Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature

Biodiversity assessment demands objective measures, because ultimately conservation decisions must prioritize the use of limited resources for preserving taxa. The most general framework for the objective assessment of conservation worth are those that assess evolutionary distinctiveness, e.g. Genet...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ross H Crozier, Lisa J Dunnett, Paul-Michael Agapow
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2005-01-01
Series:Evolutionary Bioinformatics
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/117693430500100002
id doaj-adc9019a178e43939e60153a42bdd4f4
record_format Article
spelling doaj-adc9019a178e43939e60153a42bdd4f42020-11-25T03:41:42ZengSAGE PublishingEvolutionary Bioinformatics1176-93432005-01-01110.1177/117693430500100002Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic NomenclatureRoss H Crozier0Lisa J Dunnett1Paul-Michael Agapow2School of Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.School of Information Technology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.VieDigitale Ltd, 20 Matthias Ct., 119 Church Road, Richmond, United Kingdom.Biodiversity assessment demands objective measures, because ultimately conservation decisions must prioritize the use of limited resources for preserving taxa. The most general framework for the objective assessment of conservation worth are those that assess evolutionary distinctiveness, e.g. Genetic ( Crozier 1992 ) and Phylogenetic Diversity ( Faith 1992 ), and Evolutionary History ( Nee & May 1997 ). These measures all attempt to assess the conservation worth of any scheme based on how much of the encompassing phylogeny of organisms is preserved. However, their general applicability is limited by the small proportion of taxa that have been reliably placed in a phylogeny. Given that phylogenizaton of many interesting taxa or important is unlikely to occur soon, we present a framework for using taxonomy as a reasonable surrogate for phylogeny. Combining this framework with exhaustive searches for combinations of sites containing maximal diversity, we provide a proof-of-concept for assessing conservation schemes for systematized but un-phylogenised taxa spread over a series of sites. This is illustrated with data from four studies, on North Queensland flightless insects ( Yeates et al. 2002 ), ants from a Florida Transect ( Lubertazzi & Tschinkel 2003 ), New England bog ants ( Gotelli & Ellison 2002 ) and a simulated distribution of the known New Zealand Lepidosauria ( Daugherty et al. 1994 ). The results support this approach, indicating that species, genus and site numbers predict evolutionary history, to a degree depending on the size of the data set.https://doi.org/10.1177/117693430500100002
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ross H Crozier
Lisa J Dunnett
Paul-Michael Agapow
spellingShingle Ross H Crozier
Lisa J Dunnett
Paul-Michael Agapow
Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
Evolutionary Bioinformatics
author_facet Ross H Crozier
Lisa J Dunnett
Paul-Michael Agapow
author_sort Ross H Crozier
title Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
title_short Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
title_full Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
title_fullStr Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
title_full_unstemmed Phylogenetic Biodiversity Assessment Based on Systematic Nomenclature
title_sort phylogenetic biodiversity assessment based on systematic nomenclature
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Evolutionary Bioinformatics
issn 1176-9343
publishDate 2005-01-01
description Biodiversity assessment demands objective measures, because ultimately conservation decisions must prioritize the use of limited resources for preserving taxa. The most general framework for the objective assessment of conservation worth are those that assess evolutionary distinctiveness, e.g. Genetic ( Crozier 1992 ) and Phylogenetic Diversity ( Faith 1992 ), and Evolutionary History ( Nee & May 1997 ). These measures all attempt to assess the conservation worth of any scheme based on how much of the encompassing phylogeny of organisms is preserved. However, their general applicability is limited by the small proportion of taxa that have been reliably placed in a phylogeny. Given that phylogenizaton of many interesting taxa or important is unlikely to occur soon, we present a framework for using taxonomy as a reasonable surrogate for phylogeny. Combining this framework with exhaustive searches for combinations of sites containing maximal diversity, we provide a proof-of-concept for assessing conservation schemes for systematized but un-phylogenised taxa spread over a series of sites. This is illustrated with data from four studies, on North Queensland flightless insects ( Yeates et al. 2002 ), ants from a Florida Transect ( Lubertazzi & Tschinkel 2003 ), New England bog ants ( Gotelli & Ellison 2002 ) and a simulated distribution of the known New Zealand Lepidosauria ( Daugherty et al. 1994 ). The results support this approach, indicating that species, genus and site numbers predict evolutionary history, to a degree depending on the size of the data set.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/117693430500100002
work_keys_str_mv AT rosshcrozier phylogeneticbiodiversityassessmentbasedonsystematicnomenclature
AT lisajdunnett phylogeneticbiodiversityassessmentbasedonsystematicnomenclature
AT paulmichaelagapow phylogeneticbiodiversityassessmentbasedonsystematicnomenclature
_version_ 1724528875640193024