional, CIIDIR-Unidad Oaxaca, Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán, CP 71230, Oaxaca, Mexico;

aaaaaaaDepartment of Floodplain Ecology, Institute of Geography and Geoecology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, D-76437 Rastatt, Germany;

bbbbbbbCollege of Agriculture and Forestry, Hainan University, Meilan Qu Haikou Shi, 570228, Hainan Province, China;

cccccccBiosciences, Université Félix Houphouet-Boigny, Abidjan 22, Ivory Coast;

dddddddInstitute of Arts and Sciences, Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines;

eeeeeeeDepartment of Biology, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon

¹To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: ferryslik@hotmail.com or janet.franklin@ucr.edu.

Contributed by Janet Franklin, December 12, 2017 (sent for review September 7, 2017; reviewed by Lucas C. Majure and Jens-Christian Svenning)

Author contributions: J.W.F.S. and J.F. designed research; J.W.F.S. and J.F. performed research; J.W.F.S., V.A.-R., R.F., S.A., N.A., J.A., S.-I.A., L.F.A., A.K., A.A., F. Mora, G.A.A.C., S. Báez, P. Balvanera, M.L.B., J.-F.B., P.J.B., E.v.d.B., P.d.C.B., P. Boeckx, K.B.-G., F. Bongers, B.B., F. Brambach, F.Q.B., S. Brown, S.-L.C., R.L.C., S.C., P.C., G.C., C.E., I.M.C., J.C.-A., H.C., K.D., H.S.D., P.D., S.J.D., H.D., D.R.D., A.D., G.D., K.E., E.S.E., T.E., A.E., A.B.F., N.F., K.J.F., M.F., O.F., Q.S.G., S.C.G., T.W.G., J.-F.G., C.G., I.G.-d.l.C., D.M.G., J.G., K.R.H., D.J.H., R.D.H., A. Hector, A. Hemp, J.H., M.S.H., G.I.-M., I.F.H., N.I., P.A.J., C.A.J., S.J., K.K., E.K., D.L.K., M.K., T.J.K., R.M.K., Y.L., S. G. Laurance, W.F.L., M.J.L., S. G. Letcher, J. Lindsell, J. Lovett, J. Lozada, X.L., A.M.L., K.B.M., N.P.D.M., A.M., A.R.M., E.H.M., D.C.L.M., J.A.M., F.P.L.M., Z.H.A.M., F. Metali, V.P.M., J.P.M., T.M., D.M., M.A.M.-R., R.M., E.N., E.L.d.O., O., P.P., M.P., N.P., E.P., R.P., E.A.P.-G., U.P., L.P., L.Q., M.T.F.P., J.R.R.P., A.D.P., J.R.P., J.S.P., R.C.P., J.-P.P., O.R., J.R., D.S.B.R., S.R., F.R., A.R., K.R., E.R., G.R., M.N.M.S., F.Z.S., P. Saner, B.S., J.R.d.S., S.K.S., C.B.S., J.S., M.S., D.S., P. Sist, A.F.S., W.R.S., T. Sposito, R. Steinmetz, T. Stevart, M.S.S., R. Sukri, A.S., R. Sukumar, T. Sunderland, S., H.S.S., E.S., M.T., J. Tang, E.V.J.T., N.T., I.T., D.T., J. Timberlake, M.d.M.V., J.v.V., T.V.D., H.V.S., J.H.V., H.V., O.R.V., V.A., S.A.V., C.O.W., E.L.W., T.W., S. Wich, J.W., S. Wiser, F.W., X.Y., C.Y.A.Y., S.L.Y., R.A.Z., R. Zakaria, and R. Zang contributed new reagents/analytic tools; J.W.F.S. and V.A.-R. analyzed data; and J.W.F.S., J.F., V.A.-R., R.F., S.A., N.A., J.A., S.-I.A., L.F.A., A.K., A.A., F. Mora, G.A.A.C., S. Báez, P. Balvanera, M.L.B., J.-F.B., P.J.B., E.v.d.B., P.d.C.B., P. Boeckx, K.B.-G., F. Bongers, B.B., F. Brambach, F.Q.B., S. Brown, S.-L.C., R.L.C., S.C., P.C., G.C., C.E., I.M.C., J.C.-A., H.C., K.D., H.S.D., P.D., S.J.D., H.D., D.R.D., A.D., G.D., K.E., E.S.E., T.E., A.E., A.B.F., N.F., K.J.F., M.F., O.F., Q.S.G., S.C.G., T.W.G., J.-F.G., C.G., I.G.-d.l.C., D.M.G., J.G., K.R.H., D.J.H., R.D.H., A. Hector, A. Hemp, J.H., M.S.H., G.I.-M., I.F.H., N.I., P.A.J., S.J., K.K., E.K., D.L.K., M.K., T.J.K., R.M.K., Y.L., S. G. Laurance, W.F.L., M.J.L., S. G. Letcher, J. Lindsell, J. Lovett, J. Lozada, X.L., A.M.L., K.B.M., N.P.D.M., A.M., A.R.M., E.H.M., D.C.L.M., J.A.M., F.P.L.M., Z.H.A.M., F. Metali, V.P.M., J.P.M., T.M., D.M., M.A.M.-R., R.M., E.N., E.L.d.O., O., P.P., M.P., N.P., E.P., R.P., E.A.P.-G., U.P., L.P., L.Q., M.T.F.P., J.R.R.P., A.D.P., J.R.P., J.S.P., R.C.P., J.-P.P., O.R., J.R., D.S.B.R., S.R., F.R., A.R., K.R., E.R., G.R., M.N.M.S., F.Z.S., P. Saner, B.S., J.R.d.S., S.K.S., C.B.S., J.S., M.S., D.S., P. Sist, A.F.S., W.R.S., T. Sposito, R. Steinmetz, T. Stevart, M.S.S., R. Sukri, A.S., R. Sukumar, T. Sunderland, S., H.S.S., E.S., M.T., J. Tang, E.V.J.T., N.T., I.T., D.T., J. Timberlake, M.d.M.V., J.v.V., T.V.D., H.V.S., J.H.V., H.V., O.R.V., V.A., S.A.V., C.O.W., E.L.W., T.W., S.W., J.W., S. Wiser, F.W., X.Y., C.Y.A.Y., S.L.Y., R.A.Z., R. Zakaria, and R. Zang wrote the paper.

Reviewers: L.C.M., Desert Botanical Garden; and J.-C.S., Aarhus University.

²Deceased February 13, 2017.

Copyright © 2018 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714977115

Published in print: 20 February 2018

Published online: 5 February 2018

This article has been corrected. See Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 March 27; 115(13): E3067.

Significance

Identifying and explaining regional differences in tropical forest dynamics, structure, diversity, and composition are critical for anticipating region-specific responses to global environmental change. Floristic classifications are of fundamental importance for these efforts. Here we provide a global tropical forest classification that is explicitly based on community evolutionary similarity, resulting in identification of five major tropical forest regions and their relationships: (i) Indo-Pacific, (ii) Subtropical, (iii) African, (iv) American, and (v) Dry forests. African and American forests are grouped, reflecting their former western Gondwanan connection, while Indo-Pacific forests range from eastern Africa and Madagascar to Australia and the Pacific. The connection between northern-hemisphere Asian and American forests is confirmed, while Dry forests are identified as a single tropical biome.

Abstract

Knowledge about the biogeographic affinities of the world’s tropical forests helps to better understand regional differences in forest structure, diversity, composition, and dynamics. Such understanding will enable anticipation of region-specific responses to global environmental change. Modern phylogenies, in combination with broad coverage of species inventory data, now allow for global biogeographic analyses that take species evolutionary distance into account. Here we present a classification of the world’s tropical forests based on their phylogenetic similarity. We identify five principal floristic regions and their floristic relationships: (i) Indo-Pacific, (ii) Subtropical, (iii) African, (iv) American, and (v) Dry forests. Our results do not support the traditional neo- versus paleotropical forest division but instead separate the combined American and African forests from their Indo-Pacific counterparts. We also find indications for the existence of a global dry forest region, with representatives in America, Africa, Madagascar, and India. Additionally, a northern-hemisphere Subtropical forest region was identified with representatives in Asia and America, providing support for a link between Asian and American northern-hemisphere forests.

The biogeographic origin of species, in combination with dispersal limitation and environmental filtering, are the principal determinants of spatial variation in the species composition of tropical forests (1, 2). Despite evidence of long-distance dispersal (1, 3–5), tropical forests maintain conspicuous regional differences in species composition. For example, only ∼4% of tropical tree species are shared among Africa, America, and Asia (6). The lack of species overlap among continents makes global inference of relationships among tropical forests problematic, because such classifications depend on comparison of the amount of shared species. Therefore, pan-tropical biogeographic analyses have been based on comparison of compositional patterns at higher taxonomic levels, namely genus or family (6–8). However, such analyses treat taxa as independent units, while in reality taxa vary in their degree of phylogenetic relatedness and, as a consequence, their morphological and ecological similarity (1, 2). Taking phylogenetic relatedness into consideration enhances our ability to delimit phytogeographical boundaries that characterize functional and biogeographic affinities among forest regions (1, 2, 9, 10). Here we include phylogenetic relationships in a floristic analysis to provide such insight.

We compiled a standardized dataset of old-growth tropical forest inventories of angiosperm trees (trunk diameter ≥10 cm) for 406 1° latitude/longitude grid cells (hereafter referred to as “locations”) originally dominated by natural forests across the (sub)tropics (Table S1). These locations represented all major tropical forest regions and had broad environmental amplitude, including low to high elevations and dry to wet forests (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1). To determine the phylogenetic distance between locations, we constructed a dated phylogenetic tree that was resolved to genus level and contained all taxa used for our classification analyses (Dataset S1). Location pairwise phylogenetic distance matrices were constructed using 20 randomly drawn tree taxa per location. We used 20 taxa, as this maximized the number of locations that could be included in the classification analyses while still providing a reliable classification result. In total, we generated 20 phylogenetic distance matrices, each with a different set of 20 randomly drawn taxa per location, which served as input for 20 cluster analyses (Fig. S2). The final classification of each location depended on the frequency with which it was classified in a particular cluster across all 20 cluster analyses (Fig. S3). Relationships between the clusters were represented by a majority rule consensus tree (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.View larger versionFig. 1. Classification maps of the world’s tropical forests, showing two (A), three (B), four (C), and five (D) clusters. Cluster result represents a majority rule consensus tree, with the percentage of times that each grouping was observed in the 20 separate cluster analyses shown in D. Only locations that could be classified with certainty (P < 0.05) are shown (n = 392).

Results and Discussion

Mean pairwise phylogenetic distance analysis, which emphasizes ancient lineages in phylogenetic community comparisons, detected almost no spatial patterns in community phylogenetic similarity across the tropics, indicating that all tropical forest locations consist of more or less the same set of ancient plant lineages. This is in accordance with recent findings that the whole present-day tropics are dominated by similar high levels of Late Cretaceous aged phylogenetic lineages (11). Only when we used mean nearest taxon distance, which emphasizes recent lineages in phylogenetic community comparisons, did we detect clear spatial patterns across the tropics. Therefore, current-day biogeographic patterns in the tropics seem to mainly reflect Cenozoic speciation events when Gondwanan breakup was already well on its way.

Using the mean nearest taxon distance, our phylogenetic cluster analyses showed that the world’s tropical forests are divided into two major floristic regions: a combined American-African versus Indo-Pacific region (Fig. 1). This division contradicts previous hypotheses about major global realms, which either recognized neo- versus paleotropical regions or several separate continental regions (4, 12–14). However, Gentry (7) already noted the high generic-level similarity of tropical American and African forests. He attributed this to Cretaceous and Cenozoic plate tectonic history (4, 15). Subsequent studies have shown that despite the severing of direct land connections between the African and South American plates ca. 96 Mya, long-distance dispersal continued throughout the Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary across the widening Atlantic Ocean (4, 5). The combined effect of shared origin with trans-Atlantic migration may explain the detected connection between South American and African forests.

Within the American-African cluster, the first split separated the African from the American regions (Fig. 1), suggestive of the west Gondwanan breakup associated with the formation of the Atlantic Ocean and, over time, the increasing difficulty for plants to disperse across the Atlantic (1, 15). Interestingly, the African region showed the highest consistency in clustering of all five identified floristic regions. On average, locations belonging to the African region were assigned to this cluster in 91.4% of cases, versus consistency values of 79.5, 63.7, 79.5, and 70.3% for the Indo-Pacific, Subtropical, American, and Dry forest regions, respectively. This clustering consistency indicates high floristic similarity across tropical Africa, which is in accord with the relatively low beta diversity observed for these forests (6). Postulated repeated cycles of contraction and expansion of the tropical African forests from a few small forest refugia in combination with large-scale species shifts during the Pleistocene glaciations may explain the relatively high compositional homogeneity of the forests within the African region (16, 17).

The tropical American forests were further divided into moist and dry forests (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1), indicating that this division is primarily environmental (18). The American floristic region comprises humid forests, including the lowland forests of Central America, the Amazon basin, the Guianas, and the northern half of the Atlantic forest. The Dry forest region encompasses the Caatinga and Cerrado regions as well as other dry forests throughout the Americas but interestingly, and contrary to the nonphylogenetic pan-tropical analysis by Dexter et al. (8), also includes dry forests of Africa, Madagascar, and India. Further research is needed to confirm whether this indicates the existence of a global dry forest region with a shared biogeographic origin, or whether selection for drought and fire resistance has favored the dominance of similar plant lineages in tropical dry forests around the world (8, 18, 19).

The Indo-Pacific floristic region occupies the humid areas of eastern Africa, Madagascar, India, Southeast Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands (Fig. 1). With the exception of SE Asia, which is of Laurasian origin, this floristic region combines all areas that once comprised eastern Gondwana (4, 15). Given the diverse geologic history of Asia and the Indo-Pacific (20), it is surprising to find a similar forest type covering most of the region. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence of significant plant migration within this region that likely had a homogenizing effect, notably the biotic exchange between India and Southeast Asia starting from ca. 45 Mya (21), and between Southeast Asia and Australia, New Guinea, and the Pacific Islands that commenced ca. 15 Mya (4). The presence of Indo-Pacific forests in eastern continental Africa may either reflect eastern Gondwanan origin or dispersal within the Indo-Pacific region.

We also identified a group of locations in Asia and America that occupies cooler climates and higher elevations relative to the other identified forest clusters (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1), and which we therefore termed the Subtropical region. This Subtropical floristic region confirms the floristic link between Asia and North America, reflecting a shared boreotropical affinity (22). Within Asia, the Subtropical region is mostly restricted to the subtropics, with the exception of high-elevation forests of Java. In the Americas, by contrast, this floristic region extends from the subtropics deep into the tropics, probably because the cooler montane climate of the Central American highlands and South American Andes has facilitated the southward migration of cold-adapted plant lineages. The absence of continuous, North–South-oriented mountain chains in Asia may have limited the dispersal of such lineages into lower latitudes.

Conclusion

We provide a phylogenetic distance-based biogeographic classification of the world’s tropical forests, using the most extensive sampling scheme for the tropics currently in existence. Our results uncover floristic patterns which will help in the development of region-specific models for forest structure, diversity, and dynamics as well as possible responses of tropical forest regions to global environmental change. Our results may necessitate reconsideration of established biogeographic ideas. For example, Madagascar and New Guinea have often been considered two separate major tropical regions, ecologically and biogeographically distinct from tropical America, Africa, and Southeast Asia (23, 24). However, despite their highly endemic species compositions, we show that they are both part of the widespread Indo-Pacific floristic region. Finally, our analysis can serve as a model for classifying regional floras.

Materials and Methods

Tree Inventory Dataset.

Individual angiosperm trees (diameter at breast height ≥10 cm) from old-growth forest inventories throughout the (sub)tropics (between −35°S and 35°N latitudes) were pooled within their respective 1° latitude/longitude grid cells (henceforth called locations). These locations represented all major tropical forest regions and had broad environmental amplitude, including low to high elevations and dry to wet forests (Fig. S1). Monocots and Cactaceae were excluded because these were not consistently surveyed in all datasets. This dataset originally included 439 locations containing 925,009 individual trees belonging to 15,012 taxa. Species names were standardized using The Plant List (www.theplantlist.org), Taxonomic Name Resolution Service (tnrs.iplantcollaborative.org/TNRSapp.html), and Asian Plant Synonym Lookup (phylodiversity.net/fslik/synonym_lookup.htm). On average, 1.4% of individual stems per location remained unidentified. These unidentified individuals were excluded from further analyses.

Community Phylogenetic Tree.

The APG-III classification (25) served as the family-level backbone of our community phylogenetic tree. Recent updates in APG-IV (26) are mostly of nomenclatural nature and did not affect our analyses. This tree was further resolved up to genus level using the species-level phylogeny (32,223 species included) published by Zanne et al. (27), which covered most genera in our dataset (Dataset S1). Genera present in our dataset, but not in Zanne et al. (27), were placed at the base of their respective families. Genera that had disjunct species occurrences in the phylogeny of Zanne et al. (27) were placed at the most basal node connecting the disjunct species. This phylogeny was subsequently dated using the BLADJ function in Phylocom v4.2 (28), using taxon ages given in Magallón et al. (29) for the age file.

Phylogenetic Distance Analysis.

Phylogenetic distance between all pairs of locations was calculated using the options COMDIST and COMDISTNT in Phylocom v4.2 (28). COMDIST uses the mean pairwise phylogenetic distance (MPPD); for each taxon in a location, it finds the average phylogenetic distance to all taxa in the other location, and calculates the mean. COMDISTNT uses the mean nearest taxon distance (MNTD); for each taxon in location 1, it finds the nearest phylogenetic neighbor in location 2, records this, and calculates the mean. Both functions return a symmetrical matrix of locations versus locations with their pairwise phylogenetic distances. Principal coordinate (PCO) analyses (in MultiVariate Statistical Package v3.13; Kovach Computing Services) on resulting location versus location matrices showed that the MPPD matrices had almost no explanatory power (generally the first five PCO axes explained less than 5% of data variance), meaning that detected patterns were mostly random. The MNTD matrices, however, explained considerable amounts of data variance in the first five axes of the PCO. Therefore, we used only MNTD for further analysis.

Correcting for Taxon Richness Bias in MNTD.

Taxon richness differed considerably between locations, varying between 4 and 1,466. MNTD may be sensitive to such differences in taxon richness because the chance of finding a close relative between two locations may increase when their taxon richness increases. Applying MNTD to determine phylogenetic distance between locations with differing taxon numbers could therefore result in taxon-rich locations being grouped together in the cluster analysis simply because they are more taxon-rich. To determine the impact of this effect, we created five “location-by-taxon” matrices, each with a lower number of taxa per location (320, 160, 80, 40, and 20 taxa per location), using the 41 locations containing more than 320 taxa. For each location, taxa were ranked according to abundance, so that the location-by-taxon matrix based on, for example, 320 taxa consisted only of the 320 most abundant taxa per location. Where tied abundances exceeded the predefined number of taxa, we randomly selected the appropriate number of taxa from among those with tied minimum abundance. We then calculated the MNTD matrices for each of these five location-by-taxon matrices and found that with increasing taxon richness of locations, MNTD (as averaged over all locations) decreased with increasing taxon richness per location following a power function [y = 310.4x−0.194 (Fig. S4)], demonstrating that MNTD is indeed sensitive to taxon richness.

Determining the Optimal Number of Taxa per Location for Further Analysis.

To avoid taxon richness bias when using MNTD, locations had to be compared based on similar numbers of taxa. Minimum variance clustering, based on the five location-by-taxon matrices described earlier, consistently recovered the same major clusters in the same configuration (African and American locations clustered on one main branch and Asian locations clustered on the other), although the relationships between locations within these main clusters could vary (Fig. S5). Only in the 20-taxon analysis was one American location (location no. 165 from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest) placed in the Asian cluster. The amount of variance captured in the first five axes of a PCO analysis (using the same MNTD matrices) declined by only ∼20%, from 83.3 to 60.7%, between the 320- and 20-taxon analyses, respectively. We decided to use 20 taxa per location in the final analyses (Table S1) because of this limited loss of information in the PCO and similarity of cluster results. In addition, we were able to use most of our locations (406 of the initial 439), including locations on remote islands and extreme habitats that would have been excluded if we had set the minimum number of taxa too high.

Forest Classification Analyses.

For the final analyses, we produced 20 location-by-taxon datasets. In these datasets, each location was represented by 20 randomly drawn taxa (from that location). Random draws were irrespective of taxon abundance, as abundance is a spatially and temporally labile taxon trait that likely reflects contemporary environmental conditions rather than historical biogeographic signal. For each of these 20 location-by-taxon datasets, we calculated the corresponding symmetrical location-by-location matrices with their pairwise phylogenetic distances (MNTD). These matrices were then used as input for cluster analyses.

Locations were grouped in clusters using Ward’s minimum variance method (30), using MultiVariate Statistical Package v3.13. This is a centroid-based clustering technique that identifies cluster centers (centroids) by minimizing the overall squared distances of the objects (in this case locations) to the centroids at each cluster level. This clustering technique identified spatially clearly defined location groupings (Fig. S2). The optimal number of clusters for defining floristic regions across the tropics was determined by calculating the cophenetic correlation coefficient at each cluster level, starting at the first split (K2) in the dendrogram. The cophenetic correlation coefficient calculates the correlation between the distance of the clusters as calculated by the clustering algorithm and the distance based on observed MNTD values between clusters. The higher the cophenetic correlation, the better the cluster result reflects the patterns present in the original distance matrix. We applied this method to each of our 20 datasets, calculated the average cophenetic correlation coefficient for each cluster level, and found a steep increase in cophenetic correlation up to K5, after which it slowly declined (Fig. S6). Therefore, we chose K5 as the optimum level for defining our main floristic regions across the tropics.

For each location, at cluster level K5, we determined the cluster in which it was classified for each of the 20 cluster analyses that we performed. The location was then assigned to the cluster in which it had the highest proportion of observations. A single proportion test (31), which calculates the probability of an observed (sample) proportion (in the range 0 to 1) against a hypothetical proportion, was then used to determine if the observed proportions were significantly higher than expected by random [Paleontological Statistics (PAST) v3.08; https://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past/]. For example, for K5, the expected random proportion of locations per cluster is 0.2. For a sample size of 20, a proportion has to be at least 0.38 to be significantly higher (P < 0.05) than the random expectation. The resulting classification success rates of locations for K5 are shown in Fig. S3 and Table S1. The final classification (K5) of the clusters was based on the majority consensus rule (Fig. 1).

Supplementary Material

Open In Web Browser

Acknowledgments

This study benefited greatly from data contributed by Patricia Alvarez-Loayza, Ana Andrade, Peter Ashton, Julian Bayliss, Luis Bernacci, Lilian Blanc, J. Bogaert, Matt Bradford, Mireille Breuer Ndoundou Hockemba, C. De Cannière, Miguel Castillo, Eduardo Catharino, Connie Clark, David Clark, Deborah Clark, Gilles Dauby, Jean-Louis Doucet, Pedro Eisenlohr, Leandro Ferreira, Christine Fletcher, Geraldo Franco, Gabriella M. Fredriksson, Girirai, Nimal Gunatilleke, Terese Hart, Miriam van Heist, Zhila Hemati, M. A. Hernández-Ruedas, David Kenfack, Kanehiro Kitayama, Eileen Larney, Ieda Leao do Amaral, Jean-Remy Makana, Punchi Manage Saranga Amila Ruwan, Antti Marjokorpi, Olga Martha Montiel, Miguel Martínez-Ramos, Henrik Meilby, Jerome Millet, Cao Min, Kazuki Miyamoto, Xiaoxue Mo, Juan Carlos Montero, Badru Mugerwa, Pantaleo Munishi, Helen Murphy, Hidetoshi Nagamasu, David Newbery, Rueben Nilus, Meyner Nusalawo, Susana Ochoa-Gaona, Atila Oliveira, Navendu Page, Andrea Permana, Nigel Pitman, Jean Razafimahaimodison, Rocío Rojas, Hugo Romero, M. Z. Rozainah, Fernanda Santos, Manichanh Satdichanh, Lars Schmidt, Lila Nath Sharma, Kade Sidiyasa, Eduardo da Silva Pinheiro, Peguy Tchouto, Johanna Urtado, Renato Valencia, Luis Valenzuela, Rodolfo Vasquez, Thorsten Wiegand, Guadelupe Williams-Linera, Hansjoerg Woll, Tsuyoshi Yoneda, and Nicole Zweifel. We also acknowledge contributed financial support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement 660020, Instituto Bem Ambiental (IBAM), Myr Projetos Sustentáveis, IEF, and CNPq, CAPES FAPEMIG, German Research Foundation (DFG; Grants CRC 552, CU127/3-1, HO 3296/2-2, HO3296/4-1, and RU 816), UNAM-PAPIIT IN218416 and Semarnat-CONACYT 128136, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnoloógico (CNPq, Brazil), Fundação Grupo Boticário de Proteção à Natureza/Brazil, PAPIIT-DGAPA-UNAM (Project IN-204215), National Geographic Society, National Foundation for Scientific and Technology Development Vietnam (Grant 106.11-2010.68), Operation Wallacea, and core funding for Crown Research Institutes from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Science and Innovation Group. Some data in this publication were provided by the Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network, a collaboration between Conservation International, the Missouri Botanical Garden, Smithsonian Institution, and Wildlife Conservation Society, and partially funded by these institutions, The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and other donors.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement: V.A.-R., K.B.-G., B.B., F.Q.B., N.F., M.K., W.F.L., S. G. Letcher, C.B.S., D.S., T. Stevart, and S. Wiser have coauthored papers with Jens-Christian Svenning in the past 48 months. A.M.L. and Jens-Christian Svenning are both affiliated with Aarhus University.

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1714977115/-/DCSupplemental.

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

PMC Copyright Notice

The articles available from the PMC site are protected by copyright, even though access is free. Copyright is held by the respective authors or publishers who provide these articles to PMC. Users of PMC are responsible for complying with the terms and conditions defined by the copyright holder.

Users should assume that standard copyright protection applies to articles in PMC, unless an article contains an explicit license statement that gives a user additional reuse or redistribution rights. PMC does not allow automated/bulk downloading of articles that have standard copyright protection.

See the copyright notice on the PMC site, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright/, for further details and specific exceptions.

References

1. Cavender-Bares J, Ackerly DD, Hobbie SE, Townsend PA, authors. 2016;Evolutionary legacy effects on ecosystems: Biogeographic origins, plant traits, and implications for management in the era of global change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 47:433–462

2. Donoghue MJ, author. 2008;A phylogenetic perspective on the distribution of plant diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:11549–11555. [PubMed]

3. Weigelt P, et al., authors. 2015;Global patterns and drivers of phylogenetic structure in island floras. Sci Rep. 5:12213 [PubMed]

4. Morley RJ, author. 2003;Interplate dispersal paths for megathermal angiosperms. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 6:5–20

5. Pennington RT, Dick CW, authors. 2004;The role of immigrants in the assembly of the South American rainforest tree flora. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 359:1611–1622. [PubMed]

6. Slik JWF, et al., authors. 2015;An estimate of the number of tropical tree species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 112:7472–7477, and correction (2015) 112:E4628–E4629. [PubMed]

7. Gentry AH, author. 1988;Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 75:1–34

8. Dexter KG, et al., authors. 2015;Floristics and biogeography of vegetation in seasonally dry tropical regions. Int For Rev. 17:10–22

9. Holt BG, et al., authors. 2013;An update of Wallace’s zoogeographic regions of the world. Science. 339:74–78. [PubMed]

10. Webb CO, et al., authors. 2002;Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 33:475–505

11. Procheş Ş, Ramdhani S, Perera SJ, Ali JR, Gairola S, authors. 2015;Global hotspots in the present-day distribution of ancient animal and plant lineages. Sci Rep. 5:15457 [PubMed]

12. Takhtajan AL, author. 1986. The Floristic Regions of the World. Univ of California Press; Berkeley:

13. Chang HT, author. 1994;An outline on the regionalisation of the global flora. Acta Sci Nat Univ Sunyatseni. 33:73–80

14. Cox CB, author. 2001;The biogeographic regions reconsidered. J Biogeogr. 28:511–523

15. McLoughlin S, author. 2001;The breakup history of Gondwana and its impact on pre-Cenozoic floristic provincialism. Aust J Bot. 49:271–300

16. McClean CJ, et al., authors. 2005;African plant diversity and climate change. Ann Mo Bot Gard. 92:139–152

17. Anhuf D, et al., authors. 2006;Paleo-environmental change in Amazonian and African rainforest during the LGM. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 239:510–527

18. Banda-R K, et al., authors; DRYFLOR, author. 2016;Plant diversity patterns in neotropical dry forests and their conservation implications. Science. 353:1383–1387. [PubMed]

19. Ratnam J, Tomlinson KW, Rasquinha DN, Sankaran M, authors. 2016;Savannahs of Asia: Antiquity, biogeography, and an uncertain future. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 371:20150305 [PubMed]

20. Hall R, author. 2001. Cenozoic reconstructions of SE Asia and the SW Pacific: Changing patterns of land and sea. Faunal and Floral Migrations and Evolution in SE Asia-Australasia. Metcalfe I, Smith JMB, Morwood M, Davidson ID, editors. Swets & Zeitlinger; Lisse, The Netherlands: p. 35–56

21. Klaus S, Morley RJ, Plath M, Zhang YP, Li JT, authors. 2016;Biotic interchange between the Indian subcontinent and mainland Asia through time. Nat Commun. 7:12132 [PubMed]

22. Qian H, Jin Y, Ricklefs RE, authors. 2017;Phylogenetic diversity anomaly in angiosperms between eastern Asia and eastern North America. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 114:11452–11457. [PubMed]

23. Primack RB, Corlett RT, authors. 2005. Tropical Rainforests: An Ecological and Biogeographical Comparison. Wiley-Blackwell; Hoboken, NJ:

24. Corlett RT, Primack RB, authors. 2006;Tropical rainforests and the need for cross-continental comparisons. Trends Ecol Evol. 21:104–110. [PubMed]

25. APG-III, author. 2009;An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III. Bot J Linn Soc. 161:105–121

26. APG-IV, author. 2016;An update of the angiosperm phylogeny group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot J Linn Soc. 181:1–20

27. Zanne AE, et al., authors. 2014;Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature. 506:89–92. [PubMed]

28. Webb CO, Ackerly DD, Kembel SW, authors. 2008;Phylocom: Software for the analysis of phylogenetic community structure and trait evolution. Bioinformatics. 24:2098–2100. [PubMed]

29. Magallón S, Gómez-Acevedo S, Sánchez-Reyes LL, Hernández-Hernández T, authors. 2015;A metacalibrated time-tree documents the early rise of flowering plant phylogenetic diversity. New Phytol. 207:437–453. [PubMed]

30. Ward JH Jr, author. 1963;Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc. 58:236–244

31. Clopper C, Pearson ES, authors. 1934;The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 26:404–413

32. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A, authors. 2005;Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol. 25:1965–1978

[Back]

Fig. 1.

Classification maps of the world’s tropical forests, showing two (A), three (B), four (C), and five (D) clusters. Cluster result represents a majority rule consensus tree, with the percentage of times that each grouping was observed in the 20 separate cluster analyses shown in D. Only locations that could be classified with certainty (P < 0.05) are shown (n = 392).

[Back]