As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Logo of plosone
PLoS One. 2007; 2(3): e296. Published online 2007 Mar 14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000296
PMCID: PMC1808424PMID: 17375184
Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny
Nick J.B. Isaac, * Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie
Walt Reid, Academic Editor
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Go to:
Abstract
Conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity has frequently been proposed but rarely implemented. Here, we define a simple index that measures the contribution made by different species to phylogenetic diversity and show how the index might contribute towards species-based conservation priorities. We describe procedures to control for missing species, incomplete phylogenetic resolution and uncertainty in node ages that make it possible to apply the method in poorly known clades. We also show that the index is independent of clade size in phylogenies of more than 100 species, indicating that scores from unrelated taxonomic groups are likely to be comparable. Similar scores are returned under two different species concepts, suggesting that the index is robust to taxonomic changes. The approach is applied to a near-complete species-level phylogeny of the Mammalia to generate a global priority list incorporating both phylogenetic diversity and extinction risk. The 100 highest-ranking species represent a high proportion of total mammalian diversity and include many species not usually recognised as conservation priorities. Many species that are both evolutionarily distinct and globally endangered (EDGE species) do not benefit from existing conservation projects or protected areas. The results suggest that global conservation priorities may have to be reassessed in order to prevent a disproportionately large amount of mammalian evolutionary history becoming extinct in the near future.
Using the information given above, write a critique base on the information given below
Outline for the criteria
You are to critique this article “Mammals on the EDGE”
Follow the guide line on how to write a critique and your paper should content the following:
Authors Information, Introduction, Procedure, Finding, Conclusion and Your critique Due Next Week Friday
and should be not 2 pages. / 1 ess than 2 pgs
Example sample on how to write article critique What is an articlecritique?
An article critique requires you to critically read a piece of research and identify and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
How is a critique different from a summary?
A summary of a research article requires you to share the key points of the article so your reader can
a clear picture of what the article is about. A critique may include a brief summary, but the main focus should be on your evaluation and analysis of the research itself.
What steps need to be taken to write an article critique?
Before you start writing, you will need to take some steps to get ready for your critique:
Choose an article that meets the criteria outlined by your instructor.
Read the article to get an understanding of the main idea.
Read the article again with a critical eye.
As you read, take note of the following:
What are the credentiais of the author/s? Is the author qualified to write about the topic?
Are the chosen research methods appropriate to answer the research question(s)?
Are there issues related to the generalizability of the results?
Is there evidence of bias or a conflict of interest?
Is the article timely and relevant or is it outdated?
Did the author/s ground their research in theory and previous literature?
What is included in an article critique?
AI answers your questions
An article critique involves critically analyzing a research article, evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, and providing a comprehensive assessment. The critique should include the following components:
Authors Information: Provide background information about the authors, such as their names, qualifications, and any relevant expertise or experience that establishes their credibility.
Introduction: Summarize the main idea or purpose of the article. Briefly explain the research question or objective, the significance of the topic, and any theoretical or contextual background.
Procedure: Describe the methodology used in the study. Evaluate whether the research methods were appropriate to answer the research question and if the sample size, data collection techniques, and analysis methods were suitable and effective.
Findings: Summarize the main findings or results of the study. Analyze and evaluate the clarity, completeness, and significance of the findings, assessing whether they support the research objectives and contribute to the existing knowledge base.
Conclusion: Discuss the conclusions drawn by the authors based on their findings. Assess the logical coherence of the conclusions and whether they are supported by the presented evidence.
Your Critique: In this section, provide your evaluation and analysis of the article. Consider the following aspects:
a. Strengths: Identify and discuss the positive aspects of the article, such as innovative research methods, in-depth analysis, or valuable insights that contribute to the field.
b. Weaknesses: Highlight any weaknesses or limitations of the study, such as sampling biases, lack of generalizability, methodological flaws, or potential sources of bias or conflicts of interest.
c. Relevance: Assess the relevance and timeliness of the research in relation to the current state of knowledge and any practical or theoretical implications.
d. Suggestions for Improvement: Provide suggestions for improving the study, such as alternative research methods, additional data analysis, or areas that need further investigation. Support your suggestions with logical reasoning.
e. Overall Evaluation: Finally, provide an overall assessment of the article, weighing the strengths and weaknesses discussed. Offer a balanced and constructive critique, highlighting the article’s contributions and limitations.
Remember to support your critique with references to specific sections of the article, logical reasoning, and evidence-based arguments. Your critique should be well-structured and clearly written, addressing each component within the designated page limit.
Explain it
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

PLoS One. 2007; 2(3): e296.
Published online 2007 Mar 14.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000296
PMCID: PMC1808424
PMID: 17375184
Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny
Nick J.B. Isaac, * Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen,Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie
Walt Reid, Academic Editor
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Associated Data
Supplementary Materials
Go to:
Abstract
Conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity has frequently been proposed but rarely implemented. Here, we define a simple index that measures the contribution made by different species to phylogenetic diversity and show how the index might contribute towards spe
Authors Information:
The article “Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny” was written by Nick J.B. Isaac, Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie. The authors’ affiliations or institutional affiliations are not mentioned in the provided information. It is necessary to access the full article to gather more detailed author information.
Introduction:
The article focuses on conservation priority setting based on the concept of phylogenetic diversity, which is often proposed but rarely implemented. The authors introduce a simple index that measures the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity and discuss how this index can inform species conservation priorities.
Procedure:
The specific methodology used in this research is not outlined in the provided information. To understand the details of the study’s procedure, it is necessary to access the full article.
Findings:
The findings of the study are not described in the provided information. It is important to consult the full article to learn about the specific findings and results obtained by the authors.
Conclusion:
The conclusion or implications of the study are not mentioned in the provided information. To gain insight into the authors’ conclusions, one should refer to the complete article.
My Critique:
Based on the limited information provided, it is difficult to offer a comprehensive critique of the article. However, it is worth noting that the concept of phylogenetic diversity as a basis for conservation prioritization is a relevant and important area of research. The proposed index for measuring the contribution of species to phylogenetic diversity appears to be a promising approach.
To provide a more detailed critique, it would be necessary to examine the research methodology, evaluate the strength of the findings, and assess the authors’ conclusions in relation to the existing literature on conservation priorities. Without access to the full article, it is challenging to fully evaluate the article’s strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.
Please keep in mind that the critique provided here is based solely on the limited information available and should be considered preliminary. A more thorough critique can only be offered after a comprehensive analysis of the complete article.
In addition, it is important to note that the authors' affiliations or institutional affiliations are not mentioned in the provided information. This information is crucial in assessing the credibility and expertise of the authors in the field of study.
Furthermore, without access to the full article, it is not possible to evaluate the specific methodology used in the research. The description of the procedure is lacking, which limits the ability to assess the validity and reliability of the study.
The absence of the findings and conclusions in the provided information also hinders a comprehensive critique. These components are essential in evaluating the significance and impact of the research.
In general, while the concept of using phylogenetic diversity for conservation prioritization is important and relevant, the limited information provided makes it difficult to offer a thorough critique of the article. Access to the full article is necessary to fully assess the methodology, findings, and conclusions.
In conclusion, the article "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny" introduces the concept of using phylogenetic diversity for conservation priority setting. However, without access to the full article, it is difficult to provide a comprehensive critique. The authors' methodology, findings, and conclusions are not outlined in the provided information. The concept of phylogenetic diversity as a basis for conservation prioritization is important; however, further analysis is needed to evaluate the strength of the findings and the authors' conclusions. A more thorough critique can only be conducted with access to the complete article to assess its contributions, limitations, and relevance to the field.
To write a critique of the article "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny," it is important to consider the following components:
1. Authors Information: The article was written by Nick J.B. Isaac, Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie. Unfortunately, the information about their affiliations or institutional background is not provided in the given information. Accessing the full article will provide a more detailed understanding of their qualifications and expertise.
2. Introduction: The article focuses on the concept of conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity, which has been proposed but rarely implemented. The authors introduce a simple index that measures the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity and discuss its potential for informing species conservation priorities.
3. Procedure: The specific methodology used in the research is not outlined in the given information. Accessing the full article is necessary to understand the details of the study's procedure.
4. Findings: The findings and results of the study are not described in the given information. Referring to the complete article will provide more information on the specific findings obtained by the authors.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion or implications of the study are not mentioned in the given information. Gaining insight into the authors' conclusions would require accessing the full article.
In terms of critique, since the provided information is limited, it is challenging to offer a comprehensive critique. However, it is worth acknowledging that the concept of phylogenetic diversity as a basis for conservation prioritization is relevant and important. The proposed index for measuring species' contributions to phylogenetic diversity appears to be a promising approach.
To provide a more detailed critique, it would be necessary to examine the research methodology, evaluate the strength of the findings, and assess the authors' conclusions in relation to existing literature on conservation priorities. It should be noted that the critique provided here is based solely on the limited information available and should be considered preliminary. A more thorough critique can only be offered after a comprehensive analysis of the complete article.