Cartoon tree containing six species, highlighting (with dots) the species that would be preferentially chosen based on threat alone or EDGE scores.

<p>Here, species selected using EDGE scores capture more Phylogenetic diversity and more Trait diversity than choosing the most threatened species. Threat categories of the species are represented in the circles at the tips. Column “THREAT” indicates the species’ tips chosen when choosing the most threatened species and “EDGE” when choosing highest EDGE scoring species. Solid circles at tips representing species with ecology type 1 and black bordered circles those with ecology type 2. Main branches on the tree are labelled 1–3 and minor branches a-e.</p

Extra phylogenetic diversity protected (panel a) and extra trait diversity protected (panel b) over no conservation effort, achieved when protecting 100 threatened mammal species from going extinct.

<p>Black bar represents mean value and grey circles results from 1000 simulations with random resolution of tied species. The <i>x</i>-axis represents five different methods of choosing species to protect: “RANDOM” represents random choice among threatened species; ED” the most evolutionary distinctive species; “Threat” represents choosing the most threatened first; “EDGE” the highest EDGE scoring species; and “MAX” is one of the optimal sets of <i>n</i> species for capturing total diversity, calculated using a greedy algorithm.</p

Appendices_Mazel_Final

Appendices_Mazel_Fina

Conservation prioritization of spotted owl (<i>Strix occidentalis</i>) populations.

<p>(a) Distribution of spotted owls in the United States and the populations sampled by Barrowclough <i>et al. </i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone.0088945-Barrowclough2" target="_blank">[48]</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone.0088945-Barrowclough3" target="_blank">[51]</a>. Shaded areas denote suitable habitat based on forest cover data <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone.0088945-US2" target="_blank">[73]</a>. Colors denote the subspecies <i>S. o. caurina</i> (blue), <i>S. o. occidentalis</i> (green), and <i>S. o. lucida</i> (orange). Populations 31 and 32 represent the <i>S. o. juanaphillipsae</i> subspecies in Mexico (range not shown). (b) NeighborNet of sampled populations based on mtDNA differentiation (pairwise Φ_ST values). (c) Histogram of SH values, highlighting the populations with the highest scores. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone-0088945-t001" target="_blank">Table 1</a> for an explanation of abbreviations used.</p

Spotted owl populations sampled by Barrowclough <i>et al</i>. [48], [51] and ranked by Shapley value (SH) and heightened evolutionary distinctiveness (HED).

<p>Number of individuals (<i>n</i> ind.), number of haplotypes (<i>n</i> hap.), SH, and HED scores from the present study are reported.</p

Using pairwise distances to rank species or populations.

<p>Consider a hypothetical group of taxa (A)—a set of closely-related species or populations of a single species—that is distributed across several islands in an archipelago (B). Differences among the taxa, labeled <i>x1</i> through <i>x6</i>, can be organized into a pairwise distance matrix (C). We can represent this matrix either as a phylogenetic tree or as a phylogenetic network (D), where a set of weighted <i>splits</i> describes the relationships among the taxa (E). Altogether, these splits represent the group's phylogenetic diversity (PD). By selecting subsets of splits that exclude a given taxon, we can calculate each taxon's contribution to the total PD of the tree or network (F). The <i>Shapley metric</i> (SH) and <i>expected PD complementarity</i> (PD_c) are different approaches for ranking taxa based on split data. Note that the highest-scoring taxa (highlighted values) can differ considerably depending on the type of metric used and whether the splits come from a tree or network. We discuss the reasons for these differences and methods for ranking taxa in Section (<i>ii</i>) of the main text.</p

Mountain pygmy-possum populations sampled by Mitrovski <i>et al</i>. [58] and ranked by Shapley value (SH) and heightened evolutionary distinctiveness (HED).

<p>Number of individuals (<i>n</i> ind.), number of alleles (<i>n</i> all.), allelic richness (<i>r</i>), and adult population sizes (<i>N</i>) are reported from previously-published data. Probabilities of extinction (<i>p</i>i, with <i>P</i> = 0.4), SH, and HED scores from the present study are also shown.</p

Conservation prioritization of mountain pygmy-possum (<i>Burramys parvus</i>) populations.

<p>(a) Distribution of mountain pygmy-possums in Australia (gray inset), showing populations sampled by Mitrovski <i>et al. </i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone.0088945-Mitrovski1" target="_blank">[58]</a>. Shaded areas denote suitable habitat above 1,400 m. (b) NeighborNet of sampled populations based on microsatellite differentiation (pairwise <i>F</i>_ST values). (c) Histograms of SH and HED values, highlighting the populations with the highest scores. See <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0088945#pone-0088945-t002" target="_blank">Table 2</a> for an explanation of abbreviations used.</p

Biodiversity conservation spending by country by source 2001-2008

File shows the amount allocated to biodiversity conservation by domestic and international sources, in millions of 2005 US dollars, for the period 2001-2008. File also contains numerous comments adding further information. See online material for the published article for details of how data were compiled