The Library
Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand
Tools
Bennett, Joseph R., Elliott, Graeme, Mellish, Belinda, Joseph, Liana N., Tulloch, Ayesha I. T., Probert, William J. M. , Di Fonzo, Martina M. I., Monks, Joanne M., Possingham, Hugh P. and Maloney, Richard (2014) Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand. Biological Conservation, 174 . pp. 47-54. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.013 ISSN 0006-3207.
Research output not available from this repository.
Request-a-Copy directly from author or use local Library Get it For Me service.
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.013
Abstract
Funding for managing threatened species is currently insufficient to assist recovery of all species, so management projects must be prioritized. In attempts to maximize phylogenetic diversity conserved, prioritization protocols for threatened species are increasingly weighting species using metrics that incorporate their evolutionary distinctiveness. In a case study using 700 of the most threatened species in New Zealand, we examined trade-offs between emphasis on species’ evolutionary distinctiveness weights, and the numbers of species prioritized, as well as costs and probabilities of success for recovery projects. Increasing emphasis on species’ evolutionary distinctiveness weights in the prioritization protocol led to greater per-species costs and higher risk of project failure. In a realistic, limited-budget scenario, this resulted in fewer species prioritized, which imposed limits on the total phylogenetic diversity that could be conserved. However, by systematically varying the emphasis on evolutionary distinctiveness weight in the prioritization protocol we were able to minimize trade-offs, and obtain species groups that were near-optimal for both species numbers and phylogenetic diversity conserved. Phylogenetic diversity may not equate perfectly with functional diversity or evolutionary potential, and conservation agencies may be reluctant to sacrifice species numbers. Thus, we recommend prioritizing species groups that achieve an effective balance between maximizing phylogenetic diversity and number of species conserved.
Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Science > Life Sciences (2010- ) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Science > Mathematics |
||||||
Journal or Publication Title: | Biological Conservation | ||||||
Publisher: | Elsevier BV | ||||||
ISSN: | 0006-3207 | ||||||
Official Date: | June 2014 | ||||||
Dates: |
|
||||||
Volume: | 174 | ||||||
Page Range: | pp. 47-54 | ||||||
DOI: | 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.013 | ||||||
Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||
Publication Status: | Published | ||||||
Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
View Item |