Introduction

Geographic distribution range is an emerging feature of species’ hierarchical selection of their habitat [1]. Despite its importance for species persistence across the landscape, the exact distribution within the environment is often difficult to ascertain, and although a large body of work exists on the subject, the tenets of niche structure are still poorly understood [2]. Such complications for estimating species distribution most likely stem from the myriad of interactions between two major influences on a species: its innate characteristics (e.g. evolutionary history, specialization, physiological tolerance, and resource requirements) and its environment (e.g. competitive interactions, predator-prey relationships, and resources availability) [3]–[5].

A species’ niche is ultimately a mapping or description of its whole environment from birth until death, and can thus be thought as an abstraction of multi-dimensional forces in the environment acting upon the persistence of individuals [6]–[8]. Thus, the development of models describing the niche is a valuable tool for not only understanding how a species distributes itself across human modified landscapes, but for understanding and predicting how a species will cope with and be impacted by current shifts in climate [2], [8]–[11]. For instance, niche models have been used in several different scenarios to predict species presence when information is spatially-incomplete; to predict temporal changes in environmental variables (temporal extrapolation), or to acquire information on the biological mechanisms explaining potential distribution [1], [12]–[14]. As such, niche models have become fundamental in several areas of conservation biology, including the design of local nature reserves, the estimation of potential habitats of endangered or invasive species, and even the identification of subtle but important changes in the distribution of taxa associated with climate change [15]–[17].

The guanaco (Lama guanicoe) is a South American wild, undomesticated and protected ungulate found from sea level to over 4500 m [18]. Guanaco habitat is characterized by a highly seasonal climate, with dry and occasionally snowy winters, subjected to moderate to high intensity winds, and variable rainfall. All these factors usually generate high evapotranspiration and, when arid conditions prevail, are responsible for low productivity [19]. Guanaco dwell in four of the ten major habitats described in South America [18]: (i) Desert and Xeric Shrublands; (ii) Montane Grasslands; (iii) Grasslands, Shrublands and Savannas; and (iv) Temperate Forest. In Chile, guanaco distribution has been mostly discussed in qualitative terms [18]–[19]. Given the large and conspicuous size of the guanaco (∼120 kg; [18], it is posited that current geographic range extends from Putre (18.5°S latitude) to Navarino Island, Chile (55°S latitude), with discontinuities associated with human presence [20]. However, contemporary guanaco distribution has not been systematically evaluated in a spatial explicit context [21]. Moreover, environmental niche factors associated to guanaco distribution have not been modeled, nor reviewed.

Recent work on the evolutionary and geographic distribution history of the guanaco in Chile, documented by mitochondrial and nuclear genetic markers, show the existence of two major evolutionary lineages or subspecies (corresponding to Lama guanicoe cacsilensis in the north and L. g. guanicoe in the south) [18], [22], [23]. These studies suggest that L. g. guanicoe may have expanded southward during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene from subtropical refugia. This lineage is currently found in Bolivia, northern Argentina, central Chile as well as in continental and insular Patagonia. The other group (L. g. cacsilensis) appears to have been confined to the coastal desert of Peru and northern Chile, suggesting the existence of different niche structures between groups. Moreover, a hybrid range has been detected, where individuals share genetic characteristics of both lineages, expanding the coverage of guanaco distribution and possibly the occupation of a new niche [23].

Here we provide a systematic analysis of species range using a maximum entropy framework to unveil and understand evolutionary patterns of guanaco distribution. Towards this goal, we analyze the geographic distribution of the guanaco in Chile, based upon its two recently detected phylogeographic lineages and its intermediate hybrid [23]. The heterogeneity of ecosystems occupied by guanacos makes it an ideal study-system-species to understand how spatial distribution patterns relate to phylogeographic processes and the possibility of being predicted based upon broad scale environmental factors.

Materials and Methods

Data Sources

We compiled a dataset of 2,962 guanaco locations in Chile between 2000 and 2011 (Dataset S1). The conspicuousness of the species and the size of the dataset, suggest that the current distribution of the species has been represented with a reasonable level of completeness throughout the country (Figure 1). Observations consisted of direct sightings of animals and indirect evidence of guanaco presence at each particular location (i.e. feces collection, tissue collections from live and dead animals, carcasses) made by the authors of this study and collaborators (see acknowledgements). Each location was assigned to 525, 3×3 km cells which roughly correspond to the minimum average home range size detected for a sedentary population of guanacos [24].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Figure 1. Locations of guanacos in Chile used for environmental niche modeling (red dots).

Areas in color indicate ecoregions according to [63], and red line indicates the edge of the guanaco distribution according to [44].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078894.g001

Results

Prediction and Comparison of Species and Subspecies Distribution Ranges

All maximum entropy models had high AUC values. The model for species level showed an AUC = 0.921±0.023. AUC for the Northern subspecies (L. g. cacsilensis) in the north was 0.976±0.019, whereas the Southern subspecies (L. g. guanicoe) in the south was 0.971±0.011. The hybridization zone between the two showed values of AUC = 0.978±0.018.

Estimated distributional areas were the following: the entire species in Chile was 81,756 km², whereas for the Northern subspecies it was 21,497 km², Southern subspecies 20,767 km², and the hybridization zone between both taxa was of 23,481 km², combining a total surface of 65,321 km² (maps in Figures S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5). Common area between the species-level and intraspecific level models was 47,740 km², whereas the area of disagreement was higher when contrasting the species-level model to the intraspecific level model (34,020 km² vs. 17,577 km², Figure 2). This indicates that the species-level model generated a wider projection area than the subspecies-level model; however, the latter included areas not considered by the species model. Therefore, to elaborate a potential species distribution map for Chile, a joint model was generated with a total area of 99,337 km², which roughly corresponds to 13.1% of the total country surface area. Overlap was marginal between each subspecies and the hybrid range with 0.014 and 0.0004% for Northern and Southern, respectively [39].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Figure 2. Map of geographic distribution range of guanaco linages in Chile.

L. g. cacsilensis, hybrid lineage and L. g. guanicoe in red, green and blue, respectively. Disagreement area between species-level and intraspecific-level models are shown in black.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078894.g002

Environmental Niche

Species and subspecies distribution models gave greater importance to climate variables than to any other environmental variable (Table 1, Table S1), confirming the hypothesis that climatic variables significantly contribute to the occurrence of guanacos in Chile. Variables that contributed the most to explain the distribution of guanacos were annual rainfall and annual average minimum temperatures, with a join contribution of 57% to the model. Elevation and herbaceous cover contributed 23%. Accordingly, the Northern subspecies, which is restricted to Chile’s arid zone, exhibited a similar pattern when climatic variables were also selected. Rainfall seasonality and annual average maximum temperature contributed 45% and elevation only 34%. Similarly, the predicted range of the Andean and Patagonia distribution of the Southern subspecies was mostly explained by climate, in which average annual temperature, annual rainfall, and rainfall seasonality contributed 64%. Herbaceous cover contributed 22% to the model. Across the hybridization area, north of Chile’s Mediterranean zone and including the coastal and Andean populations, the potential distribution of guanaco populations can again be mostly explained by climatic factors. Temperature seasonality, annual rainfall, and rainfall seasonality contributed 69% to the model, and only one of the vegetation variables - EVI - provided ∼8%.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Relative percent contributions of the environmental variables to environmental niche models of guanaco linages in Chile. Bold numbers indicate higher scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078894.t001

Comparison of niche breadth and overlap are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively [40]. While niche breadth is relatively similar among lineages, niche overlap is consistently smaller between the Southern and all other lineages for all indices. This becomes even more obvious when evaluating range overlap using the common threshold of 25% suitability, in which the Southern subspecies stands as a geographically isolated lineage given the fact that all analyses were restricted to the geopolitical boundaries of Chile.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Environmental niche modeling analysis of niche breadth for guanaco in Chile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078894.t002

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Niche overlap among guanaco lineages.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0078894.t003

Discussion

This study identifies some of the factors that determine the environmental niche structure and geographic distribution range of guanaco subspecies in Chile. Using knowledge of climate, geography, human density, vegetation cover and the recently unveiled phylogeography of guanaco [23], we have attempted to understand the most important environmental parameters likely to determine the distribution of this South American camelid. In spite of the increasing knowledge on several areas of the guanaco ecology [41], this is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to quantify the ecological niche of the guanaco and its phylogenetic lineages [23]. Important contributions on the spatial distribution of guanaco have explained species occurrence at smaller geographic scale in relation to intra-annual environmental variations [21], [42], [43]. This highly detailed spatial description of the guanaco relative to its environmental correlates and genetic diversity in Chile, further contributes to provide scientific tools to develop large scale conservation plans for habitat management that considers genetic variability [17 20, 21, 44].

Some of the environmental variables that contributed very little to the model were related to cover type, and anthropogenic factors. Unexpectedly, vegetation structure and variables associated with topography, specifically roughness and slope, were not relevant to the model. The literature indicates that these factors are relevant for guanaco presence, which in some cases has been shown to prefer mountainous areas of medium to high slopes, with herbaceous and shrubby vegetation cover [42]–[44]; however, this was not reflected using our large-scale analysis. Finally and contrary to our expectations, the anthropic factor was not relevant for the determination of the guanaco’s potential niche.

It is largely accepted that genetic structure and history are important considerations for the long-term and successful implementation of modern conservation plans. We show that while guanaco lineages share some similarities in their niche structure, important differences exist (Table 1). In fact, different models accurately predict guanaco distribution and do this at different phylogenetic scales (cf. species vs. subspecies). One potential explanation is the existence of particular tendencies among lineages to retain ecological preferences over time, ie. niche conservatism [45]–[47]. Alternative processes of niche divergence or neutral genetic processes could also be at play [48], [49]. However, disentangle the exact mechanism would entail the analysis of guanaco occurrence beyond administrative boundaries of Chile and across its full distribution range, including Peru, Bolivia and Argentina. We are currently working on such dataset compilation.

Other environmental variables became important at the species and subspecies level. We found no indications of a larger niche breadth for lineages bearing shorter evolutionary histories and occupation of extant habitats. This is apparent by looking at the similarities in niche breadth [50] and limited niche overlap between northern and southern lineages (Table 3). Finally, the lack of geographic range overlap between lineages (Table 3) strongly suggests the existence of fundamental differences between environmental requirements for the two subspecies and the hybrid lineage.

From a biogeographical perspective, some researchers have associated the guanacos only to xeric environments and have even classified them as stenohydropedomorphic, that is of low tolerance to wet soils [51], [52]. We show that, in fact, low annual rainfall is strongly associated with guanaco distribution throughout the species’ range and includes the northern hyper-arid Atacama Desert, the Cordillera, and Southern Patagonia including Tierra del Fuego and Navarino Island in Chile. While this indicates that guanaco subspecies currently presents an affinity for such environments, the quantitative analysis presented here suggests that the broad generalization proposed by [52] to current distributional patterns of Southamerican camelids based on associations to the Arid Diagonal, falls short to explain current guanaco distribution given the large dissimilarities among phylogeographic lineages. The phylogeographic history of each lineage (L.g. cacsilensis vs. L.g. guanicoe) indicates that the possible biogeographic barrier [53] between lineages was colonized by a successful hybrid lineage –most likely in several attempts as different shared haplotypes exist between lineages [23]. Hence, explaining the asymmetrically-shared niche structures between both subspecies, and possibly limiting their differentiation due to trailing gene flow between taxa [23].

Models generated at both the species and subspecies level explain how the relationship between environmental variables and some of the anatomical, physiological, and reproductive adaptations allowed the guanaco to be efficient in arid habitats [18]. For example, the presence of a thin wooly insulation coat in guanaco that allows it to withstand extreme temperatures, the capability to adjust timing of parturition with benign environmental conditions [18], [41], as well as an efficient digestive system to absorb adequate nutrition from medium and low quality forage. Such type of vegetation is typical in arid environments and is characterized by seasonal growth [18], [19]. This may contribute to understand the correlation between guanaco and the distribution of micro- and meso-thermal graminoids of arid systems that are highly resistant to herbivores [51]. While such features were evident when evaluating the model for the entire species, it was more apparent for the L. g. guanicoe lineage, where the model selected herbaceous cover with approximate average values between 60 and 70%.

At the country and species level, our environmental niche model shows three areas of low habitat suitability that correlates with large biogeographic barriers: (1) Pre-Altiplano Andean zone, running from the border with Peru (18°S latitude) to the end of the Altiplano plateau in Chile 24.5°S; (2). The central zone, flanked by the arid coast running continuously between 24.7°S and 29.5°S, and the western Andes slope (24.5°S to 35.3°S); and (3) Patagonia, which –in Chile–extends discontinuously from the Araucania region (35.3°S) to the southern tip of the continent. Between the Andean highlands and the central region of Chile, the presence of the Atacama Desert is likely to have created an environmental barrier disrupting guanaco distribution. As suggested by [54] for the biodiversity in Chile, the Arid Diagonal has specifically limited the distribution of several mammals in northern Chile such as vicuña (Vicugna vicugna). Between the coast and the Andean mountains of the arid north of Chile, approximately from parallel 24.6°S to 29.5°S, there is a central strip with low probability of occurrence of guanacos, probably due to the extremely dry conditions of the area. However, the suitability for guanaco (and other species) is strongly improved during climatic events not captured by our models (i.e. ‘La Niña’ and associated ‘blooming desert’ phenomena) [55], [56]. Such extreme and periodic precipitation events could contribute to foster episodic contacts between low- and high-elevation populations of guanaco highlighting the importance of annual rainfall at the species level and rainfall seasonality at the intraspecific level found in our models.

Based on the low affinity of guanaco to humid environments evidenced by our niche models, we may suggest that other processes could partially be responsible for the large void of guanaco occurrence in the temperate forest south of the Mediterranean area (35.3°–44.3°S). For instance, while paleontological and zooarchaeological reports that some extinct camelids may have been found in this area (i.e. Paleolama and/or Hemiauchenia), such records clearly indicate an absence of Lama guanicoe in this area during the end of the Pleistocene and beginning of the Holocene in spite of the existence of large open areas with dominance of grasses and Asteraceae [57], [58], confirming the expansion of guanaco from north to south during the Holocene [23]. Further south, in the continental area of the Chilean Patagonia, the recorded presence of guanaco has been explained as an introgression of peripheral populations from a dryer core environment to the east, in Argentina, into a more humid environment at the west [18]. The only extant biogeographic barriers to the south are the Magellanic Strait and the Beagle channel, established approximately 8,000 years ago [18].

We believe that our models capture essential features of guanaco’s niche, characterized mainly by climatic variables, such as annual precipitation and precipitation seasonality. However, we recognize that other factors may eventually prevent the selection of important variables [18]. For example, our niche models predict intermediate suitability in some areas in south-central Chile (i.e. mountain area of the Maule region, 35.3°S and the Alto Bio-Bio, 38.5°S) despite the absence of current sighting records or signs of guanaco presence, but historical presence some decades or centuries ago. A similar situation occurs in the central valley and coastal mountains of Chile’s Mediterranean zone, where guanacos have not been recorded in recent times [18] but, according to our models, represent suitable areas for its occurrence. This can be seen as strength of environmental niche modeling [7], [11], since recent anthropic pressures highly prevalent in central Chile [59], have prevented guanaco occurrence where suitable niche conditions are met. Yet, explanations for the lack of correlation in other areas include (1) the widespread existence of large voided areas of guanaco occurrence identified in our models as both suitable (potential lack of sampling) and non-suitable habitat for guanacos (as would be expected), and (2) the fact that anthropic influences such as hunting and poaching extend far beyond where humans live. Recognizing these elements complicates the provision of biological explanations for the lack of statistically association between direct anthropogenic variables chosen for this modeling exercise and indirect factors such as road webs, land use and/or livestock density not included here. In spite of that, it has been long recognized that local extirpations and environmental changes induced-by-humans contributed to local extinction of guanaco [60], [61]. This situation highlights the importance of explicitly considering the geographic locations of historically and/or recently extirpated populations of guanacos in future fine-tuning of niche modeling exercises.

Supporting Information

Acknowledgments

Authors thank to following people, projects and institutions that shared information for build the geo-referenced database used in this work: Jorge Arroyo and Fernando Novoa (Centro de Ecología Aplicada Ltda.), Paulo Corti (Universidad Austral de Chile), Martin Escobar, Gustavo Cruz, Denise S. Donoso, Luis Faúndez and Maria Angélica Vukasovic (Universidad de Chile), Juan Traba, Pablo Acebes and Juan Malo (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid), Alejandra Muñoz y Eduardo Palma (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile), Eduardo Pavez (Bioamérica Ltda.), Hugo Roman (Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero), Alejandra Silva (Corporación Nacional Forestal), Christian Saucedo (Fundación Patagonia), Oscar Skewes (Universidad de Concepción), Hugo Silva, Hernán Torres (GECS/IUCN) and Alejandra Alzamora, Romina Chiappe, Nicolás Fuentes, Hugo Garrido, Agustín Iriarte, Rodrigo Lira, Constanza Méndez, and Dr. William Franklin, Cornelya Klutsch and reviewers for constructive criticism of the manuscript; thanks to projects A/9875/07 (Programa de Cooperación Interuniversitaria de la AECID), “Evaluación poblacional del suri (Rhea pennata tarapacensis) en las regiones de Arica y Parinacota, y de Tarapacá”, “Estudio poblacional del suri (Pterocnemia pennata tarapacensis) en las Comunas de Ollagüe, San Pedro de Atacama y Antofagasta”, Planet Earth (BBC-Bristol), Universidad de Magallanes-CONAMA XII-region Agreement, and CONAF-Minera Maricunga Agreement; and to Ruiz & Doberti, Flora & Fauna Ltda, Ministerio de Bienes Nacionales, Corporación Nacional Forestal and Servicio Agrícola y Gandero. Dominique Alò provided valuable insight in the writing of this manuscript.