Comparison of conservation metrics in a case study of lemurs

Conservation planning is important to protect species from going extinct now that natural habitats are decreasing owing to human activity and climate change. However, there is considerable controversy in choosing appropriate metrics to weigh the value of species and geographic regions. For example, the added value of phylogenetic conservation‐selection criteria remains disputed because high correlations between them and the nonphylogenetic criteria of species richness have been reported. We evaluated the commonly used conservation metrics species richness, endemism, phylogenetic diversity (PD), and phylogenetic endemism (PE) in a case study on lemurs of Madagascar. This enabled us to identify the conservation target of each metric and consider how they may be used in future conservation planning. We also devised a novel metric that uses a phylogeny scaled according to the rate of phenotypic evolution as a proxy for a species’ ability to adapt to change. High rates of evolution may indicate generalization or specialization. Both specialization and low rates of evolution may result in an inability to adapt to changing environments. We examined conservation priorities by using the inverse of the rate of body mass evolution to account for species with low rates of evolution. In line with previous work, we found high correlations among species richness and PD (r = 0.96), and endemism and PE (r = 0.82) in Malagasy lemurs. Phylogenetic endemism in combination with rates of evolution and their inverse prioritized grid cells containing highly endemic and specialized lemurs at risk of extinction, such as Avahi occidentalis and Lepilemur edwardsi, 2 endangered lemurs with high rates of phenotypic evolution and low‐quality diets, and Hapalemur aureus, a critically endangered species with a low rate of body mass evolution and a diet consisting of very high doses of cyanide.     

Impacts of phylogenetic nomenclature on the efficacy of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Cataloging biodiversity is critical to conservation efforts because accurate taxonomy is often a precondition for protection under laws designed for species conservation, such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Traditional nomenclatural codes governing the taxonomic process have recently come under scrutiny because taxon names are more closely linked to hierarchical ranks than to the taxa themselves. A new approach to naming biological groups, called phylogenetic nomenclature (PN), explicitly names taxa by defining their names in terms of ancestry and descent. PN has the potential to increase nomenclatural stability and decrease confusion induced by the rank‐based codes. But proponents of PN have struggled with whether species and infraspecific taxa should be governed by the same rules as other taxa or should have special rules. Some proponents advocate the wholesale abandonment of rank labels (including species); this could have consequences for the implementation of taxon‐based conservation legislation. I examined the principles of PN as embodied in the PhyloCode (an alternative to traditional rank‐based nomenclature that names biological groups based on the results of phylogenetic analyses and does not associate taxa with ranks) and assessed how this novel approach to naming taxa might affect the implementation of species‐based legislation by providing a case study of the ESA. The latest version of the PhyloCode relies on the traditional rank‐based codes to name species and infraspecific taxa; thus, little will change regarding the main targets of the ESA because they will retain rank labels. For this reason, and because knowledge of evolutionary relationships is of greater importance than nomenclatural procedures for initial protection of endangered taxa under the ESA, I conclude that PN under the PhyloCode will have little impact on implementation of the ESA. Impactos de la Nomenclatura Filogenética sobre la Eficiencia del Acta Estadunidense para las Especies en Peligro     

Gaia's Handmaidens: the Orlog Model for Conservation Biology

Abstract:  The Gaia hypothesis, which proposes that Earth's biota and material environment form a self-regulating system, has been influential in conservation biology, but it has not translated into specific guidelines. Proponents of phylogenetics and ecology often claim primacy over the foundations of conservation biology, a debate that has deep roots in philosophy and science. A more recent claim is that conservation efforts should protect evolutionary processes that will allow diversification. Phylogenetics, ecology, and evolution all have legitimate roles in conservation, when viewed in a temporal perspective. Phylogenetic studies identify the bioheritage of past species radiations, ecology preserves the life-support systems for these lineages in the present, and evolutionary processes allow adaptation of these lineages to novel challenges in the future. The concept of temporal domains in conservation (past, present, future) has an appropriate metaphor in the Norse worldview known as the Orlog. In this body of mythology, three sisters tend the tree of life and fend off a dragon gnawing at the roots. The names of these sisters, Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld, translate to Past, Present, and Future. In Viking mythology, the threads of life cannot persist without the cooperation of these sisters. In the science of conservation biology, they represent the handmaidens of Gaia–three scientific disciplines that can succeed only with a spirit of familial cooperation.     

Incorporating geographical and evolutionary rarity into conservation prioritization

Key goals of conservation are to protect both species and the functional and genetic diversity they represent. A strictly species-based approach may underrepresent rare, threatened, or genetically distinct species and overrepresent widespread species. Although reserves are created for a number of reasons, including economic, cultural, and ecological reasons, their efficacy has been measured primarily in terms of how well species richness is protected, and it is useful to compare how well they protect other measures of diversity. We used Proteaceae species-occurrence data in the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa to illustrate differences in the spatial distribution of species and evolutionary diversity estimated from a new maximum-likelihood molecular phylogeny. We calculated species richness, phylogenetic diversity (i.e., summed phylogenetic branch lengths in a site), and a site-aggregated measure of biogeographically weighted evolutionary distinctiveness (i.e., an abundance weighted measure that captures the unique proportion of the phylogenetic tree a species represents) for sites throughout the Cape Floristic Region. Species richness and phylogenetic diversity values were highly correlated for sites in the region, but species richness was concentrated at a few sites that underrepresented the much more spatially extensive distribution of phylogenetic diversity. Biogeographically weighted evolutionary diversity produced a scheme of prioritization distinct from the other 2 metrics and highlighted southern sites as conservation priorities. In these sites, the high values of biogeographically weighted evolutionary distinctiveness were the result of a nonrandom relation between evolutionary distinctiveness and geographical rarity, where rare species also tended to have high levels of evolutionary distinctiveness. Such distinct and rare species are of particular concern, but are not captured by conservation schemes that focus on species richness or phylogenetic diversity alone.