For the critique below, Provide me the in text citation using APA style for each of the paragraph below and at the last page, lit the reference that was citrated in the paragraphs
Title: 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.
For the critique below, here are the in-text citations using APA style for each paragraph:
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 (Isaac et al., [Year]). 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.
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 (Isaac et al., [Year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [Year]).
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 (Isaac et al., [Year]).
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.
References:
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. ([Year]). Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny. PLOS ONE, Volume (Issue), page range.
APA in-text citations for each paragraph:
Introduction: (Isaac et al., Year)
Procedure: (Isaac et al., Year)
Findings: (Isaac et al., Year)
Conclusion: (Isaac et al., Year)
Critique: (Isaac et al., Year)
References:
Isaac, N.J.B., Turvey, S.T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J.E.M. (Year). Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny. [Journal Title], Volume(Issue), Page-Page.
In-text citations in APA style for each paragraph:
Introduction:
The authors of this article are Nick J.B. Isaac, Samuel T. Turvey, Ben Collen, Carly Waterman, and Jonathan E.M. Baillie (Isaac et al., 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 (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 (Isaac et al., Year).
Conclusion:
The conclusion of the article emphasizes the need to reassess global conservation priorities based on the new ED method (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 (Isaac et al., Year).
Reference list entry:
Isaac, N. J. B., Turvey, S. T., Collen, B., Waterman, C., & Baillie, J. E. M. (Year). Title: Critique of "Mammals on the EDGE: Conservation Priorities Based on Threat and Phylogeny". Journal Name, Volume(Issue), Page Numbers.