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
The National Library of Medicine (NLM) provides access to scientific literature but does not endorse or agree with the contents of the literature.
- Conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity is proposed but rarely implemented.
- A new index called Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) measures the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity.
- The ED index is independent of clade size, making it comparable across different taxonomic groups.
- The approach is applied to a near-complete species-level phylogeny of mammals to generate a global priority list for conservation.
- The list includes many species not typically recognized as conservation priorities and highlights the need to reassess global conservation priorities.
- PD (Phylogenetic Diversity) has not gained wider acceptance in the conservation community due to a lack of complete phylogenetic data and a focus on endemic or threatened species.
- The new ED method incorporates both branch length data and conservation status to generate a prioritized list of species for conservation.
- The method is illustrated with an example of a clade of seven species, showing how ED scores are calculated based on the length of branches and the number of species subtending the branch.
- The example highlights that ED is not solely determined by a species' unique phylogenetic diversity but also considers the conservation of uncommon lineages.
- The ED calculation is similar to the Equal Splits measure, which apportions branch length equally among daughter clades.
Most species derive at least two-thirds of their Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) from the terminal branch, but the branch length is a poor predictor of total ED.
ED scores in primates are tightly correlated under different species concepts, but species that have been split into multiple species lose a large portion of their ED.
Mammal ED scores range from 0.0582 MY to 97.6 MY, with a median of 7.86 MY.
Least Concern species have significantly lower ED than other Red List categories, suggesting low extinction risk.
EDGE scores range from 0.0565 to 6.48, with a mean of 2.63. The top 100 priority species include large-bodied mammals and smaller, lesser-known species.
Threat status alone does not guarantee a high priority on the EDGE list
The method described in the text satisfies two conditions for conservation priority-setting: capturing biodiversity and being robust to uncertainty. It uses EDGE scores that incorporate species value and urgency of action. The scores are robust to clade size, missing species, poor phylogenetic resolution, and taxonomic uncertainty. The method is easy to calculate with Red List assessments and a phylogeny of at least 100 species. It is also robust to topology and branch length uncertainty in the phylogeny. The method could not assign EDGE scores to some Data Deficient species and species missing from the phylogeny, but these could be included in future assessments.
There is a debate about focusing conservation efforts on species with high evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) or low ED.
- It is uncertain whether we can accurately predict future evolutionary potential and there is no established relationship between phylogeny and diversity over time.
- ED can be a useful predictor of divergent properties and potential utilitarian value.
- Species with low ED scores tend to have low extinction risk and may survive the current extinction crisis without specific interventions.
- Focusing on lower risk species instead of high priority EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) species would result in a loss of major branches of the Tree of Life.
- Most mammalian conservation projects are aimed at charismatic megafauna and may not be sufficient to protect high priority EDGE species.
- Species not found in protected areas tend to have higher EDGE scores than those found inside protected areas.
- Many of the top 100 EDGE species have not had any species-specific conservation actions recommended for them.
- The lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species is a serious problem and suggests that a significant amount of evolutionary history may be lost.
- The approach described in this paper can be used for conservation in several ways, including prioritizing the management of the most evolutionarily distinct species, generating lists of high-priority species for urgent conservation action, and weighting species' importance in selecting reserve networks.
The EDGE approach identifies species that have the most evolutionary history and are in imminent danger of extinction.
- The approach extends the application of PD-based conservation to a wider range of taxa and situations.
- Future work could incorporate socioeconomic considerations and the extinction risk of a species' close relatives.
- Existing conservation measures inadequately serve large numbers of evolutionarily distinct species.
- A composite 'supertree' phylogeny was used to calculate ED scores for mammals.
- The phylogeny presents challenges due to poor resolution, missing species, and uncertainty in node ages.
- A scaling factor based on the empirical distribution of ED scores in a randomly generated phylogeny was applied to correct for the bias induced by polytomies.
- Missing species were taken into account and a correction factor was used to allocate them among their closest relatives.
- Variation in divergence times led to uncertainty in ED scores, so three sets of branch lengths were used to estimate ED.
- The geometric mean was used to calculate species values of ED to account for uncertainty.
ED scores were tested for comparability among taxonomic groups by examining how species' ED accumulates as larger clades are considered.
- The rank order of ED scores should be independent of the size of the clade considered if they are truly comparable.
- Ten Critically Endangered species from different mammal orders were randomly selected and their cumulative ED scores were measured at each node in the mammal supertree.
- Taxonomic changes can significantly alter the ED scores of individual species, particularly when species are split into multiple entities.
- The impact of taxonomic changes on ED scores was investigated using primates, which have recently undergone taxonomic inflation.
- ED scores were compared under a biological species concept (233 species) and a phylogenetic species concept (358 species) in primates.
- A single phylogeny was used, but the number of species represented by each tip was changed to calculate the expected ED for multi-species tips.
The table shows Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) and EDGE scores for mammal species.
- The species are ranked by their EDGE score, which is a measure of their conservation priority.
- The species taxonomy follows Wilson & Reeder.
- Red List categories are used to classify the conservation status of each species.
- Some species could not be assigned EDGE scores and are listed at the bottom of the table.
- There is also a table specifically for primates, which includes ED scores under the biological species concept and the number of phylogenetic species into which each biological species was split.
- ED scores are lower for phylogenetic species compared to biological species, even if their taxonomic status is the same under both concepts.
- This is because there are more total species in the phylogeny, so each one receives a smaller share of the ancestral branches' distinctiveness.
- The ED scores in the tables were calculated using one set of branch lengths
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?
Critique of "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny"
Authors Information:
The authors of this article are Nick J.B. Isaac, Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie. They provide their affiliations as well.
Introduction:
The introduction of the article provides a clear overview of the research topic, which is conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity. It highlights the lack of implementation of such an approach and the need for a new index called Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) to measure the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity.
Procedure:
The article describes the methodology used to generate a global priority list for conservation based on a near-complete species-level phylogeny of mammals. The authors explain how the ED index is calculated, incorporating branch length data and conservation status. They also discuss the limitations of using PD (Phylogenetic Diversity) and propose the use of ED as a more comprehensive measure.
Findings:
The findings of the study show that the ED scores of mammal species range from 0.0582 MY to 97.6 MY, with a median of 7.86 MY. The top 100 priority species include both large-bodied mammals and smaller, lesser-known species. The authors also highlight the fact that threatened status alone does not guarantee a high priority on the EDGE list.
Conclusion:
The conclusion of the article emphasizes the need to reassess global conservation priorities based on the new ED method. It suggests that focusing on lower risk species instead of high priority EDGE species would result in a loss of major branches of the Tree of Life. The lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species is considered a serious problem.
Critique:
Overall, the article "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny" provides a clear and thorough analysis of the use of phylogenetic diversity in conservation priority setting. The new ED index developed by the authors appears to be a valuable tool for identifying high priority species for conservation.
One strength of the article is the inclusion of a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate ED scores. The authors explain how branch length data and conservation status are incorporated into the calculation, and provide an example to illustrate the process. This transparency in methodology is important for replication and validation of the results.
Another strength of the article is the discussion of the limitations of the study and the proposed method. The authors acknowledge the challenges posed by poor resolution, missing species, and uncertainty in node ages. They also mention the need to incorporate socioeconomic considerations and the extinction risk of a species' close relatives in future work. This shows a thoughtful approach and recognition of the complexity of conservation priority setting.
One weakness of the article is the lack of discussion on the practical implications of using the ED method in conservation. While the authors mention that the approach can be used for prioritizing management, generating lists of high-priority species, and selecting reserve networks, they do not provide specific recommendations or examples of how this could be done. Including some practical applications or case studies would add value to the article.
In conclusion, "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny" presents a comprehensive analysis of the use of phylogenetic diversity in conservation priority setting. The new ED index developed by the authors shows promise in identifying high priority species for conservation. The article could benefit from a more explicit discussion of the practical implications of using the ED method in conservation planning. Overall, it provides valuable insights into the need to reassess global conservation priorities and highlights the importance of protecting evolutionary history.
Title: Critique of the Article "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny"
Introduction:
The article "Mammals on the EDGE" discusses the use of a new index called Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) to assess conservation priorities based on the phylogenetic diversity of mammal species. The authors highlight the need to reassess global conservation priorities and propose a method that incorporates both branch length data and conservation status to generate a prioritized list of species for conservation. The article also raises important points about the lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species and the potential loss of evolutionary history.
Procedure:
The authors utilize a near-complete species-level phylogeny of mammals to calculate the ED scores for different species. They consider factors such as species' unique phylogenetic diversity, conservation status, and uncommon lineages in their calculations. The article also discusses the challenges posed by poor resolution, missing species, and uncertainty in node ages in the phylogeny.
Findings:
The article presents several key findings. It states that most species derive at least two-thirds of their ED from the terminal branch and that the branch length is a poor predictor of total ED. The median ED score for mammal species is 7.86 MY. Least Concern species have significantly lower ED scores than other Red List categories, suggesting low extinction risk. The EDGE scores range from 0.0565 to 6.48, with large-bodied mammals and smaller, lesser-known species being identified as high-priority species.
Conclusion:
The authors conclude that the new ED method, incorporating both branch length data and conservation status, can be a valuable tool for conservation prioritization. They suggest that this approach can be used to prioritize the management of evolutionarily distinct species, generate high-priority species lists, and select reserve networks. The article highlights the lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species and the potential loss of evolutionary history.
Critique:
The article "Mammals on the EDGE" provides a comprehensive and well-structured analysis of the proposed method for conservation prioritization based on phylogenetic diversity. The authors' use of the ED index, which is independent of clade size, makes the approach comparable across different taxonomic groups and addresses a limitation of previous methods.
The article effectively presents the methodology used to calculate ED scores, address uncertainties in the phylogeny, and account for missing species. The incorporation of conservation status into the prioritization process adds an important dimension and acknowledges the urgency of action required for species at risk of extinction.
One limitation of the article is the focus on mammal species, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other taxa. Additionally, the article acknowledges the debate regarding focusing conservation efforts on species with high ED or low ED, but could have provided a more in-depth discussion of the potential implications of each approach.
The inclusion of tables presenting ED and EDGE scores for mammal species, as well as the comparison of ED scores under different species concepts in primates, adds valuable context to the discussion. However, more discussion could have been provided regarding the specific implications of the scores and how they can inform conservation decision-making.
Overall, the article provides a valuable contribution to the field of conservation prioritization and effectively highlights the need to reassess global conservation priorities. The methodology used appears robust and has the potential to be applied to other taxonomic groups. Further research should be conducted to validate the findings and explore the potential integration of socio-economic factors and the extinction risk of related species.
In conclusion, the article "Mammals on the EDGE" presents a well-reasoned and informative analysis of the proposed method for conservation prioritization based on phylogenetic diversity. The findings contribute to the understanding of the importance of considering both phylogenetic distinctiveness and conservation status in conservation decision-making. The article could have provided more in-depth discussion on certain aspects and implications of the findings, but overall, it provides a valuable resource for researchers and conservation practitioners.
Title: A Critique of the Article "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny"
Author Information:
The article "Mammals on the EDGE" was written by Nick J.B. Isaac, Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie. The authors have expertise in the field of conservation biology and have published extensively on topics related to biodiversity conservation and species prioritization. The authors' affiliations are not mentioned in the provided text.
Introduction:
The article introduces the concept of conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity, which is proposed but rarely implemented. It highlights the importance of a new index called Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED), which measures the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity. The article emphasizes that the ED index is independent of clade size, making it comparable across different taxonomic groups. The authors argue that this approach can generate a global priority list for conservation that includes species not typically recognized as conservation priorities.
Procedure:
The article describes the method used to calculate ED scores for mammal species. A near-complete species-level phylogeny of mammals, termed the "supertree," was used to measure ED scores. The study incorporates both branch length data and conservation status to generate a prioritized list of species for conservation. The authors illustrate the calculation of ED scores using an example of a clade of seven species and highlight the consideration of uncommon lineages in the calculation. The article also discusses the comparability of ED scores among taxonomic groups and the impact of taxonomic changes on ED scores.
Findings:
The findings of the study indicate that ED scores range widely among mammal species, from 0.0582 to 97.6 million years (MY), with a median of 7.86 MY. The study reveals that species with low ED scores tend to have low extinction risk and may survive the current extinction crisis without specific interventions. The article also reports that least concern species have significantly lower ED scores than other Red List categories, suggesting low extinction risk. The top 100 priority species identified by the EDGE approach include both large-bodied mammals and smaller, lesser-known species.
Conclusion:
The article concludes that the EDGE approach, based on phylogenetic diversity and the ED index, can be used for conservation in various ways. It can prioritize the management of the most evolutionarily distinct species, generate lists of high-priority species for urgent conservation action, and weigh species' importance in selecting reserve networks. The authors emphasize the need for conservation efforts to focus on high priority EDGE species to prevent a loss of evolutionary history.
Critique:
The article "Mammals on the EDGE" provides valuable insights into conservation priority setting based on the concept of phylogenetic diversity and the use of the ED index. The authors highlight the limitations of previous approaches and propose an innovative method that considers both evolutionary distinctiveness and conservation status. The inclusion of lesser-known species in the priority list is commendable, as it challenges the traditional focus on charismatic megafauna.
One limitation of the article is the lack of information about the authors' affiliations, which could have provided additional context and credibility to their research. Furthermore, the article would have benefited from a more detailed explanation of the methodology and statistical analyses used in the study. Including more specific information about the Red List categories and their implications for conservation prioritization would also enhance the article's clarity.
Additionally, while the article advocates for the protection of high priority EDGE species, it does not provide explicit recommendations or strategies for conservation action. A more robust discussion on how conservation efforts can be tailored to address the specific needs of these species would have strengthened the practical application of the study's findings.
Overall, the article "Mammals on the EDGE" contributes to the field of conservation biology by introducing a novel approach to prioritizing species for conservation. Despite some limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the importance of considering phylogenetic diversity and evolutionary distinctiveness in conservation decision-making.