Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0346965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346965

Richness and biogeography of Pteridoflora in montane forests of eastern Mexico

J Daniel Tejero-Díez 1, Perla V Rodríguez-Sánchez 1, Raúl Contreras-Medina 2, Julio Cesar Ramírez-Martínez 3, Jonathan D Amith 4, Leccinum J García-Morales 5, Celia Sanginés-Franco 3, Isolda Luna-Vega 3,*
Editor: Marcela Pagano6
PMCID: PMC13152183  PMID: 42096429

Abstract

This study compiles and updates the checklist of ferns and lycophytes from the Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR), Mexico. We analyzed the distribution and richness of these groups of seedless vascular plants to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data. We reviewed information on these taxa from regional floristic studies, field explorations, and herbarium specimens. Our updated list includes 567 species, of which 511 are ferns and 56 lycophytes, organized into 37 families and 137 genera. The five most species-rich families are Pteridaceae (131), Polypodiaceae (76), Dryopteridaceae (68), Aspleniaceae (45), and Selaginellaceae (41). The five most species-rich genera are Asplenium (42), Elaphoglossum (30), Pleopeltis (24), Myriopteris (22), and Selaginella (21). The Mexican states with the greatest species richness within the SMOR are Puebla (423), Hidalgo (322), Querétaro (227), and Tamaulipas (181). The five grid cells with the highest richness, each containing more than 190 species, are situated in the southern part of the SMOR (Puebla and adjacent parts of Veracruz). The physiographic provinces with the greatest diversity are Carso Huasteco and the Gran Sierra Plegada, with 523 and 175 species, respectively. Latitudinal analysis indicated low richness at the northern extreme (28 °- 29 ° N, 11 species) and high richness at the southern extreme (19 °- 20 ° N, 469 species), with a notable peak at 24 °- 25 ° N (350 species). The highest diversity within elevation intervals occurs at 1,000–1,500 m (455 species). The SMOR contains 22 species of the pteridoflora classified under various risk categories according to the Mexican Official Norm NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, including seven listed on the IUCN Red List and ten protected under CITES. The taxonomic diversity index shows that the SMOR is among Mexico’s most species-rich mountain ranges. The species richness documented here in the SMOR accounts for 50–54% of the pteridophyte diversity recorded in Mexico, increasing to 59.3% based on recent floristic studies conducted in the region.

Introduction

In the montane areas of tropical regions, the lycophytes and ferns are two lineages of vascular plants that are highly diverse worldwide [1–3]. These two seedless plant groups are known as pteridobionts because they share the same double-phase life cycle [4–6]. This taxonomic success and abundance in environments with high atmospheric humidity is due to both the sexual phase (zygote formation) and the sporophyte phase (low stomatal reactivity) being sensitive to water deficit [7–9]. These characteristics make them ideal indicators of the conservation quality of tropical montane cloud forests [10,11]. Therefore, biological studies in biogeography, ecology, or taxonomy are crucial to our understanding of various aspects of ecosystem management.

In the Neotropics, Mexico is one of the countries with a highly diverse pteridoflora [1] according to Hassler [12] with 1,057 species, including 99 endemics. If hybrids and infraspecies are included, the number of taxa increases to 1,123 (sensu Tejero-Díez database). These taxa account for almost 5% of the country’s total vascular flora, which includes 23,314 species (sensu [13]), of which 20% are endemic [14]. The Mexican pteridoflora has been extensively studied from a taxonomic perspective [15], and recent nomenclatural updates have been incorporated into the Mexican checklists of ferns and lycophytes [12]. Nonetheless, investigating certain regions —where information remains scattered or incomplete— is still necessary. Ultimately, understanding the historical processes behind distribution and the ecological and environmental relationships within species is crucial.

Knowledge about the spatial patterns of richness and endemism in Mexican pteridoflora is limited, especially in highly biodiverse areas. The Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR) is the second largest mountain range and is regarded as a highly biodiverse Mexican biogeographic province [16–18], where ferns and lycophytes contribute significantly to this biodiversity. The SMOR boasts a higher floristic richness than any other mountainous region in Mexico, with 8,472 species [18]. This richness is attributed to several factors, such as its geographic location on both sides of the Cancer tropic, complex topography, diverse climate types, the presence of nearly all Mexican vegetation types, and a broad elevational gradient ranging from 100 to over 3,600 meters [17].

Previous floristic checklists and biogeographic research related to ferns and lycophytes have been conducted in the main mountain ranges of Mexico, such as the Sierra Madre del Sur [6], the Sierra Madre Oriental [19,20], the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt [21], and the Sierra Madre Occidental [14], as well as the Chiapas Highlands [22]. Recently, floristic checklists of the SMOR covering all vascular plants have been published [18,19], but our review of the pteridoflora has identified issues like synonymies, incorrect geographic coordinates, mistaken taxonomic identifications or confusion of particular species, as well as species not recorded in the cited studies but present in the SMOR. Additionally, the study by [20], conducted in the SMOR, includes only a subset of leptosporangiate ferns, the most diverse group of ferns, with an estimated 10,323 species worldwide [23].

The aims of this study were: (1) to carry out an updated and revised floristic inventory of the pteridoflora of the SMOR and (2) to analyze the distributional patterns of ferns and lycophytes using three different area units (states, physiographic provinces and grid cells of 30 × 30 minutes latitude/longitude) and to identify elevational and latitudinal richness patterns, (3) to compare the species richness of the SMOR with other Mexican mountain chains and among the physiographic provinces of the SMOR using a taxonomic diversity index, and (4) to revise the categories of threatened taxa of ferns and lycophytes based on the IUCN Red Lists, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the federal regulatory framework established by the Mexican government (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010).

Materials and methods

Study area

The Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR) is located in northeastern Mexico (Fig 1A) and is the country’s second most important and extensive mountainous province system [16,24]. This montane region is regarded as part of the Mesoamerican hotspot proposed for ferns and lycophytes by [3]. Geologically, the SMOR resulted from the deformation of Cenozoic and Mesozoic marine sedimentary rocks that were uplifted, shortened, and transported north-eastward, creating a fold-and-thrust belt during the Laramide orogeny [25].

Fig 1. Maps of northeastern Mexico covering the Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR).

Fig 1

A. Physiographic regionalization. B. Land use and vegetation types. C. Elevation. State abbreviations: Coahuila = COAH, Durango = DGO, Nuevo León = NL, Zacatecas = ZAC, Tamaulipas = TAMPS, Querétaro = QRO, Veracruz = VER, Guanajuato = GTO, Puebla = PUE, San Luis Potosí = SLP, Hidalgo = HGO. Map created by the authors using ArcGIS Pro. All vector layers (Physiography, Land Use and Vegetation Series VII, Hypsometry/Topography, and Political Division) were sourced from INEGI (https://www.inegi.org.mx/), used under the Terms of Free Use of Information which permit commercial utilization.

The SMOR extends 800 km in length, with an amplitude of 80–100 km [25]. Although various biotic and abiotic criteria have led to different proposed boundaries for the SMOR [16], we adopted the regionalisation framework of [26], which is based on physiographic regionalisation (Fig 1A). This regionalisation scheme of the SMOR has also been applied in studies examining the distribution of Cactaceae [27], leptosporangiate ferns [20], and vascular plants [18]. Within this mountain system, 10 physiographic subprovinces are recognized: Sierras Transversales, Pliegues de Saltillo-Parras, Sierras y Llanuras Occidentales, Gran Sierra Plegada, Sierra de San Carlos, Sierra de Tamaulipas, Carso Huasteco, Serranía de El Burro, Sierra de la Paila, and Sierras y Llanuras Coahuilenses. The SMOR constitutes one biogeographic province of Mexico [16,24], and together with the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, the Sierra Madre del Sur, and the Sierra Madre Occidental, forms part of the Mexican Transition Zone [24]. The SMOR covers parts of the Mexican states of Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Hidalgo, Nuevo León, Puebla, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, and Zacatecas (Figs 1B, C). Its latitudinal extent spans from the 20th to the 30th parallel, bounded to the north by the Grande (Bravo) River and to the south by the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt [16]. Its location places it in contact with key atmospheric systems, including the subtropical high-pressure belt, trade winds, winter cold fronts, and summer tropical storms linked to hurricanes. This, combined with a latitudinal range of ten degrees, and elevational variations from around 100 m in the lowlands of Tamaulipas and San Luis Potosí [17] to 3,713 m above sea level at Cerro El Potosí in Nuevo León (with an average of 1,000–1,500 m, Fig 1C), and the mountain chain running parallel to the Gulf of Mexico opposite the entry of humid winds, produces a significant orographic shadow effect. This results in a complex climate mosaic, with sites experiencing high rainfall, others experiencing dry seasons, and warm- and temperate-climate conditions, and gradients between these conditions [28]. Furthermore, there are isothermal regimes and extremes, with temperature fluctuations of up to 14°C between the hottest and coldest months. Generally, the climate becomes drier and more extreme towards the north of the SMOR, with its western slope facing the Mexican Plateau. Nearly all recognized Mexican climatic types are present within this area. Vegetation in the SMOR includes xeric shrubland, conifer forests, oak forests, montane cloud forests, tropical forests, and mixed forests [16,17] (Fig 1B).

Data sources

We obtained distributional data for ferns and lycophytes from three main sources: 1) the review of floristic studies conducted in the SMOR [4,18,19,29–61], 2) the revision of herbarium vouchers deposited in herbaria such as ARIZ, ASU, BH, BM, BRIT, BRY, CIB, CNS, DUKE, ENCB, F, FCME, GBH, HGOM, HPC, HUAP, HZAC, IEB, IND, ITCV, LAM, LL, MEXU, MICH, MIN, MMNS, MO, MSC, MU, NCU, NY, P, PH, QMEX, SJNM, TAES, TEX, UAMIZ, US, UAT, UC, UCR-BPS, USF, UT, UTEP, VDB, WIS, WLM, WTU, XAL, and YU (acronyms following [62], 3) field surveys in some Mexican states, such as Hidalgo, Querétaro, Puebla, and Tamaulipas, to collect botanical specimens. Voucher specimens collected during the fieldwork were deposited at the National Herbarium of Mexico (MEXU), herbarium of the Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (HUAP), the herbarium of the Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria (ITCV), and the United States National Herbarium (US). We revised all taxonomic names and excluded synonyms and misidentifications, as described in [12]. We reviewed the known distribution as described in [15]. In this study, we excluded Microsorum grossum (Langsd. & Fisch.) S.B. Andrews, an exotic species growing as an epiphyte in nearby zones of Gómez Farías, Tamaulipas. At the final stage of this research, Adiantum wilesianum Hook. was recorded in three localities, two from San Luis Potosí and one from Hidalgo, which are not represented in our analyses.

We verified the accurate identification of endemic species and those considered rare (with 1–3 specimens in the total number of herbaria reviewed or field collections). The accurate identification of names that did not match expert reports in the literature was also reviewed. We compiled a database from all these information sources, including 4,479 georeferenced records of lycophytes and ferns in the SMOR. Using this information, we created geographic distribution maps of the species with ArcGIS Pro [63].

Since the publication of ‘The Pteridophytes of Mexico’ by [15], new combinations, genera, species, and records of ferns and lycophytes have been published and reported. For these reasons, and in accordance with the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Shenzhen Code) [64], we verified the correct names of each species. The nomenclature and author citations were standardized following the [12] database (except in Selaginella sensu [65] and updated to align with the latest integrative and circumscription taxa systematics based on the proposal of the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group [23].In our database, as is common with herbarium specimens, duplicate samples are found across different botanical collections. In our study, we removed duplicate records from the biogeographic analysis to ensure unique locations. Additionally, we identified and corrected records with swapped latitude and longitude values. We also excluded specimens with vague localities and inconsistencies. For herbarium specimens lacking geographic coordinates, we used topographic maps at a 1:50,000 scale from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) and the previously published locality list for the Sierra Madre Oriental [66] to obtain the corresponding coordinates. Ultimately, we aimed to include only georeferenced and verified data in our study.

To visualize the spatial distribution of collection records and identify potential sampling biases across the SMOR, we created a heatmap from all georeferenced occurrences included in the database. The heatmap was generated in ArcGIS Pro [63] using the Point Density tool, which measures the spatial intensity of records. This method allowed us to highlight areas with high densities of fern and lycophyte collections, enabling the detection of well-sampled regions and zones with limited survey effort. The resulting layer served as a valuable tool for evaluating the dataset’s spatial completeness and providing context for subsequent analyses of species richness and distribution patterns.

Biogeographic and diversity analyses

Mexican states included in the SMOR, physiographic provinces were used to perform the biodiversity analyses, and 30 × 30 minute grid cells were used as units of analysis in ArcGIS Pro [63]. In the grid analysis, we recorded 86 grid cells containing at least one fern or lycophyte species from this framework. The spatial size of grid cells provides a reliable spatial resolution for the distribution compared with other studies using plants in the SMOR [18,20,27] regarding biodiversity data and biological conservation. We selected this scale size because similar scales have been tested in previous studies on biogeography and the diversity of different biological groups of the Mexican biota [67,68], including ferns and lycophytes [69].

The total expected richness of ferns and lycophytes in the SMOR was estimated using a nonparametric abundance model (Chao1) in EstimateS [70] to evaluate its performance and determine whether it fits the data.

In the grid cell analysis, we used three standard biodiversity metrics (species richness, weighted endemism, and corrected weighted endemism) to measure the biodiversity patterns previously used for different groups of the Mexican pteridoflora [20,69,71,72]. These metrics are more than just theoretical concepts; they are practical tools that have been effectively used in the study of the Mexican pteridoflora [73]. We measured species richness as the total number of species present within each grid cell. Each fern or lycophyte species was counted as present in a grid cell, regardless of whether it was recorded once or multiple times in that cell [27,74]. The weighted endemism (WE) involves several steps [73]. First, we divided each grid cell occurrence by the number of grid cells in which one species occurs. For example, a fern species limited to a single grid cell was scored as ‘1’ for that grid cell and ‘0’ for all remaining grid cells, whereas a fern species found in five grid cells was scored as ‘0.2’ for each of the five grid cells and ‘0’ for all other grid cells; then we obtained the sum of all score species values for each grid cell. We calculated the corrected weighted endemism (CWE) by dividing the WE value by the number of species in a grid cell [73,74]. The WE index was considered a biodiversity measure sensitive to species richness, suggesting that richness patterns partially mirror the WE value [27,74]. In contrast, the CWE index emphasizes grid cells that contain a proportion of species with limited ranges, which are not necessarily linked to species-rich grid cells [27,74].

The biodiversity metrics mentioned above were calculated using the software Biodiverse, version 3.0 [75], and mapped in ArcGIS Pro [63]. Grid cells containing only one species were excluded from the CWE analysis because they lack overlapping distributions, which is a key criterion for identifying areas of endemism [76,77]. Grid cells with the highest scores in the WE index were considered centers of richness, while those with the highest values in the CWE index were regarded as centers of endemism [73,74].

The geographic distribution of ferns and lycophytes inhabiting the SMOR was established based on the study of [15] as a general framework. We defined nine categories related to the geographic distribution of each species as follows: 1) Cosmopolitan, taxa distributed worldwide; 2) American, taxa distributed across the American continent; 3) Nearctic, taxa found in Mexico (and sometimes in Mesoamerica) and North America; 4) Neotropical, taxa found in Mexico, Central America, the Antilles, and South America; 5) Mesoamerican, taxa distributed in Mexico and Central America; 6) Endemic to the Mexican territory; 7) Endemic to the SMOR, taxa with a known distribution limited to the boundaries of the SMOR; 8) Regional endemic, in adjacent areas to the SMOR; and 9) Introduced taxa.

We determined the frequency of each fern and lycophyte species following the method recommended by [78], based on the number of records for each species and assigned them to their respective frequency classes. This reflects that some species will thrive at the expense of others, leading to differences in species frequency, with a few species having many individuals and others being rare. We divided the species into five classes of record frequency according to the following ranges: A, 1–11 records; B, 12–23; C, 24–35; D, 36–47; and E, 48–59.

Typically, the species richness of a specific flora is expressed as the number of species or as a biodiversity index that accounts for the number of species per area on a logarithmic scale. To compare the richness of lycophytes and ferns among the main Mexican mountain ranges and the physiographic provinces of the SMOR, we used the taxonomic diversity index (IB), which accounts for the number of species per area on a logarithmic scale, following the formula IB = S/Ln A, where S is the number of recorded species and A is the size of the area [79]. Therefore, using biodiversity indices is crucial for comparing sampled areas of different sizes. Using this formula, we assessed species richness across geographic regions, specifically the main Mexican mountain ranges and the physiographic provinces of the SMOR.

Finally, we assessed the species richness of lycophytes and ferns across different latitudes and elevation gradients. The SMOR covers a wide elevation range from 100 m to 3,713 m above sea level. Based on this, we divided the elevation into eight intervals of 500 m each to illustrate species distribution along this gradient in a graph. These intervals have been used in previous studies on ferns and lycophytes in other Neotropical areas [14,80–82], so we applied them to our data for comparison.

We divided the SMOR into 1° latitudinal belts to assess the relationship between species richness and latitude. Additionally, species richness was calculated for all grid cells within each 1° latitude belt from 19°-20° N to 28°-29° N. The species richness values for each latitudinal belt were determined using the taxonomic diversity index (IB) for that belt [83,84]. We presented the results of this analysis on a graph showing the taxonomic diversity index values against latitude.

Conservation status

We revised the threatened taxa categories for ferns and lycophytes inhabiting the SMOR in accordance with the Mexican federal regulatory framework [85], the IUCN Red Lists [86], and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) [87]. Regarding the Mexican risk categories, we reviewed the Mexican Official Norm NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010 [85] (hereafter, NOM-059) to determine how many ferns or lycophytes are listed and to confirm the assigned risk category for each species. The NOM-059 is the official document issued by the Mexican government, and lists threatened species of plants, fungi, and animals [85]. This document outlines the federal regulatory framework, including the specifications for inclusion and analysis to assess the risk of threatened species. Similarly, the risk categories were assessed according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [86] and the CITES [87] lists. Comparing the IUCN Red List with the Mexican Official Norm NOM-059, some categories can be considered equivalent, such as the threatened category in the Mexican Official Norm to the vulnerable category of the IUCN. In contrast, the special protection category of the NOM-059 includes some minor categories from the IUCN [88].

Results

Based on examined herbarium specimens, web databases, specialized literature, and specimens collected during field expeditions, we compiled a database of 4,479 georeferenced accession records (Fig 2A). These records correspond to 567 species from the SMOR, belonging to 137 genera and 37 families (S1 Appendix). From this checklist, 511 species (34 families, 124 genera) are from Polypodiidae, while 56 (3 families, 13 genera) belong to Lycopodiidae. We identified 211 species of ferns and lycophytes that were not previously documented in the floristic studies conducted by [19] and [68] in the SMOR. Of the total names referenced in the studies, 60 were rejected or excluded because they were synonyms or did not represent species found in the study area or the country (S1 Appendix).

Fig 2. A. Map of the Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR) showing georeferenced records of ferns and lycophytes.

Fig 2

B. Heatmap showing the sampling effort of ferns and lycophytes. Map created by the authors using ArcGIS Pro. Physiographic regionalization (SMOR) and Political Division layers were sourced from INEGI (https://www.inegi.org.mx/), used under the Terms of Free Use of Information which permit commercial utilization.

The heatmap (Fig 2B) visually shows the record density and reveals spatial patterns in sampling effort. It displays the distribution of collection records, with yellow and red colours indicating areas with a high number of records, and blue indicating areas with fewer records, interpreted as well-sampled and under-sampled regions, respectively. The highest concentration of records is located in the southern portion of the SMOR in the states of Hidalgo, Puebla, Querétaro, and Veracruz.

We found that the most diverse families (20 or more species) in the SMOR are Pteridaceae (131 species; 23.1%), Polypodiaceae (76; 13.4%), Dryopteridaceae (68; 12.0%), Aspleniaceae (45; 7.9%), Selaginellaceae (41; 7.2%), Thelypteridaceae (34; 6.0%), and Hymenophyllaceae (28; 4.9%) (Table 1). Nine families are represented by a single species each: Culcitaceae, Didymochlaenaceae, Lindsaeaceae, Lonchitidaceae, Lygodiaceae, Onocleaceae, Plagiogyriaceae, Saccolomataceae, and Schizaeaceae.

Table 1. Families of ferns and lycophytes represented in the Sierra Madre Oriental. We recorded the number of species and genera in each family and endemics.

Families Species (%) Genera Endemic species Most diverse genera
Anemiaceae 12 (2.1) 1 Anemia 1
Aspleniaceae 45 (7.9) 2 Asplenium 6 Asplenium (42)
Athyriaceae 19 (3.4) 3
Blechnaceae 12 (2.1) 5 Woodwardia 1
Culcitaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Cyatheaceae 10 (1.8) 3
Cystopteridaceae 2 (0.4) 1
Dennstaedtiaceae 13 (2.3) 6
Dicksoniaceae 2 (0.4) 2
Didymochlaenaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Dryopteridaceae 68 (12.0) 12 Ctenitis 2, Dryopteris 1, Elaphoglossum 10, Megalastrum 2, Phanerophlebia 1 Elaphoglossum (30)
Equisetaceae 4 (0.7) 1
Gleicheniaceae 7 (1.2) 4
Hymenophyllaceae 28 (4.9) 7 Didymoglossum 1
Isoetaceae 2 (0.4) 1 Isoetes 2
Lindsaeaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Lomariopsidaceae 2 (0.4) 1 Lomariopsis 1
Lonchitidaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Lycopodiaceae 13 (2.3) 6 Huperzia 1
Lygodiaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Marattiaceae 4 (0.7) 2
Marsileaceae 3 (0.5) 1
Nephrolepidaceae 6 (1.1) 1
Onocleaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Ophioglossaceae 11 (1.9) 5
Osmundaceae 2 (0.4) 2
Plagiogyriaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Polypodiaceae 76 (13.4) 18 Campyloneurum 1, Pecluma 1, Pleopeltis 10, Polypodium 3 Pleopeltis (24)
Psilotaceae 3 (0.5) 1
Pteridaceae 131 (23.1) 26 Adiantum 1, Argyrochosma 2, Aspidotis 1, Astrolepis 1, Bommeria 2, Gaga 5, Myriopteris 4, Notholaena 6, Pellaea 2, Ynesmexia 1 Myriopteris (22)
Saccolomataceae 1 (0.2) 1
Salviniaceae 2 (0.4) 1
Schizaeaceae 1 (0.2) 1
Selaginellaceae 41 (7.2) 6 Bryodesma 4, Lepidoselaginella 2, Pulviniella 1, Selaginella 7 Selaginella (21)
Tectariaceae 3 (0.5) 1
Thelypteridaceae 34 (6.0) 8 Amauropelta 1, Goniopteris 1, Pelazoneuron 2
Woodsiaceae 3 (0.5) 1 Physematium 1
TOTAL 37 567 (100.0) 137 89 139

State diversity in the SMOR

Our analysis indicates that Puebla has the highest number of fern and lycophyte species, with 423 species (31.9 species/km2), followed by Hidalgo and Querétaro, which have 321 (23.3 species/km2) and 227 (17.6 species/km2), respectively. Tamaulipas and Veracruz have 181 (9.8 species/km2) and 117 (8.3 species/km2), respectively, while the other states of the SMOR have fewer than 100 species each. Endemic ferns or lycophytes confined to a single Mexican state were recorded in Puebla and Tamaulipas, with three taxa, and in Nuevo León and San Luis Potosí, with two species.

From the total identified pteridoflora of the SMOR area as defined by [26], we identified an essential subset of 123 species representing new records for the SMOR. A subset of 40 species has an updated distributional range, previously recorded in the SMOR, and is now documented in other states not previously reported in the literature (Fig 3).

Fig 3. New pteridophyte records for the Sierra Madre Oriental (123 species) and species with an extended distribution in other states from the SMOR (40).

Fig 3

Eleven of the new records belong to Elaphoglossum, seven to Selaginella, and six are filmy ferns of the genus Hymenophyllum. A total of 41 genera are represented by a single species within the new records in the SMOR. The others have between two and five species. The genera with the most species showing range extension into the SMOR are Notholaena and Amauropelta, with five and four taxa, respectively. Overall, 16 genera have one species extending its range in the SMOR, while the rest are represented by two or three species.

Common vs. rare species

As is common in biogeographic studies based on herbarium data, few fern species are represented by a disproportionate number of specimens, while many are represented by only a few (Fig 4). In our study, only four species have more than 50 records (Phlebodium pseudoaureum, Pleopeltis polylepis, Pleopeltis plebeia, and Polypodium plesiosorum), which contrasts with several other species limited to just one or three localities (252 taxa). These latter data account for approximately 50% of the pteridoflora of this mountain range.

Fig 4. Record frequency for each species represented in the Sierra Madre Oriental.

Fig 4

Grid cell species richness and endemism indices

We analyzed 86 grid cells from the SMOR (Fig 5A), each containing at least one record. Species richness values ranged from 1 to 307 species per grid cell (Fig 5B). The main center of pteridophyte diversity in the southern part of the SMOR (states of Puebla, Hidalgo, Querétaro, and Veracruz) consisted of nine neighbouring grid cells with the highest species richness scores (>90), ranging from 96 to 307 species (Fig 5B). The tenth grid cell with the highest richness score (95) is located in Nuevo León (BB). Among the top-scoring grid cells, BX, CC, CD, and CG have the highest number of species (>200). These high-richness grid cells contrast with other parts of the SMOR, where collections are sparse or absent, as in 13 grid cells with only one fern or lycophyte species and eight grid cells with just two taxa recorded (Fig 5B).

Fig 5. A. Division of the Sierra Madre Oriental into grid cells of 30 minutes by side and latitudinal belts of one geographical degree.

Fig 5

B. Species richness of the pteridoflora in the SMOR. Map created by the authors using ArcGIS Pro. Physiographic regionalization (SMOR) and Political Division layers were sourced from INEGI (https://www.inegi.org.mx/), used under the Terms of Free Use of Information which permit commercial utilization.

Polypodium plesiosorum (27), Adiantum capillus-veneris and Astrolepis sinuata (26 each), Pleopeltis polylepis (25), and Astrolepis integerrima (23) were found in more grid cells, followed by Pelazoneuron ovatum and Pleopeltis guttata (21) (Table 2). Conversely, 150 species are only represented in one grid cell. Ferns and lycophytes are mainly distributed in temperate forests, such as oak and pine-oak forests, and in tropical montane cloud forests. However, some species prefer other types of Mexican vegetation that receive less rainfall, such as the arid scrub and tropical deciduous forest. Temperate landscapes mainly influence the key distribution patterns observed in this study.

Table 2. Species with more records and recorded in more grid cells of the Sierra Madre Oriental.

Species Number of records Grid cells
Pleopeltis polylepis (Roemer ex Kunze) T. Moore 57 25
Pleopeltis plebeia (Schltdl. & Cham.) A. R. Sm. & Tejero 56 20
Polypodium plesiosorum Kunze 53 27
Phlebodium pseudoaureum (Cav.) Lellinger 52 17
Tectaria heracleifolia (Willd.) Underw. 47 20
Campyloneurum angustifolium (Sw.) Fée 41 15
Adiantum capillus-veneris L. 40 26
Pelazoneuron ovatum (R.P. St. John) A.R.Sm. & S.E. Fawc. 40 21
Llavea cordifolia Lag. 36 19
Pleopeltis crassinervata (Fée) T. Moore 36 10
Adiantum tenerum Sw. 35 13
Asplenium monanthes L. 35 18
Astrolepis sinuata (Lag. ex Sw.) D.M. Benham & Windham 35 26
Blechnum appendiculatum Willd. 34 15
Adiantum poiretii Wikstr. 33 15
Pleopeltis acicularis (Weath.) A.R. Sm. & T. Krömer 33 11
Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn 33 13
Anemia mexicana Klotzsch 31 20
Notholaena candida (M. Martens & Galeotti) Hook. 31 20
Pteris cretica L. 31 19
Astrolepis integerrima (Hook.) D.M. Benham & Windham 30 23
Pleopeltis polypodioides (L.) E.G. Andrews & Windham 30 20
Anemia adiantifolia (L.) Sw. 29 19
Pleopeltis guttata (Maxon) E. G. Andrews & Windham 29 21
Polypodium arcanum Maxon 29 15
Remaining taxa 3,543 2,289
Total 4,479 2,757

We undertook an effort-weighted sampling method for our manuscript. In our study using the Chao1 richness estimator, we identified 567 species. According to the estimator, the average estimated richness at this sampling level was about 670 species, with a 95% confidence interval of approximately 632–729 species (Fig 6). The difference between the lower and upper confidence limits is roughly 100 species, indicating moderate uncertainty around the estimate, as expected in communities with many rare or low-detectability taxa.

Fig 6. Species accumulation curve for ferns and lycophytes of the Sierra Madre Oriental (SMOR) using the Chao1 richness estimator.

Fig 6

The observed species richness is shown as a solid line. The Chao1 estimator is represented by three curves: the mean estimated richness and its lower and upper confidence limits (95%).

Comparing the observed richness (567 species) to the Chao1 mean estimate (≈670 species), our data falls short by about 100 species from the estimated total richness. This suggests that our sampling completeness is roughly 85%, which is relatively high, because Chao1 uses the number of very infrequently observed species to infer unseen diversity, tending to produce higher richness estimates when rare species are relatively common in the sample [89,90]. These curves show that we’ve captured more than 85% of the expected species at a sampling site, indicating that this type of analysis is feasible [91].

Overall, these results suggest that although the sampling did not fully capture the total estimated richness, it still documented a significant portion of the community. Using Chao1, the accumulation curves for fern and lycophyte species in the SMOR did not reach a defined asymptote, remaining above the observed richness.

Endemism indexes

Figs 7A and 7B display the values of weighted endemism (WE) and corrected weighted endemism (CWE) for ferns and lycophytes of the SMOR. For WE, values ranged from 0.04 to 115.8 across the grid cells analyzed (Fig 7A). The WE values showed a pattern similar to that of species richness. We found that nearly all grid cells with the highest species richness scores also recorded the highest WE values (>16), except for the grid cell BW.

Fig 7. A. Weighted endemism (WE).

Fig 7

B. Corrected weighted endemism (CWE) in the Sierra Madre Oriental divided in grid cells of 30 minutes. Map created by the authors using ArcGIS Pro. Political Division layers were sourced from INEGI (https://www.inegi.org.mx/), used under the Terms of Free Use of Information which permit commercial utilization.

The corrected weighted endemism values ranged from 0.05 to 0.48 (Fig 7B), excluding grid cells with only one species, as previously established. The grid cells with the highest CWE values (>0.25) are spread throughout the SMOR, and only one grid cell (CD) with the highest species richness is included.

Elevation patterns

The pteridoflora in the SMOR is found across the entire elevation range of this mountain range (100–3700 m). As is typical in Neotropical mountains, species richness in the SMOR exhibits a hump-shaped elevational pattern, with the highest diversity at mid-elevations (Fig 8). The greatest number of species occurs between 1000 and 1500 m (455 species), decreasing at both higher and lower elevations.

Fig 8. Elevational distribution of the pteridophyte species richness in the Sierra Madre Oriental.

Fig 8

Latitudinal patterns

We believe that the pteridoflora of the SMOR did not strictly follow a latitudinal pattern. Species diversity does not consistently decrease or increase with latitude (Fig 9). Our analysis of latitude within 1 ° geographic belts (Fig 5A) revealed low richness at the northern extreme (28°-29° N, 11 species) and high richness at the southern extreme (19°-20° N, 469 species). Another peak in richness occurs at the 24 °- 25 ° N belt (with 350 species). The decline in species richness is more apparent from the 24°-25° N belt to the northernmost point (28°-29° N).

Fig 9. Latitudinal belts of one geographic degree and their values of the taxonomic biodiversity index in the Sierra Madre Oriental.

Fig 9

The numbers over each column represent the species richness recorded in each latitudinal belt.

Geographic distribution patterns

Regarding the geographic distribution of ferns and lycophytes inhabiting the SMOR, the Neotropical and Mesoamerican components are the best represented, with 238 and 119 species, respectively (Fig 10) (see S1 Appendix). They are followed by the endemic component to Mexico, which has 64 species. Other significant components include the Nearctic and American, represented by 44 and 41 species. The high proportion of Neotropical and Mesoamerican components in the SMOR enhances the significance of this mountain range within the Mexican Transition Zone. Each remaining geographic component has fewer than 30 species (Fig 10).

Fig 10. Geographic distribution patterns of the pteridoflora in the Sierra Madre Oriental.

Fig 10

The abbreviations are: (Cos) Cosmopolitan; (A) American; (Na) Nearctic; (Nt) Neotropical; (M) Mesoamerican; (Mx) Endemic to Mexico; (End) Endemic to the SMOR; (Reg) Regional endemic; (I) Introduced.

We recorded 21 species that are endemic to the SMOR: Asplenium dianae, Asplenium semipinnatum, Asplenium ultimum, Bryodesma carnerosanum, Gaga apiacea, Gaga hintoniorum, Goniopteris schaffneri, Isoetes tamaulipana, Myriopteris chipinquensis, Myriopteris maxoniana, Notholaena brachycaulis, Notholaena brevistipes, Notholaena jacalensis, Notholaena leonina, Pellaea notabilis, Pellaea ribae, Pleopeltis ×gracilis, Pleopeltis ×pueblensis, Pleopeltis fallacissima, Pulviniella gypsophila, and Woodwardia martinezii. At least five other species are closely associated with the SMOR and have geographic distributions almost restricted to this mountain chain (S1 Appendix).

Risk categories

There are 20 fern species and two lycophytes listed in the Mexican Official Norm NOM-059 [85]. These species are shown in Table 3. Among them, 12 are classified as special protection category (Pr), seven as threatened (A), and three as at risk of extinction (P). The three species are Cyathea costaricensis, Cyathea godmanii, and Selaginella porphyrospora. According to the Red Lists of Threatened Species by the IUCN [86], seven fern taxa are categorized as least concern (LC), indicating a low risk of extinction (see Table 3). Only members of Cyatheales are included in Appendix II of CITES [87], comprising eight Cyatheaceae and two Dicksoniaceae (see Table 3).

Table 3. Threatened species of ferns and lycophytes of the Sierra Madre Oriental and their risk categories.

Family Species NOM-059 IUCN CITES
Aspleniaceae Asplenium auritum Sw. A
Asplenium formosum Willd. LC
Asplenium serratum L. A
Culcitaceae Culcita coniifolia (Hook.) Maxon Pr
Cyatheaceae Alsophila firma (Baker) D. S. Conant Pr Appendix II
Cyathea bicrenata Liebm. Pr Appendix II
Cyathea costaricensis (Mett. ex Kuhn) Domin P Appendix II
Cyathea fulva (M. Martens & Galeotti) Fée Pr Appendix II
Cyathea godmanii (Hook.) Domin P
Cyathea microdonta (Desv.) Domin Pr Appendix II
Cyathea myosuroides (Liebm.) Domin Pr Appendix II
Cyathea schiedeana (C. Presl) Domin Pr Appendix II
Cyathea tuerckheimii R. M. Tryon Pr
Sphaeropteris horrida (Liebm.) R. M. Tryon Pr Appendix II
Dicksoniaceae Dicksonia navarrensis Christ Pr Appendix II
Lophosoria quadripinnata (J. F. Gmel.) C. Chr. Appendix II
Equisetaceae Equisetum hyemale L. var. affine (Engelm.) A. A. Eaton LC
Lycopodiaceae Phlegmariurus dichotomus (Jacq.) W.H. Wagner A
Marattiaceae Marattia laxa Kunze Pr
Marattia weinmanniifolia Liebm. Pr
Osmundaceae Osmunda spectabilis Willd. LC
Polypodiaceae Campyloneurum phyllitidis (L.) C. Presl A
Serpocaulon triseriale (Sw.) A. R. Sm. A
Psilotaceae Psilotum ×complanatum Sw. A
Psilotum flaccidum Wall. A
Pteridaceae Adiantum capillus-veneris L. LC
Pteris vittata L. LC
Selaginellaceae Selaginella porphyrospora A. Braun P
Thelypteridaceae Cyclosorus interruptus (Willd.) H. Itô LC
Goniopteris tetragona (Sw.) C. Presl LC

Abbreviations. Risk categories of the NOM-059: (A) Threatened; (Pr) Special protection; (P) Endangered. IUCN: (LC) Least concern category.

Discussion

Our study increased the number of ferns and lycophytes recorded in the SMOR compared to earlier floristic surveys conducted in this Mexican mountain range [18,19]. We documented 567 species, including 511 ferns and 56 lycophytes, thereby expanding our understanding of these plant groups and the Mexican pteridoflora. Our findings reflect an increase of 211 species compared to the 356 species in the SMOR, as documented by [12,19], which reported a total of 1,055 species in Mexico. Tejero’s personal database (2025) includes 1,124 taxa, encompassing subspecies, varieties, and hybrids. Given this diversity, the new total of species recorded here in the SMOR represents approximately 50–54% of the Mexican pteridoflora. This study also documents 60 names and/or species that were excluded following taxonomic refinement and review.

Our study, mainly based on specimen revisions from herbaria and fieldwork, uncovers new records and range extensions for over 100 species of pteridoflora in the SMOR. Our revision identifies 123 species in 62 genera as new for the area and 40 species in 25 genera showing range extensions within this mountain chain. Elaphoglossum and Hymenophyllum are the fern genera with the most new records in the SMOR; a similar situation occurs in an inventory of the pteridoflora in Veracruz [43], where Elaphoglossum and filmy ferns were also reported with the highest number of new records among ferns. Our findings confirm that ongoing fieldwork in the mountains of the Mexican Transition Zone could uncover new records and range extensions of the Mexican pteridoflora [43], even in regions that have already been floristically studied, such as the SMOR (e.g., [18,19].

The geographic position, its alignment with the oceanic edge, and the size of the SMOR influence the observed patterns of differential richness. A common pattern of species richness along the latitudinal gradient, which shows an increase from the north to the tropics [3,41,92], was disrupted. Despite over 200 years of research, the factors driving geographic patterns of species richness remain largely misunderstood [93]. In the case of the SMOR, an intermediate zone of the gradient (24°–25° N) was found to have a relatively high proportion of pteridoflora compared to the southern latitudinal zones (19°–20° N), with 469 species (especially Puebla; 31.9 species/km²) and the northern zone with the lowest (Coahuila 2.7 species/km²).

Most likely, the ecological factor responsible for this intermediate peak in species richness can be attributed to the combination of the broader SMOR band with the effect of orographic shadow, which creates an unparalleled environmental heterogeneity in the mountain range. Additionally, the states on the oceanic slope are more diverse (Querétaro 17.6 species/km²) than those on the interior (Guanajuato 1.2 species/km²). By analyzing both the latitude and orographic shadow patterns, we can explain the high richness at southern latitudes (20–21°; Hidalgo, Puebla and Veracruz) and the intermediate richness at latitudes 25–26°, where richness increases from west to east across the mountain (Durango, Coahuila and Zacatecas; and Nuevo León, Tamaulipas) (Fig 9).

As observed in the mountainous regions of southeastern Mexico [6], the SMOR shows a strong Neotropical influence. Many Neotropical and Mesoamerican elements are well-represented in the Sierra Madre del Sur and the Chiapas Highlands in southeastern Mexico. In the SMOR, the flowering plants display a marked Nearctic influence [18], contrasting with the predominant Neotropical affinities of the pteridoflora reported here. Compared to the Sierra Madre Occidental [14], the SMOR showcases the typical association of Neotropical ferns in montane ecosystems due to its high humidity levels, like those found on the Gulf of Mexico slope, and hosts several of the most diverse epiphytic fern clades, including Asplenium, Elaphoglossum, Hymenophyllaceae, and Polypodiaceae [3]. The diversity of pteridoflora in the SMOR and the presence of endemic species support the idea of a tropical Mexican fern hotspot, with the SMOR forming part of one of the main regional hotspots in the Neotropics recognized by [92].

Pteridaceae, Dryopteridaceae, and Polypodiaceae are regarded as some of the most diverse fern families worldwide. Some genera and subfamilies reflect the dominant ecological zones in the SMOR. Pteridaceae is a successful group represented there by 131 species and is classified into three major bioclimatic groups: adiantoids, pteroids, and cheilanthoids. The cheilanthoid ferns (Argyrochosma, Astrolepis, Gaga, Myriopteris, Notholaena, Pellaea) are primarily found on the north and western slopes facing the SMOR, which features xerophytic and seasonal temperate vegetation. Conversely, the adiantoid ferns with Adiantum as their most representative genus, are mainly present in the eastern part of the SMOR, characterized by a warm, humid climate. Lastly, the remnant pteroid group (Pteris, Vittaria) is predominantly located in the temperate, humid montane region [94].

The other two fern families with high species richness in the SMOR are Dryopteridaceae and Polypodiaceae, mainly inhabiting the humid montane forests on oceanic slopes [19,95]. In the SMOR, Polypodiaceae includes 18 genera and 76 species, exhibiting the greatest variation in form among ferns, including epiphytic species [95]. Some genera, such as Campyloneurum, Pecluma (both with 10 species), Polypodium (11 species), and Pleopeltis (24 taxa), are mainly represented by epiphytic forms in the SMOR [95]. Dryopteridaceae are primarily found in temperate and tropical montane habitats [96]; they comprise 12 genera and 68 species, mostly terrestrial, except for Elaphoglossum, a diverse genus with 30 species [97]. Zotz [98] indicates that approximately 66% of all Elaphoglossum species are epiphytes according to its preference. The colonization of the vertical space of trees by Elaphoglossum, Pleopeltis, Polypodium, and members of the Hymenophyllaceae family significantly contributes to the high diversity of these forests compared to other regions of the warm zone. This pronounced richness of epiphytic species in humid montane forests is a consistent pattern observed in other Mexican regions, including central Veracruz, Los Tuxtlas, and the Sierra de Juárez in Oaxaca. Furthermore, this elevated epiphyte diversity is considered a primary driver of the unimodal elevational pattern observed in fern species richness. This pattern typically peaks at mid-elevations, where optimal moisture and microclimatic stability provide ideal conditions for the proliferation of these lineages [41,99–101]. Among lycophytes, the richest family in the SMOR is Selaginellaceae, represented solely by Selaginella, with 41 species [12]. The list of lycophytes presented in this study is based on [65]. Members of Selaginellaceae thrive under a wide range of climates and soil types. Species with homophyllous leaves (Bryodesma) and heterophyllous, rosette-forming leaves (Lepidoselaginella) are poikilohydric, drought-adapted xerophytes [102,103]. The heterophyllous species are diverse in tropical forests worldwide, predominantly in secondary environments [104]. Both mesic and tropical-xeric ecological zones are well represented in the SMOR. The same is true for other Mexican montane ranges, such as the Sierra Madre Occidental [14] and the Sierra Madre del Sur [6], which, along with the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and SMOR, form the Mexican Transition Zone sensu [105]. Conversely, in the southern Mexican mountains with homogeneous mesic environments, such as the Chiapas Highlands, there are only 24 species [22].

In the heatmap, the concentration of collection records is located in the central part of the country, corresponding to the southern part of the SMOR. This map shows that collecting effort is not randomly distributed, as is often the case in biodiversity studies [106], and the disproportion of records in the southern part of the SMOR may be linked to accessible geographic locations such as roadsides and urban areas, as well as proximity to research institutions in central Mexico with active botanical research. This pattern has been previously suggested for biodiversity studies based on herbarium specimens [106–108]. The higher number of collection records and species of ferns and lycophytes in the southern SMOR can also be explained by the higher rainfall and warmer temperatures in this region [28]. These climatic conditions support the presence and abundance of these vascular plants in the tropical montane cloud forests, which are preferred by many botanists for the study and field collection of Mexican ferns and lycophytes, as in other parts of the country [5,95].

The grid cells with high species richness scores include families and genera that typically inhabit humid environments [4]. The convergence of certain families, such as Lycopodiaceae, Selaginellaceae, Aspleniaceae, Athyriaceae, Cyatheaceae, Dryopteridaceae, Hymenophyllaceae, Polypodiaceae, Pteridaceae, and Thelypteridaceae in these highly diverse grid cells reflects complex plant assemblages in these areas, due to the presence of different phylogenetic lineages of the Mexican pteridoflora, linked to epiphytic and terrestrial lifestyles [93].

The estimator values used showed similar behavior and remained close to the observed values, indicating that a good sampling of the pteridophyte flora was achieved [90]. Although the number of pteridophyte species reported in this study is much higher than that recorded in previous research (e.g., [19]), the analysis of the species accumulation curves suggests that more species can still be recorded to complete the list of ferns and lycophytes of the SMOR.

The WE values obtained for ferns and lycophytes in the SMOR are very similar to the species richness. Nearly all grid cells with high species richness scores (except BW) also showed high WE index values. This correlation between species richness and WE values has been suggested in previous studies [27,73,74]. The CWE index emphasizes species with limited distribution, so only one grid cell (CD) is represented in the WE with the highest values. The grid cells with high CWE values (≥0.25 and containing two or more recorded species) are spread across different zones of the SMOR and are influenced by the geographic distribution of the species present in these grid cells, some of which are endemic to the SMOR, such as Asplenium dianae, A. semipinnatum, A. ultimum, Notholaena brachycaulis, and Pellaea ribae.

We regard the CWE index as an essential measure of endemism because it is independent of species richness [69,73,74], as it includes species endemic to the SMOR and Mexico. We recommend that grid cell CD—located primarily in the Sierra Norte de Puebla and extending into a small portion of Veracruz—should be a priority area for conserving the Mexican pteridoflora due to its unparalleled diversity (307 species, supported by both WE and CWE indexes). Although this area already overlaps with the established Natural Protected Areas (such as the Carmen Serdán National Park and the Río Necaxa and Kowtahyolo Natural Resource Protection Areas), its exceptional richness highlights the urgent need to maintain connectivity and expand current conservation strategies across the entire grid cell. Further research and fieldwork are needed in grid cells with the highest CWE scores to boost the number of records and species in these areas.

Following the “World Ferns” sensu [12], some species are found in only one Mexican state. Our study revealed that many of these species (e.g., Pecluma liebmannii and Notholaena brevistipes), previously recorded as endemic to just one state, are also found in another Mexican state. These two species, along with Ctenitis bullata, Pleopeltis ×melanoneuron, and Selaginella subrugosa, are documented in our study for the first time in one to three Mexican states, changing their endemism status from local endemic to regional endemic.

Considering the high diversity of the pteridoflora in the SMOR (567 species), we observed that only a small percentage of these vascular plants are classified as threatened by international and national agencies. Regrettably, only 22 species are listed under some risk category in the NOM-059 [85] by the Mexican government, and seven are in the least concern (LC) category of the IUCN [86]. This low number of threatened species suggests that other fern and lycophyte taxa need to be assessed according to the criteria of the IUCN [86] and the NOM-059 [85], such as regional endemics and those species limited to the tropical montane cloud forests [109], to determine their potential inclusion in the National and International Red Lists.

We suggest that the 19 endemic species should be assessed for inclusion in NOM-059, as they are regionally endemic and have few documented instances. None of these species is listed on the Red List, and their traits exceed those considered for some species already included. Candidate species include taxa from Pteridaceae (genus Notholaena, with five species) from semiarid zones with xerophytic vegetation in northern SMOR.

The Phlegmariurus species (Lycopodiaceae) are notable and are not necessarily restricted to SMOR. [110] proposed that all Mexican Phlegmariurus species be regarded as threatened or endangered. These species inhabit undisturbed areas of mature pine-oak and humid montane forests, often represented by only a few individuals at each site [111]. The NOM-059 includes only one species (P. dichotomus), categorized as threatened. The genus Phlegmariurus in Mexico comprises 13 species, seven of which are found in SMOR. These lycophytes are rare or absent in cleared areas because they are epiphytes of mature host canopy trees; they are located in limited localities and collections [106], such as P. linifolius (5 records), P. pringlei (5), P. pithyoides (3), and P. orizabae, documented from only a single specimen collected in Puebla.

The family Cyatheaceae is a threatened component in the SMOR. The mountainous regions of the Neotropics host most of the species richness of American tree ferns [71]. These vascular plants are critically endangered, facing threats from deforestation, exploitation, and global climate change [71,112,113]. Most are listed in the NOM-059, but their risk categories need reassessment and updating [71,114]. Unfortunately, deforestation and land-use change in the SMOR have reduced tropical mountain forest areas due to agriculture and livestock raising [17,114], threatening the survival of these ferns. The extraction of tree fern stems for handicrafts and as growing medium or substratum for orchids and other plants poses a serious threat to these ferns [112,113], and some conservation initiatives have been proposed within the SMOR, e.g., to sell young tree ferns for horticultural use because such plants are abundant in disturbed areas and their transplantation from roadsides to safe sites under shade conditions is suggested [115]. According to Appendix II of CITES, tree ferns are not necessarily at risk of extinction but could become threatened if their trade is not properly regulated. Therefore, the Mexican government must establish trade regulations for Cyatheaceae species to prevent their exploitation and use that threaten their survival.

Conclusions

In the SMOR, [18] recorded 8,472 vascular plant species, suggesting that this mountain range has greater floristic richness than any other mountainous region in Mexico. Conversely, [19] documented 6,981 vascular plants in the SMOR, including 356 species of ferns and lycophytes; [18] identified at least 104 as ‘characteristic’ species of the SMOR without listing the total number of taxa. Our findings include 211 additional species of pteridophytes, exceeding those reported by [19], and thus increasing the overall number of vascular plants in the SMOR.

Herbarium data are crucial for understanding plant biogeography; however, sampling biases and coverage gaps are common in biogeographic studies [108]. Our analysis, mainly based on herbarium specimens, is therefore influenced by these biases. Some areas within the SMOR boundaries lack records of ferns or lycophytes, and 13 grid cells contain only one species. These low-diversity areas may be related to unexplored zones and insufficient sampling, as observed in many sectors of Mexico [67,69] and the Neotropics [1,111]. Widespread species are more frequently collected than rare or microendemic species. Future collection efforts in poorly sampled areas of the SMOR are essential to enhance the fern and lycophyte inventory, emphasising the importance and ongoing need for fieldwork [1].

This study provides a detailed inventory of ferns and lycophytes from one of the world’s most biodiverse regions, recognized as part of a biodiversity hotspot [92]. This mountain range serves as a transition zone between different biogeographic regions (Neotropical and Nearctic), with diverse climatic, edaphic, and geological conditions and variations in latitude and elevation. This results in high environmental heterogeneity, leading to significant plant diversity [18]. Based on taxonomic dominance, the most prominent environments are the subhumid temperate (Pleopeltis zone) in the middle and high mountains, followed by the semiarid (Notholaena zone) on the northern and western slopes, the warm humid (Adiantum zone) on the eastern slope, and humid temperate (Hymenophyllum zone) in the southern part of the SMOR.

Our findings show that the greatest diversity of ferns and lycophytes is found in the southwestern part of the SMOR, corresponding primarily in the Sierra Norte de Puebla and extending into a small portion of Veracruz. This is confirmed by climate data: the southern part of the SMOR receives the most rainfall (>1,200 mm, up to 4,000 mm in Cuetzalan, Puebla) and has the warmest temperatures (between 22 and 26 °C) [28]. Both climate conditions support the presence and growth of many fern and lycophyte species.

Another distinct region is the central part of the SMOR in the state of Tamaulipas (grid cells AY, BB, and BC), which includes the El Cielo Biosphere Reserve and the Sierra de San Carlos. The climate in this section of the SMOR, covering Tamaulipas, features temperate conditions (12–18 °C), with rainfall ranging from 600 to 1,200 mm [28], supporting species with Nearctic affinities. Due to the unique biology of lycophytes and ferns, involving two different phases in their life cycle- one sensitive to humidity [4–6] and their stomata’s low reactivity [7–9], it is a taxocenosis that functions as an indicator of local environmental conditions. Appropriate vegetation cover and moisture enhance the richness and abundance of pteridoflora. As a result, the distribution patterns observed in this study can serve as a foundation for predicting future environmental impacts, whether from deforestation or climate change.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Checklist of ferns and lycophytes of the Sierra Madre Oriental and excluded taxa.

This file contains two sheets: 1) A comprehensive checklist detailing species presence by state, subprovince, geographic distribution, and elevation range. 2) A list of excluded names and synonyms for taxa that were not verified or do not naturally occur in the study area.

(XLSX)

pone.0346965.s001.xlsx (55.8KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the curators and staff of the herbaria mentioned in the text for their courtesy during our review of specimens. The HUAP, through Amparo Cerón, helped develop a database from northern Puebla. The IEB, through Brenda Bedolla, helped develop the database from northeastern Querétaro related to the SMOR. CONABIO, through Susana Ocegueda, helped develop the database from Veracruz. Jonathan D. Amith, co-author, contributed to this research effort as director of a long-term floristic and ethnobotanical project in the Sierra Nororiental de Puebla, during which > 600 ferns and allies were collected, principally in the municipalities of Cuetzalan del Progreso (182), Zacapoaxtla (157) Zautla (72), Zoquiapan (58), and Zongozotla (41). Fieldwork teams were led by Canek Ledesma Corral and Miriam Jiménez Chimil and included Ceferino Salgado Castañeda, Mariano Gorostiza Salazar, Eleuterio Gorostiza Salazar, and Osbel López Francisco.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by Project DGAPA-PAPIIT IN219424 and SECIHTI CB-2025-G-499.

References

  • 1.Almeida TE, Salino A. State of the art and perspectives on Neotropical fern and lycophyte systematics. J Syst Evol. 2016;54(6):679–90. doi: 10.1111/jse.12223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kessler M. Biogeography of ferns. Mehltreter K, Walker LR, Sharpe JM. Fern ecology. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. 2010. 22–60. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511844898.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Suissa JS, Sundue MA, Testo WL. Mountains, climate and niche heterogeneity explain global patterns of fern diversity. J Biogeogr. 2021;48:1296–308. doi: 10.1111/jbi.14076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hernández-Álvarez AG, Sánchez-González A, Tejero-Díez JD. Licofitas y helechos del bosque mesófilo de montaña del estado de Hidalgo. Bot Sci. 2019;97:236–49. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2093 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Tejero-Díez JD, Torres-Díaz AN, Gual-Díaz M. Licopodios y helechos en el bosque mesófilo de montaña de México. Gual-Díaz M, Rendón-Correa A. Bosques mesófilos de montaña de México: diversidad, ecología y manejo. México: Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tejero-Díez JD, Torres-Díaz AN, Sánchez-González A. Helechos de la Sierra Madre del Sur. Luna-Vega I, Espinosa D, Contreras-Medina R. Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre del Sur: una síntesis preliminar. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2016. 121–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brodribb TJ, Holbrook NM. Stomatal protection against hydraulic failure: A comparison of coexisting ferns and angiosperms. New Phytol. 2004;162(3):663–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01060.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brodribb TJ, McAdam SAM, Jordan GJ, Feild TS. Evolution of stomatal responsiveness to CO(2) and optimization of water-use efficiency among land plants. New Phytol. 2009;183(3):839–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02844.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brodribb TJ, McAdam SAM. Passive origins of stomatal control in vascular plants. Science. 2011;331(6017):582–5. doi: 10.1126/science.1197985 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Silva MM, Farias RP, Costa LEN, Barros ICLA. Leaf phenological traits of the tree fern Cyathea praecincta (Cyatheaceae) in a Brazilian lowland tropical forest. Aust J Bot. 2018;66(8):618–27. doi: 10.1071/BT18084 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Yang J, Wang D, Liu L, Zhou Y. Fern-like plants establishing the understory of the late devonian xinhang lycopsid forest. Life (Basel). 2024;14(5):602. doi: 10.3390/life14050602 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hassler M. World ferns. Synonymic checklist and distribution of ferns and lycophytes of the world. 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Villaseñor JL. Checklist of the native vascular plants of Mexico. Rev. Mex. Biodivers. 2016;87(3):559–902. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2016.06.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tejero-Díez JD, Contreras-Medina R, Torres-Díaz AN, González-Elizondo MS, Sánchez-González A, Luna-Vega I. Diversity of the Pteridoflora of Montane Northwestern Mexico. Diversity. 2023;15(3):324. doi: 10.3390/d15030324 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mickel JT, Smith AR. The pteridophytes of Mexico. Mem NY Bot Gard. 2004;88:1–1054. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Luna-Vega I, Alcántara-Ayala O, Contreras-Medina R. Patterns of diversity, endemism and conservation: an example with Mexican species of Ternstroemiaceae Mirb. ex DC. Luna-Vega I, Morrone JJ, Espinosa D. Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México CONABIO. 2004. 2723–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rzedowski J. Catálogo preliminar de las especies de árboles silvestres de la Sierra Madre Oriental, Fascículo complementario 30. Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México: Flora del Bajío y Regiones Adyacentes. 2015. doi: 10.21829/fb.171.2015.XXX [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Villaseñor JL, Ortiz E. A phytogeographic assessment of the Sierra Madre Oriental physiographic province, Mexico. Bot Sci. 2022;100(4):1102–23. doi: 10.17129/botsci.3086 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Salinas-Rodríguez MM, Hernández-Sandoval L, Carrillo-Reyes P, Castillo-Gómez HA, Castro-Castro A, Estrada-Castillón E. Diversidad de plantas vasculares de la provincia fisiográfica de la Sierra Madre Oriental, México. Bot Sci. 2022;100(2):469–92. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2864 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sanginés-Franco C, Luna-Vega I, Ayala OA, Contreras-Medina R. Distributional patterns and biogeographic analysis of ferns in the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. Am Fern J. 2011;101(2):81–104. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-101.2.81 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hernández-Cárdenas RA, Mendoza-Ruiz A, Arredondo-Amezcua L, Steinmann VW. The alpine ferns of the trans-mexican volcanic belt. Am Fern J. 2019;109(1):11. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-109.1.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Smith AR. Pteridophytes. Breedlove DE. Flora of Chiapas. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. 1981. 1–370. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group (PPG I). A community-derived classification for extant lycophytes and ferns. J Syst Evol. 2016;54:563–603. doi: 10.1111/jse.12229 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Morrone JJ. Neotropical biogeography: regionalization and evolution. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press. 2017. doi: 10.1201/b21824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Eguiluz de Antuñano S, Aranda-García M, Marrett R. Tectónica de la Sierra Madre Oriental, México. Bol Soc Geol Mex. 2000;53:1–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.INEGI. Fisiografía. Conjunto de datos vectoriales fisiográficos. Continuo nacional. escala 1:1 000 000. Serie I. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. 2001. https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/fisiografia/ [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Santa Anna del Conde H, Contreras-Medina R, Luna-Vega I. Biogeographic analysis of endemic cacti of the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. Biol J Linn Soc. 2009;97(2):373–89. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01212.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hernández-Cerda ME, Carrasco-Anaya G. Climatología. Luna-Vega I, Morrone JJ, Espinosa D. Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2004. 63–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Álvarez-Zúñiga E, Sánchez-González A, López-Mata L, Tejero-Díez JD. Composición y abundancia de las pteridofitas en el bosque mesófilo de montaña del municipio de Tlanchinol, Hidalgo, México. Bot Sci. 2012;90(2):163–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Andrés-García MF. Efecto de la perturbación sobre la pteridoflora de un bosque mesófilo de montaña en la Sierra Norte de Puebla. Mexico City: FES-Iztacala, UNAM. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Cartujano S, Zamudio S, Alcántara O, Luna-Vega I. El bosque mesófilo de montaña en el municipio de Landa de Matamoros, Querétaro, México. Bol Soc Bot Mex. 2002;70:13–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Cerón-Carpio AB, Arreguín-Sánchez ML, Fernández-Nava R. Listado con anotaciones de las pteridofitas del municipio de Tlatlauquitepec, Puebla, México y su distribución de las especies en los diferentes tipos de vegetación. Polibotánica. 2006;21:45–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cerón-Carpio AB, Rojas-Alvarado AF, Tejero-Díez JD, Caamaño-Onofre L. Los híbridos de Pleopeltis (Polypodiaceae, Polypodiophyta) en México: novedades y precisiones. Acta Bot Mex. 2017;119:101–14. doi: 10.21829/abm119.2017.1234 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Clausen RT. Ferns of the Monterrey Region, Mexico. Am Fern J. 1950;40(1):89. doi: 10.2307/1544950 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.García-Morales LJ, Estrada-Castillón AE, García-Jiménez J, Villarreal-Quintanilla JA, Cantú-Ayala C, Jurado-Ybarra E. Florística y vegetación del Área Natural Protegida Altas Cumbres, Tamaulipas, México. Barrientos-Lozano L, Correa Sandoval A, Horta Vega JV, García-Jiménez J. Biodiversidad de Tamaulipas. Cd. Victoria: Dirección General de Educación Superior, Instituto Tecnológico de Ciudad Victoria. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mendoza-Ruiz A, Pérez-García B. Nota sobre Onocleopsis hintonii (Onocleaceae), un nuevo registro para el estado de Hidalgo (México). Acta Bot Mex. 2013;(102):31–7. doi: 10.21829/abm102.2013.232 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Grajales-Tam KM. Azollaceae. Flora del Bajío y de regiones adyacentes. INECOL. 2014. p. 1–7. doi: 10.21829/fb.60.2014.185 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gutiérrez-Lozano M, Sánchez-González A, López-Mata L, Tejero-Díez D. Taxonomic richness of lycophytes and ferns of the Mexican beech forest: Highest ever recorded among Fagus forests worldwide?. Flora. 2017;229:23–31. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2017.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Guzmán-Cornejo L, Sánchez-Morales A, Pacheco L. Helechos y licofitas del municipio de Cardonal, Hidalgo, México. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2015;86(3):573–81. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2015.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Hernández-Mendoza AM, Arreguín-Sánchez ML, García-Jiménez J, Herrera-Monsivais MC. Composición taxonómica y datos ecológicos de las licofitas y monilofitas de la Sierra de Tamaulipas, Tamaulipas, México. Polibotánica. 2015;40:29–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hernández-Rojas AC, Kluge J, Krömer T, Carvajal-Hernández C, Silva-Mijangos L, Miehe G. Latitudinal patterns of species richness and range size of ferns along elevational gradients at the transition from tropics to subtropics. J Biogeogr. 2020;47(6):1383–97. doi: 10.1111/jbi.13841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Juárez-Medina AK. Biodiversidad de la flora del bosque mesófilo de montaña del municipio de Huayacocotla, Veracruz, México. Mexico City: Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Krömer T, Carvajal-Hernández CI, Acebey AR, Smith AR. A decade of new pteridophyte records for the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Am Fern J. 2015;105(3):162–75. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-105.3.162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Martínez-Cabrera D, Hernández-Hernández NN, Isidro-Hernández B, Hernández-Álvarez AG, Sánchez-González A. Diversidad de licopodios y helechos del bosque tropical subcaducifolio del estado de Hidalgo, México. Acta Bot Mex. 2018;(126). doi: 10.21829/abm126.2019.1434 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mendoza A, Windham M, Pérez-García B, Yatskievych G. Una nueva especie de Pellaea (Pteridaceae) del estado de San Luis Potosí, México. Acta Bot Mex. 2001;57:15–21. doi: 10.21829/abm57.2001.881 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mendoza-Ruiz A, Ceja-Romero J. Nuevos registros de licofitas y helechos para el estado de Puebla, México. Acta Bot Mex. 2020;127:e1637. doi: 10.21829/abm127.2020.1637 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Moran RC, Prado J. Megalastrum (Dryopteridaceae) in Central America. Kew Bulletin. 2010;65(2):137–88. doi: 10.1007/s12225-010-9214-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mora-olivo A, Mendoza-ruiz A, Martínez-ávalos JG. Isoetes tamaulipana (Isoetaceae), a new species from Mexico. Phytotaxa. 2016;267(2). doi: 10.11646/phytotaxa.267.2.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Palacios-Ríos M. Las pteridofitas del estado de Veracruz, México. Mexico City: Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pérez-Atilano Y, Sánchez-González A, Tejero-Díez JD. Species richness, distribution, and morphological variation of lycophytes and monilophytes in a Semi-arid Region of Mexico. Am Fern J. 2015;105(3):238–56. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-105.3.238 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pérez-Paredes MG, Sánchez-González A, Tejero-Díez JD. Listado de licopodios y helechos del municipio de Zacualtipán de Ángeles, Hidalgo, México. Polibotánica. 2012;33:57–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ramírez-Cruz S, Sánchez-González A, Tejero-Díez D. La pteridoflora del Parque Nacional Los Mármoles, Hidalgo, México. Bol Soc Bot Mex. 2009;84:35–44. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rojas-Alvarado AF. Notes on Elaphoglossum (Lomariopsidaceae) section Polytrichia subsection Hybrida in Mexico and Central America. Rev Biol Trop. 2003;51(1):33–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Romero-Santamaría A. Diversidad y estructura de especies leñosas en un fragmento de bosque mesófilo de montaña en Xicotepec, Puebla, México. Mexico City: FES-Iztacala, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sánchez-González A, Álvarez-Zúñiga E, Tejero-Díez JD. Richness and distribution patterns of ferns and lycopods in Los Mármoles National Park, Hidalgo, Mexico. J Torrey Bot Soc. 2010;137(4):373–9. doi: 10.3159/10-RA-002.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Tejero-Díez JD, Pacheco L. Notas taxonómicas y de distribución en Polypodium plesiosorum y P. rhodopleuron (Polypodiaceae: Pteridophyta). An Inst Biol Univ Nac Autón Méx Ser Bot. 2004;75(1):11–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Tejero-Díez JD, Pacheco L. Taxa nuevos, nomenclatura, redefinición y distribución de las especies relacionadas con Polypodium colpodes Kunze (Polypodiace, Pteridophyta). Acta Bot Mex. 2004;(67):75–115. doi: 10.21829/abm67.2004.976 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Torres-Colín R, Parra JG, de la Cruz LA, Ramírez MP, Gómez-Hinostrosa C, Bárcenas RT, et al. Flora vascular del municipio de Guadalcázar y zonas adyacentes, San Luis Potosí, México. Rev Mex Biodivers. 2017;88(3):524–54. doi: 10.1016/j.rmb.2017.07.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Tzompa-Coatl R, Cerón-Carpio AB, Mendoza-Ruiz A, Ceja-Romero J. Riqueza específica y distribución de licofitas y helechos por tipos de vegetación, en la Sierra Norte de Puebla, México. Acta Bot Mex. 2022;129:e2063. doi: 10.21829/abm129.2022.2063 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Velazco-Macías CG, Salcedo-Martínez SM, Alanís-Flores GJ, González-Álvarez M, Alvarado-Vázquez MA. Helechos de Nuevo León. Una guía ilustrada. Monterrey: Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Velázquez-Montes E. Pteridaceae. Flora del Bajío y de Regiones Adyacentes. 2019;40:1–254. doi: 10.21829/fb.40.2019.210 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Thiers B. Index herbariorum: a global directory of public herbaria and associated staff. Accessed 2024 November 3.
  • 63.Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri). ArcGIS Pro. Redlands (CA): Esri. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Turland NJ, Wiersema JH, Barrie FR, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, Herendeen P, et al. International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi, and Plants (Shenzhen Code) Adopted by the Nineteenth International Botanical Congress Shenzhen, China, July 2017. Glashütten: Koeltz Botanical Books. 2018. doi: 10.12705/Code.2018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Zhou XM, Zhang LB. Phylogeny, character evolution, and classification of Selaginellaceae (lycophytes ). Plant Divers. 2023;45:630–84.doi: 10.1016/j.pld.2023.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ortiz-Bermúdez E. Nomenclator de localidades. Luna-Vega I, Morrone JJ, Espinosa D. Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental. Mexico City: UNAM-CONABIO. 2004. 25–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Rodríguez A, Castro-Castro A, Vargas-Amado G, Vargas-Ponce O, Zamora-Tavares P, González-Gallegos J. Richness, geographic distribution patterns, and areas of endemism of selected angiosperm groups in México. J Syst Evol. 2018;56(5):537–49. doi: 10.1111/jse.12457 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Villaseñor JL, Ortiz E, Juárez D. Transition zones and biogeographic characterization of endemism in three biogeographic provinces of central Mexico. Bot Sci. 2021;99:938–54. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2768 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Contreras-Medina R, García-Martínez AI, Ramírez-Martínez JC, Espinosa D, Balam-Narváez R, Luna-Vega I. Biogeographic analysis of ferns and lycophytes in Oaxaca: A Mexican beta-diverse area. Bot Sci. 2022;100:204–22. doi: 10.17129/botsci.2844 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Colwell RK. EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ramírez-Barahona S, Luna-Vega I, Tejero-Díez JD. Species richness, endemism and conservation of American tree ferns (Cyatheales). Biodivers Conserv. 2011;20:59–72. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9946-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Sanginés-Franco C, Luna-Vega I, Contreras-Medina R, Espinosa D, Tejero-Díez JD, Rivas G. Diversity, endemism and conservation of ferns (Polypodiales) in the Mexican Mountain Component. J Mt Sci. 2015;12:891–904. doi: 10.1007/s11629-014-3070-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Crisp MD, Laffan SW, Linder HP, Monro A. Endemism in the Australian flora. J Biogeogr. 2001;28(2):183–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Linder HP. Plant diversity and endemism in subSaharan tropical Africa. J Biogeogr. 2001;28(2):169–82. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2001.00527.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Laffan SW, Lubarsky E, Rosauer DF. Biodiverse, a tool for the spatial analysis of biological and related diversity. Ecography. 2010;33(4):643–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06237.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Aagesen L, Szumik C, Goloboff P. Consensus in the search for areas of endemism. J Biogeogr. 2013;40:2011–6. doi: 10.1111/jbi.12172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Morrone JJ. Evolutionary biogeography: An integrative approach with case studies. New York: Columbia University Press. 2009. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syq016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Vaghasiya PM, Dhamsaniya S, Paradva BR, Patel RM. Vegetation characteristics of Chapredi Reserve Forest of Bhuj-Kachchh, Gujarat. J Appl For Ecol. 2015;3(1):65–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Squeo F, Caviers L, Arancio G, Novoa J, Matthei O, Marticorena C. Biodiversidad de la flora vascular en la región de Antofagasta, Chile. Rev Chil Hist Nat. 1998;71:571–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Carvajal-Hernández CI, Krömer T. Riqueza y distribución de helechos y licófitos en el gradiente altitudinal del Cofre de Perote, centro de Veracruz, México. Bot Sci. 2015;93:601–14. doi: 10.17129/botsci.165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Murillo J, Murillo MT. Diversidad de los helechos y licófitos de Colombia. Acta Bot Malacit. 2017;42:23–32. doi: 10.24310/abm.v42i1.2654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Salazar L, Homeier J, Kessler M, Abrahamczyk S, Lehnert M, Krömer T, et al. Diversity patterns of ferns along elevational gradients in Andean tropical forests. Plant Ecol Divers. 2013;8(1):13–24. doi: 10.1080/17550874.2013.843036 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Luna-Vega I, Tejero-Díez D, Contreras-Medina R, Heads M, Rivas G. Biogeographical analysis of two Polypodium species complexes (Polypodiaceae) in Mexico and Central America. Biol J Linn Soc. 2012;106:940–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01921.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Salinas-Moreno Y, Mendoza MG, Barrios MA, Cisneros R, Macías-Sámano J, Zúñiga G. Areography of the genus Dendroctonus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in Mexico. J Biogeogr. 2004;31:1163–77. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01110.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.SEMARNAT. Modificación del anexo normativo III, lista de especies en riesgo de la norma oficial mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Protección ambiental-especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio-lista de especies en riesgo. 2019. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle_popup.php?codigo=5578808
  • 86.IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 2025 June 18.
  • 87.CITES. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Appendices I, II and III. 2025. https://cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 88.Sánchez-Salas J, Muro G, Estrada–Castillón E, Alba-Ávila JA. El mer: Un instrumento para evaluar el riesgo de extinción de especies en México. rchsza. 2013;XII(1):30–4. doi: 10.5154/r.rchsza.2012.06.037 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Chao A. Non-parametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scand J Stat. 1984;11:265–70. doi: 10.2307/4615964 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Chao A. Estimating the population size for capture-recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics. 1987;43(4):783–91. doi: 10.2307/2531532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Villarreal H, Álvarez M, Córdoba S, Escobar F. Manual de métodos para el desarrollo de inventarios de biodiversidad. Bogotá, Colombia: Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt. 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Suissa JS, Sundue MA. Diversity Patterns of Neotropical Ferns: Revisiting Tryon’s Centers of Richness and Endemism. Am Fern J. 2020;110(4). doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-110.4.211 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Hernández-Rojas AC, Kluge J, Noben S, Reyes-Chávez JD, Krömer T, Carvajal-Hernández CI. Phylogenetic diversity of ferns reveals different patterns of niche conservatism and habitat filtering between epiphytic and terrestrial assemblages. Front Biogeogr. 2021;13(3). doi: 10.21425/F5FBG50023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Grajales-Tam KM, Tejero-Díez JD. Pteridaceae I: Subfamilia Cryptogrammoideae. Flora de Veracruz. 2024;24. doi: 10.21829/fv.620.2024.204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Sundue MA, Testo WL, Ranker TA. Morphological innovation, ecological opportunity, and the radiation of a major vascular epiphyte lineage. Evolution. 2015;69(9):2482–95. doi: 10.1111/evo.12749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Sessa EB, Zimmer EA, Givnish TJ. Phylogeny, divergence times, and historical biogeography of New World Dryopteris (Dryopteridaceae). Am J Bot. 2012;99(4):730–50. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1100294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Rouhan G, Dubuisson J-Y, Rakotondrainibe F, Motley TJ, Mickel JT, Labat J-N, et al. Molecular phylogeny of the fern genus Elaphoglossum (Elaphoglossaceae) based on chloroplast non-coding DNA sequences: Contributions of species from the Indian Ocean area. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004;33(3):745–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2004.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Zotz G. The systematic distribution of vascular epiphytes–a critical update. Bot J Linn Soc. 2013;171(3):453–81. doi: 10.1111/boj.12010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Acebey AR, Krömer T, Kessler M. Species richness and vertical distribution of ferns and lycophytes along an elevational gradient in Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Flora. 2017;235:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.flora.2017.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Carvajal-Hernández CI, Krömer T. Riqueza y distribución de helechos y licófitos en el gradiente altitudinal del Cofre de Perote, centro de Veracruz, México. Bot. Sci. 2015;93(3):601–14. doi: 10.17129/botsci.165 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Hernández-Rojas A, Kessler M, Krömer T, Carvajal-Hernández C, Weigand A, Kluge J. Richness Patterns of Ferns Along an Elevational Gradient in the Sierra de Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico: A Comparison with Central and South America. Am Fern J. 2018;108(3):76–94. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-108.3.76 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Alejo-Jacuinde G, Kean-Galeno T, Martínez-Gallardo N, Tejero-Díez JD, Mehltreter K, Délano-Frier JP, et al. Viability markers for determination of desiccation tolerance and critical stages during dehydration in Selaginella species. J Exp Bot. 2022;73(12):3898–912. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erac121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Korall P, Kenrick P. Phylogenetic relationships in Selaginellaceae based on RBCL sequences. Am J Bot. 2002;89(3):506–17. doi: 10.3732/ajb.89.3.506 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Schneider EL, Carlquist S. SEM studies on the vessels of heterophyllous species of selaginella. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2000;127(4):263. doi: 10.2307/3088644 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Morrone JJ. The Mexican Transition Zone: A natural biogeographic laboratory to study biotic assembly. Cham: Springer. 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-47917-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.James SA, Soltis PS, Belbin L, Chapman AD, Nelson G, Paul DL, et al. Herbarium data: Global biodiversity and societal botanical needs for novel research. Appl Plant Sci. 2018;6(2):e1024. doi: 10.1002/aps3.1024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Daru BH, Rodriguez J. Mass production of unvouchered records fails to represent global biodiversity patterns. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023;7(6):816–31. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02047-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Daru BH. Tracking hidden dimensions of plant biogeography from herbaria. New Phytol. 2025;246(1):61–77. doi: 10.1111/nph.70002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Brummitt N, Aletrari E, Syfert MM, Mulligan M. Where are threatened ferns found? Global conservation priorities for pteridophytes. J Syst Evol. 2016;54(6):604–616. doi: 10.1111/jse.12224 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Tejero-Díez JD, Torres-Díaz AN, Mickel JT, Mehltreter K, Krömer T. La biodiversidad en Veracruz: estudio de estado. México: CONABIO, Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz, Universidad Veracruzana, Instituto de Ecología A.C. 2011. 97–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Armenta-Montero S, Carvajal-Hernández CI, Ellis EA, Krömer T. Distribution and conservation status of Phlegmariurus (Lycopodiaceae) in the state of Veracruz, Mexico. Trop Conserv Sci. 2015;8:114–37. doi: 10.1177/194008291500800 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Dadang RJ, Casinillo NGB, Coritico FP, Simborio LT, Amoroso VB. Living with endangered species: Collection of tree ferns in the forest-reserve of Marilog district, Southern Philippines. Tree For. People. 2020;2:100041. doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Luna-Vega I, Alcántara-Ayala O, Contreras-Medina R, Ponce-Vargas A. Biogeography, current knowledge and conservation of threatened vascular plants characteristic of Mexican temperate forests. Biodivers Conserv. 2006;15(12):3773–99. doi: 10.1007/s10531-005-5401-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Luna-Vega I, Alcántara-Ayala O, García-Morales L, Espinosa D, Ramírez-Martínez J, Contreras-Medina R. Threatened trees characteristic of Mexican tropical montane cloud forests. Diversity. 2022;15(1):42. doi: 10.3390/d15010042 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Eleutério AA, Pérez-Salicrup D. Transplanting tree ferns to promote their conservation in Mexico. Am Fern J. 2009;99(4):279–91. doi: 10.1640/0002-8444-99.4.279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcela Pagano

29 Oct 2025

-->PONE-D-25-44575-->-->Richness and biogeography of Pteridoflora in montane forests of eastern Mexico-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Luna-Vega,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcela Pagano, Ph.D, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We are grateful to the curators and staff of the herbaria mentioned in the text for their courtesy during our review of specimens. Project DGAPA-PAPIIT IN219424 funded the project.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Project DGAPA-PAPIIT IN219424 funded the project.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Project DGAPA-PAPIIT IN219424 funded the project.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: I have reviewed your manuscript titled "Richness and biogeography of Pteridoflora in montane forests of eastern Mexico" and found it to be well-written. The methods are appropriate, and the results and discussion are well presented. I have only two concerns:

1. You need to explicitly explain how you obtained the geographical coordinates for the specimens that lack them.

2. The dataset used for all the analyses (species with their geographical coordinates) is not available. I encourage you to make this information public.

Reviewer #2: Methodologically, I think the article is well presented.

Although it is presented from a descriptive perspective of biodiversity, I believe that further exploration is needed to evaluate the reasons behind the results.

Spatial sampling bias:

The manuscript integrates data from literature, herbaria, and field collections; however, the potential spatial bias of sampling effort is not evaluated. It is recommended to include a sampling density map to visualize the spatial distribution of records and to explicitly discuss how such bias could influence observed richness and endemism patterns. Additionally, the use of spatial rarefaction methods or effort-weighted corrections could improve the interpretation of results.

Details of sampling design:

Although field collections are mentioned, the manuscript does not provide information on sampling effort, the number of sites, or the spatial design employed. Providing these details would allow assessment of the representativeness of records and their potential influence on spatial patterns.

Data quality and geographic precision:

There is no evaluation of geographic precision or data quality. The manuscript does not describe how duplicate records, uncertain georeferences, or historical localities were handled. Ensuring data quality is essential to confirm that the generated maps reflect biological patterns rather than artifacts of incomplete or imprecise data.

Interpretation of maps and absence of records:

The manuscript assumes that the generated maps reflect biological patterns; however, it does not discuss whether absence of records corresponds to true species absence. It is suggested to clarify that some areas with no records may result from limited sampling and to consider the potential effect of this on interpreting richness and endemism hotspots.

Sensitivity to spatial scale:

The manuscript states that the 30′ × 30′ resolution provides reliable results, but no spatial sensitivity analysis is presented. It is recommended to recalculate richness, WE, and CWE metrics at different resolutions (e.g., 15′ and 60′) and compare patterns using rank correlations and hotspot overlap. This would allow evaluation of whether the identified richness and endemism centers are robust or dependent on the selected scale.

Conclusions

The article lacks proposals for the management, conservation, and restoration of vegetation and species in the study area. I believe that this document could serve as the basis for a series of public policies for the protection of the ecosystem.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Eduardo Ruiz-Sanchez

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE review.docx

pone.0346965.s002.docx (16.5KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 May 7;21(5):e0346965. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346965.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


9 Feb 2026

Rebuttal

Reviewer #1: I have reviewed your manuscript titled "Richness and biogeography of Pteridoflora in montane forests of eastern Mexico" and found it to be well-written. The methods are appropriate, and the results and discussion are well presented. I have only two concerns:

1. You need to explicitly explain how you obtained the geographical coordinates for the specimens that lack them.

Author's response: For herbarium specimens without geographic coordinates, we used topographic maps at scale 1:50,000 produced by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) and the previously published nomenclator of localities for the Sierra Madre Oriental (Ortiz-Bermúdez, 2004) to obtain the corresponding geographic coordinates. At the end, we tried to include only georeferenced and verified data in our study.

Ortiz-Bermúdez, E. (2004). Nomenclator de localidades. In: Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental, Luna-Vega I., J.J. Morrone & D. Espinosa (eds.). pp. 25-62. Mexico City: UNAM-CONABIO.

2. The dataset used for all the analyses (species with their geographical coordinates) is not available. I encourage you to make this information public.

Author's response: the database is available through personal communication to the first author.

Reviewer #2: Methodologically, I think the article is well presented.

Although it is presented from a descriptive perspective of biodiversity, I believe that further exploration is needed to evaluate the reasons behind the results.

Spatial sampling bias:

1.The manuscript integrates data from literature, herbaria, and field collections; however, the potential spatial bias of sampling effort is not evaluated. It is recommended to include a sampling density map to visualize the spatial distribution of records.

Author's response: We have already created a sampling density map to show the spatial distribution of records. We chose not to include it in the first draft because of the manuscript's length. In this new version, we are adding the suggested map to Figure 2.

Reviewer 2: The referee suggested that the use of spatial rarefaction methods or effort-weighted corrections could improve the interpretation of results.

Author’s response: As suggested by the referee, we undertook an effort-weighted sampling method for our manuscript. In our study using the Chao1 richness estimator, we identified 567 species. According to the estimator, the average estimated richness at this sampling level was about 670 species, with a 95% confidence interval of approximately 632-729 species. The difference between the lower and upper confidence limits is roughly 100 species, indicating moderate uncertainty around the estimate, as expected in communities with many rare or low-detectability taxa.

Comparing the observed richness (567 species) to the Chao1 mean estimate (≈670 species), our data falls short by about 100 species from the estimated total richness. This indicates that our sampling completeness is approximately 85%, which is fairly high, because Chao1 uses the number of very infrequently observed species to infer unseen diversity, it tends to produce higher richness estimates when rare species are relatively common in the sample (Chao, 1984; Chao, 1987).

Overall, these results suggest that although the sampling did not fully capture the total estimated richness, it still documented a significant portion of the community. To finish the task, we decided to create a new figure to compare our results with the Chao1 richness estimator (Fig. 6).

2. Details of sampling design:

Although field collections are mentioned, the manuscript does not provide information on sampling effort, the number of sites, or the spatial design employed. Providing these details would allow assessment of the representativeness of records and their potential influence on spatial patterns.

Author's response: Our study primarily relies on herbarium data and databases, so our field collection was minimal. Our database has been compiled and curated continuously by a Mexican specialist in ferns and lycophytes for over three decades. Therefore, we can confidently state that we have sufficient information on the spatial patterns of these taxa (see paragraphs above).

3. Data quality and geographic precision:

There is no evaluation of geographic precision or data quality. The manuscript does not describe how duplicate records, uncertain georeferences, or historical localities were handled. Ensuring data quality is essential to confirm that the generated maps reflect biological patterns rather than artifacts of incomplete or imprecise data.

Author's response: For vascular plants, species occurrence data typically come from direct field observations or natural history specimens in herbaria (Daru, 2025), although specimens trump observations in representing global plant biogeographic patterns (Daru & Rodriguez, 2023). In general, no hard-and-fast rule exists for judging data quality in biogeographical analyses (Zizka et al. 2019). Indeed, collecting efforts are not randomly or regularly distributed, and biodiversity patterns are scale-dependent and sensitive to spatial resolution (James et al. 2018). Also, sampling designs were rarely quantified (Daru et al. 2018). In species occurrence records, problems with geographic location are a significant concern; particularly, erroneous or overly imprecise coordinates can bias biodiversity patterns at multiple spatial scales (Zizka et al. 2019).

As a result, data quality in online databases is a significant concern and has restricted their usefulness and reliability for research and conservation (Anderson et al. 2016). Herbarium specimens and their data have advantages that are verifiable, repeatable, sustainable, and persistent (James et al. 2018). In our paper, fortunately, most records in our database come from herbarium specimens revised directly by some of the authors, mainly the first author, a Mexican specialist in ferns and lycophytes. However, botanists have identified multiple biases in plant sampling from herbarium collections. For example, various analyses based on millions of herbarium and museum records have found spatial, temporal, taxonomic, functional trait, phylogenetic, and collector biases (Daru et al. 2018; Daru & Rodriguez 2023; Daru 2025). Limitations in our database were addressed and revised to minimize, primarily, spatial bias.

In our database, as is common with herbarium specimens, duplicate samples are found across different botanical collections. In our study, we removed duplicate records from the biogeographic analysis to ensure unique locations. Additionally, we identified and corrected records with switched latitude and longitude. We also excluded specimens with vague localities and inconsistencies. For herbarium specimens lacking geographic coordinates, we used topographic maps at a 1:50,000 scale from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) and the previously published locality list for the Sierra Madre Oriental (Ortiz-Bermúdez, 2004) to obtain the corresponding coordinates. Ultimately, we aimed to include only georeferenced and verified data in our study.

Specimens stored in Natural History collections are available for long periods, sometimes up to 100 years, as in our study, because we have specimens collected in the 1880s. Unfortunately, collecting efforts are not evenly distributed over time and have declined since the mid-20th century (Daru et al. 2018; James et al. 2018). However, working with historical data presents challenges if there is no information about the species' locality or date. Additionally, the spatial location of the find may only be roughly known, or there could be issues with taxonomic naming (Lütolf et al. 2006). We examined all these issues in the historical records of ferns and lycophytes from the SMOR, and because of this, we did not include the 31 historical records from the 1800s.

Lütolf et al. (2006) highlight the use and importance of historical records, named 'ghost of past presence data', to support presence data in biogeographic studies. These records can be used as a strategy to verify a species' presence and reconfirm its presence where it was once observed. Also, these historical records are important because they can reveal changes in species distributions driven by anthropogenic activities or climate change (James et al., 2018; Franklin, 2023).

Anderson et al. (2016). Final report of the task group of GBIF data fitness for use in distribution modelling – Are species occurrence data in global online repositories fit for modelling species distributions? The case of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF).

Daru, B. H. (2025). Tracking hidden dimensions of plant biogeography from herbaria. New Phytologist, 246(1), 61-77.

Daru, B. H., Rodriguez, J. (2023). Mass production of unvouchered records fails to represent global biodiversity patterns. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7, 816-831.

Daru, B. H. et al. (2018). Widespread sampling biases in herbaria revealed from large-scale digitization. New Phytologist, 217, 939-955.

Franklin, J. (2023). Species distribution modelling supports the study of past, present and future biogeographies. Journal of Biogeography, 50, 1533-1545.

James et al. (2018). Herbarium data: Global biodiversity and societal botanical needs for novel research. Applications in Plant Science, 6(2), e1024.

Lütolf et al. (2006). The ghost of past species occurrence: improving species distribution models for presence-only data. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 802-815.

Ortiz-Bermúdez, E. (2004). Nomenclátor de localidades. In: Biodiversidad de la Sierra Madre Oriental, Luna-Vega I., J.J. Morrone & D. Espinosa (eds.). pp. 25-62. Mexico City: UNAM-CONABIO.

Zizka et al. (2019). CoordinateCleaner: Standardized cleaning of occurrence records from biological collections databases. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 744-751.

4. Interpretation of maps and absence of records:

The manuscript assumes that the generated maps reflect biological patterns; however, it does not discuss whether absence of records corresponds to true species absence. It is suggested to clarify that some areas with no records may result from limited sampling and to consider the potential effect of this on interpreting richness and endemism hotspots.

Author’s response: Fortunately, the first author of this study has been working with these organisms for more than 30 years. However, Dr. Tejero has not collected samples from all sites, so in some areas, the sampling of certain species may be incomplete.

'Presence-only' data are common sources of species distribution information, available through natural history collections like museum and herbarium collections (Lütolf et al. 2006). Absence data are rare or not easily accessible within herbarium datasets, and the absence of collections of a taxon at a specific location and time does not necessarily indicate its absence (James et al. 2018).

Mexico is a megadiverse country and, among ferns and lycophytes, is recognized as one of the Latin American countries with the highest diversity of these two plant groups (Almeida and Salino 2016). Large parts of the Neotropics remain inadequately sampled for vascular plants. The collections in this region are unevenly distributed, and many areas lack records of ferns and lycophytes (Almeida and Salino 2016). Mexico is no exception, and several regions, including the Sierra Madre Oriental, are still poorly sampled for these plants (Contreras-Medina et al. 2022). In our paper, we acknowledge this situation and state that "Some areas within the SMOR boundaries lack records of ferns or lycophytes, and 13 grid cells contain only one species. These low-diversity areas may be related to unexplored zones and insufficient sampling, as observed in many sectors of Mexico [68, 66] and the Neotropics [1, 104]."

5. Sensitivity to spatial scale:

The manuscript states that the 30′ × 30′ resolution provides reliable results, but no spatial sensitivity analysis is presented. It is recommended to recalculate richness, WE, and CWE metrics at different resolutions (e.g., 15′ and 60′) and compare patterns using rank correlations and hotspot overlap. This would allow evaluation of whether the identified richness and endemism centers are robust or dependent on the selected scale.

Author’s response: In the original version, we explained the reason for choosing the 30 × 30 minutes latitude/longitude grid-cells (see page 9). “The spatial size of grid cells allows for a reliable spatial resolution of the distribution compared with other studies conducted with plants in the SMOR [18, 20, 27] regarding biodiversity data and biological conservation. We selected this scale because similar scales have been tested in previous studies on biogeography and the diversity of various biological groups in the Mexican biota [Rodríguez et al. 2018, Villaseñor et al, 2021], including ferns and lycophytes [Contreras-Medina et al., 2022].”

A 1° × 1° grid cell spatial scale has been previously used in biogeographic analyses in the SMOR, such as in the studies by Santa Anna del Conde et al. (2009) with Cactaceae and Villaseñor & Ortiz (2022) with vascular plants. We chose a finer spatial scale to obtain more precise patterns of fern and lycophyte distribution. In biogeographic analyses at the Mexican state level, a finer scale than ours has been applied in Hidalgo (Villaseñor et al. 2022) and Oaxaca (Contreras-Medina et al. 2022), using 15 × 15-minute and 20 × 20-minute grid cells, respectively.

We consider it unnecessary to recalculate the grid-cell richness at 15 and 60 degrees, nor the endemism centers. During the development of this study, we tested different grid cell sizes, as the referee suggested, but the 30x30 size seems most suitable because many spatial studies with other Mexican taxa use this size, which is appropriate for comparative results [Rodríguez et al. 2018, Villaseñor et al., 2021].

Villaseñor JL, Ortiz E. (2022). A phytogeographic assessment of the Sierra Madre Oriental physiographic province, Mexico. Botanical Sciences, 100(4), 1102–23.

Villaseñor JL, Ortiz E, Sánchez-González A. (2022). Riqueza y distribución de la flora vascular del estado de Hidalgo, México. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 93, e933920.

Santa Anna del Conde H, Contreras-Medina R, Luna-Vega I. (2009). Biogeographic analysis of endemic cacti of the Sierra Madre Oriental, Mexico. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 97(2), 373–89.

6. Conclusions

The article lacks proposals for the management, conservation, and restoration of vegetation and species in the study area. I believe that this document could serve as the basis for a series of public policies for the protection of the ecosystem.

Author’s response: Indeed, we do not propose in this manuscript ideas about the management, conservation, and restoration of the vegetation of this mountain range. This task involves a different methodology than the one we are not using here. Our current objective is to know the spatial distribution of the taxa. Despite this, we have elaborated some maps of Mexican Natural protected areas that will be part of a subsequent study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0346965.s005.pdf (360.1KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Marcela Pagano

27 Mar 2026

Richness and biogeography of Pteridoflora in montane forests of eastern Mexico

PONE-D-25-44575R1

Dear Dra Isolda Luna-Vega,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marcela Pagano, Ph.D, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #3: In general, the study design to gather distributional data, analyses of biogeography and diversity as well as the use of statistics seem to be well developed, while the text is well organized and mostly written clearly. However, there are several points throughout the manuscript that remain unclear, which should be revised or updated and explained/discussed in more detail (see comments made within the document). For example, in the Methods section there are two floristic studies on ferns from Veracruz State that are not considered, but both include additional records that should still be included. Besides, the titles of figures and tables need some modifications, while it would be helpful to add in the Appendix another column to include the elevational range for each species. Also, the names and an explanation for the excluded species should be provided in a second Excel sheet of the Appendix. Furthermore, in the discussion the notable result of the observed hump-shaped elevational pattern with a peak at mid elevations due to the high diversity of epiphytic ferns should be explained in more detail. Finally, some statements require adequate references, while a few relevant studies should be still considered to strengthen the content and frame the paper in a wider context.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Laura Yáñez-Espinosa

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-44575_R1_rev.pdf

pone.0346965.s004.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)

Acceptance letter

Marcela Pagano

PONE-D-25-44575R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Luna-Vega,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marcela Pagano

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Checklist of ferns and lycophytes of the Sierra Madre Oriental and excluded taxa.

    This file contains two sheets: 1) A comprehensive checklist detailing species presence by state, subprovince, geographic distribution, and elevation range. 2) A list of excluded names and synonyms for taxa that were not verified or do not naturally occur in the study area.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0346965.s001.xlsx (55.8KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE review.docx

    pone.0346965.s002.docx (16.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0346965.s005.pdf (360.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-44575_R1_rev.pdf

    pone.0346965.s004.pdf (3.8MB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES