Skip to main content
WCS
Menu
Library
Library Catalog
eJournals & eBooks
WCS Research
Archives
Research Use
Finding Aids
Digital Collections
WCS History
WCS Research
Research Publications
Science Data
Services for WCS Researchers
Archives Shop
Bronx Zoo
Department of Tropical Research
Browse By Product
About Us
FAQs
Intern or Volunteer
Staff
Donate
Search WCS.org
Search
search
Popular Search Terms
WCS History
Library and Archives
Library and Archives Menu
Library
Archives
WCS Research
Archives Shop
About Us
Donate
en
fr
Title
Balancing phylogenetic diversity and species numbers in conservation prioritization, using a case study of threatened species in New Zealand
Author(s)
Bennett, J. R.;Elliott, G.;Mellish, B.;Joseph, L. N.;Tulloch, A. I. T.;Probert, W. J. M.;Di Fonzo, M. M. I.;Monks, J. M.;Possingham, H. P.;Maloney, R.
Published
2014
Publisher
Biological Conservation
Published Version DOI
https://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. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords
Conservation planning;Evolutionary distinctiveness;New Zealand;Phylogenetic diversity;Prioritization;Threatened species
Access Full Text
A full-text copy of this article may be available. Please email the
WCS Library
to request.
Back
PUB15024