From the critique paper written below, Provide the intex citation using APA style in each of the paragraph for list the references of that intex citation at the end.
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.
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.
Intext citations using APA style:
Introduction:
The authors highlight the need for a new index called Evolutionary Distinctiveness (ED) to measure the contribution of different species to phylogenetic diversity (Isaac, Turvey, Collen, Waterman, & Baillie, year).
Procedure:
The authors explain how the ED index is calculated, incorporating branch length data and conservation status (Isaac et al., year). They also propose the use of ED as a more comprehensive measure compared to PD (Isaac et al., year).
Findings:
The study shows that the ED scores of mammal species range from 0.0582 MY to 97.6 MY, with a median of 7.86 MY (Isaac et al., year). The authors also emphasize that threatened status alone does not guarantee a high priority on the EDGE list (Isaac et al., year).
Conclusion:
The conclusion 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 (Isaac et al., year). The lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species is considered a serious problem (Isaac et al., year).
Critique:
The transparency in methodology is important for replication and validation of the results (Isaac et al., year). The authors also acknowledge the challenges posed by poor resolution, missing species, and uncertainty in node ages (Isaac et al., year). They mention the need to incorporate socioeconomic considerations and the extinction risk of a species' close relatives in future work (Isaac et al., year).
Overall, the article provides valuable insights into the need to reassess global conservation priorities and highlights the importance of protecting evolutionary history (Isaac et al., year).
Intext citations using APA style:
Introduction:
The introduction of the article provides a clear overview of the research topic, which is conservation priority setting based on phylogenetic diversity (Isaac et al., 2007).
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 (Isaac et al., 2007).
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 (Isaac et al., 2007). The top 100 priority species include both large-bodied mammals and smaller, lesser-known species (Isaac et al., 2007). The authors also highlight the fact that threatened status alone does not guarantee a high priority on the EDGE list (Isaac et al., 2007).
Conclusion:
The conclusion of the article emphasizes the need to reassess global conservation priorities based on the new ED method (Isaac et al., 2007). 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 (Isaac et al., 2007). The lack of conservation attention for high priority EDGE species is considered a serious problem (Isaac et al., 2007).
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 (Isaac et al., 2007).
References:
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. (2007). Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE, 2(3), e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000296
In-text citations in APA style:
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 (Isaac, Turvey, Collen, Waterman, & Baillie, [year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [year]).
Reference:
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. ([year]). Title of the article. Journal Title, Volume(Issue), page numbers.