Advertisement

Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 1189–1200 | Cite as

Quantifying extinction probabilities of endangered species for phylogenetic conservation prioritization may not be as sensitive as might be feared

  • Alain Billionnet
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Biodiversity protection and reserves

Abstract

In this study we are concerned with the general problem of choosing from a set of endangered species T a subset S of k species to protect as a priority. Here, the interest to protect the species of S is assessed by the resulting expected phylogenetic diversity (ePD) of the set T, a widely used criterion for measuring the expected amount of evolutionary history associated with T. We consider that the survival of the protected species is assured and, on the contrary, that there is a risk of extinction for the unprotected species. The problem is easy to solve by a greedy type method if the extinction probabilities of the unprotected species are known but these probabilities are generally not easy to quantify. We show in this note that the choice of the precise values attributed to the extinction probabilities—provided it respects the rank of imperilment of each species—is not as decisive as might be feared for the considered problem. The values of these probabilities have a clear impact on the selection of the species to be protected but a little impact on the resulting ePD. More precisely, if T 1 and T 2 are the two optimal subsets of species corresponding to two scenarios (two different sets of probabilities) the ePDs of T 1 and T 2, calculated with the probabilities of the first scenario—or with the probabilities of the second scenario—are not very different.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Phylogenetic diversity Protected species Extinction risk Optimization Greedy algorithm 

References

  1. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS, Naeem S (2012) Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Chao A, Chiu C-H, Jost L (2010) Phylogenetic diversity measures based on Hill numbers. Philos Trans R Soc B 365:3599–3609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Collen B (2015) Conservation prioritization in the context of uncertainty. Anim Conserv 18:315–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collen B, Pettorelli N, Baillie JEM, Durant SM (eds) (2013) Biodiversity monitoring and conservation: bridging the gap between global commitment and local action. Wiley-Blackwell, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  5. Convention on Biological Diversity (2011) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/
  6. Faith DP (1992a) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Cons 61:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Faith DP (1992b) Systematics and conservation: on predicting the feature diversity of subsets of taxa. Cladistics 8:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faith DP (2013) Biodiversity and evolutionary history: useful extensions of the PD phylogenetic diversity assessment framework. Ann N-Y Acad Sci 1289:69–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Faith DP (2015) Phylogenetic diversity, functional trait diversity and extinction: avoiding tipping points and worst-case losses. Philos Trans R Soc B 370:20140011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Faith DP (2016) The PD phylogenetic diversity framework: linking evolutionary history to feature diversity for biodiversity conservation. In: Pellens R, Grandcolas P (eds) Biodiversity conservation and phylogenetic systematics, topics in biodiversity and conservation 14. Springer, ChamGoogle Scholar
  11. Forest F, Crandall KA, Chase MW, Faith DP (2015) Phylogeny, extinction and conservation: embracing uncertainties in a time of urgency. Philos Trans R Soc B 370:20140002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hartmann K, Steel M (2006) Maximizing phylogenetic diversity in biodiversity conservation: greedy solutions to the Noah’s Ark Problem. Syst Biol 55:644–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hartmann K, Steel M (2007) Phylogenetic diversity: from combinatorics to ecology. In: Gascuel O, Steel M (eds) Reconstructing evolution: new mathematical and computational advances. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B, Waterman C, Baillie JEM (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS ONE 2(3):e296CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List categories and criteria: version 3.1. Second edition. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge, iv + 32 ppGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen EL, Mooers AO, Caccone A, Russello MA (2016) I-HEDGE: determining the optimum complementary sets of taxa for conservation using evolutionary isolation. PeerJ 4:e2350CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Mace GM, Collar NJ, Gaston KJ, Hilton-Taylor C, Akçakaya HR, Leader-Williams N, Milner-Gulland EJ, Stuart SN (2008) Quantification of extinction risk: IUCN’s system for classifying threatened species. Conserv Biol 22:1424–1442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. MacLaurin J, Sterelny K (2008) What is biodiversity?. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p 217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mimouni E, Beisner BE, Pinel-Alloul B (2016) Phylogenetic diversity and its conservation in the presence of phylogenetic uncertainty: a case study of cladoceran communities in urban waterbodies. Biodivers Conserv 25:2113–2136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mooers AO, Faith DP, Maddison WP (2008) Converting endangered species categories to probabilities of extinction for phylogenetic conservation prioritization. PLoS ONE 3:e3700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno CE et al (2017) Measuring biodiversity in the Anthropocene: a simple guide to helpful methods. Biodivers Conserv 26(12):2993–2998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nunes LA, Turvey ST, Rosindell J (2015) The price of conserving avian phylogenetic diversity: a global prioritization approach. Philos Trans R Soc B.  https://doi.org/10.1098/Rstb.2014.0004 Google Scholar
  23. Pardi F (2009) Algorithms on phylogenetic trees. PhD thesis, University of CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Pellens R, Grandcolas P (eds) (2016) Biodiversity conservation and phylogenetic systematics: preserving our evolutionary heritage in an extinction crisis. Springer International Publishing, Springer Open, Berlin, p 390Google Scholar
  25. Redding RW, Mooers AO (2006) Incorporating phylogenetic measures into conservation prioritization. Cons Biol 20:1670–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steel M, Mimoto A, Mooers AO (2007) Hedging our bets: the expected contribution of species to future phylogenetic diversity. Evol Bioinform 3:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stork NE (2010) Re-assessing current extinction rates. Biodivers Conserv 19:357–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weitzman ML (1998) The Noah’s ark problem. Econometrica 66:1279–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Witting L, Loeschcke V (1995) The optimization of biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 71:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire CEDRICÉcole Nationale Supérieure d’Informatique pour l’Industrie et l’EntrepriseÉvry CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations