Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 64, Issue 1–2, pp 69–85 | Cite as

Budgeted Nature Reserve Selection with diversity feature loss and arbitrary split systems

  • Magnus Bordewich
  • Charles Semple


Arising in the context of biodiversity conservation, the Budgeted Nature Reserve Selection (BNRS) problem is to select, subject to budgetary constraints, a set of regions to conserve so that the phylogenetic diversity (PD) of the set of species contained within those regions is maximized. Here PD is measured across either a single rooted tree or a single unrooted tree. Nevertheless, in both settings, this problem is NP-hard. However, it was recently shown that, for each setting, there is a polynomial-time \({(1-\frac{1}{e})}\) -approximation algorithm for it and that this algorithm is tight. In the first part of the paper, we consider two extensions of BNRS. In the rooted setting we additionally allow for the disappearance of features, for varying survival probabilities across species, and for PD to be measured across multiple trees. In the unrooted setting, we extend to arbitrary split systems. We show that, despite these additional allowances, there remains a polynomial-time \({(1-\frac{1}{e})}\) -approximation algorithm for each extension. In the second part of the paper, we resolve a complexity problem on computing PD across an arbitrary split system left open by Spillner et al.


Combinatorial algorithms Phylogenetic diversity Biodiversity conservation Split systems Submodular functions 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

05C05 92D15 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bordewich M, Rodrigo AD, Semple C (2008) Selecting taxa to save or sequence: desirable criteria and a greedy solution. Syst Biol 57: 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordewich M, Semple C (2008) Nature reserve selection problem: a tight approximation algorithm. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 5: 275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryant D, Huson D (2006) Applications of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Mol Biol Evol 23: 254–267Google Scholar
  4. Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61: 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faith DP (1994) Phylogenetic pattern and the quantification of organismal biodiversity. Philos Trans Biol Sci 345: 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faller B (2010) Combinatorial and probabilistic methods in biodiversity theory. Dissertation, University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
  7. Feige U (1998) A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover. J ACM 45: 634–652CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Minh BQ, Klaere S, von Haeseler A (2009) Taxon selection under split diversity. Syst Biol 58: 586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Minh BQ, Klaere S, von Haeseler A (2010) SDA*: a simple and unifying solution to recent bioinformatic challenges for conservation genetics. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on knowledge and systems engineering, pp 33–37Google Scholar
  10. Moritz C, Faith DP (1998) Comparative phylogeography and the identification of genetically divergent areas for conservation. Mol Ecol 7: 419–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moulton V, Semple C, Steel M (2007) Optimizing phylogenetic diversity under constraints. J Theor Biol 246: 186–194CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA, Fisher ML (1978) An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I. Math Program 14: 265–294CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Pardi F, Goldman N (2005) Species choice for comparative genomics: being greedy works. PLoS Genet 1: e71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pardi F, Goldman N (2007) Resource-aware taxon selection for maximizing phylogenetic diversity. Syst Biol 56: 431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rodrigues ASL, Gaston KJ (2002) Maximising phylogenetic diversity in the selection of networks of conservation areas. Biol Conserv 105: 103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rodrigues ASL, Brooks TM, Gaston KJ (2005) Integrating phylogenetic diversity in the selection of priority areas for conservation: does it make a difference. In: Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Brooks T (eds) Phylogeny and conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 101–119Google Scholar
  17. Smith TB, Holder K, Girman D, O’Keefe K, Larison B, Chan Y (2000) Comparative avian phylogeography of Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea mountains: implications for conservation. Mol Ecol 9: 1505–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Spillner A, Nguyen B, Moulton V (2008) Computing phylogenetic diversity for split systems. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinforma 5: 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steel M (2005) Phylogenetic diversity and the greedy algorithm. Syst Biol 54: 527–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sviridenko M (2004) A note on maximizing a submodular set function subject to a knapsack constraint. Oper Res Lett 32: 41–43CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering Computing SciencesDurham UniversityDurhamUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Biomathematics Research CentreUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations