Hedging our bets: the expected contribution of species to future phylogenetic diversity

If predictions for species extinctions hold, then the `tree of life' today may be quite different to that in (say) 100 years. We describe a technique to quantify how much each species is likely to contribute to future biodiversity, as measured by its expected contribution to phylogenetic diversity. Our approach considers all possible scenarios for the set of species that will be extant at some future time, and weights them according to their likelihood under an independent (but not identical) distribution on species extinctions. Although the number of extinction scenarios can typically be very large, we show that there is a simple algorithm that will quickly compute this index. The method is implemented and applied to the prosimian primates as a test case, and the associated species ranking is compared to a related measure (the `Shapley index'). We describe indices for rooted and unrooted trees, and a modification that also includes the focal taxon's probability of extinction, making it directly comparable to some new conservation metrics.Comment: 19 pages, 2 figure

Ranking Mammal Species for Conservation and the Loss of Both Phylogenetic and Trait Diversity

The \u27edge of existence\u27 (EDGE) prioritisation scheme is a new approach to rank species for conservation attention that aims to identify species that are both isolated on the tree of life and at imminent risk of extinction as defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The self-stated benefit of the EDGE system is that it effectively captures unusual \u27unique\u27 species, and doing so will preserve the total evolutionary history of a group into the future. Given the EDGE metric was not designed to capture total evolutionary history, we tested this claim. Our analyses show that the total evolutionary history of mammals preserved is indeed much higher if EDGE species are protected than if at-risk species are chosen randomly. More of the total tree is also protected by EDGE species than if solely threat status or solely evolutionary distinctiveness were used for prioritisation. When considering how much trait diversity is captured by IUCN and EDGE prioritisation rankings, interestingly, preserving the highest-ranked EDGE species, or indeed just the most threatened species, captures more total trait diversity compared to sets of randomly-selected at-risk species. These results suggest that, as advertised, EDGE mammal species contribute evolutionary history to the evolutionary tree of mammals non-randomly, and EDGE-style rankings among endangered species can also capture important trait diversity. If this pattern holds for other groups, the EDGE prioritisation scheme has greater potential to be an efficient method to allocate scarce conservation effort

Prioritizing Populations for Conservation Using Phylogenetic Networks

In the face of inevitable future losses to biodiversity, ranking species by conservation priority seems more than prudent. Setting conservation priorities within species (i.e., at the population level) may be critical as species ranges become fragmented and connectivity declines. However, existing approaches to prioritization (e.g., scoring organisms by their expected genetic contribution) are based on phylogenetic trees, which may be poor representations of differentiation below the species level. In this paper we extend evolutionary isolation indices used in conservation planning from phylogenetic trees to phylogenetic networks. Such networks better represent population differentiation, and our extension allows populations to be ranked in order of their expected contribution to the set. We illustrate the approach using data from two imperiled species: the spotted owl Strix occidentalis in North America and the mountain pygmy-possum Burramys parvus in Australia. Using previously published mitochondrial and microsatellite data, we construct phylogenetic networks and score each population by its relative genetic distinctiveness. In both cases, our phylogenetic networks capture the geographic structure of each species: geographically peripheral populations harbor less-redundant genetic information, increasing their conservation rankings. We note that our approach can be used with all conservation-relevant distances (e.g., those based on whole-genome, ecological, or adaptive variation) and suggest it be added to the assortment of tools available to wildlife managers for allocating effort among threatened populations

Computing evolutionary distinctiveness indices in large scale analysis

We present optimal linear time algorithms for computing the Shapley values and 'heightened evolutionary distinctiveness' (HED) scores for the set of taxa in a phylogenetic tree. We demonstrate the efficiency of these new algorithms by applying them to a set of 10,000 reasonable 5139-species mammal trees. This is the first time these indices have been computed on such a large taxon and we contrast our finding with an ad-hoc index for mammals, fair proportion (FP), used by the Zoological Society of London's EDGE programme. Our empirical results follow expectations. In particular, the Shapley values are very strongly correlated with the FP scores, but provide a higher weight to the few monotremes that comprise the sister to all other mammals. We also find that the HED score, which measures a species' unique contribution to future subsets as function of the probability that close relatives will go extinct, is very sensitive to the estimated probabilities. When they are low, HED scores are less than FP scores, and approach the simple measure of a species' age. Deviations (like the Solendon genus of the West Indies) occur when sister species are both at high risk of extinction and their clade roots deep in the tree. Conversely, when endangered species have higher probabilities of being lost, HED scores can be greater than FP scores and species like the African elephant Loxondonta africana, the two solendons and the thumbless bat Furipterus horrens can move up the rankings. We suggest that conservation attention be applied to such species that carry genetic responsibility for imperiled close relatives. We also briefly discuss extensions of Shapley values and HED scores that are possible with the algorithms presented here

Reply to: “Global Conservation of Phylogenetic Diversity Captures More Than Just Functional Diversity”

Academic biologists have long advocated for conserving phylogenetic diversity (PD), often (but not exclusively) on the basis that PD is a useful proxy for “feature diversity”, defined as the variety of forms and functions represented in set of organisms (see below for an extended discussion of this definition). In a recent paper, we assess the extent to which this proxy (which we coined the “phylogenetic gambit”) holds in three empirical datasets (terrestrial mammals, birds, and tropical marine fishes) when using functional traits and functional diversity (FD) to operationalize feature diversity. Owen et al. offer a criticism of our methods for quantifying feature diversity with FD and disagree with our conclusions. We are grateful that Owen et al. have engaged thoughtfully with our work, but we believe there are more points of agreement than Owen et al. imply

Prioritizing Phylogenetic Diversity Captures Functional Diversity Unreliably

In the face of the biodiversity crisis, it is argued that we should prioritize species in order to capture high functional diversity (FD). Because species traits often reflect shared evolutionary history, many researchers have assumed that maximizing phylogenetic diversity (PD) should indirectly capture FD, a hypothesis that we name the “phylogenetic gambit”. Here, we empirically test this gambit using data on ecologically relevant traits from \u3e15,000 vertebrate species. Specifically, we estimate a measure of surrogacy of PD for FD. We find that maximizing PD results in an average gain of 18% of FD relative to random choice. However, this average gain obscures the fact that in over one-third of the comparisons, maximum PD sets contain less FD than randomly chosen sets of species. These results suggest that, while maximizing PD protection can help to protect FD, it represents a risky conservation strategy

A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology

The use of phylogenies in ecology is increasingly common and has broadened our understanding of biological diversity. Ecological sub-disciplines, particularly conservation, community ecology and macroecology, all recognize the value of evolutionary relationships but the resulting development of phylogenetic approaches has led to a proliferation of phylogenetic diversity metrics. The use of many metrics across the sub-disciplines hampers potential meta-analyses, syntheses, and generalizations of existing results. Further, there is no guide for selecting the appropriate metric for a given question, and different metrics are frequently used to address similar questions. To improve the choice, application, and interpretation of phylo-diversity metrics, we organize existing metrics by expanding on a unifying framework for phylogenetic information.S.B.C. was funded by a postdoctoral grant from Fundac¸ao para a ˜ Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) (SFRH/BPD/74423/2010), ˆ and through the project PTDC/BIA-BIC/118624/2010- FCOMP-01-0124-FEDER-019676, supported by Fonds Europeen de D ´ eveloppement ´ Economique et R ´ egional ´ (FEDER) funds through the Operational Programme for Competitiveness Factors (COMPETE) and by National Funds through FCT. M.R.H. is supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (858.14.040). F.M. received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 Grant Agreement no. 281422 (TEEMBIO). S.A.F. acknowledges funding by the LOEWE Zentrum AdRIA funding program, of Hesse’s Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and the Arts

Phylogenetic Analysis of the Neks Reveals Early Diversification of Ciliary-Cell Cycle Kinases

NIMA-related kinases (Neks) have been studied in diverse eukaryotes, including the fungus Aspergillus and the ciliate Tetrahymena. In the former, a single Nek plays an essential role in cell cycle regulation; in the latter, which has more than 30 Neks in its genome, multiple Neks regulate ciliary length. Mammalian genomes encode an intermediate number of Neks, several of which are reported to play roles in cell cycle regulation and/or localize to centrosomes. Previously, we reported that organisms with cilia typically have more Neks than organisms without cilia, but were unable to establish the evolutionary history of the gene family