Measures of phylogenetic diversity of Caatinga plants in sites (municipality, state) on different edaphic environments (crystalline, sedimentary, inselberg), NE Brazil: nearest taxon index for all species (NTI_all), woody species (NTI_wood), and herbaceous species (NTI_herb).

<p>Values in bold are those indicating significant clustering (> 1.96) or significant overdispersion (<- 1.96).</p><p>Measures of phylogenetic diversity of Caatinga plants in sites (municipality, state) on different edaphic environments (crystalline, sedimentary, inselberg), NE Brazil: nearest taxon index for all species (NTI_all), woody species (NTI_wood), and herbaceous species (NTI_herb).</p

Partitioning of the variation explained solely by climate and edaphic environment for each phylogenetic diversity measure [net relatedness index for all species (NRI_all), woody species (NRI_wood), and herbaceous species (NRI_herb); nearest taxon index for all species (NTI_all), woody species (NTI_wood), and herbaceous species (NTI_herb)].

<p>Adjusted R² (Legendre and Legendre 2012, chapter 10) of the multiple regression of each phylogenetic diversity measure against climate variables and edaphic environment are shown. All values of adjusted R² significantly different from zero (P<0.05) are in bold.</p><p>Partitioning of the variation explained solely by climate and edaphic environment for each phylogenetic diversity measure [net relatedness index for all species (NRI_all), woody species (NRI_wood), and herbaceous species (NRI_herb); nearest taxon index for all species (NTI_all), woody species (NTI_wood), and herbaceous species (NTI_herb)].</p

Studies presenting floristic lists (associated with Raunkiaer’s life-forms data) used in our analyses.

<p>Studies presenting floristic lists (associated with Raunkiaer’s life-forms data) used in our analyses.</p

Tests for spatial autocorrelation of phylogenetic diversity measures and climate variables in Caatinga, Brazil.

<p>The values of Moran’s I coefficient are shown for each distance class, calculated with equal number of pairs for each distance class. Significant spatial autocorrelation values at α = 0.05 are in bold. Numbers are presented to two decimal places or two significant digits.</p><p>Tests for spatial autocorrelation of phylogenetic diversity measures and climate variables in Caatinga, Brazil.</p

Geographical location of the floristic studies that also reported Raunkiaerian life-forms for the species in Caatinga and that were analyzed in this study.

<p>Geographical location of the floristic studies that also reported Raunkiaerian life-forms for the species in Caatinga and that were analyzed in this study.</p

Measures of phylogenetic diversity of Caatinga plants in each site (municipality, state) and different environment types (crystalline, sedimentary and inselberg): net relatedness index for all species (NRI_all), woody species (NRI_wood), and herbaceous species (NRI_herb).

<p>Values in bold are those indicating significant clustering (> 1.96) or significant overdispersion (<- 1.96).</p><p>Measures of phylogenetic diversity of Caatinga plants in each site (municipality, state) and different environment types (crystalline, sedimentary and inselberg): net relatedness index for all species (NRI_all), woody species (NRI_wood), and herbaceous species (NRI_herb).</p

Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge

<div><p>Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.</p></div

Summary of data collection for all four knowledge products.

<p>The table summarises which costs were collected for each of the four knowledge products and how much of the total number of assesments, available in December 2013, these represent. In cases where 100% of the costs were not collected, the total sum for each knowledge product was increased propotionally to reach 100%.</p

Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.

<p>Categories, subcategories and funding sources classification used to categorise costs.</p

Development status of the four knowledge products included in this study.

<p>A brief description of each knowledge product is available in [<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0160640#pone.0160640.ref007" target="_blank">7</a>].</p