Conservation phylogenetics of Chilean freshwater crabs Aegla (Anomura, Aeglidae): assigning priorities for aquatic habitat protection

Pérez‐Losada, Marcos; Jara, Carlos G.; Bond‐Buckup, Georgina; Crandall, Keith A.

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(01)00218-x

Cited by 56 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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 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 ;Pérez-Losada et al 2002 ;Prado et al 2010 ), neither the most recent revisions cite any measure to evaluate the stability, confi dence or support to the results ).…”

Section: Indexes Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics

2016

Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Indexes Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics

2016

Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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 ).…”

Section: Indexes Usedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support in Area Prioritization Using Phylogenetic Information

Miranda-Esquivel

2016

Biodiversity Conservation and Phylogenetic Systematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activities have accelerated the level of global biodiversity loss. As we cannot preserve all species and areas, we must prioritize what to protect. Therefore, one of the most urgent goals and crucial tasks in conservation biology is to prioritize areas. We could start by calculating ecological measures as richness or endemicity, but they do not refl ect the evolutionary diversity and distinctness of the species in a given area. The conservation of biodiversity must be linked to the understanding of the history of the taxa and the areas, and phylogeny give us the core for such understanding. In such phylogenetic context, evolutionary distinctiveness (ED) is a feasible way for defi ning a ranking of areas that takes into account the evolutionary history of each taxon that inhabits the area. As our knowledge of the distribution or the phylogeny might be incomplete, I introduce Jack-knife resampling in evolutionary distinctiveness prioritization analysis, as a way to evaluate the support of the ranking of the areas to modifi cations in the data used. In this way, some questions could be evaluated quantitatively as we could measure the confidence of the results, since deleting at random part of the information (phylogenies and/or distributions), would help to quantify the persistence of a given area in the ranking. Keywords Phylogenetic conservation • Taxonomic distinctiveness • Jack-knife Conservation PlanningThe biodiversity is at risk, therefore decisions must be made in order to tackle the biodiversity crisis. In the process of conservation planning, one or maybe the most important task is to evaluate the quality and importance of a given area . To fulfi ll this task there are many metrics, from species richness to endemicity, but these two values do not consider the evolutionary uniqueness of a species (Purvis and Hector

show abstract

“…It affects various types of wetlands in Chile (Muñoz-Pedreros 2004, Peña-Cortés et al 2006, Zegers et al 2006, Figueroa et al 2007). Particularly, freshwater aquatic fauna conservation is mostly affected, such as fishes (Vila et al 2006), amphibians (Díaz-Paéz and Ortiz 2003, Veloso 2006, molluscs (Valdovinos et al 2005), and decapod crustaceans (Bahamonde et al 1998, Pérez-Losada et al 2002. Inland wetland conservation is a global priority (Abell 2002, Dudley 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%