A Phylogenetic Approach to Conserving Amazonian Biodiversity

Abstract

Amazonia is a highly threatened rainforest that encompasses a major proportion of Earth's biological diversity. Our main goal was to establish conservation priorities for Amazonia's areas of endemism on the basis of measures of evolutionary distinctiveness. We considered two previously identified sets of areas of endemism. The first set consisted of eight large areas used traditionally in biogeographical studies: Belém, Tapajós, Xingu, Guiana, Rondônia, Imeri, Inambari, and Napo. The second set consisted of 16 smaller areas that were subdivisions of the larger areas. We assembled a data set of 50 phylogenies that represented 16 orders and 1715 distributional records. We identified priority conservation areas for the areas of endemism according to node-based metrics of evolutionary distinctiveness. We contrasted these results with priority areas identified on the basis of raw species richness and species endemicity. For the larger areas, we identified Guiana and Inambari as the first- and second-most important areas for conservation. The remaining areas in this first group scored half (e.g., Napo) or less than Guiana and Inambari on all indices. For the smaller areas, a subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Guyana and the Brazilian states of Roraima and Amazonas) was at the top of the ranking and was followed by a subdivision of Inambari (i.e., northwestern portion of Amazonas) and then another subdivision of Guiana (i.e., Suriname, French Guiana, and the Brazilian state of Amapá). The distinctiveness-based rankings of the priority of areas correlated directly with those derived from species richness and species endemicity. Current conservation strategies in Amazonia, although they rely on many other criteria apart from phylogeny, are focusing on the most important areas for conservation we identified here.

Support in Area Prioritization Using Phylogenetic Information

“…7 ). These results are similar to those found by López-Osorio and Miranda-Esquivel ( 2010 ). Here the re-sampling helped to resolve the initial discrepancy as the highest priority is Guiana2 and not Rondonia, that could be a possible candidate.…”

“…and given that index, which are the areas chosen as the fi rst and second priority?. López-Osorio and Miranda-Esquivel ( 2010 ) found that most indices selected the same area Guiana2, which could be seen as there is no difference given the index. The reanalysis showed that in general I s and W s are more stable than any other index, and I s behaves better than W s .…”

“…1 An example for determining phylogenetic diversity metrics at species and area levels for a hypothetical topology with fi ve species (four widespread ), distributed in eight areas (Modifi ed from Lehman ( 2006 )) available phylogenetic diversity indices, with particular respect to the needs of conservationists -which index helps to protect what?". Part of the answer to this question is given by the support to the decisions made, but in species or areas prioritization the literature does not present any kind of support measure (Whiting et al 2000 ;Posadas et al 2001 ;Pérez-Losada et al 2002 ;López-Osorio and Miranda-Esquivel 2010 ;Prado et al 2010 ), neither the most recent revisions cite any measure to evaluate the stability, confi dence or support to the results (Schweiger et al 2008 ;Vellend et al 2011 ).…”

Phylogenetics and Conservation Biology: Drawing a Path into the Diversity of Life

“…This book is organized around three main themes: questions, methods and applications. We hope that this concentrated effort will contribute to Vane-Wright et al 1991 ;May 1990 ;Faith 1992 ;Posadas et al 2001 ;Pavoine et al 2005 ;Redding and Mooers 2006 ;Isaac et al 2007 ;Steel et al 2007 ;Hartmann and Steel 2007 ;Lozupone and Knight 2005 ;Rosauer et al 2009 ;Cadotte and Davies 2010 ;Chao et al 2010 Comparison of phylogenetic measures Schweiger et al 2008 ;Davies and Cadotte 2011 ;Pio et al 2011 Comparison of phylogenetic diversity to traditional measures Polasky et al 2002 ;Rodrigues and Gaston 2002 ;Rodrigues et al 2005Rodrigues et al , 2011Hartmann and André 2013 Inclusion of phylogenetics in systematic conservation planning Walker and Faith 1994 ;Arponen 2012 Prioritization of areas for the conservation of evolutionary history Posadas et al 2001 ;Lehman 2006 ;McGoogan et al 2007 ;López-Osorio and Miranda-Esquivel 2010 ;Forest et al 2007 ;Buerki et al 2015 ;Pollock et al 2015 ;Zupan et al 2014 Prioritization of species Weitzman 1998 ;Isaac et al 2007 ;Kuntner et al 2011 ;Redding et al 2015 Relationship between extinctions and the loss of phylogenetic diversity Nee and May 1997 ;Purvis 2008 ;…”

Assessing Hotspots of Evolutionary History with Data from Multiple Phylogenies: An Analysis of Endemic Clades from New Caledonia

“…Although the possibility of integrating results from different phylogenies has been studied for a while (see Posadas et al 2001Posadas et al , 2004Faith et al 2004 ;López-Osorio and Miranda Esquivel 2010 ), we are only starting to explore the implications of different sampling effort and imperfect knowledge on studies of phylogenetic diversity for assessing areas for conservation (see Nipperess and Matsen 2013 and Nipperess, chapter " The Rarefaction of Phylogenetic Diversity : Formulation, Extension and Application " and Miranda-Esquivel, chapter " Support in Area Prioritization Using Phylogenetic Information "). In order to shed light to this problem here we propose some solutions when assessing hotspots for conservation within New Caledonia .…”